Guidance

Template 4: Terms of Reference for Public Bodies Reviews

Updated 20 February 2024

How to use this document

This template should be followed. Where the department wishes to depart from elements of it, or make additions to it, these should be discussed with the Cabinet Office.

How to draw up a terms of reference

The review team should draw up the terms of reference in adherence with the overall guidance for the reviews programme. More information regarding the reviews process and the role of the terms of reference can be found from paragraph 129 of the guidance.

Please refer to paragraphs 55 to 61 in the guidance for advice on drawing up the ToR if the body being reviewed is a Public Sector Research Establishment (PSRE) or Scientific Advisory Council.

Public body review: Terms of Reference Template (‘ToR’)

[Title of Review] public bodies

Background

The ToR should provide a brief general background on the public body being reviewed. This may include:

• The mission and purpose of the body, including any relevant statute.
• Its spending, FTE staff count, governance structure and administrative classification.
• Its accountability arrangements including:
  • The process for appointments;
  • What it is required to do by statute where relevant;
  • The departmental sponsor and any other partners, for example, other government departments, or other delivery partners.
• Any key areas of government policy the body delivers in total, or in part.
• Any key operational functions.
• Any relationship to the devolved administrations.
• When the body was last reviewed.
• Any findings from previous reviews that will be relevant to this review^{[footnote 1]}.

Scope and Purpose of the Review

The ToR should detail why the review is taking place and what it is expected to cover. This section can also reference the commencement letter to the lead reviewer, if used by the department, as the information provided in that letter should align with the information set out here. (See Template 3 in the guidance.)

This section must set out:

• Which of the quadrants and themes, set out in the Requirements for Reviews of Public Bodies the review will address.
• Whether the Public Body needs to deliver the function?
  • Is there an existing service provider, or providers, in the private sector that could deliver this function? Is the delivery of this service by the government having a negative impact on the market / has a market impact test been considered?
  • What options are available for privatisation, outsourcing and/or developing a marketplace over time?
  • If the service must continue to be delivered by the public sector, can the department take back policy functions and decisions which should be for its ministers?
• How the department ensures that the AO acts within the authority of the minister and has controls to assure high standards of probity and value for money.
• Whether the body is operating with an appropriate degree of independence to ensure the right balance between alignment with government priorities and any need for technical expertise or impartiality.
• Whether the ALB has a places for growth strategy and that relocation plans are incorporated into their departmental future location plans.
• Identify the circumstances in which ALBs can create their own regulations and the role of ministers/Parliament in this process.
• That the lead reviewer is required to identify where savings to Resource Departmental Expenditure Limits (RDEL) of more than 5% can be made for an average review, that
  • Analysis shall be undertaken on staffing levels, corporate functions and alignment with the shared services strategy, reliance on non-payroll resources, use of property and procurement, fraud and error rates, value for money of grants, and digitalisation of services.
  • Actions to meet the efficiency target must be reflected in the review recommendations and recorded and quantified in the published review report.
  • The target of more than 5% should be achieved by the body within 1-3 years and continue on a recurring basis.
• Further details on the themes set out in the Requirements for Reviews of Public Bodies the review will cover, for example, ‘The review will address Efficacy, and will focus in particular on function and form’.
• Additional areas that the review is expected to cover beyond the scope of the Requirements.
• How the decision of what to review has been reached, which should take into account:
  • The outcome of the completed self-assessment. (See the Self-Assessment Model and the guidance for further information.)
  • The factors outlined at paragraph 133 of the guidance, if they have been pertinent to the decision.
  • Any additional factors that the department has identified as to the purpose and scope of the review.
• Anything specifically out of scope of the review.
• Any other bodies or functions deemed in scope of the review.

Department and Public Body arrangements for review

The ToR should specify the departmental oversight of the review, including:

• The relevant minister responsible and the role of the minister in the review.
• The Principal Accounting Officer responsible and their role in the review.
• The role the body itself is expected to play in the review. Where relevant, this should also be covered in the stakeholder engagement section below.
• The role of the senior sponsor, and sponsor team, within the sponsor department.
• Details of any other reporting or decision-making lines relevant and specific to this review, for example, a departmental non-executive director (NED).
• The territorial extent of the public body and any relationship to the devolved administration.

Lead reviewer

The ToR should explain who the lead reviewer is and what their role is. This can also reference the Terms of Engagement (Template 2 in the guidance). Further guidance on the expected role of the lead reviewer can be found from paragraph 100 of the guidance.

Review team

The ToR should list the members of the review team and the lead reviewer including their role in the review, grade where applicable, and FTE allocation assigned to the review. Further guidance on the expected role of the review team can be found from paragraph 115 of the guidance.

Evidence Gathering and Stakeholder Engagement

This section should outline how the review team and the lead reviewer will collect evidence. Guidance on evidence gathering can be found at paragraphs 163 to 167 of the guidance. It should outline:

• any key government and non-government stakeholders who may be consulted as part of the review;
• whether a consultation, public-facing or otherwise, will be utilised in gathering evidence;
• what role the body being reviewed will play in the review, and what are the expectations of the lead reviewer and the review team in facilitating this role;
• what role the sponsor team and senior sponsor play in the review and what the expectations of the lead reviewer and the review team are in facilitating this role; and
• any documentation access that is required by the review team to conduct the review.

Challenge Panels (if relevant to the review)

If departments wish to set up a challenge panel, the ToR should set out the role and remit of the challenge panel, along with the proposed membership and members’ position and/or institutional affiliation.

The ToR should include the proposed number of meetings and approximate timings.

Further information on the establishment of a challenge panel can be found at paragraphs 168 to 173 of the guidance.

Deliverables

The ToR should detail the intended products resulting from the review. This section should also refer to when these are expected to be delivered. In line with the guidance, this should include:

• Completed Self-Assessment Model.
• Final internal review report and recommendations.
• Proposed report for publication and recommendations.

Additional products that may be agreed on could be:

• Written ministerial statement to announce and close the review.
• Project plan and risk register.
• Public consultation.
• Stakeholder interviews.
• Analysis of evidence/emerging findings.

Timetable

The ToR should outline the timetable for the review and should attempt to include every step the lead reviewer, review team and department need to take in order to publish the report and recommendations. This should also include milestones where ministerial agreement needs to be sought, and other relevant milestones. This should take into account external communications arrangements.

Departments should follow the guidance at paragraphs 192 to 194 when publishing reports and outcomes from the review.

1. Where a public body has been recently reviewed, there will be no need for the upcoming review to duplicate content. Append the most recent review and/or refer to the evidence throughout the review report. This can also reference reviews outside of a recent Public Bodies review programme (for example, assessments against the functional standards as referenced in paragraphs 47 to 53 of the guidance.) ↩