Corporate report

Review of the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) steering board

Published 14 September 2018

© Crown copyright 2018

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-the-uk-national-contact-point-uk-ncp-steering-board/review-of-the-uk-national-contact-point-uk-ncp-steering-board

Background

In 2017, an internal review of the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) steering board was commissioned, to look into its ability to meet its core functions of providing general guidance to UK NCP and conducting robust and timely procedural reviews. Findings and recommendations are set out in this paper along with actions taken in response to recommendations. Terms of Reference are in Annex 1.

The review was led by a Department for International Trade (DIT) official who is independent of the UK NCP. The review was based on interviews, including with steering board members, current and previous UK NCP staff, representatives from key constituencies and previous complainants and companies. A summary of those interviewed is in Annex 2.

Findings

1. Structure and composition of the board

a) Size: There was general agreement that having a balance of views between key constituencies on the board was beneficial, and a senior civil Servant from the DIT should chair the board. The 9 member board is considered to be an appropriate size. Some respondents said including additional members from outside government might enhance the board’s perceived independence, but most said any benefits would be outweighed by the board becoming too unwieldy to play an effective role.

Recommendation: There should be greater clarity about the board’s membership to correct the perception that board members are mainly from government.

Accepted: The Department for International Trade (DIT) will make this clear in all relevant communications about the board.

b) Machinery of government changes: Respondents queried whether government representation on the board continued to be appropriate given that many officials were now in the newly formed Department for International Trade, following machinery of government changes.

Recommendation: Consideration should be given to a refresh of government membership.

Accepted: DIT reconstituted a new steering board in 2018, which includes representatives from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Department for International Development (DfID) and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Engagement continues with other areas of government as necessary.

c) Board activities: Some respondents felt board members should be more closely involved in organising the board, including contributing to agendas for meetings.

Recommendation: The chair should discuss with board members if they have issues within their remit they would like to cover in future board meetings.

Accepted: The chair will consider issues raised by the board for inclusion in the agenda, where consistent with the board’s remit as set out in its terms of reference and agreed by other board members.

d) Secretariat: Respondents observed that the board’s secretariat function was currently carried out by UK NCP. To ensure impartiality, they suggested the role be filled by a civil servant outside UK NCP.

Recommendation: The Secretariat should sit outside the UK NCP team.

Rejected: DIT considers that civil servants in the NCP team are able to fulfil this role impartially, in line with the civil service values. However, we continue to keep this under review.

2. Recruitment of board members

a) Person specification: When asked about expectations of skills and experience of potential board members, respondents mentioned good knowledge of their respective professional areas, knowledge of areas of corporate practice as set out in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and legal experience. In addition, board members should be able to evaluate facts independently, not just follow traditional alignments of their constituencies. Most respondents said the existing process for appointing board members was appropriate but could be applied more transparently and consistently.

Recommendation: There should be clearer specifications for future board members.

Accepted. For the appointments process for the latest steering board which took place in 2017, DIT issued clear person specifications to constituencies emphasising relevant experience and the ability to think and act independently.

b) Term limits: A number of respondents said it was not always clear how long board members were expected to serve.

Recommendation: Terms limits for board members should be clarified.

Accepted. DIT has placed guidance on term limits on the UK NCP pages of gov.uk

c) Unaffiliated: Selection criteria for the unaffiliated board member generated substantial discussion among respondents. Respondents were concerned that the unaffiliated member should remain truly ‘independent’ from other constituencies, to maintain the balance of the board.

Recommendation: Appointment of the unaffiliated member should be transparent and maintain the balance of the board.

Accepted. In appointing the most recent unaffiliated member, DIT sought nominations from a wide range of stakeholders, with due regard to the need for independence from other constituencies.

d) Alternates: Almost all those interviewed recommended the use of ‘alternate’ members, where full members are unavailable. In the past, members had recused themselves from procedural reviews due to perceived conflicts of interests or missed meetings because of busy schedules. The use of alternates, with similar levels of expertise and understanding as full board members was strongly supported.

Recommendation: Consider formalising the use of alternates for board members.

Accepted. DIT reconstituted a new board in 2018. The new board includes both full and alternate members for each of the business, Trade Union and NGO constituencies. There is no alternate for the unaffiliated member. The expectation is that alternates will only attend when the absence of the full member is completely unavoidable. Where board members cannot be physically present at meetings, we will continue to provide options for teleconferencing and videoconferencing.

3. Procedural reviews

a) Nature of procedural reviews: This issue generated mixed responses from those interviewed. While some considered procedural reviews to be relatively straight forward, others said they were time intensive and required particular expertise.

Recommendation: Induction of new board members should include procedural reviews so that board members are clearer about their roles and responsibilities.

Accepted. The UK NCP included the guidance on procedural reviews, which is already on the UK NCP pages of gov.uk, in board members’ induction.

b) Request for procedural review: Some respondents said the criteria for accepting or rejecting a procedural review request should also be reviewed.

Recommendation: Consideration should be given to reviewing the board’s procedures for deciding whether to accept an NCP recommendation that the board should not accept a request for a procedural review. Currently, votes of at least 3 board members is necessary for the board to reject the NCP’s recommendation. This should be modified so that votes of at least 2 board members is sufficient to reject the NCP’s recommendation.

Rejected. The UK NCP considers that setting the vote threshold at 3 out of 8 members ensures that the decision is based on a representative cross-section of board members.

Annex 1: terms of reference

Objectives

The objectives of the Review of the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) steering board are:

  • to evaluate the steering board’s ability to meet its current core functions, namely providing general guidance to the UK NCP and conducting robust and timely procedural reviews of the UK NCP complaint process

  • to gather views on the NCP specific instance process with a view to identifying areas for improvement to the NCP’s procedures for handling complaints made under the OECD guidelines

Scope

Within the context of the steering board retaining its core functions as today, the review will evaluate and consider recommendations on:

  • composition: including number of members, diversity, type of membership (e.g. advisory, decision-making) and expertise
  • representation: breadth and depth of representation of key stakeholders (e.g. trade unions, civil society, business, government)
  • steering board procedure: including Secretariat, relationship with UK NCP and working practices to meet core objectives
  • selection process and on-going engagement: consideration of approach to recruiting board members and options to maintain effective participation

The review will also seek evidence on the perceived strengths and challenges of the current UK NCP procedures for assessing and reporting on complaints, focusing on timescales, stakeholder guidance and arrangements for mediation. This will include consideration of the clarity of UK NCP processes for assessing and reporting on complaints and complainant and company expectations of the process.

This review is focussed on the functioning of the steering board and the existing UK NCP process. It is not the purpose of this review to reconsider the structure, location or objectives of the UK NCP.

Approach

The steering board review will be completed by officials within the Trade Policy Group in the Department for International Trade (DIT), but not by those working within the UK NCP. DIT Ministers will be informed of progress on the review and final proposals.

Structured 1 to 1 interviews with key stakeholders including steering board members, NCP staff, Trade Union Congress, CORE Coalition, International Chamber of Commerce, Confederation of British Industry, All Party Parliamentary Group on Human Rights, previous complainants.

The findings of the review of the steering board will be published on the UK NCP section of the gov.uk website.

Following this review a separate process will begin to select and appoint steering board members as necessary for the period from September 2017 onwards.

Timing

Interviews will take place in February and March 2017 with a view to the review being completed by the end of Spring 2017.

Annex 2: list of respondents

  • steering board member (external – civil society)
  • steering board member (external – trade unions)
  • steering board member (external - business)
  • steering board member (external – fourth member)
  • steering board member (internal - DIT)
  • steering board member (internal - DfID)
  • steering board member (internal - FCO)
  • steering board chair (DIT)
  • DIT (Trade Policy – Senior official)
  • TUC
  • CORE
  • ICC
  • APPG on Human Rights
  • Stakeholder (NGO)
  • Stakeholder (NGO)
  • previous complainant
  • company involved in previous complaint
  • UK NCP (current official)
  • UK NCP (current official)
  • UK NCP (previous steering board chair)
  • UK NCP (previous official)
Back to top