Central & Local Government
Governance that supports accountability, public trust, and effective public services.
The organisations that make up central and local government — from county councils and metropolitan authorities to combined authorities, government departments, arm's length bodies, and public sector NDPBs — exist to serve the public. The quality of their governance directly shapes their ability to do so. Where governance works well, public money is spent wisely, decisions are made transparently, and the people and communities these organisations serve can have confidence that they are being properly represented and protected.
Public sector governance carries a weight and a set of accountabilities that are distinct from almost any other context. These are organisations funded by taxpayers, exercising statutory powers, and making decisions that affect the daily lives of citizens. The expectations placed upon those who govern them — whether elected members, appointed board members, or senior officials — are correspondingly high. And rightly so.
At its best, governance in the public sector provides the strategic clarity, democratic accountability, and institutional integrity that allows public services to be delivered effectively and efficiently. Strong governance structures ensure that resources are allocated well, that risk is managed responsibly, that scrutiny is genuine and independent, and that the public interest is always the primary consideration.
The organisations that invest in their governance — that build clear structures, develop the people within them, and continuously examine how well they are functioning — are better placed to serve their communities, withstand scrutiny, and navigate the complex and demanding environment in which they operate.
Those who govern public sector organisations carry a profound responsibility. The decisions made in council chambers, boardrooms, and committee rooms shape public services, allocate public resources, and determine how well government — at every level — serves the people it exists for.
The Landscape — Complexity, Change, and the Demands of Modern Public Governance
The governance landscape across central and local government in England is complex, varied, and evolving. Different parts of the public sector operate under distinct institutional arrangements and accountability frameworks, yet all face a shared context of rising public expectations, constrained financial resources, and heightened political and public scrutiny. Local authorities remain the cornerstone of democratic governance at the local level. Councils — including county, district, metropolitan, unitary and London borough authorities — are responsible for delivering a wide range of statutory services and managing significant public expenditure. Their governance arrangements combine democratic accountability through elected members with professional officer leadership, supported by executive and committee structures, overview and scrutiny functions, and statutory governance roles. Maintaining effective relationships between members and officers, ensuring robust scrutiny, and securing transparent and legally sound decision-making remain enduring governance priorities, particularly as financial pressures increase and the consequences of governance failure become more visible.
Alongside local government, combined authorities and mayoral authorities are playing an increasingly significant role within the evolving devolution framework. The transfer of powers and funding from central government to regional and sub-regional bodies has created new governance structures that bring together elected mayors, constituent local authorities, and formal scrutiny arrangements. Ensuring clear accountability, transparency, and effective oversight within these multi-layered governance arrangements remains an important and continuing challenge.
Arm’s-length bodies, including executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and other organisations operating at a degree of independence from government departments, occupy a distinctive position within the wider governance system. While accountable to ministers and Parliament, they are typically governed day-to-day by boards responsible for strategic oversight and organisational performance. Effective governance in these bodies depends on maintaining a clear and well-understood relationship between the board, the accounting officer, and the sponsoring department. Across the diverse landscape of NDPBs and other public bodies — ranging from major regulators and cultural institutions to smaller advisory and technical organisations — governance must balance accountability to ministers, Parliament and the public with the independence and expertise that underpin their credibility and effectiveness.
The Regulatory and Accountability Framework — Parliamentary Accountability, the NAO, and the Governance Code
The accountability framework for public sector organisations is extensive, multi-layered, and increasingly demanding — reflecting the fundamental principle that public money and public power must be exercised transparently and accountably.
The Cabinet Office's Corporate Governance in Central Government Departments: Code of Good Practice sets the baseline expectations for governance in central government, covering the role and composition of departmental boards, the relationship between ministers, permanent secretaries, and non-executive board members, and the arrangements for audit, risk, and internal control. For arm's length bodies and NDPBs, the Cabinet Office's guidance on managing public money and the expectations set out in framework and management agreement documents provide the primary governance framework, alongside the principles set out in the Nolan Committee's Seven Principles of Public Life — which remain the ethical foundation of public sector governance.
HM Treasury's Managing Public Money sets out the financial governance framework for all public sector bodies, establishing the responsibilities of accounting officers and the standards expected in the management and reporting of public expenditure. Compliance is not optional — it is a fundamental condition of operating as a public body, and the National Audit Office and Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee provide the scrutiny mechanisms through which compliance is assessed and failures are held to account.
For local authorities, the governance framework is shaped by a combination of statute, statutory guidance, and sector-led frameworks. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's codes and guidance, alongside the Local Government Association's sector-led improvement frameworks, provide widely respected benchmarks for governance and financial management. The statutory requirement for local authorities to have regard to the CIPFA/SOLACE Framework Delivering Good Governance in Local Government provides an important reference point for self-assessment and external review.
For combined authorities, the governance framework continues to develop as devolution deepens and matures. Scrutiny arrangements, mayoral accountability, and the governance of significant devolved funding streams — including investment funds, transport, and housing — are areas where expectations are still being established and where strong governance is particularly important.
Across all parts of the public sector, the Nolan Principles — selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership — provide the enduring ethical framework within which governance must operate. They are not merely aspirational; they are the standard against which public sector governance is assessed and by which failures are judged.
What Our Governance Reviews Look Like for Central and Local Government
Our governance reviews are designed to give boards, councils, and governing bodies an honest, independent, and constructive assessment of how effectively they are operating — and a clear roadmap for building on their strengths and addressing any areas for development.
We understand the complexity and variety of the public sector governance landscape. The requirements, expectations, and accountability frameworks that apply to a metropolitan council are quite different from those that apply to a combined authority, an executive agency, or a small advisory NDPB — and our approach reflects that. We tailor every review to the specific structure, statutory context, and governance needs of the organisation, and we bring a thorough understanding of public sector governance to every engagement.
Our reviews are not a compliance exercise. They are a genuine and constructive examination of governance quality — designed to give those responsible for governance the clarity, confidence, and practical support to operate at their best.
Our reviews typically cover:
Board and member composition, skills and development — whether the governing body has the right mix of skills, experience, and independence to discharge its responsibilities effectively, and whether members and elected representatives are properly supported and developed in their governance roles
Roles, responsibilities and delegation — clarity of accountabilities across the governance structure, including between elected members and officers in local government, between boards and accounting officers in ALBs, and between governance bodies and their sponsoring departments or constituent authorities
Strategic oversight and challenge — how effectively the governing body sets and monitors strategy, holds executive leadership to account, and maintains meaningful oversight of performance, financial health, and risk across a complex and often politically sensitive environment
Compliance with applicable governance frameworks — a clear assessment of where the organisation stands against the relevant codes, guidance, and statutory requirements, and practical support for addressing any gaps
Financial governance and value for money — the effectiveness of the organisation's arrangements for financial oversight, audit, risk management, and the demonstration of value for money in the use of public resources
Scrutiny and public accountability — how effectively the governance structure supports genuine scrutiny, transparency, and public accountability, and whether the mechanisms in place give citizens and stakeholders meaningful insight into how decisions are made and resources are used
Ethics, integrity and the Nolan Principles — the robustness of the organisation's approach to conflicts of interest, ethical standards, and the embedding of the Nolan Principles across its governance culture and practice
Board and committee culture, dynamics and effectiveness — how the governing body works together, the quality of debate and decision-making, the effectiveness of the chair or leader, and whether the culture supports openness, challenge, and continuous improvement
Governance infrastructure — the quality of governance administration, including the effectiveness of the monitoring officer or governance professional, meeting papers and minutes, committee structures, and the support available to members and board members
Following every review, we provide a detailed written report with clear, prioritised recommendations — and we remain available to support implementation, not just deliver findings.
