Home / Sources / Select Committees / First Report - Promoting national strategy: How select comm…
Select committee: Liaison Committee (Commons)

First Report - Promoting national strategy: How select committee scrutiny can improve strategic thinking in Whitehall

HC 31 Published 29 May 2024

Liaison Committee (Commons) Report on parliament.uk ↗

At a glance2 conclusions · Government response published 4 April 2025 (deadline 29 July 2024)

The government's response

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The Government welcomes the report and sets out progress on embedding national strategy through the Plan for Change and missions, but says it is "not convinced" that a Committee on National Strategic Priorities is required.

  • On a new National School for Government and Public Services, the Government says officials are "currently considering" what training delivery model will best ensure the skills needed, with decisions on a future model to be taken "in the context of the Spending Review".
  • On training for MPs, it says any future scheme "would need to consider several issues including funding, sponsorship" and information security, and that the House of Commons "may wish to consider" providing one.
  • On leading strategy from the centre, it points to the new Mission Delivery Unit in the Cabinet Office, which works with departments, No10 and HM Treasury to drive progress on the missions set out in the Plan for Change.
  • On scrutiny, it states existing select committees already have an established role in scrutinising departmental strategic priorities, "would encourage" continued cross-committee collaboration, and "notes" the Committee's suggestions, adding that changes to core tasks are a matter for the House.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Sources

Recommendations and conclusions 2

  1. 1
    It is essential that government establishes a shared understanding across Whitehall of terms, including ‘strategy’... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)
    It is essential that government establishes a shared understanding across Whitehall of terms, including ‘strategy’ and ‘strategic thinking’, and the differences between ‘strategy’, ‘policy’, ‘national strategy’, ‘plan’, ‘review’, ‘strategic concept’, ‘strategic framework’, and ‘emergent strategy’. We have set out our own understanding in our definition of strategy, as an active process, not just as a noun, as follows: (Paragraph 24) ‘Strategy’ is best understood by reference to what it is trying to achieve: the successful implementation of government policy over time. Executing strategy, or strategising (it is more an active verb than a static noun), is the cohering over time of reality (of the challenge faced), policy (what the government wants to do about this challenge), activity (directed towards this challenge to achieve this policy objective) and resource (allocated to this activity).
  2. 2
    Select committees cannot seek to impose definitions on government, but based on the Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)
    Select committees cannot seek to impose definitions on government, but based on the