Sir Edward Osmotherly, civil servant behind the Osmotherly Rules on select committees and Whitehall
Sir Edward Osmotherly, who has died aged 82, became the stuff of Whitehall legend by formulating in 1980 the rules governing how much information departments and senior civil servants need provide to Parliament's select committees.
To this day the 'Osmotherly Rules' – revised in 2014 by Francis Maude – govern that relationship. In 2016 one of the Cabinet Office's two new rescue cats was named 'Ossie' in his memory; its mother was christened Evie after Dame Evelyn Sharp, Whitehall's first female Permanent Secretary.
Osmotherly had a varied career in public service, including three years at the Department of Transport responsible for British Rail and eight as a tenacious local government ombudsman. But his early work during a few months heading the Civil Service Department's machinery-of-government section would prove his legacy.
The Osmotherly Rules were drawn up as the Commons, with Norman St John Stevas to the fore, set up a set of select committees to shadow and monitor each Whitehall department; previously the panels had been organised by theme, with considerable gaps.
Working to his political masters Paul Channon and Barney Hayhoe, Osmotherly produced a set of internal guidelines determining Whitehall's relationship to select committees of both Houses. And although they have 'no formal parliamentary standing or approval, nor claim to have', the Osmotherly Rules stuck.
A similar document had been circulating during the 1970s, but Osmotherly codified the rules. 'Prepared entirely for use within Government', they were formally issued in May 1980.
They start from the principle that civil servants are not directly accountable to Parliament, as are ministers and PPSs. Rather, they are carrying out actions under ministerial authority, so are protected by the same rule that prevents MPs being summoned. If there is a dispute about an official appearing, the relevant minister should attend instead as a courtesy.
Osmotherly set out the limitations of Select Committees' powers to 'send for persons, papers and records'; the procedures on committees summoning retired officials; the impact of parliamentary privilege; the point at which the cost of supplying information is reckoned excessive; the rules of sub judice with respect to current, likely and pending litigation; and when evidence can be withheld or redacted on grounds of national security and public interest.
During the Westland affair of 1985-86, ministers became concerned that MPs might question officials too closely about the conduct of individuals; they were reassured that the Osmotherly Rules were tightly drawn.
Edward Benjamin Crofton Osmotherly was born on August 1 1942, to Crofton and Elsie Osmotherly, and educated at East Ham Grammar School and Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.
Graduating in 1963, he joined the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, serving from 1966 as a private secretary to ministers. He spent 1972-73 as a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington and at Berkeley in California.
Osmotherly returned to what had become the Department of the Environment as an assistant secretary, then in 1979 was briefly seconded to the British Railways Board before joining the Civil Service Department and drawing up his Rules. Soon after he had finished Margaret Thatcher abolished the CSD, and he moved to the DoT as Under Secretary (Railways), just as the Serpell Report suggesting drastic cuts in the network was published then hastily shelved.
In 1985 Osmotherly was given charge of the personnel, management and training departments of the DoE and DoT. From 1989 to 1992 he headed the DoT's public transport and research department, before briefly serving as its establishment and finance officer.
He left Whitehall in 1993 to be Local Government Ombudsman, then from 2003 to 2010 was clerk adviser to the Commons European Scrutiny Committee. Osmotherly also chaired the Commission for Local Administration in England, and in 1996 a review of Government business statistics.
He was appointed CB in 1992, and knighted in 2002.
Osmotherly developed a rare dementia called posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), which affected his spatial awareness, but left his memory largely intact. Aged 76 he took part in a study at University College London investigating the balance problems caused by PCA, in which he was fitted with motion sensors and asked to paint lines of yellow paint on a canvas.
He told the BBC's Fergus Walsh that he had enjoyed the experience ('much more fun than a drug trial') and he appealed to the public: 'Please talk to people with dementia as if they were human beings. Don't be frightened of them.'
Edward Osmotherly married Valerie Mustill in 1970. They had a son and a daughter.
Edward Osmotherly, born August 1 1942, died February 18 2025
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
The assisted dying debate has been politics – but not as we know it
The House of Commons is a place defined by confrontation where political battles play out and engage more actively with their constituents. But the atmosphere could not have been more different on Friday, as those on both sides of the assisted dying debate listened respectfully, almost solemnly, to one another in the final hours before . As MPs headed for the division lobbies, the bill's supporters seemed confident but nervous. Read more: When the voting was completed and the result imminent, a long and profound silence fell over the House. From the press gallery, it seemed that the entire Commons was holding its breath together, collectively aware of the historic moment we were all about to witness, whatever the outcome. The woman at the centre of this seismic moment, the bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, braced herself as the result came in. Many months of pressure and responsibility appeared to be lifted from her shoulders as the win was announced and colleagues gathered to commend her efforts. Throughout the process this been politics but not as we know it, with party divisions put aside and MPs asked to search their own consciences and come to their own conclusions. It has created a more collaborative atmosphere in parliament and encouraged MPs to engage more actively with their constituents. In the end there was still anger, frustration and disappointment among those who were against the law change, either on principle or because they believed the legislation was flawed. And of course, politics will go back to being combative and voices in the Commons will be raised once again. But for a brief period, historic change was calmly ushered in. The challenge for the proponents now is to take the legislation through the next phases and deliver it with the same smoothness and determination.
Boston Globe
8 hours ago
- Boston Globe
UK lawmakers approve assisted-dying law
Advertisement 'I do not underestimate the significance of this day,' Kim Leadbeater, a Labour Party lawmaker and main champion of the bill, said Friday as she opened the debate. 'This is not a choice for living and dying. It is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die.' While assisted dying is illegal in most countries, a growing number of nations and jurisdictions have adopted legislation or are considering it. In England and Wales, assisting a death remains illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A poll published this week found that 73 percent of Britons backed the assisted-dying bill. While lawmakers voted in favor of the bill in November, at an earlier stage in the legislative process, uncertainty lingered ahead of Friday's vote. Hundreds of demonstrators on both sides gathered outside Parliament. Some carried placards that read, 'Let Us Choose.' Others held signs saying, 'Don't make doctors killers.' Advertisement Many of those who spoke during the debate shared personal stories. Mark Garnier, a Conservative Party politician, spoke about witnessing the dying days of his mother, who had pancreatic cancer and endured a 'huge amount of pain.' Garnier compared her ordeal to that of a constituent who also had pancreatic cancer but went through a state-provided assisted-dying program in Spain that made her 'suffering much less.' Josh Babarinde, a Liberal Democrat, read out a letter from a constituent traumatized by the death of her partner, who struggled to breathe, was incontinent, and repeatedly asked for her help to end his life. He then 'stuffed yards of his top sheet into his mouth' in an attempt to die,' Babarinde said, adding: 'This could have been avoided with an assisted-dying' law. Support for the measure ebbed in recent months, with a handful of politicians saying that they were going to switch their vote due to concerns about inadequate safeguards or insufficient end-of-life care. Steve Darling, a Liberal Democrat, told The Washington Post that while he was 'sympathetic' to the bill, he had changed his view because of 'inadequate' palliative care funding, which in Britain depends heavily on charitable donations. 'People might think, 'I could bite the bullet and get out of this situation because I'm not receiving a service that gives me a decent quality of life toward the end,'' Darling said. Others who said they agreed with the principle of letting people choose to die but could not back the bill included Labour member Vicky Foxcroft, who cited her work with disabled people. 'They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die,' Foxcroft told Parliament. Advertisement The issue remains divisive even within parties. Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, whose departments will each be impacted if the change becomes law, both opposed the bill. Prime Minister Keir Starmer made it clear that he supports the measure, citing his experience as the country's former chief prosecutor. Over the past two decades, more than 3,900 Britons have ended their lives with the Switzerland-based organization Dignitas. A few people who helped them were investigated or arrested. The vote Friday was a free vote, meaning that lawmakers could decide based on their own conscience rather than along party lines. It was the second time this week that Parliament held a free vote, which is often allowed on issues of ethics or conscience. Earlier this week, lawmakers voted in favor of decriminalizing abortion in England and Wales. One major revision to the bill in recent months was to eliminate the need for approval from a high court judge. No other country or jurisdiction with legalized assisted dying has that kind of stringent judicial oversight, and it was initially sold to some wavering lawmakers as a reason to back the bill. That requirement was dropped in favor of a three-person expert panel — a lawyer, social worker, and psychiatrist — that will oversee applications. Leadbeater said this would make the bill stronger, as members of the panel would have more relevant expertise and would be better able to spot red flags. Spain uses a similar kind of expert panel. Some professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying but opposed the legislation as written. Their concerns included the shortage of qualified staff for the expert panels. Advertisement The government's own 'impact assessment' found that the law could lead to 7,500 requests a year within a decade. Some campaigners had hoped for greater eligibility, to include patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement, or allowing a doctor to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs. This bill allows assisted dying only for terminally ill patients who can administer the medication themselves. Speaking in Parliament, Peter Prinsley, a Labour lawmaker, said that 'as a young doctor, I found the measures that we're debating today completely unconscionable.' However, he added, 'now that I'm an old doctor, I feel sure this is an essential change.' 'We are not dealing with life or death, rather death or death,' Prinsley said. 'And fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that to the dying?'
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rantzen: MPs backing assisted dying Bill will protect people from ‘bad death'
Dame Esther Rantzen has said MPs backing the assisted dying Bill will make a 'huge positive difference' and protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will now head to the Lords after clearing the Commons on Friday afternoon, with MPs voting 314 in favour, 291 against, majority 23. Dame Esther, a notable supporter of campaign Dignity in Dying who has stage four lung cancer, told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' Campaigners inside Parliament and outside in Parliament Square were jubilant and tearful following the result of the vote. Some MPs lined up to shake hands with or hug Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons. Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'result that so many people need'. The Labour MP for Spen Valley said: 'Thank goodness we got the result that so many people need, but I also feel that it was done really respectfully and the atmosphere in the chamber was very civilised.' Outside, a cheer erupted as the result was announced on a livestream to a crowd who had huddled together in anticipation. Many cried and hugged each other, while others popped champagne. Dame Esther's daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, called her mother in front of supporters and told her she wished she was here. Ms Wilcox came to Parliament Square following the vote and hugged fellow campaigners and friends. She told PA that she gave Ms Leadbeater's mum a 'big hug' following the result and added: 'I don't know whether to have a drink or a really big cry. 'There were a few of us in the public gallery and we were all holding hands. I felt like we were on a rollercoaster. 'It was the longest pause when everyone came in and we were waiting for the four and when I heard a three for the 'ayes' I was quite positive. 'It was quite extraordinary. I turned around and gave Kim's mum a great big hug.' Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, told the crowd: 'This is for all the people who couldn't be here today. This vote sends a clear message. Parliament stands with the public and change is coming.' Sian Berry, a Green Party MP and one of the proposers of the Bill, told PA: 'We all have experience of loved ones at the end of their lives that have influenced this. So many of my constituents have written to me telling me their stories. You really feel the importance of what you're doing this for. 'I'm confident we have made the Bill robust and I do believe this reflects public opinion.' Supporter Tim Murphy, 39, from London, said: 'My friend David went to Dignitas four years ago and he had to die sooner than he should have had there been a workable law in this country. 'This will impact so many people. So much of the [opposition] campaign has been hypothetical situations in the future but not taking into consideration the actual deaths that have occurred.' Those opposed to the Bill were visibly disappointed. People had gathered to pray before the vote but the crowd of white-shirted campaigners quickly dispersed following the result. Many packed up their signs and left the square and did not speak to the press. Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England who sits in the House of Lords, said: 'Every person is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and should be able to access the care and support that they need – a principle that I know is shared by those of all faiths and none. 'We must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk and instead work to improve funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services.' Sean Redfearn, 26, representing Christian Concern, said: 'It's disappointing the nation is stepping closer for people to take their own lives.' 'There is no progress as progress suggests flourishing and there's no flourishing with allowing the ending of a life.'
