🤔 Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

Sir Christopher Chope passionately argues for greater parliamentary control over arm’s-length bodies (ALBs), highlighting their lack of accountability and the frustration they cause, exemplified by issues with NHS Dorset and the Sentencing Council. He references recent government actions, like the planned abolition of NHS England, as steps in the right direction but pushes for more reforms. Chope’s proposed bill aims to ensure ALBs are more directly accountable to Parliament, potentially through mechanisms like mandatory review by the Public Accounts Committee. The debate reflects a broader concern about the proliferation and management of ALBs, with MPs from both sides expressing varied opinions on their effectiveness and oversight.

Summary

  • Purpose of the Bill: Sir Christopher Chope introduced the “Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill” to enhance the accountability of arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) to Parliament, highlighting that these bodies often operate without enough oversight despite being funded by taxpayers.

  • Recent Relevance: The debate’s timing coincided with increased public and media attention on ALBs, as demonstrated in a recent editorial in The Times.

  • Issues with Current ALBs: Chope criticized the Sentencing Council, an arm’s length body, for issuing new guidelines that appeared to undermine the Justice Secretary’s stance on a two-tier justice system, illustrating the lack of ministerial control over ALBs.

  • Government Action: The new Labour Government announced moves to abolish some ALBs and bring others under more direct ministerial oversight, including the significant decision to abolish NHS England, which was welcomed by Chope as aligning with his Bill’s objectives.

  • Public Examples of Problems: Chope cited specific examples from his constituency, including issues with NHS Dorset’s responsiveness and delays in Natural England’s decision-making, to underline the practical impacts of unaccountable ALBs on constituents.

  • Provisions of the Bill: The Bill proposes that within 40 days of an ALB’s document being laid before the House of Commons, a Minister must move a motion for approval, or else the document will be referred to the Public Accounts Committee for review, ensuring greater scrutiny.

  • Concerns Raised by Other MPs: Labour MPs expressed concerns about the effectiveness of abolishing ALBs, noting past experiences where transferring responsibilities to local government led to inefficiencies. They also questioned the feasibility and resource implications of the proposed increased parliamentary oversight.

  • Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Chope expressed concern over the government’s simultaneous action to grant more powers to Natural England under this new bill, arguing it contradicts the move to reduce the scope of ALBs.

  • Political Context: There was a brief mention of the proliferation of ALBs in Scotland, but the main focus remained on UK-wide reforms.

  • Conclusion and Next Steps: The debate highlighted a broad recognition of the need for reform, though opinions varied on the best approach. The second reading of the Bill was adjourned and scheduled to continue on Friday 28 March.

Divisiveness

The parliamentary session on the Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill displays a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3. While there is no overt hostility or personal attacks, there are clear instances of differing opinions and challenges among the members concerning the governance and accountability of arm’s-length bodies (ALBs). Here is a detailed analysis of the disagreements observed in the session:

  1. Primary Challenges to the Bill’s Premise:
    • Deirdre Costigan (Lab) challenges Sir Christopher Chope’s timing and why the previous government did not address the issue (Sentencing Council’s guidelines), suggesting disagreement on the urgency and handling of the matter.
    • David Pinto-Duschinsky (Lab) expresses confusion about the Bill’s intentions to bring agencies under parliamentary rather than executive control, indicating a lack of clarity or agreement on the Bill’s effectiveness in improving accountability.
  2. Disagreement on Past Government Actions:
    • Patricia Ferguson (Lab) highlights the reduction of quangos under a previous Labour government, implicitly challenging the notion that only the current government is addressing the issue of ALBs, which suggests differing perspectives on historical actions.
  3. Specific Case Concerns and Policy Suggestions:
    • Josh Fenton-Glynn (Lab) warns against the unintended consequences of dismantling quangos, such as the Independent Living Fund, suggesting disagreement on the best approach to handle existing ALBs.
    • Sarah Smith (Lab) raises a concern about the effectiveness and powers of existing bodies, suggesting disagreement on whether the current operations of ALBs, such as Natural England and the Environment Agency, should be dismantled or strengthened.
  4. Challenge on the Bill’s Proponent’s Actions:
    • Peter Dowd (Lab) challenges the reliability of Sir Christopher Chope’s stance due to his previous voting decisions, suggesting a lack of trust or disagreement on the consistency and sincerity behind the Bill’s proposal.
  5. Disagreement on Proposed Solutions:
    • While some members, like Martin Vickers (Con), support bringing ALBs under direct governmental control, the interventions from other members like Deirdre Costigan (Lab), suggesting support for specific legislative actions (e.g., Planning and Infrastructure Bill) to curb powers of certain ALBs, indicate differing views on how to address these issues.

Overall, the session reflects a spectrum of disagreement on the accountability of ALBs, how to handle their operations, and the historical context of governmental approaches. However, these disagreements are typical within a parliamentary setting and do not escalate into severe conflict, hence the moderate rating of 3.