Arm’s-length Bodies

Question

11:28:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the announced abolition of NHS England, whether they propose to abolish any other arm’s-length bodies and if so which ones.

My Lords, the Government are reviewing all arm’s-length bodies, with a presumption that they will be closed or merged or have functions returned to government departments unless justified. The review supports the Government’s plan to create a more productive and agile state, exemplified by NHS England’s abolition. The review on ALBs is ongoing and will determine which bodies will undergo closure or merging or be reintegrated into their sponsoring department.

I thank the Minister for her Answer. I am somewhat confused because the Government have already committed to establishing, or are in the process of establishing, 26 new arm’s-length bodies. I have been trying to ascertain from the Government by Written Answer the exact cost of those 26 bodies but have been unable to do so. Will the Government commit to giving me the cost of these 26 bodies and putting a record in the House Library? It is, after all, taxpayers’ money that is being spent.

This Government, unlike the last one, are very aware that every penny we spend is taxpayers’ money. That is why we are reviewing every arm’s-length body and will be the first Government in history to ask the Civil Service to look at our manifesto to see which of our commitments for arm’s-length bodies should be delivered directly by government departments rather than by an individual entity. With regard to the costing, we are at a very early stage—only nine months into this Government—for the creation of some of these bodies. As each body is established, the figures will be released in the normal way.

My Lords, in creating new arm’s-length bodies, are the Government looking to utilise the skill sets and experience of civil servants and others who are currently on arm’s-length bodies that are due to be disbanded?

My noble friend raises an excellent point. This Government are about making sure that we have the right people in the right place to deliver on our plan for change and our mission-driven Government. Delivery is key. Where people have the right skill sets, we will deploy them to make sure we are delivering for the people of the United Kingdom.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that arm’s-length bodies and executive agencies are as old as the British state? Regular reviews of those bodies are desirable, but repeated restructuring is like ministerial turnover; it damages efficient administration. Would it not be better to make sure that ministerial changes in all these were overseen by parliamentary committees rather more actively, so that if they are supposed to be semi-independent of Ministers they are able to choose to have the support of Parliament either for ministerial change or for continuity?

The noble Lord makes a very important point about the independence of these bodies. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority, for example, has been established outside government to ensure that people accessing the compensation have trust and faith in the service that they may not have in the Government. Independence is key and is one of our core criteria. The ongoing scrutiny is part of your Lordships’ day-to-day work, but there is also a responsibility on the sponsoring department to make sure that work is done effectively and delivers the objectives. I look forward to discussing this in more detail with the noble Lord.

My Lords, will the Government tell the House whether there is a deliberate policy of pausing the process for filling public appointments without any particular reason? I have seen in my own experience, having worked hard on a panel and considered CVs, that the process is halted without any good reason, leaving vacancies on important committees.

The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. It is not something that has been brought to my attention before, and I will speak to officials and come back to her. As far as I am aware, this Government want to make sure we have the right people in the right places to deliver what we need. If there has been a slight pause because of the change of Government, that may be one thing, but there is no official policy that I am aware of.

My Lords, my noble friend asked which arm’s-length bodies might be abolished. I am not sure I have heard the Minister answer. Maybe I could suggest one or two off the top of my head. What about Natural England? What about the Arts Council? What about the independent football regulator before it beds down and starts doing damage to our great export trade? How about the big one, the Climate Change Committee?

The noble Lord will not be surprised that I may have anticipated that that question might come from him. Given that he has given me the opportunity to raise the football regulator, I just want to put on record my congratulations to Port Vale on their promotion at the weekend. Many of us support clubs that are not in the Premier League, and there is huge support for the football regulator from grass-roots organisations. With regard to which arm’s-length bodies will come next, we are asking every government department to review. Given that the Prime Minister made his speech announcing this policy only on 13 March this year, I am delighted that we have already announced the end of NHS England and, this week, the Valuation Office Agency. We are moving faster than the previous Government did and will continue to make sure that we have best value for money.

My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the review will be done with greater care, greater discrimination and greater consultation than the disastrous review of 2010 by the coalition Government? Then, a random, comprehensive list of arm’s-length bodies was put in a schedule to a Bill. This then had to be rescued by this House in all the work we did to mitigate damage and save that Government from themselves. Can the Minister give me an assurance that the essential work of public bodies will be recognised and contained?

My noble friend makes an excellent point. I assure your Lordships’ House that there is no way we will engage in this process with that approach. We want to make sure that we can deliver an agile Government, fit for purpose in the 21st century, with the people in the right places and the appropriate accountability to government departments. We want to do this in a way that respects and values the people who deliver our public services day in, day out. I put on record my thanks to the civil servants and public services doing everything to deliver for our country.

My Lords, the abolition of NHS England was a rare decisive move from this Government, but the Government’s actions on quangos do not match the rhetoric. The Government have admitted to being in the process of setting up 29 new bodies, as per the last Written Question, and these are the ones the Government are currently admitting to. Can the Minister explain how this is in line with the so-called bonfire of the quangos?

The noble Baroness knows how fond I am of her, but I am going to have to disagree hugely with the premise of her question. We are very clear on making sure that we can deliver. The noble Baroness’s previous Government announced a review. They evaluated 125 public bodies over a three-year period, with 104 reviews within their review, and saved £104 million. Given that the budget for arm’s-length bodies is £353 billion, it is an accounting error in terms of savings. That is not the approach of this Government. We are moving forward and delivering for the people of the United Kingdom.

My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, I can well understand the Government’s concern not to have duplication, not to waste money and not to have unnecessary bodies. But does the Minister agree that it will require careful and nuanced work during the transition to make sure that in doing away with duplication we do not open up chasms into which important areas of policy and delivery fall?

The noble Baroness raises the most important of points. I assure her that the Cabinet Office is working closely with sponsoring departments to make sure that, while we recognise and want to eliminate duplication, we are not doing so by deleting both functions in one go. We will be very sensitive about how we approach this.

My Lords, listening to the other side on this is sometimes reminiscent of the infamous episode of the soap opera “Dallas” in which Bobby Ewing, supposedly dead in a previous series, emerges from the shower because the previous series had all been a dream. When the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was Prime Minister he created 184 new quangos, and between 2018 and 2023 the May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak Governments created 17 more. Is it not nonsense for the other side to criticise this Government, who are making a real effort to abolish these bodies?

I thank my noble friend for his question and obviously agree with him. I just want to touch on one of the new bodies criticised by noble Lords opposite. Your Lordships have discussed Great British Railways on many occasions. It is going to replace Network Rail and a DfT operator. It will save £150 million a year in fees paid to the private sector. There is a purpose to what we are doing: to make sure that we have the right arm’s-length bodies where necessary but that we also have appropriate responsibilities and accountability to your Lordships’ House.