Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Public Bodies: Transparency in Service Delivery

Thursday 8 July 2021 · 4 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Neale Hanvey questioned the Department's steps to increase transparency in public bodies' service delivery, highlighting existing challenges with data access.
  • The Minister responded by detailing current practices, including the publication of public bodies data and spending reports.
  • Fleur Anderson inquired about the transparency of the freedom of information process, expressing concerns about its operation and handling of requests.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Neale Hanvey
Standards & Ethics
Context

MP concerned about the lack of transparency in government dealings with public bodies, citing specific instances where public bodies data is not easily accessible.

Question

What steps his Department is taking to increase transparency in the service delivery of public bodies. Public bodies data and spending are often opaque and hard for legislators to access, hindering oversight and accountability.

Answer from Julia Lopez

Accounting officer system statements already set out which public bodies a Department is responsible for, and their spending is set out in each Department's annual report and accounts. Public bodies data is also published in the public bodies directory. The recent declaration on Government reform reasserts our commitment to transparency in government.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The answer mentions existing measures but does not commit to new specific actions or improvements for increased transparency beyond reaffirming a general commitment.

How: Reaffirming A General Commitment

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Neale Hanvey
Standards & Ethics
Context

MP criticises the government for not upholding legal principles, citing cases of alleged unlawful conduct by senior Ministers and advisers.

Question

As legislators, we have an important and indeed necessary relationship with upholding the spirit and the letter of the law. However, in my experience hon. Members seem more likely to be sacked for their attempts to uphold such a principle. What message does the continued opacity, prevarication and law-breaking of this Government's most senior Ministers and advisers give to our children, public bodies and industry?

Answer from Julia Lopez

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your comments on language in this House. I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Member's characterisation of this Government. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already set out, there is a nuanced judgment from the Public First case in particular which does not agree with the way the hon. Member has characterised how the Government conduct themselves.

Not addressed: The questioner's concerns about legal conduct and ethics were largely ignored, focusing instead on disagreeing with the characterization of government behavior.

How: Disagreeing With Characterization, Nuanced Judgment

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Fleur Anderson Lab Putney
Standards & Ethics
Context

MP raises concerns over the lack of transparency in the appointment of Government Department non-executive directors, suggesting that these roles are often given to friends of Ministers.

Question

It would appear that my lack of donations to the Conservative party makes my chances of becoming a Government non-executive director rather slim, but my question to the Minister today is this: how many non-executive directors currently in post on those Government Department boards to scrutinise Ministers were appointed by Ministers? Will the Minister commit to overhauling that current system for appointing non-executive directors, so that these roles stop just being cushy jobs for friends of Ministers who are being paid over £1,000 a day each of taxpayers' money?

Answer from Julia Lopez

I can speak for the Cabinet Office non-executive directors. We have a fantastic team that is drawn from across party political affiliations. She will be aware that we have Baroness Stuart, who is a former Labour Member. We also have people with no political affiliation whatever, including people such as Anand Aithal. We have Henry de Zoete, and we have Lord Hogan-Howe, who is a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They were appointed because of their merit, not because of their party political affiliation.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The questioner's specific ask about overhauling the appointment process was not directly addressed; instead, examples of current non-executive directors were provided without committing to changes.

How: Providing Examples

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 Fleur Anderson Lab Putney
Standards & Ethics
Context

MP raises concerns over the inconsistent handling of Freedom of Information requests, citing an Information Tribunal's findings.

Question

I think that made my point for me, thank you. Last month, an Information Tribunal said that there is “a profound lack of transparency about the operation” of the freedom of information clearing house. Can the Minister confirm categorically that every single freedom of information request received has been treated in exactly the same way, with no different approach for certain journalists or campaigners?

Answer from Julia Lopez

I can confirm that we treat those information requests on a case-by-case basis, and the background of who is asking is not a criterion for how we treat that request.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The questioner's specific ask about categorical confirmation was partially addressed but did not receive a clear commitment to ensure consistent handling without discrimination.

How: Case-By-Case Basis

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)