Ex-minister calls for quangos to face MPs' scrutiny amid Sentencing Council row
Organisations such as NHS England and the Sentencing Council should face direct scrutiny from MPs, a Conservative former minister has urged.
Sir Christopher Chope said arm's-length bodies (ALBs) had gone 'rogue', including National Highways when it rolled out smart motorways, and the Sentencing Council, whose recent guidance has prompted fears of 'two-tier justice'.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has this week vowed to tackle a 'weaker than it's ever been' state as he promised to abolish NHS England and bring its oversight responsibilities into the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
Introducing his Arm's-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill, Sir Christopher said: 'It is beyond my wildest dreams that a Labour Government seems to understand at least in part the problem that ALBs present to Parliament and in particular to this House of Commons.'
MPs ran out of time to vote on the proposed new law, which would enable them to debate as part of Parliament's day-to-day business the accounts and annual reports of ALBs with a budget of £5 million or more.
The MP for Christchurch warned that ALBs and quangos had 'often been favoured by ministers as a way of distancing themselves from contentious issues', adding: 'The result is often a duplication of effort, resulting in turf wars between Whitehall ministries and ALBs over policy.
'Free of the need to answer to voters, ALBs can go rogue as Highways England (now National Highways) did over its promotion in the face of public opposition of so-called smart motorways.'
Sir Christopher turned to the Sentencing Council, which produces guidelines to help courts set the type and length of offenders' sentences and last week recommended that a pre-sentence report will usually be necessary before handing out punishment for someone of an ethnic, cultural or faith minority, alongside other groups such as young adults aged 18 to 25, women and pregnant women.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood met the council's chairman Lord Justice William Davis this week to discuss the new guidance, after she said access to pre-sentence reports should not be determined by ethnicity, culture or religion.
Sir Christopher told the Commons that Lord Justice Davis should have 'conceded' defeat.
He asked: 'Why have we set up a system whereby the Sentencing Council is able to dictate this type of policy, overriding the will of ministers and of elected members of Parliament?'
The Labour MP for Stafford, Leigh Ingham, later intervened in his speech, and asked if Sir Christopher would 'welcome the announcement that the largest of these organisations is to be moved within ministerial oversight'.
Sir Christopher replied: 'I'm absolutely delighted. I'm not ambivalent about that. I think it's really good news.'
He said he had contacted NHS services in Dorset about a constituency matter with 'no response forthcoming', and suggested that this could be 'properly addressed' once NHS England is brought under ministers' direct control.
'It means that I, for example, would be able to put down questions about this, I'd be able to try and get an urgent question of the minister,' Sir Christopher said.
He added that Lord Lansley, who was the health secretary when NHS England was set up, might have been 'trying to avoid' accountability.
He said: 'It was an embarrassment, I think, to the Conservative governments and to the coalition government that they could be asked questions by MPs on the sort of subjects I've just raised.
'Yet what more important role is there for an MP to try and drive through those bureaucratic blocks and get delivery of what our constituents are expecting?'
His private member's bill will next be listed for debate on March 28.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
34 minutes ago
- ITV News
MPs raise concerns about Jersey's 'backdoor route into the UK'
MPs in the UK have raised concerns about Jersey 's French ID card scheme, saying it opens a "backdoor route into the UK" for potential illegal immigrants. The ID card scheme grants French visitors access to the island for the day without the need for a passport. It was introduced in both Bailiwicks in 2023, after it was found the number of day trippers had fallen post-Brexit - and last week, Jersey's government voted unanimously to extend the scheme on the basis of its success. However, UK MPs are now flagging it as a risk to their own border security. Chris Philp, the UK's Shadow Home Secretary and Conservative MP for Croydon South, says "our concern is that French ID cards are not particularly secure documents - it is possible to forge them relatively easily. "And because the Channel Islands are part of the Common Travel Area, the checks between the Channel Islands and the UK mainland are nothing like as strict as a regular passport control." Whilst no person has been identified to have exploited the scheme in this way in the past two years, Philp argues "concerns about border control are higher now than they ever have been." Citing rising number of immigrants who've made their way to the UK on small boats from Calais, he argues Jersey's scheme leaves a chink in the UK's armour that has the power to "snowball into something much larger" if left unaddressed. "When you have a vulnerability with your border security, what can start off as a very small problem can rapidly grow as illegal immigrants and others exploit vulnerabilities", he says. Philp hasn't raised concerns with members of Jersey's government directly. However, the island's Home Affairs Minister, Deputy Mary le Hegarat, admitted in the Assembly last week that "it is quite clear with correspondence from the Home Office that this is not a project they endorse." She added: "This heightens the risk for us in relation to the Common Travel Area and also potentially us being given a hard border." But Deputy Ian Gorst, Jersey's Minister for External Relations, says suitable checks and balances are in place to ensure the system isn't exploited as a pathway to the mainland. "These arrivals on their ID card have to have a return ticket for the ferry and there have been no incidences of onward travel to other places within the Common Travel Area. "So we can be confident that our border forces are protecting us and yet at the same time bringing this benefit to Jersey's economy." Guernsey is in the process of deciding whether to extend their version of the scheme for another year. A Guernsey Government spokesperson says: "It is the intention in Guernsey to extend the French Identity Card Scheme locally, on the condition it does not place our membership of the Common Travel Area at risk. "Guernsey Border Agency Officers have been in contact with the UK to discuss the matter from a Bailiwick of Guernsey perspective, and will continue to work with UK counterparts around the introduction of ETAs." Want the inside track on the issues that will shape Guernsey's Election this June? Listen to Guernsey Votes, an ITV Channel podcast packed with expert guests, local insight and analysis you can trust...
South Wales Guardian
41 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision
Sir Iain Duncan Smith said response by the Government to the proposed embassy near the the capital's financial district had become 'Project Kowtow', as he criticised the Government for 'one denial after another (and) one betrayal after another'. Sir Iain referred to the warnings reportedly issued by the White House and Dutch government to Downing Street over the plans, which is set to be scrutinised by ministers. The worries stem from the close proximity of the proposed embassy's Royal Mint Court site to data centres and communication cables. The Sunday Times said the US was 'deeply concerned' about the plans, quoting a senior US official. In response, planning minister Matthew Pennycook said he could not give a full response as the matter was still to come before the department for a decision, and any verdict could be challenged by the courts. Sir Iain said: 'Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. 'Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded, no changes can be made to the Chinese planning application at all. 'I'll remind him the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed to the inquiry, the Chinese have rejected only two requests, which he referred to actually, made by the Government in the letter from the foreign and home secretaries, despite ministers regularly saying that this letter, and I quote, should give those concerned, 'comfort'.' The Conservative MP said rerouting the cables would cost millions of pounds, and asked Mr Pennycook why the Government had denied the existence of cables until the White House confirmed it. He asked Mr Pennycook to deny reports by Chinese state media, saying the UK had given the Chinese assurances that it would allow a development 'no matter what'. He added: 'I see this as Project Kowtow, one denial after another, one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega embassy is now becoming a walk of shame for the Government.' Mr Pennycook replied because of the 'quasi-judicial nature' of his role, he could not comment on details of the application. He also said it would not be 'appropriate' for him to comment on the cabling or national security issues. He said he did not 'recognise the characterisation' by the Sunday Times of the embassy being raised in talks between the UK and China on trade. 'It is important to also emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case,' he said. 'But, as I say, I cannot comment in any detail on a case and it is not yet before the department.' Tory shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Parliament had been treated with disdain by the Government. Mr Hollinrake said: 'Question after question, letter after letter, the Government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stonewalling legitimate inquiries about national security, about ministerial discussions, and warnings about security bodies.' He added: 'Why won't the Government follow the examples of the US, Australian, and Irish governments which veto similar embassies that threaten their national security? 'The Government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk, that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?' Mr Pennycook replied: 'No decision has been made on this case. No application is yet before the department.' Marie Rimmer, Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, said: 'China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage, and surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of what risk if this would go ahead?' She added: 'We cannot not say anything in this House. We must comment on what we see, and please understand that we must do so.' Meanwhile, former security minister, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, asked whether the Government believed the Chinese would treat a similar application in the same way. He said: 'Do you honestly believe that thr minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? 'Do we actually in this House believe that our economic security being threatened, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, would go through a bureaucratic planning process with no ability to vary it because, frankly, them's the orders? 'I don't think that's the way China would do it, and it's certainly not the way we should.' Mr Pennycook replied: 'I'm very glad that we have a different and more robust planning system than the People's Republic of China.' Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked if the officer considering the case is 'cleared to receive top secret information'. Mr Pennycook replied: 'A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. 'And I'm afraid, while I recognise why (Mr Jopp) has asked the question, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.'
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision
Sir Iain Duncan Smith said response by the Government to the proposed embassy near the the capital's financial district had become 'Project Kowtow', as he criticised the Government for 'one denial after another (and) one betrayal after another'. Sir Iain referred to the warnings reportedly issued by the White House and Dutch government to Downing Street over the plans, which is set to be scrutinised by ministers. The worries stem from the close proximity of the proposed embassy's Royal Mint Court site to data centres and communication cables. The Sunday Times said the US was 'deeply concerned' about the plans, quoting a senior US official. In response, planning minister Matthew Pennycook said he could not give a full response as the matter was still to come before the department for a decision, and any verdict could be challenged by the courts. Sir Iain said: 'Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. 'Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded, no changes can be made to the Chinese planning application at all. 'I'll remind him the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed to the inquiry, the Chinese have rejected only two requests, which he referred to actually, made by the Government in the letter from the foreign and home secretaries, despite ministers regularly saying that this letter, and I quote, should give those concerned, 'comfort'.' The Conservative MP said rerouting the cables would cost millions of pounds, and asked Mr Pennycook why the Government had denied the existence of cables until the White House confirmed it. He asked Mr Pennycook to deny reports by Chinese state media, saying the UK had given the Chinese assurances that it would allow a development 'no matter what'. He added: 'I see this as Project Kowtow, one denial after another, one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega embassy is now becoming a walk of shame for the Government.' Mr Pennycook replied because of the 'quasi-judicial nature' of his role, he could not comment on details of the application. He also said it would not be 'appropriate' for him to comment on the cabling or national security issues. He said he did not 'recognise the characterisation' by the Sunday Times of the embassy being raised in talks between the UK and China on trade. 'It is important to also emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case,' he said. 'But, as I say, I cannot comment in any detail on a case and it is not yet before the department.' Tory shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Parliament had been treated with disdain by the Government. Mr Hollinrake said: 'Question after question, letter after letter, the Government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stonewalling legitimate inquiries about national security, about ministerial discussions, and warnings about security bodies.' He added: 'Why won't the Government follow the examples of the US, Australian, and Irish governments which veto similar embassies that threaten their national security? 'The Government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk, that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?' Mr Pennycook replied: 'No decision has been made on this case. No application is yet before the department.' Marie Rimmer, Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, said: 'China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage, and surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of what risk if this would go ahead?' She added: 'We cannot not say anything in this House. We must comment on what we see, and please understand that we must do so.' Meanwhile, former security minister, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, asked whether the Government believed the Chinese would treat a similar application in the same way. He said: 'Do you honestly believe that thr minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? 'Do we actually in this House believe that our economic security being threatened, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, would go through a bureaucratic planning process with no ability to vary it because, frankly, them's the orders? 'I don't think that's the way China would do it, and it's certainly not the way we should.' Mr Pennycook replied: 'I'm very glad that we have a different and more robust planning system than the People's Republic of China.'
