Public Bodies Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office
Wednesday 2nd February 2011

(13 years, 10 months ago)

Ministerial Corrections
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The following is the answer given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Maude) relating to a question from the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) during Cabinet Office Question Time on 19 January 2011.
Ben Bradshaw Portrait Mr Bradshaw
- Hansard - -

While “The King’s Speech” is rightly being feted all around the world, the right hon. Gentleman’s Government are abolishing the organisations here in Britain that helped to make that film happen, as part of what even the Conservative-dominated Public Administration Committee has described as a “botched” bonfire of the quangos. Given that he cannot even say how much, if anything, this is going to cost, is it not typical of what the Government are doing in so many areas—ill considered, ill thought through, rushed and damaging?

Lord Maude of Horsham Portrait Mr Maude
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Just to be clear, the purpose of these reforms is to increase accountability. The Government will not simply create incontinently new independent bodies in order to avoid Ministers having to make and defend uncomfortable decisions. Ministers should be prepared to make those decisions and defend them themselves—that is what democratic accountability is about, and that is the primary aim. However, we will save money. The changes to the public body landscape planned and announced by the previous Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished ornament, were much more minor than the changes that we are undertaking. That Government claimed that those changes would save £500 million a year; our changes are much more radical and will save a great deal more.

[Official Report, 19 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 827.]

Letter of correction from Mr Maude:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 19 January 2011.

The correct answer should have been: