A “risk assessment” of the 100-plus arm’s length bodies carrying out key services for the government may help to soothe public concerns.
A new report from the Cabinet Office, drawn up in response to a Tynwald resolution, acknowledges the public uncertainty over the effectiveness of arm’s length bodies (ALBs) that operate or provide services but are not under direct political control.
These ALBs can range from the high profile, including Manx Care and the Steam Packet, to others more low key, such as the Scallop Management Board.
The report says: “It is therefore impossible to ‘promote policy and requirements’ (as resolved by Tynwald) which are applicable to all ALBs.”
In all, there are 110 ALBs operating at the moment and the report acknowledges they come in in many differing forms. An accompanying list of ALBs in the report includes everything from Manx Utilities Authority to school governing bodies.
Political Concerns
The report acknowledges that by their very nature, ALBs give “rise to concerns politically and publicly”, including “lack of clear accountability frameworks” and ambiguity over the levels of independence for different ALBs.
ALBs are “generally speaking” meant to operate without day-to-day political interference “yet their exact position on the spectrum between government-owned and statutory boards can be considered unclear”.
This feeds into concern over the “democratic legitimacy” of an ALB .
“Some have argued that major decisions involved ALBs – e.g. the creation of Manx Care, nationalisation of the Steam Packet Company – lack a clear public mandate.” This can raise “questions about accountability for national-level decisions”.
The many variations in the nature of different ALBs made it difficult to produce a “single governance model” and this could lead to “alleged inconsistent practices and oversight gaps”, warns the report.
Snog, Marry, Avoid
The Cabinet Office report suggests a form of risk assessment to judge whether arrangements between ALBs and their sponsoring government departments are “fit for purpose”.
But before that there should be a preliminary “audit of the effectiveness of existing arrangements”, using criteria that seems one step away from being an extended, governance version of the game Snog, Marry, Avoid.
This would lead to recommendations based on the following:
A. Retain: retain the ALB in its current format;
B: Retain and Reform: retain the organisation but reform the delivery model;
C. Merge: merge the organisation with another organisation;
D. Further consideration: a commitment given for further consideration to be undertaken to determine a definitive decision;
E. Abolish: wind down the body.
You can read the full report on the Governance of Arm’s Length Bodies here.