A careless bonfire

Quangos may need a regular health check, but we must be careful not to succumb to populist headlines

This week’s news has been dominated by talk of a bonfire – a proverbial bonfire of the quangos. Abolish or change the biggest, most high profile of these bodies, so the argument goes, and the economy’s ills will be greatly diminished.

True, any good government worth its salt should keep a steady eye on the shape and spending of these organisations. Government spend on Non-Departmental Public Bodies is not insignificant.

David Cameron recognised these bodies need to change in a speech on the subject this week. But his is a muddled approach, seeking to generate a culture where quango waste and excessive power is un-tolerated, but proposing cosmetic changes to this effect.

It’s easy meat to use quangos as a punch bag in these uncertain economic times. Shaving off a few PR people, however, will not come near to cutting the burden of government debt we now face. To paraphrase the inimitable Sarah Palin, it’s a bit like putting lipstick on a hippo.

To get to grips with this debate, it’s important to go back to first principles. When it comes to regulation or to clinical trials, some things are better done at arms length from government by independent bodies.

I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with either Brown or Cameron telling the BBC what level of news content or religious programming it should broadcast. Nor would I be comfortable with the government telling GPs what drugs they should prescribe.

There are some things Whitehall doesn’t have the expertise or resource to do centrally. Like spectrum regulation. It’s not riveting stuff; but should the DCMS employ hundreds of specialised spectrum engineers in place of a regulator with
expertise in this field?

Even the leader of the opposition himself admits “the decisions NICE takes are inherently technical, drawing on specialist knowledge about the range of medicines and treatments that are available.”

The great irony of David Cameron’s speech is that in one breath he casts the spell of decentralisation across government, but in another talked of sucking the functions these quangos perform back into government.

The greatest irony, perhaps, is that many of these organisations, fearing budget cuts or abolishment under a Conservative government will now be spending more money on communications and seeking to do more to demonstrate their visibility and value. The law of unintended consequences.

There are lessons to be learnt from the Ofcom experience. I co-edited a book on public sector mergers which drew lessons from Ofcom’s establishment for other public sector bodies. Streamlining 5/6 bodies into one. Reducing headcount and making the organisation’s work more efficient and effective, having a real purpose, mission and effect.

It’s hard not to agree that these organisations need a regular health check. But let’s look carefully at what needs to be changed and what can be made better rather than succumbing to populist headlines. After all, it wouldn’t be a proper bonfire without a good health and safety warning.

Paul Afshar is a manager at Edelman

10 Jul 2009 14:57

 

Comments

• Posted by Simon Maine on 13 July 2009, 9:15:13 AM What I’d prefer to see is that the quango CEOs be made more accountable (retrospectively, not prospectively) to parliament rather than the executive. The Chief Statistician at the ONS answers written parliamentary questions and the head of HMRC resigned over the 25m names lost on CDs in the post – I think a bit more of this type of thing would go a long way to reducing the democratic deficit.