It’s hard to find a politician or commentator who thinks that ‘quangos’ are a good thing. Politicians from all parties rail against them for being unaccountable, duplicating work and wasting taxpayers’ money.

In July, David Cameron announced that a Tory government would make reform of quangos a centrepiece of plans for greater democratic accountability. All arms-length bodies, he said, should have to prove their worth based on the need for one of three qualities: technical expertise; political impartiality; or transparency.

Just days before Cameron’s speech, chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne announced a review of quango functions ahead of the pre-Budget report, with a view to axeing unnecessary bodies. In the face of such widespread political hostility, it’s difficult to understand why so many of these bodies exist in the first place.

So just how many quangos are there? Well, some politicians and newspapers apply the tag to all unelected public sector organisations sitting outside Whitehall. But the term really means non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs): organisations sponsored by departments to carry out executive, advisory, tribunal, or independent monitoring functions.

The Cabinet Office publishes a guide to these bodies, the most recent of which detailed around 790 NDPBs run by central government. Others are sponsored by the devolved administrations, NHS trusts and boards, or public corporations like the BBC.

Whatever term is applied to them, wholly appointed institutions outside the direct control of departments have formed part of the UK state for centuries (Cameron himself pointed to the formation of the General Post Office in 1660) – though their growth accelerated after World War II. Both Thatcher and Blair promised in opposition to attack unelected bodies, but once in office found the pledge hard to deliver.

One reason for this, says George Jones, professor of government at the London School of Economics, is that governments find them an expedient way of hiving off unwanted, complicated or overly sensitive policy issues: “Some are abolished, but they always creep back because they are terribly useful for governments.”

Jones also points out that the use of the ubiquitous ‘quango’ acronym to describe NDPBs is technically inaccurate. In the 1960s, political scientists like Jones were fascinated by the growth of a wide range of bodies on the “fringe” of government, and devised the phrase ‘quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations’ to describe those sponsored by the state but distant from political control.

The edge of government, however, is hard to define precisely; many of the bodies called quangos are actually governmental in nature – and therefore ‘quagos’, not quangos. The Cabinet Office’s own definition of NDPBs says: “A body which has a role in the processes of national government, but is not a government department or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extent at arm’s length from ministers.”

The word ‘quango’ is a difficult one, then; an acronym too often misused, and now generally understood to refer to departmentally-sponsored NDPBs. In fact, the important line to draw is the one between NDPBs – which operate with some autonomy from ministerial control – and executive agencies.

Introduced by the Thatcher government in 1988 to move delivery outside Whitehall departments – but remaining within the civil service and directly answerable to ministers – executive agencies now include some of the UK’s biggest delivery bodies, including HM Prison Service and Jobcentre Plus. Speaking to Civil Service World in June, Robin Butler, cabinet secretary under Thatcher, said executive agencies were an important step forward in public service delivery and should not be confused with NDPBs or described as quangos.

The former Whitehall boss may be a strong advocate of the work of executive agencies, but he also issued a strongly worded criticism of the seemingly inexorable growth of NDPBs. “I think it is extraordinary how over quite a long period, politicians have devolved responsibility to people whom we don’t elect and who aren’t answerable to the politicians and therefore not answerable to the electorate,” the peer said.

So, given the stated determination of politicians of both major parties to reduce spending on public bodies, what arguments are the much-maligned quango bosses making to justify their organisation’s existence? Reflecting the fact that they are in opposition, the Tories have been able to articulate more clearly than Labour their hostility to particular bodies, most notably communications watchdog Ofcom – which Cameron has promised will “cease to exist” in its current form. Ofcom declined requests for an interview, but another quango whose powers the party would like to trim – exams regulator Ofqual – would actually like to see its powers enhanced.

While Cameron wants the body to have a “narrower focus” on exam standards in key subjects, Ofqual chair Kathleen Tattersall says it needs more clout. “We were hoping that the legislation would give us the power to fine and we’re somewhat disappointed not to have it,” Tattersall says. “Without that power, the public might question whether we as a regulatory body have teeth.”

Tory plans to radically trim quangos could also undermine the party’s grand plans for decentralisation from Whitehall, says the Labour MP and chair of the Commons public administration select committee, Tony Wright. “I can’t see how you are going to cut down on central government and at the same time cut down on quangos,” Wright says. “[Abolishing quangos] will mean a lot of work going back into departments.”

The Conservatives are particularly irritated by quangos with high media profiles. “Senior officers of quangos should be no more visible to the public than senior civil servants,” Cameron said in July. But some bosses – such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Trevor Phillips – see public advocacy as part of their job. Indeed, Paul Whitehouse, chair of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (see box), told us that being able to speak out in the media – as civil servants cannot – is a vital part of tackling labour exploitation.

The public sector is now watching to see whether a government of either colour can overcome a long-standing British addiction to conveniently hiving off difficult issues to arm’s-length bodies. Wright, who is set to leave Parliament at the next election, says experience makes him sceptical. “We’ve been here many times before,” he says. “I can’t remember a government in recent times that hasn’t said it wants to get rid of quangos – but somebody has to explain who’s going to do the work.”

Gangmasters Licensing Authority

Department
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Set up
2005

Staff
60

Spending
£4.1m

Main function
Regulatory

Remit
To prevent the exploitation of workers in the agricultural, horticultural and shellfish industries across the UK. The GLA was established by legislation in the wake of a 2004 disaster in Morecambe Bay, in which 21 Chinese cockle pickers drowned. The authority licenses gangmasters – providers of low cost, usually foreign, labour – by publishing details in an online register. Licences can be revoked if inspections prove that labour providers have failed to meet minimum standards, and companies which use unlicensed providers can be prosecuted.

They say
Chairman Paul Whitehouse says the core function of the authority is to “protect people from exploitation – and we’ve had considerable success”. Of the three justifications for quangos set out by David Cameron – technical expertise, impartiality and transparency – the authority can most obviously claim to need technical knowledge for its work as a watchdog. Whitehouse also says that it’s the authority’s job to speak out on the issues of labour exploitation. “One of our key priorities is to have a media presence and if we were in[side] the department we couldn’t do that,” he says. “We have to take risks and we are much less risk-averse than civil servants answering to ministers.” However, this risk-taking spirit seems to conflict with Cameron’s ideas.

Health and Safety Executive

Department
Department for Work and Pensions

Set up
1974

Staff
3,591
 
Spending
£219m

Main function
Law enforcement

Remit
“What we’re essentially about is trying to protect the health and safety of workers,” says Geoffrey Podger, HSE chief executive. The organisation regulates health and safety in workplaces in England, Wales and Scotland, as well as promoting public awareness of occupational risk. Inspectors pay visits – mostly unannounced – to workplaces in nearly all sectors of the economy to check compliance with health and safety rules. In cases of serious breaches, it has the power to prosecute. The HSE also encompasses the Health and Safety Laboratory, a 350-strong facility which conducts research into occupational hazards.

They say
Podger says the 2008 merger with the former Health and Safety Commission has been a success, bringing together the operational and policymaking sides of health and safety. Answering one complaint about quangos, he denies the HSE lacks accountability. “We have quite a close relationship with Lord Mackenzie, the (DWP) minister responsible, and are plugged into Whitehall and Westminster,” he says. “The idea that we are unaccountable is very far from the truth.” Podger also says that large parts of the HSE’s work require the kind of expertise the Tories cite as one of the reasons NDPBs are needed; specialist advice on risks at nuclear power plants, for example. What’s more, he insists, the body’s major stakeholders – industries and unions – want the HSE to continue.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy

Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Set up
1992

Staff
17

Spending
£5.3m

Main function
Project funding

Remit
“Working to support and strengthen democracy and democratic institutions around the world,” is WFD’s core function, explains communications manager Sian Dixon. WFD funds projects to help establish democratic institutions, using money from sponsor department the foreign office plus the Department for International Development and the British Council. Around half of the budget goes to UK political parties to fund work overseas.

They say
Dixon says WFD’s work is designed to complement the diplomatic activities of the UK government. “It’s not democracy for democracy’s sake; we undertake a thorough review, looking at the feasibility of working [in specific countries],” she says. “It is part of a broader foreign policy to strengthen democracy around the world.” While she says that operational independence from the foreign office is “very important” for the organisation’s credibility abroad, WFD does undergo five-yearly reviews to ensure its work is “adding value” to UK foreign policy. As with the wider diplomatic effort, the focus of activities has shifted since the end of the cold war from Eastern Europe to Africa and the Middle East. Since the body dispenses money to all UK parties, political impartiality along the lines described by David Cameron is obviously at a premium.

Independent Police Complaints Commission

Department
Home Office

Set up
2004

Staff
378

Spending
£36.8m

Main function
Complaints handling

Remit
The IPCC oversees the police complaints procedure in England and Wales. Unlike its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority, which was limited to supervising internal police inquiries, the commission has the authority to investigate complaints independently. The IPCC also has responsibility for investigating complaints against other public agencies with policing functions: HM Revenue & Customs, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and, since April last year, the UK Border Agency.

They say
“In a liberal democracy, it’s really important that people know they can complain about the police and the complaint will be taken seriously,” IPCC chief executive Jane Furniss told Civil Service World earlier this year. She said the IPCC was struggling to keep up with its caseload at current budget levels, but strenuously denied suggestions that its judgments had shown it to be too close to the police. “That’s a relationship we have to work at all the time... but I don’t think there’s any merit in the comment that we are too close to the police,” she said. Proving impartiality may be increasingly important for the IPCC; it’s the main ‘Cameron criterion’ under which it can justify itself.

Parades Commission of Northern Ireland

Department
Northern Ireland Office

Set up
1998

Staff
11
 
Spending
£1.7m

Main function
Quasi-judicial

Remit
To reduce tensions surrounding politically sensitive marches and parades in Northern Ireland. The commission was a product of legislation introduced in the wake of the Good Friday peace agreement, and was designed to move an extremely contentious subject out of political control.
The commission has the power to restrict – or ban – parades deemed likely to cause particular offence among residents. Since it is quasi-judicial in nature, its judgments have full legal force. It is also charged with updating the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the effectiveness of the laws on parades.

They say
Despite long-standing hostility from Protestant marching institutions such as the Orange Order (which refuses to talk to the body), chair Rena Shepherd says the commission works “tirelessly” to engage all sides. “There are a number of processes that are very confidential, but there are people from the Orange Order who will engage – though not while wearing their Orange Order ‘cap’,” Shepherd says. The future of the Parades Commission is still far from certain, with a report on the future of parading expected from former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown in coming months; an interim review raised the possibility of local authorities taking control of the issue. The Democratic Unionists want the body abolished in return for the completion of devolution of policing and justice to the Stormont executive. Commission secretary Ronnie Pedlow says the body’s future is “frozen” at the minute, with staff contracted only until the end of this year.  In defence of its work, he points out that parade-related tension has decreased markedly in recent summers. Chair Rena Shepherd adds: “As far as a solution to the issue of parading goes, if somebody somewhere comes up with a solution that is acceptable to all sides, bring it on.”