Bonfire of the vainglories

The government's "bonfire of the quangos" created a false expectation that it would deliver savings and has been poorly managed, so says a damning new report from the Public Administration Committee published today. The committee's criticisms counter the government's claim that cutting the cost and bureaucracy of the quangos would deliver significant cost savings. While ministers promised abolishing 192 quangos and merging a further 118 would cut costs and lead to greater accountability by returning more functions directly to departments, the committee said that "badly drafted legislation" wouldn't deliver improved accountability and had proved a "botched" job. "The whole process was rushed and poorly handled and should have been thought through a lot more," said Bernard Jenkin MP, chair of the committee. "This was a fantastic opportunity to help build the big society and save money at the same time, but it has been botched. The government needs to rethink which functions public bodies need to perform and consider transferring some of these functions over to mutuals and charities." In further criticisms the committee said there had been "no meaningful consultation, the tests the review used were not clearly defined and the Cabinet Office failed to establish a proper procedure for departments to follow." It said that the tests used to evaluate each public body "may have seemed superficially plausible at the outset, but they are hopelessly unclear". The committee also added its concerns that the original draft public bodies bill did "not contain sufficient safeguards to prevent the misuse of powers by ministers," and called on the government to look at the governance arrangements for each public body. It said the current system was chaotic, making it difficult to understand why quangos exist and the differences between them. While the impact of shelving quangos has previously been criticised after private papers revealed the multi-million pound bill it would cost and that liabilities could mean any savings would not be felt for a decade, Francis Maude, minister for the Cabinet Office, staunchly defended the government's reforms. "Reform of public bodies is long overdue and our plans will bring about the largest scale reform of the public bodies landscape in a generation," he said. "While we agree with the committee that the existing system was chaotic, the government saw this as all the more reason to tackle it. We have taken the difficult decisions necessary to make change in this area. "The report seems to suggest that the review was a top down exercise, driven by the centre. This was not the case. The review was a decentralised process, led by departments with the overall aim to increase accountability for activities carried out by the state. He added: "The process from the beginning was clear, which is why we were able to move so quickly. Departments assessed their public bodies against strict criteria. One of the main purposes of the changes is to improve accountability and stop the days of excessive meddling and confusing accountabilities, which has been part of the problem in recent years. "We should also not forget there was a real hunger for change – people were fed up with a complex system where the ministers they elected could avoid taking responsibility for difficult and tough decisions by hiding behind a chief executive of one of these quangos. We fundamentally do not agree with the committee that our reform will not improve accountability. We remain committed to seeing it through...and to stop the meddling and expense created by unaccountable bureaucrats." But Colin Talbot, professor of public policy and management at Manchester Business School who gave evidence to the committee inquiry, said the committee were correct in publishing such harsh criticism. "I don't think I have ever seen such blunt language from a select committee," he said. "I think the report is very blunt about how poorly reviewed the process was. It was conducted far too hastily and deeply flawed – in no way could they have done a sensible review of 900 public bodies in such a short space of time. "They didn't set out any clear criteria or more, how to implement the findings of the review, which is going to be a huge problem – there are some huge organisational changes that have to be put through." Speaking on behalf of the Institute for Government, Sir Ian Magee, said he also welcomed the report. "[Our] research was clear that the bonfire of quangos would not result in savings, in fact value for money was not one of the three tests the government review used," Magee said. "The committee rightly points out the chaotic and complex landscape and current government plans to reform quangos stop short of dealing with this confusion – there are still too many categories of ALBs, 11 in total, that do not match form to function and do not help the public or government understand their roles and differences; we recommend three. "The public bodies bill, as originally drafted, also leaves too many ALBs open to unnecessary uncertainty about their future. The IFG has called for ministers to reconsider the sweeping powers proposed, which could compromise the appropriate safeguards many need to do their job."