Should quangos be abolished?

Depends upon the quango, I'm sure some are useless. However I am very concerned that some of the ones named seem to be regulatory and oversight organisations. Getting rid of oversight will lead to the temptation to return to poor customer service, even dangerous safety breaches.
Mad cow disease was the result of oversight and regulation being relaxed in meat processing plants. It could be construed as a convenient excuse for the Conservatives to give still more concessions to businesses to cut corners for higher bonuses, whilst pandering to a mood of hysteria they have created. A case should be made for each one named.

As it appears that the "offs" such as offcom are amongst these quangos, I am only too pleased they are going.

In my experionec they have been a complete waste of time and on the few ocasions that I have had to contact them, they developed slopy shoulders and claimed "it was nothing to do with them".

Good riddance!

If they are of no use, most definately.
How about the BBC Board of Govenors?

"What do you think about the proposals?"

I do not think all quangos should be abolished but I do believe there ought to be a cap on the maximum earnings for their top personnel (like equivalent or below ministerial incomces).

Long overdue, get rid of the lot IMHO.
QUANGO's have been a convenient way for politicians of all colours to shift the blame for difficult decisions for years, and the monster has got out of control.
Get rid of the lot, right now.

The list needs to include the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in my opinion a thoroughly useless body which acts to the extreme detriment of the British people.

Yes, I think they probably should be scrapped. The world will keep turning without them. We can then put the money toward helping those who have thrown themselves between exploding grenades and their friends. I'd like to see that.

Yes, a lot of them could be abolished. I have worked with the local RDA a lot over the last few years. They are nothing more than a group of people who ask you to tick boxes so they can hand over those ticked boxes to the funding organisations, usually the EU. This is not only a pointless waste of money, but slows project progression down massively, thus costing even more money. Not only that, the staff there are paid very large salaries for doing so. A complete and utter waste of money.

I'm sure some do an excellent job, but many are just middle men for the sake of middle men.

You have to ask:

does their work HAVE to be done?

do they do important work well or can it be done better?

do they represent value for money?

can it be done better elsewhere better?

Many of them should, the rest should be required to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct.

The Securities Industries Association should certainly be abolished.
It is only a rubber stamp for bullyboy/girl enforcers giving them a false aura of respectability.

Along with this the DVLA and DVLNI should STOP supplying our details to any organisation other than the POLICE.

This includes the DVLNI exporting our details to commercial companies in the Republic of Ireland. Some of these have atrocious proven error rates in data handling.

The abolition of quangos is long overdue.

In my dealings over the last year with one particular quango - Her Majesty's Court Service, to get to the bottom of its mis-management at my expense, I have met with nothing but obstruction. Questions asked are either deflected, or ignored altogether, and different layers of the same organization have been passing the buck in both directions in order to deflect blame.

The publications informing consumers of their rights and the appropriate action to take in order to resolve issues have been wrapped in a very costly Charter which HMCS has chosen to overlook. There are presently four layers within HMCS that, as far as I can see, are simply duplicating effort - and that's before matters can be referred to the local MP.

Goodness knows what these differing layers, with their legions of cosy staff and plush surroundings, cost to the public. They probably all go home and tell their families what an important and exacting day they've had, making chains from paper clips and sending humourous emails to their pals.

I wonder how many of the people commenting on here have even looked at the list of what will be abolished?

Should quangos be abolished?

Contary to what you read in your daily tabloid 'Quango' does not describe a single homogenous type of organisation.

Quangos fulfil a huge variety of roles from designating funding to the Arts to regulating the water industry.

So the obvious answer is - yes some quangos can go and no-one will notice, whilst other fulfill very important functions and would need to be replaced immediately if they were ever scrapped.

I'm not saying all quangos are a good thing but why do Tories think that money is the only form of investment?

This is ridiculous.

This government has just lost all credibility.

Do they serisouly want to scrap Visit Britain? When, but a few weeks ago, they said that inbound tourism was vital to our economy. If Visit Britain doesn't promote tourism in this country, who on earth will?

And the Environment Agency? Just like that they want to get rid of it?

Once again, they've taken the good idea too far.

This is too much. Time for an election, this government was unpopular enough as it is, after this there's going to be huge protests and demands for them to go.

Great news. Now all the government have to do is create private sector jobs for those who work for the quangos.

An interesting conundrum which no one has yet addressed - public sector cuts create unemployment and reduce work for the private sector, thus creating further unemployment.

What's the coalitions plan? None? I thought not.

Remember Labour's promise to have a bonfire of the quangos? Did they keep their promise? Of course not, they just created more and wasted millions paying their members eye-watering salaries. At least you can say one thing about the coalition - they have done more in six months than Labour did in 13 years (unless of course you count bankrupting Britain economically and socially)

At the time of writing all comments are awiting moderation but I'll bet there will be a load of comments from the same ignorant HYSers who don't know what quango's are or the idea behind them. Probably because the Daily Mail told them to think that way.

I have no doubt that some will need to go and a number of mergers will be sensible but it does seem a long list.

Yes . The more the merrier..

IF there ever was a need Quango work then the private sector could have done the job cheaper ..

Next on the list should be Local Government and councils .. in the main They should only be allowed to act like a Holding company ..

All majority services should tendered or out sourced to the private sector .. Saving Millions if not Billions

All in favour one of cutting "Feather bedding" say Aye

Its about time mosst of these orginisations went. Tough on the staff but we just dont have the money.

Close them down, send the staff home, turn the lights off and most important of all just STOP doing what they are doing DO NOT re-allocate the work.

Getting rid of useless quangos, is a step in the right direction. Generally useless, bottoms on seats getting paid for nothing.

If 180 Quangos face the chop, please spare a thought for all the parasitical freeloading establishment worthies who'll be out of a non-job.
Imagine, if they went on strike. We'd all die laughing!

Having stood as a candidate at the last election I was forwarded some figures by the Tax Payers Alliance both on how much QUANGOs cost and how its increased in recent years.

With the state of the budget deficit I'm delighted the Coalition are scrapping these white elephants (and no I'm not a Tory or Lib Dem)

I'm confused...

I would have presumed all of these organisations are doing something valuable and worthwhile, so, either:

The work they do is being considered unnecessary and will cease - which amounts to a cut in direct Government activity, or

The work they do will be rolled back into central Government departments somehow... but I thought the idea of Quangos was to move the function off the Governments books... meaning direct Government spending will increase??, or

The work they do will move in to the functions they are supporting - kind of self governance and regulation. This presumable means these functions will now have to increase their spending??

The most illogical thing of all is how this sits with 'the Big society' and getting public services delivered by the private sector or voluenteers....

Government will still have to pay for the services it chooses to keep, whether they are delivered directly, via Quango's, Privately or through volunteers somehow...

And what exactly is the difference between a Quango and a Privately delivered public service???

They are both arm-length from central Government, both will need to ultimately be paid for by central Government to deliver whatever it is they are delivering as it is a public service. No doubt both have some kind of mirroring body within a central Government department to watch over what they are doing so central Government can have oversight, regulation, accountability and some degree of control over what is being delivered and how.

To remain in line with the objective of reducing the deficit, I guess we should conclude that whatever these bodies do is not technically necessary any more???

An easy way to get favourable headlines from the right-wing press. Getting rid of oversight and regulatory qangos doesn't seem a good idea, Theresa May's decision to close down the body that oversees the private security industry will show itself to be a cut too far.
It will be instructive to see which quangos are left untouched.

I think that, to the extent that these organisations have important regulatory functions or do in some other way act almost directly as extensions of government, the functions should be brought into the civil service proper, rather than existing in this strange limbo of quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations.

I imagine that what we are all hoping will be disbanded are those Quangos which involve canvassing the opinions of 5 or 6 "experts in a field" twice each year, writing a critical paper once evey 2 or 3 years and in return paying the chairman of the working group a handsome £205k per annum and the other attending worthies a substantial attendance fee for their time (in addition to directly meeting the costs of producing the paper of course).

If we have dedicated and professional or experienced people in this country who have genuine concerns over the direction of government policy in some areas, it should not be beyond the wit of such people to get together, formalise their concerns and appraise the media without an official government approved wrapper and linked pay incentive. One would hope for example that a senior nuclear engineer would actively want to warn the country of dangerous practices in our nuclear industry without waiting for a QUANGO to offer him a couple of quid to say so.

“quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation“

If the work they do is required at national level then they should be part of the government and the civil service to allow transparency and public scrutiny with liability for errors ultimately placed at a minister’s door.

Too often quangos have been used to provide lucrative jobs for government supporters that bypass all the usual scrutiny and skill checking whilst relieving ministers of embarrassment when they go wrong.

Like some off-balance sheet corporate transactions, quangos need to be carefully controlled or better still, abolished.

12. At 12:26pm on 24 Sep 2010, totally_bill_hicks wrote:

I wonder how many of the people commenting on here have even looked at the list of what will be abolished?

Yep - I have the list of all 1200 (as of 2007) have read it in detail,and about 95% could and should be abolished tomorrow with responsibility for those that do have a job to do taken back under direct ministerial control

As for Nulabour's promise to have a bonfire of the Quangos, well it was yet another empty one - probably find their best idea to get rid of the QUANGO's would be to set up a QUANGO to look into it.....

They should be cut back as far as possible.
Maybe some are genuinely useful; I think a lot probably aren't and were just created to buy votes for Liebour.

I was in employment when "Investors in People" was introduced.

From that point morale dropped. Endless stupid meetings, stuff to read.
"Implementors" were appointed (sounds like something to be dreaded out of "Dr. Who") who had to implement the scheme. They thought it was rubbish and so did the staff, but all had to go through the artificial brainwashing programme. Everybody felt it stopped them from the main task in hand of simply being allowed to get on with their job.

If anything should be scrapped that should be top of the list.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Don't worry....the private sector has plenty of work going.

About time. Swing the axe.

Of course they should.We spend £100bn? on useless people doing useless work,usually failed politicians and their hangers on, ex corporate execs etc doing the odd few days a month.The growth in numbers took place under the equally uselessGordon Brown and his empire building socialist state.
My suggestion.Get rid of 50% now.Use the cost savings to reduce this horrendous debt legacy of Brown and Co.Come back in 6 months time and see if anyone notices any difference.If not get rid of the other 50% there and then.

18. At 12:31pm on 24 Sep 2010, CH wrote:
At the time of writing all comments are awiting moderation but I'll bet there will be a load of comments from the same ignorant HYSers who don't know what quango's are or the idea behind them. Probably because the Daily Mail told them to think that way.'

Oooh yes, let's use this as an excuse to have a go at the Daily Mail. And while we are about it shall we have a go at Margaret Thatcher for something? Isn't it funny that the Guardian is just as biased but you don't see anyone having a go at it do you? Now why is that? How much money did the Guardian lose last year?
The fact is most people don't know the ideas behind quangoes because they serve so little purpose.

16. At 12:29pm on 24 Sep 2010, chiptheduck wrote:

"Great news. Now all the government have to do is create private sector jobs for those who work for the quangos.

An interesting conundrum which no one has yet addressed - public sector cuts create unemployment and reduce work for the private sector, thus creating further unemployment.

What's the coalitions plan? None? I thought not. "

Lets not forget that some quangos are there to aid the private sector, for example to fund training for apprenticeships or promote regional enterprise.
If this government is serious about strengthening the private sector then surely these should receive priority? But no, they are dogma lead. Slashing for slashing sake. This is why we are headed for massive unemployment; this is not a government that does joined up thinking.

Yes their numbers should be vigorously pruned. They are largely expensive, ineffectual and undemocratic - by that I mean their members are appointed by faceless bureaucrats and notopenly elected. What do they actually do, apart from shuffling papers, sitting behind a desk and pushing pens? Get rid of most of them!

What's the betting this list of quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations was created by a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation!

Seriously though, each one needs to be looked at as a seperate case, and if it or can go or be merged, and it saves money with out compromising anything, then why not?

Should quangos be abolished? Without question most should. However it is important that the Tories do not just replace them with something equally corrupt, useless and expensive.

Quangos have one prime purpose - to provide hefty salaries for those at the top. Those at the top are appointed, I suspect, on the basis of reward for services provided to political parties or through being "connected" to the right people. I might be, and would like to think I am, wrong here. Sadly, when the quangos are "culled", those at the top will probably be eased painlessly into other high paid posts (some quangos are to merge)and it will be the ground troops who suffer redundancy.

It’s not so much a list of Quangos, as a list of organisations stuffed full of Labour voters who have had it too good for too long.

I guess many thousands of them will now no longer be able to “earn” a decent salary for doing a pointless activity, and will have to come back to the real world.

Good on the coalition government. Another step in the right direction!

Taken from the BBC article:
Shadow Communities Secretary John Denham said the list appeared to show a lot of bodies facing abolition "actually have the job of holding the government to account... on behalf of the public".

He said: "If you've got a government coming along saying: 'Let's silence all the independent voices, let's silence the people who speak up about equaliites ... they are really saying: 'We will be able to do whatever we like and there won't be anyone able to shine a spotlight on what we are up to'."

----------------------

That just about says it all really.

My main concern is for the people that actually work for these (particularly regulatory) quangos. If these 180 quangos are cut and 124 more are merged that will mean many 1,000's of people losing their jobs adding to the already rapidly growing force of unemployed, all of which will need to claim unemployment benefit and any other benefits that they will then become entitled to. These cuts may save some money, but it is false economy when the government will be paying out a whole lot more in benefits. Most people who are unemployed (not all of them are lazy scroungers) are finding it difficult enough trying to find a job as it is without many more adding to the numbers.

I do appreciate that cuts have got to be made, but it should be better thought out, and those that are involved should have the chance to have a consultation period with the government, just like many private companies do.

In their eagerness to condemn the Security Industry Authority (not "Securities Industries Association" as they seem to think it's called), Reclaim_the_country overlooks the fact of just how bad the industry was before it existed, although their other comments sugegst they're more incensed by car clampers and CCTV operators, when the area of most concern is door supervisors. Do we really want to go back to the days of meat-head bouncers with criminal records as long as their arms, more quick to use force than persuasion? The existing minimum standards of training and CRB checks must be maintained, but if the acknowledged self-funding SIA is abolished, those powers must be returned to local councils, and then we're back with the ludicrous situation of workers in border areas needing to pay for multiple licences. As with other bodies which don't fit the condemnatory model of what most people regard as a unnecessary "quango," it seems that the SIA is being abolished for politic rather than practical or financial reasons.

Not only does it depend on the quango and what it achieves, it depends on the government's motivation for scrapping it. Note the comments in the right hand side of the list table - many retained are noted as 'impartial'. Does this imply that the government is prioritising saving bodies that do not pose a threat or challenge to their ideologically driven policy decisions? It is also ridiculous for other posts to just say 'scrap them all'. That shows a decided lack of analysis and understanding of the role of individual bodies. Must be Telegraph readers...

"15. At 12:29pm on 24 Sep 2010, RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:
This is ridiculous.

This government has just lost all credibility.

Do they serisouly want to scrap Visit Britain? When, but a few weeks ago, they said that inbound tourism was vital to our economy. If Visit Britain doesn't promote tourism in this country, who on earth will?"
-----------------

*Sigh*.... Visit Britain is on the 'to be decided' list, not the 'scrap' list.

@18 CH - Do you need to be quite so patronising? I guess in your eyes anybody who agrees with you must be a cerebral Guardian reader but anybody who disagrees with you is a Daily Mail-led mindless automaton.

For your information I read neither, but I have noted that during the past 13 years Labour's response to almost every crisis has been to set up another regulatory Quango. At the last count they increased the number overseeing the Health Service by 7. At the top of each one there is a Chief Executive earning 200K+, and a team of senior executives earning 150K+. Don't forget the plush offices in the centre of many cities, especially London. Most of these were set up so that ministers could be seen to be doing something after a crisis. While not every quango is a waste of time and money there are a great many that are, and I'm very happy to see them go.

@16 chiptheduck - Not all public sector occupations create work for the private sector. There are many who just increase the burden of paperwork and as a consequence provide financial barriers to the private sector. A lean, strong and efficient public sector is in all of our interests.

I am very disappointed that only 180 are being scrapped!

Most are useless, unaccountable and packed full of Labour apparatchiks.

Scrap the lot!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

These "useless" organisations to be scrapped (or at least still finding themselves under the sword of Damocles) include:

- British Nuclear Fuels and the Atomic Energy Agency. The next Chernobyl could be in Kent.
- The Audit Commission. At a time when reducing public spending is such a high priority, scrapping the Audit Commission is sheer insanity.
- The Children's Commissioner. Are children to be thrown onto this long-trailed bonfire?
- The Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. Are consumer rights and fair competition really among the things that we simply cannot afford in these straitened times?

Other worrying organisations on the list include the Student Loans Company, SOCA, the World Service and the British Council.

The rest of the list is dominated by quangos that consist of half a dozen academics having a meeting 3 or 4 times a year and claiming travel expenses. Hardly the dramatic waste of public resources that the Daily Mail tells us about.

Politicians of all parties have long demonised quangos, without citing concrete examples. It now seems those concrete examples were so trivial as to be not worth comment, or so dangerous that only a fool would abolish the body in question.

Quangos, 'quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization' as Carnegie called it in the sixties.

In the UK it became one of Thatcher's bigger of many mistakes, with the country simply rippling with them as she first privatised this and then privatised that. All were intended to regulate, an ill chosen and abused word which simply meant control. The popularity of the quango spread to the private information gatherers. Well they were not so much gatherers as stealers of information who then maintained and controlled copyright and purchase price of delivery. As Thatcher must have said to everybody, no free dinners in this house.

And what goes around comes around.

We have a coalition government with nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. And they need growth, rapid, unhindered, even criminal growth. What can be better than having little control? How about no control?

I wonder if there isn't a quango in the sky watching down upon the fiasco of the "Posh Step Brothers" mincing around in their gharish knickerbockers hoping against hope that the rakes, pickaxes, trowels, forks, sledge hammers and scythes are not rapidly disappearing from the warehouses into the hands of the common as muck British workforce. The quango in the sky wouldn't be bothered about the sacrifice of a couple of bunglers for the greater good of the Britsh Isles would they?

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Do they add value and make money. Real money, finding another way to fleese the public is not the answer. If they do neither then remove them today.

"Proposals to abolish 180 quangos and merge a further 124 have been seen by the BBC's Politics Show."

"A further 338 will be retained"

What?????? you mean there is more than one. In fact 642 in total, as a company UK ltd I expect these employees to earn the business at least £100 per hour based on a 7.5 hour day for 5 days, otherwise bye bye. Assume 6 people per group, that will be £385,200 per hour. But the real story is the management level is tiered several times each earning more and more money for doing absolutely nothing, the aim will be to find someone to do their job for them while the public pay, top of each management structure are the MP's.

45. At 1:06pm on 24 Sep 2010, Khuli wrote:
"*Sigh*.... Visit Britain is on the 'to be decided' list, not the 'scrap' list."

And what, exactly, is it doing on there? If they need to put this through a decision process, they really don't have a clue.

YES, YES AND YES!

I cannot think of a single quango that has improved my life, indeed some like NICE and the Carbon Trust have probably shortened it by raising my blood pressure to dangerous levels.

So as others have said already, good riddance to these over paid and under worked meddlers!

To some, like the School Food Trust and other nanny state throwbacks concerned with politicising what we eat and drink I say good riddance. Others however, such as British Waterways, Visit Britain and the various public transport executives should be reformed rather than binned, and whilst OFWAT, OFGEM, OFCOM etc have proved utterly useless in regulating their particular industries that's an argument for giving them teeth (something I suspect the Tories would avoid as it would reduce the money-printing capabilities of their privatised monopolies.

Ultimately it should be about reducing the size, influence and complexity of the State, concentrating on core services and withdrawing from the myriad areas of private and family life which Labour considered to be within their remit. Whether this comes to pass or whether the whole thing will just be a thinly veiled means of the Tories pursuing their utopia of a high-unemployment, low wage economy and once again punishing the northern cities for not being rich and Tory enough is another matter.

In many cases, to quote WSG, 'they never would be missed' other than by the people who work in them. Many struck me as serving the need to give bureaucrats something to do, rather than serving a real need for the country. Those which demonstrably help our industries should be funded by the relevant industries. Others may be justified if their survival is requested by prominent national institutions or charities. The rest should be scrapped immediately.

25. At 12:42pm on 24 Sep 2010, LeftieAgitator wrote:
An easy way to get favourable headlines from the right-wing press. Getting rid of oversight and regulatory qangos doesn't seem a good idea, Theresa May's decision to close down the body that oversees the private security industry will show itself to be a cut too far.

.........................................................................

So this couldnt be done by say the home office or the police? They need a seperate body with fancy offices and highly paid staff to do what exactly - something the home office or police couldnt do.........

Only if it saves tax payers money and provides an adequate service for the needs required.

Which of course the current fix it when its not broken shower will ensure is not the case.

27. At 12:49pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul J Weighell wrote:
“quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation“

If the work they do is required at national level then they should be part of the government and the civil service to allow transparency and public scrutiny with liability for errors ultimately placed at a minister’s door.

Too often quangos have been used to provide lucrative jobs for government supporters that bypass all the usual scrutiny and skill checking whilst relieving ministers of embarrassment when they go wrong.

Like some off-balance sheet corporate transactions, quangos need to be carefully controlled or better still, abolished.

#################################################################

Absolutely, exactly right, well almost (it was the last sentence that let you down). Quango's do not need to be 'carefully controlled', they need to be BANNED.

I know this government is asking for laws to be removed, I say introduce a QUANGO law that bans them for ever.

Never again should we allow authority and responsibility that should rest in the hands of ministers to be given to an outside of government body so that they do not get the blame for unpopular/wrong-decisions.

No doubt some of the quangos being dispatched need to be - it has become obvious that there was unrestricted growth of these organisations under the last Labour government. But this new government haven't got a clue - George Osborne is barely old enough to drive. They are going to slash and burn and this will create tens of thousands of redundancies and cut off public tenders for countless thousands of private companies. The ripple effect is going to the UK back into serious recession. The government will never recover enough tax receipts to get the country out of trouble and after five long depressing years of recession the government will be voted out. Glad I live overseas.

Absolutely - get rid of them. Let's get rid of the health and safety jobs worths too!

Most quangos should go.

Yes, some 'seem' to do a necessary job - but then you wonder 'how did we manage before'? If it's a regulatory role, then why isn't that being performed by a government department? If it's an enforcement role, why isn't that being performed by the police/courts? Why does Ofcom exist? Why doesn't the Home Office set the rules, and the police enforce them? Yes, doing this might mean the Home Office would need to grow, but it would be accountable, and there'd be fewer overpaid chiefs and fewer expensive offices.

#19. At 12:34pm on 24 Sep 2010, Lord Rant wrote:
Yes . The more the merrier..

IF there ever was a need Quango work then the private sector could have done the job cheaper ..

Next on the list should be Local Government and councils .. in the main They should only be allowed to act like a Holding company ..

All majority services should tendered or out sourced to the private sector .. Saving Millions if not Billions

All in favour one of cutting "Feather bedding" say Aye

---------------------------

I disagree.

Just two examples of why Government and Local Government work should not be outsourced to the Private Sector, there are of course many more:

NHS Hospital cleaning - since the indroduction of this work being outsourced to the Private Sector (by the Tories) infections like MRSA etc have greatly increased, leading to patients becoming seriously ill and some dying. The reason why it is cheaper for the private sector to do this job is because they pay their staff peanuts, so the staff don't necessarily take pride in their work and do not therefore do the job properly.

School Dinners - since the indroduction of this work being outsourced to the Private Sector (by the Tories) many school kitchens were closed because the food was brought in by outside caterers. This is the time when chicken nuggets, chips, crisps and god knows what was served to our children instead of a balanced meal. All this was done because it was supposed to be cheaper. The outcome of which was the start of children becoming obese.

Motto - cheaper is not always better.

Yes, quangos' should be abolished, they were nothing more than job creation schemes for politicians cronies.

Quangos are largely jobs for the old boy network that serve little purpose other than to line pockets of these friends of the Government.

Look at the Financial Services "Authority", headed by a man earning a gold-plated salary, pension & perks yet failed to act against the greedy bankers and loan companies for reasons that are still not clear. Personally, I beleive it was systematic political corruption on many fronts, directed by the diabolical Labour Government.

The Labour Government invented an industry of non-jobbers and quango's and did not invest in real, productive jobs. It also put most of OUR eggs into one basket when it decided to make the UK the financial centre for Europe, rather than having an even spread of productive industries & research and look what the result has been - one example: we have no UK company making windturbines yet we are set to have the largest concentration of windturbines in the world - all contracts now going to overseas companies!!!??

Yes, I want to see a bonfire of these corrupt, useless quango's but I also want to see a bonfire of the dreadful Labour party - and to think that I voted for them in 1997 - what a dreadful legacy for my daughter I have assisted in creating.

40. At 1:02pm on 24 Sep 2010, Denisleeds wrote:
Quangos have one prime purpose - to provide hefty salaries for those at the top. Those at the top are appointed, I suspect, on the basis of reward for services provided to political parties or through being "connected" to the right people. I might be, and would like to think I am, wrong here. Sadly, when the quangos are "culled", those at the top will probably be eased painlessly into other high paid posts (some quangos are to merge)and it will be the ground troops who suffer redundancy.
------------

Denisleeds and others who want a bonfire

Lets take an example - the Pension Protection Fund is technically a QUANGO.

It pays the pensions of collapsed firms with underfunded pension schemes. So, for example, all the ex-employees of Allied Steel Works (an insolvent company) now get their pensions through this scheme. Prior to this they got nothing. Similarly other pension schemes of failed organisations such as Woolworths, Nortel Networks etc are having to look at this insurance.

This schemes covers over 150 problem schemes at present. That is thousands of members. The oldest person getting paid is 110 and no doubt vulnerable without their pension. The youngest member getting a payout is 5, as one of their parents is deceased. So the prime aim does not seem to be to "feather the nest of the chief executive". I should also add that the PPF is self-funding via a levy on the industry and so does not rely on taxpayer monies.

Some of you making uneducated comments would throw these people to the wolves. No doubt there is some unneeded expenditure out there but every organisation should get looked at on a case by case basis and not on a "trial by Daily Mail" basis. Its a good thing HYS posters don't get to decide because some of the comments i have seen are simply drivel.

36. At 12:59pm on 24 Sep 2010, jimmy_the_shoe wrote:

Lets not forget that some quangos are there to aid the private sector, for example to fund training for apprenticeships or promote regional enterprise.
If this government is serious about strengthening the private sector then surely these should receive priority? But no, they are dogma lead. Slashing for slashing sake. This is why we are headed for massive unemployment; this is not a government that does joined up thinking."

That's because those quangos are mostly useless. I own a small business, and I've never had any useful help from any governmental body. They really just have no idea how to help.

The best promotion for regional development would come by HMRC applying different rates of corporation tax depending on region. Apprenticeships should be managed by the Department of Education. Why do we need another organisation to do it?

A great deal of flag waving from certain quarters, but as someone who has benefited from the services and advice of quangos (most recently the HFEA) I find it alarming how few people seem to care about things which might be lost. Are important services going to be adequately funded elsewhere, or, like so much of else we have seen in recent months, will the Coalition continue to see the cost of everything and value of nothing?

15. At 12:29pm on 24 Sep 2010, RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:
This is ridiculous.

This government has just lost all credibility.

Do they serisouly want to scrap Visit Britain? When, but a few weeks ago, they said that inbound tourism was vital to our economy. If Visit Britain doesn't promote tourism in this country, who on earth will?
-----------------------------------------
If Visit Britain really creates significant tourism business, why shouldn't the tourist industry fund it? They know the business better than government. If, on the other hand, they don't think that's a good investment then it's obviously a bad investment for the taxpayer. Use the same analysis on other quangos and you quickly see why the government is taking this line. If these organisations produce value for money they should attract private investment. If not, why are they there?

This is a rhetorical question, right?

Will it actually happen.....like most things in Britain it's usually all just talk but no action.

Check in six months' time and you'll find out that nothing's happened and there are just as many Quangos operating as before (maybe even more!).

I blame you British - you haven't got the backbone of the French, Spanish, Germans etc to be more vocal and hold your Governments to account. You're way too accepting of your fate these days.

51. At 1:26pm on 24 Sep 2010, giffo wrote:

Will the people get a 25% cut in taxes? No. "

Maybe not, but if cuts aren't made sooner rather than later, there will need to be big increases in taxes. So, while we may not get a 25% cut in taxes it may help to prevent a 25% increase in taxes.

As a country, we are living well beyond our means. That means we need to cut back on spending.

What people also have to remember about these quango's is that on top of their immoral salaries are the fees they then pay for consultants and lawyers when they are supposed to be the experts in their field.

It was wholesale corruption directed by the Labour Government. Are the Tory / Libs going to fair any different?? Looking at history for the Tories - that is highly debatable. Jobs for the boys and the old boy network alive today as it was decades ago.

Here is the full list of the Quangos under review according to the Daily Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8021780/Quango-cuts-full-list-of-bodies-under-review.html

No doubt someone somewhere with a vested interest will put up a defence for each body saying that it shouldn't be cut.

#30. At 12:50pm on 24 Sep 2010, zrzavy wrote:
I was in employment when "Investors in People" was introduced.

From that point morale dropped. Endless stupid meetings, stuff to read.
"Implementors" were appointed (sounds like something to be dreaded out of "Dr. Who") who had to implement the scheme. They thought it was rubbish and so did the staff, but all had to go through the artificial brainwashing programme. Everybody felt it stopped them from the main task in hand of simply being allowed to get on with their job.

If anything should be scrapped that should be top of the list.

----------------------

I agree with you on this one.

When "Investors in People" was introduced (by the Tories) I was working for a company who decided to take it up and it caused many headaches for the majority of staff members. It all basically boils down to the fact that the Company wanted the logo to give it credibility but it did not actually invest in the people at all who were working for it.

Hopefully a lot more of them will be scrapped, starting with the race relations board and any other quango with it's nose in the diversity trough. Most of them are an expensive luxury and will not be missed. Those remaining must be overseen more zealously and their finances scrutinised on a regular basis.

I've read the list but don't really know what most of these bodies do. So I'll revert to ill-informed prejudice and call for them all to be scrapped this instant! The last thing this country need is things being regulated!!

58. At 1:39pm on 24 Sep 2010, steve wrote:

Only if it saves tax payers money and provides an adequate service for the needs required.

Which of course the current fix it when its not broken shower will ensure is not the case.

According to the majority of your postings it appears that nothing in the UK is broken. I think you may be in denial.

Yes to all 3 questions - close the lot. Even if the savings are modest, we just have to get leaner and can no longer afford this useless baggage. Let's also add ENCAMs (now reverting back to Keep Britain Tidy) which has steadfastly failed to justify its over paid exectives.
Lastly, in response to;

18. At 12:31pm on 24 Sep 2010, CH wrote:
At the time of writing all comments are awiting moderation but I'll bet there will be a load of comments from the same ignorant HYSers who don't know what quango's are or the idea behind them. Probably because the Daily Mail told them to think that way.

I have no doubt that some will need to go and a number of mergers will be sensible but it does seem a long list.

Usual drivel! Personally I read the Times but the Daily Mail is by far the most purchased daily paper so clearly many must believe in it. What gives you, "CH", the right to be so rude? Perhaps you work for one of these parasitic organisations?

63. At 1:45pm on 24 Sep 2010, mofro wrote:

Motto - cheaper is not always better."

Oh, I agree - but if a local authority chooses a supplier solely on the basis that they're the cheapest, then whoever was involved in that decision needs to be sacked.

If NHS cleaners aren't doing a good job, then why aren't they being sacked for breach of contract? There are plenty of private companies who could do a great job. The problem is that the public sector doesn't seem to have quite got its head around the idea of managing third party contractors yet. The problem isn't that third party contractors are being used, just that they're being allowed to abuse the system.

I had a good read of the leaked list this m orning and I don't see many I would argue with. The few I would argue with are the ones in the "retain" list.
We managed perfectly well before any of them existed and we will manage fine after they are gone. Actually we will manage better as we won't be paying for them anymore. Watch out none job brigade, your days are numbered. Soon I may get to spend some of money instead of you lot peeing it up the wall.

Given half a chance, I bet the army of agency lecturers would vote to abolish the Institute for Learning - IfL - but unfortunately this organisation isn't counted as a "quango".

Doubtless it will be responsible for introducing fees that agency lecturers will have to pay in order to continue work.

In any other walk of life, this would be counted as "blackmail", but that's the norm in the lunatic world of further education.

Not needed, not useful..and destined to continue as a thorn in the side of the barely employed!

Harwode Magna said

"If 180 Quangos face the chop, please spare a thought for all the parasitical freeloading establishment worthies who'll be out of a non-job.
Imagine, if they went on strike. We'd all die laughing! "

I second that thought. It gave me a real belly laugh!

Should quangos be abolished?

Yep. They're a relic of egocentric sanctimonious totalitarian government's

66. At 1:49pm on 24 Sep 2010, MrManj wrote:

Denisleeds and others who want a bonfire

Lets take an example - the Pension Protection Fund is technically a QUANGO.

It pays the pensions of collapsed firms with underfunded pension schemes. So, for example, all the ex-employees of Allied Steel Works (an insolvent company) now get their pensions through this scheme. Prior to this they got nothing."

OK. This is the sort of thing where people are getting all het up.

Just because a quango is abolished doesn't necessarily mean that the job they do will stop being done. It just means that they won't need to buy expensive new office buildings every 3 years, and pay the head honcho £200,000 a year, plus massive bonuses.

Instead their job should get taken on by a government department under an elected minister.

Some quangos' jobs don't need to be done at all, or could be done by the private sector. But others do have important jobs, but they could be done more efficiently by another means.

54. At 1:30pm on 24 Sep 2010, pzero wrote:
YES, YES AND YES!

I cannot think of a single quango that has improved my life, indeed some like NICE and the Carbon Trust have probably shortened it by raising my blood pressure to dangerous levels.

So as others have said already, good riddance to these over paid and under worked meddlers!

----------------------------------------------------------
People should really stop and think a bit.
These sweeping generalizations are ridiculous.
The problem is the cuts agenda is ill-considered and mindless risking throwing the good out with the bad.
Of course savings can be made (generally through sound Management - something we are not so good at).
The two quangos you mention are probably two of the most important ones that shouldnt be cut (regulation of drugs - reducing carbon emissions??).
Some people are conned so easily...

"An easy way to get favourable headlines from the right-wing press. Getting rid of oversight and regulatory qangos doesn't seem a good idea, Theresa May's decision to close down the body that oversees the private security industry will show itself to be a cut too far.
It will be instructive to see which quangos are left untouched."


If they actually did oversee the private security industry I would be inclined to agree with you on this particular question. Since they don't never have and never will I think Mrs May is quite right. They get paid to do it, employ a load of people to do it but do nothing. The industry is still packed full of violent criminals, fraudsters and other undesirables. Getting a licence to operate is as simple as filling in the form and coughing up. Their checks are non existant, their cheques however are all too real.

Abolish the CSA (breach of human rights)
(retrain staff)

In the private sector especially investment banks and finance there are often job culls across several companies where the incompetent are made redundant or have contracts terminated. The better workers survive several rounds of head count reductions. Only the worst workers should leave their jobs, the good ones don't deserve to be shafted.

If a quango is providing oversight of important services then they should stay. Otherwise they should go.

30. At 12:50pm on 24 Sep 2010, zrzavy wrote:

"I was in employment when "Investors in People" was introduced.From that point morale dropped. Endless stupid meetings, stuff to read. "Implementors" were appointed (sounds like something to be dreaded out of "Dr. Who") . . .

To true matey!

I rather feel that Quangos would be subject to less scapegoating and ridicule if they had a less stupid name. Perhaps the Government will set up an independent body to come up with a suitable re-branding strategy. The top-level managers in such a body would, of course have to be paid more than the Prime Minister in order to attract the best talent from a comparable skills-base in the private sector. . . .
I notice that the Railway Heritage Trust is being abolished, but the British Railways Board is staying on. I'd have done it the other way round myself: keep the history and scrap the present. The guys at the BRB (ho are, incidentallly excellent) could be better employed rebuilding the historical railways like the Waverley route and the Great Central!

Scrapping some of these are completely bonkers! British Nuclear Fuels is for the chop as is the organisation that licences door staff and security guards. That means we can go back to the bad old days of people like Raoul Moat (who I had a run in with as a student) being bouncers.

Its great isn't it? We have an energy crisis, we're hamstrung with eco-legislation and have a problem with violent booze fueled crime on our streets so what does the govt do? Axe the organisations that run our nuclear power stations and lets people with convictions for violent crime and drug dealing become doormen.... while cutting police budgets by 25%.

#41. At 1:02pm on 24 Sep 2010, Loftgroov wrote:
It’s not so much a list of Quangos, as a list of organisations stuffed full of Labour voters who have had it too good for too long.

I guess many thousands of them will now no longer be able to “earn” a decent salary for doing a pointless activity, and will have to come back to the real world.

Good on the coalition government. Another step in the right direction!

------------------------

I disagree.

Most of the Quangos (or list of organisations as you call them) were in place long before Labour came to power in 1997. Granted, Labour have added a few since, but I would hardly say they are full of Labour voters.

Anyway, how do you know most of them get a decent salary for doing a pointless activity - have you actually been one yourself, or it is just what you read in the right wing media.

There will be some Quango's that are surplus to requirements, but that should be decided on a one by one basis, not just a general sweep across the lot of them.

Some yes, some no. Safeguards needed to make sure those that are needed arent lost and the job that those that are important do is not lost. I as a student am particulary looking at such ones as the student loans company which has only just started up with many problems which are well documented. The idea of having this cut is both good and bad as it means more messing about and confusion but it would mean it probably going back to the local authorities which can cope much better with a few thousand applications as opposed to what the SLC get each year.

Yes they should, and their fatcat "snout in the trough" CEO's, sacked!! They achieve nothing, and are only an excuse for the "bosses" to enjoy luxurious lifestyles at the expense, once again, of the taxpayer. They are surrounded by the same onerous smell as the fatcat bosses of the big banks, still enjoying big bonuses as a reward of their substantial failure. Kick them out NOW!

Nowhere near enough on the list.
I vote for the abolition of the Institute for Learning, a bloated quango that does absolutely nothing and only exists because mebership is compulsary for anyone involved in the FE sector.
The money the last Government squandered on set ups like these makes me weep, it really does. Whenever they announced a further 3 billion for education, it vanished into pointless schemes like this with their websites and conferences and stupid Toolkits and e-magazines that everyone deletes.
Get rid!!

Although this might be the first time this has been seen as a list, most of it is not news to those that work there. At one of the quangos on the list, the employees were told that it would cease to exist some weeks ago, with a merger date of end March 2012. There was nothing secret about it, and it's been out in the open for some time!

Absiolutely typical. Quango's put in place for protection of public health, public wellbeing and protection of the environment to be scrapped whilst Quango's relating to non-essentials that most of us won't benefit from are kept - the Olympics, for example! The Olympics over public health????? Absolute disgrace!

Typical UK Government thinking from the usual toffs who have no understanding of whats important in life and whats REALLY NEEDED in the REAL WORLD! Winter of discontent ahead - and I for one, will be in agreement with those on the streets and I never ever have been before!

It would appear that a great many QUANGO's are excess to requirements in these times of lean finances.

I would suggest that all the ones on the list be paused in their work for 12 months - and then review which ones' abscence had little or no effect on the area they oversee. Those whose areas of resposibility suffer due to the lack of the QUANGO can be re-instated, the rest can be safely disposed of.

I would also suggest that all QUANGO's be self funded - if they are a regulatory body they should include a fee to be paid for by those they regulate (and it would be illegal to operate without the paid up membership of the oversight body). Many of these bodies already work in this way.

Other QUANGO's which act to promote certain things (tourism or conservation or apprenticeship schemes) should also be paid for by the industries which will benefit from that promotion.

If sufficient funding cannot be created from within the QUANGO's sphere of operation to support the function of that QUANGO (for instance because there are not enough visitors to art galleries or the train spotting industry does not have enough devotees to justify the £200,000 salary of the head of the Comission for the Inspection of Train Spotting Locations Provision) then chances are it is not required at all.

So the acid test for all QUANGO's should be:

1) If it's not there any more, did we miss it ?

2) Can it pay for itself ?

Some are unnessesary and should be dumped. However, I notice that the Leasehold advisory service is one 'still to be decided' LEASE provide a neccessary service to people living in flats who need advice and would otherwise be at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. I'm not an expert in what most of the quangos do, but I'm sure that at least some of them provide services that could or would not be picked up by the voluntary sector. This should not purely be about money, yes cuts are needed, but with common sense and moderation.

Re : Post 90 - "I rather feel that Quangos would be subject to less scapegoating and ridicule if they had a less stupid name."

Perhaps if they were referred to by their full name, Quasi-Autonomous Non-Government Organisations, they would have more respect?
Certainly most tabloids would have to come out in broadsheet format if they wanted to headline a story about them. Assuming their journos could spell the full name.