No burning platforms: do this election’s manifestos suggest parties are learning to love quangos?

Part of British election tradition – along with Dimblebys, swingometers and old-fashioned ballot boxes, is manifesto commitments to heap quangos onto bonfires. But this year is different. First, there is very little general anti-quango rhetoric. The Conservative manifesto lauds the coalition’s public sector reform reducing waste – and its reduction in quango numbers. The Lib Dems call for more democratic accountability. But a word search for quango – or bonfire – in the manifestos of those three parties offers a nil return – except in the past tense. But this is not just a question of being reconciled to the existence of public bodies. It goes further. Strengthening public bodies is a general theme. So from the Conservatives we see proposals to put the Office for Tax Simplification, currently a small unit in the Treasury looking at old tax legislation, “on a permanent basis and expand its role and capacity”, to introduce “regional adoption agencies” (status unclear) and to create a Small Business Conciliation Service and a London Land Commission. The one streamlining proposal is to create a new Farm Inspection taskforce. The one part of the reform programme to be given more impetus is the “right to mutualise” – to change the burden of proof from would-be mutualisers to those who want to stand in the way. What is most interesting about the Labour manifesto, is how it has learned to love the Office for Budget Responsibility. Indeed everyone loves the OBR. The Labour manifesto proposes a new expanded remit for the OBR – to oversee the Budget Responsibility Lock, to audit manifestos and to monitor and report on progress toward child poverty targets. That is not the end of institution creation. As we have already noted Labour proposes an independent national Infrastructure Commission to assess how to meet future infrastructure need with an added role on flood prevention – and plans to create a new Energy Security Board with a rather similar remit on future energy mix, sitting alongside (or above) a strengthened energy watchdog and a new National Rail body to oversee and plan for the railways – and give rail users a say. They also propose a new Small Business Administration (which may or may not be at arm’s length) to look at procurement and regulations with small firms in mind, a new domestic and sexual violence commissioner as well as the Business Investment Bank. In other cases Labour wants powers strengthened or remits expanded. It’s not an entirely one way street. The one institution to go is not a quango – elected Police and Crime Commissioners. And, as we have noted some of the proposals would strengthen the powers of ministers on regulation and change the advisory role of the Low Pay Commission by setting a target for the minimum wage. There is a bigger agenda of reform still in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. They too want to build on the OBR example – but by creating an environmental clone – the Office for Environmental Responsibility to scrutinise government’s efforts to meet its environmental targets. But they also want to give the Natural Capital Committee the same statutory status as the Committee on Climate Change. They also want a new independent Education Standards Authority to remove curriculum content and examination standards from ministerial interference – and to legislate to make the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs independent in setting the classification of drugs. They also propose to create new Privacy and Civil Liberties and Women’s Justice Boards. There is one manifesto which harks back to older times – the UKIP manifesto has three quango mentions – and selects four to put in the firing line: “the Cabinet Office’s ‘Big Society’ programme (£49 million), the National Citizen Service (£62 million), DfID’s International Citizen Service Volunteers (£110 million) and Defra’s Waste Resource Action Programme (£15.5 million)”. The first three are programmes rather than what the Cabinet Office counts now as public bodies. But even UKIP acknowledges that quangos can have their uses: in their flagship policy of immigration a new Migration Control Commission plays a central role: “We will establish a Migration Control Commission to oversee operation of our Australian-style points based system. This commission will operate under a strict mandate to significantly reduce the numbers of people migrating to the UK. It will determine Britain’s economic and social needs annually and then recommend how many immigrants, with what skills required, we will accept into Britain”. It is not clear why there is such a changed tone: it could just be a swing of the political pendulum; it could show that the public bodies reforms have put bodies on a firmer footing and controls have reined in spend; and it could be that in an era of low trust in politicians, institutions independent of ministers are seen as electorally attractive. But as we have said, any incoming government needs to be alert to the disruption and expense reform can entail, and needs to ensure that current and future quangos are managed well. It is good that the debate on quangos has moved on from a numbers game. But as we have argued throughout the last Parliament, a clear and comprehensible approach to the status of public bodies is an important guarantor of public confidence in the long-run.