What’s 'non-ministerial' about the new National Crime Agency?

Most departments have ministers – in name and in function. But 20 or so – even the .gov.uk website is muddled on this – have another status. They are non-ministerial departments (NMDs). Their governance is murky and confused – and that is bad for accountability. It is not clear who is in charge: if things go wrong, Parliament has to summon a minister to answer for the body – who then makes clear that decisions were made by someone else. The Attorney General found himself in just that position, answering in Parliament for decisions on pay-offs made by the head of the Serious Fraud Office. The list of existing NMDs could politely be called a ragbag. They range from the multibillion, giant operation that is HMRC to the small and low profile Government Actuary’s Department; from the Forestry Commission (under review) to Ofsted; from the Royal Mint to the Charity Commission. Unclear accountability They have two distinctive features. The first is that they get their own budget line, separate from their associated department. The second is that 'they have no minister'. At least that is the theory – and the reason for the designation. In practice it varies. A lot. So some NMDs talk about their relationship with ministers in terms very similar to an executive agency – or indeed the way an integral part of a ministerial department would talk about it. For example, UK Trade and Investment describes "our minister" as a "key person" involved in their work. Some – like NS&I (National Savings and Investments) and the National Archive even have 'dual status' as an NMD and an executive agency. When we did research for our report, Read Before Burning one head of a non-ministerial department said, "the first thing you need to know about being a non-ministerial department is that you have a minister and you are not a proper department". In other cases, the body goes at pains to stress their direct accountability to Parliament and the public, with no mention even that the members of their board are appointed by ministers. And that is why the government’s own guidance in Managing Public Money advises against the creation of non-ministerial departments. In July 2013, the Treasury wrote: "Only rarely is a non-ministerial department the right choice as NMDs have limited accountability to Parliament". It also noted that it was usually possible to put in place arrangements to secure the benefits of NMD status without having to accept the accountability muddle. The new kid on the block So despite all these reservations within government, the Home Office, without any apparent justification, has chosen NMD status for the new National Crime Agency. Its own, newly live, website, describes its governance arrangements: "The NCA is a non-ministerial government department. It publishes an annual plan, setting out how it will meet its strategic and operational priorities in the year ahead, and an annual report summarising its performance against that plan. The Director General has independent operational direction and control over the NCA's activities. He is accountable for the agency's performance to the Home Secretary and through her to Parliament." This puts the NCA at the 'ministerial' end of NMDs – and makes the NCA look like an executive agency. This is reinforced by the fact that the board is executive dominated – the Home Office haven’t even got around to appointing the non-executives yet – and that the DG chairs the board. None of the above? NMDs are created when departments find that the new body they want to create does not fit into any of the existing categories – it is the governance equivalent of ticking the 'none of the above' box and begs more questions than it answers. Is the Home Secretary giving the National Crime Agency NMD status because she wants it to be more independent than its predecessor bodies – or because she wants more direct control? These are important issues which will continue to remain opaque as long as we fail to put arm’s-length bodies onto the sort of coherent and transparent basis we set out three years ago.