Not another bonfire of the quangos…

Pat McFadden has written to departments, asking them to justify the existence of their public bodies in the name of accountability and efficiency. ⁴ Cabinet Office and McFadden P, ‘Hundreds of quangos to be examined for potential closure as Government takes back control’, GOV.UK, press release, 7 April 2025, www.gov.uk/government/news/hundreds-of-quangos-to-be-examined-for-potential-closure-as-government-takes-back-control This is a familiar – and flawed – approach to reforming the structure of the state. It risks much nugatory work and, once complete, could find ministers dragged deeper into operational details when they should be plotting the country’s course.

The best known previous exercise was the so-called “bonfire of the quangos” under the coalition government of 2010–15, which cut the number of UK public bodies by more than a third. But we have been here several times, most recently at the hands of Jacob Rees-Mogg. That the low hanging fruit has already been picked does not mean there are no savings to be had or accountability mechanisms to refine. But the task is not easy – and some lessons from previous attempts endure.

The number of bodies is the wrong measure of success

Reforms often seek to reduce the number of bodies – an easy metric on which the media can focus – rather than identifying functions that are not needed. Merging existing functions (for example the creation of the UK Health Security Agency), moving functions into government departments (as with the UK Border Agency) or even privatising them (some functions of the Audit Commission), can create an illusion that major savings are being made when they aren’t.

In previous purges, the government has not been good at eliminating functions. As a result, public body numbers have been significantly reduced over the years, but staff numbers and costs have not. Sometimes, the government has even found it necessary to rebuild those functions it has disbanded later (as in the Audit Commission’s case).

Change is disruptive, and fatigue is real

Reorganisations in government are always disruptive and expensive, to varying degrees. They distract management, unsettle staff, and can compromise delivery in the short term. For example, the abolition of Public Health England during the pandemic came at the wrong time, regardless of the abstract merits of the case. 

It is also important to note that reorganisation fatigue is real in government. Staff at NHS England, for example, have been through multiple changes in recent years (formally established in 2013, it has since absorbed NHS Digital, NHSX, NHS Improvement and Health Education England, as well as seeing adjacent bodies reorganised during the pandemic). 

Building enthusiasm for the latest reorganisation, and inculcating a belief that it will endure, can become increasingly hard – particularly if rushed changes lead to poor communication of rationales and timelines to staff. If successive governments are likely to reshape the state with this frequency, the government should perhaps invest in more easily reconfigurable institutions – with more shared services, common platforms and interoperable terms and conditions of employment – enabling public branding and structures of accountability to be adjusted at will. 

Accountability and micro-management are not the same

Ministers are right to want public bodies to be accountable to them. They are ultimately on the hook. But greater accountability is not necessarily achieved by abolishing bodies. The health department will still need accountability structures for the NHS even after it has abolished NHS England. Accountability relies on the hard graft of getting legislation, reporting lines, performance metrics and budgets right.

Politicians cannot micro-manage every process or second guess every decision. There are some things they have to be all over, in the public interest, but routinely failing to delegate enough of the detail increases the risk that they will miss the bigger picture. Ministers should focus on the really strategic issues facing the country, not firefighting in areas where someone else could be doing so instead.

McFadden’s approach prejudges its outcome

Having announced publicly that McFadden’s letters have been sent, the government will probably have to make some abolitions just to seem effective. Where will this red meat come from?

McFadden’s letter implies a quick process to identify candidates for closure that is separate from the ongoing and iterative programme of public body reviews. This could lead to some knee-jerk decisions. Should the Sentencing Council – fresh from a recent spat with the justice secretary – feel nervous as a result? Or can ministers still see past a disagreement to consider the ongoing merits of the body?

Public bodies are sometimes the best way to deliver a function – particularly those that require independence, specialist expertise, or long-term focus. When they are, government should use them. It should not cut off its nose to spite its face through very narrow tests for when public bodies should exist. Indeed, it is even now setting up some new bodies to deliver against its missions. 

What is missing here is an overarching strategy for how public bodies, which may not always take the same decisions ministers would have taken, can contribute to a well-functioning state. The lack is not new to this government. But without such a strategy the government will remain at sea, buffeted by a populist suspicion of quangos that ultimately risks undermining the capability of the public sector.