The public bodies review programme

What is a public body review?

The Cabinet Office periodically co-ordinates programmes of reviews of arm’s length bodies (ALBs) to evaluate their governance, accountability, efficacy and efficiency. ⁶¹ Cabinet Office, ‘Guidance on the undertaking of Review of Public Bodies’, GOV.UK. 25 April 2024, www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-bodies-review-programme/guidance-on-the-undertaking-of-reviews-of-public-bodies, paragraph 80  Since March 2025, however, there has been no such cross-government review programme in place.

A key role of reviews is assessing whether the function a body performs “remains useful and necessary” using the government’s ‘three tests’ and, if so, whether there are better alternatives to deliver the government’s objectives. This may involve merging the body with another government organisation or closing the body and bringing its functions back into a central government department. ⁶² Ibid, paragraphs 15-16

Once a review has established that an ALB remains the appropriate delivery model, the review considers whether the body has suitable control and governance arrangements in place, whether its relationship with its sponsoring department works well, and where cost savings could be achieved. Reviews are intended to be “constructive and challenging”, identifying areas in need of improvement and providing tangible recommendations for addressing them. ⁶³ Ibid, paragraph 77

Reviews usually involve a combination of both internal self-assessment and external research, as well as inspections and interviews with the leadership and staff of the body, and with key stakeholders.

Who conducts reviews?

Departments are responsible for selecting which of their sponsored bodies to review. They are encouraged to consider a range of factors including the size and strategic importance of the body, the length of time since it was last reviewed, and any significant changes the body might have experienced since. ⁶⁴ Ibid, paragraph 123.  The review process starts with the body under review completing a self-assessment. The department sponsoring the body uses this to determine whether it should be prioritised for a full-scale review. ⁶⁵ Ibid, paragraphs 133-34.  If a full-scale review is deemed unnecessary, the self-assessment is submitted to the relevant minister, sometimes accompanied by minor recommendations from the department. Ministers decide whether to implement the self-assessment’s recommendations or not, and may also request a full-scale review even if the self-assessment does not recommend one. ⁶⁶ Ibid, paragraph 120.

If a full-scale review is requested, the minister appoints a lead reviewer, who must be independent of both the body under review and its sponsoring department. Ministers are encouraged to select from a pool of candidates compiled by the Cabinet Office, primarily made up of senior civil servants and non-executive directors or chairs of public bodies. ⁶⁷ Cabinet Office, ‘Lead Reviewer Role Specification’, GOV.UK, 25 April 2024, www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-bodies-review-programme/template-1-lead-reviewer-role-specification  Alternatively, ministers may appoint other external reviewers with skills or experience relevant to the body under review. Judgement of the independence of the lead reviewer is at the discretion of the appointing minister. ⁶⁸ Cabinet Office, ‘Guidance on the undertaking of Review of Public Bodies’, GOV.UK. 25 April 2024, www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-bodies-review-programme/guidance-on-the-undertaking-of-reviews-of-public-bodies, paragraph 98  A review team is also established to support the lead reviewer, usually made up of civil servants from within the sponsoring department. ALBs themselves should also provide input throughout the review process.

What happens once the review is finished?

When a full-scale review is complete, lead reviewers submit their findings and recommendations to the sponsoring department. Ministers have the final say on whether to accept or reject recommendations. The recommendations of the review and the responses of the department to them, including any justification for any rejection of recommendations, are then published. Departments are also expected to provide the Cabinet Office with subsequent updates on the implementation of any recommendations accepted. ⁶⁹ Ibid, paragraphs 168-72.

How did the most recent review programme differ from previous iterations?

Government has a long history of public bodies reform. The 2022-25 programme followed a comparable process to the ‘triennial reviews’ of non-departmental public bodies which took place between 2010-15 and the ‘tailored reviews’ of ALBs which took place between 2016-20. This may have reflected an attempt to replicate the perceived success of the triennial review programme, which achieved savings of close to £800m per annum in administrative spending. ⁷⁰ Comptroller and Auditor General, Progress on public bodies reform, National Audit Office, Session 2013–2014, HC 1048, February 2014, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Progress-on-public-bodies-reform.pdf, p. 21

The most recent programme differed from its predecessors in four key ways: 

1. The government recognised the National Audit Office’s criticism that previous review programmes had not been sufficiently proportionate and had not met their ambition to review every ALB within a single Parliament. ⁷¹ Comptroller and Auditor General, Central oversight of arm’s-length bodies, HC 297, National Audit Office, June 2021, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Central-oversight-of-Arms-length-bodies.pdf, p. 45.  The programme did not aim to review all ALBs: bodies were initially prioritised for review by their department, and further prioritised for a full-scale review following a self-assessment process.
2. The Cabinet Office set a specific target for potential financial savings that should be identified through each review. Lead reviewers were required to set out how savings of more than 5% of the body’s day-to-day spending could be made. ⁷² Cabinet Office, ‘Guidance on the undertaking of Review of Public Bodies’, GOV.UK. 25 April 2024, www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-bodies-review-programme/guidance-on-the-undertaking-of-reviews-of-public-bodies, paragraph 20
3. Tailored reviews were occasionally led by officials from the department sponsoring the body, with suggestions from some bodies that the lack of an external perspective undermined the objectivity of the process. ⁷³ Comptroller and Auditor General, Central oversight of arm’s-length bodies, HC 297, National Audit Office, June 2021, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Central-oversight-of-Arms-length-bodies.pdf, p. 36  Under the 2022-25 programme, lead reviewers were required to be independent of both the ALB under review and its sponsoring department.
4. For the first time, review teams were required to examine the wider “delivery system” within which ALBs operate, not just the body in isolation. ⁷⁴ Cabinet Office, ‘Guidance on the undertaking of Review of Public Bodies’, GOV.UK. 25 April 2024, www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-bodies-review-programme/guidance-on-the-undertaking-of-reviews-of-public-bodies, paragraph 8  This reflected increased interest in the way sponsorship teams interact with ALBs and in how different bodies interact with one another.

What was the result of the 2022-25 programme?

The 2022-25 public bodies review programme came to an end as planned on 31 of March 2025. The (then Conservative) government initially committed to reviewing 125 ALBs, of which 104 reviews were launched and 75 completed, with claimed efficiency savings of £172m. ⁷⁵ Keenan H et al., Whitehall Monitor 2026, Institute for Government, 13 January 2026, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/whitehall-monitor-2026, p. 77

What has replaced the review programme since March 2025?

In April 2025, Pat McFadden, then chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, wrote to departments asking them to justify the existence of their ALBs. McFadden’s intention was to review every ALB with a view to closing or merging them, or bringing their functions back into their departments. ⁷⁶ Gill M, ‘Not another bonfire of the quangos…’, Institute for Government, 16 April 2025, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/pat-mcfadden-not-another-bonfire-quangos  This review is still ongoing across government, but with departments expected to lead on implementing changes themselves.

McFadden’s initiative was launched soon after the abolition of NHS England was announced. One significant outcome was the announcement of a Clean Water Bill in the King’s Speech 2026. The Bill will abolish Ofwat, the current regulator for the water industry, and create an integrated regulator that will merge its functions with the relevant responsibilities of the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and Natural England. ⁷⁷ Prime Minister’s Office, The King’s Speech 2026 Background Briefing Notes, GOV.UK, 13 May 2026, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a046665c0cc74b4523e4d3b/The_King_s_Speech_2026_-_background_briefing_notes.pdf

Beyond McFadden’s letter, the Treasury, in its Regulatory Action Plan, ⁷⁸ Gill M, Regulation and growth: Will the government’s strategy deliver?, Institute for Government, 13 November 2025, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/regulatory-action-plan  has committed to undertaking bi-annual performance reviews of 16 regulators which have been identified by the Treasury and DBT as key to economic growth. ⁷⁹ Comptroller and Auditor General, Regulating for Growth, National Audit Office, Session 2024-26, HC 1595, 21 January 2026, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Regulating-for-growth.pdf, p. 13  These reviews are designed to strengthen the accountability of regulators and track their performance in reducing administrative burdens and against their key performance indicators. ⁸⁰ HM Treasury, Regulation Action Plan – Progress Update and Next Steps, GOV.UK, 22 October 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-new-approach-to-ensure-regulators-and-regulation-support-growth/regulation-action-plan-progress-update-a…, section 3

While the government currently has no intention of re-establishing a centralised public body review programme, it still expects that sponsoring departments will utilise independent reviews to ensure their ALBs are delivering on their priorities.