With cuts in public spending becoming the new political ‘arms race’ it was inevitable that focus would shift towards whether potential savings could be made within the UK’s quangocracy. Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) in the UK spend £123bn of public money, the equivalent of 9.3% of GDP, more in fact than that spent by democratically elected local government. So following David Cameron’s foray into the issue yesterday and John Denham’s pre-emptive strike last week, this debate is likely to run and run. 

Discussions over the role and number of quangos have been well exhausted, particularly in the pages of the right-wing tabloids, but there is a clear political debate to be had here. Indeed, in March this year I suggested in a Progress article a government review into which powers currently held by quangos could be returned to local government and which quangos could be scrapped altogether (I would like to think that David Cameron got the idea from me – if so can I have my 10% please?).

There should be three main aspects to this debate. Firstly, do any existing quangos replicate the role of existing organisations and, if so, could you rationalise their work? Do we for example require a Carbon Trust, an Energy Savings Trust and Envirowise, when surely one would suffice? Do we really need the Adult Learning Inspectorate; Investors in People UK; Quality Improvement Agency for Life Long Learning and the Sector Skills Development Agency, when these organisations arguably replicate much of each other’s work?

Secondly, are quangos currently representative to and of the people they serve and who fund them? Whilst Matthew Taylor points out that most quangos have their own independent boards that oversee and regulate their work, research from NLGN shows that these tend to be hugely unrepresentative of the population as a whole. Our figures show that people living in four London boroughs have greater influence over quango boards than people living in the entire North of England. Our data found that 50% live in London and the South East, whilst people living in the North are significantly under-represented. A first step therefore of any reform to quangos must be to make them more representative and accountable to the UK as a whole.

Thirdly is the trickier challenge of deciding which quango power and spend should be returned to democratically elected government. Localists in particular will highlight the danger of these responsibilities simply being hoovered up by monolithic central government departments. Tellingly, the Conservatives have only so far suggested that the powers of one quango – Sport England – could be returned to a local authority level.

Quite rightly, those with regulatory powers such as Ofwat and Ofgem must remain independent from any form of government, however might there be an argument for devolving the spending functions of bodies such as the Arts Council to local authorities? The reason for this is not merely a sop to councils but recognition that they are perhaps better placed strategically to judge on spending priorities. Wouldn’t it make sense for example for councils to sync their arts spending strategy alongside plans for tourism, economic regeneration, the creative industries and community cohesion?

Even in the most Elysium of visions for public policy there will always be a need for quangos to exist, often to deliver services that should be kept at arms length from government and often to ensure that public money is being spent correctly. That is not up for debate. However, Cameron’s contribution yesterday opens an opportunity for Labour – and other parties – to develop an approach to NDPBs that maximizes efficiency and enhances democratic accountability. The two issues often complement each other.