Administrative Bodies
The Liberal Democrat Conservative coalition from 2010 to 2015 aimed to reform the model of NDPB public bodies. This drive was motivated by both policy considerations and as part of a substantial cost-cutting program with a focus on policy influence. The key driving factor behind this policy influence was accountability and the necessity for these bodies to operate independently of the government.
During this period, a comprehensive review of nearly a thousand public bodies took place to determine whether they should continue or undergo changes. Almost half of these bodies were marked for reform, with over 200 being abolished and another 120 amalgamated.
The Public Bodies Act of 2011 granted powers to departments, allowing them to modify these bodies through methods such as abolition, amalgamation, modification, and transfers of powers and functions. These modifications are carried out using statutory instruments and ministerial orders, with requirements in place for pre-consultations with various bodies before exercising these powers.
However, these reforms faced criticism in Parliament. Concerns were raised about the loss of cost savings, policy influence, and accountability functions. The Public Bodies Act was also criticized for granting overly broad powers to the Minister.
UK Agencies and Bodies
An increasing trend in government involves outsourcing governmental functions to various agencies and public bodies with different descriptions and structures. Historically, many public functions were managed by boards rather than governmental departments. By the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, most of these boards were absorbed into central government and became part of various department branches. This shift reflected an increased focus on democratic accountability through ministerial responsibilities.
Beginning with the Fulton Committee Report in the 1960s, there was an emphasis on improving efficiency in government departments by creating units responsible for specific matters. This report had a significant influence on the later creation of functions outside of government departments. The 1970s witnessed the establishment of numerous significant agencies through the transfer of departmental functions.
With the election of a Conservative government in 1979, there was a heightened push for efficiency in government. An efficiency unit was established, aiming to assess the efficiency of government delivery by departmental and other bodies. This unit evolved into the financial management initiative, which sought to drive efficiency reforms across the entire government. In the mid-1980s, a subsequent report aimed to restructure government by separating service provision from policy-making. It emphasized devolving powers to agencies in relation to service delivery across the majority of the civil service, with the goal of ending the fictitious responsibility of departments for executing functions that were mostly carried out by other entities.
The Labour Government that took office in 1997 continued the existing trend toward independent public bodies and executive agencies. Many key governmental functions, previously administered within government or local government, were transferred to executive agencies.
These executive agencies operate under the auspices of government ministers, and over the past 20 years, a procedure has been in place to establish executive agencies that take over existing departmental functions. This process ultimately leads to the establishment of the concerned body and the transfer of powers.
There is also a range of non-departmental public bodies that carry out governmental functions independently from the government. These bodies encompass various structures, functions, and roles, including executive, regulatory, commercial, and non-commercial functions. Executive bodies have their own functions, staff structures, and financing budgets, while other bodies may have more transient roles, providing advice and expert assistance in specific areas. Specialist tribunals are supported by the sponsoring department and have powers and jurisdictions in particular fields.
Executive agencies created under the initiatives mentioned above are referred to as such and often operate with delegated functions from departments, with their own chief executives responsible to the Minister. In contrast, non-departmental public bodies are independent entities with their own legal structures.
These non-departmental bodies include a range of commissions, executives, councils, and bodies that play critical roles in various areas of government. Examples include the Competition Commission, Criminal Injuries Body, Health and Safety Executive, Data Protection Commissioner, Arts Council, Legal Services Commission, Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, Economic and Social Research Council, Pensions Regulator, Parole Board, and Commission for Racial Equality. There is no clear distinction between executive agencies and non-departmental bodies.
Non-departmental public bodies are typically established by statute or statutory instrument. An independent Commissioner for Public Appointments Office, separate from the government, was established to monitor and regulate appointments to public bodies made by the Welsh Assembly, the UK Government, and some Northern Ireland bodies. A code of practice applies to these appointments, emphasizing independence, independent scrutiny, appointments based on merit, equal opportunities, and open government. Candidates may be subject to scrutiny by the relevant Departmental Select Committee, and vacancies are published on the internet.
The Cabinet Office provides support to departments in relation to the finance and human resources of non-departmental public bodies. The establishing legislation defines the control and responsibility of each body, which may involve accountability to Parliament, the department, or a combination of both, depending on the nature of the body and the specific legislation under which it is established.
The Cabinet Office has produced guidance on the appropriate level of control, suggesting where policy may be delegated or retained. These guidelines provide recommendations on the extent to which departments should retain the ability to amend or direct policy, and they may include powers of guidance or mandatory powers. Appeals may be made to tribunals or the department in relation to the exercise of specific governmental functions.
Financial aspects are crucial, and departments generally retain control over financing, borrowing, and significant capital expenditure. Traditionally, Parliament has sought a level of control and accountability from public bodies when they replace ministers who were traditionally accountable. In some cases, the body is accountable to the Minister, and the Minister is responsible to Parliament. The Minister answers questions, but these questions may be referred to the body for a reply.