Quango cuts: full list of bodies under review

carolt

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8021780/Quango-cuts-full-list-of-bodies-under-review.html

Now, sounds like a good idea in theory...but some of these organisations do important work. What will happen to it?

eg, two I know a little bit about - British Waterways (because my dad worked there as a lawyer after he 'retired'), and the General Teaching Council.

The former is in charge of all Britain's canals etc - not glamorous, but surely it is essential that we have a body in charge of assuring that our waterways work, are clean, aren't having stuff dumped in them, that the land around them is managed and not built on by random neighbours, etc etc. VV dull. But not sure who else will do this if they don't. Lots of people live on canals - who will ensure their needs are met if there is no oversight at all? Locks need to work, lockkkeepers to be paid, etc. The admin functions can't just 'vanish'.

Also, the General Teaching Council - in charge of striking off bad teachers, for example. Surely you need a Professional Body for teachers, just as you do for doctors and other responsible professions? You can get rid of the quango, but surely the work is still going to have to be done somewhere - now probably by people with no experience of the work.

Is there not a danger here of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, here?

I can't speak for most of the quangos as I have no idea what most do - quite possibly the majority could be safely cut.

But does the list go too far?

Opinions, please.

Blacklight

I did wonder the very same thing about British Waterways. You clearly can't just cut off the head and hope to solve the problem. Someone will have to carry out at least the minimum upkeep to prevent the infrastructure from costing more to repair/renovate in the future.

I guess this is the same for a lot of these Quangos.

the_flying_pig

Very many are going to merged/ the responsibilities being moved elsewhere.

E.g. we're not going to stop having someone doing The Office of Fair Trading's job (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/09/oft_and_competition_commission.html).

I expect the water regulator Ofwat is the same unless water companies are suddenly going to be able to charge us whatever they like [which, given the essential nature of water for life, is more or less anything].

So there'll be some cost savings due to having fewer support staff etc but not, I shouldn't think, squillions and squillions.

Generali

From the list being abolished

This one can go:

Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products

The Government shouldn't be registering 'medical' products that dont work.

I'm a very keen cyclist and I have never heard of these people:

Cycling England

Anyone ever heard of these people (on a board dominated by people that obsess about house prices):

National Tenant Voice

I like a nice steam train as much as the next man but do you really need this:

Railway Heritage Committee?

I'm not convinced that women (the majority of Britons) need a separate voice:

Women's National Commission


Don't forget that a lot of the things being abolished are presumably being duplicated elsewhere.

mbga9pgf

I can imagine the wterways will need to be cleaned by the majority users, IE barge users.

As for the teachers council, poor teachers can be sacked by their employer. Why teachers (a pretty mundane job tbh) need a "council" is beyond me; they are not similar to doctors and any sacked teacher will struggle to get a new job anyways due to lack of references.

I am hoping they also bin OFSTED and instead let teachers get on with their jobs, instead of the rafts of paperwork that currently is required to meet government "standards". Why not let them just teach?The extra cash saved from binning the quango and ofsted will generate cash to employ many, many more teachers. Class size is the single most important factor (assuming teaching standards are fine, which they are).

bendix

!!!!!! is the Darwin Advisory Committee when it's at home?

Update - oh, it seems to be some nice cuddly green thing that cares about tigers in Cambodia and hedgehogs in Nepal. I say we keep it. Well-meaning Hampstead folk with beards and stripey jumpers need to have something to get involved in.

And so too do their husbands.

lemonjelly

Generali wrote: »

From the list being abolished

This one can go:

Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products

The Government shouldn't be registering 'medical' products that dont work.

I'm a very keen cyclist and I have never heard of these people:

Cycling England

Anyone ever heard of these people (on a board dominated by people that obsess about house prices):

National Tenant Voice

I like a nice steam train as much as the next man but do you really need this:

Railway Heritage Committee?

I'm not convinced that women (the majority of Britons) need a separate voice:

Women's National Commission


Don't forget that a lot of the things being abolished are presumably being duplicated elsewhere.

I think you've kinda hit on the crux of the matter.

There are bodies which do important work, & that work will, in some ways, be protected, or even built upon.

However there are also too many anonymous organisations, and too much duplication in the system.

But I suppose each will have to build a business case to support it. For example, Cycling England may be partially responsible for the development of our athletes who have done so well in recent olympics/world championships? (I don't know - mere speculation).

The only thing that concerns me, is that with the tories being in, each organisation will have to make a business case for their existence. I'm not convinced we should boil everything down to a business. Many things can be significant social enterprises with significant social/communal benefits. Will these be seen under the tories?

wherediditallgothen

bendix wrote: »

!!!!!! is the Darwin Advisory Committee when it's at home?

Is it anything to do with the Darwin awards?

silvercar

Do that many live on canals? I can imagine a lot have a second home, but I doubt many live there as primary residence. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Should the taxpayer be paying out to protect this group? Should they be looked after by the councils like everyone else? Surely the local councils are responsible for rubbish dumping etc Not sure there is a need for a separate government funded quango.

General Teaching Council, sacking teachers? Do me a favour. Teachers don't get sacked. A few may be eased out by individual schools or LAs, but I doubt many are sacked.

lemonjelly

On reading my post (& a couple of the others recently), it seems a little interesting that I've completely forgotten about the Lib dems (& it seems others have too - the government is frequently shortened to "tories" now).

I wonder why, & what impact that'll have?

silvercar

Just checked. The General Teaching Council, responsible for the sacking of teachers has sacked 18 teachers in 40 years.