Two to Quango?

[tedebear]

Now that IS true. Eric Pickles hasn't got the faintest idea what the implications of much of his slash and burn policy is. Getting rid of the Audit Commission (much as I loathe them) is plain stupid, and will merely result in a huge and expensive series of tenders for local authority and NHS audits to the big private sector accounting firms - who in terms of audit quality and cost are no better than what they will replace.

Some of the quangos can go without anyone noticing, but this is plain stupid.

Personally I think moving the audit of the NHS and the like to the private sector could be a very good thing, although isn't it going to the National Audit Office? In principle the audit commission was a good idea - in practice it has lost its way. A shake up in the auditing of the public purse is key to this cost cutting. Lets give someone else a look!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

If this is the way to go ... the world of football should do the same thing.

Why not abolish the Football League? Individual clubs could arrange their own fixtures and the tables could still be published every Saturday.

Once the pack of fat cats at the top have been disposed of, fans would no doubt benefit from cheaper tickets, since there would be no need for the clubs to hand over a proportion of gate receipts to fund the luxurious lifestyles of Lord Mawhinney and the like.

 

[beorhthelm]

Whoever is dreaming up these "cuts" hasn't got a f***ing clue.

that all depends how the cuts are applied. if genuinly usful groups are being cut, their function should be absorbed into relevent departments, reducing the management and support overheads. if a group is responsible for creating a standard or process, once that is in effect there is little purpose for the original group. methinks this is exactly the sort of thing that should be cut, mini-departments/civil service feifdoms that where should be temporary but persist for years after their usefull work has been achieved.

 

[tedebear]

If this is the way to go ... the world of football should do the same thing.

Why not abolish the Football League? Individual clubs could arrange their own fixtures and the tables could still be published every Saturday.

Once the pack of fat cats at the top have been disposed of, fans would no doubt benefit from cheaper tickets, since there would be no need for the clubs to hand over a proportion of gate receipts to fund the luxurious lifestyles of Lord Mawhinney and the like.

Personally as I'd see it in your scenario the local council's are the Football League, the teams are the organisations. You're saying we should spend public money to fund an organisation to make sure that they deal with each other properly? Would we call them "agents"?

 

[keaton]

Don't underestimate how important "the Compact" is to THOUSANDS of organisation in the voluntary sector who depend for their existence on having the right sort of relationships with public sector bodies like councils, the NHS and central government departments.

The Compact itself is a nationally agreed standard for how these relationships should be managed. All public authorities apply those standards. If every single arrangement now has to be individually negotiated, the amount of bureaucracy will INCREASE beyond imagination.

Whoever is dreaming up these "cuts" hasn't got a f***ing clue.

I thought it seemed a particularly organisation to cut, bearing in mind they want lots of public sector work done by voluntary organisations and all the bobbins about Big Society

 

[Pavilionaire]

Lots of irony here. The "Advisory Committee on National Historic Ships" - now sunk without trace.

 

[Pavilionaire]

"Caribbean Board". Sent back to where they came from.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The 'Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority'. f***ed.

 

[Pavilionaire]

'Women's National Commission'. Back in the kitchen where they belong.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Advisory Committee on Packaging - I assume this will be the last to close as they will be advising all the other quangoes how to pack up their desks.

 

[Buzzer]

I used to be a member (appointed by Glenda Jackson, no less) of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

DPTAC has done great work over the years, costs practically nothing to run (the members are unpaid) and its abolition will result in standards of transport accessibility falling.

A disgraceful decision.

The Department for Transport have already admitted that what they are proposing will be in breach of its legal obligations.

The Minister responsible is ... Norman Baker.

Is this the same body that has effectively de-regulated Worthing Hackney cab licences by persuading Worthing Council that all new taxis need to be 'disabled-friendly'?

Hammer to crack a nut considering the number of disabled passengers that actually use taxis.

Using Lord B's language (if it is the same body) then good f***ing riddance. My brother invested £25k in that plate a few years back. Worthless now.

 

[Pavilionaire]

UK Film Council.

THE END

MMX

 

[glasfryn]

You can bet your bottom dollar that by getting rid of these Quango's (and I have had a look and some look pretty useful) some bastard in the government will be making a fortune out of it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The Theatres Trust.

Curtains.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

that all depends how the cuts are applied. if genuinly usful groups are being cut, their function should be absorbed into relevent departments, reducing the management and support overheads.

To speak only of the quango that I was a member of ... the point about many of these bodies is that they are INDEPENDENT of government and the civil service. Absorbing their work into that being done by civil servants will destroy that independence and hand over all control to ministers. Is MORE centralisation what motivates this government?

The membership of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee currently consists of a mix of disabled people and informed, practising transport professionals. Most of its members are disabled people. Its job is to provide independent advice to ministers (and civil servants) about the transport needs of disabled people. Its successes have been reflected in a vast number of changes in the law that have occurred in the 25 years of its existence. The civil service simply doesn't have the expertise to do the job that the Committee members have been doing. And it certainly doesn't have the representation of disabled experts that the Committee has.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Come on, LB. We're in an Age Of Austerity. The priority is to channel taxes into actually DOING THE JOB.

A lot of these Quangos are desirable / aspirational, rather than essential, i.e. School Food Trust, Darwin Advisory Committee, Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, National Policing Improvement Agency, and the Coalition is right to take a knife to them.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Is this the same body that has effectively de-regulated Worthing Hackney cab licences by persuading Worthing Council that all new taxis need to be 'disabled-friendly'?

No.

That was Worthing Council, acting on an interpretation of the options that was being made by civil servants and the council's own officers.

I was actually a member of the DPTAC Taxi Working Group at the time the accessibility regulations for taxis were being developed. We were arguing for a "mixed fleet" approach to taxi licensing. Wheelchair accessible taxis need to be available (and in greater numbers), but disabled users who struggle with high steps (eg arthritis sufferers) are better served by having conventional saloon cars available to them.

 

[tedebear]

I think on the face of it removing these quangos is a good idea. As shown above however we must ensure that the work done by some of these quangos which is considered essential must be retained, where this would be is a big question.

 

[beorhthelm]

same subject from the BBC, sheds some light on the wider issue:

The list suggests 180 quangos will be abolished and 124 merged. A further 338 will be retained, although 56 of them will be subject to "substantial reform". The future of another 100 bodies is yet to be agreed, according to the letter.

it also points out the list it has is different to that published byt the Telegraph. so once again, we dont really know what is going to happen untill it happens and there is alot of mischief and mis-information around.

 

[Buzzer]

No.

That was Worthing Council, acting on an interpretation of the options that was being made by civil servants and the council's own officers.

I was actually a member of the DPTAC Taxi Working Group at the time the accessibility regulations for taxis were being developed. We were arguing for a "mixed fleet" approach to taxi licensing. Wheelchair accessible taxis need to be available (and in greater numbers), but disabled users who struggle with high steps (eg arthritis sufferers) are better served by having conventional saloon cars available to them.

So, all your quango achieved was swapping one very small group of inconvenienced disabled passengers with another very small group of disabled passengers.

Doesn't sound like your organisation achieved much there then.