Quango bonfires are back in fashion – not that they were ever really put out.
For years, successive governments have promised to slash the size of our bloated state. Instead, they’ve quietly outsourced power to an alphabet soup of arm’s-length bodies, many of which operate with minimal scrutiny, high costs and an ever-expanding footprint on public life.
New research by the TaxPayers’ Alliance lays bare just how far this has gone. Far from a ‘bonfire of the quangos’, our new paper highlights the number of board positions at these organisations has grown to at least 4,605 – up 6% since 2018-19. The vast majority of these aren’t full-time executive roles, but they’re very well-compensated for the time involved.
In 2022-23, the total remuneration for quango board members reached at least £125.8 million, with non-executive directors accounting for £27.5 million of this. That’s before factoring in support staff and all the other operational baggage that comes with it.
Some individuals have done particularly well out of the system. Martin Spencer held no fewer than nine board positions, spanning everything from Ofsted to the NHS Counter Fraud Authority. He received £145,000 in one year – and missed 28% of meetings he was eligible to attend. Emir Feisal, meanwhile, sat on six boards, received £70,500, while also missing more than a quarter of meetings.
In most jobs, failing to show up nearly a third of the time would be grounds for dismissal. In the world of quangos, it’s standard practice. In 2022-23, quango board members missed over 2,200 meetings, more than 10% of the total they were eligible to attend. These are roles with oversight responsibilities – yet absenteeism is rife.
If quangocrats are to exist, their remuneration must be linked directly to attendance. If board members can’t even meet the basic requirement of showing up four times a year, taxpayers should not be expected to foot the bill for them. A pay structure that reflects attendance would align public expectations with public spending, rewarding commitment, not complacency.
And what exactly are taxpayers getting in return? In theory, quango boards provide scrutiny, strategic direction and independent advice. In practice, many serve as halfway houses for retired mandarins and talking shops for the well-connected. Of the 285 individuals who sat on more than one board, nearly 40 sat on three or more. The incentives are obvious: attractive remuneration, low time commitment, significant influence and zero political risk.
To address this, there should be a firm limit on the number of quango positions any one individual can hold. Serving on one or two boards may allow for adequate oversight. But beyond that, the quality of input drops, conflicts of interest increase, and taxpayers lose out. Governance is not a side hustle, and shouldn’t be treated as one.
As ever, it’s not just about the numbers – it’s what the numbers reveal. The same few individuals are running vast swathes of the public sector, missing meetings and still receiving generous payouts. In 2022-23, the average non-executive chair received £44,694. Peter Hendy, chair of Network Rail, got £316,000 – more than double the prime minister’s salary – for a non-executive position.
This isn’t happening in a vacuum. The tax burden is on course to reach an 80-year high by 2028-29. Public services are under pressure. Productivity is flatlining. Yet while ordinary households are told to tighten their belts, the Government continues to bankroll a parallel state that answers to no one.
Appointments to these boards are often made behind closed doors, with minimal transparency and limited accountability. To change that, the Government should introduce a points-based appointments system, rooted in merit and transparency. Candidates should be assessed based on relevant experience, attendance history and performance, not just who they know in Whitehall. Quangos wield real power. It’s only right that those who lead them earn their place.
The new Labour Government plans to create or overhaul at least 17 new public bodies, including a football regulator and an Armed Forces Commissioner. This is precisely the wrong direction. Instead of expanding the quangocracy, the Government should set a cap on the overall number of quangos, subjecting each one to regular review to determine whether its functions are still necessary or could be absorbed elsewhere. In a tight fiscal climate, duplication and drift are luxuries we can no longer afford.
A genuinely independent public sector should reflect the values of public service: transparency, efficiency and accountability. Right now, quangos reflect none of these. They operate in the shadows, insulated from democratic pressure but deeply involved in policymaking. Reform isn’t a political luxury – it’s a fiscal and democratic necessity.
That’s why the TaxPayers’ Alliance is launching a new campaign: Britain’s Quangos Uncovered. This project will be a full-scale exposé of the quangocracy that goes beyond spin and into the nitty gritty: who these people are, what they cost, why they exist and most importantly, what should be done about it.
If the Government is serious about delivering value for money, it should start by asking a few simple questions: How many meetings are quangocrats actually attending? What service are they really providing? And why are taxpayers still footing the bill?
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
