by Elliot Keck, head of campaigns
We at the TPA have just launched a new project, Britain’s Quangos Uncovered, which seeks to pull back the curtain on the quango state - the nexus of regulators, committees, advisory bodies, service providers and much more which sit largely out of ministerial control and yet command huge budgets and significant powers.
One of the key aims of the project is to identify what should actually be done about these bodies. On this topic, there are broadly four categories that quangos can be divided into
- Quangos which provide a genuinely necessary and important service, or provide a vital advisory role and which should be broadly independent of ministerial control. These are bodies which may need reforming, and could potentially be reorganised through mergers or the moving around of functions, but should largely remain unchanged.
- Quangos which provide a genuinely necessary and important service, but which should be brought under direct ministerial control. These are bodies which have important functions, but functions which should be subject to political accountability and should be ultimately directed by ministers. This is likely where the bulk of quangos are.
- Quangos which provide a genuinely necessary and important service, but which does not need to be provided by the state and instead can be provided by the private sector.
- Quangos which should simply be abolished. These are bodies that hoover up resources, distort our politics and provide little of value.
In all cases of course, there should be a review of unnecessary functions.
In the coming weeks, we will be fleshing out where various bodies sit into these boxes. But to kick off with two, the Driving Vehicle Standards Authority and the Driving Vehicle Licensing Authority.
Firstly, on the DVSA. This is the body responsible for conducting driving tests and administering MOTs. Both are necessary functions, but do they need to be provided by the state, and by a separate body at that? On MOTs, the DVSA merely manages the certification process. The actual MOT itself is carried out by a private company, albeit with certification from the DVSA. Now there is a strong argument that the certification process should be state run, but this service can be provided by the Department for Transport.
Then there are driving tests. This is a service that is undoubtedly crucial, and the state has a role to play in ensuring the driving test system meets a certain safety standard. But does the state need to undertake this process itself? Well the current situation is that driving test waiting times average over 20 weeks in Britain, and one in three driving test centres have the maximum possible waiting time of 24 weeks, a situation that is getting worse. This is despite the new transport secretary making reducing waiting times one of her priorities. This is an absurdly easy system to fix - hire more instructors, train them up (a process which takes six weeks) and if the only way to pay for this is to increase the prices of driving tests then so be it. Surge pricing can also be introduced to deal with temporary pressures. Yet despite the minister trying to pull levers, we’ve been told it will take until next summer for the backlog to be cleared, delayed from December 2025.
Hand this power over to say four or five private companies, with clear and concise expectations on what should be delivered and this would be solved in just weeks. The DVSA could then be entirely abolished, with any residual functions incorporated into the Department for Transport. To ensure sufficient standards, safety records of new drivers, say, five years after passing, could be monitored to ensure that there is no uptick in accidents as a result of lax examination standards from one or more private providers.
Then there is the DVLA. This is a more difficult case. It is responsible for recording driver endorsements, disqualifications and medical conditions; issuing photocard driving licences, taking enforcement action against vehicle tax evaders; helping the police and intelligence authorities deal with crime amongst other services. These services likely cannot be privatised although they can of course be made less onerous. But do they have to be performed by a separate body, based far from London and therefore ministerial oversight as well as control? Could these functions not be performed by a separate team or series of teams within the department for transport?
It’s easy to view bodies such as these being deeply embedded within the British state. But the DVSA itself has only existed since 2014, when the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) were merged.
Ultimately, these quangos do perform important functions, but there seems little reason why they have to be provided by the state, or why they shouldn’t fall under ministerial control.