Quangos, Wales and the WDA

Following the UK Government’s desire to cull 192 Quangos earlier this week there is an interesting article by Professor of Governance at Liverpool University and chairwoman of Sport Wales Laura McAllister writing in Public Service.co.uk on the impact of getting rid of Quangos has in Wales and lesson for the Coalition.

She writes ‘A huge part of the imperative for what became known as the "bonfire of the quangos" was ideological and party political in origin. The non-Conservative parties, who were correctly expected to take the lion's share of seats in the new National Assembly and form its government, balked at the number of Conservative-connected figures in senior positions in many quangos.

Despite the rhetoric, it is significant that it took five years from the establishment of the Assembly for there to be any firm proposal to abolish such bodies.

In 2004, the Welsh government announced plans to abolish three major quangos – the Welsh Development Agency (WDA), the Welsh Tourist Board and ELWA, the body discharging policy for post-16 education and training. First Minister Rhodri Morgan regarded this "bonfire" as a defining project, arguing that it represented an extension of democracy and enhanced accountability over public spending.

Timing often tells us more about the rationale for political decisions than any other factor. At the time, there was speculation that the cull owed as much to the intellectually logical, but politically problematic Richard Commission recommendations with regard to more powers, more assembly members and potential tax-varying functions.

It was significant that the Welsh announcements in 2004 came out of the blue, with no clear evidence base and a lack of serious consultation with interested parties. This jarred with the much-vaunted transparency of the new Welsh politics.

Radical decisions made behind closed doors without weighing up the cons as well as the obvious quick wins are unlikely to achieve their core objectives. What's more, taking an axe to the quangos without regard for their differential sectoral roles and financial sources such as Lottery funding seemed hugely unstrategic.

Bringing in-house the WDA, whose leitmotif was to act in a fast-moving, entrepreneurial manner with business and enterprise, seemed illogical at best and politically spiteful at worst. Civil servants are notoriously and entirely understandably risk averse and can often be process-driven, while successful economic development usually benefits from the spark of a cautious gambler. That Wales's GVA remains below three-quarters of the UK average is one piece of significant evidence for the case against the WDA's abolition.

As the Westminster coalition grapples with a similar dilemma – how to shrink the state and its ancillary organisations, make savings but ensure improved governance and accountability – it would do well to learn lessons from Wales.'

The full article is HEREAny source