Executive agencies might be the government’s favourite way of providing public functions at arm’s length – but a one-size-fits-all model misses the point
Public Health England has just joined the growing list of executive agencies to be set up during this Parliament. Announced by the Department of Health, it brings the total planned so far to eight.
In the past year, these agencies have emerged as the coalition’s preferred arm’s-length delivery model. Indeed it stated in March that they are ‘the default delivery option in cases where there is a need to deliver public functions within central government but with a degree of operational independence and autonomy from ministers’. But are executive agencies the right option in every case? And is there even a clear understanding of what they are?
When the government is determined to cut the number of public bodies and so reduce costs and increase accountability, it is all too easy for executive agencies to become the ‘least worst’ option by virtue of being directly answerable to ministers. But departments must offer a positive, individually tailored case for each new agency. The one-size-fits-all model represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the intended function of executive agencies. Past experience has shown what happens when agencies are not set up properly. They do not work.
A report, Unfinished business, published by the Institute for Government, contrasts the approaches being taken by the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education in creating executive agencies.
On the one hand, the MoJ’s plan to turn its Legal Services Commission, currently a non-departmental public body, into an executive agency reflects a developed business case. The decision follows an independent review that involved stakeholders, identified failings in the commission’s governance arrangements and explored six options for change. The ministry has since published a 20-page business case.
On the other hand, the DfE’s proposals to redistribute the functions of five NDPBs across four new executive agencies has been poorly justified. While the impact statements accompanying the schools white paper and the Education Bill summarise the costs and benefits, they fall short of offering a substantive rationale.
So what of Public Health England? It replaces two existing public bodies and is intended as an ‘integrated public health service’, bringing experts into a single organisation that supports local delivery, advises central government and co-ordinates national responses to public health problems. The decision to grant executive agency status was an outcome of the government’s ‘listening exercise’ for the Health and Social Care Bill. Public Health England was intended to operate out of the core Department of Health, but practitioners lobbied for greater operational autonomy, citing the need for perceived impartiality.
The Department of Health has neither offered a positive rationale nor sought to assess other options. It has simply reverted to the ‘default’ model. Such a move points to the now muddled landscape of arm’s-length bodies. Ironically, last year’s review of public bodies said ‘political impartiality’ was a key criterion for continuing NDPB status. The creation of Public Health England raises the question as to whether there is even a coherent vision for what an executive agency should be.
Kate Jenkins is a visiting professor at the London School of Economics and former head of the Prime Minister’s Efficiency Unit. Jennifer Gold is a researcher at the Institute for Government
