{"id":50013,"date":"2014-11-10T18:25:30","date_gmt":"2014-11-10T18:25:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?guid=176b5442aafbdfc270ce23ee75f75d6d"},"modified":"2014-11-10T18:25:30","modified_gmt":"2014-11-10T18:25:30","slug":"speech-public-bodies-summit-2014","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?p=50013","title":{"rendered":"Speech: Public Bodies Summit 2014"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

Thank you Lord Douro for allowing us to be here today and to enjoy these splendid surroundings.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a little known fact that Wellington was called \u2018the Iron Duke\u2019 not because of his prowess on the battlefield but because when he made the probably rash move into politics, he somehow didn\u2019t attract universal support from the public, as a result of which iron shutters were added to the windows here.<\/p>\n

There have been certain times in the last few years when I have felt that being protected by iron shutters would be a welcome thing, such is the lot of the reformer.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve always admired the approach of the Duke of Wellington when he became Prime Minister and after his first Cabinet meeting said \u201cthey all came in, I gave them their orders and damn me they wanted to stay and discuss them!\u201d <\/p>\n

It\u2019s great to be here and have the chance to talk about the progress of public bodies reform which has been good. Not all of it\u2019s been easy and it coincides with the publication of Bernard Jenkin\u2019s committee\u2019s report today and there are a lot of useful conclusions and analysis upon which we can will reflect.<\/p>\n

But we have collectively made a big difference. We\u2019ve cut the cost of government for the taxpayer, we\u2019re starting to create truly 21st century public services which are lean and resilient, as well as more accountable. <\/p>\n

And that\u2019s been the prime driver of our public bodies reform programme, to increase accountability and to make them more responsive and more capable.<\/p>\n

Context<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s important four and a half years after we embarked on the journey to reflect on how things were when we started.<\/p>\n

The number and remit of public bodies had over decades been allowed to grow unchecked.<\/p>\n

It was a chaotic and frankly somewhat complacent approach. There was a failure to look at the bigger picture or stopping to ask whether this was the best way of doing things and consequently, the interests of taxpayers, and the people using public services, was sometimes forgotten.<\/p>\n

We couldn\u2019t allow that to continue. The days of uncontrolled spending had met their Waterloo \u2013 and where better to celebrate that than the Waterloo Gallery. <\/p>\n

So one of the first things the Coalition Government did after we came into office was to establish the kind of comprehensive and rigorous central oversight that had previously been so conspicuous in its absence.<\/p>\n

And the scope was huge \u2013 we were facing the A to Z of \u2018big government\u2019, from the Advisory Committee on Packaging to the Zoos Forum.
\nWe launched the biggest and most wide-ranging reform of public bodies in a generation.<\/p>\n

The first question was to find them, because there was no central register. We didn\u2019t know how many public bodies there were \u2013 in turns out there were over 900. <\/p>\n

When we did, the extent of the problem quickly became evident.<\/p>\n

First, there were the obviously redundant. <\/p>\n

The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal is a good example. <\/p>\n

Established in the 1970s to settle employment disputes in industries that have long since been privatised, it hadn\u2019t even met in ten years and yet it was existed. That\u2019s how weak the oversight had been. <\/p>\n

Then there were the quirky, like the Government Hospitality Committee on the Purchase of Wines and the Caribbean Board \u2013 hard to justify to the public at the best of times, let alone when money is tight.<\/p>\n

But besides the inappropriate and the unnecessary, we found plenty of other organisations that still performed useful and important roles but weren\u2019t nearly as efficient or effective as they could and should have been.<\/p>\n

In each case we were looking to see if the public body was the best way of delivering the service or performing a function, or whether a better outcome could be achieved through different means.<\/p>\n

We determined that a body should only exist at arm\u2019s length from government without the democratic accountability that was our key driver if it met at least one of 3 tests:<\/p>\n