Abolish the Charities Commission

This quango is a pointless exercise.  It does not have the resources to police charities properly and it employs people with inappropriate levels of expertise.  The consequence is that large (often corrupt) organisations are never scrutinised while small organisation may find themselves deluged with demands which undermine their viability.

As misused the Charity Commission uses the legislation to permit it to police itself and to ignore the purpose of the legislation that applies to it and its functions.

Companies House should be quite capable of fulfilling the role necessary.

Why is this idea important?

This quango is a pointless exercise.  It does not have the resources to police charities properly and it employs people with inappropriate levels of expertise.  The consequence is that large (often corrupt) organisations are never scrutinised while small organisation may find themselves deluged with demands which undermine their viability.

As misused the Charity Commission uses the legislation to permit it to police itself and to ignore the purpose of the legislation that applies to it and its functions.

Companies House should be quite capable of fulfilling the role necessary.

Let’s acknowledge that quangos are not all bad!

There has been a lot of press coverage about NDPBs (quangos), mostly negative and – erroneously – suggesting that they are universally an unnecessary waste of money.

The ones that have been abolished so far are very small and – surely – don't represent huge savings. There are others that employ more people and cost more BUT they do perform essential services which would have to be done by someone: abolishing them would not save money. Again it''s all about ideology, not what is practical or necessary. Most important of all, however, is that NDPBs are distanced in some measure from government, ministries and the civil service and provide an important element of independent scrutiny of government policy and strategy.

IF – and it's a very big IF – there is any truth in the notion that this govt is trying to roll back the long arm of government interference in daily life then it will appreciate the independent stance and objectivity that NDPBs can provide.

If this website and all the other posturing of this appalling govt are just a sham then they will carry on abolishing some very valuable public bodies.

Why is this idea important?

There has been a lot of press coverage about NDPBs (quangos), mostly negative and – erroneously – suggesting that they are universally an unnecessary waste of money.

The ones that have been abolished so far are very small and – surely – don't represent huge savings. There are others that employ more people and cost more BUT they do perform essential services which would have to be done by someone: abolishing them would not save money. Again it''s all about ideology, not what is practical or necessary. Most important of all, however, is that NDPBs are distanced in some measure from government, ministries and the civil service and provide an important element of independent scrutiny of government policy and strategy.

IF – and it's a very big IF – there is any truth in the notion that this govt is trying to roll back the long arm of government interference in daily life then it will appreciate the independent stance and objectivity that NDPBs can provide.

If this website and all the other posturing of this appalling govt are just a sham then they will carry on abolishing some very valuable public bodies.

Scrap all QUANGOS?

Where quangos are ultimately accountable I see no reason for ALL quangos to be abolished.

Where quangos represent 'jobs for the boys', where the constituants are unfamiliar with the requiremnts of the position held or they are unaccountable; yes they should be abolished. 

One particular 'quango', though I am sure they would reject this appelation, is a body of senior civil servants who have day time jobs but also advise the Honours and Decorations Committee.  This committee rarely meets, and most business is conducted by phone, email, letter and perhaps in the tea room.  Five of this Committee are also, in fact, advisers to the Committee, the Chairman of which is in the Cabinet Office and advises Her Majesty via Her Majesty's Private Secretary. 

They are answerable, so they say, only to Her Majesty. They do not, apparently, answer to a democratically  elected Government.  There does seem to be a large number of cases where, in my opinion, the Royal Prerogative is impoperly used.  If they are challenge they constantly move the 'goalposts' and, indeed had a special Part C added to the new rules which were placed in the House of Commons Library which precluded the Pingat Jasa Malaysia from being worn, despite the fact that it was accepted by Her Majesty on behalf of 35,000 veterans and is merely a departmental rule which apparently has precedence over the London Gazette 5057 dated 3 May 1968, still extant, and the Joint Service Publication 761, paragraph 21.

I belong, proudly, to an organisation that has been fighting for justice for over four years. The then Foreign Minister(2005) asked for a review of the rules which governed the Award of  Commonwealth and Foreign a,wards and decoration.  After 12 months the H&D Committee returned with new rules and the  above mentioned Part C. During the run up to the election we were promised a review of what was seen as inconsistanly or randomly applied rules.  One member of our campaign recently wrote to his 'new' MP who wrote to the appropriate Minister, who then replied with all the nonsense, obfuscation and downright misleading information that they have given to Ministers and MPs over the last  four years.  We had hoped for something more substantial than it being passed to the same civil servants, who, of course, replied with the outdated and arguable facts regarding double meddaling, and one medal for each campaign.

What I ask this new, Coalition Government for, is an independent review and enquiry into what purpose all these people serve.  They must of course be prepared to challenge the agenda of them and where necessary ask them to justify 4 years of corresponding with the campaigners which, incidentally, they have now refused to do.

Why is this idea important?

Where quangos are ultimately accountable I see no reason for ALL quangos to be abolished.

Where quangos represent 'jobs for the boys', where the constituants are unfamiliar with the requiremnts of the position held or they are unaccountable; yes they should be abolished. 

One particular 'quango', though I am sure they would reject this appelation, is a body of senior civil servants who have day time jobs but also advise the Honours and Decorations Committee.  This committee rarely meets, and most business is conducted by phone, email, letter and perhaps in the tea room.  Five of this Committee are also, in fact, advisers to the Committee, the Chairman of which is in the Cabinet Office and advises Her Majesty via Her Majesty's Private Secretary. 

They are answerable, so they say, only to Her Majesty. They do not, apparently, answer to a democratically  elected Government.  There does seem to be a large number of cases where, in my opinion, the Royal Prerogative is impoperly used.  If they are challenge they constantly move the 'goalposts' and, indeed had a special Part C added to the new rules which were placed in the House of Commons Library which precluded the Pingat Jasa Malaysia from being worn, despite the fact that it was accepted by Her Majesty on behalf of 35,000 veterans and is merely a departmental rule which apparently has precedence over the London Gazette 5057 dated 3 May 1968, still extant, and the Joint Service Publication 761, paragraph 21.

I belong, proudly, to an organisation that has been fighting for justice for over four years. The then Foreign Minister(2005) asked for a review of the rules which governed the Award of  Commonwealth and Foreign a,wards and decoration.  After 12 months the H&D Committee returned with new rules and the  above mentioned Part C. During the run up to the election we were promised a review of what was seen as inconsistanly or randomly applied rules.  One member of our campaign recently wrote to his 'new' MP who wrote to the appropriate Minister, who then replied with all the nonsense, obfuscation and downright misleading information that they have given to Ministers and MPs over the last  four years.  We had hoped for something more substantial than it being passed to the same civil servants, who, of course, replied with the outdated and arguable facts regarding double meddaling, and one medal for each campaign.

What I ask this new, Coalition Government for, is an independent review and enquiry into what purpose all these people serve.  They must of course be prepared to challenge the agenda of them and where necessary ask them to justify 4 years of corresponding with the campaigners which, incidentally, they have now refused to do.

Scrap ALL Quangos

All Quangos should be scrapped as from January 2011.  In the next six months current chief executives can re-apply for funding by justifying their existence to the relevant ministry or parliamentary committee. Those that fail will disappear.  

Why is this idea important?

All Quangos should be scrapped as from January 2011.  In the next six months current chief executives can re-apply for funding by justifying their existence to the relevant ministry or parliamentary committee. Those that fail will disappear.  

All Quangos to have to re-apply for funding

Scrap ALL Quangos from January 1st 2011. During the next six months each quango can submit their case for continuing. This would instantly remove a huge pile of red tape and legislation, save a fortune, and make life better for most of us. The new quangos should have very tight constraints on salaries and administration costs, and their function and effectiveness should be reviewed annually. 

Why is this idea important?

Scrap ALL Quangos from January 1st 2011. During the next six months each quango can submit their case for continuing. This would instantly remove a huge pile of red tape and legislation, save a fortune, and make life better for most of us. The new quangos should have very tight constraints on salaries and administration costs, and their function and effectiveness should be reviewed annually. 

Overhaul the Learning & Skills arrangements

Scrap the large number of quangos operating in the 'education and skills' area, in particular there is no justification for Sector Skills Councils.

Stop writing blank cheques from the taxpayer to one hundred plus Awarding Bodies who are all competing with each other for 'business'.

Abandon the Qualificiations Credit Framework which is wrecking many perfectly sound vocational qualifications, adding complexity where none is needed, and is apparently driven by an unwanted and unjustifed plan by Brussels for a European Qualifications Framework.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the large number of quangos operating in the 'education and skills' area, in particular there is no justification for Sector Skills Councils.

Stop writing blank cheques from the taxpayer to one hundred plus Awarding Bodies who are all competing with each other for 'business'.

Abandon the Qualificiations Credit Framework which is wrecking many perfectly sound vocational qualifications, adding complexity where none is needed, and is apparently driven by an unwanted and unjustifed plan by Brussels for a European Qualifications Framework.

Repeal Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 – Cut all public funding to ASH etc

Action and Smoking on Health (ASH) is one of the most powerful charities in the land, lobbying MPs and powerful Medical groups to adopt their position. However, ASH is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry (who manufacture nicotine replacement products), and State funding. Whether this funding be direct or channelled via the NHS or other charities such as Cancer Research UK and the BHF, the end result is that most of its multi-million pound budget comes from the taxpayer. In reality, last year, this charity only received £4975 in voluntary donations from the public (and a single £10,000 legacy) and its Scottish branch only had 0.2% of its funding come from voluntary donation.
Under section 70 of the Charities Act (2006) it is permitted for Ministers to “give financial assistance to any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution in respect of any of the institution’s activities which directly or indirectly benefit the whole or any part of England (whether or not they also benefit any other area).” What this means in practice is that a Charity can be funded by any number of vested interests and STILL claim huge amounts of taxpayer’s money as long as it claim that it is “working in the public benefit.”
Organisations like ASH can therefore maintain their charitable status despite having demonstrable links with the Pharmaceutical industry that fund it and benefit from its actions. It also means that taxpayers’ money can be channelled, without question, to any “charity” that can claim to be working in the public interest. This is not only a waste of taxpayer’s money, it can mean that charities can become little more than unaccountable quangos working as unofficial arms of the Government.
Charities like ASH should either represent their true popularity with the public by attempting to survive on public donations or they should be wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry so that everyone is clear on its background and agenda… and thus lose its charitable status. When the Leader of this organisation brags in a national newspaper about performing “a confidence trick” on Parliament with regard to the Smoking Ban, the legitimacy of taxpayers’ money being used to fund them needs to be addressed.
Given the disproportionate level of power this organisation wields and given our straitened economic times, all State funding to this organisation should be withdrawn, and repealing section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 would accomplish this.

Why is this idea important?

Action and Smoking on Health (ASH) is one of the most powerful charities in the land, lobbying MPs and powerful Medical groups to adopt their position. However, ASH is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry (who manufacture nicotine replacement products), and State funding. Whether this funding be direct or channelled via the NHS or other charities such as Cancer Research UK and the BHF, the end result is that most of its multi-million pound budget comes from the taxpayer. In reality, last year, this charity only received £4975 in voluntary donations from the public (and a single £10,000 legacy) and its Scottish branch only had 0.2% of its funding come from voluntary donation.
Under section 70 of the Charities Act (2006) it is permitted for Ministers to “give financial assistance to any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution in respect of any of the institution’s activities which directly or indirectly benefit the whole or any part of England (whether or not they also benefit any other area).” What this means in practice is that a Charity can be funded by any number of vested interests and STILL claim huge amounts of taxpayer’s money as long as it claim that it is “working in the public benefit.”
Organisations like ASH can therefore maintain their charitable status despite having demonstrable links with the Pharmaceutical industry that fund it and benefit from its actions. It also means that taxpayers’ money can be channelled, without question, to any “charity” that can claim to be working in the public interest. This is not only a waste of taxpayer’s money, it can mean that charities can become little more than unaccountable quangos working as unofficial arms of the Government.
Charities like ASH should either represent their true popularity with the public by attempting to survive on public donations or they should be wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry so that everyone is clear on its background and agenda… and thus lose its charitable status. When the Leader of this organisation brags in a national newspaper about performing “a confidence trick” on Parliament with regard to the Smoking Ban, the legitimacy of taxpayers’ money being used to fund them needs to be addressed.
Given the disproportionate level of power this organisation wields and given our straitened economic times, all State funding to this organisation should be withdrawn, and repealing section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 would accomplish this.

Building schools is in investment in our future STOP Quangos!

I am dismayed to hear on the news that many plans to build and replace schools are scrapped and that pupils are left in sub standard facilities to save money.

Instead abolish quango's who just burn money and are often stuffed with failed businessmen and cronies of politicians.

Why is this idea important?

I am dismayed to hear on the news that many plans to build and replace schools are scrapped and that pupils are left in sub standard facilities to save money.

Instead abolish quango's who just burn money and are often stuffed with failed businessmen and cronies of politicians.

Remove London’s increased pay

London's public sector workers and students (maybe other areas too) recieve more than thouse ouside the capital. This in effect makes them richer that the rest of england which then drives up the cost of living in and around the capital compared to outside.

Why is this idea important?

London's public sector workers and students (maybe other areas too) recieve more than thouse ouside the capital. This in effect makes them richer that the rest of england which then drives up the cost of living in and around the capital compared to outside.

Public Pay Rates should be Published

Everyone in public service (including those in Quangos) should have a job title that is published and each job title should have it's salary range published alongside it.  All public servants receiving over £100,000 should be named.

Why is this idea important?

Everyone in public service (including those in Quangos) should have a job title that is published and each job title should have it's salary range published alongside it.  All public servants receiving over £100,000 should be named.

DES quangos

All DES quangos should be abolished and only one quango set up to replace them. Its duties woud be to back over the last few years in the Telegraph and other and list out all the education nonsenes and make sure they are removed.

With the amount of paper pushed out over the last few years one had the impression there were so many staff that they had to be found things to do.  As a former school governors I give an example: A document on 'Community Cohesion' contained 39 instructions to directly to governors.  yet governors only meet about 10 hours a year.   There has been another instruction that financial reports must be considered by the whole governing body in minute detail. 

Why is this idea important?

All DES quangos should be abolished and only one quango set up to replace them. Its duties woud be to back over the last few years in the Telegraph and other and list out all the education nonsenes and make sure they are removed.

With the amount of paper pushed out over the last few years one had the impression there were so many staff that they had to be found things to do.  As a former school governors I give an example: A document on 'Community Cohesion' contained 39 instructions to directly to governors.  yet governors only meet about 10 hours a year.   There has been another instruction that financial reports must be considered by the whole governing body in minute detail. 

Great Repeal Bill – Part 1

 

It is an extremely promising and most welcome initiative for the Coalition government to take the matter of excessive regulation seriously and enlist and trust citizens to help define a future legislative programme, and offer views on how the role of the state might be reduced.

I propose a Great Reform Bill to remove the following pieces of legislation or regulations from the statute book, initially consisting of repealing of reforming the following pieces of legislation:

  • The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Excessive health and safety legislation has replaced common sense and the sheer volume and proliferation of rules and regulations stifles innovation and swamps small businesses or charitable organisations in the Third Sector. It is time for a thorough review of all aspects of this act as well as the numerous offshoot pieces of legislation, which create unnecessary jobs for the HSE.
  • Construction Design & Management Regulations 2007 (CDM). These regulations do not apply to small domestic projects where statistically most construction deaths or accidents occur. Where CDM does apply eg on major commercial projects, costs have increased typically by 1% due to the fees for a new breed of professional, the Planning Coordinator, whose sole task is to prepare reams of risk assessments and health and safety documentation. Yet again this role has done little to reduce construction-related deaths or injuries.
  • The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This act forces many small businesses to prepare significant amounts of paperwork, and carry out detailed risk assessments for audit and inspection, and allows Fire Authorities to close businesses without appeal, yet does nothing to reduce the risk of fire.
  • Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. RDAs and Government Offices of the Regions should be abolished as they have failed to fulfil heir remit but at considerable expense to the public purse and merely duplicate the functions of national and county government. RDAs were established despite public antipathy and rejection in a referendum in North East England.
  • The Police Act 1997, specifically with regard to the new Criminal Records Bureau and recently created Independent Safeguarding Authority, both of which should be abolished.
  • Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. There is an urgent need to review existing asbestos legislation to take account of the diverse range of asbestos-containing products, some of which are much more harmful than others.
  • Identity Cards Act 2006. A wholly undemocratic act worthy of a fascist state that will do nothing to make the nation more secure.
  • Firearms Act 1998. Introduced as a knee jerk reaction to the Dunblane tragedy but has done nothing to reduce gun crime and instead criminalises those who take part in sport shooting.
  • Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. Specifically with regard to the impact of this piece of regulation on music venues.
  • Regulation of Investigatory Powers ACT 2000. This act provides a legal framework that allows authorities to snoop and spy on citizens and is grossly undemocratic. Abolish The Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
  • The Local Government Act 2000. Abolish Standards for England.
  • Part P Building Regulations 2000, which came into force in 2005 and imposes an undue cost burden on consumers, who are obliged to employ ‘competent’ trained electricians to carry out even the most modest alterations to electrical circuits.
  • Licensing Act 2003.
  • Human Rights Act 1998. Withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, arguably one of the most hasty and ill-considered pieces of legislation of all time.

Why is this idea important?

 

It is an extremely promising and most welcome initiative for the Coalition government to take the matter of excessive regulation seriously and enlist and trust citizens to help define a future legislative programme, and offer views on how the role of the state might be reduced.

I propose a Great Reform Bill to remove the following pieces of legislation or regulations from the statute book, initially consisting of repealing of reforming the following pieces of legislation:

  • The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Excessive health and safety legislation has replaced common sense and the sheer volume and proliferation of rules and regulations stifles innovation and swamps small businesses or charitable organisations in the Third Sector. It is time for a thorough review of all aspects of this act as well as the numerous offshoot pieces of legislation, which create unnecessary jobs for the HSE.
  • Construction Design & Management Regulations 2007 (CDM). These regulations do not apply to small domestic projects where statistically most construction deaths or accidents occur. Where CDM does apply eg on major commercial projects, costs have increased typically by 1% due to the fees for a new breed of professional, the Planning Coordinator, whose sole task is to prepare reams of risk assessments and health and safety documentation. Yet again this role has done little to reduce construction-related deaths or injuries.
  • The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This act forces many small businesses to prepare significant amounts of paperwork, and carry out detailed risk assessments for audit and inspection, and allows Fire Authorities to close businesses without appeal, yet does nothing to reduce the risk of fire.
  • Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. RDAs and Government Offices of the Regions should be abolished as they have failed to fulfil heir remit but at considerable expense to the public purse and merely duplicate the functions of national and county government. RDAs were established despite public antipathy and rejection in a referendum in North East England.
  • The Police Act 1997, specifically with regard to the new Criminal Records Bureau and recently created Independent Safeguarding Authority, both of which should be abolished.
  • Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. There is an urgent need to review existing asbestos legislation to take account of the diverse range of asbestos-containing products, some of which are much more harmful than others.
  • Identity Cards Act 2006. A wholly undemocratic act worthy of a fascist state that will do nothing to make the nation more secure.
  • Firearms Act 1998. Introduced as a knee jerk reaction to the Dunblane tragedy but has done nothing to reduce gun crime and instead criminalises those who take part in sport shooting.
  • Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. Specifically with regard to the impact of this piece of regulation on music venues.
  • Regulation of Investigatory Powers ACT 2000. This act provides a legal framework that allows authorities to snoop and spy on citizens and is grossly undemocratic. Abolish The Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
  • The Local Government Act 2000. Abolish Standards for England.
  • Part P Building Regulations 2000, which came into force in 2005 and imposes an undue cost burden on consumers, who are obliged to employ ‘competent’ trained electricians to carry out even the most modest alterations to electrical circuits.
  • Licensing Act 2003.
  • Human Rights Act 1998. Withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, arguably one of the most hasty and ill-considered pieces of legislation of all time.

Less Political Management – more problem solving

The UK Government does not have the capacity to support the processes of all of the Global political organisations to which it belongs. Even inside UK I think I am correct to say that there are over 900 Public bodies, plus hundreds of Quangos. The government should clearly communicate, in one place, what all these organisations are and their responsibilities and  objectives. I am certain that vast simplification is actually feasible.  Then we can review what the major challenges are, and assign as appropriate or get Public consensus for a new approach. There are many good ideas on this website, but very very few (including me) have any idea of the actual structure and bodies of the UK Government.  I DO remember being given EU propaganda at school in 1977 – 1978 but never anything equivalent for our own system. The first step is for the UK Government to be much more transparent with its own people. Its not just taking positions on issues, and bashing the opposition, its a fundamental shift in thinking. This Government is showing great promise, please keep your nerve and carrying on "opening up" to the British people.

Why is this idea important?

The UK Government does not have the capacity to support the processes of all of the Global political organisations to which it belongs. Even inside UK I think I am correct to say that there are over 900 Public bodies, plus hundreds of Quangos. The government should clearly communicate, in one place, what all these organisations are and their responsibilities and  objectives. I am certain that vast simplification is actually feasible.  Then we can review what the major challenges are, and assign as appropriate or get Public consensus for a new approach. There are many good ideas on this website, but very very few (including me) have any idea of the actual structure and bodies of the UK Government.  I DO remember being given EU propaganda at school in 1977 – 1978 but never anything equivalent for our own system. The first step is for the UK Government to be much more transparent with its own people. Its not just taking positions on issues, and bashing the opposition, its a fundamental shift in thinking. This Government is showing great promise, please keep your nerve and carrying on "opening up" to the British people.

quangocrats and quangos

All activities carried out by quangos should be restored to existing democratically elected bodies. This would result in all quangos being abolished. However this would take time so while they still exist all quangos should have only volunteers on their management bodies/boards. Not the paid quangocrats that now fill those places often as politically motivated sinecures. 

Why is this idea important?

All activities carried out by quangos should be restored to existing democratically elected bodies. This would result in all quangos being abolished. However this would take time so while they still exist all quangos should have only volunteers on their management bodies/boards. Not the paid quangocrats that now fill those places often as politically motivated sinecures. 

Abolish the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)

The Criminal Records Bureau is a wasteful and inefficient quango, unable to perform the impossible task it was given.  The CRB check fails to deliver its aim of safeguarding children and vulnerable people as it:

a) It is slow, costly and inefficient – CRB checks take an interminable time to process, months on end, in which time the organisation requesting the check has either employed the person anyway, or has left them sitting on their hands at home doing no work.  This prevents people who would be perfectly suited to working with children working with them.

b) It creates a false sense of security – a CRB is no security against someone being a paedophile or sexual predator; it only shows that they have not been one in the past.  As such it engenders a sense of false security, whereby dangerous people are not scrutinised as they have the right piece of paper.  The tragic events in Soham in 2003 demonstrate this.

c) Poisons society – by requiring the intervention of the police and the state to ensure that every interaction with children is 'safe' (or not, see 'b'), the CRB creates dangerous mistrust between parents, adults and children.  The assumption is one of criminality without the correct vetting by the state.

A simple, common-sense approach to child protection, based on both responsible and clear headed thought by those appointing people to work with children and vulnerable people – while also allowing them to personally check on their employment history and other details (as you would for any other job) by directly contacting the relevant police authorities if necessary – would improve child safety more than a CRB check, conducted by faceless and unaccountable officials.

I therefore propose that the requirement for CRB checks be removed, and that the CRB be abolished.

The above also applies to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the 'mini' CRB – another quango looking to check those who might have contact with children – i.e. everyone!

David Wickes

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Records Bureau is a wasteful and inefficient quango, unable to perform the impossible task it was given.  The CRB check fails to deliver its aim of safeguarding children and vulnerable people as it:

a) It is slow, costly and inefficient – CRB checks take an interminable time to process, months on end, in which time the organisation requesting the check has either employed the person anyway, or has left them sitting on their hands at home doing no work.  This prevents people who would be perfectly suited to working with children working with them.

b) It creates a false sense of security – a CRB is no security against someone being a paedophile or sexual predator; it only shows that they have not been one in the past.  As such it engenders a sense of false security, whereby dangerous people are not scrutinised as they have the right piece of paper.  The tragic events in Soham in 2003 demonstrate this.

c) Poisons society – by requiring the intervention of the police and the state to ensure that every interaction with children is 'safe' (or not, see 'b'), the CRB creates dangerous mistrust between parents, adults and children.  The assumption is one of criminality without the correct vetting by the state.

A simple, common-sense approach to child protection, based on both responsible and clear headed thought by those appointing people to work with children and vulnerable people – while also allowing them to personally check on their employment history and other details (as you would for any other job) by directly contacting the relevant police authorities if necessary – would improve child safety more than a CRB check, conducted by faceless and unaccountable officials.

I therefore propose that the requirement for CRB checks be removed, and that the CRB be abolished.

The above also applies to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the 'mini' CRB – another quango looking to check those who might have contact with children – i.e. everyone!

David Wickes

Scrap existing Marine Conservation Zones consultation quangos

The Marine and Coastal Access Bill received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009.

As part of its provisions, to be enacted by a new 'Marine Management Organisation' quango, four daughter quangos have been established to consult on the location, size and nature of English 'Marine Conservation Zones'. Three more daughter quangos will be required for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters, administered by the regional legislatures. The daughter quangos' recommendations, presumably after further consideration, will then be made mandatory by the Marine Management Organisation.

The English quangos have conducted a series of consultative meetings – generally held weekdays, working hours, centralised locations – which were badly publicised and, unsurprisingly, poorly attended by many of the commercial and leisure stakeholders in maritime matters. The boards and staff of the quangos seems to consist almost entirely of conservationist, academic, and local government (officer and councillor) members. 

In my view this conservation angle of the Bill was conceived and implemented in haste, (one indication of this is that the limits between areas are based on county boundaries, not on marine ones, such as headlands, estuaries, etc) with little regard for true consultation, and is being administered by those with vested interests.

I believe the cause for marine conservation would be better served by disbanding the existing structure and starting afresh, taking more time and ensuring that all stakeholders are consulted with and represented in the decision-making process.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The Marine and Coastal Access Bill received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009.

As part of its provisions, to be enacted by a new 'Marine Management Organisation' quango, four daughter quangos have been established to consult on the location, size and nature of English 'Marine Conservation Zones'. Three more daughter quangos will be required for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters, administered by the regional legislatures. The daughter quangos' recommendations, presumably after further consideration, will then be made mandatory by the Marine Management Organisation.

The English quangos have conducted a series of consultative meetings – generally held weekdays, working hours, centralised locations – which were badly publicised and, unsurprisingly, poorly attended by many of the commercial and leisure stakeholders in maritime matters. The boards and staff of the quangos seems to consist almost entirely of conservationist, academic, and local government (officer and councillor) members. 

In my view this conservation angle of the Bill was conceived and implemented in haste, (one indication of this is that the limits between areas are based on county boundaries, not on marine ones, such as headlands, estuaries, etc) with little regard for true consultation, and is being administered by those with vested interests.

I believe the cause for marine conservation would be better served by disbanding the existing structure and starting afresh, taking more time and ensuring that all stakeholders are consulted with and represented in the decision-making process.

 

 

Quangos! Why do we need to subsidise horse racing?

Ok not a law but the number of quangos is just plain ridiculous. Plus generally the salaries within them are greater than the market rate.

Just found out today that we have a quango for horse racing, the Horse Betting Levy board. Err am I missing something? Why is this sport receiving public funds to subsidise its activities? Its a commercial sport…

Why is this idea important?

Ok not a law but the number of quangos is just plain ridiculous. Plus generally the salaries within them are greater than the market rate.

Just found out today that we have a quango for horse racing, the Horse Betting Levy board. Err am I missing something? Why is this sport receiving public funds to subsidise its activities? Its a commercial sport…

Scrap Ofgem (Office for Gas and Electricity Markets)

If ever there was an unelected Quango that has clearly failed to act on behalf of consumers and lower electricity and gas bills, this is it.  Costing you and I on our bills around  £xxm a year to run and creating red tape on industry and business to a cost of £xxxm. 

Why is this idea important?

If ever there was an unelected Quango that has clearly failed to act on behalf of consumers and lower electricity and gas bills, this is it.  Costing you and I on our bills around  £xxm a year to run and creating red tape on industry and business to a cost of £xxxm. 

Repeal Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006

The very existence of this site is indicative of the large amounts of illiberal laws, unnecessary regulations and unelected quangos. In response to these worries, the previous government decided to write another piece of unnecessary legislation and create another quango, the Better Regulation Commission. This quango has clearly failed in its remit, and has given ministers powers to reform legislation without reference to the legislature, our MPs. Thus, the apparent remedy to quangos and statutory powers given to the executive was to make another quango and give more powers to the executive. The solution relies on doing the exact opposite. This Act should be repeal as the first part of re-engaging the citizens in writing and amending laws. The Better Regulation Commission should also be scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

The very existence of this site is indicative of the large amounts of illiberal laws, unnecessary regulations and unelected quangos. In response to these worries, the previous government decided to write another piece of unnecessary legislation and create another quango, the Better Regulation Commission. This quango has clearly failed in its remit, and has given ministers powers to reform legislation without reference to the legislature, our MPs. Thus, the apparent remedy to quangos and statutory powers given to the executive was to make another quango and give more powers to the executive. The solution relies on doing the exact opposite. This Act should be repeal as the first part of re-engaging the citizens in writing and amending laws. The Better Regulation Commission should also be scrapped.

Education Quangos

I would abolish the General Teaching Council and the Institute for Learning (IfL) both of which  which present themsleves as organsations that are there to help and support teacher prefessionalism but in actual fact simply add to the individual teacher's workload and, in the case of the IfL, seem to exist solely to monitor teachers activities. There are, in short, unneccessary and are a prime example of bloated government and waste in the public sector.

There are many other education Quangos which could be dismantled saving money and reducing unnecessary administration for all those who work in schools, colleges, universities and training poroviders and I'm glad to see that some of these are already being looked at.

Moreover, the practice of bringing in consultants and ring fencing school budgets which, in effect, cause schools and LEAs to waste millions each year employing these largely pointless educational consultants should cease. In this time of austerity we need to target as much money to the front line – teachers and teaching – and forget about forcing schools and colleges to waste money on things they don't need

Why is this idea important?

I would abolish the General Teaching Council and the Institute for Learning (IfL) both of which  which present themsleves as organsations that are there to help and support teacher prefessionalism but in actual fact simply add to the individual teacher's workload and, in the case of the IfL, seem to exist solely to monitor teachers activities. There are, in short, unneccessary and are a prime example of bloated government and waste in the public sector.

There are many other education Quangos which could be dismantled saving money and reducing unnecessary administration for all those who work in schools, colleges, universities and training poroviders and I'm glad to see that some of these are already being looked at.

Moreover, the practice of bringing in consultants and ring fencing school budgets which, in effect, cause schools and LEAs to waste millions each year employing these largely pointless educational consultants should cease. In this time of austerity we need to target as much money to the front line – teachers and teaching – and forget about forcing schools and colleges to waste money on things they don't need