Union seeks clarity on cross-government quango review

Prospect seeks answers on the structure of the ALB review and impact on staff

Photo: GOV.UK

14 Apr 2025

Prospect has asked the Cabinet Office for a meeting to get more clarity on the government’s review of arm's-length bodies.

The union, which represents specialist civil servants, has written to Cabinet Office minister Georgia Gould with a series of questions about the review, which was launched last week.

Gould's responsibilities in the department include public bodies policy and public sector reform.

The letter from Prospect general secretary Mike Clancy, which copies in Cabinet Office permanent secretary Cat Little, seeks a meeting to discuss the questions, which include whether the review will be "cross-government, department-by-department or organisation-by-organisation".

Other questions the union is seeking answers on include: what relationship there is, if any, between the review and the requirement for departments to find 15% in administrative savings; what assurances the government can give on job security; and who will carry out the individual reviews.

In the letter, Clancy said the union appreciated the advance notice of the announcement of the quango review and that he hopes “it signals a willingness to engage with Prospect on this important issue”.

Clancy said Prospect is the union with the strongest concentration of members across the government’s arm's-length bodies, and therefore is hoping for a separate meeting to the regular cross-civil service union engagement with the Cabinet Office to discuss its specific queries on ALB reform.

Announcing the plans last week, McFadden said the all-quango review will aim to “drive out waste and inefficiency across Whitehall, reducing duplication and bureaucracy – saving the taxpayer money and cutting the cost of ‘doing government’”.

He said departments will need demonstrate the "necessity” of their ALBs, with the presumption that they will be closed, merged or have functions brought back into departments where they cannot provide “compelling justification”.

The Cabinet Office has also pledged to “retain the expertise and experience of staff working in these areas”.

Prospect's questions

On the structure of the review

• Will the review be cross-government or department-by-department or organisation-by-organisation?

• The government has described four principles for the continued existence of ALBs. Will the government publish detailed criteria to assess these principles against?

• Will the government develop a comprehensive ‘live’ list of all ALBs?

• How do the four principles interact with the three tests in the current Cabinet Office guidance for the establishment of public bodies?

• If the principles supersede the tests, will this guidance be formally withdrawn?

• How will the performance of ALBs and retention of expertise be considered as part of the review and in making recommendations?

• Who will carry out reviews? Will there be an independent reviewer as in the previous Public Bodies Review Programme?

• Is the Public Bodies Review Programme(s) run since 2010 now concluded? Will outstanding recommendations from previous reviews be taken forward?

• In particular, the 2023 review of the Health and Safety Executive recommended that “work is undertaken by government to consider the organisational status of HSE and whether a non-ministerial department model is more appropriate as the delivery model. To be completed by 2025.” Will this recommendation continue to be taken forward by government?

• How will this review, interact with the government’s commitment in Next Steps to Make Work Pay, to "review health and safety guidance and regulations"? This will particularly impact on any proposed changes to the HSE but will also affect other regulators.

On workforce issues

• What is the relationship between this, if any, of the recent requirement to make administration savings?

• What method of transfer is envisaged for the transfer of staff? In particular what process will be adopted to deal with what inevitably will be variations in employment conditions between the ALB and the parent department?

• What assurances can the government give on job security, building on its commitment to retain expertise?

• Where a review recommends the merger of an NDPB with the parent department, will the staff working there change in status from public servants to civil servants?

• Will anyone becoming a civil servants gain access to the Civil Service Pension scheme? Where this leads to the closure of other schemes, how will future benefits be safeguarded? The debacle over the AEA Technology pension scheme shows the need to proceed with the upmost caution on pensions.

On the role of trade unions:

• The government aims to improve partnership working with trade unions; however, trade unions experiences of the previous Public Bodies Review Programme is poor. For example, independent reviewers often refused to meet the trade unions representing staff. How will this change?

• How does the government plan to engage with trade unions on an overarching basis on this review?

• Will the government recognise the important tripartite structure of the HSE, ACAS, and the commitment to implement a similar structure for the Fair Work Agency and commit to protecting it in this review?