Quangos

[news]

The Isle of Man is full of these,

 

The Manx Government are world experts at creating Quangos,

 

What organisiations / bodies on the IOM do you feel are typical, nose in trough, quangos that are just out of control and need reiging in?

 

The FSC?

 

Manx National Heritage? - they are currently taking DOLGE to court over planning - yes that's right, public money money being used to fight another Govt funded Dept, who will use more public money to defend it!! What a an absaloute disgrace!!

 

just a couple of examples to get the ball rolling there...

[VinnieK]

I think you've gotten a bit confused over what constitutes 'a quango': A quango is an administrative body that claims independence from the government, but is still funded by it (the traditional example being pointless committees made up of ministers' wives dedicated to debating lightbulbs or whatever).

 

Manx National Heritage, on the other hand, is an entire agency within the government, and can hardly be said to qualify as a quango. It's unfortunate, but not unprecedented, for government agencies and departments to resort to court action to settle differences/conflicts of policy. It's sadly often the case that where legislation on a certain point of contention is vague, a judicial ruling is often the quickest and only satisfactory way to resolve these difficulties.

[news]

Not at all - Manx National Heritage IS indeed a quango!

 

Its funded entirely by Govt, and can do what it likes!! almost 100% autonomy - a first class example of a Quango actually.

[Ringwraith]

Not at all - Manx National Heritage IS indeed a quango!

 

Its funded entirely by Govt, and can do what it likes!! almost 100% autonomy - a first class example of a Quango actually.

 

I agree, MNH is a quango (quasi autonomous non-governmental organisation), it is governed by independent trustees and is also a registered charity, the trustees have authority over finances and policy decisions therefore it can be said to be independent of government control whilst being within the government, a prime example of a quango.

[VinnieK]

Not at all - Manx National Heritage IS indeed a quango!

 

Its funded entirely by Govt, and can do what it likes!! almost 100% autonomy - a first class example of a Quango actually.

 

 

Not true. Manx National Heritage is a statutory body of the government, both its jurisdiction and functions are curtailed to the scope of the legislation that created it and which is built into its statute. A statutory body is a fully functioning part or agency of the government, both in its operation and its formal association with the government, both of these features help distinguish it, quite distinctly, from a Quango.

[thebees]

OMG, what does it matter what 'you' think a quango is? news explained what they meant by quango, so why go whineing on? I use all kinds of words for completely the wrong purpose if, people were to start interrupting me and correcting me I fear I may kill (kill as in the endearing term used by mothers to their children, actually meaning "I will be most unhappy and maybe refuse to let you go to the dancing competition on Saturday").

 

Quango spango its irrevelant. The point is WTF are one govt body taking another govt body to another government area (the courts) for?? Oh and also why are they wasting money collected by a government body on fancy advocates (who just befuzzle the normal poulus anyway) to try and smooze highly paid government officials into their way of thinking.

 

Im off to play WoW IRL is far to heavy for me.

[Albert Tatlock]

Actually you're all wrong. Quango is in fact a very tasty orunge droink.

[VinnieK]

OMG, what does it matter what 'you' think a quango is? news explained what they meant by quango, so why go whineing on?

 

Because:

 

1. The term quango is very specific in its undertones and connotations, so yeah, it does kind of matter what a quango actually is, and it's not really pedantic to bring it up when someone's suggesting that the Island's full of them. I just kind of assumed this was a serious thread, rather than an excuse to blindly grumble "Bloody government eh? Tsch! I should coco!" until we all feel a little sleepy.

 

2. News explained what he/she meant by quango as 'typical, nose in trough, quangos that are just out of control and need reiging in', which, even considering this definition, makes the example used just plain wrong, so again, it matters.

 

The point is WTF are one govt body taking another govt body to another government area (the courts) for?? Oh and also why are they wasting money collected by a government body on fancy advocates (who just befuzzle the normal poulus anyway) to try and smooze highly paid government officials into their way of thinking.

 

Again:

 

It's unfortunate, but not unprecedented, for government agencies and departments to resort to court action to settle differences/conflicts of policy. It's sadly often the case that where legislation on a certain point of contention is vague, a judicial ruling is often the quickest and only satisfactory way to resolve these difficulties.

 

Take an entirely hypothetical example:

 

The government passes some legislation on the kinds of land that can be developed, and in what ways they can be developed. Now, say there's a patch of land near the village of Ballaelsewhere that doesn't, for whatever reason, fit in exactly with any of the legal classifications given in the legislation. One governmental department/agency argues that the land most closely falls within a classification that allows highly lucrative development to take place, and wishes to issue a permit to one or more companies to make this happen. Another department or agency on the other hand, who also have jurisdiction over the development of land have identified the same area as being worthy of preservation, and argue that the legislation actually forbids development on that land.

 

Neither department or agency is legally entitled to interpret law, and neither has control over the other, so what do you suggest happens? Government ministers aren't qualified or entitled to interpret the law in such matters. If the government did attempt to interpret the law in this one case, apart from being a breach of its remit, would be taken by whoever lost as a sign that the law is not absolute - that it can be altered in the blink of an eye to suit the circumstances (be it to appease popular opinion, or to benefit business). In such a case only the independent judiciary are qualified and entitled to interpret the law and set a suitable precedent after due consideration (at least until the law can be reviewed and more legislation passed to clear up the issue - and even then, the law cannot be taken to act retroactively to rule on this one point of contention).

 

Now, it could be argued that the jurisdiction of agencies and departments shouldn't overlap in this way at all, or that those that do have overlapping jurisdictions should all be contained in one nice and tidy government department in order to prevent such costly disagreements arising. Then it's a matter of how comfortable people feel with so much power and potential for a conflict of interests to be concentrated in the hands of one department, for instance were an Environmental agency wholly contained within a Department of Industry and Energy.

 

There are issues with quangos, some of which are useful, some less so, but this particular situation isn't one of them.

[Ringwraith]

OMG, what does it matter what 'you' think a quango is? news explained what they meant by quango, so why go whineing on?

 

Because:

 

1. The term quango is very specific in its undertones and connotations, so yeah, it does kind of matter what a quango actually is, and it's not really pedantic to bring it up when someone's suggesting that the Island's full of them. I just kind of assumed this was a serious thread, rather than an excuse to blindly grumble "Bloody government eh? Tsch! I should coco!" until we all feel a little sleepy.

 

2. News explained what he/she meant by quango as 'typical, nose in trough, quangos that are just out of control and need reiging in', which, even considering this definition, makes the example used just plain wrong, so again, it matters.

 

The point is WTF are one govt body taking another govt body to another government area (the courts) for?? Oh and also why are they wasting money collected by a government body on fancy advocates (who just befuzzle the normal poulus anyway) to try and smooze highly paid government officials into their way of thinking.

 

Again:

 

It's unfortunate, but not unprecedented, for government agencies and departments to resort to court action to settle differences/conflicts of policy. It's sadly often the case that where legislation on a certain point of contention is vague, a judicial ruling is often the quickest and only satisfactory way to resolve these difficulties.

 

Take an entirely hypothetical example:

 

The government passes some legislation on the kinds of land that can be developed, and in what ways they can be developed. Now, say there's a patch of land near the village of Ballaelsewhere that doesn't, for whatever reason, fit in exactly with any of the legal classifications given in the legislation. One governmental department/agency argues that the land most closely falls within a classification that allows highly lucrative development to take place, and wishes to issue a permit to one or more companies to make this happen. Another department or agency on the other hand, who also have jurisdiction over the development of land have identified the same area as being worthy of preservation, and argue that the legislation actually forbids development on that land.

 

Neither department or agency is legally entitled to interpret law, and neither has control over the other, so what do you suggest happens? Government ministers aren't qualified or entitled to interpret the law in such matters. If the government did attempt to interpret the law in this one case, apart from being a breach of its remit, would be taken by whoever lost as a sign that the law is not absolute - that it can be altered in the blink of an eye to suit the circumstances (be it to appease popular opinion, or to benefit business). In such a case only the independent judiciary are qualified and entitled to interpret the law and set a suitable precedent after due consideration (at least until the law can be reviewed and more legislation passed to clear up the issue - and even then, the law cannot be taken to act retroactively to rule on this one point of contention).

 

Now, it could be argued that the jurisdiction of agencies and departments shouldn't overlap in this way at all, or that those that do have overlapping jurisdictions should all be contained in one nice and tidy government department in order to prevent such costly disagreements arising. Then it's a matter of how comfortable people feel with so much power and potential for a conflict of interests to be concentrated in the hands of one department, for instance were an Environmental agency wholly contained within a Department of Industry and Energy.

 

There are issues with quangos, some of which are useful, some less so, but this particular situation isn't one of them.

 

 

That's all well and good but MNH is still a quango, no matter how much you waffle around the situation.

 

MNH is governed by independent trustees and is also a registered charity. The trustees, not the government, have authority over finances and policy decisions.

[VinnieK]

That's all well and good but MNH is still a quango, no matter how much you waffle around the situation.

 

MNH is governed by independent trustees and is also a registered charity. The trustees, not the government, have authority over finances and policy decisions.

 

So what? So are universities, but they're not quangos. Even if this made a difference, Manx National Heritage is hardly 'quasi-autonamous', or even 'non-governmental', considering:

 

a. It's board of trustees incorporates representatives from Tynwald, as well as representatives of local government;

 

b. Most of its staff are civil servants appointed by the government;

 

c. Both it's staffing and finances are controlled and regulated by the government;

 

and the most fundamental difference between MNH and a 'true' quango

 

d. it's heavily involved with the public sector.

 

A real quango would be run by independent appointees, with its remit (usually regulatory) largely, if not totally, confined to some part of the private sector.

 

The Law society, Bar Society, and ITC are examples of true quangos in England.

[Ringwraith]

Well Vinnie, in your own words:

 

I think you've gotten a bit confused over what constitutes 'a quango': A quango is an administrative body that claims independence from the government, but is still funded by it

 

And from MNH website:

 

'Although Manx National Heritage is not a Department of Government, it is subject to the same strict regulation and control of staffing and financial resources as the Departments of Government.'

 

and:

 

'Authority for the financial control and policy decisions of the organisation is exercised by an independent body of Trustees which meets monthly.

 

This body comprises representatives from areas of the Island’s educational, academic, business and political communities. The Chairman of the Trustees is a non-political appointment, elected by the Trustees. '

 

So:

 

1 MNH - 'not' a government department.

2. MNH governed by 'independent trustees'.

3. MNH 'independent' trustees have control over 'financial AND policy decisions'.

 

A couple of definitions of a quango:

 

Quasi National Government Office - A non-governmental body the board of which is appointed rather than elected. Such bodies generally have significant powers and finances.

www.campbell-park.gov.uk/glossary.htm

 

a quasi nongovernmental organization; an organization that is financed by the government yet acts independently of the government

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

MNH = quango no matter what you say VinnieK.

[VinnieK]

MNH = quango no matter what you say VinnieK.

 

Since a quango is a fairly complex legal entity, have been sources of considerable controversy and concern, and are a feature of the political structure of most governments, it's generally prudent to try looking further than vague, one line definitions in order to get a handle on what they actually are. Officially, they fall in four categories: Executive Non Departmental Public Bodies, Advisory Non Departmental Public Bodies, Tribunals, and Boards of Visitors. The only category the MNH could fall into is the first, and closer inspection of the characteristics of this classification shows that even this would be wrong, since the MNH does not employ its own staff, and has a significant political element on its board of trustees - firmly establishing it as a government agency

 

As much fun as this is, you're missing the important point that, even within the context of the original post and the general debate that surrounds quangos, the MNH has a layer of accountability built into it, thanks to the fact that there are representatives from the national and local government on it's board of trustees (this alone, by the way, is enough to distinguish it from a quango), distinguishing it and separating it from the quango debate. The primary concern regarding quangos is that they are unaccountable bodies that nevertheless exert authority in the public sphere, but, through the presence of elected officials on its administrative board, Manx National Heritage is not an example of this. Not only that, but the Manx National Heritage does not, as has been implied elsewhere, have free reign over it's budget; apart from the regulations in place as a statutory body, its revenue and capital expenditure plans still have to be approved by the national budget, in effect placing ultimate spending authority in the hands of the government.

 

In short, even if we were to adopt the severely limited and general definition you've adopted (which would include any organisation and institution that happened to receive government funding, regardless of their structure, operation or actual level of independence), it would still be inaccurate to include Manx National Heritage in a discussion about unaccountable bodies using public funds to get up to all kinds of wacky shenanigens at the taxpayer's expense, and isn't that what this is supposed to be about?

 

We can still go to the nearest law and politics library and hurl text books at each other for a couple of hours if you want to continue this though.

[Ringwraith]

I agreed with News that MNH is a quango. MNH is a quango (quasi autonomous non-governmental organisation) as explained in my previous posts.

 

I have never accused MNH of getting 'up to all kinds of wacky shenanigens at the taxpayer's expense' and never would as I am sure they do good work and employ good people. They are however a non-governmental body financed by (in the main) the government and are seen to be self regulating, this is confirmed by their own website and that means they are a quango. You can split hairs with them about the content of their own website if you really feel the urge to do so but I have said all I am going to on the matter.

[Gladys]

I think the answer is in the defintion of "quasi", in simple terms "almost, but not quite".

[thebees]

I thought quasi was something to do with particle nuclear physics about how particles behave in an over excited condition, like why the particles of Plutonium pass through things (when we all know that solid matter cannot pass through solid matter - else we would all walk through walls innt?) moving on...

 

Sorry Vinnie man, it wasnt actually directed at you, and although tounge in cheek, I was actually serious. Sorry for not being as eloquent as I should, didnt ever realise there was a defined way of posting....thanks for the pointers mate, I'll bear them in mind (as in teddy.)