Geoff Mawdsley: Don't just kill off a few quangos – sweep every one of them away

GOVERNMENTS of different political persuasions have admitted that too many functions and too much power have been delegated to quangos.

So, over the years, we have had promises of "bonfires of the quangos", culminating in the present Scottish Government's drive to streamline public services with the Public Services Reform Bill.

While the aim of cutting Scotland's quangos – quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations – is right, the approaches adopted have not achieved the drastic reduction required. Reform Scotland's latest report, Democratic Power, sets out a clear and principled strategy that would end the quango culture. Instead, power would be exercised accountably and transparently either directly by government or through organisations that are genuinely independent of government.

Previous attempts to hack away the undergrowth of government in Scotland, while welcome, have failed because they were piecemeal and focused on the wrong target. They looked at the function of different bodies and tried to simplify or merge them to reduce waste and bureaucracy.

One result is that government ministers can pass the buck. This was seen clearly in the fiasco in 2000 over exam results. Although pupils' education and examination was a clear government responsibility, the fact it was a quango – the Scottish Qualifications Authority – that made mistakes meant the government and minister escaped the blame.

Reform Scotland's remedy is based on a presumption against quangos because of their lack of accountability and transparency. All quangos – apart from tribunals such as the Children's Panel system, for which we think there is a justification – would cease to exist altogether. A decision would be needed as to whether their functions should be transferred to existing government departments, reporting directly to a minister, or the quangos turned into completely autonomous bodies.

The key point is they would be one or the other, creating a much clearer distinction between what government does directly and what is done by organisations that are independent of government.

In those areas where it is decided that government should act directly, it must be clearly accountable to the public for its actions. This means acting directly through civil servants in its own departments wherever possible.

Without being overly prescriptive, we think most of the functions of bodies such as Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, VisitScotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency could be brought back "in-house" while any residual technical or advisory functions demanding greater independence of action could be performed by independent bodies. Wherever appropriate, though, there should be a presumption in favour of functions being performed by local authorities to ensure local accountability.

However, there are functions that would be better performed by an independent body or bodies and, in these cases, government could enter into an open and transparent contractual agreement to achieve agreed outcome measurements. These independent organisations would have to be provided with necessary funding. Advisory bodies such as the Scottish Law Commission and cultural bodies such as the National Museums of Scotland, together with health boards, might well benefit from greater independence from government in fulfilling their respective roles.

History has taught us a radical reduction in quangos can't be done in a piecemeal fashion, since "bonfires" turn into damp squibs. It can only be done by adopting a principled approach.

• Geoff Mawdsley is director of Reform Scotland