Advice, Guidance and Control: Non-Departmental Public Bodies and Standards of Conduct*
| Published date | 01 September 1988 |
| DOI | 10.1177/014473948800800202 |
| Author | Alan Doig |
| Date | 01 September 1988 |
Teachfng Pub1fc Admfnfstratfon:
Autumn
1988 vo1.VIII no.2 pp.1-23
ADVICE,
GUIDANCE
AND
CONTROL:
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
PUBLIC
BODIES
AND
STANDARDS
OF
CONDUCT
*
Alan
Doig
Facu1ty
of
Socia7
and
Environmenta7
Studies
University
of
Liverpoo7
Introduction:
The World
of
Non-Departmental
Public
Bodies
By
any
criteria
the
public
sector
is,
outside
central
and
local
government,
the
National
Health
Service
or
the
armed
forces,
still
large
and
remarkably
diverse.
While
partial
lists
of
the
bodies
in
this
area
were
published
in
the
1970s
1
the
first
full
survey
was
carried
out
by
the
Civil
Service
Department
in
1978.
This,
the
Bowen
survey,
attempted
to
define
what
it
chose
to
call
a
'fringe
body'
and
1 i
st
them
by
var
i
ous
head
i
ngs
such
as
staff,
expenditure,
functions
and
so
on.
The
survey
suggested
that
these
bodies
can
be
defined
through
the
following
categories:
'Fringe
bodies
are
organisations
which
have
been
set
up
or
adopted
by
Departments
and
provided
with
funds
to
perform
some
function
which
the
Government
wish
to
have
performed
but
which
it
did
not
wish
to
be
the
direct
responsibility
of
a
Minister
or
of
a
Department.
The
role
of
many
fringe
bodies
can
be
described
as
government
at
arm's
length
...
The
bodies
receive
their
funds
mainly
direct
from
Vote
or
by
grant
or
grant-in-aid
or
through
statutorily
imposed
levies
or
charges
...
The
fr
i
nge
body
shou
1 d
have
permanence.
The
study
would
not
with
ad
hoc
bodies
intended
to
be
character
...
a
measure
of
conce
rn
i
tse
1 f
of
a
temporary
Fringe
bodies
are
supported
by a
staff
which
in
some
sense
are
thei
r own,
separate
from
that
of
Departments.
Staffi
ng
arrangements
woul
d,
however,
in
most
cases
be
subject
to
a
measure
of
control
by
the
Minister
responsible
for
the
body
and
by
the
Minister
for
the
Civil
Service.'2
This
definition
excluded
government
departments
which
it
defined
as
'executive
centres'
of
government
who
are
staffed
* The
project
from
which
data
is
drawn was
funded
by a
grant
from
the
British
Academy.
Teaching PubTic Administration:
Autumn
1988
vaT.
VIII
no.2 pp.I-23
by
civil
servants
on
behalf
of
the
Crown,
responsible
through
a
Minister
to
Parliament
and
mainly
financed
wholly
and
directly
from
the
vote.
Nationalised
industries
were
also
excluded
and
seen
as
separate
national
corporations
enjoying
varying
degrees
of
autonomy
and
in
part
se1f-
financing.
Also
excluded
were
the
Regional
Water
Authorities
on
the
grounds
that
while
they
served
the
purpose
of
central
government
in
functional
areas
the
execution
of
policy
was
on a
local
or
regional
basis.
The
position
of
public
bodies
in
the
machinery
of
government
was
determined
thus:
'The
position
of
fringe
bodies
within
the
total
scheme
of
government
can,
however,
be
broadly
identified.
At
the
centre
are
the
Executive,
including
Ministers
and
Departments,
the
Legislature
and
the
Judiciary.
These
constitute
the
central
core
of
government.
From
Ministers
and
Departments
the
government
extends
to
an
outer
ring
consisting
of
the
various
local
authorities
and
beyond
this
is
the
private
sector
in
its
varied
manifestations.
The
fringe
bodies
with
which
this
study
is
concerned
function
as
sate
11
i
tes
of
Departments
in
the
zone
between
Departments
and
the
outer
zone
of
the
local
authorities
and
the
private
sector.
Fringe
bodies
have
their
own
distinctive
orbits
but
departmental
forces
of
varying
power
operate
upon
them.
'3
The
survey's
exploratory
work
was
swiftly
overtaken
by
a
barrage
of
parliamentary
questions
during
the
early
days
of
the
Thatcher
Administration
which
sought
information
on
what
was
seen
by
critics
of
public
bodies
as
the
concealed
expansion
of
the
machinery
of
government.
4
Its
response
was
to
initiate
another
survey
of
such
bodies
under
a
former
Permanent
Secretary,
Si
r Leo
P1
i
atzky.
5 The
intention
was
to
axe
as
many
as
possible
under
the
auspices
of
a
'critical
review'
of
all
pub1
ic
bodies
that
had
'out
1 i
ved
thei
r
usefulness'
or,
as
the
P1iatzky
survey
noted,
which
'could
not
be
justified
in
the
context
of
the
Government's
obj
ect
i
ves
of
reduc
i ng
pub
1 i c
expend
i
tu
re
and
the
size
of
the
public
sector'.6
The
P1iatzky
survey
was
concerned
with
those
bodies
formerly
termed
fringe
bodies
and
now
to
be
known
as
Non-Department
Public
Bodies
(NDPBs)
with
operational
or
regulating
functions,
various
scientific
and
cultural
activities
and
some
commercial
or
semi-commercial
activities,
advisory
bodies
and
tribunals.
Nationalised
industries
were
excluded
on
the
grounds
that
they
were
industrial
or
commercial
enterprises,
and
were
not
adjuncts
to
government.
The
survey
did,
however,
include
information
on them
and
on
other
public
corporations.
The
major
focus
was
on
NDPBs,
particularly
those
that
employed
staff
and
spent
money.
It
suggested
that
NDPBs
did
have
essential
functions:
'There
can
be
a
number
of
reasons
for
th
i s -
2
To continue reading
Request your trial