My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for initiating this very worthwhile debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed their knowledge and experience by speaking today.

In particular, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on his maiden speech. I share his recreation, according to his entry in DodOnline of what he modestly calls novice horse-riding, and I look forward to his future contributions.

When my noble friend requested this debate, his intention as he said, was to focus the spotlight on quangos—quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations or non-departmental public bodies. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, among others, have also taken the opportunity to widen the debate to other NGOs. The noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, referred to the fact that NGO means different things to different people. I would very much have liked to deal with issues involving, for instance, contracting with government for the provision of services by charities. I have great sympathy with the argument, for example, that the promise of full cost recovery has, as the National Audit Office has reported, simply been broken. The right reverend Prelate referred to concerns over short-termism, shifting of goalposts, inconsistency over funding and concerns over trusts, among other things.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, talked specifically of his experience in the housing association sector. The noble Lord, Lord Low, too, raised some important questions, but in view of the constraints I doubt that I shall be able to spend more time on this area, and I apologise to those noble Lords because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, these are very important subjects worthy of their own debates.

Following my noble friend's lead, I shall focus my arguments on quangos. The new Labour Government's definition of a non-departmental public body in 1997 in a Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies was:

"A body which has a role in the processes of national government, but is not a government department, or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extent at arm's length from Ministers".

The paradox is, of course, that the more you encourage them to operate at arm's length from Ministers the less accountable to Parliament they become. A cynic might say that that is sometimes the intention: if a policy is unpopular, or there is a failure in delivery, make sure there is a quango to blame it on. Likewise when a quango with geographically focused objectives is established by national government, it is almost by definition unaccountable to the local communities with which it operates. The regional development agencies are a classic example, and the problem is about to get worse. Ministers talk about strengthening the role of local communities in the planning process, yet they are proposing to transfer important housing and planning powers to the completely unaccountable RDAs. The noble Lord, Lord Best, also talked about housing and referred to different concerns regarding forthcoming legislation, which is likely to centralise power over housing associations.

A major criticism of quangos is that unelected officials have responsibility for performing central and local authority functions, without, as my noble friend Lady Sharples said, full accountability to elected politicians. Critics believe that quangos are insulated to a greater or lesser degree from direct ministerial involvement, weaken the scrutiny mechanisms of Parliament and remove control and responsibility at local level. Criticism has also been made of their escalating cost.

However, before I deal with that, I would like to highlight the difficulty in identifying the number of NDPBs—or quangos—in existence. A sleight of hand has been at work in the Cabinet Office figures, by, for example, removing from the list, after devolution, those for which responsibility has been devolved to Scotland and Wales. The totals, for 1997, of 1,128 and for 2007, of 883, are, quite simply, apples and pears. There has been so much criticism that the Cabinet Office has dropped its database and become increasingly reluctant to provide any figures or information.

Furthermore, even if there has been a reduction in the number, it has been achieved through amalgamation and reclassification—as well as by discounting those for whom responsibility has been devolved—and should not be seen as indication of a decline in their role or significance. That the very opposite is true is shown so clearly by the fact that NDPB expenditure of colossal and rising inexorably.

According to a recent report, quoted by my noble friend, from the Economic Research Council, which has aggregated the costs of the 883 public bodies in the Cabinet Office's 2006 report, total annual spending on those public bodies was £174 billion. Removing the NHS quangos, the total is still over £40 billion.

Since 1997, this Labour Government have pursed an agenda of what they call partnership, which has prompted the increased deployment or creation of quangos, as a means of instituting new public policy initiatives. Yet speaking in 1995, as my noble friend Lady Sharples said, Tony Blair had promised to,

"sweep away the quango state", if Labour were elected at the next general election. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed out, none other than Gordon Brown also said then:

"The biggest question ... is ... why there is not more openness and accountability ... The real alternative is a bonfire of the quangos and greater democracy."

What humbug!

As long ago as 2003, the Public Administration Select Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, also referred in such positive terms, concluded that there was a basic lack of information about which bodies exist and their roles and powers; that the Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies, did not include all bodies and was commonly subject to errors and admissions and that public mistrust in the quango state remained.

In conclusion, no reasonable person would, I dare suggest, say that there is never a role for any quangos. However, the extent of their use and purpose, their lack of accountability, independence or supervision and, importantly, their complete dislocation from the local communities that they serve as well as of their cost have, as my noble friend said, got completely out of control.

Messrs Blair and Brown both demanded a bonfire of quangos and now claim that there are fewer of them. Since Labour came to power, the amount of public money spent on quangos has soared out of control, from £24 billion to £170 billion per year. The Government's reliance on commissions, taskforces and quangos raises serious questions about accountability, democracy, independence, scrutiny and public trust in the way that this country is governed.