Squeezed taxpayers continue to fund quango bosses' six-figure salaries
According to the latest published figures from 2023, Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations in the UK - or 'quangos' to their friends and foes - had a combined budget of £353 billion.
Funded by taxpayers but not directly accountable to them, these arm's-length bodies wield great power at an immense cost to the public purse, demanding the attention of those of us with an interest in monitoring government spending and waste.
Earlier this week, the TaxPayers' Alliance published a report shedding light on quangocrats' pay. Between 2023 and 2024, at least 343 quango staff received more than £200,000 in total remuneration - which includes salary, expenses, benefits, bonuses, compensation for loss of office and pension benefits or contributions - while at least 1,472 received over £100,000.
The same report found that during that period, 'there were 315 quango staff who received a higher salary, as opposed to total remuneration, than the £172,153 salary entitlement of the prime minister.'
And how do these pay packages compare to the country's average salary?
'At least 26 quangos staff received a bonus greater than the average earnings in the UK,' we are told. 'Of these, five quango employees received a bonus more than the £100,000 in 2023-24.'
An organisation with a small number of particularly high pay packages caught my attention. The total remuneration of Chief Executive Officer of the Low Carbon Contracts Company, Neil McDermott, is listed as £347,028, with his colleagues George Pitt and Regina Finn (formerly of the water regulator, Ofwat) laying claim to £222,927 and £102,247 respectively.
The Low Carbon Company, in its own words, is 'a private company with a mission to accelerate net zero through facilitating low carbon investment.' It is owned by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who currently of course is Ed Miliband.
It is truly remarkable just how heavily invested successive UK governments (the Low Carbon Company was established in 2014 by the Conservative-led Coalition Government) have been in pursuing Net Zero plans, which has now become too politically toxic even for Tony Blair.
Another example of an eye-watering salary seemingly without the services to match it was that of Andrew Haines, the Chief Executive of Network Rail, who took home £588,000 plus £3,000 in benefits or expenses: nearly three and a half times what the Prime Minister earns.
The Chair of Network Rail, Lord Hendy, was reportedly paid a fee of £315,000 - almost double the salary of Sir Keir Starmer - before his departure from the quango to become Minister of State for Rail in July.
However, nothing quite compares to the sheer chutzpah of High Speed Two (HS2) Limited. Readers might recall the departure of its Chief Executive Mark Thurston in 2023 amidst political pressure over delays and cost overruns plaguing the infrastructure project. Taxpayers waved him goodbye with a pay package of £652,569 (including a £34,345 bonus, which was almost exactly the average UK salary that year).
We continue to pay just over a million pounds to just three individuals at HS2 Limited: the Interim Executive Chairman, the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Commercial Officer have a remuneration package of £432,202, £332,949 and £259,457 respectively.
What you pay for is what you get - this has long been a well-rehearsed argument in justifying lucrative salaries funded by taxpayers, and I have some sympathy for it. But very little, if any, evidence is ever produced to convince us that anything remotely close to value for our money is being delivered.
With the announcement of the abolition of NHS England, the Labour government demonstrated a welcome intention to bring governing back into the control of elected politicians. But somewhat like a relapsed addict, it also created 27 new quangos in just eight months.
What are we to make of it all, I asked the Cabinet Office.
A spokesman sought to reassure me with the reminder that Pat McFadden, the minister in charge of the Government's efficiency drive, 'has launched a review of all arm's-length bodies across government and we will close or merge any that cannot be justified'.
'We have already announced we'll get rid of the largest arm's length body, NHS England, by merging it with the Department for Health and Social Care. This will increase efficiency and help to deliver the Plan for Change.'
We can but live in hope.
Please share share examples of public spending in your personal and professional lives which you consider to be a waste of taxpayers' money. You can email us your stories – either in writing or as voice notes – at wastewatch@telegraph.co.uk
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
30 minutes ago
What Trump ordering an investigation into Biden's actions might mean legally and politically
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump has ordered an investigation into pardons and other executive actions issued by his predecessor, Joe Biden — launching an extraordinary effort to show that the Democrat hid his cognitive decline and was otherwise too mentally impaired to do the job. Trump, who turns 79 this month, has long questioned the mental acuity and physical stamina of Biden, and is now directing his administration to use governmental investigative powers to try and back up those assertions. Biden, 82, and now undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, dismissed Trump's actions as 'ridiculous.' Here's a look at what Trump is alleging, what impact it could have, and why the country may never have seen anything like this before. Trump directed his White House counsel and attorney general to begin an investigation into his own allegations that Biden aides hid from the public declining mental acuity in their boss. Trump is also casting doubts on the legitimacy of the Biden White House's use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. It marks a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of political adversaries, and could lay the groundwork for arguments by leading Republicans in Congress and around the country that a range of Biden's actions as president were invalid. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,' Trump said Thursday. He then went further, suggesting that rogue elements within the Biden administration might have effectively faked the president's signature and governed without his knowledge — especially when it came to pushing policies that appeased the Democratic Party's far-left wing. 'He didn't have much of an idea what was going on,' Trump said, though he also acknowledged that he had no evidence to back up those assertions. A Trump fundraising email released a short time later carried the heading, 'A robot ran the country?' Legal experts are skeptical about that the investigation will do much more than fire up Trump's core supporters. 'I think it's more of a political act than one that will have any legal effect,' said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law scholar at New York University School of Law. He added: 'I think it's designed to continue to fuel a narrative that the administration wants to elevate, but courts are not going to second-guess these sorts of executive actions' undertaken by Biden. Trump has long questioned the legitimacy of pardons his predecessor issued for his family members and other administration officials just before leaving office on Jan. 20, people whom Biden was worried could be targeted by a Trump-led Justice Department. But Trump has more recently suggested Biden was unaware of immigration policies during his own administration, and said Thursday that aides to his predecessor pushed social issues like transgender rights in ways Biden might not have agreed with. It is well-established that a president's executive orders can easily be repealed by a successor issuing new executive actions — something Trump has done repeatedly since retaking the White House. That lets Trump wipe out Biden administration policies without having to prove any were undertaken without Biden's knowledge — though his predecessor's pardons and judicial appointments can't be so easily erased. 'When it comes to completed legal acts like pardons or appointing judges,' Pildes said, a later president 'has no power to overturn those actions.' Autopens are writing tools that allow a person's signature to be affixed automatically to documents. The Justice Department, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has recognized the use of an autopen by presidents to sign legislation and issue pardons for decades — and even Trump himself acknowledges using it. 'Autopens to me are used when thousands of letters come in from young people all over the country and you want to get them back,' Trump said Thursday. Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said the 'consensus view is that, as long as the president has directed the use of the autopen in that particular instance, it is valid.' 'The only issue would be if someone else directed the use of the autopen without the President's approval,' Kalt, an expert on pardons, wrote in an email. Yes. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution bestows the president with the power 'to grant Reprieves and Pardons.' 'A president's pardons cannot be revoked. If they could, no pardon would ever be final,' American University politics professor Jeffrey Crouch, author of a book on presidential pardons, said in an email. 'There is no legal obstacle I am aware of to a president using an autopen on a pardon.' Kent Greenfield, a Boston College law professor, said, 'Once you pardon somebody, you can't go back and un-pardon them.' 'If it's done with a president's authority, I don't think it matters whether it's done with an autopen or not,' Greenfield added. 'The president's authority is the president's authority.' Trump's suggestions that Biden's administration effectively functioned without his knowledge on key policy matters go beyond questions about pardons and the president using the autopen. Even there, though, the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. At the time, Trump celebrated the ruling as a 'BIG WIN' because it extended the delay in the Washington criminal case against him on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss. Such immunity would likely cover Biden as a former president. It might not extend to Biden administration officials allegedly acting without his knowledge — though Trump himself acknowledged he's not seen evidence of that occurring. Biden has dismissed Trump's investigation as 'nothing more than a mere distraction.' 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' he said in a statement. In a word, no. There have been allegations of presidents being impaired and having their administrations controlled by intermediaries more than the public knew — including Edith Wilson, who effectively managed access to her husband, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, after his serious stroke in 1919. Wilson's critics grumbled about a shadow presidency controlled by his wife, but the matter was never formally investigated by Congress, nor was it a major source of criticism for Wilson's Republican successor, Warren G. Harding. More recently, some questioned whether President John F. Kennedy struggled more than was publicly known at the time with Addison's Disease and debilitating back pains while in office. And there were questions about whether dementia might have affected Ronald Reagan during his second term, before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994, five years after he left office.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The net zero fight threatening to blow up Miliband's green dreams
When Ed Miliband took the reins of his old department last summer after 14 years away, the Energy Secretary compared being in government to playing the video game Mario Kart. 'You're driving along, things fly at you and you've got to just keep going,' he joked a few months in. Some of those flying objects may have been easy to anticipate – not least a rural backlash against his approval of vast solar farms and power lines across swathes of British countryside. Yet one row Labour's net zero supremo may not have seen coming was a fight over the rather dry-sounding 'review of electricity market arrangements'. Quietly started in 2023 by Mr Miliband's Conservative predecessors, it includes what has become an incendiary proposal for regional, or 'zonal', electricity pricing. This proposal would divide Britain's national electricity market into several zones, with power prices set in each area based on local supply and demand dynamics. In practice, this would mean that people in the heavily populated South East would end up paying more than those in the North, who are closer to Scottish wind farms that generate a lot of power. It's an idea that has already got energy companies fighting like cats in a sack and is now threatening a political row as well, with Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens all lining up against it. Now, with a decision expected from Mr Miliband next week, Downing Street has let it be known that Sir Keir Starmer may wade in himself to settle the matter – although sources insist the Prime Minister and his team have no firm views yet. For Starmer and Miliband, the stakes could not be higher. Industry sees the zonal question as one with existential consequences for Labour, arguing it has the potential to make or break Miliband's twin pledges to roll out a clean power system by 2030 and lower household energy bills. Failure to deliver one or both could fatally undermine public support for net zero at a time when Nigel Farage's Reform Party is describing the issue as the 'next Brexit'. 'Both sides in the zonal debate legitimately believe they are carrying the flame for decarbonisation and doing something righteous on behalf of consumers,' says Adam Bell, a former top Energy Department official who is now a consultant at Stonehaven. 'The problem is, no one can really be certain about who is actually right.' That has not stopped the various sides from making speeches, publishing studies, filming explainer videos and writing blog posts to plead their case – with the argument pitting some of the biggest names in energy against each other, often in bitter exchanges. For example, after Scottish Power boss Keith Anderson gave a speech last month warning ministers not to 'tamper with a system that works', Octopus Energy boss Greg Jackson branded his comments 'astonishing'. 'It may work for incumbent energy generators but it doesn't work for households or businesses struggling with Europe's highest energy costs,' Jackson tweeted. The implication was that Scottish Power was defending its profits at the expense of customers. Zonal supporters such as Octopus and Ovo Energy, regulator Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator (Neso), say that the switch would shave tens of billions of pounds off the cost of the green energy transition by making more efficient use of the electricity grid. 'It's our job to push prices down in the supply chain,' Jackson has said. 'If that means taking the very big producers to task and working hard to squeeze them to be more efficient, so we can pass lower prices to customers, that is our job.' At the moment, the national pricing system keeps prices in some areas such as London artificially low and prices elsewhere – such as Scotland – artificially high, leading to all kinds of waste and market quirks. For example, Britain is currently spending more than £1bn a year on switching off wind farms in some locations because the grid is too congested to accept their power at busy times, while firing up gas power plants elsewhere to compensate. These 'constraint' costs are expected to balloon to more than £3bn a year under the existing system. Switching to a zonal system would eradicate these kinds of inefficiencies because when there is abundant wind power, prices in places like Scotland would simply plummet, with the inverse true in the South East during peak times. It would theoretically encourage solar and wind farms to locate much closer to where power is needed, dramatically cutting the amount of money that would need to be spent on grid upgrades. One study shared with the Government, seen by The Telegraph, puts these savings at up to £27bn. Though wholesale electricity prices would vary between regions, households in almost every area would be better off overall due to the lack of constraint costs and reductions in grid charges, according to a study by FTI Consulting for Octopus. It estimates that zonal would leave consumers £52bn better off overall over a 20-year period. This equates to something like £50 to £100 off their annual bills, says Jason Mann, an electricity markets expert and the study's author. The South East would emerge as the only regional loser, to the tune of £3.6bn or about £150m per year. Mann argues this could be remedied with some system tweaks, ensuring no households lose out. Another potential upside of cheaper electricity in Scotland and the North could be the potential to attract investment in power-hungry data centres and industrial facilities such as hydrogen electrolysers, supporters say. Yet any suggestion of overt regional differences may prove politically toxic. Mr Miliband warned in April he would 'not introduce a postcode lottery'. 'Whatever route we go down, my bottom line is bills have got to fall, and they should fall throughout the country,' he told the BBC. On the other side of the debate, a formidable list of major players are lining up to warn Mr Miliband off the proposals. They include nearly every major wind farm developer, British Gas owner Centrica, trade bodies MakeUK, SolarUK and Offshore Energies UK, as well as Labour-supporting unions Unite and the GMB. At the crux of their arguments are two key contentions. First, that the problems with the current national pricing system can be solved by grid upgrades and lower-key market reforms; and second, that the poor timing of the zonal proposals means they now risk doing more harm than good, by creating so much uncertainty that they derail Mr Miliband's hopes for a green energy construction boom. Studies produced for wind farm owner SSE by Aquaicity Ltd and LCP paint a starkly different picture to the FTI research, arguing that the consumer savings may be nearly eradicated by price increases. This would be because wind farm developers, less certain of their future earnings under a reformed system, would demand higher prices in the Government's contracts for difference (CfD) auctions, which feed through directly into the bills paid by households and businesses. According to LCP, a move to zonal pricing would only save £5bn to 15bn over a 20-year period. Mr Miliband's clean power action plan – through which he aims to make the grid 95pc powered by renewables in 2030 – rests upon the assumption that the Government will procure unprecedented amounts of new wind farm projects in CfD auctions this summer and next. Any suggestion that zonal is on the way risks chilling investment, developers have suggested. Other critics have rubbished claims that cheaper prices in some regions will really cause businesses to relocate. 'I love Scotland, but who's going to start a big factory there?', says Dale Vince, the multimillionaire Labour donor and Ecotricity tycoon. 'I mean, how do you get your workforce there? There's so many practical problems with zonal. I don't understand why it's still being talked about.' The question of zonal has suddenly taken on more urgency as lobbying ramps up in anticipation of a promised decision this month. Advocates say that without action now the problems under the current system will only grow more unsustainable. The amount of money being wasted on a daily basis by wind farms is now being tracked by a website, Wasted Wind. On Thursday it said more than £4.5m had been spent on switching off turbines and finding replacement power. 'The amount you have to pay windfarms to get constrained off – the amount that we end up with a system that is inefficient – if we do absolutely nothing, I think means it is not economically credible for British consumers to leave it as it is,' warned Jonathan Brearley, chief executive of Ofgem, earlier this year. Although Mr Miliband's officials have backed zonal pricing, the rest of Whitehall is said to be split on the idea and there is growing nervousness in Downing Street about the political consequences if things go wrong. A spokesman for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero insists that the focus will be on 'protecting bill-payers and encouraging investment'. Whatever Mr Miliband decides to do, people on both sides of the argument agree on one thing: he should get on with it urgently to put an end to any doubts. Bell, at Stonehaven, believes the hour is so late now that the Government is most likely to kick the can down the road. Starmer's intervention appears to make that more likely. Downing Street is understood to have requested a further review of the costs and benefits of the policy – raising the prospect that the idea could be killed off or kicked into the long grass. 'If you really just don't want to do this now, you could just say let's put it to one side now and look again in the 2040s,' he says. Ducking the question may ultimately satisfy no one. But at least Mr Miliband will be able to keep careening forward, Mario Kart-style. Until, at least, the next flying obstacle approaches. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. lets criminals go, ICE arrests innocent people. They both need to change.
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Cases like Lopez's show that sometimes, federal authorities have a legitimate gripe with the state's progressive policies. Because of a 2017 Supreme Judicial Court decision, there are instances when the state releases dangerous criminals instead of handing them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Advertisement But the Trump administration is also overstating how much Massachusetts' policies, as bad as they can be, are to blame for its mounting arrests of noncriminals. Both sides need to give a little bit: Massachusetts should be willing to help in cases where ICE wants to arrest a convicted criminal like Lopez. The federal government has the right to deport people who are in this country illegally, and the state should help when it comes to violent criminals. Advertisement What the federal government doesn't have the right to do is compel local law enforcement to go after law-abiding, peaceable immigrants — whether they're here illegally or not. And it shouldn't be targeting noncriminals, either — or using local sanctuary policies as a pretext for the recent arrests of people with no criminal records. Over the past month, ICE has arrested 'If sanctuary cities would change their policies and turn these violent criminal aliens over to us into our custody instead of releasing them into the public, we would not have to go out to the communities and do this,' Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said during an ICE The state's policies date to 2017, when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Lunn v. Commonwealth that the Legislature would have to specifically authorize court officers to honor requests from immigration authorities to hold deportable immigrants. So far, the Democratic-led Legislature has not done so, and it passed up different bills that would allow law enforcement to cooperate on detainers for immigrants who are here illegally and have committed heinous crimes. Inaction on Lunn has drawn scrutiny from conservatives and even a member of Healey's Cabinet. For Worcester County Sheriff Lew Evangelidis, for example, law enforcement's inability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities means that some criminal migrants can be released back into the community. 'Right now, there's no ability to notify ICE and hold that person for [ICE] to make a determination whether they wish to take them into custody and then provide them the due process that they get in the federal system,' he told me. Advertisement Meanwhile, Healey's secretary of Public Safety and Security, Terrence Reidy, has In a statement, Healey's office said it does cooperate with ICE to some extent, such as by notifying ICE when a criminal in state custody is scheduled to be released. But that leaves loopholes for cases like Lopez's, which result in ICE having to rearrest a criminal. There were no collateral arrests when ICE tracked down Lopez because they were banned under the Biden administration — but there could be if a similar arrest were made now. Still, the Trump administration is exaggerating the connection between sanctuary policies and collateral arrests. Cases where criminals like Lopez were released in spite of detainers may have fueled some collateral arrests in the past month. But the Department of Homeland Security has failed to give a detailed breakdown so it's hard to know just how many. In a Advertisement Meanwhile, some of ICE's higher profile examples of collateral arrest seem to have nothing to do with Lunn. Like the case of the 18-year-old Milford student, Marcelo Gomes da Silva, who was arrested on his way to volleyball practice in an operation meant for his father. He was But so far there It isn't crazy for the Trump administration to criticize Massachusetts policies that can and have allowed convicted criminal migrants to be released into the community. In fact, most Americans would agree — a recent University of Massachusetts Amherst But that poll also found that most people Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
