Latest news with #Conservative-LiberalDemocrat
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
19-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
What does the British royal family and King Charles III cost the UK?
How much should British taxpayers pay to keep the royal family living in the style they're accustomed? It's a question few in the UK have considered, largely because assessing the true cost of the monarch's finances is a murky business, both opaque and highly secretive, with a myriad of rules and customs serving to stifle public debate. Financial accounts show the sovereign grant that supports King Charles III and his family in carrying out their official duties increased by 53 per cent in the last financial year. It now stands at £132 million ($174 million). That's a big leap — more than quadruple the £31 million of the initial grant when it was introduced in 2012, despite promises by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government of the day that it would provide better value for money than the old civil list system. While the crown's finances are subjected to occasional official audits (the last one was two years ago and before that in 2013), the royals are not covered by freedom of information legislation. There seems little incentive to keep costs down. And secrecy and labyrinthine structures mean there's minimal public discussion about the monarchy's money or much thought given to whether royal duties could be provided in a better, more efficient way. (A spokesperson for the royal family said there was 'government oversight of all expenditure.') The campaign group Republic, which seeks the abolition of the monarchy, estimates the true annual cost is closer to £510 million, once security, travel and other expenses are factored in. The former Liberal Democrat minister Norman Baker, who investigated the royals' finances in depth for his book And What Do You Do? also puts the figure at around half a billion pounds. That would put the real price tag for the monarchy at about £7 for every person in the UK, not a huge amount, perhaps, especially given some estimates, including one by the Regional Studies Association, claim the royals' annual contribution to the UK economy from tourism, trade and other benefits approaches a couple of billion a year. Then there's the diplomatic lure the monarch offers, encapsulated recently by US President Donald Trump's ecstatic response to an invitation to tea with Charles, which seems to have helped win the UK a more favourable tariff and trade deal. And most Brits are sanguine about footing the bill — an Ipsos poll released this month found 48 per cent considered the royals good value for money, while 25 per cent thought they weren't worth it and the rest were unsure. But is the public being shortchanged? Baker points out that other monarchies manage to operate on a far less grand scale: The next most costly European royal family, headed by the Netherlands' King Willem-Alexander, rings in at around £46 million ($61 million) a year. Other countries' famous palaces — from Beijing's Forbidden City to France's Versailles — seem to be thriving and pulling in tourist dollars long after their royals were sent packing. As Baker told me: 'I'm sure the soft power draw of the royal family is real — but why does it have to be so lavish?' Lavish it certainly is. As well as their private estates of Sandringham, Balmoral and Highgrove, the royals have seven official residences, including Windsor Castle and St James' Palace, plus nearly 300 'grace and favor' properties, to house members of the family and their flunkies, with the bill for upkeep picked up by the public. Indeed, the mega hike in this year's sovereign grant is largely down to a £369 million 10-year upgrade to Buckingham Palace, the king's official London residence, which led to an adjustment to the complicated formula for calculating the rate of the grant. The sovereign grant can go up by significantly more than inflation but not down. It's overseen by a small group made up of the prime minister of the day, their chancellor and a senior courtier, with minimal debate in parliament — by convention, royal matters are generally not discussed very much in the House of Commons. That's ironic, given the UK parliament building is itself literally falling apart. MPs have for decades avoided signing off on a refurbishment plan similar to that nodded through for Buckingham Palace out of fear it wouldn't please taxpayers at a time when hundreds of public hospitals and schools are also in dire need of repair. The lack of rigor in keeping down the royal family's spending means there are occasional objections when a more egregious item becomes known — such as the disgraced Prince Andrew's penchant for taking helicopters to play golf at public expense — but this is rare. There's little public discussion either about the vast fortunes the royals have accrued from centuries of perks, such as relief from inheritance tax and other taxes, and the income and commercial profits derived from the royal estates of Lancaster and Cornwall, which they treat as their private property. Anyone who dies in the vast duchy landholdings without a will has their estate gobbled up by senior royals, who also receive fees from the use of the land for activities such as hospital parking and rents and levies from thousands of residential homes, charities and other public and private bodies including prisons, wind farms and even the British army, an investigation by Channel 4 and the Sunday Times found last year. While Queen Victoria paid income tax as soon as it was reintroduced under Robert Peel in 1842, the Windsors have been more reluctant. The late Queen Elizabeth II finally gave into public pressure to pay income tax in 1993 (but not inheritance and corporation tax), but under Charles this remains a 'voluntary' arrangement, and there is nothing to stop a future, less altruistic monarch from closing their purse. Charles, who is estimated to be worth £640 million, deducts millions from the tax bill on his income from the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster by claiming expenses that have included stabling for his horses and wages for his footmen, according to Baker's book. Millions more have been shielded via investments in offshore funds including in the Cayman Islands, a secret arrangement that only emerged with the publication of the Paradise Papers in 2017. Royalists argue the current system is good value for money, given the significance of both the monarch's constitutional rule and cultural importance. Brits do indeed seem happy with their constitutional monarchy. But that doesn't mean they should be required to write a blank check.
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
A King's Ransom: The eye-watering amount British taxpayers need to pay to let Charles III live in style
How much should British taxpayers pay to keep the royal family living in the style they're accustomed? It's a question few in the UK have considered, largely because assessing the true cost of the monarch's finances is a murky business, both opaque and highly secretive, with a myriad of rules and customs serving to stifle public debate. Financial accounts show the sovereign grant that supports King Charles III and his family in carrying out their official duties increased by 53% in the last financial year. It now stands at £132 million ($174 million). That's a big leap — more than quadruple the £31 million of the initial grant when it was introduced in 2012, despite promises by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government of the day that it would provide better value for money than the old civil list system. 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Cost Of Amusement Park Equipment From Mexico Might Surprise You (See Prices) Amusement Park Equipment | search ads Learn More Undo While the crown's finances are subjected to occasional official audits (the last one was two years ago and before that in 2013), the royals are not covered by freedom of information legislation. There seems little incentive to keep costs down. And secrecy and labyrinthine structures mean there's minimal public discussion about the monarchy's money or much thought given to whether royal duties could be provided in a better, more efficient way. (A spokesperson for the royal family said there was 'government oversight of all expenditure.') The campaign group Republic, which seeks the abolition of the monarchy, estimates the true annual cost is closer to £510 million, once security, travel and other expenses are factored in. The former Liberal Democrat minister Norman Baker, who investigated the royals' finances in depth for his book And What Do You Do? also puts the figure at around half a billion pounds. Live Events That would put the real price tag for the monarchy at about £7 for every person in the UK, not a huge amount, perhaps, especially given some estimates, including one by the Regional Studies Association, claim the royals' annual contribution to the UK economy from tourism, trade and other benefits approaches a couple of billion a year. Then there's the diplomatic lure the monarch offers, encapsulated recently by US President Donald Trump's ecstatic response to an invitation to tea with Charles, which seems to have helped win the UK a more favorable tariff and trade deal. And most Brits are sanguine about footing the bill — an Ipsos poll released this month found 48% considered the royals good value for money, while 25% thought they weren't worth it and the rest were unsure. But is the public being shortchanged? Baker points out that other monarchies manage to operate on a far less grand scale: The next most costly European royal family, headed by the Netherlands' King Willem-Alexander, rings in at around £46 million ($61 million) a year. Other countries' famous palaces — from Beijing's Forbidden City to France's Versailles — seem to be thriving and pulling in tourist dollars long after their royals were sent packing. As Baker told me: 'I'm sure the soft power draw of the royal family is real — but why does it have to be so lavish?' Lavish it certainly is. As well as their private estates of Sandringham, Balmoral and Highgrove, the royals have seven official residences, including Windsor Castle and St James' Palace, plus nearly 300 'grace and favor' properties, to house members of the family and their flunkies, with the bill for upkeep picked up by the public. Indeed, the mega hike in this year's sovereign grant is largely down to a £369 million 10-year upgrade to Buckingham Palace, the king's official London residence, which led to an adjustment to the complicated formula for calculating the rate of the grant. The sovereign grant can go up by significantly more than inflation but not down. It's overseen by a small group made up of the prime minister of the day, their chancellor and a senior courtier, with minimal debate in parliament — by convention, royal matters are generally not discussed very much in the House of Commons. That's ironic, given the UK parliament building is itself literally falling apart. MPs have for decades avoided signing off on a refurbishment plan similar to that nodded through for Buckingham Palace out of fear it wouldn't please taxpayers at a time when hundreds of public hospitals and schools are also in dire need of repair. The lack of rigor in keeping down the royal family's spending means there are occasional objections when a more egregious item becomes known — such as the disgraced Prince Andrew's penchant for taking helicopters to play golf at public expense — but this is rare. There's little public discussion either about the vast fortunes the royals have accrued from centuries of perks, such as relief from inheritance tax and other taxes, and the income and commercial profits derived from the royal estates of Lancaster and Cornwall, which they treat as their private property. Anyone who dies in the vast duchy landholdings without a will has their estate gobbled up by senior royals, who also receive fees from the use of the land for activities such as hospital parking and rents and levies from thousands of residential homes, charities and other public and private bodies including prisons, wind farms and even the British army, an investigation by Channel 4 and the Sunday Times found last year. While Queen Victoria paid income tax as soon as it was reintroduced under Robert Peel in 1842, the Windsors have been more reluctant. The late Queen Elizabeth II finally gave into public pressure to pay income tax in 1993 (but not inheritance and corporation tax), but under Charles this remains a 'voluntary' arrangement, and there is nothing to stop a future, less altruistic monarch from closing their purse. Charles, who is estimated to be worth £640 million, deducts millions from the tax bill on his income from the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster by claiming expenses that have included stabling for his horses and wages for his footmen, according to Baker's book. Millions more have been shielded via investments in offshore funds including in the Cayman Islands, a secret arrangement that only emerged with the publication of the Paradise Papers in 2017. Royalists argue the current system is good value for money, given the significance of both the monarch's constitutional rule and cultural importance. Brits do indeed seem happy with their constitutional monarchy. But that doesn't mean they should be required to write a blank check. Giving one of the richest people in the world a huge pay rise at a time when government departments will shortly unveil billions of pounds in spending cuts is unseemly. Cutting a palace or two, or perhaps a dozen or so racehorses, might be a nice gesture. At minimum, we should be given the information so we can at least talk about it.
Middle East Eye
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Exclusive: UK considered Palestine recognition in 2014 if Israel built settlements now being planned
The UK privately decided in 2014 that it would consider recognising a Palestinian state if Israel advanced with the contentious E1 settlement project, Middle East Eye can reveal. Israel is currently poised to move forward with the settlement plan, which would effectively split the occupied West Bank in two. 'This is how we effectively kill the Palestinian state,' Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also oversees settlement activity and civilian affairs in the West Bank, said last Tuesday. Although the construction plan dates back to the 1990s, its implementation has repeatedly been delayed due to strong international opposition. Britain's Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government publicly criticised the plan in 2014. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters But multiple Foreign Office sources with knowledge of the matter told MEE that privately, the government went much further and decided it would consider recognising Palestine if the Israeli government moved forward with the project. Responding to the revelation, Labour MP Kim Johnson said: "Even the last Tory government acknowledged the necessity of recognising the state of Palestine in the event of any further Israeli illegal annexation of Palestinian land and escalation of a threat to the viability of a Palestinian state." She added: "Britain must unilaterally recognise the state of Palestine without any further delay." Labour MP Uma Kumaran, a member of Britain's Foreign Affairs Select Committee, told MEE that "we are witnessing the total destruction of Gaza and the creeping annexation of the West Bank in real time. "If there is further delay, the devastating reality is, there may soon be nothing or no one left to recognise." In October 2014, the House of Commons voted 274 to 12 in favour of recognising a Palestinian state, but the government insisted it would do so when it was "appropriate for the peace process". Asked for comment on the revelation on Tuesday, the Foreign Office referred MEE to the Labour government's position on the issue. Earlier this year British Foreign Secretary David Lammy insisted that the UK would only recognise a Palestinian state "when we know it's going to happen and it's in sight". Pakistani military says UK engines powered Israeli drones used by India Read More » Now, however, there is speculation that Britain and France could recognise a Palestinian state at a conference on the two-state solution in June. In late April, Lammy acknowledged for the first time that the UK is in discussion with France and Saudi Arabia on the topic. Kumaran said: "This government was elected on a manifesto that promised to recognise Palestine as a step towards a just and lasting peace. I strongly support the recognition of a Palestinian State, and I have raised this repeatedly in parliament, on the Foreign Affairs Committee and with ministers." Former senior British diplomat Sir William Patey, who chairs the Labour Middle East Council, told MEE: "Now is the time for the UK along with France to recognise a Palestinian state before it is too late to save a two state solution." Alon Liel, who was formerly director general of Israel's foreign ministry and adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, told MEE he believes UK support would be vital in helping to secure Palestinian statehood. "Britain's position on the two states issue and the recognition of the state of Palestine is critical mainly because of its historic responsibility," said Liel, a founding member of the Policy Working Group, an Israeli organisation which opposes Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. "British recognition of Palestine will save the two-states idea. The Labour Party has the recognition issue on its platform and should proceed and implement its commitment in order to avoid a further Middle Eastern deterioration that will endanger Europe too." Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, now an independent MP, told MEE: "It is disgraceful that the government has chosen to delay and delay the recognition of a Palestinian state. "We should recognise it unconditionally and immediately. Not some time in the future. Not when the time is right. Now." 'Irreversible consequences' Both the United States and the European Union have warned successive Israeli governments against advancing the E1 plan, citing its potentially devastating impact on prospects for a two-state solution. The project would involve the construction of 3,412 housing units for Israeli settlers on occupied Palestinian land. It aims to connect the settlements of Kfar Adumim and Maale Adumim with occupied East Jerusalem, cutting off Palestinian communities from one another and significantly disrupting territorial continuity. 'The UK should be recognising Palestine because it recognises Palestinian national rights' - Chris Doyle, CAABU Responding to MEE's revelation that the UK decided in 2014 it would consider recognising Palestine if Israel advanced the E1 project, independent MP Ayoub Khan said: "That moment has now arrived. "The Israeli government is moving forward with E1 - an illegal project that would sever East Jerusalem from the West Bank and destroy the geographical viability of a future Palestinian state." Khan added: "To prevent the E1 project and its irreversible consequences, the UK must immediately recognise the State of Palestine and defend this position across international diplomatic platforms. Israel to advance E1 settlement project that would 'kill the Palestinian state' Read More » "If necessary, the UK must table a motion at the UN to deploy international protection forces on the ground to uphold the territorial integrity of Palestine and safeguard its population." Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich said at a settlement conference last Tuesday that the Israeli government had already approved 15,000 settlement units in 2024 and is investing 7bn shekels ($1.9bn) in new roads across the West Bank to facilitate further settlement growth. Independent MP Adnan Hussain said: "The UK government must take immediate actions to recognise the Palestinian state before Israel advances its plans for the E1 settlement project, which if successful will split the West Bank in two and end any hope for a Palestinian state." Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU), added that the UK "should not recognise a state of Palestine as a punishment for illegal conduct. "Israeli criminal behaviour, as with any state, should be met with sanctions," he told MEE. "The UK should be recognising Palestine because it recognises Palestinian national rights and the right to self-determination."
The Guardian
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
English schools will have to subsidise infants' free meals after 3p funding increase, say leaders
Primary schools in England will be forced to subsidise free school meals for infants from their own budgets after the government's 'pitiful' 3p increase in funding, according to school leaders. The Department for Education (DfE) announced that its funding for universal infant free school meals will rise from £2.58 to £2.61 per child in September, with the 3p rise well below expected inflation and wage increases facing schools. Joseph Howes, the chair of the End Child Poverty Coalition and chief executive of Buttle UK children's charity, said; 'A 3p increase to cover the cost of school meals, which are not even available to all primary-aged children, let alone all poorer children, is just not good enough.' Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said the existing rate was already below the estimated £3.16 it costs schools in England to provide a hot daily meal. 'This disappointing below-inflation increase will still leave many schools having to subsidise free school meals from budgets already seriously stretched after years of real-terms funding cuts under previous governments,' Whiteman said. 'Suppliers sometimes pass on increased costs of producing meals and school leaders are caught between a rock and a hard place. They don't want to compromise on the quality of food provided, but that may mean having to cut spending on other things which may affect children's learning. 'We urge the government to look carefully at the actual costs of providing meals and make sure these are fully covered in the funding schools receive.' The free lunches are provided to all children in reception, year 1 and year 2 classes in state primary schools, meaning that a typical school with 90 pupils in the three year groups will receive an extra £2.70 a day in total. The 1.2% increase is well below the 3% annual rise in food prices recorded in March by the Office for National Statistics, while pay rises of 3% or more are expected for catering staff, alongside increases in the national minimum wage and national insurance contributions. Universal infant free school meals were introduced under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2014, with schools receiving £2.30 per child. Since then funding increases have been below inflation: in 2023, when the rate was £2.41, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated it had lost 16% of its value. Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrat's education, children and families spokesperson, said: 'Labour are serving our children crumbs. An increase of just a few pennies is pitiful given the current financial pressures and shows that the government has its priorities totally scrambled.' A study by the Child Poverty Action Group concluded: 'Despite some shortcomings we find that the policy has yielded significant benefits for children, including children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and UIFSM deserves the support of those who campaign against child poverty.' The DfE was approached for comment.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pseudoscience, a salad garden and a study on pregnant men: How Britain's quangos spend your money
Could Labour really be about to unleash another 'bonfire of the quangos'? Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, certainly appears minded to do so. Earlier this week, it was reported he had written to ministers asking them to justify all quangos operating under their departments as part of a drive to 'rewire' the state and wage war on 'waste'. Currently, there are more than 300 quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations), or arm's length bodies, as the Government calls them, in operation. The list includes regulators, advisory bodies and cultural institutions which are taxpayer-funded, albeit not directly controlled from Whitehall. Combined, the organisations employ nearly 400,000 staff and received some £350 billion of public funds in 2023, the latest year for which data is available. But they have long been a love/hate affair for governments of all stripes. Hundreds were abolished under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in the first 'bonfire of the quangos'. And, now, they're back in ministers' sights. But while Sir Keir Starmer's government has already taken aim at NHS England – often described as 'the world's biggest quango' – it has also created dozens more quangos (including the Fair Work Agency and the Independent Football Regulator) since coming to power, leading critics to question whether Labour is going far or fast enough when it comes to overhauling the system. The Telegraph has compiled a list of six quangos that might serve as a starting point for ripping up the 'quangocracy'. 'We invest in research and innovation to enrich lives, drive economic growth, and create jobs and high-quality public services across the UK,' reads the website of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), an organisation with a budget of £8.8 billion per year. The UKRI is an umbrella organisation that channels funds through seven research councils, Innovate UK (the UK's national innovation agency) and Research England (which 'funds and engages with English higher education providers'). This goes towards a range of important medical, scientific and technological research in universities and industry. But some have accused the quango of splurging taxpayers' money on woke pseudoscience. Commonly cited examples come from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), which has awarded grants to studies on The Europe that Gay Porn Built, 1945-2000 (£841,830) and Decolonising the Museum: Digital Repatriation of the Gaidinliu Collection from the UK to India (DiMuse) (£805,769). Another UKRI subsidiary, the Economic and Social Research Council, awarded £668,244 in funding to Pregnant Men: An International Exploration of Trans Male Experiences and Practices of Reproduction. 'UKRI funds some vitally important work, but the extent to which some of its research councils have been taken over by the worst of the woke mob means it's in desperate need of reform,' says John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA). In total, the quango employs over 8,800 people across its 'collective UKRI functions' and research council. Salix Finance Limited is a 'non-departmental body, wholly owned by the UK government' which administers funds on behalf of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Since its inception in 2004 – long preceding the current push for net zero headed by Ed Miliband – it has dished out £3.3 billion in funds. Its last annual report shows its expenditure topping £27 million, with the outlay overseen by 191 members of staff. When Salix isn't working 'with hospitals, universities, local authorities, emergency services, schools' and others on their 'net zero journey', it appears committed to promoting Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI). Its EDI team has marked Black History Month and run workshops on 'being an LGBTQ+ ally', as well as Salix staff authoring blogs on 'Movember' and 'World Cultural Diversity Day for Dialogue and Development'. O'Connell describes the organisation's agenda as a 'disaster'. 'Salix Finance Limited has administered billions of pounds of funding into a multitude of projects, yet the cost of energy has completely spiralled out of control,' he says. 'Its devotion to net zero is clearly proving to be a disaster for taxpayers and consumers.' The Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), a UK public body funded through the Foreign Office, says it's 'dedicated to strengthening democracy around the world… from climate change to corruption.' It employs 58 staff members in the UK, with an additional 117 working internationally. The WFD is the author of numerous reports including Opportunities to reduce plastic pollution in elections and Myth-Busting in Energy and Climate Change: A Resource for Media and Journalists, as well as social media posts warning that 'Misinformation and disinformation are a real threat to democracies everywhere, especially during elections'. Its CEO is Anthony Smith, who is also a member of the UK's Soft Power Council, and sits on the boards of the European Partnership for Democracy and Peace Direct. Critics question whether there's a need for the WFD's internationalist endeavours when taxpayers are already being charged billions for foreign aid. 'The promotion of democracy abroad was once a hugely desirable aim, but in the current climate is so clearly quixotic, ministers should scrap this body,' says O'Connell. Sponsored by the Home Office, the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA) 'protects seekers of immigration advice through regulation, enforcement and promoting best practice.' The quango registered an expenditure of £5.2 million in 2023-24. In January this year, the IAA rebranded from its previous title, the 'Immigration Services Commissioner' (ISC). Was this an attempt to shake-off years of public criticism? In 2020, TPA singled it out for criticism, along with nine other organisations it claimed could 'kindle the bonfire,' describing it as an 'unclear, unnecessary quango.' Its stance appears to remain largely unchanged. 'It's a noble aim having a quango that tries to ensure a consistently high quality level of immigration advice,' says O'Connell, 'but given the unsustainable levels of immigration to this country and the near impossibility of removing people here inappropriately, ministers should consider whether this body can continue to be justified.' Funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC) 'provides the UK government's scholarship scheme led by international development objectives' and 'supports the co-creation of research, innovation and solutions to enact sustainable development priorities across the Commonwealth and beyond.' Currently, the Commission sponsors around 700 students per year, who are offered the opportunity to do postgraduate degrees with UK universities. The CSC's accounting documents monitor the percentage of scholarships applicable to UN Sustainable Development Goals, such as 'Climate action' (21%) and 'Peace and justice strong institutions' (15%). The organisation's total expenditure for 2023-2024 was £29.3 million. 'Given the huge number of degrees and opportunities available to international students seeking to study a postgraduate degree in the UK, it is now clearly not the best use of taxpayer cash to be trying to hand pick a few hundred round the world to receive subsidies, particularly as the benefit to the UK economy is so questionable,' says O'Connell. The Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies (CIC Office) 'decides whether an organisation is eligible to become, or continue to be, a Community Interest Company (CIC),' providing guidance and assistance to anyone setting one up. CICs are limited companies designed to 'provide a benefit to the community they serve', as opposed to creating private profit. The CIC Office operates alongside the Department for Business and Trade and is led by Louise Smyth CBE, who also serves as the chief executive and registrar for Companies House in England and Wales. In the 2023-24 period, she earned £120-125k, plus a bonus of £10-15k. Recently, a proposed merger between the CIC Office and Companies House raised questions about the purpose of the quango itself Further adding to the sense of irrelevance, on social media, the quango can be found posting light-hearted gifs to celebrate the weekend and wishing people a 'good morning' (accompanied with a gif of a smiling sun). The organisation's latest annual report shows its expenditure is approximately £351,103 – with funds spent on supporting CICs such as 'Cardiff Salad Garden' and 'Green Squirrel', which hopes to inspire 'planet-friendly choices.' One, incorporated in June 2024 and titled 'Everyday Racism', recently attacked Elon Musk – posting on social media about its 'campaign to turn … Musk's tweets into tools for good – [by] raising funds to support migrants and refugees, the LGBTQ+ community, and anti-racists.' Some are clearly political. Interestingly, one organisation that recently attacked Elon Musk – posting on social media about its 'campaign to turn Elon Musk's tweets into tools for good – [by] raising funds to support migrants and refugees, the LGBTQ+ community, and anti-racists' – is a CIC incorporated in June 2024 and titled 'Everyday Racism'. O'Connell says: 'There is simply no need for a separate regulator for community interest companies, particularly as it's not clear we need separate status for community interest companies full stop. This is an obvious quango to be merged with existing regulators, although consideration should be given to abolishing its status altogether.' Some are quick to defend the notion of the quango. 'Many 'quangos' are designed to keep laws, rules, taxes, and other things fair and politically neutral. They mostly make sense – which is why periodic attempts at 'bonfires of the quangos' – which have happened since Margaret Thatcher's government – have failed,' says Colin Talbot, Prof of Government (Emeritus) at the University of Manchester. Matthew Gill, programme director at the Institute for Government, adds: 'Public bodies do a lot of important work. The Government is, of course, right to pursue greater efficiency and accountability where possible. But disruption itself carries a cost, and it is not realistic for ministers to micromanage all the functions public bodies perform.' 'Unless the Government is able to identify specific tasks carried out by public bodies that can be stopped, there is also a risk that functions are simply moved around or merged together without achieving significant savings – as was the case when this was tried before,' he says. Still, many remain unconvinced. It is high time, they argue, to light the fire. 'There are just far too many quangos,' says shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith. 'Undoubtedly some do add value, but the world worked fine before most of them existed and would do so again. Aside from the cost, they tend to slow things down and to drive risk aversion – neither of which help our economy to grow.' 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.
