Arm¡¯s-length bodies such as the Office for Students (OfS) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) are particularly ¡°vulnerable to political interference¡±, a new report has warned.

UCL¡¯s Policy Lab examined the independence of a series of organisations independent of but accountable to government including the English higher education regulator and main research funder, as well as bodies such as the Office for National Statistics and the Met Office.

The report describes these?agencies as ¡°critical functions¡± in ensuring public well-being, but notes that the UK has a ¡°vulnerable, fragmented system with a hotchpotch of arrangements for each independent body¡±.

The organisations, it says, are often dependent on government ministers for their funding, setting of priorities and for the appointment of their leaders, ¡°making them highly exposed to political influence¡±.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

This?leaves them with ¡°few defences against attempts to politicise and delegitimise crucial institutions¡± and said it is analogous to ¡°living in a castle with holes in the walls, unlocked gates or weak foundations¡±, meaning such bodies might not be effectively carrying out their scrutiny functions.

UKRI was considered one at the most at-risk bodies for government interference, with the report noting that it is reliant on ministers for the approval of funding, and that its chief executive is also appointed by the government.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

But public sentiment strongly favours independence for these bodies, with 71 per cent of the 2,043 people surveyed saying it is more important for these bodies to be independent of the government.

The report says the results ¡°underline the importance of accountability¡±, with 68 per cent believing that external agencies should be able to hold government to account and deliver core functions without political interference.

When respondents were asked why they supported independence, the most supported answer was ¡°politicians aren¡¯t experts in many areas¡±. This was followed by the notion that independence would allow such bodies to ¡°publish what is true, rather than what suits the government of the day¡±, and the ability to provide long-term planning.

The report notes that the UK¡¯s ¡°good chaps¡± theory of governance ¨C where there is no constitution and it is reliant on those in power to ¡°understand the implicit rules preventing abuses of power and adhere to them in good faith¡± ¨C has ¡°proven increasingly fragile¡± in the wake of Donald Trump¡¯s second term in the White House.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Greater safeguards are needed, it argues, and reforms should include efforts to ¡°rebuild a culture of restraint, where ministers understand and accept the limits of their influence over ALBs¡±.

Report co-author Christina Pagel, professor of operational research at UCL, said the report paints ¡°a worrying picture¡± and highlights a ¡°vulnerable system underlying the crucial functions these bodies perform, with a hotchpotch of arrangements¡±.

¡°We only need to look across the pond to the actions of the second Trump administration in the USA to see how a coordinated attack on institutional guardrails can rapidly undermine the independence of federal agencies and diminish evidence-based governance,¡± she said.

¡°We¡¯ve seen how the replacement of agency leadership, purges of internal watchdogs and legal re-engineering have been weaponised in the USA, not to mention the slashing of funding and the suppression of research, and it is vital the UK learns lessons from this before it is too late.¡±

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

The report recommends there should be increased legal and statutory protection of these bodies enshrined in law, limits to ministerial involvement in appointing leadership positions, exploring multi-year funding models to ensure ¡°resilience¡±, and strengthening their operational autonomy.

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com