The UK's top scientific institutions, from the Met Office to the UK Health Security Agency, have inadequate institutional defences to prevent potential political interference, a new UCL Policy Lab report finds.
The report, published by the UCL Policy Lab, studied 24 of the UK's Arm's Length Bodies (ALBs), ranging from Natural England to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
It concluded that urgent action is needed to strengthen both resilience and accountability within the institutions that safeguard our environmental, health and food security. Many ALBs are dependent on government ministers for their funding, for the setting of their priorities and for the appointment of their leaders, making them highly exposed to political influence.
Exclusive polling for this report, carried out by More in Common, found 71% of Britons said it is more important for ALBs to be independent of the government, rather than controlled by it. Strong majorities supported independence for ALBs regardless of their political party affiliation. Across all demographics, the public agreed that a key argument in favour of independent ALBs is that "politicians aren't experts in many areas".
The report's authors highlight how around one-third of the ALBs studied lack statutory status, meaning their existence, powers, and functions are not defined and authorised by an Act of Parliament, leaving them at risk of redefinition or abolition behind closed doors.
The report also examines how ALBs are accountable to Parliament and the public. The bodies that report directly to Parliament tend to have stronger defences against political pressure, however, two-thirds of the ALBs in the review were represented by their sponsoring minister on the Commons floor, making them more vulnerable to potential 'creeping influences'.
Restricted freedom to publish evidence, advice, or scrutiny without ministerial approval was identified as a key vulnerability for some ALBs. While most have some built-in safeguards to protect their autonomy, the researchers found around one fifth of the bodies studied have restrictions on their transparency, ranging from mandatory sign-off from ministers to informal influence over drafts.
They highlighted how bodies like the Met Office are potentially vulnerable to an insurgent government that may wish to suppress climate change research and that political figures can shift the bodies' priorities with little parliamentary or public oversight.
Co-author Professor Christina Pagel (UCL Mathematics) said: "The degree of independence across ALBs varies greatly, but together this report paints a worrying picture. We have identified 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. This was not done through sweeping, time-consuming legal reform, but through the calculated exploitation of a series of structural vulnerabilities.
"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."
Co-author Professor Martin McKee (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine) said: "We compare the current situation to a castle with open gates and holes in its walls. This may not matter when there is peace but, when a threat arises, these weaknesses really matter.
""There are seven things that we can do to protect these UK bodies in an uncertain world. They will take time, so urgent action is needed."
The report recommended:
- Increasing legal and statutory protection - Parliament should expand statutory underpinning where needed, especially for ALBs involved in regulation, scrutiny, or advice. It should protect against ministerial overreach.
- Supporting independence in leadership - The Civil Service should adopt appointment procedures that limit the direct involvement of ministers beyond setting the strategic direction of a post.
- Resilient funding models - Sponsoring departments should safeguard medium-term funding by expanding multi-year funding settlements to support sustainability and delivery and build on experience with existing practice.
- Strengthening accountability - Parliament should strengthen accountability by requiring ALBs to produce parliamentary accountability reports, which the National Audit Office would review.
- Setting priorities and safeguarding operational autonomy - Priority setting must reflect a balance between democratic oversight, the public interest and institutional independence.
- Protecting the freedom to publish - Legislation should protect the right of ALBs involved in scrutiny, regulation, or public health to publish independently, without needing the prior consent of ministers.
- Framing the national conversation - Ministers should publicly support the ALBs for which they are responsible and avoid using pejorative language or creating politically motivated bodies.
This report was funded by UCL Public Policy through Research England's QR-PSF funding and by UCL Network funding through EPSRC IAA.
