The government spent over £167bn on more than 900 quangos in 2007 – quasi official non-governmental organisations that regulate our lives with considerable powers and plenty of money. Three years ago, they spent £79bn and in the last year alone, 30 new ones have been introduced.

Out of this total, £4.6bn was spent by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport though precious little of this was spent on tourism. Indeed, of the quangos for which the DCMS is responsible, VisitBritain’s grant is to be reduced by 20 per cent in the next three years - this, after eight years in which its level of funding has stayed the same. Not much support there.

In the tourism and hospitality arena, it’s not just VisitBritain, whose purpose and objectives are well known and well supported, that we have to deal with. There are many more, ranging from the nine Regional Development Agencies to the Food Standards Agency, from the Health and Safety Executive to English Heritage and the School Food Trust. These are just a small selection of the organisations that have a regulatory impact in the industry, some more directly than others.

What benefit has the industry gained from all this effort and expenditure? In tourism, it is sometimes very difficult to see.

For example, what benefits have the RDAs brought to bear on tourism, for which they are responsible in their region? With sometimes dramatic – and incomprehensible – differences in the level of support and funding for tourism by each RDA, what often remains is confusion and lack of coherence on a national basis. It is claimed that RDAs spend some £50m every year on promoting tourism, both domestically and overseas, yet this is surely the primary role of VisitEngland and VisitBritain?

Why the duplication? Why is the south-west competing against the north-east, for example, to attract domestic visitors when a co-ordinated England-wide campaign by VisitEngland would have far greater impact and achieve far more success? Why not put some of the available funding into one central basket, so that VisitBritain and VisitEngland can promote the country coherently at home and overseas? In any case, why do the RDAs attempt to promote their region overseas when, to do this properly, VisitBritain and VisitLondon have all the expertise and experience required – but not the funding?

Where is the joined-up thinking in this?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are just too many examples of conflicting advice and instructions given by different quangos. For example, in old and listed buildings, hoteliers find that while Health and Safety officials insist on one course of action, English Heritage may insist on a diametrically opposite course.

At the Oval, there are plans to build a 170-room hotel in time for the Cricket World Cup. Planning permission was agreed but the Health and Safety Executive is now claiming that the famous gas holder is too close to the proposed hotel, even though there are hundreds of houses and business equally near. If the danger of the gas holder is sufficiently serious to stop the construction of a hotel, why not evacuate the whole area? Indeed, how can cricket be played at the Oval at all?

It is interventions and regulations like this that frustrate businesses and impede the industry’s development. Put simply, quangos are costing too much money, appear to be relatively unaccountable, and are just not creating sufficient added value. It is time for many of them to be disbanded.