Without huge fanfare, the Government published a letter earlier this month outlining plans to reduce formal consultations as part of the policy making process, rely more on participatory engagement earlier in the policy making process and reforming judicial review.
On the surface, it’s easy to understand why Government is focusing on the ‘Simplification and Agency of Government’ as part of a wider drive for government efficiency. Consultations and so-called ‘consultation culture’ have been criticised in some quarters for slowing down policy making, or for being little more than a tick-box exercise that rarely engages the public. In public affairs, by the time a consultation is live, it is often too late to meaningfully influence policy.
Why ministers want to move faster
This government letter, signed by the Chancellor, First Secretary of State and Attorney General, is an effort to empower ministers more and provide them with greater agency. The Burnham government would not be the first (or the last) government to try and bring about greater control of policymaking. Not least that this government only has limited time to effect change at a challenging time for the country before facing the electorate.
Plans to empower ministers to feel trusted to make ministerial judgements that accept higher levels of risk, alongside the latest reforms to limit judicial review, also point to an urgency to get things done.
We’ve been through a series of cabinet reshuffles in recent years, and public affairs consultancies may have found themselves advising clients to not panic, as policy workstreams will continue behind the scenes, knowing that officials provide a greater degree of permanence and delivery.
The risk: a smaller circle of voices
This can be a concerning move as well. For this to work, it is vital that informal engagement is cast wide enough and genuinely earlier in the policy process to ensure all impacted stakeholders get to have their voice heard. The consultation process not only raises awareness of potential policy proposals for an extended period of time, but it actively invites a range of stakeholders to contribute, particularly those who may otherwise not have had the benefit of building strong relationships to the right department beforehand. This is crucial for SMEs who may not have the resource or the policy/regulatory teams to do this.
And for this to work, Government should not be afraid to engage with the private sector, to invite insight and understand concerns for policy interventions. It cannot close up shop and also stop formal consultations at the same time. Of course there is a balance to strike here. It must be open, transparent, and the public should trust that ultimately, it is the government which is making the final decision.
What is important to note is that the letter states this is an approach it seeks to see the wider public sector follow. Again, wide engagement is even more important as a result, especially for sectors which are highly technical and heavily regulated, if regulators such as Ofcom are to echo this approach.
Viewed alongside the new powers for the Permanent Secretary, the country’s most senior civil servant, to overrule departmental permanent secretaries, there is a clear sense of increasing centralisation. How does this fit with Burnham’s devolution drive, a central plank of the government agenda?
Will it stick?
Finally, it remains to be seen how much this will actually filter down to day-to-day government policy work (has the Growth Duty first established in 2017 led to much growth?). It is one thing to issue a top-down letter, it’s another for it to make an impact across a highly complex and political organisation like government and regulators.
by Andrew Kernahan, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs at Clarity Global