Governing well

There have been too many policy failures in recent years. It is almost self-evident that the process of devising, explaining and progressing new laws and policies in the United Kingdom is often seriously flawed. Their outcome is frequently unpredictable: the consequence too often of insufficient preparation within the executive and then less than satisfactory parliamentary scrutiny. In such circumstances how can a government of whatever political party achieve its policy aims?

The Better Government Initiative (BGI) argues that a better policy-making process should help politicians avoid making so many undeliverable policy promises and instead deliver promises that work. Better process — both in parliament and the executive — neither alone is enough — is necessary to help restore public confidence and trust in politics and politicians.

Good process does not ensure good government. Outcomes are never certain. Circumstances change to defeat the best intentions. However, it is possible to make the outcome of new bills and other policy changes and re-organisations less unpredictable.

There never was a Golden Age of government. Every age has its problems. But had there ever been a Golden Age, government has become so large, complex and demanding that what may have worked once cannot be expected to work now.

Among the developments in recent years that have overloaded, complicated and weakened our system of government are the ever growing scale, depth, range and complexity of government activity. There is an ever greater interaction between the UK and other governments through the EU and elsewhere that adds substantially to government business.

We have also witnessed a near doubling of the volume of legislation and of regulation since the 1970s. Moreover, an increasing proportion of bills enter parliament incomplete and poorly explained, requiring substantial amendment and wasting scarce parliamentary time.

Pressures coming from outside of parliament are also building: the growing concentration of ministers’ time on the media means that the time available for their other ministerial tasks is reduced. The media’s appetite for new and instant policy initiatives is becoming increasingly insatiable. The amount of constituency business is also an issue, making huge claims on MPs’ time, including that of ministers.

Yet another problem is the implementation of policy: some ministers tend to make policy with their political and media advisers and leave their civil servants to implement it. Others insufficiently recognise that most significant successful policy-making requires interactive, sequential and sometimes iterative co-operation and consultation between those at all levels: from ministers through to users and to those who will have to implement innovations on the ground.

Also on the debit side are to be set formidable issues now facing the world: how to deal with poverty and illness in many nations, rapidly increasing world population, the tensions resulting from increased migration, the prospect of deficient oil supply and climate change.

Most require imaginative leadership and intricate negotiation at international levels. Much of it involves the deployment of complex technical knowledge. How can we hope to help solve these great problems internationally if we have such difficulty in devising and carrying through systematically relevant policies within our own boundaries?

We must go forward not back. To that end in January 2008 the BGI published Governing well*. Its 50 recommendations cover three main sets of topics. The BGI has concentrated on four main themes.

Firstly, the role of parliament in scrutinising the executive must be strengthened. How do we improve parliamentary scrutiny so that it is up to the job of scrutinising and overseeing the executive in the modern world?

Secondly, the right balance is needed between the functions and powers of the prime minister, the cabinet and individual ministers so that the business of government may be better performed. How do we get the centre of government and departments working productively and efficiently so that between them they can process all their tasks? How can we increase the likelihood that bills, other major policies and re-organisations have been well enough prepared and explained that they can stand up to public and parliamentary scrutiny?

Thirdly, micro-management and other detailed intervention by central government needs to be avoided. In order for this to happen, the relationship between central government local government and government agencies such as the NHS needs to allow space for local priorities to be satisfied while protecting minimum standards in key services. How can relations with service deliverers be improved so that there can be a better chance of sustained steady progress?

Lastly, the roles of civil servants and their relationship with ministers need clearer definition to make departments more fit for purpose.

These proposals on law-making, policy and decision-making should rank high among the changes that would enable our system of government to function better and so restore trust in parliament and government, in politicians and politics.

Unless governments change how they work, legislation will continue to lack clarity, improvement of the public services may be fragile, major projects will be delayed, resources will be wasted and the pressures upon those working in government and the public sector will too often be demoralising.

Is it not time for all parties to accept that a promising way to re-kindle public enthusiasm in politics and politicians is through re-engineering the system to produce carefully prepared policies that work? Would not this reform provide an altogether more attractive alternative to the endless attempts of government to capture media and public attention with dazzling new policy directions and initiatives that all too frequently evaporate?

*Available from www.bettergovernmentinitiative.co.uk.