Clearing the consultation sludge is welcome – but good policy still requires meaningful engagement

The government has announced plans to ‘clear the culture of consultation’. ²² https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministers-rip-up-consultation-culture  In an article for Politics Home, Lord Hermer – one half of the government’s self-described sludge busting team – sets out an ambition to raise the bar for consultation and reporting requirements in legislation, review existing reporting and consultation duties, and ensure impact assessments are improving outcomes. ²³ https://www.politicshome.com/opinion/article/we-cannot-let-the-state-be-slowed-by-its-own-procedures  This approach is welcome. It signals that the government is prepared to try to improve how policy making works, instead of accepting the constraints of existing processes or continuing to lament the lack of agility in Whitehall ²⁴ https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/move-fast-fix-things  and the delay between “pulling a lever” and “delivery”. ²⁵ https://www.civilserviceworld.com/news/article/starmer-frustrated-with-gap-between-pulling-lever-and-delivery  Getting the balance right, however, will be key.

Consultations and impact assessments were put in place for a reason

Consultation requirements and impact assessments are intended to make policy better. Consultations provide an opportunity for people, businesses and other organisations who might have a different perspective on, or experience of, the system to shape reforms before they are introduced. Done well, impact assessments force policymakers to consider the potential impact of proposals on different groups and the environment. These functions matter. They can build trust in government, give policies legitimacy and/or allow for unintended consequences to be identified and mitigated before policy is formalised. Where consultation and analysis are absent or poorly executed, the consequences can be significant and costly.

That said, policy failures have happened with these processes in place. Consultation did not stop the disastrous Lansley reforms to the health system, despite numerous concerns being raised. ²⁶ https://assets.kingsfund.org.uk/f/256914/x/d046c0b3d0/never_again_2012.pdf  And an equalities impact assessment did not stop the Windrush scandal. ²⁷ https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comment/windrush-scandal-was-failure-law-policy-politics-and-bureaucracy#:~:text=A%20review%20in%20….  The problem is not that they exist, but how they are used. Too often they become performative, compliance exercises with no attention paid to the issues revealed. ²⁸ https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/better-policy-making  The box is ticked, but nothing is done to make the policy any better.

The government’s approach needs to ensure more effective delivery of its objectives

The government’s ambition to make impact assessments and consultation requirements proportionate is positive, and a sign of a government wanting to deliver quickly. But raising the bar for making consultation a legal requirement should not mean giving up on engagement or analysis of the potential impacts on people. The challenge for government will be to ensure processes are proportionate for the task at hand. Getting the balance wrong can shift from excessive, box ticking processes to insufficient scrutiny.

Our research on rapid policy making provides helpful lessons. The urgency of a crisis – or the designation of an urgent priority - can create the conditions to streamline processes. At its best, working at speed can compel officials to innovate and think rigorously about what they need to make good policy: who they should talk to, what expertise is needed, and what the potential pitfalls might be – and bring in implementation expertise from the beginning.  In the worst-case scenario, however, speed can become justification for bypassing consultations and impact assessments altogether. And even when consultation occurs it can be tokenistic. As we heard from officials, this approach risks straining relationships with stakeholders and can leave consultees disillusioned, negating their potential value.  

A better consultation process would allow government to reach beyond the usual suspects and speed up delivery. But to avoid poor outcomes, government will need to think seriously about how to achieve the principles of good consultation and assessment while moving at greater pace.  

For impact assessments the government needs to think about how to streamline processes while ensuring that critical problems are still being highlighted. Another issue it should consider is when assessments are used in the policy process – when used after decisions have already been made, they become just a box-ticking exercise but used early in the process they can raise important issues and improve outcomes.

Government needs to regularly monitor the impact of changes

Whatever changes are introduced, success should not be measured by the reduction in time spent on consultations or the number of decisions outsourced, but whether policies are delivered faster and better while mitigating – as much as is feasible –against unintended consequences. If government finds its changes do not deliver these outcomes, then it should iterate and adapt processes.  

The recalibration announced by Lord Hermer has the potential to clear the ‘sludge’ that no longer adds value to policy making while improving the processes that do. Getting this right will require sustained attention and commitment, an acceptance that not everything will work as intended, and a willingness to review and reconsider if the sludge clearance does not go according to plan.