The government should not ban public servants from speaking in public

The government has issued some unusual internal guidance setting out the ‘voices’ that should represent government policy. The document notes – rightly – that ministers should be the main public spokespeople for government activity, and that it is the government itself that should be credited (or, presumably, blamed) for government activity. It also includes some defensible but heavy-handed central clearance requirements for officials participating in visits and events.

But the guidance goes further. The No10 communications team has banned any official from speaking at events that include question and answer sessions, or where the media are expected to be in attendance, seemingly so that ministers are the only, rather than the primary, people able to represent the government in public. The strict nature of the guidance implies a very narrow view of what it is that officials do when they engage in public, and a failure to appreciate what the consequences might be of such restrictions.

This is an overreach and will damage the quality of government and public discourse.

Restricting discussion will lead to worse policy and decision making

There are several intersecting reasons why this is a mistake. The first is that it reduces public and – particularly – sectoral and expert understanding of government policy. In a plural, open society, ministers with already packed schedules cannot hope to cover all the discussions and events that would benefit from a government voice. There are also many times when it is the detail that is needed and so the official, not the minister, who is best placed to contribute.

Mid-ranking and senior officials from the civil and diplomatic service, other public bodies, and the military, will now be prevented from answering technical questions at even the driest gatherings. They will also find it harder to really understand different external perspectives. If the guidance is taken literally, diplomats will not be able to properly represent the UK overseas.

This guidance will create an unfortunate chilling effect at a time when we should be encouraging more debate and discussion to improve and explain policy. Cabinet Office minister Georgia Gould said recently that “we want a civil service that is connected to the British people”. The government also says it wants businesses and civil society to contribute to achieving its missions. Closing discussion down like this sends the opposite signal.

Openness is an important principle of public life

One of the ‘seven principles of public life’ is openness: “holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this”. On principle, public officials, a category that goes far broader than just ministers, should be able to be questioned about their work, decisions and activity.

The guidance will in effect mean that the only place where senior public officials are seen publicly, or held to account for their areas of responsibility, is in parliamentary select committees. Those are an essential forum, but often confrontational and not always illuminating. Restricting access might also mean that those with private channels to senior officials know more than the rest of civil society. With this guidance the government is shutting down avenues for open and reflective questioning and explanation of decisions made.

The civil service should be more confident and open, not more closed

This is also the wrong course for the leadership and management of the civil service and of other public institutions. It is clear that civil servants have not had enough direction from their most senior leaders in recent years, and have been buffeted by events and criticism from ministers and the media. A diktat from No10 is the wrong approach to rewiring of the state, and will not create the emboldened civil service that Keir Starmer says he wants. Ministers need, and should welcome, a more confident civil service that wants to step up to the mark in those areas for which it has responsibility.

If the civil service is to reform as ministers want, the most senior officials should be able to be frank in public about the areas in which it needs to improve and things that have gone wrong, as well as its successes. Long gone are the days when the cabinet secretary was purely a backroom operator. He is the leader of over half a million public servants, and that brings with it a carefully calibrated, but nevertheless public, role.

It is hard to see what problem new guidance is trying to solve

We acknowledge of course that the Institute for Government has an interest in this subject. We want public officials to be able to attend, speak, and answer questions at events – not for its own sake but because such discussions are useful and enhance the quality of government and public debate.

Ministers and their communications advisers should reflect on what they are trying to solve here. And when they do, they will realise that it is hard to see what problem actually exists. Senior officials have not generally spoken out of line at public events. Where the media has latched on to supposedly controversial remarks, those have been expressed most often during private ‘all-staff’ events. The new guidance would do nothing to change this, and it would be absurd to do so. 

And if – in fact – it is ministers who are worried about ‘tall poppy’ officials grabbing the headlines, then they would be better advised to relax, find their confidence and use their far bigger political platform to grab attention for the work the government wants to promote. Meanwhile they should expect civil servants to be out engaging in appropriate forums on the government’s agenda, testing arguments and learning from challenges, in order to improve policy and the chance of it being successfully implemented.

There may be a case for looking properly at the public role of senior officials. The position before this new guidance had largely been arrived at by accident. But this is a poor way to do it.