The government should not be criticised for commissioning policy reviews

The government has found itself criticised in the media and by the opposition for commissioning more than “67 tax-payer funded reviews, taskforces and consultations” since the election.  Accusations of delay and indecision will inevitably continue as the number continues to rise, but it is unhelpful to see this breadth of government policy-making activity as one coherent group when the rationale behind them, approach being taken, and desired outcomes vary substantially.

The independent review of water sector regulation, set up by this government in response to high profile but knotty problems facing the sector, is very different to the more routine consultation on updating the media mergers regime. And the centre piece ‘Fixing the Foundations’ review of the public spending inheritance, completed by Treasury civil servants within weeks of the election, shares few similarities with the Arts Council England Funding Review, part of the regular public bodies review programme set up under the Johnson government in 2022.

More importantly, reviews can play a key role in good policy making. Done well, they can help government define a problem it is facing and determine what action should be taken to tackle it. But reviews are not one size fits all. Doing them well requires an approach that is suited to the issue at hand, and a willingness to learn from reviews of the past.

Reviews can be a valuable tool for good policy making

The items on the list reported in the media broadly fall into one of three groups: consultations, internal reviews and independent reviews. 

Consultations can be useful for bringing the experience and expertise of those outside government into the policy making process. The subjects of currently open consultations range from the definition of ninja swords in future legislation, to major pension market reforms. Some consultations are more effective than others, and it is important they are commissioned correctly and meaningfully used, not simply seen as compliance exercises where inputs are ignored. But they are a commonly used feature of government activity and not anything out of the ordinary, particularly when a new party comes to power.

The second group, internal reviews, are again a common process in good policy making. Substantial areas of policy should be subject to regular review, where officials can consider the evidence available and ensure policy is achieving its objectives in as cost-effective way as possible. Many internal reviews are never made public, but since the election we have seen a large number announced publicly – such as the reviews of the sugar tax and how train companies handle fare evasion.

Independent reviews, in contrast, take place at arms-length from the department, led by an external figure supported by a secretariat of officials. This format came to prominence under the New Labour government, which used them extensively to develop proposals around particularly contentious policy problems, such as the reforms to the state pension proposed by the Pensions Commission. Subsequent governments have continued using them in this way, and they have become the most recognisable form of policy review. But of the publicised list of over 60 reviews, taskforces and consultations, fewer than a quarter are of this independent format.

The government’s reviews should help inform decisions at the upcoming spending review

Government is, of course, about action not just words. But reviews can play an important role in helping government understand a problem and determine how it needs to be addressed.

Too often policy gets set by default through a rushed spending review process driven by short-term political pressures, rather than based on evidence on how to meet longer-term objectives. The Netherlands have a regular process of annual policy reviews, which support subsequent spending decisions and help to counteract this short-termism. Many of the current government’s reviews are due to report in the “spring” – the loosely defined season in which the spending review is also due to conclude. If that means the government’s reviews of policy will feed into decisions at the spending review then it would be a good step towards making them count.

Independently-led reviews can play a particularly important role in building consensus around contentious issues. For example, the review of sentencing – led by former Conservative justice secretary David Gauke and due to conclude in the spring – could lead to lasting change if done well. But independence does not equal success. Implementation of the Dilnot reforms to adult social care, recommended in his 2011 independent review, was scrapped by the chancellor in July, and almost a decade after the Airport Commission’s proposal for a third runway at Heathrow, construction has not yet begun.

This government should learn from past reviews

The Blair government frequently set up reviews, and the coalition also launched several following the 2010 general election. The Starmer government has clearly commissioned a large number, but with no central list of reviews available for analysis it is impossible to say for sure whether this administration has set up more or less than its predecessors.

But the problem here is not the number, it is the lack of any systematic effort to learn from the vast number of past reviews. Independent reviewers have typically been given their terms of reference and a team of civil servants, then set off to conduct their review – with little guidance on how to do this well.

It is right that government is held accountable for ensuring reviews are effective, and that recommendations translate into implementation and meaningful outcomes, so the Institute for Government is looking back at how past independent reviews were set up and run, to learn the lessons that could make reviews under this government more effective.

Government should not overprescribe how independent review are run, but if both reviewers and those commissioning them want to set reviews up for success, then they should try to learn from what has worked (and not worked) in the past.