Using WhatsApp in government should come with clear responsibilities

The Mandelson files are a reminder that WhatsApp is an established part of how the UK government works. This has been the case since at least Boris Johnson’s premiership, and Labour ministers and advisers have followed their Conservative predecessors in using the messaging app on a regular basis. Following the Mandelson revelations, the government is currently reviewing the rules around so-called ‘non-corporate communication channels’, which includes WhatsApp, other instant messaging services and personal email. The use of WhatsApp in government won’t stop – but this a chance to start using it in a more responsible, and consistent, way.

People in government use WhatsApp for the same reasons as the rest of us 

WhatsApp – and similar services – are popular in government for the same reasons they are popular generally. They are quick, convenient and easy to use. In government, each department arranges its own IT systems, and there is no cross-departmental instant messaging system – WhatsApp allows ministers, advisers and civil servants to talk to any of their colleagues quickly and easily. 

Of course, that does not mean that WhatsApp is the best tool to use for much of government communication. Detailed policy discussions, based on in-depth analysis and leading to important decisions, generally require much longer, more considered and more nuanced communication than can be conducted over WhatsApp. But the Mandelson files do not contain evidence that policy decisions are being taken over WhatsApp. Indeed, many of the messages we have seen are either informal, political chats or practical discussions of lines to take and parliamentary procedure – not detailed policy discussions or top secret information. 

Secret communications will always exist in government 

It seems that many people have been hoping to find a smoking gun in the Mandelson communications – a message that shows conclusively that the prime minister or his advisers knew something specific about Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein that will ‘prove’ that Starmer has misled parliament. But there are not many messages from the prime minister, something that is hardly surprising given No.10 has confirmed that he has disappearing messages turned on.

Again, some want to see this as proof that Starmer and his team are behaving in nefarious ways. But government has always relied on communications that are not accessible to all and that leave no formal trace: the spoken word is the original disappearing message. Much of government happens informally, and there are good reasons for lots of information to remain protected. While WhatsApp is the latest technology that facilitates this communication, this will always be a feature of government and it is naïve to expect otherwise. What matters is that ministers take decisions on the basis of detailed advice, and that the nature of that advice and the resulting decision are properly recorded and communicated (and preserved for posterity). Using WhatsApp along the way, even with disappearing messages turned on, is not inherently a problem.

The government’s review is a chance to do things differently 

The government’s review into the rules around the use of WhatsApp and other similar technologies is an important moment for change. It should not pretend that there are no issues with the use of instant messaging in government, nor that there are easy processes that ministers, advisers and officials can use to mitigate these messages.

Rather than setting out more detailed, specific rules, the review should set clear, principles-based expectations that apply to all current and future technologies, about what should or should not be shared and discussed on these platforms. Once these principles are in place, the government needs to explain how they will be enforced. Like all areas of ministerial behaviour, ultimately it is for the prime minister to assess whether ministers’ use of instant messaging and other technologies is acceptable.

It is unrealistic to demand that politicians and officials stop using instant messaging but that does not mean that we should not expect them to use it well.