LONDON — Andy Burnham’s top lieutenant is in a hurry to get things done — but lobbyists fear her plans to cut red tape will make law-making in Whitehall more exclusive. The British prime minister’s de facto deputy Louise Haigh launched an attack on the British state’s “consultation culture” last month. She claimed that Whitehall's established method of seeking input on policy plans has morphed from a “sensible mechanism” for gathering views into an “industry of dither and delay.” Haigh, the first secretary of state, has pledged to overhaul the process by running consultations on government plans only when there is a statutory requirement to do so — or where it would be “conspicuously unfair” not to do so.
She has urged colleagues to ditch the “comfort blanket” of a consultation and evaluate if thousands of requirements can be chopped. But the announcement has left public affairs outfits in Westminster bristling. Multiple industry figures now say Haigh’s plans could shut small players out of the decision-making process and entrench civil service thinking.
Leena El-Refaey, a partner at the London-based agency Portland, said that while there is “clearly a case for reform,” there is “very little detail on what might replace the current system or how it will be robust, transparent and inclusive.” “Without some form of formal process, there’s a real risk that engagement becomes exclusionary,” she adds. The Cabinet Office did not respond to a request for comment. Senior lobbyists — some of whom have made a cottage industry out of managing consultation responses for clients — insist they are sympathetic to the view that the policy process needs streamlining.
But they warn that a lack of detail about the next steps has triggered significant unease. Haigh has only hinted at some form of "participatory policymaking" as a potential replacement for the status quo. She has promised that more clarity will come this fall.
The partial nature of last month's announcement has left industry figures concerned that rather than addressing fundamental problems with the policymaking approach, ministers are using the formal consultation process as a scapegoat for more deep-rooted flaws in government delivery. Daniel Wild, director of communications and strategy firm St. Michael Advisory, told POLITICO ministers could instead tackle Whitehall's culture of shifting responsibility between departments by rewarding bodies that can demonstrate delivery.
"Without that, cutting consultations in the name of speed will shut out sound, reputable private sector voices and hand even more sway to those with the ear of the government of the day," he argued. Amy Gray, a veteran freelance public affairs consultant, argued that ministers need to accept that swathes of consultations have failed due to the government's lack of expertise — rather than any fundamental flaw with the process. After writing a response on behalf of a major supermarket to the government's consultation on banning tobacco displays, Gray said it was immediately obvious it had been drafted by someone with "absolutely no idea how you actually put cigarettes on the shelf, and had never spoken to anyone who worked in a shop." Gray said most experienced lobbyists can provide examples of the government drafting an "incredibly stupid" consultation that clearly wouldn't "survive contact with reality." "If government wants to peel back the number of consultations then they've got to do a much better job of engaging with businesses and affected organizations when civil servants are still developing the policy," she added.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
