Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · 27d

6/ But ministers have neither the capacity nor the expertise to decide every detail, so their leadership must sometimes consist in setting clear direction for others and then defending their independence (while of course holding them to account for their performance.)

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · 27d

4/ It is easy to see why this argument can be unfashionable. Ministers want to achieve change and are held personally accountable for their briefs, both of which prompt a desire for direct control. And the public wants to see swift reform and grip.

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · 27d

3/ The general point is that a well-functioning state can require ministers to defend a body’s independence – within bounds – even when they do not agree with every decision it makes.

Lammy review: final report

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · 27d

2/ You do not have to agree with the specific Sentencing Council guideline that triggered this “democratic lock” to agree with me (although I think David Lammy might, given his work on justice system outcomes for ethnic minority groups in the 2017 Lammy Review www.gov.uk/government/p...).

An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system.

www.gov.uk

David Lammy should reverse the proposed “democratic lock” over the Sentencing Council | Institute for Government

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · 27d

1/ My latest for @instituteforgovernment.org.uk is on the proposed “democratic lock” over the Sentencing Council. I argue that David Lammy, as new justice secretary, should overturn his predecessor's decision that all guidelines the Council issues should be subject to ministerial approval.

Institute for Government @instituteforgovernment.org.uk · 27d

David Lammy should reverse the proposed “democratic lock” over the Sentencing Council

We need a politics that does not pile pressure on ministers to overrule independent decisions, says @drmatthewgill.bsky.social www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/davi...

Ministers should welcome the role of experts.

1 1 2

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 26

@danhaile.bsky.social and I have now looked at the Independent Water Commission's final report for @instituteforgovernment.org.uk. Lots of creative ideas to improve regulation in the water sector - but transition to the new regime will be tricky... www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comm....

1 3

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 14

9/ So much more thought is needed about the appropriate relationships between ministers, public servants and the public. The current guidance doesn’t work at a practical level and runs counter to the accountability and transparency now expected of civil servants and public agencies.

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 14

8/ As I argued when the guidance first came to light, it is essential for public leaders to be able to exercise judgment without constant ministerial clearance – otherwise there is just too much grit in the system to make complex technical functions work: bsky.app/profile/drma....

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 26

1/ This is an important comment on civil servant's public voice from @drhannahwhite.bsky.social and @alexgathomas.bsky.social at @instituteforgovernment.org.uk. And it could have particular implications for public bodies and regulators. A short thread...

Institute for Government @instituteforgovernment.org.uk · Jun 26

The government should not ban public servants from speaking in public

A private instruction that prevents government officials from speaking at public events is counter-productive. It will lead to a more closed government and less effective policy www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/gove...

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 14

7/ The limits set should not equate to the most comfortable position for the government: it should err on the side of delegating judgement and facilitating public debate, not over-caution. Micro-management is usually a mistake that achieves apparent control at the cost of reduced effectiveness.

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 14

6/ The question for government, then, is where along Grube’s spectrum public leaders should be allowed - or even encouraged - to operate, noting that this will remain a matter of judgement for them to exercise case by case and may differ according to the circumstances.

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 14

5/ Public leaders increasingly need to be “publicly proactive” to perform their functions well. As Grube puts it (p. 197), “If more accountability, transparency and creativity are being demanded of public servants, they must be allowed the room in which to embrace those new styles of engagement.”

The prime minister needs to clarify whether he still believes in ministerial accountability | Institute for Government

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 14

4/ This diagram from Dennis C Grube’s 2019 book, Megaphone Bureaucracy, which highlights the same trend internationally, helps to frame the necessary debate about what the knock-on impact on public leaders’ public profiles should be: press.princeton.edu/books/hardco...

1 2

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 14

3/ That may have been the case decades ago. But senior civil servants and public body leaders are now, in practice, much more in the spotlight. @timdurrant.bsky.social observed erosion of ministerial accountability in the pandemic, for example: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comm....

The government’s actions are calling into question the principle that UK ministers are held to account for the performance of the department they over

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 14

2/ The response, quoted in the Times, implies – wrongly – that ministers happily take public accountability for everything officials do:

Licence to lead: lessons for public bodies from the pandemic response in health | Institute for Government

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jul 14

1/ The government’s response to the open letter co-ordinated by @instituteforgovernment.org.uk (@drhannahwhite.bsky.social @alexgathomas.bsky.social) on civil servants speaking in public is not only disappointing, but also surprising...

Hannah White @drhannahwhite.bsky.social · Jul 14

We at @instituteforgovernment.org.uk have coordinated a letter in @thetimes.com today in which numerous individuals and organisations call on the government to withdraw its mistaken rules which are having a serious chilling effect on civil servants speaking in public…

1 6 5

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 26

6/ So not only are Hannah and Alex right about the importance of civil service voices to a healthy public discussion - of both government effectiveness and the details of policy - but this guidance would also work contrary to public body and regulator effectiveness. Let's hope for a re-think.

4

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 26

5/ More, we also found that public body leaders who develop their organisations' public voice in normal times can have greater credibility in a crisis - not only with the public but even with government ministers themselves: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...

Government should trust public bodies to lead in crises.

1 3

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 26

4/ Our research on public bodies in the pandemic found that in a crisis, particularly, an effective communications response must rely on those closest to the relevant subjects to rapidly communicate messages and handle stakeholders within their spheres of expertise and delegated authority.

1 1 1

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 26

3/ Second, it is simply not practical for civil servants not to engage in public Q&A. Particularly for regulators developing rules and guidance, it is an essential aspect of the engagement they have with industry. This is far more technical stuff than politicians could cover off instead.

1 2

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 26

2/ First, the guidance against taking questions in public or in front of the media is directed at civil servants - and so could apply to some public bodies and not others. That's potentially quite arbitrary.

The government should not ban public servants from speaking in public | Institute for Government

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 26

1/ This is an important comment on civil servant's public voice from @drhannahwhite.bsky.social and @alexgathomas.bsky.social at @instituteforgovernment.org.uk. And it could have particular implications for public bodies and regulators. A short thread...

Institute for Government @instituteforgovernment.org.uk · Jun 26

The government should not ban public servants from speaking in public

A private instruction that prevents government officials from speaking at public events is counter-productive. It will lead to a more closed government and less effective policy www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/gove...

New guidance will damage the quality of government and public discourse.

Accountability in small government bodies - NAO report

1 11 10

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 25

Good to see this new NAO report published this morning: www.nao.org.uk/reports/acco.... Burdens of accountability are proportionately higher for smaller government bodies, but it is also harder for them to get the support they need in government to meet them. Some good ideas here to rectify that.

Government can release resources and improve accountability by tailoring governance and audit requirements for small public bodies.

www.nao.org.uk

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 23

11/ There’s lots more in there – and it’s great to see all of this work in the public domain. Plenty to feed into the government’s strategic thinking about the role of regulation, on which there is still more to do (see my short piece here: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/regu...).

Regulatory reform: systemic thinking, not tinkering | Institute for Government

The government’s aspirations to streamline regulation cannot be achieved piecemeal.

1 2

Matthew Gill @drmatthewgill.bsky.social · Jun 23

10/ Cybersecurity will also need proper attention alongside this work. For example “a single, secure access point to NHS datasets” is both obviously desirable and likely to create a point of concentrated vulnerability.