Following my critique of the better government initiative’s proposals for better government (essentially, better policymaking) I would like to advance my own (modestly, of course):
1. Policy advice to ministers has a presumption of openness
All policy advice to ministers should be publicly available, preferably published online before the minister has made a decision. There will be instances where procurement or national security mean this can’t happen. But as the Chilcot Inquiry demonstrates, even decisions of war cannot take place without openness these days. And (as the better government panel makes clear) the more politicians can explain their decisions the more likely they are to be understood, scrutinised and implemented more effectively.
2. All policy formation should be put out to tender
The civil service must not be the only adviser to ministers. But I understand the complaints from the senior mandarins – that internal competition within government doesn’t necessarily lead to better policymaking. Instead, there should be ‘contestability’ for policymaking so that all policies are developed by at least two different organisations. That level of competition will ensure that thinktanks, academics and civil servants will be better scrutinised whilst ministers will know that they are not being told what they want to hear. And the transparency of the outcome mean that money is unlikely to be wasted.
3. All new organisations or spending commitments should have a 5 year timeframe
Any new organisation or major spending commitment should be created to last five years, with a clear (but small) number of objectives, which can be measured. Near the end of this five year period, they should be assessed by the National Audit Office, the select committee or another external body. They may be allowed to miss their targets but continue – but none will continue indefinitely. For example, if the Equalities and Human Rights Commission cannot demonstrate greater understanding of equality, greater awareness of rights, or landmark legislation to create more fairness, it should be scrapped in 2013.
4. Civil servants should also serve parliamentarians
MPs are too poorly resourced to scrutinise legislation. The House of Commons Library is a fantastic resource, but usually there will be one or two specialists in a particular subject to serve 650 MPs. Select committees are better resourced than before but with a couple of clerks for 14 members, they also have plenty to do. If the policy teams in government departments served parliamentarians (as the representatives of the public) then MPs might be better placed to scrutinise legislation.
5. Annual legislative report
Labour introduced an annual report for government although it was widely derided at the time. The Queen’s Speech could (but doesn’t) perform this role. But if government reported back to parliament on its performance then legislation would be scrutinised on an annual basis according to its effectiveness. A vote on this report would enable parliamentarians to propose particular parts of under-performing legislation to be dropped.
But fundamentally, as nice as these things may be, the core elements of British democracy need to be addressed if British government is to be better:
- the effectiveness of political parties at recruiting and promoting talent;
- the representative-ness of British politicians
- a better balance between central and local government
- the effectiveness and composition of the second chamber