Delivering policy requires expert government outreach

THE LAST FEW WEEKS have brought a welter of new and complicated legislative material and policy development relating to transport filling LTT’s pages. This issue is one of our largest ever, with much material to analyse and interpret as official bodies clear their desks before the summer break, and parliament rises. Their output may not be national headline- grabbing stuff, but will be of considerable concern to professionals active in the various areas involved, and presumably acknowledged by government itself as significant in ensuring that implementation of its policy agenda is smooth and effective amongst the intended audience.

This is not an unfamiliar territory for governments, and particularly new ones, committed to change, in which a key element is their relationship with the civil service and the machinery of administrative and delivery support to their policies, with inevitable stress points occurring from time to time. Last month, in this regard, it was reported that a new issue had emerged from within the inner government circles — doubtless at or near No 10 Downing Street — as someone had decided that only ministers, not civil servants, should be speaking publicly about policy and its implementation. High-level authority would apparently henceforth be required for any deviation from the strict control of when civil servants could accept speaking engagements.

In particular, new internal guidance, distributed around departments last month, would prevent mid-ranking and senior officials from speaking at events with Q&A sessions, or where media are expected to attend.

This suggestion of paranoia was probably focused on a vision of the kind of appearances that might involve the general public or high-profile live broadcasting attendees, where there is an arguable case for some supervision of who speaks on policy matters. But in the context of more specialist professional dissemination, civil servants in charge of policy delivery not only ought to be the right ones in the front line, but are able to do the job more effectively and helpfully for the government, and thereby free up ministers for what they are much better equipped to do in terms of advocacy and time availability.

Indeed, the balance of responsibilities and custody is sensibly one in which ministers set out their intentions and priorities, and civil servants address the detailed mechanics of policies and their implementation. For instance, few ministers would be in a good position to explore and explain changes to Transport Appraisal Guidance, the mechanics of Bus Service Improvement Plans, what qualifies for CRSTS funding, and how spatial planning policies should be reflected within Local Transport Plans.

The need for clarification and explanation of detailed legal and administrative information of this kind about new policies and approaches is something that is an inevitable part of delivery, and for the specialist territories like those discussed in Local Transport Today, the essential role of civil service speakers is well-established and respected. This might be on highly technical matters such as modelling, funding and distribution, aspects of public transport provision, standards and protocols for traffic management and parking, and many other topics. The civil servants involved are very well regarded for their ability to convey the practicalities of policy matters of this kind and set them in a wider context.

It is part of any the civil servant professional role anyway to explain the workings of policies and give evidence in public, and alone, to select committees and other supervisory bodies, and to take questions and provide answers as part of their appearances at such events. And also part of their role to reach out to institutional and professional bodies and develop good open working relationships with them. This requires a long-term understanding of the concepts and languages being used, and the kind of problems that need to be resolved, and friendly interaction. There then comes the additional benefit of feedback on how policies and plans are playing out in practice, which in turn can be conveyed to ministers themselves, as invaluable insight for policy making and implementation.

The potential for this delicate and proven framework to be upset by either high level control-freakery or worries about messaging management is surely misplaced and counter productive, and it is pleasing to report that wiser counsels apparently prevailed, with revised advice suggesting it continues to be acceptable for civil servant specialists to speak on their areas of responsibilities with fellow professionals.

The officials concerned are now hopefully free to engage with the public and experts on a case-by-case basis, with considerations for impartiality and potential for controversy in particular situations specifically addressed.

The Cabinet Office has also clarified that speakers will not be automatically barred for previously criticizing the government, but any such comments be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Overall, the changes seem to properly represent a more nuanced approach to civil service communication, aiming to balance the need for public engagement with that to maintain impartiality and avoid political controversy.

What lay behind this concerning intervention is not too clear, but it might be related to frustration within the top echelon of government about the speed and effectiveness with which its ‘mission of change’ was getting done, and the messaging about the associated programme of action, and frustrations with any objections to it. The solution to that, however would surely not be to simply insist that ministers, rather than senior civil servants, were the spokespeople for the government and at the forefront of communications with the public, but to look harder at the realities and practicalities of the change process being unleashed, and some of the inevitable tensions embedded within it.

“Effective government relies on public servants, whose salaries are paid by the taxpayer, hearing directly from businesses, charities, academics and citizens to help them make better policy. They should be able to explain government activity to those same groups,” said a letter to The Times, from a group of former officials and influential commentators on the civil service when the controversy broke. They urged ministers to withdraw the new guidance. Signatories include former Downing Street director of communications Alastair Campbell, Institute for Government director Dr Hannah White and Matt Tee, former Permanent Secretary for government communications and one time chief executive of the news regulator IPSO.

It quoted comments from Ruth Anderson, Labour’s Cabinet Office spokesperson in the House of Lords, saying there is a “responsibility on our civil servants to engage every day”. When they do, it is LTT’s pleasing experience that they are professional, diplomatic and understanding of the challenges that practitioners face in absorbing and responding to what sometimes seems a tidal wave of change- not always fully thought through for its implications.

Peter Stonham is the Editorial Director of TAPAS Network

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT920, 30 July 2025.