Government departments should say they don't care
UK government departments send documents to other government departments to clear them before publication.
However, the current process often leads to a government that is less able to respond to fast-moving situations, and wastes civil service time with pointless busywork. This is because many departments feel compelled to approve or reject documents outright, even when the content isn’t really relevant to their work.
This article argues for introducing a “don’t care” option in document clearance, allowing departments to indicate when they have no substantial input based on a quick skim of the document.
Document clearance is the process by which UK government departments review and approve official documents before publication or circulation. It's meant to ensure accuracy, consistency, and appropriate messaging across government.
For example, consider a policy paper on "Improving Digital Skills in the Workforce". This policy would likely span multiple departments, including:
- Department for Education (DfE)
- Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
- Department for Business and Trade (DBT)
- Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)
The lead department (let's say DfE) would draft the initial policy paper. They would then send it to the other departments for clearance. Each department would review the document to ensure:
- Their area of responsibility is accurately represented
- The policy aligns with their existing initiatives
- There are no unintended consequences for their sector
- The language used is consistent with their department's messaging
DWP might focus on how the policy affects job seekers and employment programs. DBT could review sections related to business needs and economic impact. DSIT would likely scrutinise the technical aspects and innovation implications.
This process can involve multiple rounds of revisions as departments negotiate language and policy details. Only when all relevant departments have given their approval can the document be finalised and published.
Currently, departments typically have two options when clearing a document: approve or reject.
Both options can also come with suggested changes - usually more significant if it’s a reject. Because government departments don’t have shared IT systems, this usually means a lot of email attachments with tracked changes that then have to be merged.
Problems with the current system
The existing clearance process has several drawbacks:
- Wasted time spent reviewing and revising documents: Departments often spend significant time reviewing documents that aren't directly relevant to their work. To justify their involvement, departments may suggest minor changes that don’t substantially improve the document. I’ve seen departments suggest minor wording changes that have nothing to do with their remit.
- Inability to respond quickly: Documents can be held up waiting for clearance from departments that have no real stake in the content. This can be particularly stressful when dealing with fast-moving situations or where there might be other external deadlines.
- Blocking entire policies: Perhaps even worse than the case with a deadline, where there is no external deadline, delays might just block a policy near indefinitely.
- Preventing focus in government: Focus is often revered as a way to achieve big goals - the kind of goals needed to improve public services. Unfortunately, government departments struggle to have just a few priorities, because they know they’ll get blocked at different points. Document clearance is one such blocker (among others).
The case for a "don’t care" option
Introducing a "don't care" option would allow departments to indicate that they don’t believe a document requires their review. It is neither an approval nor a rejection. Perhaps more formally this is something like:
We don’t think it's relevant for us to comment, unless there are specific questions you have. This is not us approving the document, but you may publish it at your own risk.
This would hopefully result in a government with more time spent on important priorities, that is able to respond quickly to fast-moving situations. It would also support departments adopting this by allowing them to spend their resources on documents that truly require their expertise.
Some might worry that important issues could be overlooked if departments use the “don’t care” option too liberally.
It is possible that something could be missed. This system will certainly not miss all mistakes.
But many mistakes are missed under the current system, precisely because of its mess and complexity. It seems plausible that a system where people are able to spend more time reviewing the more important documents would result in fewer mistakes.
And in any case, if there was something serious the onus would be on the department requesting clearance to clearly articulate what the relevant parts were to read and why: reducing the burden on departments trying to figure out what exactly they need to be reviewing.
Finally as a backstop, if overly liberal use of the “don’t care” option does become a problem this could be reigned in through clearer guidelines. But I think we can cross this bridge when we come to it.
The “don't care” option should be seen as a tool for efficiency, not a way to avoid accountability.
Where another requesting government department insists, it would be expected that the reviewing government department would be expected to review it fully, within a reasonable time. But hopefully this should be rare, and be faster given the reduced overall clearance burden.
Conclusion
Introducing a "don't care" option in document clearance could significantly streamline government processes. It allows departments to focus their efforts where they're most needed, potentially leading to faster, more efficient government operations.
If you’re in government and considering adopting this norm, you’re welcome to contact me to discuss implementation considerations.