Sir Philip Rutnam Archives - WA Communications

How will the Whitehall machine deliver a Mission-Based government?

“We need government to be more agile, empowering, and catalytic….
“The old model of departments working in silos … needs to be replaced with a genuine joined-up approach. This means collective agreement on the government’s objectives and how best to deploy time, attention and resources to meet them.
“This could mean new structures and ways of working to facilitate collaboration, including replacing some of the cabinet committees with new delivery focused cross-cutting mission boards.”

5 Missions for a Better Britain: A Mission Government to End ‘Sticking Plaster’ Politics

A change in government is very often accompanied by a new vision for how government as a whole should be organised – from the role of No.10 and the powers of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office; to the responsibilities of the central government departments and their agencies; to the use of cross-government ‘Czars’, boards and committees.

Some of these shifts are formally called ‘machinery of government’ changes because they involve moving responsibility for functions from one department to another, or creating whole new departments devoted to goals like Net Zero. Others are changes in the balance between central and local, or in the style and way of doing things.

So what changes can we expect to see under a new Labour government? And how could Government really reflect Starmer’s ‘Mission’-focused government – supporting his cross-cutting ambitions around economic-growth, clean energy, an improved NHS, safer streets, and breaking down the barriers to opportunity?

In Starmer’s own words – these issues are long-term, complex challenges “that need lots of actors and agencies working to achieve them”. And of course those actors aren’t just central government policy-makers but also “business working with unions. The private sector working with the public sector. And partnership between national and local government.”

These are also issues where Labour must deliver on the promise of Change, but with little headroom for further funding increases – meaning good leadership, driving operational improvements and marginal gains become ever more important.

So, under a newly elected Labour government, it’s more likely we’ll see an emphasis on making existing structures more accountable, with stronger central control and cross-government coordination, rather than a wholesale shake-up of the structure of Whitehall.

This evolution rather than revolution also reflects the instincts of Keir’s senior team – an inner-circle heavily populated with experienced public servants. Starting with Keir himself:

As Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer is one of the few recent Prime Ministers to have personal experience at the very top of the civil service, working regularly with senior civil servants across Whitehall. He used to attend the weekly meetings of Permanent Secretaries when he was DPP.
His Chief of Staff, Sue Gray, has spent decades at the Cabinet Office, right at the heart of the official machine, responsible for sensitive topics like public appointments, Ministerial conduct and government ethics. She also knows a lot about devolution and the Union having worked as the Second Permanent Secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and having run the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland’s devolved executive.
Or former Cabinet Office Minister and the Political Director of Tony Blair’s delivery unit, Pat McFadden – who is likely to return to the department to drive delivery of Labour’s missions. There are also several former senior Ministers in the Shadow Cabinet who bring experience of the day-to-day operation of government.

These are long-term Whitehall operators, who will have a clear view on how to control the levers of power effectively, based on personal experience – they are not Steve Hilton or Dominic Cummings figures who join government to implement ‘blue-sky’ thinking.

Here are some thoughts about what might happen in five areas:

Central Government Departments and Agencies

Sue Gray in particular will have the instinct of most senior civil servants that major changes in the number or role of departments is a distraction, and Keir Starmer will be familiar with the disruption that big organisational changes caused for other parts of government working on the affected policy areas.

Instead the focus will be on making the departments that exist more effective, and holding the Secretaries of State in charge of them to account more effectively.

In some cases this may mean central departments becoming more powerful relative to agencies – expect for example the Department of Health and Social Care to reassert some control and powers from NHS England.

The weakest departments organisationally, and probably the ones most vulnerable to change, are those that Rishi Sunak created recently in the business area – Business & Trade, and Science, Innovation & Technology.

If there are any major machinery of government changes these will be announced when Cabinet Ministers are appointed. Key decisions on cabinet committees will be made shortly afterwards – including their terms of reference, chairs and membership.

Inevitably every Prime Minister gets to a point where a refresh or a reset is required, so notwithstanding the above, machinery of government changes will not have gone away entirely under Labour: expect the option to be on the cards either later in the Parliament or the next Parliament.

HM Treasury:

We can expect an early announcement by Rachel Reeves about increasing the department’s organisational firepower – perhaps beefing up the Growth Unit function, which may also include the appointment of a new Second Permanent Secretary, a figure who can engage credibly with business (currently a big gap, especially in a department to be tasked with a greater role in galvanising business investment).

An early announcement about strengthening the role of the OBR could also be followed up by legislation, probably in the first session.

No10 / Cabinet Office:

It is less clear what Starmer and Gray will do with No10 and the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office is the least loved bit of Whitehall, a sprawling mix of central functions for the Civil Service and higher-end policy coordination across domestic and security policy. No10 by contrast is a small operation which takes a different shape in each administration reflecting the personal preferences and style of the Prime Minister.

In general I’d expect Sue Gray to take a fairly traditional view of what a high-performing centre of government should look like. The shadow of Jeremy Heywood still hangs heavily over Whitehall in this way of thinking – one brilliant individual who could combine superb instincts for policy and political handling with strengths in organisational leadership and transformational drive. The trouble is that individuals like Jeremy are few and far between, and absent this kind of hero the traditional version of the centre is a long way from the strategy-setting motor of government that the modern state needs.

Expect a lot more speculation about who might succeed the current Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, if he does move on early in 2025. A lot of this has so far been linked to the rumoured return to government of Sir Oliver Robbins – who stepped into the public limelight as Theresa May’s chief Brexit negotiator, but also held jobs in Home Office and Treasury. Other names may however also enter the frame.

Mission Boards

The much heralded centre-pieces of the new government’s administrative reforms, these will be intended to fill that central strategy-setting gap.

They may also be an important forum to draw together the range of partners, beyond central government, that ‘5 Missions for a Better Britain’ identifies as key to delivering change – for example opportunities for the private sector and corporate expertise to contribute have been heavily floated in the media, and it would be no surprise to see union and local government representation.

But the boards will struggle to be effective unless:

The objectives are tightly defined, have some realism and are not too rhetorical

One senior Minister is put in charge of each and has the power and authority to direct other colleagues/departments (as that Minister cannot always be the PM or Chancellor, you immediately get into issues of ranking / personality / rivalry)

Preferably there is one senior official responsible for driving the work of the board, with a supporting team and with budgets to match

The risk is that these boards will turn into coordinating and overseeing committees (as with many before). And that is ultimately an issue of political direction from the top, not administrative process. If they are to have real power they need to have the status of Cabinet Committees: it is possible to have non-Ministers attending Cabinet Committees but not as full members.

Local Devolution

While not a ‘Machinery of Government’ change per se, attention should also be drawn to Labour’s plans for further local devolution – where Metro Mayors are an influential part of Labour’s eco-system, and a “full fat approach to devolution” promises a further transfer of policy-making and spending powers on transport, skills, energy, and planning.

If really effective this could be the most important long-term change of all.

Watch out though for whether the Treasury concedes any ability to raise revenue – or just to spend allocations from the centre.

Share this content:

Hitting the ground running: The first 100 days

The days after a Labour General Election win will see wide-ranging change in SW1, as well as the country.

A selection of immediately deliverable policy changes are almost certain,100+ Ministers will meet their private office teams, set priorities and seek out profile-raising opportunities, and potentially 200+ brand new MPs will pick up their parliamentary pass for the first time and navigate the corridors of power.

Crucial moments abound – from the day after the election, and as MPs and Ministers take up their positions over the next week, to key parliamentary moments throughout the subsequent 2-3 months:

First 100 days of the new government

First 10 days

Ministerial Appointments

More than 100 new Ministers will pick up their red boxes, and meet with senior civil servants from across each department to set out their priorities.

Special Adviser appointments will also be made quickly, including key Downing Street roles such as the Prime Minister’s Director of Communications.

On page 68 of our Next Left guide, Natasha Egan-Sjodin, former Head of Ministerial Briefing at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, explores in detail the briefing of a brand new minister.

Electing a Commons Speaker and Swearing-in of MPs and Peers

First 30 days

King’s Speech

This will set out the government’s key priorities, and also their likely sequencing.

Not every policy will require a place in the King’s Speech: many could be introduced as part of a subsequent Budget (for example introducing VAT on private school fees), or through existing legislation or statutory instruments.
Debate on the King’s Speech will take place in the days after – with specific days often focusing on certain themes selected by the Opposition.
Some parliamentary business can begin before the King’s Speech – for example the government could begin to introduce some bills if it wished, oral questions can begin, and secondary legislation can be considered.

In the scenario of a minority government or confidence-and-supply arrangement, it will be the first test of Labour’s ability to command the confidence of the Commons.

Select Committees

Key Select Committees – such as the Treasury and Public Account Committees – will typically be formed within three to four weeks of Parliament reconvening after the election, with Chairs being elected by MPs. Committees announcing their first inquiries will offer one of the first opportunities for targeted engagement.

First 100 days

Emergency Budget

The Chancellor of the Exchequer will start to set out the new government’s economic strategy, public finance measures, and taxation policies, most likely when Parliament returns in September.

Comprehensive Spending Review

The most recent spending review in Autumn 2021 set departmental budgets up to the end of March 2025. This may lead to two possible outcomes – a one-year CSR from the current government which Labour will adopt, or Labour being compelled to roll-over departmental budgets for a year to give them breathing space to conduct a full multi-year CSR from 2026.

Machinery of Government changes

Labour’s Five Missions typically bring together policy objectives that would span multiple government departments – so a Labour administration, and Sue Gray in particular, will be looking at how central government is structured, to ensure deliverability and accountability around these key priorities.

This might mean changes to government departments, but broader use of Cabinet Committees, cross-departmental teams, the appointment of external ‘czars’, and greater use of taskforces could also be options.

All-Party Parliamentary Groups

APPGs will reform in a less formal way – with changes to groups, and the speed of formations depending on the number of existing MPs returning to Westminster, and the range of interests across the new Parliament.

NEXT LEFT? THE SHAPE OF A LABOUR GOVERNMENT

This article is part of our Next Left series, which examines the people and policies that will shape the next government if Labour wins power – explore the guide in full here.

Share this content:

The great aviation debate: can we do it better?

Pity the poor Planning Inspectors. They spend years qualifying as a town planner and then find themselves asked to answer one of the most contentious questions in British politics – the future of aviation. That at least must be what it feels like to be the Inspector in charge of the current enquiry into Gatwick’s plan to expand using its northern runway. And Gatwick is just one of half a dozen airports with plans to increase capacity.

Expanding airports has never been easy but the list of challenges has got a lot longer in the last decade. Air quality and the path to Net Zero have joined noise and the local environment in the top tier of issues. And any major proposal to expand needs to show not just that it will meet a need and bring social and economic benefits, but that it is consistent with national policy and will mitigate any adverse effects.

Of all these issues the one where the stakes are now highest is climate change. And that’s true politically as well. Aviation is hard to decarbonise, but it’s also emotionally charged in a way that (let’s face it) grazing cattle or sheep are not – even though agriculture is actually responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and far fewer jobs than aviation.

With Labour’s focus on the economy, and an industry that is ready to expand and create jobs and growth, it’s easy to predict some difficult debates about aviation if they form the next Government. And those debates are likely to focus above all on airport expansion: whether it’s the most important issue or not, it can be understood and it can generate feelings in a way that many other aspects of the environmental agenda cannot.

We can all see this risk coming, so what to do about it? Can we manage this debate any better, so that it is less likely to turn into a zero-sum argument played out in the media about climate vs growth? To its credit, the current Government has already started to do lots of things that I suspect any Government will want to do: set out an ambitious strategy for Sustainable Aviation Fuels, invest more in aerospace R&D to try to improve fuel efficiency, and lead efforts around new global mechanisms like CORSIA at ICAO.

There is lots more to do here to ramp up delivery, not least on SAF. But it’s also striking that other aspects of the debate are less well developed and more polarised – which is never a good sign.

Let’s look at positions on airport capacity. The Committee on Climate Change has recommended a new framework for managing this nationally. It says there should be no net expansion in airport capacity between now and 2050: if there is expansion in one location, capacity should be reduced elsewhere. Under the CCC’s model, by 2050 the capacity of Britain’s airports would basically match demand – there would be a 25% increase in passenger numbers over 2018 levels and every airport would be more or less full.

The Committee says there should only be a net increase in airport capacity if aviation reduces carbon use even faster than the Government is assuming – for example because of huge breakthroughs in SAF or electric flight. This would be a radical intervention in the economy – managing capacity across the country’s airports, closing some to open others. It obviously raises lots of practical questions (including costs), as well as focussing on airport capacity more than the underlying issue of carbon emissions.

The Government by contrast thinks that the path set out in its Jet Zero strategy should allow aviation both to decarbonise sufficiently and to increase capacity and passenger numbers, with a 70% increase by 2050. This is based on assumptions about the development of technology – mainly SAF and fuel efficiency – as well as major changes in the pricing of emissions globally through CORSIA, that would need international agreement. The CCC, and some others, think these assumptions are just too risky and optimistic.

It seems a shame if the debate is left there, as an argument about assumptions when the truth is no one really knows. What is striking to me, as someone who has been around the block on public policy, is that the underlying issue is not really about technology – it’s about how you deal with uncertainty and create enough confidence that future Governments will act to limit emissions. And those are issues that come up and get resolved not too badly in other areas of public policy – pensions for example.

A bit more thought about solving these problems might be time well spent. It just might make life easier for a new Government, never mind the people running airports and, yes, the poor planning inspectors.

Share this content:

Labour and the Civil Service – Access Talks

So, access has been granted. One of the rituals of the run up to a British General Election can begin: the private, official talks between the Opposition and the Civil Service, which allow both sides to prepare for a possible change of Government.

When access should happen is down to the Prime Minister, and Rishi Sunak’s decision last week means he has already cut things fine for his opponents compared to some past Elections (2010 for example). But what happens in access talks, and do they actually matter?

To start with one thing that shouldn’t happen: don’t expect a running commentary in the press. Both civil servants and the Opposition are told to keep the discussions confidential, and past experience suggests this is one convention still observed. There are powerful incentives for secrecy: for Labour, it’s about message discipline running up to the Election; and for civil servants, it’s about building the confidence of your likely future employers.

It also helps to keep things secret when only a few people are involved. And this brings me to the first point about how access talks actually work: they’re tightly controlled and only a few people know what’s happening. For Labour they’ll be overseen by Sue Gray, and I think that will mean an even tighter and more disciplined process than usual.

Sue’s opposite number in Government is her former boss and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, who’s now back at work. The first job for Sue and Simon will be to agree to some ground rules. One rule, for example, may be that a member of Keir Starmer’s office has to be present at every meeting. Only when the rules are settled will the shadow Secretaries of State and departmental Permanent Secretaries start talking to each other.

I was involved in access talks running up to four Elections from 2010 to 2019. My experience was they were taken very seriously by both sides and they actually mattered. These were discussions right at the top – between the shadow Secretary of State, the Permanent Secretary and just a few others on each side. They were an opportunity for the politicians to ask lots of questions about the department and the real challenges it faced, and for both sides to discuss the practical implications of big new policies. Above all, of course, it meant the senior people could get to know each other. On the official side the people involved were all very senior, DGs or above plus one (senior) link person, and the Opposition team was similar.

So given the secrecy and small number of people involved, what should businesses and other organisations with an interest be doing about access talks? Nothing directly I suggest. But this is still a critical time to engage the top of the Civil Service in every area: the approach just needs to be broader and more subtle than a focus directly on the access talks. Instead, every organisation should be asking itself about the evidence, insight and relationships that it can bring to bear, to help the senior people in departments through this phase and achieve its own goals. And there are plenty of lessons from 1997 and 2010 about how things can either go well for businesses – or badly.

Share this content:

How can government and business collaborate to create ‘good’ economic growth?

I’m a great believer that there’s something you can call good economic growth. That’s growth which creates real wealth and good jobs, but does so in a way that is lasting and respects the greatest sources of wealth we have – the planet and its people.

There’s never been a time when bringing these things together has been more important – whether to improve the state of Britain’s economy, or to address the most profound challenges of climate change and biodiversity.

For all our recent turbulence, Britain has giant strengths. These can create immense opportunities when we bring them together well: not just great companies and entrepreneurs, but also some great public institutions including our universities, legal system, and the Civil Service. These are globally respected and have huge potential as sources of value.

Most of my 30 year career in and around Government was spent doing what I’ve just described – trying to bring Government and business together to create lasting benefit for society. Then I called it micro-economic policy, and it’s what I did at HMT for 15 years – whether getting private investment into infrastructure or creating a better tax regime for entrepreneurs. It’s also what I did on the Board at Ofcom: I spent 7 years helping to set up the regulator and then run it. It was also a big part of the nearly 10 years I spent as a Permanent Secretary, or CEO-equivalent, across the Department for Transport, Home Office, and for a little while the Department for Business.

In fact one of my proudest achievements as a Permanent Secretary was helping to shift the mindset at DfT so that it was a bit less focussed on extra concrete and steel – the traditional answer to transport problems – and more focussed on radical innovation. The UK’s strong story on EVs today can be traced back to the partnership we created a decade and more ago between business, government and academe: to my mind that’s a model for government and business working together.

Chairing WA’s Advisory Board now gives me the opportunity apply this experience to help WA’s team and clients. One of the reasons I was keen to join WA was that its own approach – the emphasis on collaboration – is really well aligned with my own. And real collaboration starts with really good understanding: not just of the policy challenges and constraints that might be faced by the firms WA advises, but the longer-term goals and the sense of opportunity.

And my hunch is that after the Election, whoever wins, that theme of good growth is itself just going to keep on growing.

Share this content:

Former Permanent Secretary Sir Philip Rutnam joins WA’s Advisory Board

Formerly one of the UK’s most senior civil servants, Sir Philip joins the Advisory Board as its Chair, and will provide strategic advice on the inner workings of Whitehall as we approach the general election and potential change of government.

WA’s advisory board draws together senior figures from the communications industry, Westminster, the media, and the health sector, including former CEO of Grayling UK Alison Clarke; Chair of NHS South West London Integrated Care Board and Chair of Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust, Mike Bell; and broadcaster & journalist Steve Richards.

Having previously served as the Permanent Secretary of the UK Home Office, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport, acting Permanent Secretary at the Department for Business, and as one of the founders of Ofcom, Sir Philip brings an unrivalled understanding of government operations and policy-making processes. His distinguished career spans over three decades, during which he held several high-profile positions within the British civil service.

Sir Philip’s expertise in governance, risk management, and policy implementation will be invaluable in advising WA Communications’ clients on navigating the evolving regulatory landscape.

Commenting on the appointment, Dominic Church, Managing Director, WA Communications said:

“We are thrilled to welcome Sir Philip Rutnam to our advisory board, His extensive experience and deep knowledge of government operations will further enhance our consultancy’s capabilities, enabling us to provide our clients with even more comprehensive and strategic advice across multiple sectors. Sir Philip’s appointment reinforces our commitment to delivering high-quality counsel and unmatched insights to our valued clients.”

Sir Philip added:

“WA’s advisory board reflects the breadth of strategic advice that the agency as a whole is able to provide, and the policy and reputational outcomes it achieves. I’m delighted to be able to add my experience to this, as we approach what could be a significant time of change in Westminster, and for organisations across the country”.

Share this content:

Posts Tagged ‘Sir Philip Rutnam’

How will the Whitehall machine deliver a Mission-Based government?

Hitting the ground running: The first 100 days

First 10 days

First 30 days

First 100 days

The great aviation debate: can we do it better?

Labour and the Civil Service – Access Talks

How can government and business collaborate to create ‘good’ economic growth?

Former Permanent Secretary Sir Philip Rutnam joins WA’s Advisory Board

Register for insights

Sign Up