Cath Haddon

@cathhaddon.bsky.social

Senior Fellow @instituteforgov.bsky.social

+ history, Whitehall geekiness and constitutional agony aunt Subscribe to our newsletter: http://bit.ly/3dxiJ5J

@amberdellar.bsky.socialReposted by @cathhaddon.bsky.social

NEW: Plans to reduce EHCPs look optimistic and Burnham's public service reforms still need a plan for schools

In our first IfG Performance Tracker chapter, funded by @nuffieldfoundation.org, we look at how the government is performing on its schools agenda [1/9]

@cathhaddon.bsky.social

If MPs manage a standards inquiry that identifies all tapped MPs (i will think of a name for them), they can choose to change to meaningful debate and vote. Every third vote tower MPs have to vote in plain sight. Every day all MPs have to do a team task to fix part of the Parly estate.

@cathhaddon.bsky.social

MPs blindfolded in the chamber while Counsellor of State goes and taps 1 MP of each party on arm. Indicative votes once a day for 10 weeks. Tapped MPs meet in the Elizabeth tower every evening to decide which MP has to leave to do non-stop media on what the hell is going on.

@robertsaunders.bsky.socialReposted by @cathhaddon.bsky.social

It was great to welcome the "Parliament Matters" podcast to "the political studies powerhouse that is Queen Mary University of London".

Featuring the brilliant @ruthfox.bsky.social @darcyxtip.bsky.social @cathhaddon.bsky.social & @danielgover.bsky.social, plus me going tonto on billionaire donors.

@matthewfright.bsky.socialReposted by @cathhaddon.bsky.social

Following Angela Rayner's decision to fully review her predecessor’s LGR decisions, today at 12.30, the @instituteforgovernment.org.uk, in partnership with @grantthorntonuk.bsky.social, has brought together a great panel to discuss how this came about and what happens next. Sign up details below.

@cathhaddon.bsky.social

In the end, we argued: a. good policy was far less likely to be challenged b. a lot of frustrations could be improved by better use of legal advice through the process - so it's not a 'lawyer says no' at the end c. Ultimately its for ministers, and the PM, to decide what risk they want to bear

@cathhaddon.bsky.social

We also found that ministerial attitudes to legal risk were v variable. It can change minister to minister. For inexperienced mins, hearing words like 'high risk' can be v worrisome. Others know it comes with territory and happy to press ahead.

Not everyone in the government has the same legal risk appetite. There are differences between officials, departments and ministers. We were told that departments’ failure to communicate with one another about legal risk appetite can be a source of frustration. Ministers’ background and experience have a strong influence on their risk appetite. Some junior ministers, having less experience than secretaries of state, have “no palpable sense of what high legal risk means” in policy and political terms. For some, this means that they “get scared” and show low risk appetite. One former official described the range of responses: some ministers “would take what lawyers say as gospel”, others would be engaged and prepared to ask questions and test the advice, but the most difficult were those who “totally refused to accept the fundamentals on which officials and lawyers were giving advice”, leading to the problem of finding the right language to explain to them why they could not break the law
@cathhaddon.bsky.social

Depts are v variable in how they respond to legal risk. For some depts it is daily, for others v rare. But even then, the nature of the policy can mean different approaches.

In Defra, which has had 40 years of operating with a bedrock of EU legislation, “no one moves without talking to their lawyers”; the law is seen as “totemic” and that can influence how “risky” any course of action is perceived to be. However, in the Home Office, risk appetite is higher, at least where the minister’s political objective is a ‘crackdown’ approach to enforcement. As an official said: “If the government takes an aggressive position on deporting people (for example) it is going to encounter these problems. It is for the government to choose if they want to magnify these problems.” In fact, judicial review is sometimes considered a political tool in itself. More than one interviewee told us that with certain Home Office decisions, politicians would find it more politically palatable to be forced to abandon a policy or action by a court than to abandon it themselves.
@cathhaddon.bsky.social

Back in 2021, frustration with JR or legal advice hampering policy was very in vogue. But, as we pointed out, there had been very little done to look at how legal advice affects policy making. And yet the impact of JR is as much about how the risk of legal challenge.

Older posts