Over a decade of Conservative rule. A new Labour government eager to embrace automation and harness the ‘white heat’ of technological revolution. An urgent need to reform an outdated civil service. Sound familiar?
That was 1966.
If plans reported by the Institute for Government on government communication are to be believed, present-day resemblances end there.
The Fulton Report, commissioned by then PM Harold Wilson to modernise the civil service, recognised anonymity was being eroded by “the pressures of the press, radio and television”, concluding: “we see no reason to seek to reverse it”.
It acknowledged the administration suffered “from the convention that only the minister should explain issues in public” and that the assumption “a minister has full detailed knowledge and control of all activities of his department” is “no longer tenable”.
And it was explicit “that the administrative process was surrounded by too much secrecy” and that “public interest would be better served if there were a greater amount of openness”.
So why are we now about to move in the opposite direction?
The new guidance establishes strict restrictions that would have been unthinkable to Wilson's reformers.
Officials are banned from speaking at public events where journalists might be present or questions could be asked, and from announcing new policies unless there is 'clear evidence that a non-ministerial voice would better achieve specific communication objectives.'
Even expert media briefings by senior officials can only proceed with clear justification and mandatory political supervision.
It is hard to understand how ministerial omniscience – deemed “no longer tenable” in an age before the internet, 24-hour news cycles, smartphones and social media – could possibly be considered viable today. Or how we have drifted so far away from the realisation in the Fulton Report: that ‘open government is possible’ and it strengthens rather than undermines government effectiveness.
Or even how in an age of historically low trust levels, when only 19% of the British public feel the current system of governing is working well, guidance could be issued that contradicts international best practice for rebuilding public trust.
Particularly as we all have seen the culture that can emerge when public servants cannot speak to those they serve.
The Infected Blood Inquiry provides one chilling example. Sir Brian Langstaff’s report revealed how institutional secrecy enabled a cover-up that cost thousands of lives. And as the Southport inquiry begins the families have made their feelings clear: “it is only through intense public scrutiny that real change can be effected”.
Of course, government coordination matters. Mixed messaging can undermine policy effectiveness, and ministers need space to set political direction.
But even under Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron, technical expertise found appropriate forums whilst adhering to the civil service values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality – and the Nolan Principles' requirement for openness.
I have chaired conversations with senior civil servants engaging directly with the public, communicating their work, and listening to feedback. I have been in the room when senior civil servants and civil society have collaborated and bridged the gap between the development and impact of policy so as to get it right the first time. And I have seen particularly through the Open Government Partnership how interactions between those inside and outside of government can aid the fostering of trust and ultimately improve lives.
In fact we all have.
Sir Chris Whitty achieved trust levels almost double (59%) those of Boris Johnson (36%) during the pandemic.
The government should withdraw this guidance and instead consider a new Fulton-style review, fit for the digital age, to re-establish principles that balance transparency with coordination, expertise with accountability, and public trust with political responsibility.
Harold Wilson's government understood that modernisation meant embracing openness, not retreating from it. Nearly sixty years later, it is still essential to harness the ‘white heat’ - but let it illuminate, not obscure, the workings of power.
Kevin Keith is chair of the UK Open Government Network