Originally published 20 December 2004. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
The famous Welsh Rugby coach, Carwyn James (famous for his work with the 1971 British Lions) is remembered for once having urged his players to "get your retaliation in first" ! I suspect that many who organise public consultations know what he meant.
They have accepted a difficult brief, arranged to have the arguments set out as fairly as possible and published a consultation schedule that no-one can fault. Meetings have been held, questionnaires returned, submissions received, data analysed - and everything is done by the book.
Yet there are times when such is the controversial nature of the subject - or such is the tenacity of a proposal's opponents - that nothing can convince people that the process has been fair. For the more difficult options where the consultor had a choice to make, it is a case of:- damned if you do …. and damned if you don't!
On top of this is the growing realisation that consultations can be subject to judicial review, and that we are about to see the application of human rights legislation in this area. If stakeholder groups can show that their views were not sought for a policy which impacts them, then a remedy in law may be on its way. Consultation organisers beware!
Probably the best response for cunning consultors is to observe that headline dictum. Bringing in an external or independent element should reassure all but the most sceptical that the processes are fair. It is not necessary to sub-contract the consultation to outsiders - though this is sometimes appropriate. It is equally possible to appoint a trusted independent outsider to monitor all that happens and to guide the organisation towards best practice. There are times when companies are glad to have the auditor's signature at the foot of their accounts. Soon, it may be equally necessary for a respected third party to sign off a consultation as having been properly done.
Being armed with an independent verification or endorsement is probably the nearest thing to what Carwyn James had in mind!
Trigger points
- Identify which consultations can be expected to provoke procedural complaints
- Adopt a policy for the use of independent observers or monitors
- Ask key stakeholders to confirm their acceptance of the process at the start
- Consider independent analysis and interpretation for contentious issues
- Check out the Consultation Institute's Verification service
This is the 5th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement