Originally published 6 November 2007. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
Last Friday was the closing date for the consultation held on “Effective consultation” – or how the Government itself, and its agencies should manage their consultations.
The debate has covered many important aspects. Should the current Code of Practice be replaced by something more flexible? What kind of monitoring should take place? Should all consultations have published Impact Assessments? Should there be less emphasis on the traditional documentary methods? And should there be a change to the 12-week standard period for which consultation exercises are held open?
There is something of a fixation on the “12 week” rule in Whitehall. It has become the only criterion in the current Code of Practice which is monitored and measured – and even on this, the last Annual Report’s claim of 99.6% compliance is highly suspect. It would have been far more meaningful to measure some of the other criteria in the current Code – such as how often feedback is properly published and how often “the consultation process influenced the policy” (Criterion 4). Somehow, I don’t think the most optimistic Permanent Secretary would expect 99% compliance with these! Despite this, the 12-week issue is an important one. It is there because many stakeholder organisations need time to consider their responses, and to hold discussions with their own members – i.e. secondary consultations. It is also there to ensure that there is time for everyone who is affected to hear of the exercise and have the opportunity to take part.
The trouble is that consultations are very different. Some need an extended period because of the vast numbers that would like to participate, and the wide-ranging nature of the subject. The Government has recently kicked off a number of these including Ed Balls’ Time to Talk consultation on a Children’s Plan or the DTI’s all-important one on the future of nuclear power.
But there are others. No doubt the consultation on the proposed merger of the Health & Safety Commission and the Health & Safety Executive is of great interest to its staff and immediate stakeholders – and to students of our byzantine bureaucracy - but it’s hardly going to dominate discussions in the Queen Vic next week and, where the subject is of interest to a small and identifiable group of organisations or individuals who are expecting it anyway, there is a case for a fast-track process using e-consultation technology which we know works well and fast in these situations.
The main weakness of the present approach is that it is based upon a one-size-fits-all consultation world, and in practice, it isn’t as neat and tidy; ask any experienced consultation co-ordinator in a local authority, NHS Trust or Police force.
So here is an idea. Why not distinguish between General and Specific consultations?
General consultation can embrace the broader dialogues we need to have in society about issues that matter; many of them are cross-cutting and need to attract lots of organisations and viewpoints across a wide spectrum. This is the kind of debate that is needed before the boffins get to work to develop detailed policies, and is the kind of “involvement” that our politicians have been calling for in recent months.
Specific consultations are proposal-based, and preferably have been preceded by a more general dialogue. But by this time, the debate has moved from general principles to the detail, where the devil normally resides! This is where those most affected or most intimately knowledgeable can make meaningful contributions.
When it comes to timescales, maybe General Consultations need longer than 12 weeks; might we then possibly consider a quicker, technology-assisted process for Specific Consultations? 10 weeks ......9 weeks .......8 weeks ???
The danger is that senior civil servants will favour a complete free-for-all with each department able to decide the length of each exercise on an individual case-by-case basis. This would cause confusion, uncertainty and many arguments. It might be better to acknowledge the difference between the general and the specific, and to develop standards appropriate for each.
Will this idea catch on? Who knows? A week is a long time in consultation ....
Trigger points
- Follow the debate on the Consultation Code of Practice. Download the Consultation Institute’s robust response to the Effective Consultation document
- See the Institute discussion paper on The Case for Fast-track consultations.
- Might the General/Specific split make sense in your organisation?
This is the 95th 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