Originally published 8 September 2015. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
The Government has launched a large number of consultations this summer. But probably the most high-profile, and politically contentious, will have been the Department of Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS) consultation on the BBC Charter Review. This is currently scheduled for 2016 and anyone who wades through the 83 pages will risk being overwhelmed by an immensely comprehensive analysis of modern-day public service broadcasting. It is an issue that arouses strong passions; a little like the NHS, we all have views on the BBC.
Ministers know full well how controversial will be any significant change to the current arrangements, and have used the consultation to stake out their position as willing to contemplate wholesale changes – even to cherished principles. They fully expect a vigorous debate – and they are getting it.
What is fascinating is the response from the BBC Trust. Within days of the publication of the DCMS, it told everyone that it was launching its own consultation. What it actually did was to instigate its own survey. We understand that thousands of people are responding to this online questionnaire – almost certainly more than will respond to the far more technical and wider-scope DCMS consultation. Where the Government department has asked important questions about broadcasting strategy, and the impact the BBC has, the Trust has just asked people to state clearly whether they think it should do more or do less. It is an interesting contrast in styles. The BBC survey is not accompanied by a consultation narrative and it presents no clear options, other than those put forward by the DCMS for the future of the Licence Fee.
So what is going on here? Is this a case of a stakeholder, likely to be much affected by changes in public policy, who is keen to assemble evidence to inform its own arguments? Or is it just a new twist on the traditional process of secondary consultation whereby consultees regularly consult their own members or supporters before responding. We sometimes forget how prevalent this is – but any self-respecting umbrella group or representative body does it all the time.
It tales the form of “Have you seen the proposals from the Department of Widget Affairs, and before we write the Association’s formal response, can you please tell us what you think about them?” It can be done in many ways, and, of course, it does not have to be a survey. Indeed, if there are only a small number of key members in your Association, you can phone them up, send them an email, or maybe you have a small committee to argue about them. Only in very large organisations does this internal process start to look like the Primary consultation itself.
But now, let’s look at the questions asked in this secondary consultation.
Finding out what members think about already published proposals is straightforward, but maybe the consultee wants to pursue a particular line of argument. How will the proposals affect your business? Are there specific impacts that will need further discussion? Are there alternatives to these proposals? And if there is broad agreement or little controversy about some proposals, maybe there is no point in wasting time on pursuing them. *Secondary consultation has always been, and continues to be a mechanism for consultees to explore those questions that the Primary consultation failed to ask.*
What is learnt cannot always be used in the consultee’s response. One of the practical rules of consultation is that the only responses we can be sure of being properly analysed are those that directly answer the published consultation questions. But some clued-up organisations take a wider view and expect to take their arguments to a court of law – or the court of public opinion. They find this useful, and will continue to use secondary consultation.
What makes the BBC case so interesting is that, unlike representative organisations trying to assess the mood of their members, it is a phenomenally powerful agency in its own right, and one that can claim every one of us as individual stakeholders. Although it could not possibly launch a judicial review of DCMS’ consultation itself, it would probably agree with potential claimants that despite its comprehensive nature, the Government’s narrative is possibly lacking in terms of the Gunning Two principle. This states that consultees must be given sufficient information as would enable them to give proposals ‘intelligent consideration’ Many of DCMS’ alternatives to the existing status quo are extremely vague and their likely impact can only be a matter of guesswork.
What the BBC may be trying to do is what consultees in general should be attempting – namely seeking to understand how various ideas will affect its own users or members. In other words it is exploring potential impacts. It is legitimate – and frankly to be encouraged. It all takes time, and whereas the DCMS Charter Review exercise sticks to the traditional 12 weeks duration, many other Government consultations do not!
But that’s another story!
TRIGGER POINTS
- The DCMS and BBC consultation were discussed in the Institute Webinar on Summer Consultations on 27th
- The Government consultation on the BBC Charter Review is hosted by the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) and is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449830/DCMS_BBC_Consultation_A4__1_.pdf
- The BBC Trust questionnaire is available on https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/bbc/tomorrows-bbc
- Keep abreast of latest thinking on this and allied subjects at the Institute’s Annual Conference 14th October at the Emirates Stadium, London.
This is the 280th 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.