Publish - or be damned! - Two disturbing cases of reticence to publish – so time to stand up for a key principle.

Two weeks ago, the BBC carried the news that the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales had decided that it could not reveal the data emerging from the consultation it has conducted on the subject of sexual ethics. To add spice to the Today programme’s story, it was revealed that the Church in Germany had in fact published its own findings as part of the worldwide consultation the new Pope has initiated. Father Marcus Stock, General secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference, told the BBC that it would be wrong to release the output of the consultation in order to avoid “pre-determining” the outcome.

Then last week a different story emerged - this time a throwback to a consultation that took place over a year ago. It concerned early childhood education and care, and controversial proposals to move to a fully qualified early years Level 3 workforce. What happened was that in June 2013, the Minister announced that it had abandoned the idea, published the number and origin of responses, but no substantive analysis of what consultees had said.

Now neither of these cases are as straightforward as they may seem, and it is important to avoid knee-jerk reactions to criticize organisations that appear on the surface to be in breach of the Consultation Charter. In more depth therefore, is there a case for non-publication?

• The Roman Catholic Church’s consultation has apparently taken place all over the world, and the Church seems to be arguing that its decision-making will be compromised if the data from some countries is released and others not. Ideally of course, the data should be analysed and presented all together, though this feels a daunting challenge in what is probably the first and only truly worldwide consultation! And many countries are far away from having a tradition of openness and transparency. So how damaging is it to the integrity of the decision if some of the output is made public and others not? It might certainly contaminate the balance of public debate, and that, in turn could possibly influence the decision … But frankly, that sounds a little far fetched, and does not speak well of those in charge if they fear that their judgements will be affected by such disclosures.

• The Department of Education has a different argument. Its case is that it has been overtaken by events. If, it argues, the proposals have been withdrawn; it is the end of the matter. The issue is dead and buried (cue for ‘dead parrot’ allusions) and there is therefore no purpose served by re-visiting the arguments by publishing the data. Presumably it fears that making the consultation analysis public might cast doubt on the rationale of its decision. That is why, in response to an FOIA request, it decided to plead the public policy exemption and said No.

In neither of these cases is the refusal argument persuasive. But they illustrate how pervasive is the classic presumption of secrecy – one of the themes emerging in the recent book The Blunders of Our Governments. Despite a worldwide trend towards greater transparency in public administration, it is still possible to find situations where civil servants or officials can sagely shake their heads, explain that normally they would, of course publish … but that in these circumstances, “we’d better not …”

It is therefore a good time to re-state the reasons why the consultation output should almost always be published:-

• If we ask organisations and individuals to take time and go to trouble to give their views, then it is just common courtesy to let them see what was said in the exercise.
• If we don’t observe this courtesy, we have no right to expect consultees to participate the next time around.
• Public consultation is not market research. In the latter case, the data belongs to whoever mounts and pays for the exercise. In a consultation, the public expects to see the data and to influence a decision a policy or a programme of action.
• If we want decision-makers to be influenced … then publishing the analysis is an important way of giving people confidence in knowing what it is that’s been said.
• … and if they go against the thrust of the consultation output, it puts the onus firmly on decision-makers to explain their reasons.

In the two situations considered in this Topic, it would strengthen the credibility of the organisations in question were they to be more open. The Catholic Church could say “Look at some of the evidence we have gathered; our decisions take account of this in the following way.”

Alternatively, should it feel that other evidence outweighs this data – it will have the opportunity to explain how. Similarly, the Department of Education has the chance to demonstrate how its decision related to the consultation findings.

Note that there is only a problem if the consultor is less than sincere about the consultation – where it owes more to spin and PR than to a genuine desire to know what people think. But clearly that cannot apply to these respectable bodies. So why ever won’t they publish?

TRIGGER POINTS

• Note the phrase ‘almost always’. There are occasional situations where the subject-matter is sensitive and might justify non-publication. Domestic violence might be a good example.
• The Blunders of our Governments is written by Professors Ivor Crewe and Anthony King and is published by OneWorld
• Details of the issue re the Roman Catholic Church can be found in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27060172

• The Consultation Charter is published by the Institute and can be found on the Website

This is the 259th 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