Being heard properly in a public consultation - Are you hearing me? How often are consultees unsure who has been listening to them?

Janice Turner is a respected columnist for ‘The Times’ and last week she turned her fire on Keith Vaz MP. Her criticism was not his personal behaviour per se but what she regards as the hypocrisy of the Home Affairs Select Committee he chaired. The issue is an emotive one, the case for the decriminalisation of prostitution, and Turner is one of those who have been arguing in favour of a ‘sex buyer’ statute as has been introduced in some Scandinavian countries and also now in France.

Ms Turner says she is a trustee of a small charity that supports women in street prostitution and had drafted her evidence and sent it to the Select Committee. From her article: “I expected the committee to take evidence from one of the professional team, who spend long nights talking to shivering women on the streets. But we heard nothing. And when the Interim Report was published in July, not a word of our submission was included. Nor were the views of about 20 similar charities who support the Nordic model ….”

Now we all know of consultees who believe themselves to be the best-informed or the most relevant organisation in a particular field and who become very upset if they are not accorded the status they feel they deserve. This was the issue in the Tobacco industry Judicial Review, considered in the last Tuesday Topic (and which is now going to appeal). We also recognise the extreme difficulties that consultation organisers face when trying to decide whose views to quote or who to invite for additional discussions.

In this case, Ms Turner feels let down by the process. She cannot prove that her arguments were not fully considered, but she clearly suspects they were not. Parliamentary Select Committees, in fact, are better than many consultations in that they take evidence in public - something more public consultation should consider. But like many consultations, they suffer from a degree of opaqueness in the way they handle the submissions that are made to them. There is a lack of transparency at the heart of the procedure.

In reality, it would not have taken much for the Committee to explain to Ms Turner – and others that they had received a number of similar submissions and had requested an analysis/held further discussions/sought clarification or any of a number of reasonable responses. Regardless of the merits of this contentious subject, it is the uncertainty which Ms Turner and consultees in general feel that is damaging. It erodes confidence in the process and enables journalists to impugn the motives of decision-makers when they uncover stories suggesting that their views were improperly ignored.

Two years ago, the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee sought to go better and actually announced a full-scale consultation on the idea of a Written Constitution. Graham Allen MP was an energetic Chairman and felt confident he could attract a wide participation in a long-standing issue in British politics, not least because it was the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. There were several reasons why it became something of a damp squib, including the emergence of more pressing constitutional issues in consequence of the Scottish referendum, and the anticipated In/Out European vote. But a key factor was Parliament’s lack of capacity and capability to run proper exercises of this kind. There was little or no budget and little idea of how to cope with or analyse serious numbers of submissions. The Select Committee system relies on worthy but (in terms of public engagement) inexperienced Parliamentary officers who act as a secretariat for each Committee. Often they have to handle several simultaneous Inquiries or Investigations. The art of issuing and encouraging responses to ‘calls for evidence’ is somewhat antique and the process by which some are chosen to appear in public shrouded in mystery.

There are signs that Parliament is aware of these shortcomings and at the Institute we are keen to help. But the underlying principles should prompt many organisations to reflect on Ms Turner’s complaint. Consultees need better visibility of what happens to their submissions. There are some good ideas around – such as growing interest in public consultation hearings as discussed in a previous Topic. Social media is also particularly useful for posting an update during the course of a consultation. Either way, what’s needed is an easier way for interested parties to see what’s happening in a particular debate. The days of publishing a consultation document and waiting weeks for people to respond – and ultimately making reference to them in a feedback report – are over. Today, we need to engage on a more systematic on-going continuous basis, and therein lies a challenge for many in the public engagement business.

• How well does your organisation keep consultees informed of progress?
• Have you yet considered public consultation hearings?
• Check out Tuesday Topic 299, Knowing what's true, and Tuesday Topic 304, New insights for the interpretation of conflicting consultation responses.
• Join us on 27 September for our Health Special Interest Group in Birmingham, free of charge for tCI Members, which will cover NHS England's views on STP related public engagement, engaging with the seldom heard, and experiences on engagement from Birmingham CrossCity CCG and West Midlands Fire Service.
• The issues in this topic will be fully covered in our Preparing for a Public Consultation course on 13 October in Newcastle, and 24 November in London.

This is the 305th 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.