A convincing narrative - Is there a special skill to writing a good consultation paper?

Consultation is an invitation to influence us. We are effectively saying to whoever is interested:- Please give us your views, so that we can take an informed decision. So how well do we frame this invitation? The multi-media revolution makes this a more complicated question than was once the case. There is now more than just the traditional ‘consultation paper’. It is possible to launch a listening exercise using Video, Powerpoint slides or these days even a Facebook page. And, given the different literacy-levels of targeted stakeholders, or the different comfort-levels of people with the written word, we may have a range of short summary documents and leaflets.

Despite this, the ‘consultation paper’ is still of key importance. Standing behind all the other documents and new media has to be a definitive statement of the consultor’s case. This is the ‘narrative’ and is rightly thought of as storytelling. For the essence of consultation is that we need to explain, to those whose views we seek, where we are coming from and why we are asking. Context is everything, and it is the narrative that describes this.

It presents some consultors with an opportunity to cheat. This is where being economical with the truth, or selective with the facts, can bias the argument. There is no regulator that can arbitrate; only the remote possibility that a Judge is some far-off future judicial review might find that consultees were significantly misled. So the temptation to skew the narrative is a real one.

But astute consultees can usually tell. A consultation written-up with the intention of securing a particular answer is usually obvious to those who understand the subject. The consequence is predictable. Instead of focusing the argument on the issues intended to influence, everyone starts complaining about the disputed facts. It’s the perfect recipe for an acrimonious dialogue, with one side disputing the other’s integrity.

Best practice consultations start from the position that it is best to eliminate such disagreements and to seek to base the entire debate on agreed facts and assumptions. It is one of the main advantages of undertaking effective pre-consultation – an occasion to discover where different stakeholders stand, and where there is common understanding and a sound basis for dialogue.

Then there is a need to provide sufficient information that will enable consultees to give it ‘intelligent consideration’. This formula was originally proposed by the (then) Stephen Sedley QC and accepted by the Judge in a famous 1985 case and forms part of what became known as the ‘Gunning’ principles. Deciding what is enough information is always tricky, but it is generally best to err on providing too much rather than too little.

Last year, in Wales, the NHS adopted new Guidance for consultation and engagement, and part of this is a checklist of what should be contained in a formal consultation document. It is a formidable and challenging list, and is deliberately so to reflect the need for the public to be persuaded before substantial change is made to the ever-popular Health Service. But it requires of the authors a degree of homework which we rarely see. Some of the requirements are standard – such as an explanation of all the available options and an account of the impact they are each are expected to have. But others are more thought-provoking. The Guidance calls upon consultors to be specific about clinician support for various proposals (when we know that medical professionals frequently disagree) and requires Health Boards to declare the ‘sustainable staffing levels’ for each option.

Writing a narrative that is just right, calls for skill and judgement. For central Government departments and other public bodies that have opted to observe them, there is a need to take account of the Government Code of Practice. The Equalities Act 2010 also demands that the consultation is informed by an analysis of whether and which ‘protected categories’ of individuals may be disadvantaged by proposals under consideration. This is difficult enough in a traditional document. But how do we capture all this in a short YouTube film?

All this is persuading the Institute that the time may be right to establish a set of standards – so that we find it easier to recognise a best practice document.

Even so, some of the most important attributes will be almost indefinable. Call it ‘style’ or ‘sentiment’ if you like. What we mean is the flavour of the document – that which convinces you that here is a public body that is really interested in knowing what you think; not going through the motions. Somehow this shines through the best consultations, and you feel there is a real desire to ascertain your views. It’s what we should all be aiming towards – a convincing narrative. Trigger points

• Who writes the consultation documents in your organisations? Have they the requisite skills and experience?
• Would you find an Institute set of standards useful? Contact Martin Roach
• The ‘Gunning principles’ are explored in detail at the Institute’s new training course on the Law of Consultation.

This is the 210th 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