Originally published 8 December 2011. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
For several years the cynical anecdote has been that, when the Irish electorate voted the ‘wrong’ way in a Referendum, the EU merely asked its Government to hold another one in the hope of getting a different result. From this, people joke that reluctant citizens can be repeatedly ‘consulted’ until they provide the answer preferred by the authorities.
Of course this is a travesty. And yet we have a range of circumstances where a consultation takes place, but for one reason or another, it becomes necessary to repeat the exercise. Here are three real scenarios – happening today:
• A County Council conducts a consultation on its plans to make changes to Libraries, but is challenged in the High Court. It loses the case and has to consider whether to repeat the exercise.
• An NHS Trust has spent years seeking to rationalise a range of patient pathways but became embroiled in party political wrangling leading to a Ministerial decision to abandon those specific proposals. It now has to start afresh.
• A Planning authority which had previously consulted on plans to designate a substantial acreage of land for housing. Now that Regional spatial strategies have been abandoned and housing targets abolished, the Council needs to look again at its decision.
All these situations are different, but they oblige someone to decide how to re-start the consultation process. Much depends upon the nature of what has gone before. If the dialogue was aggressively contentious, anything other than a ‘clean break’ will appear to the parties as a resumption of hostilities. Repeating a flawed exercise for the purpose of ticking a few boxes will do little to restore community confidence, and might indeed damage relationships further.
Repeating a consultation after a legal decision is particularly troublesome. For example, after Michael Gove as Education Secretary lost the case brought by several Councils against the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, the Department instituted a new process of dialogue with affected Authorities. When that resulted in little or nothing changing substantively, there was a widespread sensation of being let down. In this case, there may well be further legal proceedings, but it illustrates that winning a case is not the same as winning the argument.
So what do we mean by a ‘clean break’?
When public bodies or others want to reconsider an issue, and wish to draw a line following an unsuccessful process, there are several things that can be done:
• Change the decision-making process. If a particular Committee took the key decision last time round, maybe allocate the role to some other body.
• Change the scope of the consultation. It could be wider, possibly seeking to influence matters that were ‘given assumptions’ the first time around. But maybe the scope should be narrower, as we often fail to focus a dialogue precisely enough around things that can genuinely be influenced.
• Pre-consult differently. Involving a different group of stakeholders in the preparatory work might result in a somewhat different dialogue. Consider the impact of a more inclusive option-development programme, for instance.
• Use different dialogue methods. We all recognise how much this can influence the output.
• Introduce an independent element into the consultation. This could either be on the substantive analysis, or where suspicions remain that the process is unfair, to endorse the conduct of the consultation itself.
Ultimately, it may depend upon whether a start-again scenario results from changed circumstances or from rectifying mistakes in process or content. In the current climate, the circumstances ARE changing ... almost every day. It has not always been the case, but right now, it is justifiable and legitimate to say to people Since we sought your views X months ago, the situation has changed in the following ways...
But the narrative has to be credible. And that word ‘credible’ is what matters most in any second attempt at consultation. There are always many reasons why people lose faith in our attempts to engage and involve, and nothing is quite as destructive as the feeling that no-one cares about their views. Simple best practice can profoundly change the experience and secure future participation as well. If a consultation has to be done again, it is a great opportunity to turn sceptics into believers, and though this cannot always work, it is something to aim for.
Trigger-points
- Have you had occasion to reconsider a consultation or start again?
- How well can you present a ‘changed circumstances’ narrative that carries credibility?
- The Consultation Institute offers a Compliance Assessment Service as a form of accreditation and an assurance that will make specific consultation credible. For details contact Martin Roach
- Best Practice training courses are available from the Institute, with members receiving a substantial discount on all Courses, Seminars & Workshops.
This is the 201st 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.