Originally published 17 April 2018. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
…What might we have learnt about consultation?
There was no parliamentary vote before British aircraft took part in the bombing raid against Syrian installations last week. For years, Governments relied on their prerogative powers to decide first and seek parliamentary approval (or acquiescence) later. Only in recent years has it become politically essential to consult Parliament first, and of course the spectre of the Iraq war’s miscalculation looms large. Unsurprisingly, when David Cameron sought approval for bombing Syria in 2013, the House of Commons said ‘No’. This time around, Parliament was in recess, and Mr Trump was in a hurry. The Cabinet met on Friday, and by breakfast on Saturday the deed was done.
But supposing there had been a debate? Media speculation was that any vote would have been too close to call. And who knows, therefore what impact this might have had on the action undertaken by the three participating countries. But then, there might not have been a vote. Academics have a real debate as to whether there has to be one, but all agree that, as a minimum, the current convention requires that Parliament ‘be consulted’. In 2013, Dr Catherine Haddon of the Institute for Government commented on President Obama’s use of Congressional War Powers Resolution by noting that it was ‘further proof that political power to force a parliamentary discussion can be stronger than the constitutional right’.
What form of ‘discussion’? The kind of debate that might have happened last week would be one of those which commentators call ‘…the House at its best.’ It would have been full to bursting. All the heavy hitters from the big parties would have spoken, especially if they were ex-foreign or ex-defence secretaries. Middle-east specialists will have been heard and the odd back-bencher from constituencies with military bases will have caught the Speaker’s eye. The mood would have been serious – solemn even, and despite differences of opinion, debate would have been courteous and restrained.
But to what extent would it have been a ‘consultation’? Would this have been the real thing? Or just going through the motions? For professionals who, on a daily basis need to convince a sceptical pubic that the consultation was genuine and fair, how would a parliamentary occasion like this fare? Well, here is an attempt to guess – based on the four Gunning Principles.
Principle One – Still at a formative stage?
As of early last week, there might have been lots of options, but these would have narrowed as the days went by. Provided the Government had genuinely not committed itself and had left itself able to decide one way or another, a debate in Parliament would have satisfied this Principle. But governments have to tread carefully. If – as in the case of Iraq, it subsequently emerges that the decision to intervene had, surreptitiously, already been taken, the political reputational damage is incalculable and lasts years.
Principle Two – Sufficient information to allow ‘intelligent consideration’
Both Houses of Parliament are full of very clued-up people; in other words, consultees are well informed, and will not be easily duped or told lies. Plausible half-truths may occasionally get past non-specialists or lazy journalists, but will not satisfy experienced parliamentarians. A Government Minister would have found it difficult to evade well-defined questions. The days of the dodgy dossier are probably over.
Principle Three – Enough Time?
The Government would have struggled here, but would surely have argued that every hour’s delay would have given the Syrians and the Russians more time to prepare their defences. Then the debate would have needed to be for long enough to afford enough consultees to be heard. One imagines it would have been a full day’s debate in both Houses – not a half-hour ‘on the adjournment’. So, thirty to forty speakers might have been heard in each House.
Principle Four – Given conscientious consideration?
No Government can be seen to be ignoring Parliament, especially one without an overall majority. For all its faults, the Westminster ritual requires a Minister to be present on the front-bench throughout the debate and is obliged to listen to every speech and every intervention. The press, ever seeking a good story, will be seeking any sign or suggestion that Parliament’s will is being disregarded. So, any debate would almost certainly have been taken seriously by decision-makers.
Many of us think there is an emerging Fifth Principle – requiring that the right people have been consulted, and if one believes in representative democracy, presumably such a test will have been satisfied. Canny politicians will, however recall with horror that in 2003, Parliament in hindsight looked less wise than much of the general public.
On this analysis, it looks as if a consultation – had it occurred – would have been reasonably meaningful. However, there would have been no assurance of a Yes/No vote. It is unlikely to have had any options. Those participating would have been the ‘usual suspects’ and there would have been little or no time for MPs and Lords to take soundings. How good an example might this have been of genuine consultation? You decide!
Does it matter? Yes, it does, because Parliament sets the tone for democratic debate. It is consulted regularly, but only on high-profile matters of peace and war do most people notice. If elected politicians do not take the process seriously and prefer to play yah-boo games except when it suits them, that cynicism can spread like a contagion and undermine the integrity of any public consultation. If, instead it sets a good example of conscientious contribution to policy-making, we stand a chance of persuading more people to participate in informed debate.
How the vital but murky business of politics overlays the process of consultation therefore matters – and is the theme for the Institute’s forthcoming book – see below.
TRIGGER POINTS
- In these circumstances, how good a consultation do you think would have occurred?
- Can you quickly subject your latest consultation to the Gunning Principles test?
- The book is called The Politics of Consultation, written by Rhion Jones and Elizabeth Gammell; available to Institute members in June/July.
This is the 335th 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.