Nothing but the truth - Are we paying enough attention to the quality of data that underpin our consultations?

‘Nothing but the truth’ is the title of a discussion paper published by the Audit Commission just before Christmas. In it, it reveals its anxieties about the quality of information provided to the public and exposes some of what goes wrong both locally and nationally.

This matters to consultation professionals for three reasons

1. The whole point of public consultation is to generate an informed debate. If the facts are wrong, it can distort the dialogue and even mislead consultees. Those who want to rubbish the exercise only have to show how poor data contaminated the discussion to reduce its credibility in an instance. 2. Section 138 of the 2007 Local Government & Public Involvement in Health – the well-known ‘duty to involve’ is, in full, the ‘duty to inform, consult and involve’. If we mis-inform, either intentionally or unintentionally, trouble looms. Some years ago, the Audit Commission tested the accuracy of NHS Waiting lists data, and concluded that there was ‘widespread accidental misreporting of waiting times’. Imagine a consultation relying if only partly, on such statistics? 3. It is now perfectly possible to challenge assertions made in consultation papers. Freedom of Information requests can uncover the true source of data which consultees choose to question. It is a brave or foolish organisation that publishes a consultation paper without a rigorous double-checking of all significant statistics and references.

Notice how, in recent years, criticisms of consultations have changed. Whether it is a legal challenge in the Courts, ‘trial by media’ or just public opinion, the trend is away from process failures towards questions about the information provided. There is less ’The process was flawed’ and more ‘The data misled us’ !

In high profile cases such as the Heathrow Airport expansion, much of the debate turns on whether forecasts of traffic, pollution, CO2 emissions and so forth, are reasonable or not. In the famous Nuclear Power consultation Court case in 2007, the deciding factor was not a failure of procedure but a failure to consider matters of substance.

So how good are we at briefing the public properly? Let’s heed the Audit Commission’s Report when it says:-

When the Audit Commission collected best-value performance indicator results, for example, over 50% of the figures typically had to be changed following ... work by our staff.

Everyone agrees that in this information age, knowledge is power and those who are properly equipped with the facts stand a better chance of winning the argument. But a suspicion of official data is highly corrosive to public confidence. Look at the outcry when examination results turn out to be suspect. Or when scandals such as Mid-Staffordshire Hospital highlight the discrepancy between what a Regulator announces to the world and what an independent research Company (in this case Dr Foster) publishes.

Political knockabout has dented the credibility of some official statistics for years; crime figures are a case in point. But we need a minimum level of trust in what’s published if we intend to have an honest, high-integrity, meaningful consultation. That goal is elusive at all levels, but the more significant the issue, the more critical it is to have robust processes for generating any data that is pertinent to the dialogue and to avoid ‘spinning’ the numbers to favour one side or another of the argument.

Trigger points

• Do you have a process for checking any assertions or statistics in consultation papers before they are published?
• The Nuclear Power case is still relevant 3 years on.

This is the 156th 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