Running commentaries

Can we still wait months before providing feedback on a public consultation?

Older people are fond of recalling that in the bad old days, they had to save, or they had to wait for good things to arrive. The younger generation just don’t get it, for we have lived in an age of instant gratification for years. Everything has become quicker. Instant news; instant reactions; instant publication; do we have instant consultations? And instant policy-making?

The traditional way of taking decisions relied, at least to an extent, upon taking one’s time. There was a conventional wisdom that a rushed job could make matters worse, not better. Civil servants, working to a culture of evidence-based policy-making, needed time to gather the evidence; empirical research takes time; it is not just a case of an afternoon spent on Google. Even Parliament persuaded itself that it was best to make haste slowly and that knee-jerk reactions to a media campaign was not always wise. The textbook example that is most often quoted is the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, which has proved troublesome to administer and deeply unpopular among a vocal minority. In short, our system is designed to give policy-makers and legislators enough breathing space to consider matter properly. It is one reason why the culture and practice of consultation developed; it helps with good governance.

This pattern is definitely under pressure today. 24-hour news made a difference, but social media is the game-changer. Within minutes of posting something on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter, we can see who has liked it, and received comments from those who maybe do not! Within seconds of a televised Election debate, there are armies of spin doctors pontificating on who won and who lost; when you watch Question Time, you can see its Chairman reading the tweets of opinionated viewers whilst the question is still being answered. Given that everything is instant, it is hardly surprising that hastily-prepared policies – as might have recently happened in the Conservative Party’s election manifesto, can just as hastily unravel, and political consequences that might once have taken weeks, now play out in hours.

So, in this context, is it still possible to take months for plan a public consultation, leave it open for weeks whilst everyone says their piece and then take a further stretch of time before announcing a decision? If everything else around you accelerates, can you still retain the leisurely pace of public engagement - desirable though it may be?

In practice, pragmatic Managers and politicians have adopted a coping strategy that is akin to maintaining a running commentary on the exercise. When once the Whitehall axiom was Publish in May and go away, the better consultors adopt a stakeholder-centred strategy which means arranging events and maybe briefings to keep everyone informed about the course of the consultation. This is all very commendable and recognises the reality of a continuous on-going dialogue. Whatever the consultation organiser does, participants will use social media to argue their case. If you sign a petition these days, you are invariably invited to tell your friends about it. Similarly, I’ve just taken part in a consultation.

What all this does is to deprive policy-makers of a period of quiet reflection, and hurries them towards a rapid decision. Only on technical issues comfortably under the media radar do the pressures relent, but the question remains – how long should we wait before reporting upon the output of a consultation – that is reporting on what consultees have said? Many Government departments persist in preferring to wait till the final outcome is ready to be announced before going public on the consultation output. It can mean waiting months –undermining the achievement of having got people to participate in the first place. In the meantime, therunning commentary suddenly stops.

We need to strike a better balance between accommodating our culture of accelerated actions and taking enough time to conscientiously consider alternative views. One of the reasons why public bodies are slow to publish the output is that they sometimes only attract the involvement of those who oppose their proposals. Imagine having a one-sided consultation when 90% of the output is a predictable howl of protest from 1% of the affected population. No wonder some decision-makers are not over-eager to publicise this. But if they managed to involve a wider range of people, heard a broader range of views and could publish a balanced reflection of an intelligent debate, it might be a different story. It might actually help the move towards decisions. Even tough decisions; ones that go against the thrust of consultee arguments. That is because they could at least point to an open and transparent debate.

Therefore, the benefit of non-stop, running commentaries is that it encourages consultors to monitor the shape of the debate. This provides an incentive to ensure real discussion. No longer is it acceptable for public bodies to launch contentious proposals, then sit back, take the flak, play for time in the hope the issues vanish from the front page and quietly announce a decision months later. Today best practice is a swifter, more responsive process where organisations try to keep the initiative by following up smartly on a visible consultation dialogue with prompt output feedback and a timely outcome

TRIGGER POINTS

• Does your organisation acknowledge the faster pace of consultationand decision-making?
• How good are you at managing and monitoring the dialogue?
• Especially on social media ….?
• Do you observe the distinction between output and outcome feedback?
• Is there anxiety that publishing the consultation output will re-open the debate? Fix this by moving swiftly to a decision on the outcome.

This is the 323rd 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.