The case against ‘purdah’ - As we approach the May elections, it may be time to question the conventional wisdom about the ‘period of purdah’. To what extent should it affect consultations?

It’s a pretty inappropriate term, but it seems to have been generally adopted in political circles to mean the ‘curtain of discretion’ behind which we can conceal certain activities that would otherwise influence the public before they exercise their democratic right to vote.

In classic British fudge, it mostly relies, not on law, but on a conventional wisdom that accepts that it is better to avoid some situations in the period immediately before an Election. The textbooks call it a ‘self-denying ordinance’. This Topic questions whether we have not allowed the practice to be over-interpreted and applied more restrictively than modern conditions require.

First – there are aspects where we mostly all agree:

• For General Elections, Governments shut down their policy-making efforts unless an emergency arises. Civil servants avoid doing or saying anything that might favour outgoing Ministers or campaigning oppositions. Non-urgent decisions that could possibly be overturned by a new administration are just deferred until afterwards
• Local Authorities are similarly constrained and as for the Westminster model, have to avoid anything that could be seen as favouring one election candidate or party at the expense of another
• The 2011 Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity has a section entitled Care during period of heightened sensitivity which warns of the dangers of publishing anything controversial that identifies elected members. It even says, “It may be necessary…to close public forums...”

Beyond this it gets more debateable, especially when seeking to apply these principles to public engagement and consultation. Many experienced politicians adduce some additional reasons to apply ‘purdah’ very tightly:

• In an election, one wishes to focus the public mind purely on that election and to raise or even discuss controversial subjects detracts attention from this goal
• Even if public bodies are scrupulous in avoiding any bias, the media is very prone to personalise any controversy
• Candidates, when faced with contentious issues are believed by many (especially officials!) to be prone to ‘playing politics’ and adopting voter-friendly positions just for the election

For those who worry about these matters, there is a strong case for prudence. It applies particularly in hung Councils or those which change hands politically at regular intervals.

Official Guidance talks of not starting any fresh consultations during the pre-election period, but allowing those that begun earlier to finish. Those who argue for a tight interpretation claim that there should be no consultation at all – effectively preventing any from starting for weeks beforehand. Those who advocate a tighter approach include the NHS – which technically isn’t covered at all, as it isn’t an elected organisation. During the last election, Sir David Nicholson wrote to Health Trusts even suggesting they suspend any focus groups!

So has the pendulum swung too much towards this over-cautious approach? Is it time to make the case against aspects of ‘purdah’?

Surely in a healthy democracy, difficult issues and controversial decisions SHOULD be discussed. Isn’t this the time when candidates should be put on the spot and forced to declare their positions. To those who claim that candidates will say anything just to win votes, is the rejoinder that it is time for them to be properly accountable for what they say and do. If they are foolish enough to promise one thing and do another, the media or the ballot box can often extract revenge. Maybe the current rules are there to protect politicians from themselves – to save them the discomfort of having to adopt a position on controversial issues in case they want to change their minds later?

Frequently, we hear the phrase that the consultation is ‘hijacked by politicians’. But what exactly does this mean? For many challenging issues, it would be a positive achievement to persuade MPs or Councillors to take an active part in constructive dialogue. True, many will take a populist stance and find reasons to oppose various things. But in a well-designed consultation, it is more difficult to be wholly negative, and having elected representatives actively engaged is usually a plus not a minus.

Finally there is the potential game-changer of social media. If there ever was a time when one could discourage public debate – in order, allegedly to focus on an election, those days have now gone. Social media means that people will debate whatever they want and no-one will tolerate the idea that, “Sorry we can’t discuss that because of Purdah!” With all the distractions of the modern age, wouldn’t it be nice if we could encourage civic participation, rather than seek to shut it down for the benefit of political geeks and administrative convenience?

Not a popular view perhaps, but ripe for debate. Feel free to participate…even during ‘Purdah’!

TRIGGER POINTS

• The House of Commons updated its Standard Note 5262 in March 2013 on Election ‘purdah’ or the pre-election period
• The Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity is on the DCLG website;
• If you are an elected body, how do you interpret the Purdah rules?
• If you are not, has anyone suggested you also avoid consultations?
• Our Local Government Special Interest Group (SIG) meets on 1st May at the Centre of Excellence and ‘Purdah’ is on the agenda. Free for all members. Book now!

This is the 256th 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