Not always … but sometimes

Twenty years ago, the Blair Government entered office and held discussions with the voluntary and community sector; these ultimately led to the National Compact. It committed the Government to consulting the Third Sector when the latter’s interests were affected and to do so for twelve weeks. It was already the default duration – largely because the local government committee cycle was quarterly. Whatever its origin, the 12-week rule became strongly entrenched – and is the safe option for anyone organising a public consultation.

There are good reasons for a longish period of dialogue. First, there has to be time for interested parties to hear about the consultation, and for word to get around as to how to participate. Providing enough time for complex issues to be absorbed and considered is, of course, the essence of the third Gunning Principle, with years of case law to underpin it. If there is a need for secondary consultation – where consultee organisations need to engage with members, local branches or local stakeholders – it inevitably takes longer; if they are ‘seldom heard’ (please, not hard-to-reach) it may need even longer. Three months has sounded about right to people for a long time!

But consider this. Consultation is changing. When the Institute opened its doors in 2003, the normal pattern was to publish a paper, gather responses over the twelve weeks of the consultation and then pour over the analysis whilst moving swiftly to a decision. Today everything happens quicker. Twenty-four-hour news is not just a description of national television. Local politics and local events happen at speed too – with virtually every town or village possessed of an online forum or five, and networks of stakeholder groups able and willing to react swiftly to current events.

The definition of consultation we use in the Institute starts with the words “The dynamic process of dialogue …”  Back then, it was part of the best practice wish-list. By now it is an understatement. It is not just social media that makes it ‘dynamic’; there are other related forces at work too. Part of it is the public’s scepticism of establishment bodies and the traditional view of ‘evidence’. Assertions made in consultation papers are not always taken at face value; motives are impugned; integrity questioned. Opposition campaigns can acquire traction in a fraction of the time taken some years ago. For a topical example, note how long it took for the Chancellor’s proposals for Class 4 National Insurance Charges to unravel last week. That’s a ‘dynamic dialogue’. There is another one just gathering steam over changes to schools funding in England.

If a week is a long time in politics, twelve weeks can be a very long time in a consultation. Within a month, current consultors can be regretting how they expressed certain information in the consultation paper. Or wishing they had included some other material. Not that they made errors – just that it is almost impossible to anticipate the shape of the ensuing debate.

A shorter dialogue period must not, under any circumstances undermine the consultation’s integrity. The Gunning Principles must be observed, so it is not a soft option. If it is a quicker process, it must be demonstrably a better process, with consultors able to show compliance with a demanding set of standards – no less onerous than the Courts, and the Institute currently expect.

But there could be real advantages: –

• Many organisations try to sidestep the obligation to consult if they fear the end-to-end process will take too long. It is a disincentive to engage properly, and an acceptable shorter period might avoid some of these situations.
• With longer dialogue periods, some consultors try to launch without all the documentation being finally agreed – or easy-read versions still to be published. A tighter timescale will necessitate 100% compliance with Project Plan timelines. Fewer excuses!
• Acknowledging the likelihood of a ‘dynamic dialogue’ encourages consultors to put in place appropriate mechanisms to monitor the debate, to publish supplementary information where appropriate, and to organise rebuttals or corrections.
• Managing a complex consultation requires extra resources, which are easier to secure for short, concentrated periods.

Above all, a shorter consultation reduces the risk that something significant changes. We no longer live in conditions where other factors stay static. The world within which public services or public policies may need to be changed is itself in a state of flux. Assumptions made at the start of a consultation are prone to being undermined by the time a consultation finishes. Impacts reasonably anticipated at the beginning look and feel different a few weeks later. In an environment of constantly moving parts, a shorter consultation period reduces the risk that something unforeseen occurs mid-way through the exercise, that makes the dialogue less dependable a picture of informed stakeholder views.

So here is the challenge. Is it possible to adopt a shorter timescale without giving the wrong signal and encouraging those who want to take short-cuts with little heed for the overall quality of the process?  Might there be a risk that such organisations take the accelerated timescale without the concomitant commitment to a more thorough, better-prepared process? We must all be careful that, in acknowledging the realities of a faster-moving world,  that it provides no excuse for lower standards. Only if rigorous safeguards can be enforced should shorter consultations come about. Now how might we do that?

TRIGGER POINTS

• The Institute is interested to hear from consultors who might find it interesting to experiment with shorter timescales. Please contact Martin Roach via email or on 01767 318350 for details.
• Issues of this kind will be discussed at this year’s Conference on 7^th June in Birmingham and is themed Consultation in the Post truth Early-bird discounts o162nly available for a few more days!

This is the 317^th 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.