Proposals for change in our public services are often misunderstood by consultees.

They are seen as single one-off initiatives – whereas the reality is that they are the latest iteration of a sequence of decisions. In other words, the choice in one consultation has often been largely influenced by something that has gone on before. It leads to much frustration as consultees argue for or against matters that are outside the scope of the current exercise.

This is not a new situation. Take three fairly typical examples – all of which have led to difficult dialogues

• Waste management.

A few years ago, most parts of the country held consultations as part of deciding how to dispose of waste now that landfill ceased to be an acceptable option. Debate centred on technologies needed as well as the behavioural changes required. The trouble was that few people noticed and even fewer took part. Local media scarcely gave it a mention, and it therefore came as a rude shock when residents in towns like Kings Lynn discovered that an Energy from Waste Plant was proposed for their neighbourhood. Many of them wanted to debate the strategy itself, rather than just the precise location of the facility which Norfolk CC had by then already decided to build. Too late!

• House building

So much of the sound and fury surrounding controversial housing schemes stems from unhappiness about the need for development – not just the sites selected for building. Planning staff in almost every Council in England and Wales have to calculate the number of houses required over a period of 15 years or more. For many Authorities, it runs to tens of thousands. Development plans have to be agreed responding to these requirements and should, of course be subject to local consultation. Again, few people participate at this stage, but everyone piles in when an unpopular development is proposed; it need not be a greenbelt to attract opposition!

• Centralised hospital services

The trend towards centres of clinical excellence is well established. There has been vigorous debate on the best way to diagnose and treat cancer, heart disease and other medical conditions, but most of us only noticed when the NHS proposed closing or downgrading local facilities in favour of regional centres involving travel and patient inconvenience. At that time, the cry goes out Why were we not consulted about the nature of this change? The answer, of course is You were … but probably didn’t see its relevance at the time…

In each case, the ‘consequential’ consultations are diverted from focusing on the matter now in hand – towards a re-run of previous debates – and decisions which have effectively been taken. It leaves everyone dissatisfied and complaining about a process that prevents people discussing the issues foremost in the minds.

Nowhere is this better illustrated that in the confusion that often accompanies Budget consultations by local authorities. The Institute has recently been looking at current practice as part of its preparation for a new 2015 Masterclass – and the most worrying feature is the failure to distinguish between the two very different phases of public participation.

The first should be about overall budget allocation. This is the strategic shape of the Council’s expenditure, and is about spending more, less or the same for specific departments or programmes as in previous years. Spending profiles change over time, though seldom at the speed that politicians claim – and these are the ‘big’ decisions that require the kinds of service changes that provoke disputes later on. Councils absolutely must engage their communities over such decisions, ideally as input to a ‘provisional allocation’, which can then be used to set the agenda for service changes, and finalised only after the second phase of participation is over

This second wave of consultation should be about specific proposals, and wherever possible should offer communities a choice of several ways to meet the proposed budget allocation. Whereas the allocation consultation should throw a wide net to elicit views from a broad range of opinions – preferably detecting overall priorities and preferences, individual proposals may need a degree of conscious targeting. This is so that those most likely to be impacted have the opportunity to understand the rationale, express their views, and consider whether there may be alternative ideas. Recent Court cases like that on the Shropshire day centre have confirmed that where closures are contemplated, it is necessary to consult specifically on the actual proposal – a general  policy-direction consultation will not be enough.

In brief, the first, overarching policy dialogue must reach more people and engage with key stakeholders. Otherwise when the specific proposals are launched and consulted upon, we can expect violent objections from those whose views should have been heard first-time around – but who never participated. We should stop saying Serve them right – and ensure that we get it right first time around.

TRIGGER POINTS

• Does your organisation have a similar model of strategy consultation followed by specific proposals? If so, are you mindful of the issues raised in this Topic?
• Several judicial reviews inform this Topic as they affect Budget consultations. Consider attending the Law of consultation courses to learn more.
• The Institute’s new Masterclass is designed mainly for local government officers and will focus on the challenges of Budget consultations and making changes to Library services or Care Homes. Bookings for 2015 dates are now being taken; contact Karen Fourie for details

This is the 269^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