The first Tuesday Topic was written on November 26th, 2003. It was entitled Consultation – or just another survey? and began an uninterrupted series of short, 600-800 word, briefs covering virtually every aspect of public engagement and consultation we found interesting, and possibly quite a few that weren’t!

Looking back at the complete archive (available to all Institute members) the most striking feature is how little the fundamentals have changed. The precise meaning of consultation has remained a rock-solid concept amid the changing fashion for using vague or less definable terminology. So we still talk of involvement, (even though the duty to involve has come and gone), and we all approve of participation. We struggled with empowerment (remember the ‘empowerment’ White Paper?) but generally felt comfortable that it could all be called engagement.

One of the main reasons why people are a little wary of the word consultation is that it is possible to evaluate it against some pretty clear principles. There are times when it is tempting to hide behind a looser notion of talking to people than to be called to account as to whether or not a proper consultation has taken place.

A few years ago, after the Greenpeace legal challenge, an official of the then Department of Trade & Industry was given the task of taking soundings from Whitehall departments as to the best ways to revise the previous Government Code of Practice on consultations. Apparently the mandarins were terrified that their Ministerial masters would be bound by demanding standards – and sought at several points to create room for exemptions and derogations.

They are still terrified. If you look closely at the emerging authorisation Guidelines for GP Commissioning Groups – which will take over from English Primary Care Trusts when the NHS Reform Bill becomes law, you will struggle to find any reference to consultation. By sleight of hand, the word has been dropped in favour of the less precise ‘engagement’. Maybe that will prove less troublesome!

The reality is different. Not only does the word ‘consult’ appear in the Bill, it is genuine and honest consultation that the public – and indeed the politicians, really want. They insist on being heard and then want to be sure that what they’ve said will be taken into account when decisions are taken. It is not rocket science, but is deeply troubling for anyone whose mind is already made up and who is unprepared to listen to argument.

But, how do we know which consultations are genuine?

Some organisations are credible listeners and have a track record of having properly considered what stakeholders have said. Others have invited the Institute as an independent body to ensure compliance with Best Practice standards. No doubt some organisations feel that employing well-trained staff is a good form of quality assurance. Rather too many just take a chance and hope it will be alright on the night!

But the world is a different place in 2011. Topic 46 (Oct 2005) was called Aspirational Consultation – for it reflected how many dialogues were based on what people might want, and how to make social and physical investments; it was the heyday of Council ‘visioning’ exercises and suchlike. But today, when the State is in retreat and the subject-matter is about closures and ‘service-decommissioning’ (ugh!), hard-pressed officials face articulate, organised opposition, able to deploy the latest social media to campaign against change they dislike.

Public bodies are, therefore, finding themselves in Court. Not a week passes without yet another case. Three weeks ago, the NHS lost to the Royal Brompton Hospital. Last week, the Isle of Wight Council lost to campaigners on behalf of two disabled people, and County Councils in Gloucestershire and Somerset lost on the subject of Library closures. In all these cases, fully-inclusive consultation failed to satisfy Judges.

But many of these cases turn on very fine points of law. We all need to understand what those issues are – if only to keep out of the Courts. But far more important than satisfying a Judge four months after the event is carrying informed opinion with us at the time. It’s not always easy, and on far too many occasions people affected by change are not convinced that the process is fair to them.

With consultations, there is no specialist Ombudsman. No independent review body. The Media is unpredictable. Complaining to Members of Parliament has rarely achieved much. The Institute now believes it has a reputation for understanding what makes a consultation meaningful and a growing capacity to stand up for best practice standards. So here’s a clarion-call to the occasional whistle-blower who sees things going wrong. Tell us and we’ll make our views known!

Topic no 2 was called Has Your organisation a consultation culture? Maybe, at long last, we will start to assemble a list of who does … and who doesn’t!

Trigger Points

• The Consultation Institute offers a Compliance Assessment Service as a form of accreditation and an assurance that will make specific consultation credible.
• Members receive a discount on all Training Courses – if booking online, remember to log in as a member first.