Oppositions are often ambivalent about public consultations. If they anticipate that the Government might take a decision they won’t like, they will demand a consultation arguing that nothing should be decided till all relevant voices have been heard. However, when they expect an announcement which they think they will approve, you will hear few calls for consultation. Instead, the usual message is “Get on with it.” shortly followed by a comment that consultation is, of course, just a waste of time and totally unnecessary on this occasion.

Thursday, 17^th of May provided two examples of this latter posture.

Point 1: The Government announced its decision on reducing substantially the maximum stake for Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. Pressure for a change has been building for a long time, and Swansea Labour MP, Carolyn Harris fought a successful campaign that elicited all-party support last autumn.

When the Government announced a consultation, Tom Watson, Labour Deputy-leader spoke out and demanded that Ministers took action without delay. He argued that there was no need for a consultation and the Institute published a comment piece see here.

However, many observers will note that reducing the stake from £100 to £2 is the most radical decision possible and that the Government was emboldened to take this step because of the extensive consultation that took place. It is close to a textbook example of how a public consultation can help build a consensus behind a particular answer. Both Carolyn Harris and Tom Watson have welcomed the decision – whilst complaining about the time it has taken.

Point 2: Following the technical review of building regulations following the Grenfell Towers tragedy, the Government has announced that it will consult on the use of combustible materials in cladding systems for high-rise buildings. The Opposition isn’t impressed. Anyone who heard Diane Abbott on Thursday evening’s BBC Question Time programme will have heard her scornfully deride the decision to consult. Dominic Rabb, the Minister loyally defended the Government decision, arguing, probably rightly that there were matters of technical precision that any ban would need to cover, and that industry and other specialists would need the opportunity to comment.

Other Labour politicians have reiterated a similar theme, and it easy to see their frustration. John Healey, Shadow Housing Secretary said, “It’s welcome, but why on earth has it taken the Prime Minister eleven months to make this commitment?” 

The Labour Party’s stance on both of these is, of course, defensible. But it is also dangerous. Opposing consultation can easily create a culture of ‘We know best’, and it will become progressively more difficult to pick and choose as between occasions where they want consultation, and when they don’t.

Maybe the solution is to address the issue of timescales. Healey’s point about Grenfell Towers is right. If consultation can be done swiftly, but properly, the objections reduce. The 12-week rule is not immutable, and for Grenfell Towers, maybe the solution is to go ahead with a consultation but make it shorter. There ways to do this, and the Institute has, for certain circumstances approved a Quality Assurance that features safeguards for precisely these sorts of occasions.