Skip to content

Is it ever right to ‘name and shame’ a public consultation?

In our newsletter two weeks ago, we published an article under the title “The worst consultation narrative of the year?It featured proposals for service changes affecting the Friarage Hospital in Northallerton and unsurprisingly aroused much enthusiasm among its opponents.

Local newspapers quoted our article, and members of the Institute telephoned to say they were glad we were highlighting unsatisfactory situations. The Clinical Commissioning Group concerned declined to comment.

This is not normally our style. Over the years, the Institute has worked behind the scenes, running training courses and equipping public engagement staff to identify and observe best practice. Where public bodies feel they need some help, we provide Advice & Guidance. Where they feel that a consultation may be unfairly criticised, they commission us to undertake and publish a Quality Assurance of their work.

There is a case for ‘naming and shaming.’ It makes things real. No amount of theory is quite as effective as providing a practical example of what is good – or what is bad. It responds to those who think that failures are rare, or historic by illustrating current documents or current processes. Whenever we announce that we have found an example of poor practice, newsletter readers flock to the site – it brings online traffic to read about consultation. It may even prompt those responsible to acknowledge their mistakes and seek assistance; it may encourage citizens affected by the consultation to demand higher standards.

On the other hand, people would be less than human if they did not resent criticism, no matter how constructive. The Institute has no wish to alienate or antagonise colleagues and others working on consultations. If we appear intolerant or arrogant, it may dissuade organisations from engaging with us. Might we possibly risk being inconsistent – being harsher with some than others? Could we even be accused of favouritism – or even putting pressure on public bodies to use our services?

This is why we have erred on being cautious. In all 350 Tuesday Topics since 2003, there have only been about half a dozen where we have overtly criticised specific consultations. There needs to be some trigger that prompts the Institute to consider that the balance of advantage justifies identifying poor practice. In 2017, we called out the Mayor of London’s consultation on closing police counters. A year later, it led to a judicial review which became one of the most significant cases of recent years[1].

In the NHS, we have seen visible improvements to public consultations in recent years. NHS England can take credit for this, but we still see outliers that fall well below standard. We felt that Northallerton was one of those – though we also concede that other aspects of its consultation were far more acceptable; the questions-set was, in fact, better than many. However, the kernel of an argument is the ‘narrative’ that is normally captured in a consultation paper. In fact, a consultation is probably only as good as its narrative.

One can deploy the best dialogue methods available and engage with all the right stakeholders, meticulously ‘mapped’, but if the fundamental proposition is faulty, then the consultation will rarely have the influence it should.

This Institute believes passionately in the value of listening to consultee views, and we recognise our responsibility to tread that fine line between encouragement and discouragement.

By occasionally naming and shaming, are we helping or hindering?

Please let us know your views.

  [1] R (ex p Kohler) v The Mayor’s Office for Policing & Crime (MOPAC) [2018] EWHC 1881

About the Author

Rhion Jones is considered a leading authority on Public Engagement and Consultation. A founding Director of the Consultation Institute, he is co-author of “The Art of Consultation” (2009) and “The Politics of Consultation” (2018). He has delivered over 500 training courses and Masterclasses and is a prolific writer on the subject, having written over 350 different Topic papers and over 50 full Briefing Papers for the Institute. Since 2003 over 15,000 person-days of training based on courses he invented have been delivered. Rhion is in demand as an entertaining Keynote Speaker and Special Adviser, particularly on the Law of Consultation, and its implications for Government and other Public Bodies. In 2017, he was awarded the ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’.

Read more about Rhion

Sign up to receive our newsletter

    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By signing up to our mailing list, you agree to our terms and conditions. You can unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences at anytime by clicking here.
 
Scroll To Top