If you’ve worked in the UK steel industry and are either a pensioner or expect to become one, these are troubling times. Last week, the Government published on one of the more impressive consultations we have seen in recent months, and sought our views on ways to reduce the pension fund’s deficit and thereby make it easier to find a buyer to keep the industry going. In the words of the consultation paper: –

This is in response to proposals put forward by the British Steel Pension Scheme and supported by Tata Steel UK. It is important to note that the Government has not yet taken any decisions on the proposals set out in this paper. The exceptionality of the situation means that we need to think seriously about all possible options. The legislative and parliamentary process is also such that, in order to have changes to regulations in place if that is what is required to enable a satisfactory resolution for steel production, the Government needs to start the consultation process … before the hope of any deal is confirmed.

Note a very different tone to many other Government consultations. This seems rather unlike those tokenistic exercises where it is plain to see that a decision has already been taken. In reality, the consequences of any decisions are far-reaching (hence the emphasis on the exceptional circumstances) – so politicians need all the help they can get.

In many ways, it is the classic scenario where a public consultation is genuinely useful. Those far-reaching impacts involve most employers, most employees and the pensions industry – which is a key influence on our financial system. There’s not many who are unaffected! The result will produce ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. Few Governments like being seen to select who those should be without being seen to agonise … and consult. In the Tata Steel case, there is real urgency, and Ministers are keen to avoid accusations of taking over-hasty decisions.

This is not unique. There is a category of decisions which are in a box labelled ‘bad news’. Sometimes they are problems that have been brewing for years, but time catches up and they can kick the can down the road no longer. Or external events limit your room for manoeuvre; all that’s left is a set of unpalatable options and the thankless task of making the best of a bad job. Lots of local authorities have found themselves in this position in recent years – closing libraries, reducing social care, or charging for previously free services. The NHS, similarly has to rationalise. Ditto Police, Fire & Rescue and countless other organisations. In so many of these – the hope is that a consensus can emerge around the least worst. On reflection, maybe a majority of consultations these days fall into this category. Is there specific guidance we can offer for such exercises?

1. An honest explanation of the background is critical. If all the choices are in fact unpalatable, consultees deserve a coherent rationale. It may be tempting to blame others as Lambeth Council famously did a few years ago, but on balance the public is unimpressed when one public body is seen to attack another.

2. There must be a genuine choice from a range of alternative proposals. Now that single option consultations are at risk of judicial review, there may be a temptation to ‘manufacture’ additional scenarios to make it look more authentic. Choosing the least worst means understanding the impact of each alternative very precisely, so options development has to be a careful, inclusive exercise.
3. Consultations must focus on those who will be most affected. This is because it begs the question –Least worst for whom? So many of these situations involve making hard choices between the interests of one group and another; the case for one must not go by default simply because it failed to become involved in the consultation.

Least worst consultations frequently illustrate inter-generational policy dilemmas. In the Tata Steel case, society has to choose between safeguarding the pensions of the retired and securing the jobs of working age steelworkers. It’s not so different from the argument about subsidising older people’s TV Licences … or concessionary travel … or winter fuel payments.

We face a similar predicament over environmental policy. It is one reason why we have taken several decades and still are not sure about building an additional airport runway in the south-east. In Healthcare, do we prioritise care of those who are ill today or invest in the longer-term strategy of preventative medicine?

However, it is the climate of austerity that has mostly led decision-makers to despair – some having to take steps they have spent their entire political careers seeking to avoid. Consultation offers them an opportunity to share the burden and to elicit the views both of those immediately affected and the wider community whose sense of priorities may be helpful in determining the way forward.

Stakeholders of course have their own agendas, and the general public is far from infallible. But if a consultation is well-prepared, honest in its narrative and well targeted in the light of likely impacts, we may well be more successful in settling on policies which are indeed least worst.

Trigger points

• What experience has your organisation of least worst consultations? Do you feel the 3 key guidelines make sense?
• Do you have any least worst case studies you might wish to share with the Institute? If so, please contact Remmert Keijzer on remmertk@consultationinstitute.org
• The Government consultation on the British Steel Pension Scheme is available on https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/526176/british-steel-pension-scheme-consultation.pdf
• The Institute is available to undertake a Quality Assurance of all contentious public consultations.

This is the 298^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