It is time for our national politicians to take a closer interest in public consultations.

Politicians are quite ambivalent about consultation. When in Opposition, they complain bitterly that there is not enough. When in Government they find it irksome and time-consuming when they are certain what they want to do, but are rather glad to consult if the arguments are finely balanced and there may be a risk in dispensing with the listening phase.

But from time to time, they all get excited. That is when constituents knock on their doors demanding that their voices be heard before the implementation of change of which they disapprove. Austerity has brought with it a regular programme of closures, cutbacks, service reduction sand grant withdrawals; those who have suffered from the consequences have generally fought them in two ways. One is to rush to lawyers to see if the decision can be challenged in the Courts. The other is to visit the local Member of Parliament.

About a decade ago, the Royal Mail sought to close 2,500 post offices, incurring the wrath of dozens of MPs. Arithmetically, this meant between 4 and 5 closures per constituency and despite attempts to work to a formula that gave 90% of the population access to a branch within 3 miles, there was intense lobbying and all manner of exceptions were demanded. We remember monitoring a Commons debate a year or so later where over 30 members from all parties harangued the Minister –almost all critical of the consultation.

Three weeks ago, there was a very similar Parliamentary occasion, and if it were possible to replace the term Post Office with the NHS,the speeches would read and sound almost identical. In both cases, MPs are worrying that cherished services in their constituencies may be threatened and that local people have not had the right opportunity to express their views. Eight years have passed but, re-reading the debate, we see familiar allusions to a thinly disguised ‘PR exercise’, a ‘farce’ and worse. Simon Hughes MP (remember him?) captured the tone of the whole proceedings with the words “…the Post Office never allows us to have the facts that would allow a proper consultation. It keeps moving the goalposts and playing a game with mirrors, so that consultation is a sham.”

This time around, the bug-bear is the NHS’ forward planning process, known as Sustainability and Transformation Plans or STPs. Given the scale of the NHS’ problems and their need to make changes very quickly, Managers are keen to push forward at speed. Since the Spring, 44 ‘footprint’ areas in England have been developing these important plans, and are meant to have engaged with local Councils and other key stakeholders. Sadly many of these claim they have not been so involved and a ban on premature publication has led to cries of ‘secrecy’.

Later in October they will all be submitted to NHS England for what we understand will be conditional (i.e. subject to consultation) approval. In many parts of the country, they will probably add little to the dialogues already taking place, and may therefore not be too contentious. But in others, they may develop entirely new proposals, and it is in these areas that our elected representatives are likely to wish to intervene.

On the Institute website, we have published key quotations from participants in the debate. They show two things. Firstly, that Ministers have made unequivocal commitments that the plans will be consulted upon – though they have been vague as to when. Secondly, however, is the clear concern that MPs have that such consultations may not be undertaken fairly. Three examples from different parties illustrate typical views from informed MPs:

“People are so suspicious of consultation processes that they simply do not believe that they are being properly engaged in them.” Norman Lamb MP (Liberal Democrat) North Norfolk

“Often the word “consultation” is used when what is meant is“information”, and scenarios are not put forward. The public are not stupid. They need to know what happens here if they choose this option, and what happens there if they choose that option…” Simon Hoare MP (Cons) N Dorset

“Consultation with the public does not mean presenting them wit ha completed plan as a fait accompli and asking them whether they support it. It means involving them from day one.” Justin Madders MP, (Labour) Ellesmere Port & Neston

Contrary to popular opinion, MPs speak a lot of sense and are regularly asking Ministers questions about the effectiveness of policy consultations. They are often critical of Local Authorities and also arms-length bodies such as Quangos and Regulators. But piecemeal complaints will totally fail to bring about the improvements, and it is time that we helped Parliamentarians (of both Houses) to start exerting more systematic pressure on Ministers and indeed all consultors in the public space.

In the coming weeks, the Consultation Institute will work with Sue Hayman MP, (Lab) Workington and a former Institute Associate to establish an All Party Parliamentary Public Consultation Group, with the aim of raising the profile of the issue and helping to build a more informed debate within the Palace of Westminster.

Wish us luck with this; it might make a difference!

TRIGGER POINTS

• How much interest does your local Member of Parliament show in consultations held by your organisation?
• A slide-set summarising MP views in the STP debate is available here
• If you have a relationship with a local MP(s), might you recommend that he/she joins the APPPCG? Is there someone you think we should approach directly?
• The best way to avoid political criticism of consultations is to prepare properly in the first place. Consider the Institute’s new course on the pre-consultation challenge

This is the 306th 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.