It’s the last week before the Parliamentary summer recess, that glorious time when MPs get to run delightedly home to their constituencies to play ball games in parks and demand ice-creams from their flustered families. So what have they been up to in the last week of term?

I’m going to start by doing something I don’t think I’ve done before, quoting directly from a debate, in this case from Lord Holmes of Richmond:

“There are also issues around the whole concept of consultation… This debate has demonstrated that there is a bit of a misconception around consultation in a number of ways. I do not believe that consultation needs to be lengthy, but it needs to be effective and authentic. Although it sounds tautological, it needs to be truly consultative. In so many instances across society, it is not, but rather is something masquerading as consultation, and the reality for those involved is very different. I believe that for individuals and local authorities, it would be helpful if, in the guidance, an affirmative function was clearly set out for local authorities to engage swiftly in consultation and to speak to organisations of and for disabled people and others. That could be done incredibly effectively—it may be a matter of a few phone calls. It does not need to be a massive consultation; it needs to be an effective consultation.”

HL Deb 20th July 2020, Vol 804, col 1955

Lord Holmes’ intervention here, in a debate on the new Business and Planning Bill is notable  because it is a fine summary of some of the key principles of consultation, something which we do not often see in Parliament. It also chimes with many of the points that we have made during the lockdown period, that a shortage of time should not be used as a flat-out excuse for not consulting, if consultation should be being undertaken. We have proposed methods by which this might be done, and continue to work on ensuring quality consultations, even if they are briefer than might usually be expected in normal times.

The Bill under debate is one we covered a couple of weeks ago, and the debate focussed around many of the same issues, notably attempts to ensure that employees, trade unions, businesses and disability groups were consulted before licenses were granted for restaurants and other venues are permitted to use pavement spaces for tables and chairs. As this is a response to Coronavirus, the principle objection from the Government benches has been that consultative processes would negate the ability of local authorities to respond speedily to applications. The government has, it claims been consulting throughout the expedited legislative process, with stakeholder groups including the RNIB and others.

The one point Lord Holmes does not touch upon, which might also be worthy of mention is the importance of local knowledge in consultation. Whilst a broad Government-level consultation with disability groups is a good start, consulting with stakeholders with local knowledge is absolutely vital, particularly when taking up pavement space that may very well be necessary for those with disabilities to travel safely. The Bill has now been sent to the Commons, and it will be interesting to see if the same sorts of equalities concerns arise there. Given the Government’s resistance to accepting any of the amendments mandating some form of consultation, I would be surprised if they do make any concessions. In normal times, I would be inclined to expect a policy such as this to be challenged in the Courts, at the moment I’d say it’s less likely. It would however prove an interesting test case as to the balance that needs to be struck between the need for emergency legislation and other concerns such as equalities and public safety.