Consultation

Sofia Hamaz and Claire Preston: This is the third response to the series on consultation that Democratic Audit is editing on OurKingdom. Sofia Hamaz and Claire Preston produced a report on policy decisions over the availability of English language classes, commissioned by Carnegie UK. Previous articles in this series include Taking Consultation Seriously by Andrew Blick and Emily Hamilton, Nuclear Consultation: Public Trust in Government by Paul Dorfman and Quashing Convictions by Laurie Elks.

Consultation has become such a buzzword that it is difficult to remember what it is supposed to be about. The Cabinet Office’s code of practice on consultation 2008 provides an official answer. John Hutton, then Business Secretary, writes in the Foreword: “Effective consultation brings to light valuable information which the Government can use to design effective solutions. Put simply, effective consultation allows the Government to make informed decisions on matters of policy, to improve the delivery of public services, and to improve the accountability of public bodies.” So, it’s a useful policymaking and decision-making tool; and there is even a nod to democratic principle which was absent from earlier editions of the Code. But it is not clear that consultation is doing what it was designed for, unless you take a very cynical view on the wording.

(Laurie Elks): This is the second response to the series on consultation that Democratic Audit is editing on ourKingdom.  Laurie Elks is a former member of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and author of Righting Miscarriages of Justice?: Ten Years of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, about the work of the Commission.  Previous articles in this series include Taking Consultation Seriously by Andrew Blick and Emily Hamilton, and Nuclear Consultation: Public Trust in Government by Paul Dorfman.

The Quashing Convictions[1] consultation was issued by the Home Secretary, John Reid, in September 2006 as part of the government’s agenda to rebalance the criminal justice system to favour the rights of victims over suspects. The consultation averred that following the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 it had been too easy for the guilty to overturn convictions at appeal on the basis of legal technicalities.  

Paul Dorfman (Warwick, University of Warwick): Part two of the Democratic Audit series on consultation (see also part one: Taking Consultation Seriously)

Consultation is an essential component of effective, democratic governance which commands public confidence. For this reason the new government Code of Practice on Consultation is correct to emphasise the need for it to constitute a genuine input into the policy-making process, rather than being a mere ‘tick-box’ exercise; for it to be transparent; for it to be held over a sufficiently long period of time; and for it to properly address the audience for which it is intended. Yet over an issue as important as the future of nuclear energy, government consultations repeatedly failed fully to meet these criteria, and stood condemned both by a professional standards body and the judiciary.

Andrew Blick and Emily Hamilton (London, Democratic Audit):This is a government that makes a thing of ‘consultation’, and a good thing too, you might think. Certainly there are loads of them nowadays. Government departments currently launch around 600 annually[1], with approximately 150 likely to be open at any given time. In this series of posts, we look at what has happened in practice in consultations in three areas: the question of nuclear power; English classes for non-English speakers; and quashing convictions. We invite readers of OurKingdom to add their experiences in the consultation, or non-consultation, processes, briefly or at length.

There is of course a lot of non-consultation, usually on really significant policy decisions, like the government’s plan to spend £3 billion to replace the UK’s 160 nuclear war heads announced to the arms industry at a time when we are told that money is in short supply at the Treasury; or even say, the long pre-meditated plan to invade Iraq or the decision to establish a supreme court (which preceded consultation). But as the official Cabinet Office document, Effective Consultation, says, ‘how and when the Government consults will depend on the circumstances in each case’. Quite so.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): Elite suspicion of engagement with the public seems to be something of a political theme at the moment.

The reactions to David Davis's by-election campaign and the Lisbon treaty referendum result in Ireland are the most obvious examples.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Iain Dale has just written a striking lament about the disgrace of sham consultations. Those who succeed in getting elected as MPs can feel like this too, and we know what it is like for the rest of us. It raises the question of who takes decisions and how they do so - leaving aside why. In part it is the hypocrisy of the process that is so galling. It would be much better with planning decisions if those in authority said: "We want to take this decision, for this reason, to achieve this objective, we know that these people will not like it, we are proposing this compensation and now we are having a consultation in which we will listen especially to those who can suggest a better way of achieving our aim by other means." Instead, we get the evasions, dishonesty, and distortions that drive people to direct action. See Katrina Forrester's post in OK about the Plane Stupid demo on the roof of the Commons after the "consultation" on the Heathrow third runway which did not allow members of the public to let it be known if they were against it. Which, as she puts it, shows, "the extent to which Government strives to keep people impotent".

Stuart Weir & Andrew Blick (Cambridge & London, Democratic Audit): Two direct action stunts: Greenpeace activists climb onto an aircraft that has just landed at Heathrow from Manchester; a Plane Stupid group takes to the roof of the House of Commons.  Two reactions: an exasperated BBC 24 newscaster harangues rather than interviews a cool young Greenpeace man, for not observing democratic convention; Gordon Brown in the House says that the chamber, not the roof, is the place for democratic decision-making.

Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy): Politicians from across the political spectrum are increasingly talking about involving citizens in constitutional reform issues - whether it's the National Conversation in Scotland, Nick Clegg calling for a constitutional convention, or Gordon Brown's proposal for a ‘Citizens Summit' on a British Statement of Values. Constitutional reform in the UK has traditionally only involved the elite; more recently changes have then been ratified by referendum. But the Citizens Summit will be different - an attempt to engage citizens in a deliberative event to explore a constitutional issue - something tried very rarely in the UK.

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Meet the A Team - bosses Lord Browne, ex-BP, Arun Sarin, Vodaphone, Sir John Bond, HSBC, Sir Christopher Hogg, ex-GlaxoSmithKline, and their friends. Heavily censored documents, just released to the Guardian on the orders of the Information Commissioner, show how an elite group of multinational chairmen meet the Prime Minister for regular breakfast gatherings to discuss how government policies affect international corporations. Lord Browne et al were members of this group in 2003 when the documents released show that they lobbied Tony Blair to stop Brown, then Chancellor, from going ahead with proposals to tax the pensions of the super-rich "more punitively". As ever, their case was that such move would make it increasingly difficult to attract "the best and the brightest" to work in the UK.

Stuart Weir & Andrew Blick (Cambridge & London, Democratic Audit): Who and what are 'stakeholders'? Public bodies and consultants fall over each other to assert that they take into account the views of stakeholders and consult thoroughly with them over policy and its implementation. At first glance this approach might seem a hallmark of open, consultative government. Surely those most involved in a particular area have the knowledge that is needed and should have a say in decisions likely to impact directly upon them? Up to a point, yes. But there are problems with the growing emergence of 'stakeholder-ocracy' that seems to be developing.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): For those interested in how the government's "national conversation" is shaping up from the perspective of the ministers in charge, Michael Wills has posted a short report on the Governance of Britain site on the first consultations carried out in Leicester. Quite why the delay in posting I'm not exactly sure since the trip happened back at the beginning of December, but it seems the people of Leicester were full of useful suggestions, my favourite being: "Why can't you make the Parliament Channel interactive so you can hear what I'm saying when I shout at you lot on the television?". The technology must be available for this and it strikes me as a great way to keep parliamentarians on their toes (or at the very least awake), but Wills gives no indication that it will make it into the forthcoming Constitutional Renewal Bill. One of the main conclusions he does draw from the consultation is just how cynical the public is with consultations (surely you don't need a consultation to tell you that!). There is, he says, a feeling that they aren't "genuine" and are "designed to pacify, politicians having already decided on a predetermined outcome." There is an official summary of the lessons the government learnt here (opens as pdf) which concludes that people like consultations provided they get a clear feedback with the results and a link to the Leicester video OK covered last month.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): Early last November I posted a piece on OurKingdom suggesting that consultation by government is, on occasion, used to stifle the raising of unwelcome questions. I am prompted by yesterday's Times - "Law minister is forced to give up power over political cases"- to return to the theme.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Over the last month or so we've been slowly putting together a small spin-off site called, imaginatively, "Government Consultations" (GC). The idea first began when the Government announced consultations on various aspects of the "Governance of Britain" Green Paper; our coverage of this quickly developed into a (rather nerdish) fascination about the amount of 'consultations' being released by all government departments, all the time. OurKingdom spends a lot of time talking about democratic politics, but these consultations represent the machinery of democratic government at work. They are used to build 'legitimacy' for proposals (how often have government ministers claimed to have 'consulted widely'?), but in reality even those that are open to public contribution are not widely publicised.

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): I am intuitively, perhaps ideologically, against nuclear power. I sat in on the deliberations of the Nuclear Consultation Working Group that has just issued a damning report on the government's plans to sanction a new generation of nuclear power stations (see nuclearconsult.com) with two purposes: to study in depth the issues involved and to gain an expert's eye view on the consultation exercise that the courts had demanded from government. I am now clear that my fears that the decision to go nuclear is reckless, dangerous and wasteful are justified; and equally that the consultation exercise was deeply flawed and failed to engage with the real risks and challenges that going nuclear entails.

Stuart Weir & Andrew Blick (Cambridge & London, Democratic Audit): It's just like the buses. We have been waiting decades for reforms to the Royal Prerogative, now three are to appear at once. But don't hold your breath. At the end of January the government is due to publish its draft constitutional reform bill - or, as they sometimes describe it, the 'Constitutional Renewal Bill'. If only. When it appears we will know for certain about a number of key decisions relating to the reform of the Royal Prerogative, under which ministers can act without being subject to proper democratic accountability. Various campaigners have been struggling for many years to make this range of powers - which includes within it war-making, treaty-making, the conduct of diplomacy, regulating the Civil Service and granting mercy - subject to parliamentary oversight. But how far will the government go?

John Jackson (London, Charter 88): Increasingly it is said “ We don’t want mere consultation. If we are to be involved, we want a real say on determining the outcome”.

One of the reasons for this is a suspicion that consultation (by Government) is little more than a political ploy. Its aim, to calm down those who do not like decisions which affect their daily lives being taken by people who are remote from them (and, increasingly, are even remote even from their elected representatives). Another is that consultation is used to stifle the raising of unwelcome questions. The first is probably unfair but there is surely a germ of truth in the second.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Further to last week's liberty speech, the government have published three consultation papers on some of the proposed constitutional tinkering set out in this summer's Green Paper. Of course this is going to have the cynical spluttering into their morning coffee - but this is a (slim) chance to try and take some control of the process. The three papers are available in pdf format, with (very complicated) questionnaires at the back, and details about where to email completed questionnaires into in each one. Closing date is the 17th of January. The government is consulting on:

Saul Albert (London, The People Speak): In the midst of the furore over rigged TV 'voting' competitions, spurned elections and missing referendums, London-based art collective 'The People Speak' have recently been rekindling enthusiasm in the democratic process. Their latest show, 'Who Wants to Be?', mixes direct-democracy decision making, interactive animation and improvisation into dangerously spontaneous entertainment.

Jon Bright (London, OK): You might have seen that Greenpeace decided to make an official complaint to the Market Research Standards Council over Opinion Leader Research's conduct of the government's recent nuclear energy consultation last month. The consultation was supposed to build public consensus around options for the UK's future energy sources, and was initiated after a previous consultation had been ruled "misleading" earlier this year (thanks to an earlier Greenpeace challenge). But, as Paul Dorfman argues on these pages, the current consultation might be as misleading as the previous one; and Greenpeace have now turned in an even lengthier document to the MRSC detailing the exact nature of their complaint.

Paul Dorfman (Warwick, University of Warwick): The way government consults with the public has significantly changed since a high court decision by Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the 2006 Energy Review consultation was "misleading", "seriously flawed", and "manifestly inadequate and unfair. The judge said that fresh discussions on the economics of new nuclear builds, and how to store the resulting radioactive waste, were needed as "consultation was a right, not a privilege". But it remains unclear whether the consultation that has just closed on the 10^th Oct 2007 was a fair way of assessing people's views on nuclear power.