The Reasons Why Government Fails At Consultation

I recently read a blog by Mark Easton, the BBC’s Homes Editor, called ‘Consulting… and ignoring’.  In it Easton uses three recent examples of government consultations to ask what  is the point of government consultations?  In all three instances, despite apparently strong cases being  made against the government’s proposals, the consultation results have been ignored and the policy implemented.

Easton’s excellent blog (generally as well as this entry) made me consider some of the issues why government consultations fail and why they seem to get it wrong time and again.  There is a further issue to consider which is the implications of the continued failure to get consultation right.

As Easton rightly notes ‘consultations are not referendums’ but this is often unclear to those responding and when the stress is on approaching consultations with an ‘open mind’ with ministers being in ‘listening mode’ the clear implication is that at least changes may be made. Consultations work best when there are  clear  options on the table and  an adequate explanation is provided as to why and how those options have been arrived at.  A simple take it or leave it approach does not suit most consultations and makes them, in effect, appear to be referendums based on a single issue.  Engagement will increase when input can have an effect.

Consultation has for many in government become a proxy for support for the policy, inferring that it has been developed / changed on the basis of a consultation.  This is misleading at best especially when often the number of responses is low.

It could be that the government is completely right to progress the policies concerned.  However, the formal government responses to consultations are often badly lacking.  They contain simple statements that do not respond to the points raised in submissions.  Instead, they highlight the matters raised and go on to restate the preferred policy option.  No evidence is used as to why the submissions are being, in effect, rejected and often none used to justify the policy position in the first instance (which can actually make responses difficult to formulate). Restating a policy is not a response.

This is not a party political point – the number of consultations undertaken increased hugely under Labour and their record was far from perfect.  However, the Coalition continues to champion evidence-based policy-making but is not always living by its own rules, especially when it comes to consultations.

All this means that public confidence in consultations is being undermined.  Along with flaws in the way that some are conducted which have led to successful legal challenges, the public do not believe that they are really being consulted.  The implications go far beyond the public sector.  The private sector, particularly for these involved in local development, are then tainted as well.  Participation rates may fall further and all confidence in them is lost.

Ministers have also complained about the use of judicial reviews and have been looking at ways to reduce the numbers.  But it is a problem partly of their own making.

For those involved in public affairs all this shows  is  the value in being involved much earlier in the policy formation process, ideally before any consultations are put on paper.  The chances of having an impact  at this stage are limited.

A government consultation should take many forms.  A written consultation is but one form and part of a  public engagement process.  Too often, however, it is the only way in which government formally works with communities and stakeholders in the development of policies.  Multi-national corporations are rarely solely reliant on ‘traditional listening’ tools such as consultations, surveys and questionnaires and invest a great deal of time and resources developing new ways of collecting feedback. Perhaps the Government can take lessons from the corporate world here.

As a  side note , I’d also encourage everyone to watch a BBC programme called, The Editors, where the corporation’s ‘on air’ editors explore issues in more depth than is usually the case just on the news.  Always worth a watch!