The risks and rewards of consultation reform 

Tinkering around with the machinery of government is seldom a straightforward exercise. Neither does it excite the public. Good governance should, ideally be a steady progression towards better practice; it should embrace modern concepts and technologies, and avoid erratic lurches from one temporary management fad to another. 

The Burnham administration’s ‘Rewiring the State’ is a more radical agenda, and its central theme of devolution and decentralisation has many supporters. But it also doubles down on Keir Starmer’s frustration with aspects of policy-making and implementation. It led to his Ministers announcing in March that they wanted to ‘rip up the consultation culture.’ 

By June, the commitment had become “…to replace the current model of consultation by default with new and modern forms of public participation. This includes considering where performative statutory duties to consult can be revoked and how we can more actively bring the public into the policy-making process instead” 

The 7th September letter from the Chancellor to Ministers – under the title ‘Simplification and Agency’ goes further and urges Government departments and other public bodies to minimise the number of consultations. Instead, it says the better approach is “involving a wider range of people in shaping our thinking earlier and more directly – with ministers and officials leading engagement in ways that reflect the issue at hand, and which help to build back public trust in government.” 

None of this is driven by retail politics. There is nothing in the last Labour Manifesto and no-one mentioned it at the recent Party conference. But clearly, people at the very top of Government – and one presumes, the officials and advisers around them think there is a significant prize to be won. Not just avoiding the cumbersome, sometimes expensive and time-consuming tasks of organising consultations, but the ‘dither and delay’ which they have complained arises because of these processes. Ministers have painted a picture of being held back from taking decisions and actions whilst these processes are played out in a ‘performative’ way. In other words. “We have made up our minds; and this is delaying the implementation of necessary policies.” 

No doubt this happens. But officials also know that the devil is often in the detail, and that key stakeholders – often those involved in administering new or changed policies – are in a better position to assess impacts, costs and benefits. Consultations are rarely focused on major decisions of principle; more often they consider which is the best – or maybe least worst of alternative ways to do something. Surely it must be possible , the argument goes, to engage with the best of the stakeholders and then take a decision? Expediting these ‘nuts and bolts’ issues must sound highly attractive to politicians in a hurry, and the cost and time savings will surely be welcome. 

But there are risks. Selective engagement begs the big question that hovers over many of the increasingly-popular co-production exercises: “who is in the room?” and “how representative might they be?” Talking to some stakeholders and not others invites criticism from anyone unhappy with the outcome. At least with a consultation, everyone with an interest in the subject has the opportunity to express their views. 

A world with fewer consultations will also encourage unstructured lobbying. Without a process explaining which are the issues upon which decision-makers are open to persuasion, and a set of questions to address, protagonists or interest groups will fire off in all directions, seeking influence based as much upon who they know as what they know. Good quality consultation standardises the information made available to everyone participating, including the all-important impact-assessments. They provide a fixed timetable and ensure that all consultee responses are considered.  

Members of Parliament would also find it challenging. When constituents approach them with a strong and detailed view on a current controversy, it is both convenient and appropriate to refer them to the relevant consultation. If such exercises no longer happen, with Ministers and officials instead relying on confidential dialogues with selected stakeholders, image the MP having to grapple with the constituent’s arguments and promising to promote them to the relevant Government department! And often with enthusiastic campaigners on opposite sides of emotive arguments. When Parliamentarians realise the implications of a system less willing to consult, I foresee some serious reservations emerging. 

Of course, the proliferation of consultations is also due to huge amount of primary and secondary legislation passed over 50 years and which oblige government departments, local authorities, regulators and miscellaneous public bodies to consult. These have often arisen because politicians wanted to create checks and balances on executive power. Ministers now want departments to repeal hundreds of these provisions through upcoming legislation. Interest groups and others who have hitherto been consulted will not however take kindly to having their enforceable legal rights extinguished. No amount of assurances that they will be ‘engaged with’ will make up for their perceived loss of influence.  

By doing it department-by-department, the Government probably hopes no one Minister will take the inevitable flack. But someone has to own the complete programme, and I wonder how long it will be before he or she becomes known as the ‘Minister for Not Listening.’!