Examination of Witnesses (Questions 253-259)
PHIL HOPE
AND MR
ASHLEY POTTIER
8 MARCH 2005
Q253 Chairman: Could I welcome you to
the Committee. Would you like to identify yourself and your team.
Phil Hope: Chairman, my name is
Phil Hope. I am the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I regret we do not have
Paul Rowsell here. He is stuck at an airport in Strasbourg—I
am not absolutely certain why, but the plane he was due to catch
did not take off—and I have to give his apologies. I have
beside me Ashley Pottier, who is a team leader from the Democracy
and Local Government Division in the ODPM.
Q254 Chairman: Would you like to say
anything by way of introduction?
Phil Hope: If I may, Chairman.
I welcome this opportunity to give evidence to the Committee on
the subject of consultation in local government. There is a great
deal happening on this whole agenda and since 1997 there has been
quite a big uptake in initiatives across local government in terms
how local government consults local communities. One of the big
directions of travel has been a lot more use of innovative, more
deliberative forms of consultation by local authorities, building
on the good examples of practice going on in some authorities.
Certainly we see local authorities much more now recognising the
benefits of consultation in terms of service delivery and community
engagement to the local communities. They are reaching a wider
range of individuals as well in the processes they are using.
I think it is fair to say that the quality does vary significantly
between different authorities, so there is a real task for us
all to raise the quality of consultation to the level of the best
performers. Certainly in our five-year plan on sustainable communities
we make it very clear that community engagement is a core part
of how you develop what is a stable community in the way that
the local government goes about doing its business. Consultation
is one element of a whole process of engagement, from information
providing at one end through to being actively involved in decision-making,
through to delivering services. Consultation is one part of that
whole spectrum. We published our Local Vision document,
which talks about the future of local government in ten years
time, and two of the "daughter documents", the Neighbourhood
document and the Leadership document, both put a lot of
emphasis on the importance of consultation. I want to say at the
outset that I think it is important we do not confuse consultation
with accountability. I am very clear in my mind that we elect
politicians, ourselves as MPs and local councillors, to represent
and to make decisions in their communities on behalf of the people
who have elected them. Consultation is an important part of the
process but it is not the way politicians are accountable: they
are accountable through the ballot box ultimately for the decisions
they take. It is a critical part of the decision-making process
but lots of other things happen when MPs or local councillors
make their decisions. I do not want to confuse consultation with
scrutiny. Scrutiny is a system we have set up, and strong executive
and strong scrutiny together really do improve the performance
of local authorities. Consultation is part of scrutiny. Whether
in the local ward or on a theme for the whole council, consultation
is important but it is not scrutiny itself. It is a part of the
process. Members may want to clarify that in more detail, but
I wanted the distinction that I see between these two to be clear
from the start. Consultation I think has improved enormously,
but, as I say, it is variable and our task is to try to raise
the quality of that process to the level of the best.
Q255 Chris Mole: You said consultation
is important, how important is it for local authorities to consult
communities on strategic issues and day-to-day decisions about
local services?
Phil Hope: We regard it as very
important because we think that good consultation results in better
decisions, achieves better service delivery. It may be that the
council may not agree with a proportion of the people with whom
it has consulted on the result of a consultation. In fact it is
almost inevitable that when you consult you will get different
views, but, hearing all those views and importantly feeding back
what you have heard about what people have said and showing the
decision that you have made and how it relates to the consultation
you have had, gives confidence to people that you have heard their
views, but, importantly, it will influence the decision you make
because you will hear what people say. That is true at a strategic
level, which I think is very important—and there are various
parts of the law which say you have to consult: planning law and
housing law and so on—but also at the level of councils
having a good relationship with their community. We are convinced
that good consultation achieves better service delivery.
Q256 Chris Mole: Looking at the Department's
five-year plan: Sustainable Communities: People, Places and
Prosperity, how critical is high quality and effective consultation
in ensuring that gets delivered?
Phil Hope: I think a sustainable
community is one where there has been good quality consultation.
Because people are then aware of the issues and have had their
views known, and the council is then making informed decisions
about the combination of economic, social, environmental issues
that they need to juggle—as authorities do when they are
developing a sustainable community. Hearing all those different
views and ensuring that the community as a whole is consulted,
and not particular pressure groups—who have a role to play
but should not, as it were, hi-jack the agenda—the Sustainable
Communities plan that we have published does suggest, embedded
within it, there should be good, thorough processes, of consultation.
Q257 Sir Paul Beresford: In the light
of what you have just said in both answers, how do you feel about
the mayor for London, who consulted on the congestion charge,
got a resounding "No" and just went ahead?
Phil Hope: It is quite interesting
because, as I said, there is a real difference between consultation
and decision-making. The mayor or anybody else might make decisions,
but if they have consulted, if they have heard the views, if they
then feed back their views and explain when they are making their
decision how that consultation has affected that decision one
way or the other, then people can know they have been consulted
and have had a chance to influence. If the decision does not go
their way—and that may happen on any number of issues that
a local council may take—I do not think that undermines
the importance of consultation. It just makes clear the distinction
that I made at the start, that, ultimately, whether the people
do or do not like Ken's decision on the Congestion Charge will
be a matter for the ballot box when they come to re-elect a mayor
of London. That he should consult in developing that policy I
think is very important.
Q258 Sir Paul Beresford: You do not feel
many of the people of London will feel he has Alconian eyesight
and that he is turning a blind eye to anything.
Phil Hope: I do not think it is
for me to make a judgments about the performance of the mayor
of London but I can say that I do think it is very important that
there is an effective process of consultation and people in London
have had a chance of have their say. They can hear the various
balances, of how the options have been weighed up, and then see
the decision that has been made.
Q259 Sir Paul Beresford: What happens
next time there is a consultation? Everyone will say it is a waste
of time and just sit on their hands.
Phil Hope: That would be a very
cynical view of the importance of consultation. I do think local
authorities, the mayor, other bodies when they consult, do so
seriously—they do take into account what people have said,
they do try to balance different pressures on them and different
factors. The views of the people they consult is a critical part
of those decisions. But, ultimately, if the population who vote
for the mayor or any other body think that body has got it wrong,
and seriously wrong enough for them to vote against them, then
that is for them to do.
|
