Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
PHIL HOPE
AND MR
ASHLEY POTTIER
8 MARCH 2005
Q260 Chairman: Is it not the problem
though that the people doing the consultation, particularly the
people organising it, want to highlight the fact of "Have
your say," almost implying that the decision-making is being
passed to people being consulted. Is it not important for them
to make it clear that this is, if you like, background information
to the decision-makers.
Phil Hope: I think you are right.
As I said at the beginning, this idea of a continuum, between,
as it were, just publishing an announcement in the press, here
is some information which you can read and that is it, through
being asked through questionnaires, focus groups, surveys and
all the various methods that are there to examine in more detail
what people think, what different groups think, making sure you
are getting the hard-to-reach groups, involving young people,
the black and minority ethnic groups and so on that may otherwise
be excluded, doing all those activities and then receiving all
that feedback, analysing it, publishing it, telling people what
people said and then explaining the decision that you eventually
make is a critical part of the process. But consultation, you
are absolutely right, Chairman, is not the same as the decision
in itself. I think people recognise they cannot all have their
own way. That, by definition, is not possible. They want to see
that the people making the decision have genuinely taken into
account their views.
Q261 Mr Betts: There has been an increase
in the amount of consultation and the number of other initiatives
that take place. How far does central government feel it is driving
this and how much does it take into account what else is going
on? In my own constituency, it is in the areas which have the
greatest number of problems that the most consultation takes place
about how to resolve them, and you almost get some overload. We
have an area panel in the Dartington area of my constituency—which
is good practice, it is what the local authorities are encouraged
to do and it works quite well. We have had a consultation on the
area next door—again, good practice. The local authority
comes along and requires a planning and consultation framework
as well; there is a Pathfinder Consultation because it is a Pathfinder
area; there is SRB funding—and a requirement for good practice
to consult on that; then the local area forum does its own consultation
on community resources and education networks—which is very
good and of a high quality. That is all going on at the same time,
and often amongst the same group of people.
Phil Hope: I agree with what you
just said: I think we have a problem here. Firstly, a consultation
is also an educative process. The reason why it is valuable for
people to be engaged in very many different ways on different
things is not only so we can hear their views but also because
it does engage people: they themselves find out information and
their own views get changed as time goes on. So it is a dynamic
process that I think is a very important process of building up
a relationship between communities and the local authorities.
The point you are making about multiple layers and things going
on that are routed in different funding streams, I think is quite
an important one, which is why we are making considerable efforts
now to reduce the number of plans, and therefore the number of
consultations that have to take place, by merging them together,
so you undertake one consultation around a set of plans rather
than each one having, as it were, a separate consultation. Secondly,
on funding streams, which often carry with them their own data
collection—and you mentioned SRB and so on—the efforts
to create local area agreements—and I do not know whether
Sheffield has that or not: I am trying to remember where the pilots
are—this is where some of the funds are being merged together
to create single pots, and there is a lot more flexibility and
negotiation at a local level about what outcomes all these various
funding streams are achieving, and flexibility for people locally
then to decide how that money is spent and they go into one pot.
So you can actually streamline and limit the number of duplicatory
processes that may be going on around consultation. I think it
is difficult because different authorities are trying different
processes at different levels to see what works. Certainly area
committees, I have to say, are a very good way of getting a geographical,
helicopter look at what is going on, as distinct from individual,
as it were, services, and how they are being delivered. You probably
do need both but the authority needs possibly to stand up and
make sure it is not falling into the trap you mentioned.
Q262 Mr Betts: I recognise the idea of
having a single pot: that was a recommendation of our report on
urban regeneration a few years ago! There is a concern that maybe
with all this consultation—and you have drawn the distinction
between consulting people and the responsibility for taking decisions
at the end of the day—people get the impression that this
is where it really happens, and therefore it links into a decline
in the turnout at local elections. Or is it the other way round,
that because there is a decline in turnout there is a feeling
that people are not engaging in that process and we go into the
consultation process to try to engage then in a different way?
Phil Hope: I am a firm believer
that more engagement with the community will increase turnout,
will increase people's confidence in the democratic process, in
the bureaucracies, the systems that serve and meet their needs,
rather than the other way round. The logical conclusion to the
argument you have put forward, or one side of that argument, would
therefore be: have no consultation—except for the only time
they get is once every four years down the election. I think all
of us would recognise that would be a daft way of proceeding.
I think it is very important for councillors, in between the elections
of councillors, to be personally and actively engaged with their
communities, identifying community needs, bringing forward proposals,
taking back their ideas to the community, so that there is an
active process of community engagement—and I do not just
mean at the council level, as it were, at the strategic level.
Our Leadership document talks a lot about the role of local
councillors in their wards being a key part of that process of
continuous engagement.
Q263 Mr Betts: There is a real issue
here. There are more people engaging, certainly in my constituency,
in local community groups, in consultation exercises—which
is very powerful and proper. Fewer people now join political parties
to engage in that way. Fewer people vote in local elections but
more people come to councillors and members of parliament with
their problems. There is inherent conflict in this.
Phil Hope: Yes. I am not sure
whether the cause and effect are as you are describing them. I
think there may be other wider reasons for the potential depression
of turnout—although my understanding of the figures is that
they are now going back up again. Arguably there are wider factors
that are lowering people's expectations and therefore involvement
in local politics—and I am thinking about the media in particular.
There seems to be a view that they are all the same, it makes
no difference. We all know how wrong that is, but there is that
general mood that can exist and can be used as a political ploy
by some to achieve a political outcome. I do not think we should
fall into the trap of assuming that greater consultation on a
more day-to-day basis undermines the formal democratic process.
I genuinely believe that that process strengthens involvement
in democracy: people know who their councillors are, they will
be more motivated to get out there and vote for them because they
have seen them and been engaged with them. Whether they like them
or not of course is a matter for them to make a choice.
Q264 Sir Paul Beresford: You have just
mentioned a minimalist level of consultation. Do you think there
is a level at the other end? Do you think there is a tendency
for some councils to find every excuse to go out to consultation
and not to make decisions? They spend vast sums on vast armies
of people running round consulting, and when everything comes
back, they um and ah about it, and have further consultation.
I am slightly exaggerating.
Phil Hope: I have not seen any
evidence for the caricature you have just described. I understand
the concern. I have seen that there are some councils which do
it very well and there are some councils which I think could learn
from other councils about doing both more of it and better. Not
avoiding the problems we were describing earlier about multiple
consultations with the same people over the same issues for different
reasons, that I think can be a matter for the local council to
develop. That is one reason, for example, why we have not thought
about having a statutory code of consultation for local government.
Q265 Chairman: We will come on to that
later.
Phil Hope: Fine. That is one of
the reasons, because I think it is about local flexibility because
different areas will do things differently and the process is
important to get right, to be flexible for local areas. So I understand
the concern but do not recognise evidence of what you have described.
Our concern is rather that the quality is varied and we would
like to see more councils, as it were, raise their game, so that
there is good quality consultation, with all that might mean,
by every council.
Mr Pottier: Again, I do not recognise
the situation where there is necessarily too much going on, but
I think the other thing to pick out of consultation is that it
is part of a two-way process. As the Minister said earlier, in
any consultation there is an educative process. We know from some
of our research that the understanding of many residents of what
their local authority does and who is responsible for which services
is not high. Therefore, in any consultation there is an opportunity
to have a dialogue with residents and actually part of it is about
educating as much as getting results back from the questions you
ask.
Q266 Sir Paul Beresford: Do you not feel
that in making that sort of approach you are only getting the
same people to respond and that most people sit on their hands.
It is the activists, without much to do other than reply to your
endless dialogues and consultations etcetera, who are actually
forming the structure of the responses.
Mr Pottier: To some extent that
can happen but I think the better local authorities will have
a range of techniques, so that they do not just get the usual
suspects coming back with responses. There is a range of different
things that can be used: citizens' juries, citizens' panels or
area forums, and if they use a broad spectrum then they ought
to be able to get out of the usual suspect list.
Sir Paul Beresford: Trusting soul!
Q267 Mr Cummings: How have the new council
structures made it easier for people to become involved in local
decision-making? Can you provide any practical examples where
this has been the case?
Phil Hope: I mentioned scrutiny
earlier, Chairman. I think there is an opportunity within scrutiny
for consultation to happen, so that the new structure, where councils
have taken on the overview and scrutiny role in a very proactive
way, have taken a theme—healthcare or antisocial behaviour—and
have gone out to the community in a scrutiny process to assess
how those organisations are delivering that. Those local authorities
have then taken very active consultative processes, gained information
through the scrutiny process, and then presented that to the executive
as a way of developing their scrutiny function. I think that within
scrutiny itself there are good consultation processes. Secondly,
in terms of what I call the non-executive councillor—the
new structure created this sort of back-bench councillor, the
non-executive councillor—we are seeing some evidence that
they are taking much more seriously their ward representative
role and are undertaking a lot more consultative processes within
their wards and to champion their wards. Indeed, our Neighbourhood
and our Leadership documents put this very importantly
at the forefront of what we want to see those local councillors
do, so that they are getting much more. It is strengthening rather
than weakening the consultation process.
Q268 Mr Cummings: Who ordered the structures
you just referred to? Is the information based upon credible evidence.
Phil Hope: The Comprehensive Performance
Assessment process includes within it an assessment of the corporate
governance of the local authorities. The new CPA process that
is out for consultation at the moment, which they are deciding
upon, within the corporate governance assessment of how well the
local authority is governed includes an assessment of user focus
and user diversity, to what extent the council is actually focusing
on the needs of the users and the diversity of users in their
area. That assessment will include an assessment of therefore
how the authority is consulting and engaging with users to ensure
the services meet the users' needs.
Q269 Mr Clelland: While I agree with
what you have said, the consultation is not intended to be a referendum
on decision-making. Perhaps because of that—we all know
this from our own experience—there is a great deal of cynicism
around about consultation. People often feel, "Whatever I
say it is not going to influence the council," and in any
case people go into these things thinking, "The decision
has already been taken. This is just a paper exercise." Have
you experienced that cynicism? If so, what do we do about it?
How can we help local authorities overcome that?
Phil Hope: I do recognise that
problem. It is important that where a council really has made
a decision, then to go out to consultation, as it were, as a cover
for a decision that it has already made does not fool anybody,
least of all those people being consulted, and it would not be
an appropriate thing to do. If councils have already consulted
and made a decision, then to go out to consultation again, as
it were, to affirm a decision they have already made,. and then
it does not go the way they want it to, we see where that takes
you. I do not think that is a very effective form of consultation
at all. How do you prevent that? I think the guidelines that we
have published as Government are helpful, in the sense of being
very clear about why you are consulting, who you are consulting
and to what time scale, being clear about the purpose of the consultation
upfront, feeding back the results and then showing in your decision
how that consultation has influenced or not influenced, depending
on the outcome of the decision, and the reasons why. I think it
was the Audit Commission who identified four or five critical
success factors for a good consultation process, and one is, first
and foremost, a commitment to the user, a commitment to consulting
people and then building in key elements of, in particular, communicating
well how the information will be conveyed and how it will influence
the decisions. If that is not done, that is when I think problems
can happen. It might be that consultation at the council level
is better as a strategic activity but individual decisions, in
the way that we might be thinking about, could lead councils into
some difficulty, and it needs to be carefully thought through
what is appropriate for individual decisions.
Q270 Sir Paul Beresford: Really we need
to send that answer to the mayor of London, do we?
Phil Hope: I think I have tried
to deal with the question of the mayor of London earlier. I understand
your concerns about that. I would say that the mayor of London's
consultation was genuine. The responses were properly considered
and the decision made by the mayor of London was for the mayor
of London. As I say, he will or will not receive the outcome of
his accountability for that at the ballot box, and of course he
has already been successful.
Q271 Mr Clelland: On that sort of example,
where the local authority goes out to consultation and reaches
the view that the overall opinion that those who are being consulted
is not in line with what the council thinks properly ought to
be done—like, for instance, the Congestion Charge—is
policy that there should be better explanation given as to why
the decision has gone a particular way regardless of what the
consultation outcome was?
Phil Hope: If there is a direction
of travel that the council has already taken and it is minded
to take and it is consulting during that, if it says that in advance
then people know where they stand. Ideally, consultation should
be open—nothing ruled out and everything ruled in and then
a decision being made. But if a council has already made a decision
and wants to consult on the details of that decision and the way
forward, then I think they should be upfront about that because
to do otherwise would be to run the risks you have just described.
Q272 Mr Clelland: If the council has
not made a decision, goes to consultation, gets the consultation,
considers it, sits down with the officers and works out all the
options, and says, "Regardless of this, we think is in the
best interests to go this way," is the council then obliged
to go back to the people involved?
Phil Hope: I certainly think it
is good practice to go back. Certainly when I was a borough councillor
and county councillor myself we did exactly that: having heard
all the views, summed them up and done the analysis, then to say
to the groups we consulted, "On balance, taking into account
this guidance, these priorities, our views, the different views
out in the community, here is the decision we have made. Here,
on the balance of all those factors, including the views of the
people we have consulted, we have come to this decision."
With an honest process of doing that, people will then say, "Okay,
they have made a decision that I did not agree with but I can
see how they have arrived at that decision. I feel I have been
properly treated as a consultee in that process." I just
want to say, that is not an obligation and the guidance is only
guidance.
Q273 Mr Clelland: But that sort of practice
would build up the confidence of people in the consultation process
and therefore dispel the kind of criticism referred to.
Phil Hope: I think that would
and I think there has been evidence that is exactly what it does
do. I can understand that maybe that asks councillors to do one
more step, as it were, but all the evidence is that where that
step is taken better decisions are made, because there is better
clarity but also because more people have faith in the system.
Q274 Chris Mole: The Government is keen
to encourage consultation using the internet and the world wide
web. How should councils ensure that maybe a digital divide in
standard access to such technology does not skew the results?
Phil Hope: First of all, there
are more examples of that happening. I have even seen web casts
of council meetings, for example, which have been with good audiences,
so there is more openness and transparency in the system there.
You will be pleased to know that we have a £4 million national
project called the Local E-democracy National Project,
led by local authorities, which is developing a whole raft of
new ways of encouraging the use of electronic technology in a
whole variety of ways for consultation to take place. It is proving
to be very successful. It is deliberately aimed almost at closing
that digital divide; for example, finding ways of engaging with
young people through these new processes, using the new e-Government
methods to engage and consult with young people. That was due
to be launched this morning.
Mr Pottier: We are launching it
this evening.
Phil Hope: I am launching it this
evening, in fact—if I may re-write my own diary. That is
led by local authorities and they will be piloting these models
of good practice that others can the use.
Q275 Chris Mole: I would encourage you
to look at the Suffolk graffiti wall in that context, which is
aimed at young people.
Phil Hope: That is on the web.
Q276 Chris Mole: Yes.
Mr Pottier: There is a range of
projects within the e-democracy pilot. I will give you
a couple of examples which pick up your question. There have been
a couple of ideas about how you could perhaps use schools or local
EAZ facilities, so that you can actually bring parents into computers
that children might be using as part of their everyday activity,
so you can actually get to those traditionally hard-to-reach groups,
particularly in deprived areas, in a way that they can take part
in consultations through local community facilities. There are
other aspects of it, so that, instead of using, say, the internet,
it would be going down to using mobile phones and texting technology.
This, again, is particularly aimed at young people.
Q277 Mr Clelland: One of the Round Six
Beacon themes is Getting Closer to Communities. When the
local authorities came before us they did not seem to be too clear
as to how this might benefit local government. Can you say why
this particular theme was chosen and how it is going to help local
authorities to improve their quality and value of the consultations
they undertake?
Phil Hope: The Beacon scheme has
been very successful—this is Round Six we are talking about
now—in identifying an area of good practice, encouraging
applications for Beacon status and then spreading that more generally.
We have chosen this theme because we do want to see, as I said,
in terms of the local vision for local government and the ten-year
strategy, this whole area of consultation, community engagement—everything
from information providing through to consultation and active
involvement in decision-making—to be a feature of how local
government begins to look in the future. There is now, I think,
sufficient good practice for us to launch this Beacon scheme,
because then we can try to identify what it is that people are
doing. In fact, there is a lot of good practice out there that
does not often get captured: people are doing it but they do not
tell each other that they are doing it. It is one of my big frustrations.
Q278 Chairman: Could you give us just
one example of that good practice out there.
Phil Hope: Bristol, for example,
thinking about an e-government example, have consulted using new
technology on things like seagulls, safety, shopping. I know,
seagulls was a surprise to me as well, I have to tell you.
Q279 Chris Mole: It was not the seagulls
that were being consulted, was it?
Phil Hope: No, no, but consulting
on the problem of how they deal with seagulls and so on. I am
sorry, that was not meant to be a trivial example, Chairman.
|
