I like my responses to consultations to be published, and to read what other people have to say. BERR said in an email:

"For operational reasons, policy officials may either publish a summary of responses or they may opt to publish all responses in full. However this is a decision for the individual policy team and is determined on a case-by-case basis depending upon what the particular circumstances merit. Again I would add that we have had no complaints regarding this practice."

and in another email:

"During our review of consultation policy, there was some debate around publishing responses the Government receives with some people strongly in favour arguing that it brings enhanced transparency to the process, and others arguing that it would lead to some organisations being less frank in their responses, especially charitable organisations which both lobby Government and receive funding from Government to deliver services. It is certainly not an easy issue and is also debated inside Government especially when consultations receive thousands of responses."

My experience has been that respondents seldom request confidentiality. They are in any case, in a sense "made public" because of the Freedom of Information Act. I made a Freedom of Information request to see the responses to a PADA consultation. x Only 1 respondent out of 47 requested (some) confidentiality. Following another Freedom of Information request, BERR sent copies of the 114 responses to its consultation on Effective Consultation. ^x No one requested confidentiality. The names and addresses of individuals have been erased. BERR explained why they were not published:

"We based our decision not to publish the individual responses to the review of the Government's consultation policy on a question of proportionality. We had to balance the resources required to publish the individual responses and what doing so would add to the debate and the transparency of the debate beyond that which publication of te Government response document contributed. Clearly, we took the decision that it was not proportionate to publish the response in this instance." (letter 17th August 2008)

My MP said:

"A review of government consultations took place as recently as last year and has led to the current Code of Practice applicable from November 2008. It does seem to me that there is little chance of it being reviewed again and in that situation then of course it may be that Freedom of Information requests are the best way to obtain the information which you need."

In short, I have received various different excuses for the non-publication of responses. The FOS explained the reason most of the responses to the Lord Hunt Review were not published:

"Lord Hunt made it clear in his call for evidence that he intended to publish all responses on the review's website - unless privacy was specifically requested.

The only other responses that Lord Hunt decided against publishing were those instances where he received submissions from members of the public who wanted him to examine their cases again in detail and offer detailed specific comments on them. In his final report, Lord Hunt explained that he decided to keep these responses confidential because - due to the personal and sometimes sensitive nature of the original case in question - he did not consider it appropriate to use individual cases to illustrate specific points.

All responses (where privacy was not requested) are available on the Hunt Review website at http//www.thehuntreview.co.uk." (letter 9th September)

2. The responses to Effective Consultation ^x

Several respondents said that all responses should be published, such as:

"Organised and open organisations ensure that responses are posted to a website either on receipt or immediately following the close of the consultation period." (British Bankers' Association)

"Ideally all the individual responses should be published. This does raise practical issues, although publishing responses in a separate document on a website should not be difficult." (TradeAssociationForum)

"In the age of the Internet every stakeholder submission to every consultation should be published online within, at most, 21 days of the consultation ending. (This is perfectly possible, we do it all the time!) The Government should the ideally publish its response within six or eight weeks." (Dialogue by Design)

A reason for the publication of the responses is the variable quality of the feedback. Several respondents complain about delay:

"Feedback is felt to be produced too late after the consultation and to be relatively inaccessible once produced." (British Chambers of Commerce)

An example is the consultation Freedom of Information Act 2000: Designation of additional public authorities ^x (25th October 2007). There is (28th September 2008), no government response or summary of the responses. The close date for responses was 1st February 2008. I have made a Freedom of Information Request to see them.

Hardly any of the respondents to Effective Consultation rated the feedback highly. Question 8 "How do you rate the feedback you have seen from Government Departments following consultations .. ":

"Feedback remains a signficant area of weakness in government consultations" (National Consumer Council)

"Generally this is poor." (Friends of the Earth)

"The quality, timing and availability of responses from public bodies to the consultations BIFA participates in varies significantly."

"We receive feedback to only a small percentage of the consultations that we respond to, and we believe that this is an area which requires improvement." (Environment Agency)

"This is an area which could be improved. Sometimes a summary of responses is published but this appears not to be consistent across all consultations." (Institute of Chartered Accountants)

3. The need for compulsory rules

There seems to be a need for compulsory rules rather than just a Code of Practice on Consultation. ^x For example, there is general agreement that 12 weeks is a suitable time for consultation (Question 2). But then there are complaints that the period is actually sometimes only 6 weeks. Having agreed on 12 weeks, this should be made compulsory. Feedback should also be compulsory. The Government Response to Effective Consultation said:

"4.44 While some responses stated that the requirement on the Government to give feedback was a strength of the Code of Practice, people went on to say that in reality, feedback is often not provided and when it is provided the quality varies considerably." ^x

But deviations from the rules may sometimes be necessary. This seems to imply the need for a Commissioner to enforce the rules or agree to deviations.

Stephen Wynn

September 2008