Consult, not insult

Pursuit of debate and consensus should be at the heart of the decision to consult, and so it is prudent for the government to seek the views of experts and industry. After all, these will be the people best qualified to judge the impact of future legislative changes on their particular business. It also gives organisations the opportunity to highlight the government’s lack of joined-up thinking, as is the case with CIBSE and the recent DEFRA consultation on carbon accounting (news, p8).

The promise to consult slips easily from the lips of politicians. But a considered response takes time, and there is a limit to the number of consultations to which any organisation and its members can reasonably be expected to give measured answers. Consultation is also reliant on the goodwill of industry and organisations to give up their time freely in pursuit of debate and consensus.

But the validity of the consultation exercise has been called into question by the recent court ruling on the government’s failure to consult adequately on the 2006 Energy Review. This was less of a consultation and more of an exercise to justify a decision to build more nuclear power stations; in the words of the judge, it was “inadequate” and “misleading”.

The point is not whether the decision to build nuclear power stations is right or wrong: of course there should be a full and informed debate on such an important issue. The point is that the government misled industry into thinking it was being asked for its opinion, when clearly it was not. If consultation is to be the means through which new legislation is introduced, then government needs ensure all responses are considered. Not to do so is arrogant and insulting.