Agenda item

8.1  The Chair stated that she had invited the Chief Executive and the Director of Communications, Culture and Engagement to this meeting to discuss the Council’s approach to consultation and Members gave consideration to the following documents:

a)  Report from the Consultation Team

b)  Consultation Principles – Code of Good Practice published by Cabinet Office (April 2012)

c)  LBH Consultation Guide

d)  Analysis of survey of Members’ views on the consultation service

8.2  The Chair welcomed to the meeting:

  Tim Shields, Chief Executive (TS)

  Polly Cziok, Director of Communications, Culture and Engagement (PC)

  Florence Obinna, Consultation and Engagement Manager (FO)

8.3  Members asked whether there was an appetite for a shift to more democratic or inclusive means of engaging with residents. PC replied that there was a shift to a more engagement led model but there was a dichotomy between consultation and engagement.  The Hackney A Place for Everyone exercise was a game changer in that it had used many creative new approaches which led on to the current ‘Dalston Conversation’ and the ‘Young Futures Commission’.  There was a clear difference between the large number of statutory consultations which the Council had to carry out each year e.g. involving road closures or parking etc and the larger more strategic ones which were more deliberative.  Most of the former were uncontroversial but a small number did create a lot of heat.  The Group Director of Neighbourhoods was pushing for more pre-consultation engagements in order to forge solutions prior to going out to consultations on something specific.  Members stated that often there were tensions because a consultation was done about one road and then the next, when there should be a more holistic approach.  FO replied that the Place Based Approach to consultation which was now being tried should help remedy this by working with the technical officers and looking across service areas and aiming for a more coordinated approach.

8.4   Members asked whether more work could be done to link consultation activity with Ward Forums and make the latter a platform for some of these pre-consulation conversations.  A Member stated that attendance at the Forums was generally not very representative unless there was a big contentious issue under debate. 

8.5  FO replied that the London Fields Ward Forum had been an example of this when there had been major concerns about traffic changes in the area.  When an issue was contentious and if there was an information vacuum on it, then residents would turn up to their Ward Forums seeking answers.

8.6  A Member expressed the concern that residents thought consultations were referendums and this idea needed to be challenged.  PC stated that with CPZs for example there was a need to legally consult and a process laid down in statute had to be followed.  There was however also a need to supplement that with more meaningful engagement exercise and this was the reason behind initiatives such as the ‘Dalston Conversation’.  A Member stated that of 1500 residents being consulted on parking changes for example only 150 might reply, many felt it didn’t apply to them. 

8.7  PC replied that officers do ensure particularly with the large statutory consultations that the responses will be as representative as possible citing the example of a recent education consultation where they ran a series of intensive focus groups with social housing tenants because previous similar consultations had over 70% owner occupiers responding.  FO added that when they are aware of the possible impact of a change on a particular group of residents they make a concerted effort to target the consultation exercise to them.  The general problem though was that the public often don’t take any notice until a change is being implemented. 

8.8  PC added that some groups are simply much harder to reach than others.  Generally they have found that women are far more likely than men to reply to consultations (apart from in parking and licensing).  She added that the move of the former Hackney Homes Tenant and Leasehold Engagement Team to the corporate centre had been very positive one and allowed the team to build on the existing relationships which that group had with tenants groups and to develop better consultations.

8.9  A Member commended the Hackney Wick ‘Through Young Eyes’ engagement exercise which he felt was revelatory in that it asked the young people how they looked at life.  The views of the young people hadn’t been mediated or interpreted.  He added that it was an approach which should be copied.  PC replied that there wasn’t a standard approach to engagement and they thought carefully about each one and whether new approaches might be tried.  On the forthcoming Pembury exercise they will use Place Based Engagement. Different approaches are tried in different areas and with different groups for example, the work with Young Black Men and the work with the Charedi community.  FO added that part of the approach was to go where the target groups were e.g. using the market stalls at the Hackney Carnival or the summer Street Parties.  There was also a need to think about timings e.g. parents not being available in early evening to attend something like a Ward Forum because of parenting responsibilities. 

8.10  A Member commented on the low initial response to the Future Shoreditch consultation and having discovered that many of the leaflets distributed via Hackney Today were not being delivered.  PC asked Members to let her know about examples where Hackney Today was not getting through so this can be rectified by the distributors. 

8.11  On the recent controversial Licensing consultation a Member commented that while she had only one objection by email, in her surgeries many were raising the issue of their lives being made a misery by the over saturation of night time venues.  They were choosing to respond in person at the surgeries and not online she observed.  PC commented that 75% of respondents on that were males aged 25-40 and so it was not representative of the different cohorts being affected and this was one of the challenges with it.  Members commented that it was important not to simply listen to the loudest voices.

8.12  Members asked if there was some way to have a system of rapid rebuttal when issues become heated and mistruths are flying about and was it possible to feed back to the consultation team half way through a consultation.

8.13  PC replied that one of the key priorities for the Consultation Team was to keep consultations Judicial Review proof.  It would never be allowed to intervene half way through a consultation although Members have in the past asked if they could see how one was progressing.  FO stated that the challenge now was with social media and making sure that those who are tweeting on an issue are linked back to the original information provided by the Council.  Often these individuals won’t do this because they have a specific counter agenda.

8.14  Mayor Glanville added here that this was a Public Affairs issue rather than one of rebuttal and it was about how you construct the argument in the first place.  It was vital that consultations were operated totally professionally and so could withstand any potential Judicial Review.  He added that on the SEND issue they had come late to it and did not establish clearly enough in the public’s mind that there was a major funding gap.  PC added that one of the challenges for the team was to keep across what the entire organisation was doing at any one time.  TS added that if the Council can get in early with engagement e.g. Dalston Conversation or the Britannia consultation that it can capture other sets of voices who might be being overlooked.  From this another narrative would emerge from another group of people.  If this is done well the Council would then not be caught on the back foot on an emerging issue.

8.15  Cllr Coban stated that the Skills Employment and Growth Commission recently had very successful engagement with community leaders who facilitated conversations with local businesses.  PC commended this.  She also added that in the past there had perhaps been too much reliance on community leaders, who on closer examination were found to have been more self-appointed than representative. The Council will always be looking to people who are better connected to allow it to engage more deeply with certain groups but that generally the Council needed to be more confident about going and having direct conversations with residents.  The Mayor added that it was also important that people are not paid to give views or provide access.

8.16  The Chair thanked officers for the short Members survey which the Panel would study.  She asked whether there were ideas on developing more deliberative democracy in areas which are undergoing rapid change. She also asked about the role of Scrutiny in terms of communication and engagement work.  Because of pressure of time the item had to conclude but PC replied that she would be happy to come back to the Commission on this issue at a future meeting.