Consultation as Democratic Infrastructure
Why strengthening consultation standards is essential to democratic renewal and better places.
Everyday democracy does not need to be invented - it needs to be taken seriously.
Consultation, populism and complexity
The rise of populism in our political decision making poses a challenge to consultation. Complex problems are often framed as having simple answers, amplified by online dynamics that reward certainty over reflection.
Deliberation within consultation offers a counterbalance. It creates space for people - including those not usually heard - to weigh evidence, understand constraints and appreciate competing values.
For elected representatives, this is not a threat. Politicians already navigate complexity and trade-offs daily. Inviting the public into that space can strengthen decision-making, legitimacy and mutual understanding - often more effectively than traditional surgeries or adversarial online debate.
Across the UK, consultation is one of the most established - and most misunderstood - democratic practices. It is routinely criticised as tokenistic or transactional. Yet it remains one of the few democratic tools that is embedded in law, policy and everyday decision-making across planning, health, transport, the environment, local government and beyond.
At a time of declining trust, rising populism and growing complexity in public decision-making, we often hear calls for democratic innovation to strengthen voice and legitimacy. I share that ambition. But I also hear, increasingly, from public servants who are exhausted by engagement processes that feel like tick-box exercises. Many want to work in more relational, collaborative ways - yet low trust, risk aversion and institutional expectations can make this difficult. This matters particularly for public servants, local leaders and engagement practitioners who sit at the intersection of democratic ambition, legal duty and delivery reality.
This raises a critical question: how do we strengthen trust through strengthening consultation itself? Are we prepared to take consultation seriously as part of our democratic infrastructure, and to embed new expectations that encourage deliberation more intentionally within it? After all it is a powerful part of out democratic structure.
Democratic innovation and the missed opportunity of consultation
Recent debates about democratic renewal have rightly focused on deliberative approaches: citizens' assemblies, juries, participatory budgeting and digital engagement. These are important developments and approaches I have worked with for nearly 30 years. Too often, however, they are conducted in isolation as a pilot or one off and not linked to a process of consultation more broadly. This separation is a missed opportunity for UK residents and those serving them.
Rather than drawing attention away from consultation, deliberative innovations offer something more powerful: the chance to strengthen consultation by embedding deliberation and improving legitimacy, quality and outcomes at scale.
Consultation is not broken - our expectations of it are
Many people have experienced consultations that feel rushed, inaccessible, overly technical or disconnected from decisions. They are asked to respond to a dense document, late in the process, with little clarity, if any, about what influence their contribution will have. It is understandable, then, that consultation is frequently framed as a failure. But this critique often mistakes poor practice for a broken principle.
In the UK, consultation is underpinned by:
- Statutory duties across major public services
- A strong body of legal precedent
- Existing guidance, professional expertise and institutional memory
Whilst statutory duties and guidance vary across sectors, for example between health and social care, planning and infrastructure, the Gunning principles remain constant across all domains - that consultation should take place at a formative stage, provide sufficient information, allow adequate time for response, and involve conscientious consideration of responses. They already set a high bar.
The foundations for meaningful consultation already exist.
The challenge is not always absence, but can often be ambition, capacity and consistency.
When consultation is treated as a compliance exercise, it will deliver little value. When it is treated as a meaningful democratic moment - one that enables people to grapple with evidence, constraints and trade-offs - it can strengthen both decisions and trust.
From consultation to everyday democracy
We are living through overlapping economic, environmental and social crises. Public institutions are under strain, and it is tempting to conclude that "the system can't cope" with deeper public engagement.
The real question is not whether we have the capacity for a more deliberative form of everyday democracy, but whether we choose to use and improve what already exists. Seen in this light, consultation is not a burden on the system. It is one of its structural assets.
As with any participatory approach, poor practice can damage confidence. We see this when activities are labelled as citizens' assemblies or participatory budgeting without meeting the standards that give those approaches credibility. The same is true for consultation.
Done well, consultation can feel very different - even transformative. Consultees can find themselves learning, weighing evidence and engaging with complexity in ways that mirror how elected members and officers already work.
When done well, ongoing consultation:
- Enables co-design and co-production
- Builds relational knowledge between institutions and communities
- Creates space for people to engage with complexity, not just express preference
- Supports better place-making by grounding decisions in lived experience
Why deliberation matters, and why standards are key
The next step is not to replace consultation with deliberative democracy, but to blend them intentionally.
Deliberation brings time, information, diversity and reflection. Consultation brings reach, legitimacy and scale. Together, they can help resolve long-standing tensions in public decision-making: being close enough to influence outcomes, while retaining integrity and trust.
This is where standards matter.
The recent consultation on new UK consultation standards - led by the Centre for Consultation - closed in December. Findings revealed strong support for:
- Embedding deliberative principles within consultation
- Building trust through transparency and feedback
- Addressing power-sharing more explicitly
- Moving beyond transactional engagement
Standards/guidelines/ingredients make this practical by giving public servants confidence and permission to design consultation that is more deliberative, relational and meaningful. They:
- Set clear expectations without prescribing a single method
- Reinforce existing legal principles such as fairness, adequate time and conscientious consideration
- Normalise deliberative elements - time, balance, reflection - within consultation
- Give public servants confidence to work differently
- Shift practice without waiting for new legislation
In this sense, standards are not constraints; they are enablers. Using what we already have - and raising expectations.
There is understandable urgency in calls to change how decisions are made. But democratic innovation often moves slowly. Improving how we consult - and embedding standards that clearly signal what people can expect - offers a practical way to institutionalise deliberation now.
What has been missing is a shared expectation that consultation should design in deliberation, learning and trust-building, rather than treating these as optional extras.
Training is an important first step, but it is not enough. Cultural change is more likely when expectations are embedded in standards, leadership signals and institutional norms.
If we raise the bar now - even modestly - the cumulative impact over five years could be significant: more confident institutions, more informed publics, and a stronger foundation for deeper democratic innovation.
Risks
This approach is not without risk.
Bureaucratisation: Standards can become procedural and defensive if poorly designed. They must feel enabling, not burdensome.
Token deliberation: Superficial use of deliberative elements risks doing more harm than good.
These are not reasons to step back. They are reasons to design carefully and learn continuously.
Crucially, not everyone will be selected for a citizens assembly or panel. Consultation therefore has an integral role to play in ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to engage meaningfully with the trade-offs that shape decisions.
A moment to act
We are at a pivotal moment.
The next iteration of UK consultation standards is now being shaped. There is clear appetite for consultation that builds trust, addresses power more openly and embeds deliberation as a normal part of public decision-making.
This is not about abandoning consultation for something new. It is about strengthening what we already have, raising expectations, and improving the everyday experience of democracy.
If we normalise deliberation within consultation, wider democratic change may become not only more achievable, but more widely supported.
Call to action
If you are interested in:
- Strengthening consultation as democratic infrastructure
- Embedding deliberation, trust-building and power awareness into everyday decision-making
- Shaping the next iteration of UK consultation standards
Now is the time to get involved.
Tax Consultations Are Coming
But HMRC Must Do Better for Them to Count
The Autumn Budget 2025 brought with it another round of fiscal adjustments, political commentary and the now-familiar debate about the sustainability of the UK’s public finances. But in the midst of this, HMRC issued a message that deserves serious attention:
“The government is announcing plans to consult on numerous measures. We value your feedback and insight on how we modernise the tax system and implement upcoming changes.”
This should be welcome news. For years, tax policy has remained one of the least participatory domains of public decision-making, largely shielded from consultation on the grounds of economic volatility or behavioural risk. If HMRC is signalling a shift towards listening, that is encouraging.
But wanting to consult is one thing. Being ready to consult well is quite another. And right now, the experience of navigating HMRC consultations - and understanding their influence - shows a system that is far from consultation-ready.
The promise of consultation is not the practice of consultation
On paper, HMRC already operates a “Tax Policy Consultations” page. It is intended to show ongoing and closed consultations and to help stakeholders track what is open.
In reality, the page is difficult to use. It takes multiple clicks to find consultations. Links labelled “open” sometimes lead to consultations that have already closed. It is often impossible to see how responses have shaped decisions, or even how many responses were received.
This matters. Consultation is not just about gathering views; it is about building legitimacy, trust and understanding.
When a government says “We want your feedback,” but the mechanism for giving that feedback is labyrinthine, opaque or inconsistent, it communicates the opposite message -
that participation is optional, peripheral, or symbolic.
The core challenges - and why they cannot be ignored
From our analysis and experience, several barriers prevent HMRC’s consultation approach from being fit for purpose:
- Poor navigation and excessive friction
Users must jump between GOV.UK sections, filters and secondary pages before they can even locate a consultation. This excludes all but the most determined.
- Misleading status information
“Open” often leads to “Closed.”
“Closed” rarely shows what happened next.
And “Concluded” is sometimes a dead end.
This creates confusion and weakens accountability.
- Low response numbers - when numbers are published at all
Some consultations attract only a handful of responses. Others do not report numbers.
Either scenario raises questions about representativeness, outreach and impact.
- A lack of visible impact (“You said, We did”)
Even where responses are summarised, it’s often unclear:
What changed because of this? What didn’t? Why?
Without this transparency, consultation risks becoming a performative exercise.
- Accessibility barriers for citizens
Tax is complex - but that is not an excuse for consultation to be. Clear language, plain-English summaries and inclusive design principles are essential if HMRC genuinely wants broad participation.
The social contract is under strain
At the heart of taxation lies an implicit agreement: citizens contribute financially on the understanding that they will receive services, infrastructure, security and support in return.
That social contract is fraying.
People feel they are paying more and receiving less. Public services are stretched. Trust is fragile.
A well-designed consultation process - one that listens, explains, and responds - can help rebuild this contract by showing taxpayers that their voice is valued and their lived experience matters.
Early participation prevents unintended consequences
Too many policies collapse into crisis because the consequences for real people were not understood soon enough.
We have seen the fallout:
- (Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI women) - caught by poorly communicated pension-age changes
- Carer’s Allowance - with thousands facing unexpected debts or sanctions
- Benefit reforms that created hardship because people were not brought into the design early enough
Proper consultation helps avoid these failures. It surfaces risks, identifies gaps, and uncovers the real-world impacts policymakers may not see from Whitehall.
Good consultation is not a brake on policy. It is a safeguard against avoidable harm.
Good consultation on tax is possible - but it requires a step change
A credible tax consultation framework would include:
- A clear public dashboard showing all open, upcoming and recently closed consultations
- Direct links to response mechanisms - not multi-stage navigation
- Plain English explainer summaries breaking down proposals and impacts
- Proactive engagement to reach underrepresented groups
- Consistent publication of response summaries (including response counts)
- Transparency about influence - what feedback changed, what feedback didn’t, and why
- A commitment to continuous improvement
These are not “nice to haves.” They are essential if consultation is to be more than a procedural announcement.
The Centre for Consultation’s view
We welcome the government’s commitment to consult on a wider set of tax changes. This represents progress toward a more open and participatory approach to one of the most critical areas of public policy.
The infrastructure and practice must now catch up with the rhetoric. If HMRC is serious about involving the public and stakeholders in tax reform, they need to modernise not just the tax system but the consultation system.
The UK deserves a consultation process that:
- is transparent,
- easy to navigate,
- representative,
- inclusive, and
- visibly influential.
At the Centre for Consultation, we would be happy to support HMRC, or any department, in building a consultation approach that meets those standards. The opportunity to involve people in shaping fiscal policy is enormous. But only if the process works, and only if every consultation counts.
Is participatory budgeting the answer to the budget conundrum?
It’s budget week and the weeks of speculation are about to crystallise into a set of firm changes to the taxation and spending approaches of the UK Government. If you pay attention to current affairs you will be aware of weeks of leaks, suggestions, speculation and conjecture – be it about whether there would be an increase in income tax, a reduction in the cash ISA allowance, road charges for electric cars or an increase on taxes on pensions.
This is what public affairs people call ‘rolling the lawn’ – preparing citizens, and perhaps more importantly, markets for the forthcoming changes. After the Liz Truss budget, which made huge and unexpected changes to tax policy, the noise ahead of the budget has become deafening. One key lesson from the Truss budget was that the government needs to have given advance signals of what it’s going to do.
This roll of the lawn is particularly significant because it is clear that there needs to be radical action to sort the public finances. There will need to be substantial cuts, or big tax increases. There has been lots of discussion about how we need a new social settlement to face the challenges of the future, such as the ageing society, including this BBC Radio 4 documentary which deals with the broader issues well.
Of course, the budget delivered by the Chancellor is one area where consultation has not been seen as a requirement. It is a mistake. Of course, there is a good reason not to consult – often signalling tax changes will result in perverse behaviour. If the government says it is going to raise fuel duty, it will trigger a run on petrol as people try to fill up before the tax is applied. This often happened on budget day itself.
Friend of the Centre, Rhion Jones has been arguing that there should be a consultation on the budget. This is right – and might help to avoid the speculation during budget season. I agree, and I offer below some thoughts on how we might do that.
In the late 1980s the Conservative government decided to change the system of local taxation, moving from a system based wholly on property values to one paid on the basis of the number of people living in a property – a Poll Tax. They did no consultation, and it resulted in a mass revolt, with police horses charging protesters in Trafalgar Square. Eventually it brought down Margaret Thatcher. It was replaced by the Council Tax, a hastily developed proposal with features of house valuation and discounts for individuals living alone. The failure to consult on the Poll Tax created much of our contemporary consultation culture. You can read this fascinating debate in the House of Commons demanding consultation and a referendum if you’re really interested!
Council tax is the most egregious example of a tax that urgently needs to change, it seems yet again we will see no change. Eye catchingly the last property valuation for houses in England and Scotland was before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Council Tax payers entering their mid-30s are paying tax on the basis of a valuation from before they were born. And as we all know, house prices have changed radically since the 90s. Northern Ireland continues with the old system of domestic rates, which are based on the value of a property. There was a revaluation in Wales, and some additional bands have been added to the tax,
Indeed, Council Tax has played a not insignificant role in driving rises in house prices, by effectively reducing the tax on larger properties.
But despite being a rushed proposal, it has proved almost impossible to reform. Despite ongoing promises in Scotland successive governments have found it impossible to revalue or replace. There has been no action at all in England.
This isn’t because of ineptitude, it is because any change requires broad social consent. Just looking at the ferocious response to the changes in inheritance tax for farms shows how contentious changes to taxation can be. And the Council Tax has a particular characteristic that makes it difficult to change. In order for most people to benefit from a change, a small number of people will have to pay much more. This is because it is a very regressive tax. Because the top rate is set at a relatively low value and the formula used to fund local authorities, multimillion pound houses in London are paying less than family homes in the north of England. The Guardian points out that “According to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the north-east is England’s highest-paying region, with the typical band D property facing annual bills of £2,425. That’s £444 more than Greater London, which has the lowest average at £1,981.” But try to change that and you will provoke a great deal of anger about the small number of cases where a family home sees a massive increase in tax.
What we need is a much richer process of discussion where we can understand the impact of tax and spend policies on how we organise our society. We have failed to do this since the 1980s, and the result is citzens feeling that money is being spent poorly. There is a widespread feeling that we areovertaxed and that public services are failing across the board.
We could learn some lessons from elsewhere. Participatory budgeting was developed in Porto Alegre, Brazil to help citizens understand how the public finances worked after the end of a military dictatorship. In the UK it has been used well for what are, in the grand scheme of local government finances,small pots of discretionary funding – community funds, infrastructure levies, distribution of proceeds of crime money of between £50,000 and £3m and so on. But we could do a much broader process, letting people understand how much public services cost, and what taxes could be used to fund them. In England the OBR estimates that 25% of local government expenditure comes from Council Tax. In Scotland it is only around 20% of the money raised by Local Government comes from Council Tax, yet almost any conversation about local services will lead you to hear people who believe it covers almost allexpenditure complaining that it is too high and there is lots of waste.
And this is just one tax, there is plenty of opportunity for discussion about the broad range of taxes. And having a broad understanding of how tax works would make our society and our politics much more effective.
It would be fitting that the Council Tax offers the opportunity to move toward more participation in the design of taxes, given its inception as a back-of-the-envelope replacement for the Poll Tax.
This move to participation could happen at local scale, where we need to redesign local services or prioritise spending. But it needs to happen if we are to understand how we can fund services into the future. As a Centre we would love to support a national participatory budgeting process, the time has come to put our extensive learning on how to involve people in financial decision making into the really big questions.
How to Run a Meaningful Consultation When the Issue is Contentious, Emotional, or Politically Charged
It’s one of the questions we’re asked most often:
“How do you consult meaningfully when the topic is so sensitive that anything you say could inflame tensions?”
These are the moments when consultation feels both essential and impossible. When the stakes are high, whether it’s a service redesign, school reorganisation, or a politically sensitive policy, trust can be fragile, opinions entrenched, and every word scrutinised.
Yet it’s exactly at these moments that meaningful consultation matters most. Handled well, it doesn’t just gather views, it strengthens relationships, legitimacy, and decision-making. Handled poorly, it can deepen division and damage trust for years.
At the Centre for Consultation, we’ve supported organisations through some of the most complex and emotive consultations in the public sector. Here are the strategies we know make the biggest difference - grounded in both practice and law.
1. Start with honesty
Transparency is the foundation of lawful consultation. The first Gunning Principle requires that consultation takes place at a formative stage, before decisions are made. That means acknowledging sensitivities, constraints, and context upfront.
People can handle complexity, but they won’t tolerate spin. When organisations seek to “manage” the message, they risk breaching the very principle of fairness the courts expect.
The Coughlan judgment (1999) reminds us that consultees must have sufficient information to respond intelligently. Being upfront about what is known, what is still being explored, and what cannot change establishes credibility and builds trust.
2. Engage early
Early involvement is not only good practice, it’s a safeguard. Engaging before options are fixed honours the first and second Gunning Principles: consultation must be genuine, and sufficient information must be provided for meaningful participation.
In our experience, early dialogue helps diffuse tension by giving stakeholders ownership in shaping the problem definition itself. It is far easier to maintain trust when people feel they have helped shape the process, rather than being asked to react to a pre-determined outcome.
3. Design for deliberation, not defence
Contentious consultations often fail because they are designed for compliance, not conversation. The Tameside duty (1977) requires decision-makers to take reasonable
steps to inform themselves, and deliberative methods can be one of the most effective ways to meet that obligation.
Instead of one-way feedback mechanisms, create opportunities for people to explore trade-offs, share lived experience, and test emerging options. Workshops, stakeholder panels, and facilitated dialogues enable decision-makers to balance evidence, values, and voices, turning disagreement into deeper understanding.
4. Create psychological safety
Meaningful engagement requires emotional safety. Whether in community meetings or staff forums, participants need to know their input will be treated respectfully and without prejudice.
This principle of fairness underpins the third and fourth Gunning Principles - that consultation responses must be conscientiously considered, and that the process must not be a tick-box exercise.
Psychological safety is built through clear ground rules, neutral facilitation, and visible balance in materials and communications. When people feel heard, they are far more likely to accept the outcome, even when it’s not their preferred one.
5. Close the loop visibly
The Bracking case (2013) emphasised that decision-makers must demonstrate how they have taken responses into account, especially where equality impacts are concerned.
Closing the loop visibly is both a legal and ethical imperative. It means showing consultees what has changed as a result of their input, what hasn’t, and why.
Even where views diverge, this transparency reduces challenge risk and increases legitimacy. As the courts have repeatedly held, fairness is not about agreement - it’s about genuine consideration.
From conflict to constructive conversation
When handled with integrity and care, contentious consultations can be transformative. They surface insight, strengthen legitimacy, and build public confidence in decision-making.
Meaningful consultation isn’t about avoiding conflict - it’s about creating the conditions for better, braver conversations that meet both the spirit and letter of the law.
At the Centre for Consultation, we support public bodies to design, deliver, and document consultations that are both defensible and meaningful, even when the issues are most difficult.
If you’d like to explore how we can help your organisation build confidence and capability in complex consultation, get in touch.
Who Speaks for Patients Now? Keeping Independent Voices Alive After Healthwatch
Last week’s announcement that the government plans to abolish Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch bodies, as part of a sweeping “bonfire of NHS quangos”, has sparked understandable alarm. These changes, we are told, will reduce bureaucracy and free up £250 million a year to be reinvested into frontline services. Efficiency in healthcare is vital. Yet as an organisation dedicated to best practice in public consultation and engagement, we must ask: at what cost to meaningful patient voice and local accountability?
The risk is clear. In stripping away dedicated, independent structures for listening to patients and communities, we could easily find ourselves saving money on oversight only to pay dearly later in the form of poorly designed services, worsening health inequalities, and public mistrust.
Consultation isn’t bureaucracy - it’s better healthcare
It is tempting in these straitened times to label local Healthwatch bodies and other patient advocacy structures as mere bureaucracy. But true consultation is not a box-ticking exercise. It is the means by which health services understand the needs, concerns and lived experiences of people who rely on them, and design services that work.
When The Centre for Consultation supports NHS trusts, local authorities and Integrated Care Systems, we see time and again how rigorous engagement improves outcomes. Whether it is working alongside a health organisation to co-produce clinical service options with the community or helping to develop plans with seldom-heard groups, the lesson is always the same: those who use services know best what is needed. Consultation is not an add-on; it is a safeguard against costly mistakes.
The NHS App is no substitute for co-design
The government points to the NHS App as a future vehicle for patient feedback. Digital tools absolutely have a place in gathering views, but only after decisions have been taken and services implemented. They can flag problems, but they cannot co-design solutions. They do not bring people together to discuss trade-offs, generate options, or jointly decide on priorities.
More importantly, digital-only approaches risk entrenching inequality. Older people, those with learning disabilities, people living in poverty or rural isolation, these groups are often least likely to engage online, yet most dependent on local health services. Healthwatch teams across the country have provided an essential bridge, visiting care homes, holding drop-ins at community centres, and gathering stories from those who would otherwise go unheard.
When we conflate efficiency with stripping away local, face-to-face, often relationship-based engagement, we risk missing the very insights that lead to better services.
Who will ensure patient voice shapes the redesign?
All of this is happening in parallel with the dismantling of NHS communications and engagement functions, precisely at the point when ministers are signalling a fundamental redesign of the health service. If these proposals are about reshaping how care is delivered, where will the patient voice come from? Who will ensure that people and communities shape decisions before they are made, not just react to them afterwards? Who will champion the perspectives of those least likely to self-advocate, or to fill in an app survey?
There is also the crucial question of independence. Local Healthwatch bodies, while funded by local authorities, have a statutory duty to speak up for patients, even when that means uncomfortable truths for NHS leaders or councils. They have powers to enter and view services, to escalate concerns, and to publish reports in the public interest.
In our own work, we have seen how independent patient voice can change the course of major decisions, highlight gaps in support, and ensure vulnerable groups are protected. Without these checks, the temptation grows to plan services for the majority, overlooking those whose needs are less visible or more complex.
Now is the time to innovate, not retreat
Rather than dismantle independent local patient voice structures, this could have been the moment to strengthen them. To explore new models of co-production, from permanent citizens’ panels that shape health priorities, to embedded patient leadership programmes that equip people with lived experience to scrutinise and co-design services.
It is telling that international best practice, from the WHO’s Healthy Communities frameworks to NHS England’s own Integrated Care principles, all highlight the importance of partnership with communities and shared decision-making. Cutting local independent engagement risks placing us out of step with these very standards.
Who will speak for patients now?
If Healthwatch as we know it disappears, who will ensure patients are heard, not just surveyed? Who will champion the voices of those least likely to self-advocate, or to navigate an app, or to file a formal complaint?
It will fall to local health systems, councils, and voluntary sector partners to find new ways to fill the gap. The Centre for Consultation stands ready to support this work, designing robust engagement frameworks, training staff in inclusive facilitation, and ensuring that voices which most need to be heard are not left behind.
But we also call on government and local leaders to set out clearly how independent scrutiny and meaningful patient involvement will be safeguarded in this new landscape. Patient voice is not an optional luxury; it is the foundation of high-quality, equitable healthcare.
From Wales to Westminster: What the EMRTS judicial review means for NHS consultation across the UK
The recent ruling in Lowri Evans v Aneurin Bevan University Local Health Board ([2025] EWHC 1518) doesn’t just clarify consultation duties in NHS Wales, it has important implications for service change and engagement practice across the UK.
At its heart is a simple but powerful legal message:
“Regardless of the label to be attached to it, the process of engagement did, in fact, amount to a consultation.” — Mr Justice Turner
In other words, if an engagement process resembles a consultation, it will be tested like one in court.
So, what does that mean for England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland?
🏥 England - ICBs, service reconfiguration, and engagement boundaries
Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) in England face growing scrutiny over how they handle engagement in service changes. This judgment brings two major takeaways:
Labels don't protect you: Calling a process “engagement” won’t prevent it being treated as a “consultation” in legal terms. If it involves options appraisal, widespread stakeholder input, and a decision-making endpoint, it may cross that line.
Gunning compliance is still king: Even informal engagement could be challenged against the Gunning Principles, if it influences major decisions.
That means:
Clear presentation of options (Gunning 1)
A genuine willingness to listen (Gunning 2)
Adequate time (Gunning 3)
Decision-makers properly considering views (Gunning 4)
💡 For ICBs:
This ruling reinforces the need for careful documentation, internal governance, and early legal review, even when using “pre-consultation” engagement. Especially with contentious changes, assume challenge is possible and design accordingly.
🏴 Scotland – Reinforcing the role of engagement in decision-making
In Scotland, formal consultation duties fall under guidance such as CEL 4 (2010) for major service change, overseen by the Scottish Government Health Directorate.
This Welsh ruling doesn’t bind Scottish courts, but it does support the increasing weight courts are placing on the quality of engagement, not just the tick-box of consultation.
🧭 Key parallels for Scotland:
The Scottish model values co-production and engagement early in the change process. This judgment affirms that meaningful engagement can carry significant legal and policy weight—but the threshold for when formal consultation is needed remains high-stakes.
Where decisions are made at Health Board level without Scottish Government sign-off (for “non-major” change), the principles still apply. If stakeholders feel misled or excluded, the risk of judicial review grows.
💡 For Boards in Scotland:
Now is a good time to review whether your “engagement-only” routes could be challenged. The concept of “engagement that functions like consultation” is relevant, even under a devolved legal framework.
🍀 Northern Ireland – Lessons for non-statutory joint working and scrutiny
In Northern Ireland, consultation remains a sensitive and high-risk area, particularly following cases like the Hyponatraemia Inquiry and ongoing reforms to Health and Social Care structures.
The Welsh case brings two important signals:
Joint decision-making bodies (without statutory footing) can withstand scrutiny, if their engagement and governance are sound. This could be encouraging for new collaborative forums or Programme Boards operating across Trust boundaries.
The threshold for what triggers consultation is still contestable. Where Trusts or the Department of Health use engagement as a precursor to reconfiguration, they must be aware that Courts may still treat the process as a de facto consultation.
💡 For NI stakeholders:
While our statutory guidance and legal precedents differ, this case suggests that Courts are willing to consider function over form. That means robust engagement still matters, even in the absence of formal consultation triggers.
👀 Final thought: Mind the gap between engagement and consultation
Across the UK, this case serves as a reminder that it’s not the terminology that matters, it’s the substance of the process.
Whether you’re in Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, the risks are the same:
If stakeholders think they were misled about the nature of the process
If the engagement was pro forma or selective
Or if decisions are seen as pre-determined
Then the Court may look at what you actually did, not what you called it.
📘 Want to explore the judgment in full? Read it here:
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2025/1518
🧩 With consultation and engagement experts in each of the four UK jurisdictions, we are happy to discuss further, especially if you’re in the middle of designing or closing out an engagement or consultation process. There’s a lot to take from this case.
If it walks like a consultation… Judicial review sheds new light on NHS engagement in Wales
A recent High Court ruling has provided welcome clarity, and some surprise, for those of us working in NHS engagement and consultation. In Lowri Evans v Aneurin Bevan University Local Health Board ([2025] EWHC 1518), the Court upheld the lawfulness of changes to the Emergency Medical Retrieval and Transfer Service (EMRTS), despite no formal public consultation taking place.
The decision, taken by the NHS Wales Joint Committee after three rounds of engagement, has big implications for how consultation duties are interpreted, especially when engagement is extensive, and decisions are controversial.
⚖️ What was the case about?
The case challenged a decision to reconfigure EMRTS bases in mid and north Wales, affecting services for residents in Tywyn and surrounding areas. Two of the seven Health Boards represented on the Joint Committee opposed the decision, and the claimant argued that a formal consultation was required under statutory guidance.
The Court disagreed.
🧭 The key takeaway: Engagement can amount to consultation
The Honourable Mr Justice Turner ruled that even though no formal consultation took place, the depth and nature of the engagement meant it was, in effect, a consultation. This allowed him to test it against the Gunning Principles, the legal standards that apply to formal consultations.
“Regardless of the label to be attached to it, the process of engagement did, in fact, amount to a consultation.” Mr Justice Turner
This reinforces a message for decision-makers: if engagement looks and feels like consultation, it will be treated as such in court. That can be a good thing, if the engagement is done well.
🏛️ A vote of confidence in joint decision-making
The judgment also offers reassurance about the governance of the NHS Wales Joint Committee. Although it’s not a statutory body, and despite two health boards voting against the change, the Court accepted its legitimacy and decision-making authority.
This could help settle past concerns about whether these joint arrangements are sufficiently robust to withstand legal challenge.
🗣️ The evolving role of Llais
This is the first case to explore the role of Llais, the new citizen voice body for Wales, and was implemented midway during the engagement process. While not all of its representations were presented in full to the Committee, and not all recommendations were acted upon, the Court was satisfied that the statutory duty to “take account” of its views had been fulfilled.
This will be reassuring for both Health Boards and Llais as they navigate their respective roles in future service change.
📝 What this means for consultation practitioners
This case is likely to be cited often. Not just in Wales, but across the UK, particularly where NHS organisations must decide:
Whether engagement alone is enough
How to design a process that stands up in court
When guidance (as opposed to law) can and should be flexibly interpreted
Perhaps the most enduring sentiment is - if it smells and tastes like a consultation, then it is a consultation! A well-designed engagement process, with clear options appraisal and stakeholder input, may be sufficient, even in the absence of a “formal” consultation process.
👀 What next?
There is no indication (yet) of an appeal. But this case will be of interest to those currently closing out or planning service changes across Wales, and beyond – look out for our summary on UK wide implications.
From Community Funds to Community Power: Rethinking Social Value in Infrastructure
This morning’s webinar (19-06-25) on “Making social value a key component of project development: engaging and investing in communities to deliver bespoke benefits” brought together a panel from national grid, off shore wind, and the water industry.
We were asked to Chair this by Waterfront Conference Company. 35 participants joined us to explore how infrastructure projects can deliver more than just tick-box benefits for communities.
The message was clear: social value isn’t just about community funds or charitable gestures. It’s about listening, learning, and building long-term, meaningful relationships with the people most affected by big programmes and decisions.
Big Questions, Honest Conversations
The questions from participants were spot-on. People wanted to know:
- How do you get political buy-in when the issues are tricky?
- What are the best tools for making sure communities define their version of social value?
- How can big energy companies respond to calls for shared ownership and fairer investment?
It was great to see such a genuine appetite for change: not just in principle, but in practice.
Some interesting facts I learned
- The Commonwealth Games were expected to deliver £20m in social value, and ended up creating £331m. Proof that intention, done well, can have huge impact.
- The UK is undergoing its biggest energy upgrade in decades:That kind of upgrade needs proper, responsive engagement, not a one-size-fits-all approach.
- Offshore wind is still a young industry, with just 12 farms (mainly in the Irish Sea and southern North Sea) powering around 5.5 million homes. The new ones being built are twice as big.
- Ørsted has already invested £11.5 million into four community benefit funds. Imagine the potential if that was delivered with communities through participatory budgeting?
People talked a lot about:
- The need to understand communities at a micro level
- The importance of mapping influence and relationships, not just organisations
- Using community funds more creatively to build local wealth, support smaller groups, and leave a longer legacy
And crucially, there was a strong sense that consultation and social value aren’t separate: they should work together.
How Can The Centre for Consulation help?
At the Centre for Consultation, this is exactly the kind of work we support. We help organisations make sure their engagement is more than a requirement and that it could be a meaningful part of delivering social value. We can support teams to
- Stakeholder Mapping with Depth
We help teams move beyond simple contact lists and uncover who really matters? who’s trusted? who’s connected? and who’s missing from the conversation? That kind of insight makes all the difference when you’re trying to build something with the community, not just in it. - Sharing Power Through Participation
I have spent decades helping organisations grow social capital and involve communities in real decisions. Whether it’s co-producing ideas, designing participatory budgeting processes, or building trust from the ground up, we help you do it in a way that’s inclusive and doable. - Making Consultation Count
Our Consultation Mark is a practical way to check you’re on track. It’s based on best practice principles and helps you show that your consultation is fair, transparent, and done properly. That’s becoming more important as expectations around community engagement grow.
Final Thought
There’s nothing wrong with using traditional consultation methods when they fit the job. But as more communities ask for shared power, we all need to make sure our engagement keeps up.
That might mean shifting your approach, upskilling your team, or designing more participatory processes.
Whatever stage you’re at, we’re here to help you make sure your consultation really does deliver social value.
👉 Find out more at www.centreforconsultation.org
Fire and Rescue: The Forgotten Emergency Service?
Fire and rescue services have suffered neglect over the last decade, losing nearly £1 billion in capital funding, meaning many fire stations are crumbling, equipment is outdated, and infrastructure needs urgent overhaul according to The Times.
This week’s Government Spending Review provided an opportunity to confront this, but initial measures leave important gaps.
In an exclusive by The Guardian just last week, National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) issued a warning:
Fire stations in England are “falling apart”, fire chiefs have warned, with funding plummeting by an estimated £1bn in the last decade as callouts have increased by a fifth. Fire and rescue must not become the “forgotten emergency service”, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) urged, warning of mounting pressures that “risk undermining public and firefighter safety”, as it responds to more 999 calls with fewer firefighters.
Firefighter numbers in England have dropped by a quarter in seven years, the equivalent of 11,000 full-time staff, according to the government’s workforce statistics.
There has also been an estimated £1bn shortfall in capital funding since the previous government removed a significant grant in 2014-15, which the NFCC said meant services could not maintain or modernise ageing infrastructure, including fire stations.
Failing to reverse this damage could endanger the public and firefighters, said Phil Garrigan, the NFCC chair.
Firefighters are tackling a 20% rise in incidents, yet numbers are down by 25% since 2008, equivalent to 11,000 fewer whole-time firefighters
With safer homes regularly checked and better equipped to prevent fire and the same approach by many businesses there are fewer fires to fight. Increased numbers of road traffic collisions and a 24/7 response to more critical incidents needed, the work of The Fire and Rescue Services and their management of risk has changed over recent years. Rising wildfires and floods driven by climate change and terrorist threats means they are no longer saving cats from trees or attending gangs of youths setting fire to the contents of dustbins..
Fire and Rescue never received a large protected settlement, unlike NHS, police, or transport, suggesting that significant funding for fire isn’t guaranteed. Zero-based budgeting mandates that they must deliver efficiency savings (of at least 5%) and there are varied decision making and governance structures from cross party Fire Authorities hosted by the local council to single party Police Fire and Crime Commissioners (PFCCs) and Mayors.
But the impact is common across the country whatever the politics. There are fewer firefighters per capita, on retained contracts, longer response times and reduced presence in high-risk areas. Despite higher demand, workforce numbers aren’t increasing, putting pressure on crews and support staff.
The 2025 Spending Review and renewed attention to fire services are welcome, but without dedicated capital funding, staff growth, and protection from budgetary cuts, the fire and rescue sector remains at risk and they will need to make difficult decisions about changing the workforce profile, closing fire stations, analysing and reviewing response times to place vehicles and crews at the areas of highest risk.
These decisions will need to be taken having sought the feedback and response from their operational partners and the public. They will particularly have to listen to the views of those who are likely to be most affected by any proposed changes including those who may be disadvantaged by their geography, demography or vulnerability.
Whether this consultation takes place as part of their legal duty to consult on their longer term Community Risk Management Plan or annual local tax precept setting remains to be seen but with all public sector orgainisations under close scrutiny about how they spend the public purse, beware those who cut corners to make a saving and finish up losing out in legal costs as they defend a challenge about the consultation process they implemented to develop their options for change.
In a society which demands transparency about how the public sector receives and spends its money and has a greater expectation to be part of that decision making process, the impact of the spending review remains to be seen, but some will be watching closely!