Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received from Mr D Anson MBE, Mr H Cadd, Mrs B Jennings, Mr P Rogerson and Mrs R Vigor-Hedderly.

Contributor

Avril Davies, Chairman of the Public Engagement & Consultation Task and Finish Group

Purpose

The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group will outline the reasons for the review.

Papers

• Draft Public Engagement and Consultation Scoping Document

The Chairman welcomed members to the meeting.

Members then discussed the format for the review, and who should be invited to provide information and evidence.

The following points were made:

·         The Council Consultation Policy should be looked at, including the Council’s definition of a Consultation. Kim Parfitt (Senior Communications Officer) and Sarah Ashmead (Head of
Policy, Performance and Communications) should be invited to speak to members about this. The Deputy Leader could also be invited to give information on the process for consultations.

·         Current and past consultations should be looked at, as well as the process used for consultations (who decides that a consultation is needed? Where is the democratic, member-led process? Is a consultation always needed? How do you ensure that a consultation is representative? For consultations which affected most/all residents, e.g. changes to libraries or buses, how were residents being targeted for consultation?)

·         Consultations looked at could include the Bucks Debate, Waste Disposal (energy from waste), changes to bus routes (although this had already been discussed in some detail by the Overview and Scrutiny Commissioning Committee), changes in library hours and changes to Day Care services. The Cabinet Member and officer should be invited to speak about each of these.

·         A Parish Council should be questioned about their view of Council consultations. It was suggested that this be a Parish Council from South Bucks (e.g. Gerrards Cross, Denham or Iver).

·         A questionnaire (four questions) could also be sent through the Bucks Association of Local Councils (BALC) by e-mail to Parish Councils. This could include asking them if they would like to attend to give evidence.

·         A Notice of motion which had been passed at full Council some years previously, to change ‘consultations’ to ‘public engagement,’ should be looked at.

·         Officers who led on consultations within services did not seem to take a consistent approach.

·         A consultation portal existed. All consultations should be included on the consultation portal and in theory the results from these consultations should feed into Cabinet and Cabinet Member decisions.

·         Campaigners’ interests were not always the same as patients’/clients’ interests.

·         A question needed to be asked about whether outcomes from consultations were deliverable – do consultations raise false expectations?

·         A countywide e-mail service should exist to contact residents for consultations, although it was also noted that ‘one size does not fit all.’

·         The Consultation Institute could be contacted as part of the Review. Ben Page, Chief Executive of Ipsos Mori, could also be contacted.

·         Members of the Residents’ Panel could also be contacted to find out if they felt that their input to consultations had been worthwhile.

·         The Transport for London website listed upcoming consultations, and could be looked at as a model.

·         A previous waste disposal consultation had been carried out through professionally-facilitated events, which had been effective.

·         Elected members should be consulted separately to residents.

·         Public engagement did not always mean that anyone needed to respond.

·         When constraints (e.g. budget) meant that no choice was available, residents should be provided with information,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Contributors

All members of the Task and Finish Group

Purpose

This is an opportunity for members of the Task and Finish Group to discuss the draft scoping document, the witnesses that they would like to question to supplement the desk based research, and the potential lines of questioning.

Papers

• None

See agenda item 3