Privacy International
30th January 2003
Glenda Jackson MP,
House of Commons,
London SW1
Dear Ms Jackson,
I am writing to express my concern over the management and structure of the government's consultation on Entitlement Cards, and in particular to highlight breaches by the Home Office of the government's Code of Practice on Consultations. I am requesting that you refer these concerns to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for investigation.
As you know, the Home Secretary launched the consultation in July. The consultation period ends on January 31st, 2003.
I believe the consultation document on Entitlement Cards breaches the Code of Practice on consultations in several key respects, including lack of necessary detail, lack of any notification of a consultation complaints procedure and a complete absence of either an impact assessment or counter argument. The document has failed to deliver a concrete proposal for public debate and has therefore failed to engage the public's interest.
Section 2 of the Consultation Criteria in the code of practice states:
" A document should so far as possible include an assessment of the impact of the proposals on groups likely to be particularly affected, and every effort should be made to ensure that views are received from all such groups. Departments should always consider whether there is a particular impact by gender, age, ethnicity or disability; in particular regions, or types of area; or on the socially excluded."
The code of practice observes: "The Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment guidelines are relevant here, as is the Cabinet Office Departmental Policy Maker's Rapid Checklist".
No such impact assessment was included in the consultation document. Nor was any reference made to the risk of social exclusion and discrimination, although these are issues that are well documented in the literature on identity cards. Identity cards might have a particular negative impact on the elderly, the mentally ill and the homeless.
The consultation criteria in the code of practice stipulates:
" Documents should… set out the main information and competing arguments relevant to a decision, or say where they can be found. Significant sources of information and opinion outside government should be quoted if relevant, whethe
The document at no point sets out competing arguments. Nor does it point to any sources or references where such competing arguments may be found.
We have communicated these concerns directly to the Home Office, but have received no response. I have attempted on several occasions to identify a formal channel in both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office through which these concerns can be put, but so far without any success. On this point the consultation document again breaches the Code of Practice, which stipulates: "Similar details should be given of someone who will pursue complaints or comments about the consultation process. This should be a person outside the team responsible for the document: it might be the department's consultation coordinator".
I was chairman of the only public meeting on the consultation, held on December 11th comprising hundreds of representatives of business, community organisations and the general public. In my opening remarks I directed these concerns to Home Office Minister Lord Falconer, who was present to give the keynote address. The Minister declined to engage me on the question of the failings of the consultation document and the process.
However these concerns did not escape the audience, which voted almost unanimously to urge the government to extend the consultation period by a further six months. It also urged - again almost unanimously - the government to "take its responsibilities seriously" through genuine leadership in engendering a meaningful public debate.
The government's consultation exercise has been largely meaningless. The document breaches the government's own code of practice on consultations. As a result of these failings, the public at large have not been engaged in the debate that was set as a pre-requisite of the consultation.
I would be grateful if you would refer these concerns to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely
Simon Davies
Director
Privacy International