[IER] FW: Speak out now or risk losing your voice in Whitehall

[Sarah Glenister]

It has been brought to my attention some people are having difficulty
opening the prepared email in the body of this message. If this problem
affects you, please copy and paste the provided text into an email to
seclegscrutiny at parliament.uk.

 

Many thanks

Sarah Glenister

From: ier-elist-bounces at ier.org.uk [mailto:ier-elist-bounces at ier.org.uk] On
Behalf Of Sarah Glenister
Sent: 16 November 2012 11:34
To: ier-elist at ier.org.uk
Subject: [IER] Speak out now or risk losing your voice in Whitehall
Importance: High

 


 <http://> http://www.ier.org.uk/sites/ier.org.uk/files/images/Logo.GIFSpeak
out now or risk losing your voice in Whitehall


16 November 2012

The government has brought in new guidance allowing ministers to provide
just two weeks to consult the public on their proposals rather than the
usual 12 weeks.

Without enough time to gather strong evidence and write a clear and
considered response, the public has been put at a serious disadvantage when
it comes to having our say in policies that affect us all.

This appears to be nothing less than an ideological attack designed to
stifle opposition to the government's policies.


Join us in our campaign to raise our voices on this issue, or risk losing
your chance to speak out in the future


To read our longer report on the change to the government's approach to
consultation,
<http://www.ier.org.uk/blog/govt-gives-opposition-just-two-weeks-respond-con
sultations>  click here

To send a letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has
called for evidence from interested parties on the change to consultation,
please complete the instructions below.

We would also appreciate it if you would join in our fight to have
consultation periods extended by forwarding this information to your friends
and colleagues.

The deadline for responses is 30 November, so please do not delay!


1.
<mailto:seclegscrutiny at parliament.uk?subject=Response%20to%20the%20Governmen
t's%20New%20Approach%20to%20Consulation> Click here to open an email to the
Committee

2.   Copy and paste the below text into the body.

3.   IMPORTANT: Remember to sign the letter with your name, profession and
organisation and feel free to amend any of the text you wish.

For the attention of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

I am writing to indicate my opposition to the government's new approach to
consultation, in which new guidance states consultations may run for just
two weeks instead of the usual 12.

This drastic shortening of consultations makes it prohibitively difficult
for organisations and interested parties to gather evidence and submit a
clear and considered response to proposals. As such, the new approach to
consultation effectively leaves some sections of the public without a voice.

This has been recently evidenced in the cases of two consultation periods
that were reduced to three weeks. Responses to the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills' consultation on "Implementing Employee Owner Status"
required a large amount of research due to the far-reaching implications of
creating a new status of worker. Three weeks was insufficient for
organisations to gather strong evidence of the repercussions to workers,
employers, tribunal procedures and any complications with EU law.

Elsewhere, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' "The
future of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, and
Agricultural Wages Committees and Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory
Committees in England" consultation did not provide enough time for Unite
the Union to complete its legal analysis of the proposals, which it was
suggested may have been illegal. Where major organisations like Unite are
struggling to meet such tight deadlines, smaller bodies with fewer resources
are effectively locked out of the consultation altogether.

I believe every consultation period should be 12 weeks long in order to
ensure all interested parties, regardless of their wealth or size, are able
to provide evidence.

I also do not agree that any previously held public consultations have been
unnecessary and thus oppose any change in guidance to ministers that
suggests some policies can be legislated on without public consultation.
Even where a change to legislation may be described by some as a "technical
amendment", there can be far-reaching implications to UK law.

This has recently been evidenced by the case of the amendment to (s)47 of
the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 that was added to the Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform Bill without consultation. This amendment is not simply a
technicality but in fact overturns employers' 114-year-old strict liability
for the health and safety of their employees, causing major changes to
people's real-life experience of employment law. The government should have
consulted the public before making this amendment.

Finally, I oppose any attempt to restrict responses to digital only. I
believe such a move would disempower those without access to technology. I
also believe on-line responses allow less flexibility in the way respondents
answer the questions.

I urge the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to rescind the
government's new approach to consultation to ensure the voice of the public
continues to be heard in Whitehall.

Signed

 

 

Sarah Glenister

IT Development and Communications Assistant

Institute of Employment Rights

4th Floor, Jack Jones House, 1 Islington, Liverpool, L3 8EG

0151 207 5265

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/ier-elist/attachments/20121116/aaa97074/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1267 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/ier-elist/attachments/20121116/aaa97074/attachment.gif>