Three years ago I wrote a pamphlet, Wasted Rainforests, outlining my view of some of the failings of the Liberal Democrat policy-making process, and some proposals for changes. Since then several aspects of the process have changed – for example, FPC does take much more ownership of its own working groups, and working groups themselves are smaller and more effective, and with broader composition. And at conference we have introduced a number of new items on the timetable, such as ‘urgent issue’ debates, presentations from Council groups and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliamentary teams, which have all reduced the amount of time for debating lots of minor and uncontroversial motions.

This process has been greatly helped by some other developments too – notably the arrival of Greg Simpson into the new post of Head of Policy & Research, and also the arrival of Ming Campbell as Leader and Chair of the FPC.

But one key area where we struggled to make changes, was reducing the length of the time it takes actually to write a policy paper, get it agreed, and then taken to conference for final approval.

This seems to be becoming something of an issue again. So I’ve come back to revisit it, and to put forward some suggestions for how the timetable for writing a policy paper could be radically shortened.

Over the last few years I’ve come to understand that shortening the process is not entirely straightforward, and to grasp better the reasons why the process is as it is. I’ll discuss below what I see as some as the pros and cons of such a radical shortening – there certainly would be some casualties in terms of elements of the process that we currently think are important. So at this stage these are just informed suggestions floated for further discussion rather than definite proposals.

But I thought that if we are going to discuss such a radical change, we might as well have some idea what it is that we are talking about. Obviously anyone else could propose a different way of doing it, and there are plenty of options and variations contained within what’s outlined below – to keep one existing ‘long’ element, but shorten the rest, say – but here are some suggestions.

I’ll divide the existing period of something like 18 months for a policy paper going from FPC decision to set it up, to its debate at conference, into two phases: the “FPC phase” and the “pre-conference phase”.

Central to my ideas for change in both is the adoption of new technology and specifically the internet. Bluntly, when the party was set up in 1988, the way you consulted people and discussed things, was by holding a physical meeting. In 2007, while I would say there certainly is an irreplaceable role for face-to-face meetings, it is much more widespread to consult large numbers of people online. Adjustment of our party’s internal consultation processes to reflect this seems to me an entirely sensible updating of processes – indeed we already now do it to some extent through each policy working group having its own webpage with opportunity for comment .

It is often pointed out that using the internet for discussion excludes those without internet access. While I think we do need to be conscious of this, I think we should also remember that requiring people to spend up to £500 and take a week’s holiday for an autumn conference is also a very significant barrier to participation. Depending on how exactly you define it, perhaps three-quarters of the British public now have internet access, which means that there are a very much larger number of party members able to access the internet than come to conference every year.

So, here is an outline of how I think the first phase of writing a policy paper (the “FPC phase”) could be done in 17 weeks.

Week one: Idea for new policy development is suggested
Week four: FPC decides to create a small working group and appoints it there and then (the “panel” system for potential working group members adopted this year facilitates this)
Weeks four to seven: working group works fast to produce a consultation paper
Weeks seven to thirteen: consultation paper published on a website and whole party invited to comment on it.
Weeks eleven to fifteen: working group works on producing final paper
Weeks fifteen to seventeen: final round of consultation on final paper, with MPs, Lords, MEPs, others and Shadow Cabinet
Week seventeen: FPC approves (or not) the outcome

Many elements of this are eye-wateringly tight, and could be lengthened if desired – for every change to shorten the process, there is a trade-off. Taking evidence from experts in the area concerned – in many cases one of the best parts of the current system – would also have to be fitted in.

Such a system would probably require there to be a small working group who are highly available and able to give a lot of time to working very intensively on it for a few weeks. But in principle I think this is possible and it makes a different starting-point for discussion than the status quo.

An alternative option would be to review the time devoted specifically to “consultation”. If there were no specific time devoted to that, and no “consultation paper”, then a group could have from weeks four to fifteen to work on the final paper. This approach would not at all be incompatible with consulting party members simultaneously while preparing the final paper. I think it’s also fair to ask the question about how many new ideas are currently normally generated or fed in during the consultation period.

The process above only gets us to approval by the FPC. Shortening the subsequent timetable for providing papers to conference reps and allowing them to read and discuss it and submit amendments, is at least as difficult. Because of August I don’t think we could realistically shorten it much from the current timetable for the second deadline for motions for autumn conference. So a possible process could be something like:

Deadline for submission of policy papers by FPC to FCC: July 20
FCC finalises agenda including papers: 31 July
August: papers sent to conference reps (and otherwise a dead month)
First half of September: discussion by local parties
mid-September: deadline for all amendments, and Conference

Doing this would require changes to both the standing orders for conference, to allow all policy papers to be ‘late’ papers in current terms; and also potentially require FPC to hold several meetings in July to approve several papers at the very final stage (this need would be less acute if the process could for some papers operate a month or two before the absolute final timetable constraint).

So this outlines a potential process which could significantly reduce the timetable for a working group from first concept to conference floor, from up to 18 months presently (FPC took the first decisions about papers for Autumn 08 in March/April 07), to about six months. An idea for a policy paper in autumn could first be thought of around 20 March – after Spring Conference – and be debated in the conference floor on about 20 September.

(Though it would be much better if it started life in the December-January-February period, not least because that allows for the possibility that FPC might not actually approve the final paper at its first opportunity!).

So that’s what’s on the table – but would such a change be desirable?

On the upside such a timetable would obviously allow us to respond much more quickly with policy papers. This seems to meet the desire of lots of senior people in the party, and also me, to do so. It is very easy to make the case that deciding in spring 2007 what the major policy papers will be at a conference in a very different political context eighteen months later, does seem less than ideal!

But what would the downsides be?

Well, I am constantly reminded of a comment from someone centrally involved in the party’s policy-making at an earlier stage in its history, that they spent a lot of time trying to lengthen the policy process – and they weren’t doing this just to pursue tardiness and inefficiency! I think their reasons were twofold: firstly to make sure that they really had thought through their proposals and investigated them properly. With the best will in the world this does take some time – and there is some force in the argument that if you’re not going to do this to at least some degree, then why bother to write a paper at all (there are other mechanisms for making policy, after all). And the second is to ensure wide buy-in from different groups of people ranging from Parliamentarians to ordinary members. This is something we do very well at the moment and we shouldn’t take it for granted as a result.

The seventeen-week “FPC process” allows much less time for gathering ideas and contemplating them and seeking alternative views on them. This would be a very significant change – and it would also require a very serious level of commitment and intensive work from those involved, for the four-month period when a group is working. It is difficult to see how it would not be likely to end up with a small group of people who are able to give a lot of time to it, and are based in central London, probably largely in Parliament. This would clearly be a major drawback.

This timescale also simply won’t allow groups to go into the level of detail and engagement with the issue which they do at present. However I do think it is worth questioning whether we do need working groups to go into quite the level of detail which they currently do. I am not sure how much bang for our buck we currently get for the level of detail we invest in – either in terms of additional votes, or even in terms of additional policy credibility. I think there is a strong case for accepting a lower level of detail in papers in return for greater speed – and with several very capable people on a group spending two to three months discussing an area, many with a long history and understanding of the area concerned, the resulting papers are still not going to be exactly superficial.

This timetable would allow a reasonable time – initially six weeks, with further opportunities for MPs later – for people to give their views, but it does rely on them being quite engaged and ready to contribute their views fairly promptly. However conversely I think a shorter process might generate some more excitement and dynamism which would help MPs and others to engage in something more than they might in the current perceived very long process.

Moving on to the “pre-conference” phase, this change would mean effectively taking all papers to the second current deadline for motions for autumn conference, rather than most to the first deadline (which is in mid-May rather than mid-July, giving us the additional two months’ delay). The main reason for having the first deadline is to allow conference reps enough time to read policy papers. I can’t really see that shortening this is a problem – in 2007 I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to expect any conference rep or anyone else who wants to make a contribution, to have only three weeks or a month for reading papers, between about mid to late August and mid-September. FPC members are currently expected to read them within about five days!

The real change comes from the fact that this would mean that all amendments to papers would not be submitted and accepted or rejected for debate, until the very start of Conference. It was mainly for this reason, I think, that FCC rejected this change when it discussed it in 2005. Among the consequences of changing this would be a very serious burden on policy staff and pre-conference processes. These currently work very efficiently but this might make the strain to beyond breaking point. But this balance could be assessed again (and of course it does not have to be FCC which proposes a timetable change to standing orders – anyone could do it).

A third constraint on FPC submitting all its papers at the very final stage is its need to discuss in some depth and approve up to six papers for each autumn conference, which it cannot realistically do at just one meeting. At present these are spread over about four or five meetings in the run up to the second deadline. Changing this could mean shifting the timetable of FPC from regular monthly meetings to having a meeting every week in late June and the first two-thirds of July. This would be a significant challenge, but if it were to help towards a better process overall I think it should be considered.

So is this all feasible? Well of course the only way we will really know is through trying it, and if we are to do it then I would certainly suggest that we try this out with one or two papers initially, rather than try to change everything at once. If we tried this for one or two papers in the “FPC phase” then they could be accommodated within the existing timescales for the second deadline, and no need for changes to conference standing orders at this stage.

As I said above, I’ve spent a lot of time discussing these issues over the last few years, and I’d welcome views from others about whether they think such changes would be desirable or feasible.