# Public Consultation Plan: [Proposal title]

> A plan for consulting the public and stakeholders on a policy or
> regulatory proposal: the purpose, the questions, who to reach and how,
> accessibility, timing, how responses will be analysed and how the
> result will be published. The structure is neutral, with dated
> national practice as examples: the UK Consultation Principles (2018),
> Chapter 7 "Stakeholder consultation" of the European Commission Better
> Regulation Toolbox (December 2025 edition), and US notice-and-comment
> rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553. Replace every `[bracketed]` value and
> every row marked *Example*. Whether you have a legal duty to consult,
> and how, depends on your law: check the current official texts and ask
> your lawyers. This is not legal advice.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Plan the consultation while the policy is still at a formative
  stage. Consulting on a decision already taken wastes respondents' time
  and invites legal challenge where a duty to consult exists.
- Fill section 2 (questions) and section 3 (audiences) together: each
  question should be aimed at people who can answer it.
- Decide how you will analyse responses before you publish. Questions
  that cannot be analysed should not be asked.
- The worked example continues the fictional Department for Building
  Safety of the Republic of Veldmark, consulting on a lift inspection
  register (see `public-sector/regulatory-impact-assessment`). Every
  figure marked *Example* is invented.
- Related documents: Policy Brief (`public-sector/policy-brief`),
  Stakeholder Register (`project/stakeholder-register`), Communication
  Plan (`project/communication-plan`), Accessibility Checklist
  (`design/accessibility-checklist`), DPIA (`compliance/dpia`), Research
  Synthesis (`design/research-synthesis`).
-->

## Plan control

<!-- Guidance: Record who owns the consultation and who must agree it before publication; many governments require collective or senior agreement before a formal consultation opens. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plan ID | [CONS-2026-001] |
| Proposal | [Title and link] |
| Owner | [@policy-lead] |
| Approvers | [@senior-official], [@legal], [@communications] |
| Legal duty to consult | [Yes, under (law) / No / Unclear, advice requested] |
| Opens / closes | YYYY-MM-DD / YYYY-MM-DD |
| Response published by | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |

## 1. Purpose and scope

<!-- Guidance: Say what can still change as a result of the consultation and what cannot. Respondents lose trust when they comment on points that were never open. -->

| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| What we want to learn | [Evidence, views, costs, alternatives] |
| What is open to change | [Options, design details, timing] |
| What is not open to change | [Fixed elements and why] |
| Decision the consultation informs | [Decision and date] |
| Supporting documents | [Impact assessment, draft text, evidence] |

*Example*: the department wants evidence on the cost of uploading
inspection records and on whether owners of five or fewer lifts should
be exempt. The decision to create a register is open; the 12-month
inspection interval is set by other law and is not.

## 2. Questions

<!-- Guidance: Ask few, clear, neutral questions. Pair closed questions (for counting) with open ones (for reasons). Avoid leading wording and double questions. Number every question so responses can be coded. -->

| ID | Question | Type | Audience | Analysis use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 *(Example)* | Do you agree that lift inspection records should be uploaded to a national register? | Agree scale and free text | All | Support and reasons |
| Q2 *(Example)* | How long would it take you to upload one inspection record? | Number | Owners, inspectors | Cost assumption in the impact assessment |
| Q3 *(Example)* | Should owners of five or fewer lifts be exempt for the first three years? | Yes, no, unsure and free text | Owners | Small business option |
| Q4 *(Example)* | What support would help you comply? | Free text | Owners | Implementation design |
| Q5 | [Question] | [Type] | [Audience] | [Use] |

## 3. Audiences and channels

<!-- Guidance: List the full range of people and organisations affected, including those least likely to respond on their own. Choose channels that suit each group: some will not read a long document or use an online form. -->

| Audience | Why they matter | How we reach them | Format |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Group] | [Interest] | [Channel] | [Online form / Meeting / Interviews / Workshop] |
| Building owners with few lifts *(Example)* | Most affected by cost per lift | Letters via the business register, trade associations | Short online form, phone line |
| Lift users with disabilities *(Example)* | Most affected by lift failures | Disabled people's organisations | Accessible events, easy read version |
| Lift inspectors *(Example)* | Upload records in practice | Professional body | Workshop |

## 4. Accessibility and inclusion

<!-- Guidance: Plan formats before publication, not on request. Give contact details for alternative formats and allow responses in more than one way. -->

- Formats: [accessible HTML, easy read, large print, other languages,
  sign language video].
- Ways to respond: [online, email, post, phone, events].
- Timing: [avoid holiday periods or extend; allow more time for small
  organisations and charities].
- Data protection: [privacy notice; how names and organisations are
  published; link to the DPIA].

## 5. Timeline

<!-- Guidance: Set the length in proportion to the impact and complexity of the proposal, on legal advice. Record why you chose that length. -->

| Milestone | Date |
|---|---|
| Plan and documents approved | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Consultation opens | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Events and workshops | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD |
| Consultation closes | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Analysis complete | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Government response published | YYYY-MM-DD |

*Example*: 10 weeks, extended from 8 because the period includes a
national holiday and trade associations asked for time to survey their
members.

## 6. Response analysis

<!-- Guidance: Use a codebook agreed before responses arrive, double-code a sample to check consistency, and report counts and themes separately for organisations and individuals. Do not treat the consultation as a vote or a representative survey. -->

| Step | Method |
|---|---|
| Intake and deduplication | [Log, flag campaign responses] |
| Coding of free text | [Codebook, double-coding of n% sample] |
| Counting closed questions | [By respondent type; campaign responses reported separately] |
| Weighting | [None: responses are evidence, not votes] |
| Using evidence | [Each relevant point is checked against the impact assessment] |
| Quality check | [Second analyst review] |

## 7. Publication and feedback

<!-- Guidance: Say how many responses were received, what they said and what changed as a result. Publish on the same page as the consultation so readers can follow it. -->

| Item | Plan |
|---|---|
| Where the response is published | [Same page as the consultation] |
| Contents | [Number of responses, summary per question, changes made, reasons for not changing] |
| Deadline | [Date and rule] |
| Feedback to participants | [Email, events] |

## 8. National practice examples

<!-- Guidance: Keep the row for your jurisdiction and check it against the current official text before publication. -->

| Jurisdiction | Source and date | Key points (paraphrased) |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Consultation Principles, Cabinet Office, updated 2018-03-19 | 11 principles: clear and concise, purposeful, informative, part of wider engagement, proportionate length, targeted, suited to the groups consulted, agreed before publication, open to scrutiny, response published within 12 weeks or an explanation given, generally not during election periods; no legal force in itself |
| European Union | Better Regulation Toolbox, December 2025 edition, Chapter 7 | Tool #51 consulting stakeholders, #52 consultation strategy, #53 conducting activities, #54 analysing data, #55 publication, data protection and transparency register |
| United States (federal rulemaking) | 5 U.S.C. 553 | General notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, opportunity to submit written data, views or arguments, a concise statement of basis and purpose with the final rule, and in general at least 30 days before a substantive rule takes effect |

## References

<!-- Guidance: Link the official pages you relied on, with dates, and record any legal advice on the duty to consult separately. -->

| Reference | Date | Link |
|---|---|---|
| Consultation Principles: guidance, Cabinet Office | 2018 | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance |
| Better Regulation Toolbox, European Commission | December 2025 | https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en |
| 5 U.S.C. 553, Rule making | Current | https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section553 |

## Standard and licence note

Based on the UK Consultation Principles (2018), the European Commission
Better Regulation Toolbox (December 2025 edition, Chapter 7) and 5
U.S.C. 553, all official public sources, paraphrased in original
wording. Duties to consult also come from specific statutes and case
law; check the current official texts and take legal advice for your
proposal. This is not legal advice.

Template licence: MIT.