In the 1970s the Polish Parliament debated pollution in the Baltic, which was then reaching crisis proportions.

The Governing party proposed a resolution condemning West Germany for the pollution flowing through its rivers. The "Opposition" parties proposed an amendment which also criticised Sweden and Finland. A lively debate ensued, the outcome of which was of course immaterial.

No MP pointed out that 40 per cent of the Baltic's pollution came from Poland itself. No MP mentioned that a further 40 per cent was contributed by the Soviet Union. It is not hard to see why. Any MP saying such things would not have remained an MP for long and would have lost the salary, the car and the flat in Warsaw which went with the job.

In an odd way we seem to be moving rather close to this system of licensed opposition here in Britain. Except here it is referred to as "consultation". Essentially, various interest groups are told that their views are valuable and their contributions to the debate would be welcomed. The trouble is, consulted groups must first acknowledge the basic ground rules of the consultation itself. These are frequently drawn so tightly that straightforward opposition is not allowed.

Take transport, for example. We are now being consulted upon a "Car Parking Strategy for Bradford City Centre". But if anyone suggests that there should actually be more long-term parking in the city centre then their views will be disregarded because such a suggestion would run counter to Government "guidance". Indeed, if Bradford Council adopted a policy of providing more parking for office workers then it would be financially penalised as a result. Developers of new offices are therefore not allowed to provide new parking spaces - even though they would all like to do so.

The same thing is likely to happen with the proposed new Small Business Service. It is intended to "act as a voice for small business at the heart of Government". You can be sure, though, that if it ever opposed Government policy upon something really fundamental then it would lose the Government funding on which it will depend.

Private sector directors of TECs and Business Links have frequently said elements of Government policy are fundamentally flawed and should be changed. They are always told that they are wrong; that they don't understand the system and that the public sector doesn't work like that. So what is the point of having their "private sector expertise" in the first place?

This is not a party political point. The problem started with the Conservatives. Consciously or not, the Government is using its powers of patronage and funding to secure acquiescence from quarters which would normally be opposed. In the name of participation it is reducing informed opposition. Apart from anything else, this puts much too big a burden on the media.

Obviously things have not reached the extremes of Poland in the 1970s but we seem to be heading that way and it is very worrying.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.