Originally published 12 December 2011. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
We have to report that Tiny Tim and his friends have won their judicial review against Santa Claus Inc, with many implications for consultations.
The sad story began earlier this year with a realisation that the Company’s Eurozone-based operations faced a major financial problem and needed to reduce its expenditure. Management decided it had no alternative but to change the entitlement rules for its ‘special presents’ fund.
This summer’s consultation proposed ending entitlement for children with ‘significant’ needs and focusing Santa’s generosity on those with ‘critical’ needs. In the words of the Company’s long-term President, “I’d like to give all the boys and girls everything they want ... but we’re all in this together. Even the reindeer are on reduced rations”
But he reckoned without Tiny Tim. Aided by Cratchitt & Sons, Solicitors, they mounted a legal challenge alleging that Santa Claus had failed to identify precisely who was and was not affected by this change of policy. Focus Groups of parents, flown to the North Pole, complained that no-one could tell them how much the Company saved; had it helped, they would have been happy just to go to Lapland ... on Ryanair – provided they only need take hand luggage!
Attempts to engage children themselves had faced criticism. Questionnaires dropped down chimneys in August were sadly ineffective and led to very poor response rates. An internet poll designed to elicit the views of 12-15 year-old's should probably not have been hosted on www.harrassyourmummy.com. And a stakeholder one-to-one with the British Association of Grandparents broke up in disarray when half the representatives failed to download the digital directions and those who arrived couldn’t work the loop-system. The Toy Manufacturers Federation argued that reduced orders placed in July indicated that the decision had already been taken.
The Company had two lines of defence. First it claimed that there was no duty to consult. The Court disagreed, insisting there was a ‘legitimate expectation’ of consultation, arising because of the Company’s previous actions. Mr Justice Christmas observed that for many years Santa Claus Inc had openly solicited views from children and parents all over the world. “In the UK, it extends to collusion with the Royal Mail to encourage consultation responses to a fictitious address. Calling it a Letter to Santa Claus fools no-one; it is obviously a consultation” he said.
Secondly, Santa Claus stated that it had undertaken a full Equalities Audit, but the Judge said it was not specific enough to enable consultees to respond properly. Tiny Tim could not be sure if he would miss out, and a fellow schoolboy, Harry Potter complained that it wasn’t clear if a half-blood Prince came within one of the ‘protected categories’ under recent legislation. They were among hundreds of children and young people, their parents and other stakeholders who felt they had not had a proper opportunity to state their views.
In finding in their favour, the Court ruled that the consultation was unlawful and ordered Santa Claus to reinstate the expenditure cuts ... at least for 2011. (At the end of proceedings, Mr Justice Christmas left the Court to join his wife and twelve children!)
Follow the Consultation Institute in the coming months to learn more about the implications of this and other similar decisions.
The team here at the Consultation Institute wish all our members and friends the best of Season’s Greetings and thank you for your support throughout the year
Trigger points
- Any resemblances to 2011 cases such as those involving Birmingham’s social care budget cuts, the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme or Library Closures in Gloucestershire & Somerset, are purely intentional !!!
- However, for complete clarity please note that there is no Judge of the name; if there was, he would not have had many children; and even if he had, it could not possibly have influenced his judgment!
- The next Legal Challenges Seminar
This is the 202nd Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement