Just as we were all packing up for Christmas – we have a High Court judgment to give pro-status-quo campaigners festive encouragement and Town Hall bosses a reason to think twice before galloping ahead with devolution deals. In reality, those with most to worry about may be public engagement professionals and consultants who have to design consultation questions!

In a nutshell, this is a dispute between Derbyshire County Council and the new proposed Combined Authority for Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham. At issue is whether the new Mayoral structure should include Chesterfield.

Controversial debates on the new devolved arrangement are occurring in many parts of England, and some will say it is because George Osborne’s Treasury team hassled Councils into producing and agreeing deals too quickly and allowed the creation of a ‘democratic deficit’; most local people were not asked their opinions. Ultimately however, consultation was deemed to be required, except that the Cities & Local Government Devolution Act 2016 placed the responsibility for ensuring that consultation had been held on the Secretary of State. He has to do this, unless he is satisfied that the Councils have already undertaken a satisfactory exercise.

Sheffield’s consultation cost £350k. It was supported by IPSOS-MORI. So, unlike others which the Consultation Institute has regarded as clearly a tokenistic effort, this was for real. Derbyshire challenged it on many grounds, and appeared to many people to have had strong arguments based on the Gunning Two principle that consultees must have sufficient understanding of the proposal to enable ‘intelligent consideration’. Mr Justice Ouseley would have none of it. Yes, some of the information was misleading, but not to the point of making the consultation unlawful.

But on another key aspect, Derbyshire have won. The Court looked at the consultation questions, and been critical of them. It then found that the public were not asked about the core issue – whether Chesterfield should or should not be part of the new Combined Authority. In short (and in keeping with the spirit of 2016), there was no IN/OUT question.

Institute members will need to pour over the details of this case as it is one of the first legal challenges that have turned on the precise wording – and the relevance of questions to the fundamental purpose of the consultation. It is something of a Christmas present to the Institute – as our Quality Assurance has always required total congruence between the issues open to influence and the questions being asked. 2017 will start with a need to understand the impact of this case on the Law of Consultation.

It will make the next Law of Consultation course on 18^th January in London especially interesting

R (ex parte Derbyshire CC) v Sheffield Combined Authority [2016] EWHC 3355