Almost the last thing I taught my public law students before this infuriating hiatus was the topic of consultation.
And then, over the weekend, UUK proposed a consultation as their way of ending the #USSstrike.
Here's a thread inspired by that coincidence.
And then, over the weekend, UUK proposed a consultation as their way of ending the #USSstrike.
Here's a thread inspired by that coincidence.
Part of what I taught in those lectures was the (so-called) Sedley principles, which lawyers use to evaluate the adequacy of consultation processes. I rather enjoy teaching the Sedley principles. And I encourage my students to enjoy learning them too.
This is because they are masterfully constructed, and almost perfectly capture what they are intended to capture. This is good news for me as a teacher and for my students because things which make this much sense are easier to remember than things which don't.
[Now, to be clear, UUK are not legally bound by the Sedley principles. I can't say why right now - in fact, that is *precisely* the topic I am on strike from explaining today. But as it happens this doesn't matter because...]
The reason the Sedley principles make so much sense is that they aren't (just) legal principles. They are actually excellent non-legal principles which public lawyers use because they are so successful at what they are supposed to do.
And what is it that the Sedley principles do?
They state in clear form what distinguishes sham consultations from authentic consultations.
They state in clear form what distinguishes sham consultations from authentic consultations.
The Sedley principles break down into a four stage test - this is it: 
An authentic consultation passes all four stages of the Sedley test. And any consultation which fails EVEN ONE of the four is thereby revealed as a sham.
So let's see how the UUK's proposed consultation fares assessed against the Sedley principles:
So let's see how the UUK's proposed consultation fares assessed against the Sedley principles:
1. Is UUK's consultation at a time when its proposals are still at a formative stage?
NO. Quite the opposite. The decision in question was finalised in January. We know there is no intention to make any further changes. The consultation will not start until March.
NO. Quite the opposite. The decision in question was finalised in January. We know there is no intention to make any further changes. The consultation will not start until March.
2. Have UUK given adequate information on what needs addressing in the consultation?
NO. They have been, and will continue to be, completely opaque when it comes to information sharing. Leaked emails / accidentally published documents don't count & e.g. dannydorling.org/?p=6109
NO. They have been, and will continue to be, completely opaque when it comes to information sharing. Leaked emails / accidentally published documents don't count & e.g. dannydorling.org/?p=6109
3. Will UUK give adequate time for consideration of the issues and response to their consultation.
I don't know. No information on timescales is available yet, except that the consultation will begin late next month.
I don't know. No information on timescales is available yet, except that the consultation will begin late next month.
4. Will UUK conscientiously take into account the product of consultation in finalising its proposals?
NO. The proposals are already finalised. No changes will be made. So no opportunity for consultation responses to be "taken into account" by UUK will ever even arise.
NO. The proposals are already finalised. No changes will be made. So no opportunity for consultation responses to be "taken into account" by UUK will ever even arise.
The UUK "consultation" fails all three stages where we have enough information to judge. As I said, the Sedley principles do a remarkable job of distinguishing sham consultations from authentic ones. And applied to the UUK proposal, the result is clear. It is a sham.
So in summary: this, but with added law.
