Old laws v. new policies: Parliamentary privilege but not a footballer in sight

28 May 2011 by

What happens when the government changes its mind about an existing law but new law has not yet been enacted?

Easy, really. You have to follow the old law, whatever the government may currently think about it. But it gets more complicated when the area of law, like planning, has a wide area of policy-making and policy-following built into it. So now we have old law, and new policy announced but no new law yet to underpin that policy other than in the broadest sense.

This problem arose in the Cala Homes cases, the second of which reached decision in the Court of Appeal last week. Recent legislation had set up a new plan-making process by way of “regional strategies”, interposed between central government policies and the Local Planning Authorities who make their own development plans and determine their own applications. It proved controversial, and within weeks of the election, DCLG, the government department responsible for planning said its piece. It circulated a letter of May 27 announcing the abolition of regional strategies, revoking all existing strategies and stating that this announcement should be regarded as a material planning consideration by all LPAs. Cala Homes successfully challenged this decision; in November 2010 Sales J ruled that not only could the section used for blanket revocation of these strategies could not be used for that purpose, but also DCLG had omitted to note that the proposed changes needed to undergo an assessment under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive.

DCLG’s next move, swiftly made, was somewhat subtler. On 10 November 2010, the day of Sales J’s adverse judgment, DCLG wrote to all the LPAs telling them of a proposed clause in a soon-to-be-drafted Localism Bill abolishing regional strategies; it continued to refer back to the May letter and its reference to this intention being a material planning consideration. The need for SEA was to be compled with as the Bill moved through Parliament.

Unsurprisingly, DCLG were met with a further challenge by Cala Homes. Note that the hard-edged proposals of the 27 May letter had been watered down into the change of policy being just billed as a material planning consideration. So Cala said in their second challenge that the intention of abolishing regional strategies could not as a matter of law amount to a material planning consideration.

One sees their point. Central government was tipping the wink to the decision-makers; the underlying message was exactly the same as the unlawful May letter but using kid gloves than the initial dirigiste diktat. Yet showing that the change of policy was immaterial and hence an irrelevant planning consideration proved too much for Cala, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal.

The issue came down to the traditional public law Padfield principles: see Rosalind English’s recent post for application of this principle by the Supreme Court, but in short, this dictates that DCLG and the local planners must exercise any discretions so as to promote, and not to run counter to, the policy and objects of the legislation conferring the discretion. Cala said that, given that regional strategies were still embedded in the law, how could it be within the scope of that law that regional strategies be abolished.

The Court’s answer was that the legislation in play was not simply that concerned with the making of regional strategies and the development plans of which they form a part; it also required planners to have regard to other material planning considerations, and the potential change in the law was an instance of those wider considerations. On proper analysis, the Court said that the DCLG letter did not go too far in simply pointing out that the proposed abolition of the strategies was a relevant consideration; it did not tell planners to ignore such strategies as were in place.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the judgment (unless you are a died-in-the-wool planner lit up by the intricacies of development plan-making powers) is Sullivan LJ’s consideration of a point which he himself raised. Was it irrational for a decision-maker to take into account potential abolition of these strategies because to do so would involve prejudging (a) Parliament’s acceptance of the proposal; and (b) the outcome of the Stategic Environmental Assessment? Because to do that would involve the “questioning of Parliament” hence straying into areas covered by Parliamental privilege. This is the other side of the compact between the courts/tribunals and Parliament which has been sorely tested by recent (ab)uses of parliamentary privilege. It has been much talked about recently, but where does it come from?

The starting point is for Parliamentary privilege is Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689:

“the freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament.” This principle was then fleshed out in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 :

…the courts and Parliament are both astute to recognise their respective constitutional roles. So far as the courts are concerned they will not allow any challenge to be made to what is said or done within the walls of Parliament in performance of its legislative functions and protection of its established privileges… As Blackstone said in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 17th ed. (1830), vol. 1, p. 163:”the whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its original from this one maxim, ‘that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere.'”

Sullivan LJ decided that the answer to his own question was that it was not wrong for a decision-maker to bear in mind the possibility that the law might change, although it would offend against the principle if the decision-maker considered in any detail what Parliament’s response to the Government’s proposal might be. This must be right. It may be a bit presumptuous to give too much weight to a possible change in law very early on in the legislative process, but as the Localism Bill progresses, there may come a time when it may be equally unrealistic for planners to make decisions with long-term consequences without at least acknowledging the possibility that the law might be different in, say, 6 months time.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;

  1. Ismail Bhamjee says:

    I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee of 196 Tiptree Crescent, Ilford, Essex IG5 OST, Tell 020-8252-6462 do say as follows that:-

    1. THERE IS A House of Lords decision-
    Newbury District Council Respondent
    Secretary of State for the Environment Appellant

    Newbury District Council Respondent
    International Synthetic Rubber Co. Ltd Appellant

    28th February 1980.

    2. On the 25th October 2000-
    Section 11 (a) (b) of the Human Rights Act 1998,
    This had been argued in the Administrative Court in Open Court at the Directions Hearing.

    3. There are other Judgments given in the United Kingdom where the Court of Appeal has given a ruling as with regards to breaches of Article 8 and 14 of the Convention Treaties.

    4. There is a Judgment given in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
    Stretch Versus The United Kingdom.
    Protection on Property Protocol.

    5. There is a Judgment given in the Court of Appeal of Dunoon Developments Ltd Versus The Secretary of State and Poole District Council which was decided in the year 1992.

    6. The Conservative Party when it was in Power in the Year 1972, they had brought the European Communities Act 1972 Section 1 (4), 2 (1), Section 3 (1),

    As the European Communities Act 1972 in short is the Conservative Human Rights and International Treaties Rights,

    The Human Rights Act 1998 is a Labour Party Convention Treaties, where they had left out Article 13 of the Convention Treaties-

    Article 13 of the Convention Treaties-
    Should be brought into force as soon as possible
    that any Person- should have the Right to Appeal against any High Court Judge in any Cause or Matter,
    and The Crown Courts in the United Kingdom should be renamed or called as The High Court of Justice which should have Jurisdiction Power to deal with both Civil, Criminal and Convention Treaties.

    Section 54 and 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 should be repealed, because there is Section 41 (2) (5) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

    The Localism Bill which does repeal many other Acts, it is going to cause more expenses on the CITIZENS when Legal Aid Funding has been abolished for Business Purposes, as they should provide Legal Funding that any Person can be represented by a Barrister or Solicitor of his own selection where the High Court Judge should make an Order.

    I thank you in advance

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: