The claimant sought to challenge the way the defendant had reached its decision to add flouride to the water supply, in having failed to comply with the requirements for consultation.
Held: The claim failed. The Regulations as enacted differed from the draft, and did not require the Authroitys to act only on approval by a majority of those replying to a consultation exercise. Whatever the governments policy had been in the earlier stages of its development, that element did not remain present at its conclusion. There could be no argument that an Authority had a duty to go behind the guidance and regulations to investigate the parliamentary history. No challenge had been made to the procedures adopted durimg the consultations.
‘ A regulation which expressly requires a SHA to have ‘regard to the extent of support’ is simply not consistent with a policy that a scheme should not be introduced unless it can be shown that the local population is in favour. That is simply to replace the requirement in the regulation to have regard, with a test of the balance (however ascertained) of the opinion of the local population, which is inconsistent with the regulation and which the ministers themselves eschewed (they expressly rejected a head count alone or referendum).’ and
‘ it is not the law that fluoridation can only occur when a majority of the local population agree. Parliament has firmly entrusted area-specific decision making to the relevant SHA.’
Holman J
[2011] EWHC 218 (Admin)
Bailii
Water Act 2003, Water Industry Act 1991 87, The Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – EC Gransden and Co Ltd and Falkbridge Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1985
If a decision maker intends to depart from any relevant policy, he must give clear reasons for doing so, in order that the person affected should know why the decision was being made as an exception to the policy and the grounds upon which the . .
Cited – Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Monitor and Others Admn 9-Dec-2009
Cranston J referred to ‘the danger of resorting to [Hansard] except when it is absolutely required under Pepper v Hart’ and gave examples of the reasons why. . .
Cited – Regina v North Derbyshire Health Authority ex parte Kenneth Graeme Fisher Admn 11-Jul-1997
The court considered the duty of the authority to take account of guidance issued by the Secretary of State: ‘If the circular provided no more than guidance, albeit in strong terms, then the only duty placed upon health authorities was to take it . .
Cited – EC Gransden and Co Ltd and Falkbridge Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1985
If a decision maker intends to depart from any relevant policy, he must give clear reasons for doing so, in order that the person affected should know why the decision was being made as an exception to the policy and the grounds upon which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Administrative, Utilities
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.428672