M'learned friends? No wonder ministers fume at judges. If they're not busily whittling down their law-and-order legislation, they're putting spanners in as many works as they can find in Whitehall and Westminster. M'learned friends are, of course, protecting our liberties, as they have done down the centuries. However, the latest twist over local government reorganisation does raise an interesting constitutional point, namely, how far the courts can go in blocking government policy. Three district councils this week won leave from a High Court judge, Justice King, for a judicial review of Ruth Kelly's plans for unitary councils, the long list of which was announced in March. The councils which sought the review argued that she did not have the power to invite restructuring on the basis that the Bill proposing the changes (Local Government and Public Involvement in Health) had not yet been approved by parliament. They also maintained there was not the support for abolishing existing councils in favour of new unitaries. Mr Justice King agreed there was a case. This, of course, does not mean he rules in favour of the districts' argument, but only that they may have a point which needs to be examined. There are some puzzles about this decision, since ministers must feel they have done everything right in this case. The DCLG has always been quite specific in its guidelines for unitary bids. Popular support and value for money are among them and, indeed, some of the bids have already been out for consultation for more than a year. When Ms Kelly took on her present post in May 2006, the pressure for unitary government was well advanced in some areas, and her view was that the train had already left the station. Chief executives, in particular, demanded an end to uncertainty, one way or the other. A modest list of eight bids seemed a reasonable compromise, although the eventual 16 was a surprise. Ironically, it was expanded to include district-based bids and stave off legal challenge. We must hope, therefore, that this latest legal ruling does not herald a round of extremely expensive taxpayer-funded litigation over whether the ‘t's should have been crossed and the ‘i's dotted. The only winners will be lawyers. Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
