The Claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on introducing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill into the House of Commons on 11 March 2025. Pursuant to the duty under s.20(3) of the Environment Act 2021, the then Secretary of State, Angela Rayner MP, made a statement that the Bill would not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided by any existing environmental law. This statement was recorded on the front of the Bill.

In their pre-action response and summary grounds, the Defendant argued that the claim was not justiciable due to Parliamentary privilege. The Defendant was supported by the Speaker of the House of Commons.  In consequence of these submissions, on 22 July 2025, the High Court ordered a hearing to enable parties to make submissions on the issues of jurisdiction that had been raised.

In the hearing on 6 November 2025, the Defendant submitted, inter alia, that a s.20 statement fell squarely within the scope of Parliamentary privilege, as articulated by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321, 322, this being a challenge to a statement made in the context of a legislative function.

Accepting the Defendant’s submissions in essence, Mr Justice Mould found that it was “beyond reasonable argument” that a statement made in relation to a public Bill prior to its second reading in the House of Commons was outside “proceedings in Parliament”.  He held that both (i) the principle of the separation of powers and (ii) the need to avoid any risk of interference with free speech in Parliament, would be offended if the court were to entertain the claim. Further, he found that to allow the challenge with the prospect of declaratory relief as to the propriety and accuracy of the view expressed by the Minister would be a clear interference with the legislative process.

This decision provides the latest judicial determination on the scope of Parliamentary privilege and its constitutional basis, the principle of exclusive cognizance and the meaning of “proceedings in Parliament”. It will therefore be of wider public law interest, not least due to the similarity in drafting between s.20 of the Environment Act 2021 and s.19 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Sir James Eadie KC, Richard Honey KC, Ned Westaway and Stephanie Bruce-Smith acted for the successful Defendant in this case.