Driver, R (On the Application Of) v Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council

When construing bilingual legislation enacted in Welsh and English with equal standing, the court applies ordinary principles of statutory interpretation to both texts equally. If their meanings differ irreconcilably, legislative intention is discerned from the legislation’s purposes and objects rather than by searching for a shared literal meaning.

Under School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013, section 50 exhaustively defines the school reorganisation proposals affecting sixth-form education. Ministerial approval is required under section 50(2)(a) only for establishing or discontinuing a school which provides education solely for persons above compulsory school age.

A statutory school organisation code must be applied to each legally distinct proposal. A requirement directed to secondary-school or sixth-form reorganisation does not extend to a primary-school proposal merely because the proposals form part of a connected programme.

The local authority adopted proposals to close and replace several schools. Two affected secondary schools educating pupils both below and above compulsory school age. A further proposal concerned two primary schools, including a Welsh-medium school.

Fraser J quashed the implementation decision. He held that the secondary-school proposals required approval from the Welsh Ministers under section 50 of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013. He also held that the authority had failed to comply with the School Organisation Code when considering the primary-school proposal.

The authority appealed. The principal issues were the proper construction of the equally authoritative Welsh and English texts of section 50, the scope of paragraphs 1.9 and 1.4 of the Code, and whether the authority had considered the effects of the primary-school proposal on Welsh-medium education.

1. The appeal was allowed on grounds 1, 2, 3, 4(b) and 5. Ground 4(a), alleging that the judge had committed a serious procedural error by considering paragraph 1.4 of the School Organisation Code, failed.

2. Where Welsh and English statutory texts have equal standing, ordinary principles of statutory interpretation apply equally to both. Detailed examination of both versions is necessary where a conflict or difference in meaning is alleged. If the literal meanings cannot be reconciled, legislative intention should be determined from the purposes or objects disclosed by the texts. Pre-legislative materials may be considered, subject to caution that material in one language may favour that version.

3. Section 50(2) of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 exhaustively identifies when proposals affect sixth-form education. Its use of “if” is conditional and definitional, rather than illustrative. Treating the subsection as non-exhaustive would create uncertainty and undermine the legislative purpose of reducing referrals to the Welsh Ministers.

4. Section 50(2)(a), in both languages, applies only to proposals establishing or discontinuing a school which provides education solely for persons above compulsory school age. The words “only” and “yn unig” must be given substantive effect. The statutory context, section 71, the White Paper and the Explanatory Memorandum confirmed that construction. The two secondary schools educated wider age groups, so their proposed closure did not require ministerial approval.

5. Paragraph 1.9 of the School Organisation Code applies to proposals concerning secondary schools or the addition or removal of sixth forms. Each published proposal is a separate legal act. The paragraph therefore did not apply to the primary-school proposal merely because that proposal belonged to a wider, connected reorganisation programme.

6. The authority complied with paragraph 1.4 and considered the material effects on Welsh-medium education. It addressed capacity, anticipated demand, continuity of Welsh-medium education for existing pupils, distance, transport and accessibility. Once the authority had considered the legally relevant factors, their assessment was entrusted to it. The court’s role was to ensure lawful process, not to decide whether the proposal should be implemented. The implementation decision was lawful.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the local authority’s appeal on grounds 1, 2, 3, 4(b) and 5. It held that the implementation decision was lawful. Ground 4(a) was dismissed.

2. High Court, Administrative Court in Wales: Fraser J quashed the local authority’s decision of 18 July 2019. He held that the two secondary-school proposals required ministerial approval and that the authority had failed to comply with the School Organisation Code in relation to the primary-school proposal.