Global Feedback Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

A public authority that commissions an advisory review must take it into account where it is materially relevant, but is not generally required to adopt its recommendations or give reasons for rejecting them. The heightened duty to give cogent reasons for departing from expert advice applies where the advice comes from an independent expert body with a statutory advisory function, not ordinarily where the review was commissioned to inform departmental policy. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, the carbon-budget duties in sections 13 and 14 rest on the Secretary of State responsible for economy-wide carbon budgeting. They do not require every departmental strategy to be assessed under section 13 or treated as a section 14 report. Statutory reporting duties imposed on the Climate Change Committee and the responsible Secretary of State do not impose additional obligations on another Secretary of State adopting departmental policy.

The claimant sought permission to challenge the defendant’s adoption of the Food Strategy on 13 June 2022. It alleged that the defendant had failed to take account of the National Food Strategy Independent Review, advice from the Climate Change Committee, and duties under sections 13 and 14 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Sir Ross Cranston, sitting as a High Court judge. The renewed application concerned whether the grounds were arguable and had a realistic prospect of success, including whether the Food Strategy engaged the statutory carbon-budget duties and whether relevant advice and recommendations had been properly considered.

1. Permission refused. All three grounds were unarguable and had no realistic prospect of success.
2. The defendant had clearly taken the Independent Review into account. The Review was frequently referred to in the Food Strategy, although its proposal for a 30 per cent reduction in meat consumption was not among its 14 formal recommendations. The defendant was entitled to decide how to treat the Review’s contents.
3. The principle that cogent reasons must be given for not following expert advice, identified in Wyatt v Fareham BV [2022] EWCA 983, did not apply. The Review was commissioned by the defendant to inform departmental strategy and was not advice from an independent expert body with a statutory duty to advise. There was no common-law or statutory duty to give reasons for not adopting it.
4. The defendant’s statements did not create a legitimate expectation that he would adopt the Review’s recommendations or give reasons for rejecting them. He had fulfilled the representation that the Review would be listened to and used to inform the Food Strategy.
5. The section 13 duty under the Climate Change Act 2008 was imposed on the Secretary of State responsible for economy-wide carbon budgeting, identified as the SSBEIS. Other Secretaries of State adopting departmental strategies were not required to perform that duty. Section 14 required one report after a carbon budget was set; it did not require supplementary reports as policies developed or were adopted.
6. R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v SSBEIS [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin) concerned discharge of the section 13 duty when the SSBEIS published a section 14 report. Its reasoning on the adequacy of information should not automatically be applied to section 13 compliance at every point in time.
7. Sections 36 and 37 did not require the defendant to give particular weight to, or give reasons for disagreeing with, Climate Change Committee advice. The defendant had considered that advice and was entitled to reach a different view on the effectiveness of reducing meat and dairy consumption.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission had been refused on the papers by Sir Ross Cranston, sitting as a High Court judge, on 13 October 2022. On renewal, Lang J refused permission on all grounds.