§ Lord Denningasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answers of the Baroness Blatch on 9th January 1992 and 24th September 1992, whether the letter of 4th November 1991 referred to therein was written after full consultation with legal authorities; and whether the only proper course in fairness to Her Majesty's subjects was for the Department of Education to submit the point to the 116WA Attorney-General or, alternatively, to issue proceedings under Section 17(2) and 21(1) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, to get a declaratory judgment of the High Court on the matter, as was recommended by the Court of Appeal in Dyson v Attorney-General 1912,1 Chancery, on pages 168 and 192 as being "the most convenient method of enabling the subject to test the justifiability of proceedings on the part of permanent officials purporting to act under statutory provisions".
§ The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch)The department's letter of 4th November 1991 was written after consultation with the department's lawyers and the department is satisfied that the information it contained is correct. The Secretary of State makes many orders under Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 each year. The provisions contained in most orders are similar and those relating to trustess have remained substantially unchanged for many years. It was therefore considered unnecessary and inappropriate for the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Attorney-General or a declaratory judgment from the High Court before making the Diocese of Leicester (Educational Endowments) Order 1991