you're reading...

UKAJI January 2022 round-up

This is UKAJI’s round-up of important administrative justice related news for January 2022. To add anything to this round-up or any future round-ups, please contact Lee Marsons.

To collate this information, UKAJI partners with Public Law Project via the UK Constitutional Reform Tracker. Those interested in statutory instruments passed during this period can use Parliament’s statutory instruments tracker. Credit to Anurag Deb (Queen’s University Belfast) for highlighting relevant Northern Ireland news.

UKAJI news:

  • UKAJI launched a monthly podcast series hosted by Lee Marsons (University of Essex) on important and topical issues connected with administrative justice. The new sub-page hosting the podcasts is available here. UKAJI’s first podcast was about what administrative justice is, why it matters and what future research priorities should be. Guests included Joe Tomlinson (University of York), Sarah Nason (University of Bangor) and Chris Gill (University of Glasgow). UKAJI’s second podcast for February 2022 will be about understudied aspects of judicial review and guests will include Maurice Sunkin (University of Essex), Elizabeth O’Loughlin (University of Durham), Sam Guy (University of York) and Lewis Graham (University of Oxford) to discuss remedies, empirical research, crowdfunding and the duty of candour.


  • On 12 January 2022, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published an inspection report into the operation of the ePassport gates, particularly the identification of vulnerable passengers at the gates, resourcing, training, the use of data in the operation of the gates, and the impact of the extension to New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and United States nationals.
  • On 13 January 2022, the Cabinet Office released the Intergovernmental Relations Review (“IGR”), a new agreement between the central government and devolved governments on how they will work together to deliver UK-wide projects in future. The Review is said to be based on the following values and priorities: maintaining positive and constructive relations based on mutual respect; building and maintaining trust based on effective communication; sharing information and respecting confidentiality; promoting accountability in intergovernmental activity; and resolving disputes according to clear principles. The Review creates a three-tiered structure: portfolio engagement at ministerial or official level; engagement on cross-cutting issues, including an intergovernmental standing committee; the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Government Council. All four administrations have agreed to operate under these arrangements. The Review also provides for disputes to be resolved by the Intergovernmental Review Secretariat.
  • On 13 January 2022, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published an inspection report into the UK Visas and Immigration Chief Casework Unit’s referral process, which was established following the Windrush scandal to promote culture change within the Home Office. This included by promoting pragmatic and discretion-based decision-making, encouraging the professionalisation of caseworkers through external accreditation, and enabling the Home Office to respond to barriers to good decisions by working with external partners. The report focuses on the identification of systemic issues, the CCU’s approach to engagement and the CCU’s levels of capacity, resourcing and resilience.
  • On 13 January 2022, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published a third inspection report into the operation of the EU Settlement Scheme. The report focused on how the Home Office has responded to the issue of vulnerability and sought to encourage and accommodate applications from those who are vulnerable or hard-to-reach. The report concludes that, over the course of the inspections, the EUSS continues to operate as a quick and efficient means of securing the rights of EEA citizens, and their family members, in the UK. However, the report adds that the Home Office could drive improvements through the progression of policy decisions, provision of refresher training for caseworkers, making better use of data on vulnerability and protected characteristics and greater outreach with third parties, such as local authorities and other government departments. In addition, the Inspector expressed disappointment that the Home Office did not accept recommendation for the collection and utilisation of data on vulnerability and protected characteristics, particularly as the Home Office are exploring the collection of this data in certain immigration routes following recommendations in the Windrush Lessons Learned Review.
  • On 19 January 2022, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report on the Nationality and Borders Bill focusing on Home Office decision-making, age assessments and deprivation of citizenship orders. The report highlights Home Office data, which shows that approximately 65% of asylum applicants awaiting initial decisions had been waiting more than six months and that the average time is now more than a year. The report recommends that a new service standard be introduced, setting realistic targets which take into account the human rights of applicants and the severe impacts that lengthy waits can have. The report further emphasises that the Refugee Convention does not require an asylum seeker to request asylum in the first safe country they arrive at and that the Bill should not expressly or implicitly suggest otherwise. In addition, the report recommends removing provisions which require decision-makers and courts to attach minimal weight to evidence provided late by a claimant and that proposals for accelerated detained appeals should be limited to appeals that are clearly without merit.
  • On 19 January 2022, the House of Lords Constitution Committee released a report entitled: “Respect and Cooperation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century”, which considers the current balance of powers within the UK, the challenges for multi-level governance, the approach to devolution within England, the role of Whitehall and UK funding arrangements.
  • The Commission on Social Security Led by Experts by Experience released its report into transforming the UK welfare system.
  • Laverne Jacobs and Sule Tomkinson published a report entitled “Examining the Social Security Tribunal’s Navigator Service: Access to Administrative Justice for Marginalized Communities” on Canada’s Social Security Tribunal.
  • The National Audit Office published a report into the use of financial modelling in government. Alongside this, the NAO released a good practice guide to reviewing models.
  • The National Audit Office released a report into the administration of Welsh income tax rates and a similar report into the administration of Scottish income tax rates.
  • The Constitution Unit released a report entitled ‘What Kind of Democracy Do People Want? Results of a Survey of the UK Population – First Report of the Democracy in the UK After Brexit Project.’
  • The Equality and Human Rights Commission released a report into the use of social charters and covenants in Scotland.
  • On 31 January 2022, Sue Gray released an update into her investigation into alleged gatherings on government premises during coronavirus lockdowns. Gray investigated twelve gatherings and concluded that: “At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.” She added that: “The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time. Steps must be taken to ensure that every Government Department has a clear and robust policy in place covering the consumption of alcohol in the workplace…” and that: “Some staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but at times felt unable to do so. No member of staff should feel unable to report or challenge poor conduct where they witness it.”

Ombuds and regulatory affairs:

  • The PHSO determined that over 118,000 people with disabilities and other health problems are being denied satisfactory compensation to remedy problems caused by errors in the DWP’s payment of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).
  • The LGSCO determined that Camden Council had not adequately considered a number of applications for business support loans during the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly by erroneously interpreting government guidance. In total, the LGSCO calculated that this amounted to “a few hundred” applications.
  • The LGSCO determined that Haringey Council left a man “in limbo” for six years while determining whether they would purchase his house and develop the area.
  • The PSOW launched “Our Findings”, a resource which makes publicly available summaries of the Ombudsman’s case decisions.
  • The SPSO laid the results of 25 decisions before the Scottish Parliament.
  • The Scottish Independent National Whistleblowing Officer (INWO) released its January 2022 newsletter.
  • The Housing Ombudsman determined that Ealing Council was guilty of maladministration following a failure to fix a leak for six years.
  • The Housing Ombudsman released a report from its Independent Reviewer of Service Complaints for 1 April to 30 September 2021.
  • The Housing Ombudsman determined that Metropolitan Thames Valley was guilty of severe maladministration through its failure to adequately repair a leak in a roof.
  • The Housing Ombudsman determined that Great Yarmouth Council was guilty of severe maladministration through its failure to deal with mould in a resident’s home.
  • The Northern Ireland Assembly approved the NIPSO’s statement of principles for complaints-handling. These included: Start off right; Fix it early; Focus on what matters; Be fair; Be honest; and Learn and improve.
  • The Regulator of Social Housing launched a consultation on the proposed introduction of tenant satisfaction standards, which closes on 3 March 2022.
  • The Regulator of Social Housing released a paper on its initial proposals on how it will implement changes to consumer regulation described the Social Housing White Paper. The Regulator outlines its principles as being: proportionate; risk-based; assurance-based; and outcome focused.


  • The Administrative Court has quashed a decision of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces to refuse relief to the claimant, on the ground that the Ombudsman failed to have sufficient regard to relevant considerations in the decision: Moss v Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces [2022] EWHC 92 (Admin).
  • The High Court in Northern Ireland dismissed an application for judicial review which challenged the decision of two Northern Ireland Ministers to issue judicial review proceedings against the Police Service of Northern Ireland related to their approach to dismantling a political bonfire. This was on the basis that the case was now academic. The challenge related to the situations where decisions must be taken by the full Northern Ireland Executive under s.20 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 rather than individual Ministers.
  • The Administrative Court determined that the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011, which required a student to be settled in the United Kingdom on the first day of their academic course to be eligible for financial higher education support, were unlawful. The claimants contended that the Regulations were contrary to Article 14 (non-discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken together with Article 2 Protocol 2 (right to education). The Court concluded that the removal of visa priority services for international students meant that it was difficult for this group to be settled in the UK on the first day of their academic course and this created a discriminatory and disproportionate interference with their human rights: R (Naeem) v Secretary of State for Education [2022] EWHC 15 (Admin).
  • The Court of Appeal determined that the so-called “Hospitalisation Rule” in the payment of Disability Living Allowance which suspends payment of the benefit after 28 days hospitalisation was lawful and did not violate Article 14 (non-discrimination) read with Article 1 Protocol 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court concluded that the scheme had an “objective and reasonable basis so that it satisfies the principle of proportionality” and that requiring individualised exemptions from the general scheme “would inevitably have consequences both for public administration and for the resources that would have to be allocated to the administration of the scheme.” Commenting on the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26, the Court considered that the effect of that decision was that the courts should generally be very slow to intervene in areas of social and economic policy such as housing and social security but that differential treatment on grounds such as sex or race nevertheless requires cogent justification: MOC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWCA Civ 1.
  • The Administrative Court refused an application for disclosure against the Office for National Statistics related to the age, sex and Covid vaccination status of deceased children and young people who had died on or after 1 May 2021. This application related to an application for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s August 2021 decision to offer the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine to children over the age of 12. The Administrative Court determined that the disclosure was not necessary for the determination of the issues in the judicial review and refused the application: R (AB and CD) v Secretary of State for Health [2022] EWHC 87 (Admin).
  • The Administrative Court determined that the Detained Duty Advice Scheme, a publicly funded legal advice service available to people detained in immigration removal centres, was lawful. The claimant contended that the Secretary of State had failed in her duty to secure the effective protection of the right of access to justice, a facet of which was the right to access legal aid, through the Detained Duty Advice Scheme because a significant majority of providers in the scheme failed to provide adequate or competent legal advice. Mrs Justice Calver concluded that, while the claimants only had to establish following the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 a real risk that the right of access to legal aid would be infringed, on the evidence the judge decided that this standard was not met: R (Detention Action) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 18 (Admin).
  • The Administrative Court determined that the Home Secretary in providing only £8 per person per week had underpaid the claimant, an asylum seeker from Nigeria who was a single mother to a child, under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which gives the Home Secretary the power to provide or arrange support for asylum seekers who appear to be destitute or likely to become destitute. In particular, the Administrative Court found that the sums paid did not reflect the costs of non-prescription medication required by the claimant. The Court, however, rejected the contention that the Home Secretary could not limit back payments to the claimant: R (AXG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 56 (Admin).
  • The Court of Appeal determined that the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 and associated regulations made under it did not violate Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The 1997 Act made alterations to the scheme for the repayment to the state of benefits made under certificates issued by the Compensation Recovery Unit. The certificates are issued where claims for compensation have been made by those suffering an accident, injury or disease. The claimants, a group of insurance firms, argued that an unintended but onerous by-product of the scheme, which violated A1P1, was that disproportionate financial obligations were imposed on a small number of insurers holding long-term disease legacy policies arising from liabilities for asbestos-related diseases. The claimants added that the retrospective nature of the legislation enhanced their claim. The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and set aside the initial decision of the Administrative Court, finding that the legislation had struck a fair balance between the competing interests involved: Aviva Insurance Limited v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWCA Civ 15.
  • The Court of Appeal determined that the Environment Agency had not violated Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights by its failure to appropriately regulate emissions emanating from a landfill site. In particular, the Court found that the first instance judge, Fordham J, had exceeded the appropriate limits of adjudication in his declaratory relief by prescribing to the parties what each had to do in detail with appropriate time limits in order not to violate the relevant human rights. The Court reiterated that in a human rights claim, a court does not substitute its view of the best policy to adopt in a difficult technical and social sphere. In addition, the Court added that, where a court finds no violation of legal principles, it is not appropriate in a judicial review for the court to offer a remedy: R (Richards) v Environment Agency [2022] EWCA Civ 26.
  • The Court of Appeal determined that there was no perceived bias at common law for the Cabinet Office to award a public communications contract to Public First Limited related to government messaging during the coronavirus pandemic. The claimant had alleged there was a violation of common law principles against perceived bias in that the directors of Public First had close associations with Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister’s then chief adviser. The award of the contract was, therefore, lawful. The Court further made important comments related to the standing of an organisation like the Good Law Project to pursue challenges to public commercial contracts under Public Contracts Regulations 2015 where they have no commercial interests in doing so: R (Good Law Project) v Minister for the Cabinet Office and Public First Limited [2022] EWCA Civ 21.
  • The Administrative Court struck out an application for judicial review in relation to a claim that the prohibition on collective worship during the first national coronavirus lockdown was a violation of Article of the ECHR (right to manifest religion). Fordham J acceded to the request to strike out the application on the basis that the claim was now academic in light of the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Dolan) v Secretary of State for Health [2020] EWCA Civ 1605 that the lockdown was lawful: R (Hussain) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWHC 82 (Admin).
  • The Administrative Court rejected a judicial review challenge to the government’s “Everyone In” homelessness scheme during the pandemic, finding that the government had not adopted an unpublished policy which contradicted published policy and had not breached public law principles in failing to consult Shelter prior to devising the homelessness scheme: R (ZLL) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2022] EWHC 85 (Admin).
  • The Administrative Court concluded that Kent County Council and the Home Office had carried out unlawful age assessments of children who had been determined to be adults for the purposes of an asylum application and who had been detained at a facility in Dover: R (MA) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2022] EWHC 98 (Admin).
  • The Administrative Court upheld a judicial review claim by a number of claimants with physical and mental health disabilities that the failure by the DWP to provide transitional relief or support post the claimants’ irreversible transfer to Universal Credit was a violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) taken with Article 14 (non-discrimination) of the ECHR. In particular, the Court determined that the failure to replicate the “Severe Disability Premium” and “Enhanced Disability Premium” that had existed under legacy benefits prior to Universal Credit was discrimination that was manifestly without reasonable foundation: R (TP) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWHC 123 (Admin).
  • The Administrative Court determined that the government’s National Disability Strategy had violated common law principles as to fair consultation. Griffiths J. concluded that, while there was no general common law duty to consult and while no express duty to consult existed in this case, the government had voluntarily embarked on a consultation and had failed thereafter to satisfy the duties to fairly consult interested and affected parties, particularly disabled people themselves: R (Binder) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWHC 105 (Admin).
  • The Court of Appeal determined that, for the purposes of the EU Settlement Scheme, the Home Secretary had misunderstood and misapplied European Union law in the context of so-called Zambrano carers. Zambrano carers are individuals with derivative rights to reside in EU nations because they care for EU citizens. In particular, the Court of Appeal found that the Secretary of State erred in law in her understanding of regulation 16 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 when providing, in Annex 1 to Appendix EU to the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, that the definition of a ‘person with a Zambrano right to reside’ includes paragraph (b) ‘a person …. without leave to enter or remain in the UK, unless this was granted under this Appendix’. In the Court’s interpretation of EU law, Zambrano carers do have a right to remain irrespective of the Appendix: R (Akinsaya) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 37.
  • The UK Supreme Court determined that the offence in s.13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalised the displaying or wearing of an article which arouses reasonable suspicion that the individual is a supporter or member of a proscribed terrorist organisation, was a strict liability offence. In particular, the Court concluded that the only mental requirement needed for a lawful conviction was that the individual knew that they were displaying the article. The Court also found that the s.13 offence did not violate Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression), as the criminalisation of such expression was a necessary and proportionate interference with freedom of expression having regard to the need to suppress terrorist organisations, prevent crime and disorder, protect the rights of others and public safety: Pwr and Akdogan v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] UKSC 2.
  • The Court of Appeal concluded that provisions in delegated legislation issue by the Home Secretary permitting the Minister to deprive individuals of British citizenship without notice by placing the notice in a Home Office file were contrary to the British Nationality Act 1981. The Court by a majority of 2-1 decided that while “notice” did not necessarily require actual receipt by the individual, there were no express powers in the 1981 Act permitting the Minister to entirely dispense with the giving of notice. For this reason, the delegated powers were outside those granted by the parent Act. The Master of Rolls, in the minority, argued that provisions would be neutered if the Home Secretary was unable to remove citizenship without notice given the object of the legislation to protect the public good: R (D4) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 33.
  • The Administrative Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to an amendment to Regulations related to Universal Credit, which sought to make Universal Credit available to some applicants with disabilities who were in full-time education. The amendments did not in fact achieve these aims in the way that the Secretary of State intended. The claimant argued that these amendments were unlawful on four grounds: failure to consult; irrationality; breach of Article 14 (non-discrimination) taken together with Article 1 Protocol 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the ECHR; and failure to satisfy s.149 of the Equality Act 2010, the so-called “Public Sector Equality Duty” (PSED). The Court dismissed the claim on all grounds: R (Kays) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWHC 167 (Admin).

Parliamentary affairs:

  • The House of Lords held the second reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill on 5 January 2022, available here. Of particular importance, Lord Ponsonby highlighted the connections between the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Judicial Review and Courts Bill and how they would interact to undermine procedural fairness for asylum seekers.
  • In a statement to the House of Commons on 5 January 2022, the Prime Minister announced that the government would not be imposing new mandatory legal restrictions in England in light of the Omicron variant of Covid-19. Instead, the government would support the continued campaign for a third, booster vaccination. In addition, the government would reduce the self-isolation period for individuals following a positive coronavirus test to five days and remove the requirement to carry out a pre-departure coronavirus test for international travellers coming to the UK.
  • On 5 January 2022, Neale Hanvey MP obtained an adjournment debate to discuss the award of Covid-19 public contracts by the government. He particularly focused on the integrity and transparency of the decision-making process in awarding Covid-19 related contracts and noted that Transparency International UK had assessed that there were at least 73 contracts worth around £3.7bn where credible allegations of corruption could arise.
  • On 6 January 2022, the House of Lords held a debate on the increased use of skeleton Bills and delegated powers in the government’s legislative programme. Lady Cavendish of Little Venice put forward the debate and speakers included Lord Blencathra (Chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee), Lord Hodgson (Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee) and Lady Thomas (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills).
  • On 11 January 2022, Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, obtained an urgent question from the Speaker of the House of Commons to ask the Prime Minister about allegations of a social event being held in the garden of No. 10 Downing Street on 20 May 2020, during a national lockdown. The Paymaster General, answering the question on the Prime Minister’s behalf, confirmed that the investigation into Downing Street gatherings during the pandemic being carried out by Sue Gray would include establishing the facts surrounding events held on 15 and 20 May 2020.
  • On 12 January 2022, During Prime Minister’s Questions, the Prime Minister apologised to the House of Commons for attending for twenty-five minutes a drinks event in the garden of No. 10 Downing Street on 20 May 2020 during a national lockdown.
  • On 13 January 2022, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee launched an inquiry into the operation of so-called “Common Frameworks” between central and devolved governments. The deadline for the call for evidence ends on 21 February 2022.
  • On 17 January 2022, the House of Lords considered the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill at Second Reading.
  • On 19 January 2022, the Prime Minister announced to the House of Commons that the government would allow regulations associated with the Winter Plan B to expire on Thursday 27 January 2022. The result is that mandatory Covid certification would come to an end and the wearing of face masks would not be compulsory anywhere. The government would also withdraw guidance to employees to work from home if possible and the Prime Minister indicated the government’s intention to allow regulations which require a person to self-isolate following a positive coronavirus test to expire on 24 March 2022.
  • On 24 January 2022, Lord Agnew, Minister for the Treasury and Cabinet Office, resigned at the despatch box of the House of Lords in protest at the government’s handling of fraud in relation to Covid business loans. Arguing that his resignation was not “an attack on the Prime Minister”, Lord Agnew suggested that “a combination of arrogance, indolence and ignorance” was “freezing the government machine”.
  • On 24 January 2022, the Public Accounts Committee launched a call for evidence on the use of evaluation and financial modelling in government, which runs until 2 March 2022.
  • On 24 January 2022, The House of Lords Public Services Committee launched a call for evidence on “Designing a public services workforce fit for the future”. Issues of importance include: Designing a public services workforce fit for the future; Recruitment, retention and training; Transforming workforce effectiveness; Transforming existing workforce structures; and Creating user-centred public services. The call for evidence closes on 28 February 2022.
  • On 26 January 2022, the House of Lords considered the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill at Committee Stage.

Government departments:

  • On 5 January 2022, the Home Office announced that it would establish a new Scientific Advisory Committee to provide advice on scientific best practice on how to identify accurately the age of asylum seekers. Professor Dame Sue Black has been appointed to chair the Committee on an interim basis and will report directly to the Home Office’s Chief Scientific Adviser.
  • On 12 January 2022, the Home Office announced that it would seek an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill currently progressing through Parliament that widens the number of historical convictions for consensual homosexual activity eligible to be pardoned or disregarded.
  • The Ministry of Justice launched a review of custodial remand for children following recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in 2019. The review questions the assumption that the number of children on remand has increased significantly or that custodial remand is regularly overused. It highlights that remand is a complex decision-making issue and that courts do not make custodial remand decisions lightly. The review further explores racial disparity in remand outcomes and provides detail on the legislative measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to tighten the legal tests courts must satisfy to impose a custodial remand on a child.
  • The Ministry of Justice announced that it was increasing funding for the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme.
  • On 31 January 2022, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy released a policy paper on economic regulation post-Brexit. The paper particularly addresses: regulator duties, including making regulatory powers covering price, quality, resilience, the environment and net zero more coherent; transparent long-term strategic guidance for regulators from ministers; promoting competition; and transparency and consistency in regulation.
  • On 31 January 2022, the Cabinet Office released a policy paper entitled “The Benefits of Brexit: How the UK is taking advantage of leaving the EU”. Of particular relevance to administrative law, the paper sets out new principles of regulation for government departments, including: a sovereign approach; leading from the front; proportionality; recognising what works; and setting high standards globally and nationally. The paper also sets out a new approach to retained EU law, in particular changing its status in the domestic legal order and making it easier to repeal or amend through ministerial delegated powers.


News items:

  • On 19 January 2022, Christian Wakefield MP, the Conservative MP for Bury South, announced that he was defecting from the Conservative Party to the Labour Party and called on the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson MP, to resign.
  • On 20 January 2022, William Wragg MP, Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, alleged that government Whips were intimidating and threatening Conservative MPs who criticised the Prime Minister in relation to potential parties and gatherings held during national lockdowns. Mr Wragg suggested that Whips had threatened to withdraw funding from rebel and critical MPs’ constituencies and called on MPs to contact the police over what he called this “blackmail”.
  • On 23 January 2022, Nusrat Ghani MP claimed that the Chief Whip informed her that one of the reasons for her being sacked as a minister in the February 2020 reshuffle was her “Muslimness”. She particularly suggested that the Chief Whip told her that her “Muslimness” was making ministerial colleagues “uncomfortable”. The Chief Whip denied the claims.
  • On 24 January 2022, the Prime Minister conceded that a gathering took place in No. 10 Downing Street during the first national lockdown in June 2020 to celebrate the Prime Minister’s birthday. Around 30 people attended the event, which lasted for 10 minutes according to a No. 10 spokesperson. The Prime Minister also insisted that the gathering had occurred outside and not inside the Downing Street residence.
  • On 25 January 2022, Dame Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, announced that the Metropolitan Police would be launching an investigation into allegations that a number of unlawful gatherings were held in No. 10 Downing Street in 2020. The Commissioner noted that, although it would not normally be in the public interest to investigate allegations of coronavirus lockdown breaches two years after the event, this would depend on the extent and seriousness of the alleged breaches.
  • On 25 January 2022, The Guardian reported that the Home Office had run an unpublished policy between April and November 2020 that asylum seekers should handover their phones to officials upon arrival in the country. This included allegations of pressure and bullying to require these handovers.
  • On 27 January 2022, The Guardian reported that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had declined to publish a review of the effectiveness of benefit sanctions.
  • On 27 January 2022, The Guardian reported a new government policy proposal that jobseekers receiving unemployment benefits would be required to look for work outside preferred areas and categories within four weeks or face new sanctions.


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: