In 1539, Henry VIII gained the right to legislate by decree, enabling him to bypass Parliament altogether. And now Boris Johnson, the man who has already tried and failed to suspend Parliament, is taking further cues on democracy from a Tudor King. 

On leaving the EU, Henry VIII powers were originally intended to be used narrowly, to make technical changes to the statute book to ensure laws adopted inside the EU made sense outside it. We believe these narrow powers are being abused: Government says it can use them to abolish the entire state aid regime without parliamentary debate. But we think this is constitutionally offensive – and unlawful. 

With, as we understand it, no state aid regime in place, without the checks and controls it brings, the door is flung open for Government to provide financial aid that would favour particular industries and companies over their rivals. Given the Government’s tendency to benefit donors to the Conservative Party you may well think we need those rules. 

The scrapping of the state aid regime will be the tip of the iceberg. 

The Future Relationship Act, presented to Parliament in the dying days of 2020, contains extraordinarily broad Henry VIII powers. Ministers can now rewrite the rules on everything from your rights at work to environmental protections. In fact it is no exaggeration to state that any area of law touched on by the EU is now within the purview of Ministers. They can even extend their own powers under the Act. 

The stakes could hardly be higher.

We believe that the use of Henry VIII powers to scrap the state aid regime is unlawful and we have issued judicial review proceedings. Good Law Project has instructed Hausfeld LLP and leading Counsel Tim Buley QC and Yaaser Vanderman in this challenge. You can read the bundle as filed here. The case will be crowdfunded. If you are in a position to support the legal challenge, you can do so here.

The Government’s actions undermine Parliament. We at Good Law Project mean, having previously orchestrated the successful challenge to Johnson’s prorogation, to stand guard.

The NHS commissions Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) to provide specialist assessment, consultation and care for children and young people to help reduce the distressing feelings of a mismatch between their assigned sex and their gender identity. 

The NHS has a legal obligation to see those referred to Gender Identity Development Service within 18 weeks. But the average waiting time is 18 months. In some shocking reports, young people are waiting for up to four years for a first appointment. Not to get what the NHS describes as fully reversible puberty blockers but to begin the process of being assessed for eligibility for puberty blockers.

Children are losing the opportunity to be seen within a window in which they can secure effective treatment. They are, in practice, being denied access to treatments which are correlated with improved mental health and reduced suicide risk.

Whatever your views about the right treatment regime for young people with gender dysphoria, it can’t be right that they face lengthy waiting lists just to have a first appointment with a specialist. That’s why Good Law Project and one of the teenagers affected have initiated a legal challenge to ensure NHS England.meets its obligation to children and young people 

This case will be <a href=”https://rebrand.ly/cj-gids”>our first case of many to protect this most disadvantaged</a> – and discriminated against – of communities. 

Timeline:
27th October: We wrote to NHS England
23d November: We have published the legal opinion

The Government suppressed an official report that proved there were issues with rapid antibody tests purchased by the Department of Health. Leaked emails reveal the Government blocked Public Health England from publishing their findings until after they could make an announcement that they had purchased one million antibody tests from Abingdon Health. 

The Government supported the creation of the UK Rapid Test Consortium (UK-RTC) back in April. The idea was that the companies and institutions involved, including Abingdon Health, would create a rapid antibody test. On 2nd June, Government awarded a contract worth £10million to Abingdon Health for the materials needed to produce the test. On 14th August, they handed Abingdon Health another contract worth a staggering £75million. 

Despite these huge sums of money, Government seems to have ignored widely held concerns that tests were not fit for purpose. So a £75million contract was awarded without competition, on the basis of profoundly flawed research. And when confronted with evidence of these flaws Government tried to suppress publication of that evidence.

These are serious charges and we have set out the publicly available evidence in this chronology, which we will update as more evidence is published.

To protect public money and to seek to encourage Government towards honesty, we have issued judicial review proceedings in respect of the Abingdon Health contract awards. Our case rests on the following grounds:

• Government’s apparent failure to conduct any lawful or sufficient inquiry or evaluation of the accuracy of the rapid antibody tests.
• The award of these contracts seemingly without any advertisement or competition between bidders

Good Law Project has instructed Joseph Barrett of 11KBW Chambers and Rook Irwin Sweeney.  They will work considerably below market rates. 

The legal challenge is being crowdfunded. If you’re in a position to do so, you can make a donation here.

https://rebrand.ly/uc-judgment