The post Public Law Project Annual Conference 2026 appeared first on Public Law Project.

The post Judicial review: Heads of challenge appeared first on Public Law Project.

The post Influencing for impact: Making policy design fairer appeared first on Public Law Project.

The post Public Law and the Planet – online version appeared first on Public Law Project.

The post Public Law and the Planet appeared first on Public Law Project.

The post An introduction to public law for environmental campaigners appeared first on Public Law Project.

The post Morning update: AI and automated decision making, litigation and law reform appeared first on Public Law Project.

The post Online JR Academy February 2026 appeared first on Public Law Project.

The post Public Law Project Annual Conference 2025 appeared first on Public Law Project.

On Wednesday, 9 July, the Bill will return to Parliament for Grand Committee. Information published alongside Tuesday’s debate suggests that thereafter it is ‘expected to be certified as a Money Bill’.

If certification goes ahead, it means Wednesday will likely be the last opportunity for amendments to be made to the Bill before it becomes law – further limiting the opportunity for it to be informed by the expertise, voices and experience of the disabled people it will impact.

What is a Money Bill?

All Bills must be considered by both Houses of Parliament before they can become law. For most Public Bills this means being scrutinised and amended via a series of stages in both Houses.

However, the process is different for ‘money bills,’ defined as bills whose only purpose is to authorise expenditure or taxation or the granting or raising of loans and matters incidental to those subjects. In contrast to other primary legislation, Money Bills may be presented for Royal Assent a month after being sent to the Lords whether the Lords pass it or not. 

Money Bills face considerably less scrutiny than other bills. According to parliamentary practice they are heard by the Lords in a single day, with no committee, report stage, or formal third reading – and no amendments. 

There have been exceptions to this. For example:

• The Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grants Act 2010 where Labour peers tabled an amendment to the effect that the Bill should go through its usual stages (the amendment was defeated),
• The European Communities (Finance) Act 1995 which went to committee in the Lords.

Minor amendments were agreed between the Houses in relation to the China Indemnity (Application) Bill 1925, the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Extension Bill 1935-6 and the Inshore Fishing Industry Bill 1946. However, although amendments and the holding of a House of Lords Committee stage following certification as a Money Bill is possible, it is very unusual and unlikely. 

Certification as a Money Bill

Whether a bill is certified as a Money Bill is a decision of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Section 1(3) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides that before doing so they should consult, if practicable, two members of the ‘Chairman’s Panel’ (now the Panel of Chairs) appointed for this purpose. In making that decision, they are advised by Parliamentary Counsel who should first seek the views of the House Authorities, Public Bill Committee and the Whips. 

In practice, that decision is not taken until the bill is ready to be sent up to the Lords i.e. after third reading in the House of Commons. In this case, this is currently scheduled for Wednesday 9 July.

It is possible that amendments made at the House of Commons stage, for example at Committee stage, would take the Bill outside the definition of a Money Bill.

However, once that decision is taken, under s.3 of the 1911 Act that certificate is ‘conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law’.

A financial purpose?

Money Bills are ‘narrowly’ defined under s.1(2) of the 1911 Act as Bills that are exclusively concerned with financial matters such as taxation, public money and loans.

As set out in both Erskine May and Parliamentary Counsel guidance, if the main object of the bill is to create a new charge on the Consolidated Fund or on money provided by Parliament (one of the categories that falls within the definition), the Bill will not be certified if it is apparent that the primary purpose of the new charge is not purely financial.

The guidance notes that in identifying whether the primary purpose is financial ‘it may be necessary to look beyond the text or form of the Bill to ascertain the underlying policy aims’ – to distinguish between whether a Bill is imposing a charge primarily for a financial purpose, such as cutting public expenditure or reducing the budget deficit, or whether it has a wider social or economic purpose. 

In the Green Paper that preceded the current Bill, and in the statements to the House, government has emphasised that the objective of the current Bill is not just to reduce the welfare budget, but to ‘reduce the perverse incentives, promote labour market engagement over inactivity and improve the adequacy of the standard allowance whilst supporting those with most severe needs’. 

PLP recommends that MPs at third reading clarify with Government which it views as the principle purpose of the current Bill.

The wider context

The current Bill sits within a much wider context of welfare reform involving multiple different proposals, spanning two different parties of Government, and a concern throughout from Disabled People’s Organisations that their voices are not being heard.

Earlier this year, Ellen Clifford, represented by Public Law Project, successfully challenged the Conservative government’s consultation on one of these earlier government proposals.

In responding to the judgment, the UK DDPO CRPD Monitoring Coalition (a coalition of Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs) working together to monitor the UK’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities) emphasised the need for Government to work ‘in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, avoiding the urge to rush through poorly formed policy that purports to save money’.

In its 2025 manifesto, Labour appeared to have heard that call, committing to champion the principle of working with disabled people, so that their views and voices were ‘at the heart of all we do’. 

It was therefore disappointing that of the 22 measures announced by the Government in its Green Paper earlier this year, over half of them, including some of the most controversial, would not to be subject to consultation. Measures are being taken forward at different stages, through different pieces of legislation, the first of which is the current Bill. 

Further, the timetable that has been set out for this deeply controversial Bill is very, very tight. As part of the House of Commons stage, it has been scheduled for Grand Committee rather than a Public Bill Committee. While all MPs will get the chance to discuss the Bill, it means proceedings will be restricted to a single day with no opportunity to hear external evidence.

If the Bill is certified as a Money Bill, and the Government meets its aspiration of having it passed by the summer recess, this highly controversial Bill will have made its way through parliament at expedited pace in less than a month, after only three days of substantive debate, and with no opportunity to take external evidence.

Comparatively, the last major piece of welfare reform legislation, the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 took eight months to pass. This included six days of House of Commons Committee debate with written evidence from 85 different organisations and individuals and oral evidence from a range of experts, followed by scrutiny in the Lords and consideration of a wide range of amendments.

More haste, less speed

Most MPs become MPs because they want to get things done; to make a positive difference for their constituents and the country that they serve. In that context, it can no doubt feel frustrating to be faced by processes and procedures that take time. 

But rushing through policy without adequate scrutiny rarely results in better policy or more speed – as was borne out last week, with last minute amendments announced at midnight the night before the second reading debate and a mid-debate concession that the reforms for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) would be delayed, pending a wider co-produced review into PIP assessments.

Parliamentary scrutiny should not be a substitute for meaningful consultation and co-production – but it does provide an opportunity for views to be heard, albeit indirectly. The debate in the Commons last week was full of the questions, representations and stories of MP’s constituents. The reasoned amendment that nearly saw the Bill not pass second reading had been co-produced with 128 disabled people’s organisations. The concern about lack of consultation is compounded when that scrutiny is also cut short.

It remains to be seen whether the certification as a Money Bill goes ahead, given both the narrow definition for these bills and the implications for scrutiny. However, given the statement of intent, MPs may want to use tomorrow’s session to clarify what the primary purpose of this Bill is, and approach the session in the knowledge that it may well be the last chance for amendments to be made.

The post What is a Money Bill – and what will it mean for the controversial welfare bill? appeared first on Public Law Project.

Trans people especially will have concerns about what the judgment means in practice for their equality, dignity, inclusion, and access to services. The full implications remain unclear, with Great Britain’s equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), having launched a consultation on its guidance which ended in June.

Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that trans people remain protected against discrimination and harassment which they face due to being transgender. In that spirit, it is surely incumbent on us all to ensure that trans people are respected, valued, and supported, like everyone else, to thrive in our society. 

This blog steps back from the case and considers the longer-term bigger picture in relation to the human rights of trans people, public law, and the courts. Public law is the field of law which regulates state power and the relationship between the individual and government. As one of the cornerstones of a free, fair and thriving society, public law has been – and remains – an essential vehicle for maintaining and expanding the human rights and dignity of everyone, including trans people, alongside social activism and political advocacy.  

There are at least three reasons why public law – particularly international protection from the European Court of Human Rights – has been crucial in making universal human rights real and practical for LGBTQ+ people over the past thirty years.

Lived experience

The first is ability and willingness of the Court to recognise the lived and living experiences of trans people in their daily lives. The landmark case of Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom decided in 2002, for example, involved a post-operative trans woman who argued that the total lack of legal recognition of her gender in UK law was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to respect for a person’s private and family life.

The Court agreed, concluding that the UK had a positive obligation to recognise a post-operative trans person’s gender for some legal purposes. The Court’s reasons reveal a grounded, insightful, and compassionate attitude. It did not dismiss Christine Goodwin’s concerns as trivial or misplaced but instead demonstrated a capacity to make her experiences visible and valued. The judges noted that: 

“It must also be recognised that serious interference with private life can arise where the state of domestic law conflicts with an important aspect of personal identity… The stress and alienation arising from a discordance between the position in society assumed by a post-operative [trans person] and the status imposed by law which refuses to recognise the change of gender cannot, in the Court’s view, be regarded as a minor inconvenience arising from a formality. A conflict between social reality and law arises which places the [trans person] in an anomalous position, in which he or she may experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety.” (para. 77) 

More than this, the Court recognised that, while the UK may be required to make administrative and legal changes which may take time and modestly increase costs, this was part and parcel of a fair and humane society: 

“The Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.” (para. 91) 

Personal and bodily autonomy

The second reason why public law has been crucial for the rights of LGBTQ+ people is its ability and willingness to defend and promote the personal and bodily autonomy of trans people. In a case called X and Y v Romania decided in 2021, for example, the Court considered Romanian legislation which refused to legally recognise a trans person’s preferred gender without gender affirming surgery.   

The Court found that this absolute rule was a violation of Article 8, given that it forced trans people into a humiliating choice – have surgery which you do not want or do not have your identity recognised: 

“The Court sees this as a rigidity of reasoning regarding the recognition of the applicants’ sexual identity which placed them, for an unreasonable and continuous period, in a troubling situation instilling in them feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety… [T]he domestic courts placed the applicants, who did not want gender reassignment surgery, in an insoluble dilemma: either undergo the surgery against their will and renounce the full exercise of their right to respect for their physical integrity… or renounce recognition of their sexual identity.” (para. 165) 

Holding nations accountable

The third role of public law has been to impose accountability when national authorities fall short of the European and international consensus to protect rights. In AM v Russia decided in 2021, for example, the Court considered a case where the Russian courts would not permit a trans woman to have access to her children on the basis – without evidence – that this would confuse and traumatise them.  

With reference to several European and international legal instruments – including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Resolutions of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly – the Court determined that this was a violation of Article 8 and Article 14, which prohibits discrimination in the protection of rights.

This ‘holding the line’ function is crucial, ensuring that nations do not fall below the minimum international consensus needed to protect the human rights of LGBTQ+ people. As the Court put it in Goodwin 20 years earlier: 

“Since the Convention is first and foremost a system for the protection of human rights, the Court must… respond, for example, to any evolving convergence as to the standards to be achieved…It is of crucial importance that the Convention is interpreted and applied in a manner which renders its rights practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory. A failure by the Court to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would indeed risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement.” (para. 74)

What happens now?

Public law is unlikely to produce outcomes which are uniformly celebrated and 2025, more than most, will have been a disappointing year for many LGBTQ+ people and their allies. Nevertheless, public law has proved to be an important instrument for defending and promoting liberal, progressive change. It will always retain that potential.

Pride Month is an important time to take stock of what has been achieved, reflect honestly about what else needs to be done, and to dream and envision what society should look like for LGBTQ+ people in the years to come – free, dignified, respectful, and inclusive. We must ensure that public law is a fundamental part of achieving that vision.

The post The enduring role of public law in defending the rights of LGBTQ+ people appeared first on Public Law Project.

Liberty won the initial judicial review against the Home Office in May 2024, in which Public Law Project (PLP) acted as an intervener. PLP also intervened in the Government’s subsequent appeal in December 2024.

Now the Court of Appeal has agreed that the Public Order Act’s wording of “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community” is intended to set the threshold for police intervention at a relatively high level. That means that the meaning of the word “serious” here could not be reasonably changed to “more than minor” by the Home Secretary. 

The court also agreed with concerns about how Henry VIII powers had been used, as well as the argument that Parliament did not intend to give the Secretary of State these powers.

Shameem Ahmad, CEO of Public Law Project, said:

“Public Law Project supported Liberty in the High Court and the Court of Appeal because this is a critical juncture for the UK’s democracy.

“The former Home Secretary used statutory instruments to significantly restrict protest rights without scrutiny, despite these amendments being previously voted down by Parliament. The High Court agreed with us that this was an excessive and unlawful use of executive power.

“When the current Government decided to appeal that decision, they missed a valuable opportunity to defend civil liberties, restore proper balance between the executive power and Parliament and commit to making laws the right way.

“The Court of Appeal has now agreed with Liberty and PLP.

“PLP believes the public deserves better than backdoor law-making that allows their fundamental rights to be diminished by ministerial decree. The public deserves assurance that legislation impacting their daily lives has undergone Parliamentary debate and thorough scrutiny.

“We trust that this decisive victory for the rule of law and Parliamentary sovereignty will serve as a watershed moment for the Government. These restrictive protest laws should now be permanently abandoned and Henry VIII powers relegated to the annals of history where they belong.”

PLP is grateful for pro bono representation from Herbert Smith Freehills, Tom de la Mare KC and Tom Cleaver of Blackstone Chambers, and Bijan Hoshi of Garden Court Chambers.

The post Court of Appeal dismisses Government’s appeal over anti-protest laws appeared first on Public Law Project.