Judicial review challenge launched over Home Office 40,000 voluntary departure payment scheme

"The proposed legal action seeks clarification on whether ministers possess lawful statutory authority to authorise payments of this scale under the current immigration framework. The challenge does not dispute the government's immigration policy itself but instead centres on a constitutional question: whether the Executive has acted within the limits of authority granted by Parliament when committing public funds."

"At the heart of the dispute is the long-standing constitutional principle that public money can only be spent with the authority of Parliament. This principle traces back to the Bill of Rights 1689, which established that the Crown, and by extension the modern government, cannot raise or spend funds without parliamentary approval."

"In addition, government departments must comply with Treasury rules contained in the Managing Public Money, which require spending decisions to satisfy tests of regularity, propriety and value for money. Critics argue that without a clearly identified statutory basis or public explanation, such payments may violate these fundamental requirements."

A Pre-Action Protocol letter was issued to the UK Home Office signalling intention to pursue judicial review proceedings regarding a pilot scheme offering payments up to £40,000 to encourage voluntary departure of failed asylum seekers. The legal challenge does not dispute immigration policy itself but questions whether the Executive has acted within parliamentary authority when committing public funds. The scheme reportedly offers up to £10,000 per individual, capped at £40,000 per family. The core constitutional issue centres on whether statutory powers permit such payments, grounded in the principle that public money requires parliamentary approval, established by the Bill of Rights 1689 and enforced through Treasury rules on regularity, propriety and value for money.

Read at Business Matters