Note: for sources used in the article, please see the conclusion of the article.
It is no secret that the 26th of March 2020 marked the beginning of a time which has not only left many emotionally drained, financially troubled, and physically challenged, but also has resulted in constant adaptations to the law. The Coronavirus Act 2020 is not only a piece of primary legislation that does not seem to be set in stone, but it has also led to serious contention and questioning regarding whether the statutory regulations set out within the act have been sufficient. Nevertheless, this is not the only legal issue that has been raised during this Pandemic.
The Key Issue
Matt Hancock, it seems, is a controversial figure. Despite being the Health Secretary since July 2018, Hancock has been scrutinised for many of his decisions, particularly concerning those made surrounding the on-going pandemic. From claims of sexism to the failure to support the free school meals scheme, the evidence does not need to be extensively collated to reflect the questionable choices the Health Secretary has made since his induction.
I’m sure by now you have heard about the recent controversy surrounding Mr. Hancock. Essentially, the High Court found Matt Hancock to be guilty of acting unlawfully after failing to publish contractual deals formulated which concerned PPE. These contracts amounted to billions of pounds, which therefore provides even more reason for the contracts to have been published within the 30-day time limit as prescribed by law. Through these actions, Justice Chamberlain in his ruling declared that Hancock had ‘breached his legal obligation.’ It is one thing to extend one's jurisdiction prescribed by their public duty but it is another to neglect such responsibilities.
To make matters worse, the Government adopted a transparency policy which states that the publication of details of public contracts was to be published if worth more than £10,000. Hancock's move is therefore a direct contradiction of Government policy which, in comparison to some others, is seen to be a very ethically and socially sound principle. This is just one example of a government minister behaving in such a way that contradicts a fundamental principle. The controversy surrounding their choices regarding the NHS and the potential privatisation under the Conservative Government has also been brought into question recently. This is especially with the pressure currently in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic still surging through the country and the rest of the world.
When asked by Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain about whether or not he was sorry for his actions, Matt Hancock proceeded to say: “I won’t apologise because to apologise would imply that I’d do something differently”. Therefore, asserting the notion that should he find himself in this situation again, he would happily go against his duties as a Government Minister. One aspect which has left some of the British public furious is the need for litigation to be used as a necessary tool in order to keep our Government honest. This raises questions about the level of trust the everyday citizen can have in their democratically elected Government.
The Bigger Picture
The Government has frequently faced applications for judicial review of decisions. This is why the ‘Separation of Powers’ principle is so vital when it comes to the proper application of justice. It is the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that laws that receive Royal Assent are upheld by the Executive and their ministers. The High Court verdict concerning Matt Hancock’s actions is but one example of the exasperate volume of cases that have been brought before the courts. Others include R (Miller and Cherry) v Prime Minister. These cases further reinforce the notion that despite Parliamentary Sovereignty, it is a requirement that the Government is held to the law on an equal level to the rest of the country.
Further Controversy
Controversy has also arisen surrounding where the PPE was sourced from. With the PAC stating that there were over 15,000 offers to supply PPE, a high-priority lane was set which amounted to stock worth £1.7 billion. To make matters worse, it has been said that the PPE received through these contracts were, in some cases, of poor quality and could not be used. After seeing NHS workers being forced to wear bin bags amongst pre-used gowns in order to protect themselves during the early days of the pandemic, it seems fair to say that this may have been a display of self-preservation on the part of Matt Hancock. He appeared to be doing something which could in fact be seen as a waste of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, one must ask what excuse is valid enough to justify the ignorance of his legal obligation?
There is no doubt that there is an interdependency between the UK Government and their citizens for there to be mutual trust and sacrifice for the sake of a better future post-pandemic. But in order for this to exist, it is imperative that the Government’s actions reflect their intention to have a functional relationship with the citizens of the United Kingdom. Through Matt Hancock’s decision not to dedicate the time which he is legally bound to set aside as part of his allocated jurisdiction to the publication of contractual deals with companies has risen concerns about how far this man will go in order to satisfy himself rather than those he serves. Regardless of any external circumstances which may be burdening them.
To Conclude
So, Matt Hancock. Justified or Unwarranted? I think it is a fair assumption that when it came to the failure to publish the required contracts, Matt Hancock saw it fit to neglect his responsibilities. Whether this was out of pure dissatisfaction with this requirement, or he truly was doing his best to facilitate the country with PPE is another thing. I would say that even though there was disarray when it came to the distribution of PPE within the UK, it is not an excuse to be so preoccupied that he neglects his responsibilities. Yet despite this, Matt Hancock has insisted that we should be thanking him and his team for all of their hard work and for keeping the country from a PPE shortage when the pandemic first began.
What do you all think? Should Matt Hancock be made to apologise for his crime? Or will Education Secretary Gavin Williamson’s indirect apology on Good Morning Britain have to suffice?
Sources:
Smith M, “Hancock ‘Acted Unlawfully’ in Failing to Publish Covid-19 Contracts” (mirror February 19, 2021) <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/matt-hancock-acted-unlawfully-failing-23532021> accessed March 3, 2021
Hancock Accused of ‘Barefaced Lie’ after Denying National PPE Outage” (ITV News February 23, 2021) <https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-23/covid-matt-hancock-accused-of-barefaced-lie-after-denying-national-outage-of-ppe> accessed March 2, 2021
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/matt-hancock-covid-contract-ruling-b1804667.html
Ellen is a first-year law student at Newcastle University but she is originally from Norwich. She really enjoys languages and is fluent in Spanish as well as currently learning Portuguese. Ellen aspires to become a family lawyer after finishing her degree, which stems from having such a big family herself. Her hobbies include hikes, dance and original fiction writing.
Commentaires