Asked by: Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay on 6 September (HL9930), what powers they have to intervene in the work of the Charity Commission where a case is made that it is not acting in the public interest; and if they have no such powers, where accountability for the Commission sits.
Answered by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
The Charity Commission is an independent registrar and regulator. Section 13(4) of the Charities Act 2011 makes clear that, in the exercise of its functions, the Charity Commission is not subject to the direction or control of any Minister of the Crown or of another government department.
The Charity Commission is accountable in several ways. Decisions made by the Charity Commission in exercising its functions are subject to appeal or review either by the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, or by way of judicial review in the High Court. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport Ministers answer for the Charity Commission in Parliament, and the regulator can be called to give evidence to Committees in both Houses of Parliament. The Charity Commission is also required to present its annual report and audited accounts to Parliament, providing key information about its activities and performance.
Further details on the Charity Commission’s governance and accountability is available in the Charity Commission Framework Document 2023, published on GOV.UK.
Asked by: Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Viscount Camrose on 18 September regarding the Newport Wafer Fab factory (HL Deb col 1199), when they expect the judicial review to be completed, thereby enabling ministers to answer parliamentary questions on this issue.
Answered by Viscount Camrose - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)
The timing of judicial reviews is a matter for the Court. The Investment Security Unit in the Cabinet Office is responsible for monitoring Nexperia’s compliance with the Final Order issued under the National Security and Investment Act 2021.
Asked by: Lord Bishop of St Albans (Bishops - Bishops)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to review the guidance for coroners in Prevention of Future Deaths Reports.
Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Chief Coroner has issued Guidance for coroners on Reports to Prevent Future Deaths which can be found at: Revised Chief Coroner's Guidance No.5 Reports to Prevent Future Deaths[i] - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.
Any review of the Guidance is a matter for the Chief Coroner in his independent judicial capacity.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what steps he is taking to support democracy in Africa.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
The state of democracy in Africa and around the world matters to the UK. The Integrated Review notes that flourishing democracies are important for UK sovereignty, security and prosperity. We believe that strong democratic institutions and accountable governments, which uphold universal rights and the rule of law, are key building blocks for secure and prosperous states. The UK has established strong bilateral partnerships across Africa to bolster democratic institutions. Examples of our work include judicial training around elections in Kenya, public financial management support in Mozambique, and supporting civil society to hold government to account for service delivery in Nigeria.
Asked by: Matthew Offord (Conservative - Hendon)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the decision by the Planning Inspectorate not to approve the proposed West Oxfordshire Area Action Plan for a new garden village.
Answered by Rachel Maclean
A Judicial Review claim has been issued in relation to the proposed West Oxfordshire Area Action Plan. It is therefore not appropriate to comment directly on this matter at this time.
Asked by: Stephen Farry (Alliance - North Down)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the (a) adequacy of digital accessibility for disabled people and (b) potential merits of bringing forward legislative proposals to guarantee online disabled rights similar to those in the Equality Act 2010.
Answered by Tom Pursglove - Minister of State (Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery)
The Government remains fully committed to supporting disabled people in the UK through creating more opportunities, protecting their rights and ensuring they fully benefit from, and can contribute to, every aspect of our society.
The National Disability Strategy (NDS) suggested ways for the Government to consider improving digital accessibility for disabled people. Following the successful appeal in the NDS Judicial Review we are considering how best to take this important work forward.
Asked by: Jerome Mayhew (Conservative - Broadland)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the costs to the dualling of the A47 between Blofield and North Burlingham and Easton to North Tuddenham of the judicial review process.
Answered by Richard Holden - Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office)
National Highways’ estimated legal costs associated with the judicial review process for the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham and A47 Easton to North Tuddenham schemes is £50,000 to £75,000. The judicial review process has not yet completed, so further legal costs could be incurred.
It is not yet possible to assess the full impact of the legal action on the project itself. However, it has meant that the schemes have missed their scheduled start of works dates of March 2023 and their construction costs will face additional inflationary pressures, potentially into the millions of pounds.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what legal costs they have incurred to date as a result of their decision to seek a judicial review on the application of the Inquiries Act 2005 to the Covid-19 Inquiry.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
We do not yet have a figure for the costs incurred. We brought this judicial review to seek clarification on a point of law and we are pleased that the Court agreed that there was an important legal question to consider.
It acknowledged our concerns over respecting the privacy of individuals and ensuring that completely irrelevant information is returned and not retained.
Asked by: Charlotte Nichols (Labour - Warrington North)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the cost to the public purse of appealing the decision in the case of AAA and others v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Supreme Court.
Answered by Robert Jenrick
On 29 June, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the Judicial Review of the UK’s Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda.
No precise estimate has been made of the cost of appealing the Court of Appeal decision. The costs of taking this matter to the Supreme Court will be dependent on the complexity of the litigation and on the final outcome of the case which will determine each party’s liability for costs. An accurate estimate at this point is therefore not possible.
Our current asylum system is under extreme pressure and costing the country £3 billion a year and rising, including over £6 million a day on hotel accommodation. We cannot afford not to act.
Asked by: Afzal Khan (Labour - Manchester, Gorton)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what estimate he has made of the cost of the application for judicial review of the UK covid-19 inquiry.
Answered by Jeremy Quin
We do not yet have a figure for the costs incurred. We brought this judicial review to seek clarification on a point of law and we are pleased that the Court agreed that there was an important legal question to consider.
It acknowledged our concerns over respecting the privacy of individuals and ensuring that completely irrelevant information is returned and not retained.