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.
Asked by: Caroline Nokes (Conservative - Romsey and Southampton North)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to the National Disability Strategy published on 28 July 2021, which of her Department’s commitments in that strategy that have not been paused as a result of legal action have (a) been fully, (b) been partially and (c) not been implemented.
Answered by Kevin Hollinrake - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade)
In January 2022, the High Court declared the National Disability Strategy (NDS) was unlawful because the UK Disability Survey, which informed it, was held as a voluntary consultation that failed to comply with the legal requirements on public consultations.
The National Disability Strategy (NDS) was published in July 2021 before the creation of the Department of Business and Trade in February 2023. The former Department for International Trade had no policies in the NDS while former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) had several commitments. The following three NDS commitments, were delivered by BEIS before the Judicial Review in January 2022:
The remaining former BEIS commitments relevant to the Department for Business and Trade’s remit in the National Disability Strategy were formally paused as a result of the Judicial Review. These were:
We remain 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. To support this, the Department for Business and Trade will be providing further details of our recent achievements to improve disabled people’s lives in the forthcoming Disability Action Plan consultation due for publication in the summer.
Ahead of this, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work will write providing a list of these achievements and will place a copy in the House Library.
Asked by: Fabian Hamilton (Labour - Leeds North East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what discussions he has had with his Guatemalan counterpart on (a) the sentencing of José Rubén Zamora, the founder of El Periódico newspaper, and (b) media freedoms in that country.
Answered by David Rutley - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
Last week's 6-year sentence of journalist José Rubén Zamora is an afront to independent journalism in Guatemala. Responsible journalism and a free press play key roles in a healthy democracy. During my visit to Guatemala in April, I [Minister Rutley] spoke with Vice Foreign Minister Aguilar and talked about the importance the UK Government attaches to democratic values, among them media freedom and judicial independence. We also put on record our concern in the UK statement during the Universal Periodic Review of Guatemala at the Human Rights Council in January. On 20 June I [Minister Rutley] tweeted a message about Zamora's conviction and sentencing.
Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Conservative - Romford)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what was the cost to the public purse of judicial review cases brought by campaign groups representing asylum seekers in each of the past four years for which data is available.
Answered by Robert Jenrick
Information on the cost to the public purse of judicial review cases brought by campaign groups representing asylum seekers in each of the past four years is not held in a reportable format and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Charlotte Nichols (Labour - Warrington North)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of legal fees for judicial review of the notice from the UK Covid-19 Inquiry to his Department under section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005.
Answered by Jeremy Quin
The government’s work on the Inquiry requires legal support which departments will procure at their own discretion from approved internal and external sources. The Judicial Review is ongoing, and as such the Cabinet Office does not yet have an estimate of the cost of the judicial review in this case.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of judicial arrangements (a) before and (b) after the commencement of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 underpins existing arrangements. It made the Lord Chief Justice the head of the judiciary and transferred to that office a number of judiciary-related functions previously vested in the office of Lord Chancellor. The Act therefore shared responsibilities for the administration of justice between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, and it continues to provide the statutory footing for their partnership.
The Act also created the independent Judicial Appointments Commission. The appointment of judges is in general a shared area of responsibility, though the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice have different roles at different levels of the judiciary.
It is not a current priority to review the arrangements that resulted from the 2005 Act or to assess whether further legislative changes might be necessary. The Lord Chancellor remains committed to maintaining an effective partnership with the judiciary within the existing legal framework.
Asked by: Lord Bishop of Durham (Bishops - Bishops)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether an individual who has been deported due to being subject to the duty to remove under clause 2 of the Illegal Migration Bill will be able to return to the UK via a safe route, if a human rights challenge against their deportation is successful following a remote hearing.
Answered by Lord Murray of Blidworth
The Illegal Migration Bill provides for Judicial Review but these are non-suspensive. Any JR will be dependent on its particular facts and the Government will comply with relief granted by the courts.
Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Conservative - Romford)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many judicial review applications were made by foreign national offenders in prisons under the Human Rights Act 1998 in each of the last ten years; and how many and what proportion of these were successful.
Answered by Robert Jenrick
Information on the number of judicial review applications made by foreign national offenders in prisons under the Human Rights Act cannot be accurately extracted from our internal systems and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.