Author: admin

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb on 2016-05-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their stated intention to require both ministerial and judicial authorisation for warrants under the Investigatory Powers Bill, why they consider it necessary to include a provision limiting judicial scrutiny to judicial review principles.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Investigatory Powers Bill creates a “double lock” for the use of the most intrusive in-vestigatory powers such that a decision to issue a warrant must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner.

As the Secretary of State for the Home Department set out last November, this system balances Parliamentary accountability with independent consideration by a judicial authority. The application of judicial review principles is a robust, yet flexible, approach that the judiciary have significant experience in applying as the framework for independent scrutiny of Executive decision making. The ‘double-lock’, including the use of judicial review principles, was considered in detail by the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. The Committee concluded that they were satisfied with the use of judicial review principles and that they would afford the Judicial Commissioners considerable flexibility in reviewing decisions to authorise the use of investigatory powers.

In response to concerns expressed during Commons Committee Stage, the Government tabled an amendment to the test at report. That amendment makes it clear that when carrying out their review of the decision to issue the warrant, the Judicial Commissioner must do so with a sufficient degree of care so as to ensure that the Commissioner complies with their duties under clause 5 (General duties in relation to privacy). There was strong support from across the House for this amendment.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb on 2016-05-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the total cost of Trident renewal over the lifespan of the Successor-class submarines, including in-service costs and decommissioning.

Earl Howe

As stated in the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, our latest cost estimate for manufacturing the four submarines of the Successor submarine programme is £31 billion, plus a contingency of £10 billion. This includes an assessment of the likely inflation over the lifetime of the programme and the risks appropriate for a project at this stage.

Once the new fleet of ballistic missile submarines comes into service, we expect that the in-service costs of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which include the costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, basing and disposals, will be similar to the current system, at around six per cent of the defence budget.

While we have no plans to replace the current Trident D5 missile, we are participating with our US partners in a programme to extend their lifespan to the 2060s. The estimated cost is around £250 million.