Asked by: Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 29 November (HL3547) concerning the legal opinion by Lord Pannick published by the Government on 2 September, whether professional legal privilege was waived in relation to the (1) commissioning, and (2) intended publication, of the (a) first, and (b) second, legal opinion by Lord Pannick; and whether any waiving of legal privilege has any implications for (i) their policy of not commenting on legal advice, or (ii) their publishing obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Legal professional privilege was waived to the extent necessary to allow publication of Lord Pannick’s legal opinion on 2 September 2022. As set out in HL354, given the exceptional circumstances, the Government at the time determined it was in the public interest for Lord Pannick’s legal opinion to be published. It remains the case that the Government does not comment on legal advice that may or may not have been sought or received. This is in line with the long-standing policy under successive administrations.
The government’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 remain unchanged. Every request made under the Act is considered on a case by case basis.
Asked by: Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to the legal opinion by Lord Pannick published by the Government on 2 September relating to the House of Commons Privileges Committee, what plans they have, if any, to publish any second or supplementary opinion by Lord Pannick.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Notwithstanding that in the exceptional circumstances the Government at the time determined it was in the public interest for Lord Pannick’s legal opinion to be published, it remains the case that the Government does not comment on legal advice that may or may not have been sought or received. This is in line with the long-standing policy under successive administrations.
Asked by: Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to the legal opinion by Lord Pannick published by the Government on 2 September relating to the House of Commons Privileges Committee, whether any supplementary opinion has been provided to the Government by Lord Pannick.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Notwithstanding that in the exceptional circumstances the Government at the time determined it was in the public interest for Lord Pannick’s legal opinion to be published, it remains the case that the Government does not comment on legal advice that may or may not have been sought or received. This is in line with the long-standing policy under successive administrations.
Asked by: Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the relative harms caused by (1) combustible tobacco products, and (2) non-combustible tobacco products.
Answered by Lord Kamall
Combustible tobacco products, such as cigarettes and rolling tobacco, are responsible for 448,030 hospital admissions and approximately 64,000 deaths a year. Users of non-combustible tobacco products, such as traditional chewing tobacco, can be exposed to similar or even higher levels of cancer-causing chemicals.
As all tobacco products are harmful to health, it remains the Government’s policy to support people to quit all forms of tobacco use. We encourage all tobacco users to quit through safer alternatives such as nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarettes and local stop smoking services.
Asked by: Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the relative harms caused by (1) smoking, and (2) vaping.
Answered by Lord Kamall
Smoking remains the single largest cause of preventable deaths – and it is estimated that two out of three lifelong smokers will die from smoking. In 2019/20, smoking was responsible for 448,030 hospital admissions, and roughly 64,000 deaths a year between 2017 and 2019.
Although vaping is not risk free, the evidence is increasingly clear that UK regulated e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful to health than smoking tobacco. E-cigarettes are an effective tool in helping smokers to quit, especially when combined with support from local Stop Smoking Services.
Asked by: Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice they have given to police forces in England and Wales on the recruitment of staff to implement diversity and inclusion policies; and whether any such advice included consideration of the value for money requirements of any such recruitment.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Home Office does not advise forces on the recruitment of police staff or how they are best deployed. This is a matter for operationally independent Chief Constables and democratically accountable Police and Crime Commissioners who are best placed to make decisions based on their local knowledge and experience. The College of Policing, as the professional body for policing in England and Wales, provides general guidance to forces on attraction and recruitment. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) published its first Diversity, Equality and Inclusion strategy in October 2018. This is complemented by a workforce representation toolkit which includes practical actions forces can take to increase the recruitment, retention and progression of officers from under-represented groups in policing. Discussions in the National Policing Board during last year, chaired by the Home Secretary, have focused the minds of police leaders on representation in policing. The NPCC has committed to leading further work in this area, alongside the College of Policing, to increase accountability for diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Asked by: Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much money is owed to HM Revenue and Customs by those whom they have contacted repeatedly to pay what they owe, as described in paragraph 2.4 of the HM Revenue and Customs report Direct Recovery of Debts published on 6 May 2014.
Answered by Lord Deighton
The additional tax revenue HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) expects to collect through the use of this policy is represented in Table 2.1 of the Budget 2014 document.
As set out in paragraph 2.12 of the Direct Recovery of Debts consultation document, HMRC estimates that this measure will apply to around 17,000 debtors a year, who have an average of £5,800 in tax and tax credit debts and around £20,000 in their bank and building society accounts.
Asked by: Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what value of fines remained unpaid at the end of financial years 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 (1) in total, and (2) with respect to fines issued in that financial year.
Answered by Lord Deighton
We have answered this question on the basis that it relates to HMRC penalties.
1) 2009-10 £0.5 billion
2010-11 £1.5 billion
2011-12 £1.5 billion
Fines and Penalties that remain unpaid are included as receivables and are reported in both the Resource Accounts and Trust Statement.
2) It is not possible to state the value of fines issued in each of the financial years. The question is very broad in scope and covers the majority of the business of the Department. Some data is held in electronic systems and some in paper files, and records are not kept centrally of the value of fines issued across the Department and across all obligations.
Asked by: Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much money was repaid to taxpayers as a result of overcharging by HM Revenue and Customs in each of 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13.
Answered by Lord Deighton
The information is not available as HM Revenue and Customs does not collect information on amounts underpaid or overpaid.
For many of the taxes that HM Revenue and Customs is responsible for such as income tax and corporation tax, taxpayers are required by law to make payments on account before the ultimate tax liability for the year is known. This can result in overpayments, in which case the taxpayer would be due a refund once the final liability was known. But it can also result in underpayments, in which case HMRC would seek to collect the additional amount owed.
In either case, interest may be due to HMRC or to the taxpayer according to the statutory rates.