Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the reported description by Dr Mike Ryan, head of the World Health Organisation’s emergencies programme, of the policy of relaxing COVID-19 restrictions on 19 July as “epidemiological stupidity”.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The Government made a full assessment of the epidemiological and other relevant data ahead of taking the decision to move to Step 4 of the roadmap on 19 July. The Government is clear that the pandemic is not over and that the public should continue to behave cautiously.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the letter in The Lancet ‘Mass infection is not an option: we must do more to protect our young’, published on 7 July, arguing against relaxing COVID-19 restrictions; and what assessment they have made of how their policy on lifting restrictions meets their objective of “following the science”.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The Government made a full assessment of the epidemiological and other relevant data ahead of taking the decision to move to step 4 of the roadmap on 19 July and assessed that the four tests had been met. The success of the vaccination rollout has paved the way for the safe and gradual lifting of restrictions. However, the Government has been clear that the pandemic is not over and that the public should continue to practice cautious behaviours.
The risks of hospitalisation and intensive care admission in children due to infection is very low (approximately 8 per 100,000 population under 18 are admitted to hospital). Therefore, from step 4, the Government changed the controls that apply in early years, schools, colleges and higher education institutions to maintain a baseline of protective measures while maximising attendance and minimising disruption to children and young people’s education.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to introduce measures so that MPs and Peers are (1) covered by, and (2) liable to, regulations made under the Equality Act 2010.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The Government does not have plans to change the Act’s coverage as it relates to Parliamentarians. The constitutional position is affirmed by Parliament in Schedule 3 of the Act.
The conduct of Parliamentarians is a matter for each House. Codes of conduct set out the standards of behaviour expected of Members of Parliament in all aspects of their public life. Both Houses are advised by the Commissioners for Standards in each House.
Where MPs and peers recruit or employ staff, these aspects are covered by the Equality Act 2010, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the letter signed by scientists published in The Lancet on 8 July, which calls the planned relaxation of restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic on 19 July a “dangerous and unethical experiment”.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
On Monday 12 July, the Prime Minister confirmed that the Government’s four tests for easing COVID-19 restrictions had been met and England proceeded to Step 4 of the roadmap on Monday 19 July. A range of data was considered, including from Public Health England, the NHS, and the ONS, as well as modelling from SAGE, to inform this decision. In June, the move to Step 4 was delayed by four weeks so more adults could be vaccinated, and more than 7 million vaccines were administered during this period.
The Government will continue to monitor the data on a regular basis to ensure there is no danger of the NHS facing unsustainable pressure. The Government will maintain contingency plans for reimposing economic and social restrictions at a local, regional or national level if evidence suggests they are necessary to suppress or manage a dangerous variant. Such measures would only be re-introduced as a last resort to prevent unsustainable pressure on the NHS.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what penalties apply to ministers who are found to have breached paragraph 1.7 of the Ministerial Code.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.
The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
As the Prime Minister noted in his letter to the Committee on Standards in Public Life on 28 April 2021, he agreed with the Committee's suggestion that the appropriate sanction should depend on the circumstances of the case, and that the expectation that has arisen over time - that any breach should lead automatically to resignation - is disproportionate.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assurances they can give to civil servants that CCTV footage from their workplace is held securely.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
I refer the Noble Lord to my answer of 29 June 2021. Any use which is made of CCTV is for the protection of the government estate and individuals working there.
Each Department is accountable for the way in which security is maintained within Departments, which includes the provision of closed circuit television cameras.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to require the Conservative Party to reimburse the full costs of re-running the election of the Police and Crime Commissioner in Wiltshire.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
Statutorily independent Returning Officers are responsible for running Police and Crime Commissioner elections. Legislation provides for costs that are necessary for the efficient and effective running of a poll to be reimbursed to Returning Officers; the statutory mechanism is for these to be reimbursed from the Consolidated Fund on submission of a claim for such expenditure. There is no statutory mechanism for these costs to be recovered from elsewhere by the Government.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord True on 2 February (HL12298), whether they will now (1) answer the question put, namely whether they have made any assessment of the possible competitive disadvantages to (a) England, (b) Wales, and (c) Scotland, of not being in the EU Single Market; and if so, what was the result of any such assessment, and (2) over whom Northern Ireland has a "competitive advantage" by being in the EU Single Market for goods.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
The UK has left the EU Single Market and Customs Union with a deal that means the UK can now regulate in a way that suits the UK economy and UK businesses – doing things in a more innovative and effective way, without being bound by EU rules.
The Northern Ireland Protocol protects the territorial integrity of the UK by safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory and internal market, ensuring unfettered access to Great Britain for Northern Ireland businesses, while also facilitating the free flow of goods between Northern Ireland and the EU.
The questions of the advantages of relationships with the EU single market and customs union have been extensively debated over the last four years. I note that the Liberal Democrats campaigned to reverse Brexit in the last General Election, but the people of the United Kingdom voted to Get Brexit Done, endorsing the Conservative commitment to leave the Single Market and Customs Union.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 6 January that Northern Ireland has “a competitive advantage” because it is in the EU Single Market for goods, whether they have made any assessment of the possible competitive disadvantages to (1) England, (2) Wales, and (3) Scotland, of not being within the EU Single Market; and if so, what was the result of any such assessment.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
On 24 December 2020, the Government secured an agreement with the EU that takes back control of our laws, borders, money, and fisheries.
This is the first free trade agreement the EU has ever reached based on zero tariffs and zero quota. Businesses will be able to continue to trade on that basis, selling to their customers in the EU, and people will be able to continue to buy goods from Europe tariff-free, protecting consumer prices.
This is good news for families and businesses in every part of the UK, as it means the whole of the UK can make the most of the freedoms that have come with the end of the transition period.
In addition, the UK is now free to strike its own trade deals worldwide to the general benefit of all.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to publish in full the details of the reported offer made by the EU that would have allowed the UK's creative artists freedom of movement throughout the EU for up to 90 days; and their reasons for rejecting the EU's offer.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
In negotiations with the EU, the Government sought a mutually beneficial agreement that would have allowed artists and musicians to continue performing across the continent without the need for work permits. The EU turned down this proposal. The draft legal text published by the EU on their website on 18 March contained proposals regarding visa-free travel. These only covered ad-hoc performances, which were non-binding, and did not address technical staff or the issue of work-permits. These proposals would not have addressed the sector's concerns.
This Government recognises the importance of the UK’s world-leading cultural and creative industries. We recently demonstrated that commitment by providing an unprecedented £1.57 billion package of support to help them through the covid-19 pandemic. During the negotiations with the EU, we pushed for ambitious arrangements allowing performers and artists to work across Europe.
The Government also recognises the importance of touring for UK musicians and other creative professionals, and has engaged extensively with the creative industries and arts sector since the announcement of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement to ensure they are aware of the new requirements.