Lord Lamont of Lerwick Portrait

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

Conservative - Life peer

Became Member: 24th July 1998


Lord Lamont of Lerwick is not a member of any APPGs
1 Former APPG membership
Iran
European Affairs Committee
14th Apr 2021 - 31st Jan 2024
EU Goods Sub-Committee
23rd Apr 2020 - 31st Mar 2021
European Union Committee
15th Jul 2019 - 31st Mar 2021
EU Internal Market Sub-Committee
16th Jul 2019 - 23rd Apr 2020
Economic Affairs Committee
8th Jun 2015 - 1st Jul 2019
EU Sub Committee C - External Affairs
17th May 2012 - 30th Mar 2015
Economic Affairs Committee
29th Nov 2004 - 26th Nov 2008
European Union Committee
6th Dec 1999 - 20th Nov 2003
Chancellor of the Exchequer
28th Nov 1990 - 27th May 1993
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
24th Jul 1989 - 28th Nov 1990
Public Accounts Committee
5th Jun 1986 - 27th Jul 1989
Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
21st May 1986 - 23rd Jul 1989
Minister of State (Ministry of Defence) (Procurement)
2nd Sep 1985 - 20th May 1986
Minister of State (Department of Trade and Industry)
13th Jun 1983 - 2nd Sep 1985
Minister of State (Department of Industry)
14th Sep 1981 - 12th Jun 1983
Procedure Committee
1st Nov 1978 - 9th Jun 1983
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Energy)
7th May 1979 - 5th Sep 1981


Division Voting information

During the current Parliament, Lord Lamont of Lerwick has voted in 467 divisions, and 4 times against the majority of their Party.

1 Dec 2020 - Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 - View Vote Context
Lord Lamont of Lerwick voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 27 Conservative Aye votes vs 178 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 64 Noes - 246
20 Oct 2020 - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Lamont of Lerwick voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 39 Conservative Aye votes vs 158 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 395 Noes - 169
17 Jan 2022 - Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Lamont of Lerwick voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 4 Conservative No votes vs 135 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 163 Noes - 216
23 May 2024 - Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Lamont of Lerwick voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Conservative Aye votes vs 108 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 76 Noes - 111
View All Lord Lamont of Lerwick Division Votes

Debates during the 2019 Parliament

Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.

View all Lord Lamont of Lerwick's debates

Lords initiatives

These initiatives were driven by Lord Lamont of Lerwick, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.


Lord Lamont of Lerwick has not introduced any legislation before Parliament

Lord Lamont of Lerwick has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting


Latest 25 Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Written Questions can be tabled by MPs and Lords to request specific information information on the work, policy and activities of a Government Department
1 Other Department Questions
2nd Nov 2022
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker why Remembrance Day poppies are not on sale at Peers' Entrance as in previous years.

A box of Remembrance Day poppies was placed at Peers’ Entrance on Wednesday 2 November. This was in addition to poppy boxes already placed in the Attendants’ Office off Peers’ Lobby and at Millbank House reception.

14th Jul 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot also applies to Privy Councillors from (1) Commonwealth, or (2) other countries.

The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.

The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.

St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.

In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.

Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.

Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.

Lord True
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
14th Jul 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Accession Council on the death of the Sovereign could be held in Westminster Hall; and if not, why not.

The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.

The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.

St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.

In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.

Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.

Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.

Lord True
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
14th Jul 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consultations were undertaken by the Privy Council with Privy Councillors prior to the decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council.

The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.

The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.

St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.

In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.

Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.

Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.

Lord True
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
14th Jul 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold an annual ballot of Privy Councillors only applies to the next meeting of the Accession Council or whether annual ballots will continue thereafter.

The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.

The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.

St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.

In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.

Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.

Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.

Lord True
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
14th Jul 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government which minister made the decision (1) to reduce the size of the Accession Council, and (2) to hold a ballot of Privy Councillors to attend the Council.

The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.

The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.

St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.

In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.

Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.

Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.

Lord True
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
19th Jul 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions, if any, they have had with Mr Nigel Boardman about the request of representatives of the late Lord Heywood to make representations to the review of Supply Chain Finance during the process of that review.

I refer the Noble Lord to my written statement of 22 July 2021. As the written statement notes, where actions have been attributed to individuals, some of which could be read as critical, the individuals concerned or their personal representative, where applicable, were given the opportunity ahead of the report being finalised to make representations on those sections of the report that could be perceived as criticisms to correct factual inaccuracies.

Lady Heywood has had access to papers that Lord Heywood would have been shown and, representing her late husband, has been treated on equivalent terms to others involved in the review.

During the course of the Review, Lady Heywood made representations to Mr Boardman about the process. Mr Boardman listened to these representations and agreed to undertake additional engagement with Lady Heywood prior to finalising his report.

Lord True
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
19th Jul 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to ensure the independence of Mr Nigel Boardman who is conducting their review of the use of Supply Chain Finance.

I refer the Noble Lord to my written statement of 22 July 2021.

Nigel Boardman is a distinguished legal expert, having undertaken a number of reviews scrutinising the Government. He was asked to lead this review following the appropriate consideration of relevant interests.

Lord True
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
6th May 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Lord True on 4 May (HL Deb, col 373), what plans they have to name those responsible for speaking to the Sunday Times about plans to reform the House, as set out in the report in the Sunday Times Lords too old to sit - 'so they should stand down', published on 4 May. [T]

As both the Leader and I said in this House last week, this is not Government policy.

The Conservative manifesto committed to looking at the role of the Lords, but any reform needs careful consideration, not to be brought forward piecemeal.

Lord True
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
26th Feb 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they, along with the governments of France and Germany, are drawing up any plans, as permitted under US and EU sanctions, to increase supplies of humanitarian goods, including equipment and medicines, to Iran in order to assist that country to combat Wuhan coronavirus.

The UK, France and Germany have expressed their full solidarity with all impacted by COVID-19 in Iran. Together we are offering UN agencies in Iran a package of support to try to combat the rapid spread of the disease. The UK will continue to support global efforts to combat the outbreak of COVID-19 and direct our support to help the most vulnerable across the globe.

4th Mar 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking (1) to assist small charities attempting to take humanitarian supplies by lorry to Ukraine via the EU, and (2) to help them obtain the correct permits.

We are aware that charitable organisations in the UK have launched appeals for donations of emergency funds and goods to provide humanitarian relief in Ukraine. Those charities seeking to take humanitarian supplies by lorry, to Ukraine via the European Union (EU) will need to follow the requirements for all hauliers. These requirements will differ depending on whether the charity is using its own vehicle or is hiring a lorry for the purpose. This can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/carry-out-international-road-haulage

Step by step information for hired goods vehicles, setting out how to transport goods from the UK by road can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/transport-goods-from-uk-by-road. Guidance for private vehicles driving through the EU can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/driving-in-the-eu

Permits are not required to access Ukraine when using vehicles that are EURO V or above, this will include the majority of goods vehicles including HGVs, where further advice is required this can be provided by the International Road Haulage Permits Office (IRHP) which is part of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA).

In relation to Ukraine, we strongly advise that all those considering making this type of trip for humanitarian purposes, or otherwise consult the current travel advice provided by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and published on gov.uk for Ukraine, and any countries they propose travelling through as part of their journey. The advice for Ukraine is published at: https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/ukraine

7th Dec 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that people (1) who only have a private GP, and (2) who are not registered with an NHS GP, are able to access COVID-19 vaccinations.

In planning for the COVID-19 vaccine programme, NHS England and NHS Improvement have sought to ensure that vaccinations are accessible to those who are not registered with a National Health Service general practitioner. The contractual agreement under which general practices will deliver COVID-19 vaccinations - The General Practice COVID-19 vaccination programme 2020/21 Enhanced Service Specification - enables practices, working within their Primary Care Network groupings, to vaccinate unregistered patients provided they are eligible for a vaccination. Individuals who are not registered with a general practice will therefore be able to access the vaccine.

4th Mar 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received representations from charities about difficulties in sending medicines, including paracetamol, by lorry to Ukraine.

The UK is working closely with the UN and other humanitarian partners to ensure a well-coordinated and well-funded response to the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and the region. We have not been approached by our partners about any difficulties in sending medicines to Ukraine.

9th Nov 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the statement by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office quoted in the Financial Times on 4 November that clean energy equities in emerging and developing markets "consistently outperform the MSCI Emerging Markets Index" were cleared with (1) the Financial Conduct Authority, and (2) ministers.

At a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) event in the margins of COP26, officials presented on mobilisation as a policy agenda and quoted a reputable research document authored by the International Energy Agency in collaboration with the World Bank and the World Economic Forum. Their report highlighted that investments in clean energy transition in emerging markets have outperformed comparable benchmarks for emerging market assets. Referencing these research findings does not constitute investment advice by FCDO.

9th Nov 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office launched a tender process before proposing an investment of up to £25 million in the ThomasLloyd Energy Impact Asian renewable energy investment trust.

The decision in principle to invest in the ThomasLloyd Energy Impact Trust is the outcome of an open competition. The 'Mobilising Institutional Capital in Public Markets' (MOBILIST) Competition was launched at a public event on 8th February 2021 and was publicised via HMG's website and through social media. All Expressions of Interest were subject to initial assessment and increasing levels of analysis and due diligence as the competition progressed. At each stage of the competition participants' proposals were evaluated against the same pre-defined selection criteria.

9th Nov 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their proposed investment of up to £25 million in the ThomasLloyd Energy Impact Asian renewable energy investment trust has been approved by the accounting officer of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

All investments made by Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) under the Mobilist programme to support Competition participants, including the ThomasLloyd Energy Impact Trust, are subject to prior review and approval by both FCDO's Finance and International Finance Division.

9th Nov 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria they used in developing their proposal to invest up to £25 million in the ThomasLloyd Energy Impact Asian renewable energy investment trust; and whether those criteria included an assessment of the number of such trusts that are already established.

The ThomasLloyd Energy Impact Trust proposal was assessed against the following 'Mobilising Institutional Capital in Public Markets' (MOBILIST) Competition criteria: i) scalability; ii) replicability; iii) commercial viability; iv) additionality; v) feasibility; vi) credibility. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office's assessment of the investment trust universe currently listed on the London market is that there are presently no products with exclusive exposure to renewables in lower-middle and low-income countries, such as those comprising the ThomasLloyd portfolio.

25th Jul 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made, given their 38.6% shareholding in NatWest, of the descriptions of the “purpose” and “values” of NatWest in the papers released to Nigel Farage.

The Government’s 38.6% shareholding in NatWest Group is managed at arm’s length and on a commercial basis by UK Government Investments (UKGI). UKGI’s role is to manage the shareholding, not the bank itself. As a shareholder in NatWest, the government does not intervene in the operational decisions of NatWest. NatWest’s board is responsible for the bank’s strategic and operational decisions.

As set out at Budget, the Government intends to exit its shareholding by 2025-26 subject to market conditions and achieving value for money for taxpayers.

The Government does have wider responsibilities for financial services regulation. As a matter of public policy, the Government has been clear that it is wrong to remove someone's bank account on the basis of their lawfully-held views, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reiterated that message on Wednesday 26 July with leaders from the banking and building society sector.

The Government notes NatWest Group’s confirmation, on 25 July 2023, that they will be conducting an independent review into account-closure arrangements, and that, upon completion, the findings of that review will be made public[1].

[1] https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/news-room/press-releases/our-updates/2023/jul/update-from-natwest-group-board-and-chief-executive-officer.html

25th Jul 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, as 38.6% shareholders in NatWest, they will request the company to investigate the briefings provided to the BBC about the alleged financial position of Nigel Farage.

The Government’s 38.6% shareholding in NatWest Group is managed at arm’s length and on a commercial basis by UK Government Investments (UKGI). UKGI’s role is to manage the shareholding, not the bank itself. As a shareholder in NatWest, the government does not intervene in the operational decisions of NatWest. NatWest’s board is responsible for the bank’s strategic and operational decisions.

As set out at Budget, the Government intends to exit its shareholding by 2025-26 subject to market conditions and achieving value for money for taxpayers.

The Government does have wider responsibilities for financial services regulation. As a matter of public policy, the Government has been clear that it is wrong to remove someone's bank account on the basis of their lawfully-held views, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reiterated that message on Wednesday 26 July with leaders from the banking and building society sector.

The Government notes NatWest Group’s confirmation, on 25 July 2023, that they will be conducting an independent review into account-closure arrangements, and that, upon completion, the findings of that review will be made public[1].

[1] https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/news-room/press-releases/our-updates/2023/jul/update-from-natwest-group-board-and-chief-executive-officer.html

25th Jul 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what guidance, if any, they give to the management of NatWest about their expectations, in managing their 38.6% shareholding in that company.

The Government’s 38.6% shareholding in NatWest Group is managed at arm’s length and on a commercial basis by UK Government Investments (UKGI). UKGI’s role is to manage the shareholding, not the bank itself. As a shareholder in NatWest, the government does not intervene in the operational decisions of NatWest. NatWest’s board is responsible for the bank’s strategic and operational decisions.

As set out at Budget, the Government intends to exit its shareholding by 2025-26 subject to market conditions and achieving value for money for taxpayers.

The Government does have wider responsibilities for financial services regulation. As a matter of public policy, the Government has been clear that it is wrong to remove someone's bank account on the basis of their lawfully-held views, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reiterated that message on Wednesday 26 July with leaders from the banking and building society sector.

The Government notes NatWest Group’s confirmation, on 25 July 2023, that they will be conducting an independent review into account-closure arrangements, and that, upon completion, the findings of that review will be made public[1].

[1] https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/news-room/press-releases/our-updates/2023/jul/update-from-natwest-group-board-and-chief-executive-officer.html

25th Jul 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made, given their 38.6% shareholding in NatWest, of the decision by NatWest to give no loans for new oil and gas projects.

The Government’s 38.6% shareholding in NatWest Group is managed at arm’s length and on a commercial basis by UK Government Investments (UKGI). UKGI’s role is to manage the shareholding, not the bank itself. As a shareholder in NatWest, the government does not intervene in the operational decisions of NatWest. NatWest’s board is responsible for the bank’s strategic and operational decisions.

As set out at Budget, the Government intends to exit its shareholding by 2025-26 subject to market conditions and achieving value for money for taxpayers.

The Government does have wider responsibilities for financial services regulation. As a matter of public policy, the Government has been clear that it is wrong to remove someone's bank account on the basis of their lawfully-held views, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reiterated that message on Wednesday 26 July with leaders from the banking and building society sector.

The Government notes NatWest Group’s confirmation, on 25 July 2023, that they will be conducting an independent review into account-closure arrangements, and that, upon completion, the findings of that review will be made public[1].

[1] https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/news-room/press-releases/our-updates/2023/jul/update-from-natwest-group-board-and-chief-executive-officer.html

4th Mar 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to ask the EU to ease the administrative and paperwork requirements for lorries carrying medicines and humanitarian supplies to Ukraine.

The UK is committed to working with partners, including the EU, as well as humanitarian agencies, to ensure a well-coordinated and well-funded response to the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and the region.

We have initiated a number of conversations with the EU and its Member States to understand their plans to ease the movement of humanitarian supplies. The EU has been working with Member States on this issue and several are now easing their entry and exit regime to support the humanitarian effort for Ukraine.

The UK Government has also introduced a simplified customs process to support the export of aid goods destined for victims of the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. More information can be found on the gov.uk website.

Unless an organisation or person has a licence, medicines cannot be exported using this simplified process.

The UK has committed a £220 million humanitarian aid package for Ukraine to help aid agencies respond to the deteriorating situation, creating a lifeline for Ukrainians to access basic necessities and medical supplies.

21st May 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the impact of (1) current social distancing measures on GDP, and (2) the impending recession referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Economic Affairs Committee on 19 May, on GDP. [T]

HM Treasury does not produce forecasts of the economy or public finances.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is responsible for producing forecasts of the economy and public finances. On 14 April the OBR published a reference scenario assessing the potential impact of coronavirus. In this scenario GDP is assumed to fall by 35 per cent in the second quarter of 2020 before recovering in subsequent quarters. The OBR note that the Government’s policy response should help limit the long-term damage to the economy and public finances.