Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to publish details of any contracts for the purchase of personal protective equipment in 2020, for which they have financially assisted the contractor in any way, including (1) partial or complete up-front payment, or (2) payment in any other manner.
Answered by Lord Bethell
Advanced payments have been used on a number of contracts awarded to suppliers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Each contract is different; some are payment on delivery and others are a percentage of payment upfront. Our approach has been to take some managed risk in order to secure supplies in an exceptional and globally highly competitive market. Contracts have break clauses in them, meaning if the company supplies faulty products or misses delivery dates, we can cancel the contracts and reclaim our money.
Over 900 contracts have been awarded by the Department and its executive agencies to suppliers for the delivery of goods and services related to the COVID-19 pandemic. To provide a validated assessment of whether an advanced payment has been agreed or not for each of these orders would involve disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to continue to invoke the “extreme urgency” provision of regulation 32(2)(c) of the Public Contract Regulations 2015 for personal protective equipment supplies throughout the winter; and when they intend to revert to normal procurement arrangements, including competitive tender.
Answered by Lord Bethell
The Department assesses the market conditions for procuring supplies related to any procurement, including those relating to COVID-19, in accordance with procurement guidance and regulations. Where any procurement meets the tests for the use of Regulation 32(2)(c) for the direct award of a contract then that approached will be used. Where it does not, other approaches will be considered.
We have already ordered around 32 billion items of personal protective equipment (PPE), of which over 20 billion is already in the United Kingdom. To ensure we can respond rapidly to demand surges in the future, the Department is building a strategic stockpile of PPE. This month, we will have a four-month stockpile of all COVID-19-critical PPE in place. The demand for PPE and the different factors affecting its supply are though kept constantly under review.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to publish details of any contracts for the purchase of personal protective equipment in 2020 (1) that have failed to deliver to specification, and (2) for which delivery is overdue.
Answered by Lord Bethell
Three hundred and seventy contracts have been awarded by the Department for the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE). All contracts are managed individually and information on the amounts of PPE found not to have been delivered to specification or for which delivery is overdue is not currently collated and held centrally. All contracts have clauses in them that allow the Department to seek redress if the company supplies faulty products or misses delivery dates.
All PPE procured from abroad that arrives at the central PPE distribution warehouse in Daventry is checked. If it is not CE marked then documents are sent to the UK regulators, the Health and Safety Executive and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, who agree to its release as the Market Surveillance Authorities for PPE and medical devices. Products are only released into the supply chain if the documents show the product is fit for its intended use.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what support and funding, if any, they are providing to (1) the Internet Watch Foundation, and (2) other organisations, working to prevent online sexual abuse; and when they plan to make any decisions about the future funding of the Internet Watch Foundation.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Nothing is more important than the safety of our children. The UK Government is committed to stamping out all forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse and continuing to be a global leader in tackling this threat.
The IWF acts as the UK’s ‘hotline’ for online criminal content, including indecent images of children (IIOC), to which both members of the public and internet industry can report web pages containing such images. The IWF is funded by the UK internet industry, and also receives funding from the European Union. Officials regularly engage with the IWF, including on its funding position following the UK’s exit from the EU. The Home Office supports the IWF’s connection to the Child Abuse Image Database (CAID).
We support a range of organisations such as the Lucy Faithfull Foundation whose Stop It Now! campaign, signposting people concerned about their own behaviour, or the behaviour of others, towards effective and anonymous help provided by the Foundation, including through its confidential helpline and the recently launched webchat service.
We have also recently provided funding to South West Grid for Learning and Internet Matters to develop a new online hub, specifically designed to decrease the risk of online abuse, including child sexual abuse, perpetrated against children with vulnerabilities, including children with SEND, LGBTQ+ children, and looked after children.
Future decisions on Home Office spending are dependent on the outcome of the 2020 Comprehensive Spending Review.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Agnew of Oulton on 14 September (HL7716), whether they will now answer the question put, namely (1) what was the cost to the Exchequer of misuse of Low Value Consignment Relief (LVCR) over the entire period that misuse took place, and (2) what was the number of retailers who did pay VAT and went out of business as a result of the misuse of LVCR by others.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
The Government does not have an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the misuse of Low Value Consignment Relief (LVCR). There is also no estimate of the number of compliant retailers that went out of business because of the misuse of LVCR by others.
The figure of £90 million additional yield for 2012/13 resulting from the removal of LVCR given in the previous answer is an indication of the extent of the misuse in the Channel Islands. The total yield for this measure over the period 2012/13–2016/17 was £500 million.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has delayed the publication of the inquiry into the leaking of confidential messages from Lord Darroch of Kew when he was UK Ambassador to the United States.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
The Metropolitan Police Service investigation is still ongoing. This is a complex, active criminal investigation and we have no information as to when it may conclude.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord True on 11 August (HL7558), how the reference to the answers by Lord True on 3 August to the Questions for Written Answer by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (HL7209 and HL7179) relates to the question put; and whether they will now answer the question put, namely what assessment they have made of the role of other states in national referendums in the UK in the last 10 years; if they have not made any such assessment, whether they plan to do so; if not, why not; whether they have (1) investigated, and (2) sought evidence on, the incidence of interference in the EU referendum by any hostile state; if not, why not; and what priority they give to any such investigations.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum or 2014 Scottish Referendum by any state. The Intelligence and Security Agencies produce and contribute to regular assessments of the threat posed by Hostile State Activity, including potential interference in UK democratic processes. We keep such assessments under review and, where necessary, update them in response to new intelligence. Where new information emerges, the Government will always consider the most appropriate use of any intelligence it develops or receives, including whether it is appropriate to make this public. Given this long standing approach, there are no plans to publish a retrospective assessment on the EU Referendum.
To continue to safeguard against future threats we are bringing forward new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with additional tools and powers to disrupt hostile state activity.
The Government's 2019 manifesto states: "we will protect the integrity of our democracy”. As part of this, we will introduce a digital imprints regime and in August 2020 we launched a technical consultation on our proposed regime. These proposals represent a significant step forward and will make UK politics even more transparent.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord True on 11 August (HL7557), how the reference to the answers by Lord True on 3 August to the Questions for Written Answer by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (HL7209 and HL7179) relates to the question put; and whether they will now answer the question put, namely what assessment they have made of the report by Robert Mueller Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, published in March 2019, in particular the conclusions on Russian interference; whether they plan to conduct a similar inquiry in relation to the conduct of the EU referendum in 2016; if not, why not; and why they have not yet conducted such an inquiry.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum or 2014 Scottish Referendum by any state. The Intelligence and Security Agencies produce and contribute to regular assessments of the threat posed by Hostile State Activity, including potential interference in UK democratic processes. We keep such assessments under review and, where necessary, update them in response to new intelligence. Where new information emerges, the Government will always consider the most appropriate use of any intelligence it develops or receives, including whether it is appropriate to make this public. Given this long standing approach, there are no plans to publish a retrospective assessment on the EU Referendum.
To continue to safeguard against future threats we are bringing forward new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with additional tools and powers to disrupt hostile state activity.
The Government's 2019 manifesto states: "we will protect the integrity of our democracy”. As part of this, we will introduce a digital imprints regime and in August 2020 we launched a technical consultation on our proposed regime. These proposals represent a significant step forward and will make UK politics even more transparent.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Richard Allen was rewarded for his whistle blowing role in alerting them and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to the misuse of Low Value Consignment Relief, as provided for by section 26 of the Commissioners for Customs and Excise Act 2005; and if not, why not.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
HMRC do have the discretion to pay rewards, and these are based on what is achieved as a direct result of information provided. HMRC conduct an internal review process for determining whether or not a reward is payable and, if so, how much that reward should be. Rewards are offered at HMRC’s discretion and are not calculated as a means of compensation for the cost of gathering information that is subsequently supplied to HMRC, nor are they subject to negotiation.
HMRC’s policy is to neither confirm nor deny the existence of information provided by individuals or to confirm the fact that any individual has, or has not, provided information, directly or by inference, including comment on specific reward payments. In common with other law enforcement agencies in the UK, HMRC maintain this stance as a means of effective protection of the public interest; to protect the safety of any informants and to ensure that future potential informants are not discouraged from coming forward.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they took and when to address concerns raised by Richard Allen and others that Low Value Consignment Relief (LVCR) was being used for a purpose for which it was not intended; what estimate they have made of (1) the cost to the Exchequer of misuse of LVCR not being addressed sooner, and (2) the number of retailers who did pay VAT and went out of business as a result of the misuse of LVCR by others.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
In April 2012 the Government took action to remove Low Value Consignment Relief (LVCR) for goods imported from the Channel Islands. Estimates were published at the time showing yield from this measure to be £90 million in 2012-13.
From 1 January 2021 the Government will be introducing changes that will see the removal of LVCR from all imports and make online marketplaces liable for VAT on low value imported goods sold through their websites.