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 - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
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.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to provide a list of the data collected for the NHS COVID-19 Data Store which is to measure compliance with social distancing, including the “intelligence” referred to by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 29 April.
Answered by Lord Bethell
The COVID-19 Data Store Reference Library describes the datasets being used in the NHS COVID-19 Data Store, and the sources of those datasets.
As more data is added to support the COVID-19 response the list will be updated.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why Palantir’s contract with NHS England for the NHS COVID-19 Data Store allows that company to process sensitive personal data such as “political affiliations, religious or similar beliefs”.
Answered by Lord Bethell
Data in the NHS COVID-19 Data Store is de-identified by National Health Service staff before the data is analysed on Palantir's platform.
As such, no identifiable data is being accessed by anyone other than the NHS.
Data is only processed under instruction by NHS England and the companies involved cannot use the data for their own purposes.
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 will list the contracts awarded in 2020 for the supply of (1) personal protective equipment, and (2) other COVID-19 related products or services, with companies that had no previous experience of supplying those products or services; and in each case identify (a) how the supplier was selected, (b) what due diligence was performed to determine the supplier’s ability to perform the contract, (c) who carried out that due diligence, (d) how value for money was assessed, and (e) who was the senior official or minister to authorise the order.
Answered by Lord Bethell
Online guidance on how contracting authorities should respond to coronavirus was published on March 18. Public authorities are allowed to procure goods, services and works with extreme urgency in exceptional circumstances using regulation 32(2)(c) under the Public Contract Regulations 2015. Available options include a direct award due to extreme urgency and direct award due to absence of competition or protection of exclusive rights.
Over 1,000 purchase orders have been awarded to suppliers for COVID-19 related work, the majority through a direct award. There is no single consideration such as previous experience as to whether a supplier is added to the supply chain. The supplier will be evaluated by Departmental officials on their financial standing, compliance with minimum product specifications and ability to perform the contract. To provide a validated assessment of solely the previous experience for each of the suppliers on each of these contracts would involve disproportionate cost. Contracts are awarded by the appropriate Departmental accounting officer, an official, in line with Department’s terms and conditions which include clauses for contract management to assess performance and value for money throughout the lifetime of the contract.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether at any time in 2020 they had a preferred list of suppliers of COVID-19 related products and services; and, if so, what checks were carried out to ensure that no conflicts of interest existed between those companies and ministers or special advisers.
Answered by Lord Bethell
Online guidance on how contracting authorities should respond to coronavirus was published on March 18. Public authorities are allowed to procure goods, services and works with extreme urgency in exceptional circumstances using regulation 32(2)(c) under the Public Contract Regulations 2015. Available options include a direct award due to extreme urgency and direct award due to absence of competition or protection of exclusive rights.
Over 1,000 purchase orders have been awarded to suppliers for COVID-19 related work, the majority through a direct award. There is no single consideration such as previous experience as to whether a supplier is added to the supply chain. The supplier will be evaluated by Departmental officials on their financial standing, compliance with minimum product specifications and ability to perform the contract. To provide a validated assessment of solely the previous experience for each of the suppliers on each of these contracts would involve disproportionate cost. Contracts are awarded by the appropriate Departmental accounting officer, an official, in line with Department’s terms and conditions which include clauses for contract management to assess performance and value for money throughout the lifetime of the contract.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to review the positive vetting procedures for ministers and special advisers; and whether any such plans will include a review of the impact of attending events abroad where foreign intelligence agents were also in attendance.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
In line with long-standing practice, Her Majesty's ministers are not subject to security vetting. Advice and support is available to ministers on relevant security matters, including when attending events.
All civil servants, including special advisers, are subject to vetting as appropriate. The UK’s vetting regime is undergoing review by the Cabinet Office, which of course includes consideration of the threat posed by foreign intelligence activity.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government 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 - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
I refer the noble Lord to the answer given to PQs HL7209 and HL7179 on 3 August 2020.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government 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 - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
I refer the noble Lord to the answer given to PQs HL7209 and HL7179 on 3 August 2020.