Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chair of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf. No tours run by Visitors Services were cancelled because of early sittings on Wednesday 6 and Wednesday 13 September. When the Chambers sit, visitors have a reduced tour, confined to public areas. 650 people had a reduced tour as a result of early sittings. Visitors are warned at the time of booking that their tour may be changed due to Parliamentary business.

The Parliamentary Security Department and Strategic Estates teams were consulted when preparing the answer to HL4851, along with House of Lords Administration officials.

The design and cost of security projects for Parliament go through rigorous internal scrutiny. The Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the House, as Accounting and Corporate Officers, have responsibility for approving final business cases for security projects across the Parliamentary Estate, subject to advice from the Finance Directors and other relevant officials.

The Clerk of the Parliaments’ decisions on security projects are informed by consultation with the House of Lords Commission, which ensures that the impact on Members is taken into account, and by the Finance Committee which receives regular reports regarding security expenditure. There is also significant oversight by the Finance Director. The Clerk of the House is informed by the equivalent groups and individuals in the House of Commons. Ultimately it is not the House that makes the final decision because security is a bicameral issue, and legal responsibility for safety sits with the Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the House.

Governance of the Security Programme for Parliament is provided by the Quarterly Review Group (QRG). Membership includes the Clerk of the House of Commons and Clerk of the Parliaments, the Finance Directors of both Houses, the Chief Operating Officer of the House of Lords and DG Operations of the House of Commons, and a non-executive external advisor (the Director of Property for the Royal Household).

The Parliamentary Security Department and Strategic Estates also consult external experts, including the Metropolitan Police Service, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, and Historic England to inform the Security Programme.

The Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body and Restoration and Renewal Delivery Authority were established in April and May 2020 respectively. From their establishment until the end of March 2022, those bodies spent £216.5m on the Restoration and Renewal Programme (this includes £5m of costs in April 2020 before the Delivery Authority was formally incorporated). A breakdown is provided in the table below.

The total forecast spend for the current financial year (2022-23) is £80m for the Delivery Authority and £7m for the Sponsor Body/R&R Client Team (the Client Team having taken over the sponsor function for the programme from the Sponsor Body on 1 January 2023).

Both the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority routinely published information on costs, for instance in quarterly reports, annual reports, and memoranda provided to the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission. This transparency will continue under the R&R Client Team.

Expenditure on the Restoration and Renewal Programme

These figures do not include House of Lords staff costs or costs of parliamentary scrutiny of R&R through committees or in the House.

Three contractors were given the opportunity to be issued an invitation to tender for the replacement front door at Peers’ Entrance. Two contractors confirmed they wanted to bid for the works and were issued an invitation to tender. Both contractors submitted tenders which were evaluated by an evaluation panel and the highest scoring contractor was awarded the contract.

Costs for security are split between the House of Commons and House of Lords in accordance with an agreed ratio of 70:30. However, physical and operational security measures across Parliament benefit all users of the estate regardless of which House they are based in, so it would not be possible to determine the cost of security by House.

The House of Lords’ portion of security operating costs is published in the House of Lords Annual Report and Accounts; in 2021-22 this amounted to £18.26m. For security reasons the Houses do not publish capital expenditure on security mitigating projects as providing this level of detail could enable an individual to infer the extent and nature of the works, and thus the vulnerabilities which they were intended to mitigate.

The governance process for expenditure on security includes regular reports to the Finance Committees of both Houses, and oversight by the Clerks and Finance Directors of both Houses.

The ministers and whips in the House of Lords and their respective claimed salaries for financial year 2023-2024 are as follows:

In line with the Ministerial and Other Pensions Act 1991, Lords ministers are able to claim the Lords Office-Holders Allowance (LOHA). There are two rates for LOHA: Lords ministers living in London can claim £4,435 for the financial year 2023-2024, and Lords ministers living outside of London can claim £36,366 per year.

Lords ministers who are unpaid may choose between claiming either LOHA or the Lords Daily Allowance. Lords ministers who receive a salary are not permitted to claim the Lords Daily Allowance.

Details of the salaries and allowances currently paid to Ministers at different ranks can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministerial-salary-data

This will be updated in due course.

The full list of ministers can be found on gov.uk at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-appointments-november-2023

The ministers and whips in the House of Lords currently appointed and not in receipt of a ministerial salary are: Baroness Nevile-Rolfe DBE CMG, Lord Ahmad, Rt Hon Lord Benyon, the Earl of Minto, Lord Bellamy KC, Viscount Camrose, Lord Markham CBE, Rt Hon Earl Howe GBE, Lord Johnson CBE, Lord Offord of Garvel, Baroness Barran MBE, and Baroness Swinburne.

The following members of the Government are unpaid:

• Rt Hon Nadhim Zahawi MP, Minister of State and Minister without Portfolio

• John Glen MP, Minister of State, HM Treasury (Chief Secretary to the Treasury)

• Andrew Griffith MP, Minister of State, HM Treasury (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

• Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, Minister of State, Cabinet Office

• Lord Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice

• Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, Minister of State, Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

• Rt Hon Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

• Baroness Goldie DL, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

• Rt Hon Earl Howe GBE, Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

• Lord Markham CBE, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care

• Rt Hon Lord Benyon Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

• Lord Johnson of Lainston CBE, Minister of State, Department for International Trade

• Baroness Barran MBE, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education

• Lord Offord of Garvel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office

As I stated in my response to HL302 on 6 June and HL811 on 23 June, the Cabinet Office does not hold departmental information about civil servants in UK-based senior leadership roles working from abroad.

Working abroad has always been by exception in the Cabinet Office and is not permitted unless there is a specific business need or under the most exceptional of circumstances (an example of which might be where an employee’s partner is a civil servant and is permanently posted abroad).

This is still the current position of the Cabinet Office. In future, we will ensure that communications are sent to departments, as part of wider communications on senior resourcing, to highlight that departmental records should be kept up to date.

As I stated in my response to HL302 on 6 June, the Cabinet Office does not hold departmental information about civil servants in UK-based senior leadership roles working from abroad.

In terms of departmental records, these records are not collected by the Cabinet Office, with information captured at a line manager level.

Working abroad has always been by exception in the Cabinet Office and is not permitted unless there is a specific business need or under the most exceptional of circumstances (an example of which might be where an employee’s partner is a civil servant and is permanently posted abroad).

This is still the current position of the Cabinet Office.

Imported seed potatoes are subject to both plant health and marketing requirements. GB plant health legislation permits seed potatoes to be imported only from the EU, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. There is no plant health reason that seed potatoes cannot be imported from the EU, provided individual consignments meet the required standards. However, GB marketing legislation requires seed potato production and certification systems of countries exporting to GB to be recognised as equivalent to those of GB. Following the end of the transition period marking the UK's departure from the EU, a 6 month temporary authorisation to market EU seed potatoes in GB was granted, to give time for industry to adapt to the new requirements. Following consultation with industry, the authorisation expired as planned on 30 June and applications to market imported seed potatoes from the EU will now be considered on a case-by-case basis. This approach recognises the fact that the UK is broadly self-sufficient in the total quantity of seed potato production, while retaining a mechanism to consider future marketing authorisations as necessary.

Defra, in collaboration with the devolved administrations, remained in communication with the potato industry prior to, throughout and following the temporary authorisation period in order to assess the impact of policy decisions. It was recognised that extension or expiration of the temporary authorisation would have different impacts on different sectors of the industry. Primary industry stakeholders such as the British Potato Trade Association (BPTA), the Fresh Potato Suppliers Association (FPSA), the Potato Processors' Association (PPA) and the National Farming Unions, who between them represent all sectors of the potato industry, all contributed to the evidence to support the final decision.

The UK government has had no discussion with the Scottish Government on this because responsibility for funding to ports and airports is a devolved matter.

Based on the latest available primary care dispensing data (Q1, 2023/24) we estimate that 15% of the adult population in England is prescribed anti-depressants.

We do not capture the clinical indication of a prescription, so there may be instances where these drugs are used for other conditions.

Immunocompromised patients are a priority cohort for research into therapeutic and prophylaxis treatments such as monoclonal antibody therapies, novel antivirals, and repurposed compounds. Monoclonal antibody treatments could potentially play a complementary role alongside the current vaccines programme in providing protection for those patients who may receive lower protection from vaccination compared to the general population.

The Therapeutics Taskforce and the cross-agency United Kingdom-wide group RAPID C-19 are monitoring clinical trials of monoclonal antibody treatments. The National Health Service is preparing to deploy antibody treatments as soon as they become available. It is not yet possible to determine the exact patients who may be able to benefit from new treatments, as this will depend on results from clinical trials, licensing approvals from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and clinical policies set by NHS England and expert clinicians.

To record vaccinations, the National Health Service National Immunisation Management System (NIMS) is being used as the national register for COVID-19 vaccinations. At the point that someone receives their COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccinating team record this information onto NIMS and onto a patient’s general practitioner record.

The Government will review whether COVID-status certification could play a role in reopening the economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety. This will include assessing to what extent certification would be effective in reducing risk, and the potential uses to enable access to settings or a relaxation of COVID-19 secure mitigations.

The Government will also consider the ethical, equalities, privacy, legal and operational aspects of this approach and what limits, if any, should be placed on organisations using certification. It will draw on external advice to develop recommendations that take into account any social and economic impacts, and implications for disproportionately impacted groups and individuals’ privacy and security. The Government will set out its conclusions in advance of step four of the roadmap in order to inform the safe reopening of society and the economy.

Vaccination is not suitable for all citizens and there are other means of demonstrating a reduced risk of transmission. The NHS is working on providing individuals with the means to demonstrate their COVID-19 status through a digital and non-digital route and is working with experts to put security and privacy at the core of this approach. As we continue to explore and trial COVID-19 status certification, we will ensure appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny.

I answered the noble Lord’s questions on 18 and 24 November respectively.

Section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 enables Ministers to use the made affirmative procedure, by which an Instrument can be made before it is approved by Parliament. This is possible, provided the Minister makes a declaration that circumstances warrant this approach, in order to tackle a serious and imminent threat to public health. The inherent safeguard is that the Instrument will lapse within 28 days, unless approved by Parliament.

In the Department’s Memorandum of March 2009, which dealt with Regulations made under the 1984 Act, including the ones that form a key part of our response to COVID-19, we explained that even if Regulations had to be made in an emergency, taking effect before approval, a debate on an approval motion could take place before the Regulations lapsed. This has been achieved throughout the course of the outbreak. Furthermore, debates on approval motions, in both Houses, took place on the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 the day after they were made, and before they came into force.

The nature of the COVID-19 pandemic is such that the Government’s response has to be agile, in order to respond swiftly and effectively to evolving threats. The pandemic is therefore a serious and imminent threat to public health. In introducing necessary and proportionate measures to tackle its spread, delay can be harmful, and frustrate both the overall response and the specific objectives of particular Instruments. The powers in the 1984 Act are therefore expressly provided in order to support the approach that the Government has been taking.

The criteria referred to in section 2 of the Memorandum and section 45G of the 1984 Act are:

- the individual is or may be infected or contaminated,

- the infection or contamination is one which presents or could present significant harm to human health,

- there is a risk that the individual might infect or contaminate others, and

- it is necessary to make the order to remove or reduce that risk.

These relate to specific orders made by a magistrate and are not required to be considered for the making of Regulations. These underlying principles are certainly applicable to the national response; and the Government’s view is that the Regulations satisfy all of the criteria set out in the Act. In the course of making Regulations under the 1984 Act, Ministers do undertake assessments as to whether the proposed course of action is a necessary and proportionate response; and it is clear that COVID-19 does represent a significant threat.

The Government sets the Approved Mileage Allowance Payments (AMAP) rates to minimise administrative burdens. The AMAP rates aim to reflect running costs including fuel, servicing and depreciation. Depreciation is estimated to constitute the most significant proportion of the AMAP rates. Fuel costs only contribute to a fraction of the AMAP rates and not the total rate.

Employers are not required to use the AMAP rates. Instead, they can agree to reimburse the actual cost incurred, where individuals can provide evidence of the expenditure, without an Income Tax or National Insurance charge arising.

Alternatively, they can choose to pay a different mileage rate that is higher or lower than the AMAP rates. If an employee is paid less than the approved amount, they are allowed to claim Mileage Allowance Relief (MAR) from HMRC. However, if the payment exceeds the relevant AMAP rate, and this results in a profit for the individual, they will be liable to pay Income Tax and National Insurance contributions on the difference.

As with all taxes and allowances, the Government keeps the AMAP rates under review and any changes are considered by the Chancellor.

The administration of the tax system is a matter for HM Revenue and Customs. It would not be appropriate for Treasury ministers to become involved in or to comment on the administration of the tax system in specific cases.

The administration of the tax system is a matter for HM Revenue and Customs. It would not be appropriate for Treasury ministers to become involved in or to comment on the administration of the tax system in specific cases.

The administration of the tax system is a matter for HM Revenue and Customs. It would not be appropriate for Treasury ministers to become involved in or to comment on the administration of the tax system in specific cases.

Pay during the redundancy notice period is based on the individual’s rights under their contract of employment and the statutory right to notice pay (under section 86 and the following sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996). The rules on statutory notice pay are complex and depend on whether the employer is required to give only statutory notice, or at least a week more than statutory notice, and whether the employee has normal working hours or not. For any period of notice which exceeds the minimum statutory requirement, the terms of the contract of employment would need to be considered.

In these very difficult times, the Government would not expect an employer to take advantage of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which has brought benefit to employers and employees alike, to make someone redundant on less favourable terms than they would otherwise have received.