Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to announce the names of any direct ministerial appointees who leave government following the change of prime minister; and whether the Direct Ministerial Appointments portal will be updated.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The responsibility for the publication of information on Direct Ministerial Appointments on the announcement portal rests with individual sponsor departments. The primary function of the portal is to bring together, into a central resource, announcements of new Direct Ministerial Appointments from across government. While the portal records the expected length of term of individual appointments, it does not record actual end dates for those appointments that come to an end. Questions about the status of individual appointments would be for sponsor departments.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team provided the Prime Minister with a substantive report on Labour Together and the conduct of the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital ID before the Prime Minister referred the matter to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
I refer the Noble Lady to the answer given in UIN 3796 tabled in the House of Commons, copied below for ease:
âThe Prime Minister asked civil servants in the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics team to establish the facts in relation to allegations concerning the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State jointly in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Cabinet Office.
As has been the case under successive administrations, this process is confidential. Once the facts had been established, the Prime Minister then requested advice from the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. The Independent Adviserâs subsequent advice to the Prime Minister is published on gov.uk.
As is set out in the Independent Adviserâs terms of reference, âInformation provided to the Independent Adviser for the purposes of their functions is provided in confidenceâ (paragraph 4.2).â
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 9 June (HC5972), whether the email addresses that were redacted by the Cabinet Office in relation to the email on 18 June 2025 at 08.18 BST were (1) corporate email addresses, (2) Labour Party email addresses, or (3) other non-corporate email addresses, in relation to (a) Morgan McSweeney, and (b) Lord Mandelson.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
I refer to the Governmentâs statement and release of information on 1st June, providing an update on the response to the Humble Address, with the relevant passages copied below for ease. The methodological note included in this publication provides a detailed overview of the redaction process.
Redactions
33. It is a longstanding practice across successive administrations that, when the Government responds to a Humble Address motion, it has a responsibility to consider whether it is in the public interest to place certain information into the public domain. In line with practice across successive administrations, this is done using the principles of the Freedom of Information Act, and in line with the Ministerial Code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability, passed by both Houses in 1997 which state that "ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute."
34. As set out above, the Governmentâs overriding priority in responding to the Humble Address has been to respond fully, transparently and swiftly in order to meet the will of the House. Clearly, the scale of the Humble Address disclosure goes far beyond any usual Freedom of Information Act or other transparency request. However, the principles the Freedom of Information Act sets out have been used by previous administrations when responding to such motions - for example when responding to Humble Addresses relating to Randox and the Westferry Printworks. That means that, outside the process for managing papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, a number of targeted, specific redactions have been made in order to prevent real-world harms.
35. Specifically, these targeted redactions are in order to protect:
a. Individualsâ email addresses and phone numbers;
b. The identities of junior civil servants;
c. Third party data - including the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion; and
d. Legal professional privilege.
36. A small amount of Peter Mandelsonâs personal data has also been redacted: his signature and the location of his home.
37. In the interests of transparency, third party individuals who are considered to be public figures have been named. Third parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy, because they are not public figures, have not been named. No references to current or former UK politicians have been redacted on the basis of their being third parties. Publication of the names of political figures from countries other than the USA has been limited to world leaders.
38. There has been particular public interest in information involving Global Counsel and Palantir. No redactions have been made to references to Global Counsel, other than to protect the privacy of individuals who are not public figures - their connection to Global Counsel has been made clear in those emails. References to Palantir and Anduril have only been redacted in cases where the redaction has been agreed with the ISC, i.e. on the grounds of being information that is prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.
39. Some company names other than Global Counsel and Palantir have been redacted where this is not relevant to the motion. The Government does not consider it to be in the interests of the taxpayer to damage the Governmentâs relationship with companies, to damage ongoing Government commercial negotiations, or to potentially damage those companiesâ commercial prospects, if they are not relevant to the motion.
40. Where material that has been submitted to the Cabinet Office Humble Address team is already in the public domain, no redactions have been applied to that material.
41. The redaction process has been overseen by the Cabinet Office and, where relevant, in conjunction with the ISC. No Government Minister or Special Adviser has determined any of the redactions.
42. The following labels have been used for redactions in Volume II:
a. Redactions made with the agreement of the ISC have been labelled with asterisks â(***)â
b. All email addresses and phone numbers have been redacted with the label âPERSONALâ c. A small amount of personal data contained in the body of documents has also been redacted with the label âPERSONALâ
d. All junior civil servantsâ names have been redacted with the label âJCSâ
e. Third party material not relevant to the motion and relating to individuals who are not public figures have been redacted with the label âTHIRD PARTYâ
f. Information relating to companies, where disclosure of the information would be commercially damaging, has been redacted with the label âTHIRD PARTYâ
g. Material attracting legal professional privilege has been redacted with the label âLPPâ
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 10 June (HC5973), whether the referenced search parameters included material of a party political nature held by the No. 10 Political Office, or whether documents and emails held by the No. 10 Political Office and its staff were deemed out of scope of the Government response to the Humble Address of 4 February.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
I refer the Noble Lady to the Governmentâs statement and release of information on 1st June, providing an update on the response to the Humble Address, with the relevant passage copied here for ease. The methodological note included in this publication provides a detailed overview of the information gathering process.
Scope of searches
18. In order that the Government could respond swiftly and transparently to discharge the spirit and letter of the Humble Address, search parameters were included based
on the limbs of the Humble Address motion. These were as follows:
a. Individuals in scope of the limbs of the motion seeking direct correspondence with Peter Mandelson (via email and other electronic messages) were specified as all Ministers, Pay Band 3/4 Special Advisers, Permanent Secretaries and Directors General. This was on the basis that these were the individuals most likely to have come into contact with Peter Mandelson.
b. These individuals were instructed to search their work devices and personal devices for any relevant information.
c. Minutes of meetings between those same individuals and Peter Mandelson where they were the principal attendees were requested, not where they were one member among wider cast lists (for example not including formal committee meetings such as the National Security Council).
d. Electronic messages involving Peter Mandelson that were exchanged as part of a group were requested, as well as those directly between an in-scope individual and Peter Mandelson.
19. While commissions to departments did not specifically request invitations to meetings or schedulers from individualsâ calendars, where these have been provided to the Cabinet Office Humble Address team and where relevant, they have been included in the publication.
20. Some material has been included in the publication where it does not meet the above criteria but includes content relevant to areas where Parliament has expressed a significant interest, such as Peter Mandelsonâs campaign to become Chancellor of Oxford University. Material of a party political nature is included in the publication, contrary to usual practice and precedent for information âheldâ by the Government, in order to demonstrate the maximum possible transparency.
21. Some information was deemed out of scope via the commissioning process so as to keep the returns focused on the most relevant information:
a. Obvious ephemera - for example press cuttings, out of office replies, FCDO internal corporate messaging.
b. Anything which was clearly related to the corporate management of British Embassy Washington (e.g. FCDO personnel decisions and discussions, individual performance reporting, embassy staffing and management plans, estate issues).
c. Routine Embassy business (such as consular work and copylists containing FCDO Diplomatic Telegrams, regional updates, thematic notes and briefing materials, press lines, corporate updates and newsletters).
d. Purely personal information that would not usually be considered âheldâ by the Government (for example relating to family matters or medical information).
22. On 31 March the SRO wrote to Peter Mandelson - via his solicitors - to request any information held on his personal phone. Peter Mandelson declined to comply with this request. The Government has no further recourse to search the personal devices of Peter Mandelson.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 15 April (HC123696), what types of EU cohesion spending will the UK's payments be allocated to; and whether any spending will be allocated to Northern Ireland/Ireland programmes.
Answered by Lord Pitt-Watson - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
As set out in the answer of 15 April, the UK is not currently contributing to EU Cohesion Funds as a consequence of the UK/EU reset. Whilst the EU is seeking to establish a mechanism for a UK financial contribution towards reducing economic and social disparities between the regions of the Union as part of participation in the Internal Electricity Market, any UK financial contribution would be subject to negotiations with the EU, and no contributions have yet been made or agreed upon.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Minister of State on 8 July (HC15560), which paragraph of the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies provides the basis upon which Direct Ministerial Appointments do not need to declare political activity.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies, which Direct Ministerial Appointments are required by their conditions of engagement to follow, requires appointees to comply with the rules of the appointing body on handling conflicts of interests.
The Code itself does not set specific requirements on the public declaration of political activity, however the standard terms of engagement provided in the published Direct Ministerial Appointment guidance requires appointees to declare interests to the department, and states that the appointing department will then determine whether any interests should be published.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment have they made of the merits or otherwise of a cap on political donations from domestically based (1) electors, (2) companies, and (3) trade unions; and what plans they have to introduce such a policy.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
The Government recognises concerns about the role of very large donations in politics and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the democratic process.
The Representation of the People Bill focuses on addressing the most immediate risks to the integrity of UK democracy, including foreign influence, overseas donations and cryptoassets.
Alongside these reforms, we are establishing a cross-government task and finish team to consider the issues threatening UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence, and broader threats to political equality.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to the MHCLG in the Media blog post, Protecting UK democracy from hostile actors and foreign interference, published on 2 September, what is the new team which will be set up to look at other risks to British democracy; who are its members; and what are the full terms of reference of the Defending Democracy Taskforce.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring that the UK's political finance framework remains robust and commands public confidence.
We are establishing a cross-government task and finish team to consider the issues threatening UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence and broader threats to political equality.
Further details will be available in due course.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 14 July (HL710), whether they will publish a copy of the internal guidance on UK Government branding that was released by the Cabinet Office in the corrected Freedom of Information Act response of 8 July 2026.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
In the response to the referenced Freedom of Information response, we confirmed that the formal branding guidance remains publicly available, and confirmed that additional internal guidance exists in the form of an internal email.
We provided the relevant extract below which addresses the brand. The remaining sections of the email discuss internal processes around managing the brand. There are no current plans to publish this information.
UK Government
All central Government communications should now carry the UK Government logo (or its international version), rather than Departmental logos, unless a specific exemption request is submitted in advance.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office on 8 June (HC4150), what is the public interest reason for not disclosing the objectives agreed for the last two Cabinet Secretaries; and whether this decision is consistent with the principles contained in paragraph 1.6(d) of the Ministerial Code.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
Civil servantsâ objectives are drafted as their personal objectives and metrics agreed with their line manager as part of the performance management HR process. There would have been no expectation of them being published in the past unless they agreed to release them.