Question to the Leader of the House:

To ask the Leader of the House, if he will facilitate a vote on proposals for financial redress contained in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report on changes to women's State Pension age, published on 21 March 2024.

Answered by Alan Campbell - Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

The Government has made its decision on this case based on due process and careful consideration of the body of evidence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House of Commons (available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-01-29) and the detailed reasons for this decision have been placed in the House library (available at: https://depositedpapers.parliament.uk/depositedpaper/2287768/details).

There are a number of mechanisms at the disposal of Members should they wish to bring these matters forward for further debate.

Question to the Leader of the House:

To ask the Leader of the House, pursuant to the answer of 20 November 2025 to Question 91457 on Written Questions: Government Responses, if he will publish his letter.

Answered by Alan Campbell - Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

It is a long-established precedent that internal government correspondence is not normally shared publicly.

Ensure the elected representatives of the people have the relevant real world experience necessary to make more informed decisions.

Found: Some of those matters will be for the Leader of the House rather than the Cabinet Office.

Found: Whilst commitments regarding ongoing discussion with staff was made by the former Leader of the House

Found: (Recommendation, Paragraph 133) The Leader of the House of Commons will raise this with the Modernisation

Found: current Chair of the Board of Trustees is the Rt Hon the Baroness Taylor of Bolton, former Leader of the House

Found: When the European Scrutiny Committee was abolished, the then- Leader of the House of Commons (Rt Hon

Found: That is normally for the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House to decide.

Found: dated 11 February 2026 from Lord Foster of Bath, JHA Committee Chair to Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to remove peers from the House of Lords due to misconduct.

Answered by Nick Thomas-Symonds - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office

The House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 provides the House of Lords with the power to expel members who are found to have breached the Code of Conduct.

The Government has announced it will introduce legislation to create a mechanism to remove peerages from disgraced peers. The Leader of the House of Lords has also asked the House of Lords Conduct Committee to consider what changes are required to the Code of Conduct to ensure peers can be removed when they have brought the House into disrepute.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government in light of recent disclosures arising from the release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, whether they will review the transparency arrangements that apply when individuals undertake official duties on behalf of the Government without being Ministers or civil servants; and whether they will consider introducing a publicly accessible register of relevant interests in such circumstances.

Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

The Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies sets out the personal and professional standards expected from non-executive board members of UK public bodies, including the transparency arrangements that apply in relation to conflicts of interest.

Separately, as the Leader of the House of Lords set out in her statement to the House on 10 February, the government will look closely at our system for providing transparency around lobbying, and will continue to update the House on this matter.

Question

To ask The Leader of the House, further to her Written Answer on 9 February (HL13919), what discussions she has had with the Cabinet Office on the failure to answer expeditiously the Written Question asked by Lord Jackson of Peterborough on 3 December 2025 (HL12630).

Answered by Baroness Smith of Basildon - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal

My office has kept in close contact with the Cabinet Office regarding the written question HL12630, the question was answered on Monday 9th March. I apologise for the delay in response.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 14 October 2025 (HL10633), what assessment they have made of whether there are lessons to learn from their decision not to require Lord Mandelson to divest himself of his shares in Global Counsel while serving as Ambassador to the United States, and if not, why not.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

I refer the Noble Lord to the Government's response to the Urgent Question tabled in the House of Commons on 12 February (Hansard, Volume 780, Column 923), the Written Ministerial Statement in the name of the Leader of the House of Lords that same day, and the Oral Statement in the House of Commons on 23 February (Hansard, Volume 781, Column 41) which set out an update on the Government's process. We will set out further details in due course. The Government wishes to ensure that Parliament's instruction is met with the urgency and transparency that it deserves.

Question

To ask The Leader of the House how many House of Lords Select Committee reports have not been responded to by His Majesty’s Government within the recommended time since September 2024.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Basildon - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal

Since September 2024 there have been 29 House of Lords Select Committee Reports which have not been responded to by His Majesty’s Government within the recommended time. This does not include responses to Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Constitution Committee or Joint Committee on Human Rights reports as they are usually published in time for particular stages of bills rather than the usual two month period. My office regularly follows up with departments who fail to meet the recommended response period.

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 23 February 2026 to Question 112609 on Employees' Contributions: India, what plans she has with the Leader of the House to ensure the provision of adequate parliamentary time for the consideration of the Agreement on Social Security relating to Social Security Contributions between the United Kingdom and India.

Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)

The Double Contributions Convention with the Republic of India and the related Explanatory Memorandum were laid before both Houses of Parliament for scrutiny on 11 February 2026, and both documents have been shared with the relevant Parliamentary Committees of both Houses.

The Government will ensure that the scrutiny requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 have been fulfilled before the Double Contributions Convention can be ratified and enter into force.

Question

To ask The Leader of the House what steps they are taking, if any, to develop a methodology for assessing the cost of answering written questions; and, if so, whether this involves the use of artificial intelligence.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Basildon - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal

The current disproportionate cost threshold for written questions is £850. A review was undertaken in 2021 following the House of Commons Procedure Committee’s report, as a result the methodology in the 2022 version of the Guide to Parliamentary Work was updated. The threshold is set at 140% of the Freedom of Information Act cost limit which is currently set at £600, to the nearest £50. The Government will carry out an updated estimate on the cost of questions for written answer in due course. Any artificial intelligence used will adhere to Civil Service guidance in the “Artificial Intelligence Playbook for the UK Government” which sets out principles for the use of a wider range of artificial intelligence technologies safely, effectively and responsibly.

Question

To ask The Leader of the House what is the current disproportionate cost threshold for written parliamentary questions and when was it last adjusted.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Basildon - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal

The current disproportionate cost threshold for written questions is £850. A review was undertaken in 2021 following the House of Commons Procedure Committee’s report, as a result the methodology in the 2022 version of the Guide to Parliamentary Work was updated. The threshold is set at 140% of the Freedom of Information Act cost limit which is currently set at £600, to the nearest £50. The Government will carry out an updated estimate on the cost of questions for written answer in due course. Any artificial intelligence used will adhere to Civil Service guidance in the “Artificial Intelligence Playbook for the UK Government” which sets out principles for the use of a wider range of artificial intelligence technologies safely, effectively and responsibly.

Found: Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Smith said: The Lords plays avital role within our bicameral