Baroness Finn

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.

Section 36(2) of the Freedom of Information Act was applied based on the qualified opinion that disclosure would inhibit free and frank internal advice. We concluded that safeguarding this space for robust policy development outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Staff from across the Cabinet Office are involved in compliance with the Humble Address motion as necessary. Civil Servants remain bound by the Civil Service Code at all times, and by their departmental policies on managing conflicts of interest.

I refer to the Government’s 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 Government’s 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. Individuals’ 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 Mandelson’s 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 Government’s relationship with companies, to damage ongoing Government commercial negotiations, or to potentially damage those companies’ 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 ‘(***)’

b. All email addresses and phone numbers have been redacted with the label ‘PERSONAL’ c. A small amount of personal data contained in the body of documents has also been redacted with the label ‘PERSONAL’

d. All junior civil servants’ names have been redacted with the label ‘JCS’

e. Third party material not relevant to the motion and relating to individuals who are not public figures have been redacted with the label ‘THIRD PARTY’

f. Information relating to companies, where disclosure of the information would be commercially damaging, has been redacted with the label ‘THIRD PARTY’

g. Material attracting legal professional privilege has been redacted with the label ‘LPP’

I refer the Noble Lady to the Government’s 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 individuals’ 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 Mandelson’s 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 ‘held’ 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 ‘held’ 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.

This government remains committed to reducing barriers to trade and cutting red-tape with our largest trading partner, and this is why we’re negotiating a food and drink deal and linking our emissions trading systems. However, the government’s red lines are clear: there will be no return to the Single Market or the Customs Union.

I refer the Noble Lady to the answers given to House of Commons questions UIN 115826, 115828 and 120374: “Staff from across the Cabinet Office including but not limited to the Public Inquiry Response Unit and the Propriety and Constitution Group are involved in compliance with the Humble Address motion as necessary.”

The revisions to the Cabinet Manual are a matter for the Prime Minister.

Civil servants’ 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.

The Government is confident that all relevant departments and individuals were engaged through a comprehensive commissioning process managed by the Cabinet Office. All departmental Permanent Secretaries were required to provide assurance that they had taken reasonable steps to identify, search for, and return all material within the scope of the motion. This process ensured that all relevant current and former Ministers, Special Advisers, and officials were contacted. Following this rigorous process and the publication of Volume II of the Government’s response, the Government considers that it has duly discharged its obligations in respect of the Humble Address. A small number of separate, relevant documents continue to be withheld exclusively at the request of the Metropolitan Police to avoid prejudicing their ongoing independent criminal investigation into alleged misconduct in public office. The Government will publish these remaining documents once police authorities confirm it is appropriate to do so.

The Ministerial Code sets out that the Prime Minister is responsible for the overall organisation of the executive. Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister.

It is longstanding practice not to comment on the provision of internal advice, including whether or not particular advice has been provided. The Propriety and Ethics Guidance for Government Communicators is published on gov.uk.

The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority.

Please see the letter attached from the Permanent Secretary for the Office for National Statistics.

Baroness Finn

House of Lords

London

SW1A 0PW

1 July 2026

Dear Lady Finn,

As Permanent Secretary of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I am responding to your Parliamentary Question asking, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 23 June (HL740)[1], what occupational socio-economic classification the Office for National Statistics and the Social Mobility Commission applies to (1) Ministers of the Crown, and (2) the Prime Minister (HL1331).

The ONS classifies Ministers of the Crown and the Prime Minister to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2020 code 1112, which corresponds to ‘Elected officers and representatives’. Under the simplified National Statistics Socio-economic classification (NS-SEC) framework, this occupation is classified as analytic class 1: Higher managerial, administrative, and professional occupations.

There are 8 analytic classes in the NS-SEC used by the ONS. The Social Mobility Commission group these into 5 categories, as per Table 1 in the supporting Annex below.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Tierney

1. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-06-08/hl740

Annex

Table 1: NS-SEC analytic classes and Social Mobility Commission groups

The updated Civil Service Facility Time Framework and Guidance recommends that facility time expenditure remains limited to 0.1% of a department’s pay bill, and that trade union representatives spend at least 50% of their time delivering their official Civil Service role.

Publication of tax returns is a matter for individual ministers. Any such publication would be made in the usual way.

An applicant’s socio-economic background is determined by their responses to questions designed by the ONS. For questions regarding parental occupation, this is at the age the candidate was 14. In line with other schemes of this nature across the public and private sector, the Cabinet Office uses self-certification for the socio-economic data of applicants. This is the same approach taken under the programme's predecessor - the Summer Diversity Internship Programme - from 2010 to 2023.

The role is covered on an interim basis. A recruitment campaign for the permanent appointment will be launched in due course.

Please refer to the answer to PQ3290.

PQ3290: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to the Cabinet Office Freedom of Information Act response of 10 April 2026 FOI reference: FOI2026/04972, if he will make it his policy to issue a Ministerial Correction to the Answer of 20 February to Question 112174 on Government: Policy.

Answer: The answer to Question 112174 is correct.

As set out in the King’s Speech, the Government will introduce legislation to create a mechanism to remove peerages from disgraced peers, and will provide further details in due course.

All Freedom of Information requests are considered on their individual merits in accordance with the relevant legislation.

There is no constitutional principle specifically addressing the suspension of Ministers.

It is longstanding practice not to comment on the provision of internal advice, including whether or not particular advice has been provided.

Applicants can apply for roles within the Civil Service from the age of 16, and beyond this there is no maximum age limit to join the Civil Service.

Departments should not have a mandatory retirement age for their staff, except where they have a sound business reason, supported by legal advice, to retain an upper age limit for certain groups.

Any changes to departmental monitoring of spending and changes to staff resources on facility time, arising from the updated Civil Service Facility Time Framework and Guidance, are delegated to departments. The Employment Rights Act (2025) included the repeal of the requirement to report facility time data to the Cabinet Office.

The role is covered on an interim basis. A recruitment campaign for the permanent appointment will be launched in due course.

Departments manage their own arrangements for monitoring workforce attendance. Heads of departments have agreed that 60% minimum office attendance for most staff continues to be the best balance of working for the Civil Service.

Ministers are appointed and dismissed by the Sovereign on the sole advice of the Prime Minister.

As the Ministerial Code sets out, ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister.

The guidance on speaking to the media is subject to ongoing policy development. Disclosing the publication date of the most recent version of the guidance could, in conjunction with other information already in the public domain, reveal the stage and direction of that development, which in turn could inhibit the free and frank provision of advice necessary for the policy process to operate effectively.

I refer the Noble Lady to the answer given on 5 March, Official Report, PQ HC110411:

Question: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer of 13 October 2025 to Question 77563 on Palantir, whether there is a record of who the Prime Minister (a) met and (b) spoke to during that visit.

Answer: The visit was part of the Prime Minister's trip to Washington. During this visit the Prime Minister listened to a short presentation about Palantir’s work, followed by a tour of the premises and an introduction to members of staff.

In December 2025, the MOD signed an extension to the Enterprise Agreement with Palantir that had been initially awarded in November 2022, by the previous Government, and via a direct award. This extension covered existing services and ensured there was no drop-off in MOD capability in critical areas.

This contract - and all other contracts for any firm - go through the usual rigorous departmental processes and their decision makers.

I refer the Noble Baroness to the response already provided to HL 15974:

Question: To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office on 23 March (HC120630), what consideration they have given to amending primary legislation to provide for the Ministerial Pension Scheme to be in scope of forfeiture for situations where a former minister is convicted for a criminal offence in relation to their activities while serving as a minister.

Answer: The government does not currently have any plans to amend the Ministerial Pension Scheme.

Ministerial travel is undertaken using efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. Security considerations are also taken into account.

Whilst Government departments proactively publish certain information as part of transparency requirements and to comply with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Civil Service HR policies relating to the management of employees are developed for internal use and are not published externally.

Terms and conditions of employment for the civil service are set out externally in the Civil Service Management Code.

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.

The visit was part of the Prime Minister's trip to Washington. During this visit the Prime Minister listened to a short presentation about Palantir’s work, followed by a tour of the premises and an introduction to members of staff.

Any contracts for any firm go through the usual rigorous departmental processes and their decision makers.

I refer the noble Lady to the answer given in HL15172:

Question: To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 3 February (HL13976), and with reference to paragraph 223 of the Cabinet Office Guide to Parliamentary Work and paragraph 1.6(d) of the Ministerial Code, what is the reason why current policy development prevents the publication of the previous guidance to the Civil Service about speaking to the media. HL15172

Answer: This guidance is currently under development in a live policy area. Premature release of this information would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice for policy development.

Ministerial travel is undertaken using efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. Security considerations are also taken into account.

Details of any payments made to the previous Cabinet Secretary will be published in the Cabinet Office Annual report and Accounts for 2025-26.

The necessary approvals were given for payments made to Sir Chris Wormald and Lord Case, as set out in the Guidance on Public Sector Exit Payments.

The former Chief of Staff’s phone was stolen, and he reported it at the time to the police and relevant teams in No10. This was before the Humble Address that was passed in February. The Government is committed to complying with the Humble Address in full, while continuing to support the Metropolitan Police with their investigation. I refer the Hon Member to the statement provided by the Metropolitan Police on 25 March and publication of the transcript confirming that the theft was reported.

The government does not currently have any plans to amend the Ministerial Pension Scheme.

I refer you to the Government's response to the Urgent Question tabled on 12th February, the Written Ministerial Statement in the name of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and repeated in the House of Lords that same day, and the Oral Statement on the 23rd February, in the name of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, which set out an update on the Government's process and that Departments have been instructed to retain material that may be relevant to the motion.

Staff from across the Cabinet Office including but not limited to the Public Inquiry Response Unit and the Propriety and Constitution Group are involved in compliance with the Humble Address motion as necessary, under the leadership of the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary.

As set out in the Civil Service Code, all civil servants are expected to carry out their roles with dedication and a commitment to core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.

Details of payments made to the former Cabinet Secretary will be published in the Annual Report and Accounts for Cabinet Office for the financial year in which the payment was made.

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member