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 8 July (HC15560), whether rejoining Interreg EU has been an item of discussion or negotiation as part of the current EU/UK reset.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement allows for UK participation in EU programmes, with decisions made on a case by case basis and subject to negotiation. We recognise the value of the UK associating to EU programmes where this is in line with the national interest, as demonstrated by our participation in Horizon Europe, Copernicus and the PEACEPLUS programme in Northern Ireland and Ireland. However, participation in Interreg Europe has not been discussed.
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 9 July (HL1331), whether the Prime Minister identifies as working class.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The Prime Minister is focused on delivering for working people across the country, no matter where they live or their background.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to investigate the claims by the leader of Reform UK of cyber-hacking by Russian hostile actors.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
I refer the noble Baroness to the answer given by my right honourable friend the Minister, on 8 September 2026 in response to UIN 21221 in the House of Commons:
The Government does not routinely comment on specific security threats. Any National Cyber Security Centre assessments concerning particular individuals or organisations, and any reports it receives, are treated in confidence. The NCSC has published guidance to support political organisations in strengthening their cyber security, available at: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/defending-democracy/political-organisations.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to establish a Number 10 North in Manchester; and if so, whether this will change the status of Glasgow as the second headquarters of the Cabinet Office; and whether they expect there to be any change to staffing levels in Glasgow and Manchester as a consequence.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
I refer the Noble Lady to the Written Statement provided by Baroness Smith of Basildon on 21 July 2026, HLWS298. No such changes have been made.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 20 July (HL1330), whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to publish a tax return on Gov.uk.
Answered by Lord Pitt-Watson - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
Publication of tax returns is a matter for individual Ministers. Any such publication would be made in the usual way.
Asked by: Baroness Finn (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the (1) United States Department of Justice, and (2) White House, relating to the disclosure of redacted Epstein material to UK public bodies to assist with (a) the Government response to the Humble Address and (b) law enforcement in the UK.
Answered by Lord Wood of Anfield - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
I refer the Noble Baroness to the response provided on 2 July to Question 13198 which is copied below:
Decisions on access to documents held by the United States are a matter for the relevant authorities in that country. The Metropolitan Police operates independently of Government and any engagement between UK law enforcement and international counterparts would take place through the appropriate law enforcement channels.
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 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.
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, 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 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’
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:
“The 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 Adviser’s subsequent advice to the Prime Minister is published on gov.uk.
As is set out in the Independent Adviser’s terms of reference, “Information provided to the Independent Adviser for the purposes of their functions is provided in confidence” (paragraph 4.2).”