Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
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.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Livermore on 26 February 2025 (HL5095), what arrangements they are making for the review of the Sovereign Grant this year; and when they plan to bring forward the legislation to implement the reduction of the Sovereign Grant from financial year 2027-28.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
As required by the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the next review of the Sovereign Grant will take place this year. In addition, the Government has committed to bring forward legislation to reset the Grant to a lower level from 2027-28 once Buckingham Palace reservicing works are completed.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether any files relating to the overseas travel or official engagements of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in his capacity as UK Special Representative or Trade Envoy have been withheld, removed, or redacted from transfer to the National Archives under exemptions in the Public Records Act 1958; and what public interest test has been applied to those decisions.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
I refer the Noble Lord to the answer provided in the House of Commons on 11 February in response to Question 111463, which - for ease of reference - is reproduced below:
The release of historical records relating to members of the Royal Family is governed by the Public Records Act, the application of Freedom of Information exemptions that persist beyond 20 years, and the Code of Practice on the Management of Records issued under section 46 the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) continues to operate in accordance with these statutory obligations. The FCDO does not set the legislation nor define which individuals are covered by the legislation.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 26 March 2025 (HL5660), and in light of recent disclosures arising from the release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, whether they will consider undertaking a review of records relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's activities as UK global trade envoy.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
I refer the Noble Lord to the answer provided in the House of Commons on 11 February in response to Question 111463, which - for ease of reference - is reproduced below:
The release of historical records relating to members of the Royal Family is governed by the Public Records Act, the application of Freedom of Information exemptions that persist beyond 20 years, and the Code of Practice on the Management of Records issued under section 46 the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) continues to operate in accordance with these statutory obligations. The FCDO does not set the legislation nor define which individuals are covered by the legislation.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether any review has been undertaken of historic Border Force and airport records at Stansted Airport to establish whether all required passenger information was properly submitted and retained for private aircraft linked to Jeffrey Epstein.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
People responsible for unscheduled international flights to and from the UK are, and have long been, required to provide passenger information for customs and immigration purposes. However, in line with the Home Office’s Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Privacy Information Notice, this information is not retained more than 10 years. Information which is retained is available to the police for the investigation of criminal offences.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government why they decided to revoke the draft Order in Council allowing for an interim administration of the British Virgin Islands; and whether they will publish the assessment that led to that decision.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
I refer the Noble Lord to the statement made to the House on 13 October 2025 (UIN HLWS953). This decision followed a review taking into account a range of factors including public consultations held by the Governor and British Virgin Islands (BVI) Government, a final report from the Governor, and a self‑assessment by the BVI Government, all of which are publicly available.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to sanction senior Georgian officials under the Chemical Weapons (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 following reports that the government of Georgia used prohibited chemical substances to disperse protests in November and December 2024.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
We urge the Georgian Government to publish the findings of the investigation it claims to have carried out into these allegations, and we continue to call on them to uphold the right to freedom of assembly and hold to account those responsible for excessive violence against protestors.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what action they plan to take following reports that the government of Georgia used prohibited chemical substances to disperse protests in November and December 2024.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
We urge the Georgian Government to publish the findings of the investigation it claims to have carried out into these allegations, and we continue to call on them to uphold the right to freedom of assembly and hold to account those responsible for excessive violence against protestors.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Chemical Weapons (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 have been extended to British Overseas Territories through the Chemical Weapons (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2020; and whether asset freezes are operable in those territories as a result of those regulations.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
Yes, the Chemical Weapons (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, was extended in 2020 via the Chemical Weapons (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2020, and as such asset freezes can be applied in these jurisdictions as a result of these regulations.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether he will arrange for the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider the case for reviewing the restrictions on scrutiny of the Sovereign and Royal Family by this House.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
It is a longstanding convention of the House that questions that cast reflections on the Sovereign or the Royal Family are generally regarded as inadmissible. The Procedure and Privileges Committee currently has no plans to look at this matter.