Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government which, if any, policy motions ratified by the Labour Party conference in September they plan to take forward as their policy.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
Activity at the Labour Party conference is a matter for the Labour Party. Government business will continue to be set out in the normal way.
Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the HMRC Valuation Office makes use of drones or footage derived from drones for (1) council tax, and (2) business rates valuations.
Answered by Lord Pitt-Watson - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
HMRC's Valuation Office does not use drones, or footage from drones, for council tax or business rates valuations.
Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (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 24 September (HC20665) and the Written Answer by the Minister of State in the Cabinet Office on 17 July (HC18049), whether there are other properties and public bodies in Greater Manchester that were omitted from the Written Answer HC18049 other than GCHQ in Heron House.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The response provided in relation to HC18049 included a list of Government occupancies across Greater Manchester. On review the GPA is unable to provide a list of Government departments occupying specific sites. In some instances the location of individual departments can be accessed online: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations.
While location details for individual departments are accessible online via GOV.UK, the Government Property Agency (GPA) cannot provide a comprehensive list of all government occupiers at specific sites. Confirming or denying the occupancy of specific sites, or releasing exhaustive site-level occupier lists, engages Section 24(2) (Safeguarding National Security) and Section 38 (Health and Safety) of the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 24(2) provides an exemption from the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, where the exemption is required for the purposes of safeguarding national security. This exemption is also subject to the public interest test. Disclosing lists for standard sites whilst withholding or refusing to confirm occupier details for sites occupied by highly sensitive departments would allow individuals to assemble piecemeal information (the 'mosaic effect') and deduce the presence of sensitive government functions. Taking into account all circumstances, the public interest in maintaining national security and protecting site occupants significantly outweighs the public interest in disclosing site-specific occupier lists.
The exemption in Section 38 is also a qualified exemption and we have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours releasing or withholding this information. There is a general public interest in disclosure of information and we recognise that openness in government may increase public trust in and engagement with the government. These public interests have been weighed against a strong public interest in protecting the safety/physical or mental health of individuals. Disclosing details regarding all organisations occupying a specific location would create a tangible risk to the health and safety of individuals working there. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that public servants and site occupants can perform their duties in a safe and secure environment, free from the threat of personal endangerment or disruption to their physical and mental well-being
Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we have concluded that the balance of the public interest favours withholding this information.
Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on 18 September (HC28764), why the aggregate amount of taxpayer funding provided to Inter Mediate since 2024 is not disclosable.
Answered by Lord Wood of Anfield - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
I refer the Noble Lord to the response provided in response to Question 28764 on 18 September, which for ease is copied below:
I refer the Honourable Member to the answer provided to Question 20637 on 8 September 2026. As set out in that response, payments to Inter Mediate are not disclosed because of the sensitive nature of the activities supported and the associated transparency exemptions applied by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).
Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by the Minister of State in the Cabinet Office (Minister without Portfolio) on 19 March (HCWS1422), what changes they plan to make to the budget, timetable, business case, and scope of the Manchester Digital Campus programme in light of the establishment of Number 10 North.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
There are currently no plans to establish the No10 North office within the Manchester Digital Campus. Consequently, the outline business case will not be reviewed on this basis.
The Manchester Digital Campus programme continues to progress as set out in the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority Major Projects Annual Report 2025 to 2026.
Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many (1) previously employed, and (2) new, Number 10 staff are currently working in Number 10 North.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
No10 North exists to get power out of Westminster, into the hands of people at a local level. The initial team includes people loaned from a range of government departments and secondees from local government.
Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Pitt-Watson on 3 August (HL2690), whether there is sufficient advance notice to make the changes to the pension age that have been costed by the Office for Budget Responsibility but not formally announced by the Government; and whether the review is also considering the minimum age at which one can claim a private pension of 57.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The third State Pension age Review will consider what the timetable for any State Pension age changes should be in the coming decades. The Review must report by the end of March 2029. No decisions have yet been made.
The Government is committed to providing clear and sufficient notice of any changes to the State Pension age, so people can properly plan for their retirement.
The Review will not consider the appropriate level for the Normal Minimum Pension Age, the lowest age at which members can usually take benefits from a registered pension scheme without incurring tax charges.
Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Employment Rights Act 2025’s provisions on access to the workplace will require changes to the guidance on trade union access to the building of the employer on strike days.
Answered by Lord Leong - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)
The Employment Rights Act 2025’s provisions on access set out that trade union access cannot be used for the purposes of organising industrial action (70ZA(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992). Doing so would be considered a breach of the access agreement. However, the union could still be entitled to access a non-striking group of workers in the same workplace for any of the access purposes set out (section 70ZA (6) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992)), and in accordance with the access agreement.
Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the then Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office on 9 February (HC118753) and the Written Answer by the Minister of State at the Home Office on 11 February (HC110397), whether the Muslim Council of Britain is subject to a publicly stated policy of non-engagement by the Home Office.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government continues to have a policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain.
Asked by: Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Pitt-Watson on 1 September (HL2691), what was the cost of obtaining the photographic licence to illustrate the HM Treasury accounts with the image of the Can’t we just print more money books; and whether HM Treasury endorses the book’s substantive recommendation on not printing more money as a tool of fiscal and monetary policy.
Answered by Lord Pitt-Watson - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
The image was selected from HM Government's approved image library because it was relevant to the subject matter discussed in the Annual Report and Accounts. In particular, it related to quantitative easing and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund Limited (BEAPFF), which is associated with the most material elements of HM Treasury's accounts. The Government agrees that increasing the money supply cannot by itself increase the economy's productive capacity or sustainably raise living standards. The Government's monetary policy framework is based on the objective of maintaining low and stable inflation through an operationally independent Bank of England.