Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage on 16 July 2025 (HL9088), whether any payments to Returning Officers for costs related to the (1) 2024 Police and Crime Commissioner elections, and (2) 2024 UK parliamentary general election, are yet to be settled; and if so, how many such payments are outstanding, and for which election.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
The settlement of election claims depends on a range of factors, including the timing of claim submissions and the resolution of queries arising during the scrutiny process.
As of 15 July 2026, approximately 125 claims relating to the 2024 Police and Crime Commissioner elections and 600 claims relating to the 2024 UK Parliamentary General Election remain outstanding.
As set out previously, Returning Officers are not required to meet election costs upfront or wait until claims are settled before receiving funding. An advance payment, typically equivalent to 75% of the estimated cost of the poll, is issued ahead of the election.
The Department continues to work with Returning Officers to resolve outstanding queries and settle claims as promptly as possible.
Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many X Premium accounts the Ministry of Defence has (1) paid for, or (2) been granted for free by X, in the past year; and whether they intend to renew them.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The Ministry of Defence has not entered into any contracts with X and has no recorded contract expenditure with the company.
X is used solely to communicate with the public. A small annual cost of less than £100 is incurred where a channel requires a Premium subscription. The number of paid for X Premium accounts and the overall cost is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The MOD central communications team has one X Premium account which is paid for annually to support the management and operation of the official @DefenceHQ channel.
Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage on 29 June (HL1025), whether their discussions with the Electoral Commission included the merits of requiring the publication of official turnout figures in local contests where voters are able to cast more than one vote; and if so, what was the outcome of those discussions.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The power in clause 49 of the Representation of the People Bill is intended to support the provision of election-related information to electors, including information about elections and referendums in their area, candidates standing for election and polling station locations. Government discussions with the Electoral Commission on the use of this power have therefore focused on how best to improve access to this information for voters. They have not focused on requirements for the publication of official turnout figures for local contests.
Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 9 July (HL1929), why the logo on the UK Home Office account on X is in the format which identifies it as a Premium paid-for account, even though the Home Office has neither paid for such an account nor received one for free from X.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The grey tick logo on the UK Home Office account on X signifies it as a verified government account, not a Premium paid-for account.
Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many X Premium accounts the Home Office has (1) paid for, or (2) been granted for free by X, in the past year; and whether they intend to renew them.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office social media team has not paid for, or been granted for free, any X Premium accounts.
Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - 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 3 March (HL14499), and further to the Statement by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 2 June (HL Deb col 756), what the terms are for the review of the use of non-corporate communications channels and, if they are not yet available, when they will be published.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Terms of Reference for the Independent Review of Non-Corporate Communications Channels were published in full on 2 June on the Government website and are reproduced here for the benefit of their Lordships’ House:
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW INTO THE USE OF NON-CORPORATE COMMUNICATION CHANNELS IN THE UK GOVERNMENT
Purpose of Review
1. To examine the use of ‘non-corporate communications channels’ (NCCCs) within the UK government.
2. To consider the behavioural, organisational, legal, and technological factors affecting the use of NCCCs.
3. To make practical recommendations concerning NCCC use with the aim of improving the quality, security, propriety, effectiveness, and efficiency of government decision-making and record-keeping.
Background
The current lack of clarity on the use of NCCCs within Government raises concerns about information security practices, transparency and record keeping. These concerns engage with the Government’s legal obligations and standards of conduct.
Scope & Definition
The communication behaviours and practices of all UK Ministers, Special Advisers and Civil Servants concerning Government business are within scope, as are the related behavioural, organisational, legal, and technological factors. Where appropriate, this will include communications with wider public sector officials, although the communications of local government and other public sector bodies are generally out of scope. The review will provide a formal definition of NCCCs. However, for the purposes of these Terms of Reference, NCCCs are defined as any means of communication (generally, but not exclusively, textual) not provided for by HMG, and that might be personally owned, externally hosted or managed.
● The review is to gather and consider evidence of actual NCCC practice, including but not restricted to:
○ patterns of use, misuse and abuse, at all levels
○ communications with external partners (domestic and international)
○ crisis communications
○ record creation, retention, deletion and disclosure, including the use of auto-deletion features
○ assessment of the quality and provision of guidance and training
○ threats posed to the security and integrity of Government communications, including interception or device compromise by hostile actors and risks arising from the jurisdiction in which platform data is held
● The review should consider the following in making its recommendations:
○ how to reduce the risk of data loss and data leaks through the use of NCCCs
○ the incentives and disincentives to good behaviour (e.g: discipline, Codes of Conduct, etc.)
○ the communications channels that are available on official systems and the impact on the use of NCCCs as alternatives
○ any necessary changes to the policy and accountability framework for NCCCs and information security
○ options for improving guidance and training on NCCCs and information security ○ how to preserve the legitimate operational benefits of fast, informal communication whilst managing the associated risks
○ the likely impact of recommendations on the efficiency and effectiveness of government business
○ the views of the Information Commissioner and the Keeper of Public Records.
Leadership and Governance
This is to be an independent review, conducted by a qualified senior public figure supported by a small team of serving officials. The lead reviewer will make a written report of their findings and recommendations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Security Minister jointly, copying the Prime Minister.
Timings
The reviewer will report in early 2027. The Government will publish the Review’s findings and present the Government’s response to Parliament in due course thereafter.
Method
This will be determined by the lead reviewer, but the review team will be expected to make use of previous reviews and studies, the technical literature, structured interviews, data analysis, observational studies, surveys in preparing their findings and recommendations. The review will also consider suitable international comparators and models of best practice drawn from other corporate settings. The review will be informed and, as appropriate, illustrated by specific examples of NCCC use.
Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with Ofcom regarding its regulation of the Royal Mail’s terms of access to the Postcode Address File in the last 12 months; and what was the outcome of those discussions.
Answered by Lord Leong - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)
The Postcode Address File is a privately-owned dataset. Ofcom’s regulations require Royal Mail to provide access to the Postcode Address File on reasonable terms.
Ministers and officials have regular discussions with Ofcom in its capacity as the independent regulator of postal services. If there were matters relevant to the Postcode Address File, they would be discussed in this forum.
Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - 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 18 June (HL580), what was the percentage of Key Performance Indicators on Capita contracts that fell into the 'inadequate' category or worse, for each of the last 16 quarters for which data is available.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Commercial Playbooks require departments to publish key performance indicators (KPIs) on their most important contracts. Within the data generated through this mechanism, across the last 16 quarters, the average percentage of published KPIs with inadequate ratings on Capita contracts across all departments was 9%. 'Inadequate' is the lowest rating.
Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what was the commercial value in the last year of products or services which are usually charged for but which were provided by X to the Government for free, such as in providing premium accounts to the government at no cost.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Decisions regarding subscriptions and the use of platform features are taken by individual teams within departments, and are not centrally managed.
Asked by: Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how much they have spent in the last financial year on non-advertising services from X, such as in paying for premium subscriptions.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Decisions regarding subscriptions and the use of platform features are taken by individual teams within departments, and are not centrally managed.