Every parliamentary written question tabled by Mike Wood this session, with the full answer and department. See how every department answers, or back to the MP page.
Showing 881–900 of 1,929 · Cabinet Office
With reference to the Answers of the Lord Privy Seal of 10 February 2026, Official Report, House of Lords, Column 189, if he will publish a response to the questions raised by Baroness Laing of Elderslie on the Gordon Brown letter.
There are no plans to publish this letter. I refer the Hon Member to the response of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on this topic during the 2 February debate ‘US Department of Justice Release of Files’ (Vol 780, Col 49).
Whether the Cabinet Secretary plans to review Lord Mandelson’s interactions whilst Ambassador with (a) Global Counsel and (b) its clients.
The former Cabinet Secretary was asked to review available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Minister. After an initial review of some documents, the matter was referred to the police. In light of the ongoing criminal investigation that was announced, that review has now been paused. The government is cooperating fully with the police investigation and providing any assistance required.
Whether his Department has changed the name, remit or structure of its facility time reporting division.
The team whose responsibilities previously included amongst other duties, collecting, collating and publishing public sector facility time data sits within a wider Civil Service Reward and Employment division. This division has existed for a number of years. The removal of the requirement for public sector organisations to report their facility time data to Cabinet Office has resulted in these specific responsibilities no longer forming part of this team’s remit.
Whether the Prime Minister, as the King's principal adviser, (a) was consulted on and (b) approved the decision to change the HM Government identity to the UK Government; and whether the Prime Minister was advised by Tim Allan in this regard when Mr Allan was Executive Director of Communications.
There are no plans to discontinue the use of “HM Government”."UK Government" has long been the term used for the government in public-facing communications. Communications teams are advised to use "UK Government" rather than departmental names and logos for announcements, to provide clarity to the public. This does not affect the use of "His Majesty's Government", which continues on relevant official communications and records.This guidance was developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders and in accordance with standard protocols in Summer 2025.Please refer to https://www.communications.gov.uk/guidance/marketing/branding-guidelines/ for guidance on logo use. There are no plans to publish the revised guidance held by the Government Digital Service and the Government Communication Service.
Further to his oral statement of 9 February 2026, on Updates on Standards in Public Life, and with reference to the Non-corporate communication channels for government business, of March 2023, in what specific respects is the 2023 Cabinet Office guidance not clear.
The current guidance was issued under the previous government. As part of this government’s commitment to raise information security standards, we plan to review the way that non-corporate communication channels are used in Government and to update the accompanying guidance to reflect the changes in the ways we use technology.
What representations the National Cyber Security Centre received from Labour Together in relation to foreign cyber-attacks on its organisation.
The NCSC does not comment on operational matters. Any reports they receive are treated in confidence. The NCSC has published guidance on cyber security for political organisations at https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/defending-democracy/political-organisations.
For what policy reason the Government has decided not to use the HM Government identity; and if he will publish the revised guidance held by the Government Digital Service and Government Communications Service.
There are no plans to discontinue the use of “HM Government”."UK Government" has long been the term used for the government in public-facing communications. Communications teams are advised to use "UK Government" rather than departmental names and logos for announcements, to provide clarity to the public. This does not affect the use of "His Majesty's Government", which continues on relevant official communications and records.This guidance was developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders and in accordance with standard protocols in Summer 2025.Please refer to https://www.communications.gov.uk/guidance/marketing/branding-guidelines/ for guidance on logo use. There are no plans to publish the revised guidance held by the Government Digital Service and the Government Communication Service.
Pursuant to the answer of 29 January 2026, to Question 107278, on Department for Transport: Official Hospitality, whether the Cabinet Office has issued any guidance on Arm's Length Bodies using public funds to hold receptions to (a) lobby or (b) influence parliamentarians.
The Cabinet Office issued guidance on 25/04/2024 to all Arm's Length Bodies, which outlines the rules to ensure political impartiality and the proper use of public money. This guidance can be found on gov.uk.
Whether (a) his Department and (b) No10 undertook due diligence on the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer.
As a matter of policy, the Government does not publish information relating to individuals’ peerage nominations.
With reference to his oral contribution of 9 February 2026, Official Report, Column 573, on Standards in Public Life, what 1425 Bill he was referring to.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister was referring to the Act passed in 1478 depriving George Nevile, the then-Duke of Bedford, of his peerage. The following correction has been issued to Hansard: … I have been informed that a Bill of that nature has not been brought before Parliament since 1478—[Interruption.] No, the 1917 Bill was about a collective group of peers who had been, I think, collaborating with the Germans around the first world war.
Pursuant to the oral answer of Baroness Smith of Basildon of 5 February 2026, Official Report, Column 1737, in what specific circumstances would the Government's proposed legislation remove an individual of their peerage title, and whether the legislation will be retrospective in relation to the peerages of (a) Peter Mandelson and (b) Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor; and whether it will apply to hereditary peers who have never been a sitting member of the House of Lords in receipt of the Writ of Summons.
The Government will provide further details about the proposed legislation in due course. The title of Duke of York has been removed from the Roll of the Peerage and can no longer be used officially.
What guidance has been given to Ministers on whether they may pro-actively disclose their communications with Lord Mandelson prior to the publication of the Government’s response to the Humble Address.
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 that same day, and Oral Statement on the 23 February which set out an update on the Government's process for complying with the Humble Address motion. We will set out further details in due course. The Government wishes to ensure that Parliament’s instruction is met with the urgency and transparency that it deserves.
Further to his oral statement of 9 February 2026, on Updates on Standards in Public Life, what are the terms of reference of the review of the (a) declaration and publication of financial interests, (b) transparency around lobbying and (c) use of non-corporate communication channels within Government; and whether these reviews will be conducted by (i) the Cabinet Office or (ii) the Ethics and Integrity Commission.
The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules. A letter from the Prime Minister to the Chair of the Ethics and Integrity Commission setting out the terms of reference for the review is on gov.uk at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ethics-and-integrity-commission-to-review-lobbying-disclosure-and-access-to-government Further details on the review of use of non-corporate communication channels within Government will be provided in due course.
Whether (a) the Ethics and Integrity Commission will be placed on a statutory basis and (b) he plans to introduce primary legislation to reform lobbying regulation.
We will continue to work with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that it achieves its aim of promoting the highest standards in public life. In respect of lobbying, on 11 March the Prime Minister wrote to the Chair of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, Doug Chalmers, to commission a review into lobbying, disclosure and access to government. As set out in the Terms of reference, the Government will publish the Review’s findings and present the Government’s response to Parliament in due course thereafter.
What (a) representations and (b) complaints has the Ethics and Integrity Commission received since its creation relating to Lord Mandelson.
The purpose of the Ethics and Integrity Commission is to promote the highest standards in public life. Its terms of reference set out its responsibilities and remit, which can be found at the following link: https://eic.independent-commission.uk/what-we-do/terms-of-reference/ As set out in the terms of reference, the Ethics and Integrity Commission does not investigate individual cases.
Further to the answer by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office of 29 October 2025, to Question 83801, on Peers and Members: Social Class, and to the answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent of 5 February 2026, to Question HL13977, on Civil Service: Unpaid Work, how should the children of peers self-certify their social class if they apply to the Civil Service Internship Scheme in the absence of a classification by the Office for National Statistics.
All candidates are required to complete the questions set by ONS for determining socio-economic background based on their individual circumstances. For parental occupation this is at the age the candidate was 14. This allows the Civil Service to make a determination on their eligibility based on their answers. This is the same approach as was used for Fast Stream Internships under the previous administration.
Pursuant to the answer of 20 January 2026 to Question 104805 on Senior Civil Servants: Redundancy Pay, whether (a) Cabinet and (b) Permanent Secretaries asked to leave posts will be given Civil Service Compensation Scheme terms as severance payments in future.
I refer to Minister Turley’s answer for 88716 and 95640. The Permanent Secretary model contract sets out the contractual detail on compensation payments for all Permanent Secretaries.
Further to the letter from the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary to the Hon Member for Brentwood and Ongar of 30 January 2026, on severance payments, what is the wider policy of the (a) Civil Service and (b) Cabinet Office on the practice of outgoing Permanent Secretaries being paid gardening leave from the public purse for their three month waiting period when leaving Crown employment.
The Business Appointment Rules for Crown Servants set out that Permanent Secretaries are required to observe a three month waiting period, and the Rules set out that it may be appropriate to pay former civil servants who are required to observe a waiting period before taking up an external role.
Whether Direct Ministerial Appointments have to declare political activity prior to appointment; what requirements they have to declare political activity whilst in post; and whether they are subject to restrictions on political campaigning and activity.
Direct Ministerial Appointments are required to adhere to the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies. This requires consideration of all political activity where that is an actual or perceived conflict to their role. The Code of Conduct also outlines the processes to be followed to consult with an appointing body or a sponsor department before significant political activity is undertaken by an appointee. The scope of acceptable political activity, including exemptions for those appointees who already hold elected office, are set out within the Code’s guidance. These processes are administered by the appointing body.
Whether Departments are required to disclose the renumeration of existing Direct Ministerial Appointments.
The responsibility for the publication of information on Direct Ministerial Appointments rests with individual sponsor departments, as it has done under successive administrations. In order to promote transparency and consistency, the newly published Guidance on Making Direct Ministerial Appointments now makes specific reference to remuneration details - where they are incurred - being included in the information that should form an announcement of a new appointment. However, the guidance does not require departments to revisit past announcements for existing appointments which are already in the public domain.