Written questions by Wood.

Whether she plans to publish a (a) summary of responses and (b) response to the Equality law call for evidence, published on 7 April 2025, for the measures not covered by the Consultation on mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting: government response, of 25 March 2026; and what the status is of the socio-economic duty proposal.

This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone, no matter their background, can thrive. Therefore, as set out in our response to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry’s Module 2 report, we agree with the recommendation that commencement of the socio-economic duty could drive the routine consideration of the impact decisions might have on those most at risk in an emergency.The Government is giving careful consideration to responses to the equality law call for evidence as we consider next steps. We will publish a summary of responses and a Government response in due course on: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/equality-law-call-for-evidence. The socio-economic duty will require specified public bodies to actively consider how their strategic decisions might help to reduce the inequalities of outcome associated with socio-economic disadvantage. We are now taking forward work to make sure that commencement of the duty in England is as effective as possible.

Pursuant to the Answer of 18 March 2026 to Question 120317 on Cabinet Office: Freedom of Information and with reference to the Cabinet Office guidance on Non-corporate communication channels for government business of March 2023, paragraph 27, whether government information that has not been transferred back to the official record following off-boarding, remains subject to and in the scope of the Freedom of Information regime after staff members have left Crown Service.

Freedom of Information requests are considered on a case-by-case basis. Reasonable searches are made to identify information within the scope of each request and to ensure compliance with the legislation.

With reference to the government transparency data, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for government’s most important contracts, Data for October to December 2025 for all departments, published on 31 March 2026, for what reason the OCO Global contract for DBT Investment Services requires the supplier to deliver 12+ wellbeing initiatives as a key performance indicator.

Under the 2020 Procurement Policy Note (since updated) departments must explicitly evaluate Social Value (SV) in most procurements above the relevant financial threshold, where it is related and proportionate to the contract. This is to ensure that public spending delivers wider economic, social and environmental benefits alongside the goods or services being purchased. The policy note also mandates an appropriate KPI. The Government’s SV Model at the time provided a menu of outcomes for selection aligned to government priorities. The outcome selected, focused on wellbeing of the workforce, seeking to address staff turnover challenges experienced in the predecessor contract.

Pursuant to the answer of 5 March 2026, to Question 44467, on Government Departments: Social Media, if he will request that the Ethics and Integrity Commission consider this issue as part of their commissioned review into lobbying and transparency.

The Prime Minister's letter to the Ethics and Integrity Commission Chair, dated 11 March 2026 and published on GOV.UK, sets out the policy areas the Commission has been asked to review.

Pursuant to the answer of 2 April 2026, to Question 122728, on Cabinet Office: Email, whether John Pond's emails be transferred to the National Archives.

The Cabinet Office manages its departmental records in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958. Section 3 of the Act sets out the provisions for selecting and preserving public records.

Pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2026 to Question 120844 on Google: Special Advisers, what assessment he has made of whether information is being exchanged between special advisers via Google Docs outside the retention policy required by Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Public Record Act 1958.

It has not proved possible to respond to the Hon Member in the time available before Prorogation

Pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2026 to Question HL15477 on Lord Mandelson, whether Ministers are able to (a) provide a steer, (b) submit requests or (c) exercise a veto of Civil Service decisions to deem that material (i) is out of scope or (ii) should be redacted.

As set out in the Humble Address debate of 4th February, the process is being conducted and led by the Cabinet Secretary who has delegated the role to the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary. Civil servants are of course accountable to Ministers, who are in turn accountable to Parliament.

Pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2026 to Question HL15477 on Lord Mandelson, whether Ministers are being consulted on whether their electronic communications are provided or are not provided or are redacted in Government responses to Humble Addresses.

I refer you to the Oral Statement on the 23 February and the Government’s statement on 11 March which set out an update on the Government's process for complying with the Humble Address motion. The Government is working to ensure that Parliament’s instruction is met with urgency and transparency ensuring proper process is rigorously followed.

Pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2026 to Question 121095 on Civil Servants: Dismissal, what is the policy of the Cabinet Office on whether a civil servant (a) can or (b) should be dismissed for dishonesty on their job application or associated job interview and vetting processes.

All Civil Servants are expected to carry out their role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service Code and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. Applicants for Cabinet Office roles are required to sign a declaration stating that the information they provide during the recruitment process is true and relates to their own experiences. If it is discovered that an applicant or Cabinet Office employee has given false information or withheld relevant details during the recruitment or vetting process, their application may be rejected and/or considered in line with departmental discipline policy. This may result in dismissal and implications for the employee’s security clearance. Internal policies and processes in response to dishonesty will only apply to Cabinet Office staff, with Ministers and other departments out of scope. The Cabinet Office adheres to the relevant national security vetting policies. A range of considerations related to vetting and honesty may be relevant to a vetting decision. Any indication from employee or contractor records of unreliability in a security context (e.g., disciplinary action related to abuse of trust, carelessness, dishonesty, lack of discretion, or disregard for security controls) may result in an adverse security decision regarding an individual's vetting.

Pursuant to the answer of 24 March 2026, to Question 110414, on Lord Mandelson, whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister that the review into Lord Mandelson will be re-commenced once the police investigation has concluded.

I refer the Hon Member to my previous answer.

Whether the business appoint rules apply to Crown Servants who work for regulators who are not classed as Civil Servants.

Public bodies operating at arm’s length from the government, including regulators who are staffed by Crown servants who are not civil servants (and who do not otherwise fall directly under the Business Appointment Rules) are expected to implement their own equivalent processes to manage potential conflicts of interest, with these being tailored to their specific organisational context.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, how many phones Lord Mandelson used for Government business whilst Ambassador.

I refer the Hon Member to the Government's statement and release of information on 11th March, providing an update on the response to the Humble Address. The Government is working to ensure that Parliament's instruction is met with the urgency and transparency that it deserves.

Pursuant to the answer of 27 March 2026, to Question 111158, on Lord Mandelson, what the terms of reference are of the paused review that was being undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary.

I refer the Hon Member to my previous answer.

With reference to the Council of the European Union's press release entitled EU-UK relations: Council greenlights talks on electricity and cohesion deals, as well as UK’s participation in Erasmus+ for 2027, published on 30 March 2026, whether the UK will be required to contribute toward the EU's Cohesion Policy in relation to Erasmus+ and the energy and electricity provisions.

It has not proved possible to respond to the Hon Member in the time available before Prorogation

Pursuant to the Answer of 27 March 2026 to Question 111158 on Lord Mandelson, whether an independent KC is currently assisting the Cabinet Office in relation to the Government's response to the Humble Address, including the scope and redactions process; and with reference to the oral contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office during the Opposition Day debate on Lord Mandelson on 2 February 2025, Official Report, column 372, what was the name of the KC previously paid by the Cabinet Office to assist on the review into Lord Mandelson.

It has not proved possible to respond to the Hon Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 18 March 2026 to Question 114881 on Jonathan Powell, how much Mr Powell was paid as Special Envoy for British Indian Ocean Territory negotiations.

Details of individual renumeration arrangements are not routinely disclosed. The Special Envoy's appointment and terms of engagement were agreed in accordance with established procedures.

Pursuant to the Answer of 24 February 2026 to Question 110815 on Special Advisers: ICT, whether (a) special advisers and (b) senior civil servants have auto-delete functionality turned on for (i) corporate and (ii) non-corporate communication devices when discussing government business.

The policy covering non-corporate communication channels is published on gov.uk, available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-corporate-communication-channels-for-government-business/using-non-corporate-communication-channels-eg-whatsapp-private-email-sms-for-government-business-html

Pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2026 to Question 120840 on National Security Council: Disclosure of Information, if he will make it his policy to make a statement to Parliament on the conclusion of the leak inquiry.

In line with the policy of successive administrations, we do not comment on live leak inquiries.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether (a) she and (b) her Ministers were consulted on and approved the exit payment to Lord Mandelson over and above the special payment approval by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

I refer the Hon Member to the Government's statement and release of information on 11th March, providing an update on the response to the Humble Address. The Government is working to ensure that Parliament's instruction is met with the urgency and transparency that it deserves.

What types of information are routinely recorded from the Number 10 private office on the internal PMPost system for the official record.

It has not proved possible to respond to the Hon Member in the time available before Prorogation