Every parliamentary written question tabled by Mike Wood this session, with the full answer and department. Back to the MP page.
Showing 1,601–1,620 of 2,405 · this parliament
Commonwealth and Development Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 13 October 2025 to Question 77564 on Lord Mandelson, if she will publish her Department's HR guidance on the process to be followed once a head of mission is withdrawn.
HR procedures routinely draw from a range of established diplomatic protocols and policies.
Pursuant to the Answer of 10 July 2025 to Question 63002on Department of Health and Social Care: Permanent Secretaries, for what reason the Permanent Secretary was appointed as a temporary civil servant on a SCS contract, rather than as a permanent civil servant under the provisions in paragraph 2.1 of the Permanent Secretary Model Contract.
The department launched a fair and open competition to appoint a Permanent Secretary in January 2025. As a result of this process, Samantha Jones was found to be an appointable candidate for this role. However, during the recruitment process it was announced that NHS England would be brought back into DHSC. This significantly changed the scale and objectives required of this role. In light of these changes the Civil Service Commission agreed a three year fixed term appointment by exception, on the Senior Civil Service Model contract.
Pursuant to the Answer of 11 September 2025 to Question 75037 on NHS: Workplace Pensions, why the 9.4% pension contribution for NHS staff is made by NHS England.
Currently, National Health Service employees who are a member of the NHS pension scheme pay between 5.2% and 12.5% of earnings as an employee contribution. In addition, the current employer's contribution rate is 23.78%. As set out in the NHS Pension Scheme Consultancy, the Government Actuary's Department increased the employer contribution rate by 6.3% in 2019, from 14.38%, and this increased further by 3.1% from 2024 as a result of the 2016 and 2020 actuarial valuations. To alleviate cost pressures on employers and efficiently implement the increases, NHS England transacts the 9.4% increase in employer pensions contribution. This means whilst the full 23.78% rate is paid, 14.38% continues to be paid by employers and 9.4% by NHS England, which is supported by an increase in the NHS England Mandate. This arrangement will be reviewed with each subsequent revaluation. Further information on the NHS Pension Scheme Consultancy is available at the following link:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ca226aded915d0c486abb23/nhs-pension-scheme-consultation-response.pdf
Pursuant to the Answer of 15 September 2025 to Question 73327 on Alan Milburn, if he will list which other areas of health policy Mr Milburn has recused himself from.
Prior to appointment, non-executive candidates are required to declare all relevant interests. Appropriate mitigations are then put in place and approved by the Department.This process was carried out for the Rt Hon. Alan Milburn, whose interests, and any updates to them, are available in the Department’s Annual Report and Accounts and on the GOV.UK website in alignment with Government policy.
Pursuant to answer of 11 September 2025, to Question 73326, on NHS: Strikes, if he will make it his policy to prohibit NHS employees who undertake strike action to be paid for work by other NHS bodies on strike days.
There are no current plans to prohibit National Health Service employees in England who undertake strike action from being paid for work by other NHS bodies on strike days.NHS staff who are on strike are not prevented by law from working for non-NHS bodies or other NHS organisations, including NHS trusts, on days of industrial action, as long as they are not provided by an employment business to cover the work of striking workers. Before the British Medical Assocation Resident Doctors Committee (BMA RDC) strike action in July 2025, NHS England set out in guidance that resident doctors who have chosen to take industrial action should not undertake a locum or bank shift elsewhere during the period of action. This guidance is available at the following link:https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Industrial%20action%20FAQs%20-%20training%20progression.pdfDuring the BMA RDC strike action in December 2025, NHS England issued additional communications to trusts to reaffirm the existing guidance.NHS staff should consider the guidance published by the relevant professional bodies before undertaking additional work during strike days. The Department continues to monitor the impact of industrial action on NHS services and staffing arrangements.
Whether (a) the Social Mobility Commission and (b) Office for National Statistics classifies police officers as (i) working class.
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority. A response to the Hon gentleman’s Parliamentary Questions of 21st October is attached.
With reference to the Government Response to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Report on Iran, published on 4 September 2025, what is the timetable for the review on vetting policy by the Government Security Group.
Security vetting policy and processes are kept under constant review by the Government Security Group (GSG) in the Cabinet Office. This ongoing review is designed to ensure security vetting policy and processes are fit for purpose, to provide the greatest possible assurance for all individuals, including parliamentary staffers.
What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill on (a) the (i) processing and (ii) public interest considerations of Freedom of Information Act requests and (b) how Ministers reply to written Parliamentary Questions.
The provisions in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill are not intended to have any impact on the processing or public interest considerations of Freedom of Information Act requests. The Bill does not alter the existing law or guidance about how public authorities are required to respond to freedom of information requests or the expectations on ministers in replying to written Parliamentary Questions.
Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether Inter-Mediate has received funding from the Government for work on (a) China and (b) North Korea.
I refer the Hon Member to the answer he was provided on 25 September to Question 70454.
Whether the law officers plans to seek to negotiate reforms of the European Convention of Human Rights at Council of Europe level.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom will not withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. To leave would be entirely contrary to this country’s national interest.We need to work with our friends and partners in Europe to tackle all our major issues from irregular migration to combatting climate change. The solutions to these problems will not be met by isolating ourselves from our allies. But the status quo is not an option, and we are looking at various options to modernise our approach both domestically and internationally to the Convention.As Chief Legal Advisors to Government, any advice that might be given by the Law Officers would be protected by the Law Officers’ Convention.
Whether the Attorney General held discussions with the (a) CPS and (b) Director of Public Prosecutions on the available evidence prior to the decision not to proceed with prosecution in the case on Chinese espionage.
Decisions to prosecute are, rightly, made independently of Government by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).Consent was given by my predecessor on 3 April 2024. Following that date, no Law Officer intervened in the case at any stage.Where a case can no longer proceed because of evidential reasons, as in this case, then the requirement is that the CPS informs the Attorney General of the decision as soon as it is taken.The decision to offer no evidence was a decision made by the CPS, without any political influence, by the Attorney General or me, as the CPS has already confirmed.
Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if she will publish the letter of 16 May 2025 from FCDO staff to the former Foreign Secretary on HM Government's Middle East policy.
It is a long-standing principle that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff should be free to express their views internally without concern that their views will be made public.
Innovation and Technology, what assessment her Department has made of (a) the cyber-security of services provided to the Government by Global Switch, (b) the potential implications of its Chinese ownership for national security and (c) the decision of the Australian Government to stop using the company.
We do not comment on specific national security cases or specific companies.Ensuring the security of UK data is a priority for the government. When the government procures any service, cybersecurity is a paramount requirement. Government departments conduct thorough cybersecurity checks on all suppliers before sharing data and continuously monitor their compliance with these requirements throughout the contract's duration. If there is evidence of threats to our data, including in relation to data centres, we will not hesitate to take the necessary action to protect our national security.We have taken decisive action to monitor, and mitigate, potential future threats to data centres. Last year this Government designated data centres as Critical National Infrastructure, putting them on a level footing with emergency services systems. We work closely with industry to understand risks and manage threats to the UK’s infrastructure.We do not comment on the security decisions of other governments.
Whether the (a) National Security Adviser or (b) his Deputies have discussed the Chinese Embassy with the Chinese Government.
The government has a clear and consistent policy not to comment on any of the NSA’s, or his deputies’, meetings with external parties, for obvious reasons to protect sensitive information pertaining to this country’s national security. This has been the case under successive governments.
If she will publish legal advice provided to the Crown Prosecution Service on the case relating to the alleged breach of Official Secrets Act on behalf of China.
Decisions to prosecute are, rightly, made independently of Government by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).Consent was given by my predecessor on 3 April 2024. Following that date, no Law Officer intervened in the case at any stage.Where a case can no longer proceed because of evidential reasons, as in this case, then the requirement is that the CPS informs the Attorney General of the decision as soon as it is taken.The decision to offer no evidence was a decision made by the CPS, without any political influence, by the Attorney General or me, as the CPS has already confirmed.
Commonwealth and Development Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 14 October 2025 to Question HL10630, on Lord Mandelson, what role her Department played in the due diligence undertaken prior to the appointment of the former Ambassador to the United States.
I refer the Hon. Member to the answer provided on 22nd September to question 74188.
Whether the Climate Change Committee is subject to (a) the Civil Service Code and (b) guidance from the (i) Cabinet Office and (ii) Government Communication Service on political impartiality.
As an independent, statutory body, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) is not subject to the Civil Service Code. Board Members are expected to adhere to the Cabinet Office's code of conduct for Board Members of public bodies, as well as other central guidance around conduct. Staff are subject to the CCC's own code of conduct. There is a long-standing principle that public bodies must be politically impartial, and all public bodies must comply with the rules on lobbying, attendance at party conference, advertising, marketing and PR.
What is the Office for National Statistics’ National Statistics Socio-economic classification of (a) Members of Parliament and (b) peers in receipt of the Writ of Summons.
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority. A response to the Hon gentleman’s Parliamentary Questions of 21st October is attached.
Pursuant to the Answer of 21 July 2025 to Question 67904 on Universities: Fees and Charges, whether the European Commission has requested that EU students be given home fee status under the proposed UK-EU youth mobility scheme.
We have agreed, under the UK-EU Common Understanding, that we will work towards the establishment of a balanced youth experience scheme with the EU. We have agreed that any scheme will be capped and participants’ visas time-limited. We have not agreed to offer home fee status to EU students. We have also been clear that it should be in line with the UK’s existing schemes with countries like Australia and New Zealand. The exact parameters are subject to discussion and we cannot give a running commentary of ongoing negotiations.
Whether any guidance has been issued to (a) Ministers and (b) special advisers on (i) ministerial and (ii) special adviser conduct during the Labour Party deputy leadership contest in addition to existing (A) ministerial and (B) special adviser codes.
Ministers, special advisers and civil servants are expected to adhere to their respective codes of conduct at all times and a reminder of these obligations in the context of the deputy leadership elections was provided.