Civil Service: Impartiality

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate on what steps the Government intend to take to strengthen impartiality in the Civil Service and the delivery of public services. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and noble Lords for their contributions to what has been an interesting debate, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, that it is a timely one.

Before I move on, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my ministerial declaration of interests. I also ask noble Lords to note that my husband is a serving civil servant in the Government Digital Service. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I have nothing but praise for the private offices with which I have worked and which have supported me since 2024; it is probably universal across Ministers that we rely heavily on our private offices to help us navigate the Civil Service.

The key aspect here is how the impartiality of the Civil Service is a vital component of our constitution and of how we run government business on behalf of the public. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, stressed, the basis of our politically impartial, permanent Civil Service goes all the way back to the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854, which urged a move away from recruitment based on patronage and set out the standards that laid the foundation for the modern Civil Service that we have today.

The Armstrong memorandum of 1985 set out:

“It is the duty of civil servants to serve their Ministers with integrity and to the best of their ability”


and said that

“the British civil service is a non-political and disciplined career service”.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, highlighted, this was codified in 1996 with the creation of the Civil Service Code—a vital document that sets out the standards of behaviour expected of civil servants to this day. The code’s importance is such that it is now based in statute, as set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. It is a contractual obligation for civil servants to abide by the code.

The code sets out four key values that should be demonstrated, which underpin those standards. Those core values are integrity, honesty, objectivity and, of course, impartiality, including political impartiality. These values largely stem from the Nolan principles, established in 1995, which civil servants and all public office holders are expected to adhere to, meaning that civil servants are also expected to demonstrate selflessness, accountability, openness and leadership. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, that these values are still relevant and appropriate, and I look forward to reading the report she referenced, which is on my pile of reading but which I have not read yet.

Impartiality, as was noted by a number of noble Lords, is fundamental to the code. In order to serve effectively, it is essential that civil servants do so impartially. Impartiality means faithfully and fairly serving the public as a whole rather than any particular group or interest. It also means loyally serving the elected Government of the day—a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—whatever its political persuasion and no matter what their political beliefs may be. That essential requirement ensures that the Civil Service can gain and retain the respect of Ministers, Parliament and the public and maintain the highest possible standards in everything it does. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, in how she described what this means in practice and how impartiality applies. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that both impartiality and the perception of impartiality are key in this regard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, asked about civil servants seeking to influence based on identity. It is civil servants’ duty to provide honest, objective advice to Ministers which presents options and takes account of expert advice. Good advice should be informed by understanding and awareness. However, advice should never be determined by a civil servant’s own personal or political views. Civil servants must also speak up and take action if someone is acting contrary to the code.

The Government are keenly aware of the need to protect this important constitutional principle and the importance of the Ministerial Code. The Ministerial Code includes a requirement that Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code.

I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pack, turning the debate on its head, in a way, and looking at the behaviour of Ministers but also the issue of lobbying reform. It is right that we look at lobbying, and the Government are considering the recommendations of the EIC following its review, so I look forward to reporting back on that to your Lordships’ House. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, that I will be very happy, when we have our long overdue meeting, to pick that up as well.

In turn, civil servants are required by their code to act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of Ministers. It is a clear and established part of our democratic system that it is for Ministers to decide government policy, operating within the legal frameworks which apply. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and civil servants are accountable to Ministers.

On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on the enforceability of the Civil Service Code, as part of the contractual relationship between civil servants and their employer, civil servants are obliged to abide by the Civil Service Code, including its requirements on impartiality. Departments take these matters seriously, and breaching the code can result in a range of disciplinary actions being taken, including dismissal in severe cases.

As noble Lords are aware and as has been mentioned, the Cabinet Secretary set out her intention to refresh the Civil Service Code to ensure that it is up-to-date, well understood and adhered to across the Civil Service, including on the importance of impartiality. She spoke about this in her oral evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 15 June. This work is ongoing, and the Government will communicate further on the subject in due course.

The issues of diversity and groupthink were raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Spielman. The latter suggested that bringing your whole self to work is a potential issue, as it could, in her view, blind civil servants to impartiality. I strongly feel that a diverse Civil Service ensures that we truly reflect the communities we serve; in my view, this leads to better policies and stronger public outcomes. I feel that, rather than contributing to groupthink, diversity can actually help us avoid it, but noble Lords may wish to debate that matter with me in future.

I want briefly to talk about the subject of the future of the Civil Service in the UK. We must ensure that the Civil Service is equipped and supported to meet the challenges of the future. This Government are committed to that, including safeguarding its impartiality and core values so that we can enhance trust and confidence in the institutions of government. The Cabinet statement Rewiring the State set out that devolution by default will lead to good growth in every postcode and a more strategic Civil Service that is focused on the challenges that can best be dealt with at a national level.

The review into the organisation, performance and transformation of the permanent Civil Service, led by the Cabinet Secretary, will define a clear vision for the Civil Service as a world-class organisation, delivering a once-in-a-generation transformation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I and the Government agree that she means it. The review will consider, among other things: the size, shape and structure of the Civil Service; the impact of artificial intelligence and technology on the service, which was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox; our ability to attract and retain the best talent from across the country; and the statutory footing of the service. The review will draw on a wide range of expert advisers from academia, the private and public sectors, civil society and international spheres.

The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, made a specific point about the review’s expert advisory panel. It will be constituted in due course to inform the review. A report will be published before summer next year, and any decisions will be for the Prime Minister to make.

On the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Young, to provide evidence to Antonia Romeo, the review welcomes input from across Parliament, so I can certainly take that offer back to the Cabinet Secretary.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

May I ask for some clarification before the Minister concludes? I fear that she is coming to a conclusion, and I do not want to stop her mid-speech. The most significant question I asked was: does the Minister believe that teams across the Civil Service are now compliant with the clarification of the Supreme Court on single-sex spaces on 16 April 2017? Can she either say that they are compliant or, if they are not, write to me and place a letter in the Library explaining when she expects them to be?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thought I had an insert on that. I have been going a bit fast because I am running out of time; if I have skipped over an insert, I apologise. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness on that point. I am now over time, but we have a short amount of time—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I should have asked this earlier, but, because the Minister has not mentioned productivity, can she say whether the Cabinet Secretary review will look specifically at Civil Service and wider public sector productivity?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are generally interested in public sector productivity, but I would be happy to write to the noble Lord.

Let me return to where I was heading at that point in my speech: the work of the Cabinet Secretary in not just waiting for the review but trying to get on with improvements to the Civil Service as we move forward. With their indulgence, I remind noble Lords that, earlier this year, the Cabinet Secretary launched the Future Civil Service programme, which is a collective movement to build a world-class Civil Service that better delivers for Ministers and, more importantly, for the public. It will be more productive—to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—and high-performing, and it will harness technology and AI to be fit for the future. This amounts to the most fundamental reset of the state and how it works in decades, and will focus on how the Government are organised and simplified to promote greater productivity, efficiency and accountability. The Future Civil Service programme is delivering a broad range of interventions, owned by Permanent Secretaries, to drive forward the change to build a world-class organisation that delivers for the public.

In conclusion, the Government will continue to protect the impartiality of the Civil Service. It is a central tenet of our constitution—one that we believe has stood the test of time. We will continue with our work to rewire the state, ensuring the effective delivery of public services.

G20 Summit 2027: Objectives

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the process for determining the UK G20 presidency objectives is under way. Next year’s presidency is a valuable opportunity to demonstrate effective UK international leadership and reinforce global economic stability, which is essential for working people in the UK. In the near term, our focus is on engaging with the US G20 presidency ahead of the Miami summit in December. In line with standard practice, we will communicate our objectives following the Miami summit.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Could she say what we will be looking at in particular around the rights of women and their needs?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK is very committed to the rights of women and to addressing this issue on an international level. However, the process for determining the UK G20 presidency policy agenda is currently under way. In the near term, our focus is on engaging with the US G20 presidency ahead of the Miami summit in December. In line with standard practice, we will communicate our policy priorities following the Miami summit.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

Could the Minister tell us what progress the Government are aiming to secure at the G20 summit on tackling international fraud and, in particular, bringing greater transparency over who really owns and benefits from offshore companies, especially in the light of the decision of the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands to implement only a legitimate interest, rather than a full public access, register of beneficial interests?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am pleased to report that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, is leading a summit on this issue. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with further details.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what priority will be given during the G20 summit to the nearly 120 million people who are displaced in the world today, and in particular whether the war in Sudan, which has led to another 12 million displaced people, will be discussed?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are doing as much as they can on the issue that the noble Lord raises. It has been a priority of this Government since we came into office.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I got the message from the Minister that she is not able to tell us what is going to be on the Government’s list on priorities, so can I just make a suggestion? All I am asking is that she will at least say she will go away and consider it. Given the leadership we have demonstrated since 2023 on artificial intelligence, and the global respect for the AI Security Institute, this would be a great opportunity for the UK to show international leadership on regulating AI globally. I urge the Minister to think about that as we put our policy objectives together.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am very happy to take the noble Lord’s suggestion away. As he will be aware from the debate we had on this earlier in the week, the UK is already demonstrating international leadership on this issue. We are considering all policy areas, particularly those on which we can show considerable international leadership.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely; I invite him to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend will not be surprised to hear me say that we continue to steadfastly condemn Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. In relation to peace across the globe, we continue to work through international fora, such as the UN, on agendas around peace.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, climate change is a world problem. Where is that going to stand on the agenda, or is it, in fact, going to be threaded through virtually every topic, as it affects every area of our life and security?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that the issues relating to climate change should be threaded through all our discussions on an international scale. I am happy to feed that back with other issues that noble Lords wish to raise on the policy agendas that are currently being worked through. We will report back on the overall presidency policy agenda in due course.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the UK presidency of the G20 is a historic opportunity for action on debt? Will she consider the call to champion changes to the common framework laid out in the African Union’s common African position on debt?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK already has an existing ask of other countries in relation to strengthening the G20 common framework. I will feed back the suggestion, as with other suggestions from noble Lords.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis, in Sudan, was not mentioned in the Government’s agenda for the G20 presidency. Surely, as the UN Security Council penholder for the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, we will raise this. What are our ambitions in the G20 presidency for that crisis?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK has displayed its ambitions in relation to this in Geneva and at the UN. I apologise to your Lordships’ House for not being able to say exactly what will be on the agenda for the UK G20’s presidency. We intend to use our presidency in an ambitious way. However, specific policy and operational details remain under active review, and I look forward to updating the House in due course.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister feel that our national credibility at this very important summit will be greatly enhanced if by then we will have reached the promised 3% defence target?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK has a clear target in relation to defence spending, which, from memory, I am not sure that His Majesty’s Opposition necessarily did when they were on these Benches. We continue to be committed to increasing defence spending along the lines that we have previously committed to. Ministers from His Majesty’s Government will update your Lordships’ House on progress on that.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, on the first question that was put, on the women’s agenda, given that there has been so much rollback on women’s rights, particularly in Afghanistan, would the Minister please make sure that that is at the forefront of our agenda, that we are able to have the wider discussions, and that we hold the conference that my noble friend Lord Cameron did when he was Prime Minister?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are committed to improving the rights of women on the global stage. This issue has been raised at the UN General Assembly and it will be one that the Government return to regularly.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, although we have, sadly, reduced our overseas development aid budget, we nevertheless have this leadership role. Would the Minister at least consider joining with other countries to pool our resources to make sure that we look after the most needy places in the world—whether it is Afghanistan, Sudan or, in particular, Palestine and Gaza—or at least commit to, in the long term, returning to 0.7% commitment? It also benefits our defence and security when we invest in overseas development aid?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are committed to the 0.7% commitment on a long-term basis, when fiscal circumstances allow. We will continue to work collaboratively across international partnerships to ensure that our spending is focused on where it can have the greatest impact, supporting the most vulnerable and advancing our modern development approach.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, on 9 September, the Prime Minister said that national security

“cannot come at the expense of social security”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/26; col. 1036.]

What kind of message is that to our allies in the G20?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has taken something completely out of context. We are committed to the G20 and to increasing our defence spending and global security. We will play a full part in this as a member of the G20 and through other international fora.

Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 July be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 14 September. Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Motion agreed.

AI: Human Extinction

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Teather]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk of AI causing human extinction within the next decade.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, AI is advancing at an extraordinary pace, creating opportunities and risks that do not stop at national borders. All new emerging technologies have had an impact on society, and it is government’s role to help mitigate potential risks. The UK is leading global efforts to test and understand AI, with one of the best-resourced AI security institutes in the world, which will help us develop the standards and safeguards necessary to keep people safe.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

In recent days, we have heard urgent warnings from industry leaders, and even a Nobel Prize winner, about the arms race to superintelligence and the potential for grave harm to humanity. Whether you focus on apocalyptic risks or human rights abuses from AI happening now, experts are crying out for international collaboration, transparency and regulation to ensure that AI is used for human flourishing, not harm. Will the Government use all their influence, including as host of the G20 next year, to work for international agreement to mitigate risks, and lead the way here by bringing forward an AI Bill to give statutory teeth to the AI Security Institute, which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has long argued for?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a range of important points. I want to reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government treat AI risks with extreme seriousness. Like others, we are pleased that some of the sector is talking about the risks, because only by talking about them are we able to work through solutions. As a responsible leader in AI security, we monitor a full range of risks that could be posed by frontier AI. I note that the noble Baroness made a number of different points and questions. I am very happy to meet her to talk through where we think we might go with this policy area.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in light of the existential threats referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, and having chaired the inquiry launched by the Joint Committee on Human Rights into AI and human rights, with 10 oral sessions, including important evidence from Minister Kanishka Narayan, may I ask the Minister whether she will urgently read this 94-page report, published yesterday and now available in the Printed Paper Office? Having particular regard to its 59 recommendations and conclusions on the inadequacy of existing law and regulations, will she ensure a swift response and that we will have the opportunity to debate this report fully in your Lordships’ House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I commend the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its report. I read it on the way into London yesterday. It is an interesting read and very clearly written. As somebody who would not purport to be as much of an AI expert as our AI Minister, I felt that it explained how AI works in very clear terms—so, from that point alone, I commend it to noble Lords to read. The Government are taking an agile and context-based approach to AI regulation. We are trying to balance the opportunities for growth with safety. We believe this approach allows risks to be addressed in the context in which they arise, while also supporting growth and innovation. We will respond fully to the Joint Committee’s report in due course.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, if you watched the news yesterday, you would have seen an AI actor being interviewed by a certain Ed Balls and Susanna Reid. By the evening’s “News at Ten”, we had heard about AI extinction from the big AI tech bros. In the middle of that, we had an APPG AI session on what leadership looks like for AI. The questions were about international leadership, business leadership in the UK and how to reassure the public. What are the Government doing about reassuring the public when they hear all these messages about AI?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The main thing we need to do is not downplay people’s concerns. Clearly, when world experts and people who have been working in this field are raising concerns about it, the worst thing we could do as a Government would be to say, “Nothing to see here”, because we are so keen to be part of the huge positive way forward for AI. That is the first step. One of the things we should do more of is talk about our successes through the AI Security Institute, AISI. I have been impressed by what I have heard about it and I think the public would be reassured by some of the big successes of AISI over recent months and years.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is an international issue and that the only way we can deal with it is internationally? The most important part will be to make sure that the regulator has the ability to police what is going on in China, America and the rest of the world.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a number of interesting points. It is true that we need to address this internationally. AI clearly crosses national borders. It is not like previous forms of new technology. We need to find the way forward in getting the balance right. We have been using our opportunity to lead internationally in having those conversations across borders as one of the leaders in AI safety.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. Just two weeks ago, the Government resisted a proposal from Members right across this House to introduce an AI kill switch into cyber legislation on the grounds that the Government were “technology agnostic”. How agnostic does the Minister feel today?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I presume that the noble Lord is referring to the amendment tabled to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and information Systems) Bill. One of the things that we have done is introduce the Bill and the guidance to work through that. I know that my noble friend Lady Lloyd will be happy to talk further with the noble Lord about this. One of the issues with a kill switch is that it would be impossible for Britain simply to turn AI off. Another issue is the extent of people’s concerns about whether a kill switch could or would work, but I know my noble friend Lady Lloyd would be delighted to speak further to the noble Lord.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree with the earlier question. When it comes to managing the existential end of AI risks, unilateral regulation is of very limited value, because the risk is of course global. Given this, what is the Government’s assessment of existing efforts to drive multilateral regulation, many of which, including the G20 that was mentioned earlier, have been trundling on for many years without a great deal of results. What more can the Government do and, in the absence of DSIT, which Ministry is in charge?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

In the absence of DSIT, as the noble Lord said, we have embedded AI across government by having the very first AI Minister sitting at the Cabinet table. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade has responsibility for AI policy, including growth, innovation and infrastructure. The newly expanded Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has responsibility for tech sector oversight, cyber security and online safety, and Minister Narayan sits across different departments. We cannot have our policy on AI sitting separately from all other policy areas; it is vital that we get this driven across all areas of government.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Might I ask the Minister whether the Government are thinking of talking to China?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are clear that all parties involved in the development of AI need to be in agreement about a way forward.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, the tech companies, particularly the social media companies, have argued for a decade that their technology is global and, therefore, that local regulation is not the way to do it. Yet Australia, and now, I believe, this House have realised that local regulation is the only way you get global regulation in the end. Why do we think AI is any different?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I apologise if I gave the impression that we do not think we should have any regulation relating to AI. What I was trying to get across was that we are taking an agile and context-based approach to AI regulation, which seeks to get a balance. The Government have put through a number of pieces of legislation that have AI-related elements. I will be very happy to write to the noble Baroness to outline what these are.

Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for the delay to the start of these proceedings. I will begin by setting out the background to this instrument. It concerns the governance arrangements for the Windsor Framework and Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements, and the UK/EU withdrawal agreement.

First and foremost, the instrument takes forward and supports certain commitments the Government made in response to the independent review of the Windsor Framework that was conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen and published at the end of 2024. It does so by providing greater flexibility in the process for the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise regulations that are applicable under the Windsor Framework. It also clarifies the statutory obligations of Northern Ireland departments to support the committee by providing it with responses to reasonable requests for information.

Secondly, the instrument helps facilitate the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee to use written procedure to adopt decisions or recommendations such as those in relation to the Windsor Framework, which is, of course, a crucial element of the withdrawal agreement. This will keep the governance arrangements of the withdrawal agreement working effectively, particularly where we need to keep rules that apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in step.

I will now explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purposes, which are threefold. First, in response to recommendations made by the independent review of the Windsor Framework, the Government committed to providing greater flexibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in examining and considering EU legislation relevant to Northern Ireland. The committee plays a valuable role in scrutinising regulations relevant to Northern Ireland. Its reports and engagement with affected stakeholders inform the work of government, just as they will inform the work of many Members of the Assembly. These changes to Schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly with greater latitude in conducting its work within a two-month window following the publication of relevant EU Acts, if it wishes to use it.

A timeframe for the scrutiny of EU Acts under the Windsor Framework is provided for in law so that everyone is clear—MLAs, businesses and civil society—about how the process works and what the impacts of those enactments are. Currently, the committee has five working days to vote on whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU Act. If an inquiry is held, a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two-month scrutiny period, which begins the day the EU publishes the Act in its Official Journal. This instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to 10 working days and alters the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the scrutiny period. These changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run its inquiries, take evidence and report on them.

Secondly, the instrument takes account of the need to ensure continuing, effective governance arrangements that are fit for the future. This future includes the three new agreements we are seeking to take forward with the EU on SPS, electricity and emissions trading. This change is made by omitting Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This will allow the UK to agree to decisions and recommendations at the joint committee between meetings in a process known as written procedure. In effect, this will revert the arrangements to how they were when the withdrawal agreement was first agreed, as this mechanism has always been contained within the treaty text. It will enhance the UK’s ability to take necessary decisions without having to wait for a meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, which typically happens only once or twice a year.

As with the changes to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee’s procedures that I have already set out, written procedure will be an optional flexibility and will not be utilised for every decision. The effect will be to enable the Government to ensure, where there are EU regulatory obligations applicable in Great Britain, that Northern Ireland can keep pace. This could also, for example, cover urgent measures needed to protect the smooth operation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access and its place within the UK market.

I emphasise that these changes do not amend the process of scrutinising those decisions where the Government maintain obligations to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The process remains as it is today, including where it is provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and in the Government’s EU scrutiny arrangements with the European Affairs Committee and the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. By removing this restriction, the governance of the withdrawal agreement will be aligned with that of the trade and co-operation agreement, which has no similar restriction on the use of written procedure. As with the EU-UK Partnership Council, which was established under the trade and co-operation agreement, the joint committee would still remain the default forum for UK-EU decision-making in relation to the withdrawal agreement and continue to meet, just as the Partnership Council does.

Finally, the instrument provides for and clarifies the responsibilities that Northern Ireland departments and Ministers are already under to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. This is aimed at supporting the work of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the governance arrangements of which it forms part. This instrument clarifies the duty on those authorities to comply with a reasonable request for information from the committee, and that such a request should not be regarded as unreasonable solely on the ground that a Northern Ireland department or Minister lacks primary responsibility for the EU Act in question. This change is made in response to recommendations in the independent review on how Northern Ireland departments should be empowered to provide evidence to and support the committee.

I also note, for completeness, that the instrument makes some technical amendments to existing legislation. Specifically, it amends outdated references within the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, so that these now refer to the Windsor Framework. This minor change provides clarity and aligns UK domestic legislation with the international context.

In conclusion, this instrument demonstrates the Government’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor Framework, to ensure that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements work well, and to take the practical steps necessary as we build a stronger relationship with the EU, from which Northern Ireland will benefit and which will deliver the good growth that we wish to see in every postcode. I beg to move.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this SI and am grateful to the Minister for introducing it so effectively and carefully. It is part of a process in which the Windsor Framework becomes more centre stage and the withdrawal agreement takes a step back. This is a vital process: the core of the Windsor Framework is to introduce more suppleness in facing up to the difficult question of Brexit. It is not perfect and there are many, many imperfections, but I think—this might not be a bad day to say it, following the meeting of the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland in Cardiff—that there is a danger, within Northern Ireland, of not coming to terms with the fact that the Windsor Framework has actually effected positive changes, and that this is part of the process.

A long time ago, there was a taskforce report following the 1985 Hillsborough agreement, signed by Margaret Thatcher—the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, will remember this. That was far more threatening and destabilising in its impact on Northern Ireland than anything in the Windsor Framework or the initial withdrawal agreement. The taskforce report represented a conclusion involving the two main unionist parties, after some period of rather sterile activism against the United Kingdom Government. It said that there was no set security or sanity in the junior partner in the United Kingdom being permanently estranged from the senior partner. The period since Brexit has opened up a similar period of estrangement, and it is time that this came to an end.

The crucial thing about the Windsor Framework, as underlined by the Minister’s remarks, is that it moves away from the very problematic commitment in the withdrawal Act that the British Government would foster an all-Ireland economy. How you would do that I was never quite sure, by the way, because the all-Ireland economy is based on a model condemned by Piketty, Krugman and Stiglitz—all Nobel Prize winners in economics—which is basically one of low tax for incoming American firms. It is difficult to do anyway. The point is that the Windsor Framework unhooks the British Government from a commitment to further the all-Ireland economy. In that sense, given the problematic aspect of the withdrawal agreement, many difficulties and flaws remain, but I welcome the fact that the Minister has come today and, essentially, refreshed certain aspects of the Windsor Framework. I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument makes changes to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which scrutinises EU law that is applicable in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, implementing some of the recommendations made by the independent review of the Windsor Framework.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of the strong opinion that the Government must explain why they are removing the safeguards introduced by the previous Government prohibiting the use of written procedure in the joint committee, which were meant to ensure full ministerial accountability for its decisions. This instrument removes Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Explanatory Memorandum to this instrument says that this provision was being made:

“to facilitate decision making between the co-chairs on time-sensitive issues during the period in between formal meetings, noting the bulk of decisions at the Joint Committee relate to the Windsor Framework”.

However, the Explanatory Notes for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which introduced Section 15C into the 2018 Act, stated that the prohibition on the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was to ensure that,

“decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a Minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability … for all decisions made in the Joint Committee”.

That was well highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea.

Introducing the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was not recommended by the independent review. In line with the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, we have one important question: will the Minister explain in more detail the rationale for allowing the written procedure? Is there a risk, as has already been discussed, that it would allow changes to slip through inadvertently without even the minimal scrutiny currently in operation?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. The instrument is a key element of the Government’s commitments made following the independent review, and I hope that it demonstrates that we continue to take action to ensure that the Windsor Framework works for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, which is this Government’s intention for it to do.

In relation to a couple of the points that came up in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised an important point. I fully agree with him that Northern Ireland’s dual market access is a unique opportunity that has potential to drive real growth for Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to taking all necessary steps to protect the internal market while implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith, including having regard to all aspects of the Northern Ireland economy.

In relation to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Ritchie, I am happy to meet to discuss progress on the hub.

With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, the robust parliamentary oversight frameworks already in place remain entirely unchanged. I hope that provides him with some reassurance. The written procedure simply ensures that, when the UK’s interests depend on swift action between the scheduled meetings, bearing in mind that they might take place only once or twice a year, we can take that action and Parliament will continue to be provided with explanatory memoranda on decisions made in the joint committee. I clarify that, in our view, this does not weaken the accountability of the Government at the joint committee. The scrutiny process for joint committee decisions made by the Government is not changed by this SI. That includes the role for Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as set down in law and in writing, which is very important.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

Will the Minister clarify whether the Government are removing Section 15C or not? We cannot have it both ways.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are removing Section 15C.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

The Minister is saying that the protection is there, but Section 15C was inserted by Section 35 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was very clear that the reason for precluding Ministers was simply to ensure that nothing could be slipped through and that there had to be accountability. That is its purpose, so to remove Section 15C is to remove its purpose of providing a safeguard. Removing the safeguard cannot be the same as protecting the safeguard.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We think that there is a sufficient safeguard in place, but I would be happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this further if he would find that helpful.

I return to my concluding remarks on the SI. This is not the only action that the Government are taking to protect the internal market. We have announced £16.6 million to strengthen the UK internal market and help Northern Ireland boost trade with Great Britain. This includes a comprehensive one-stop shop regulatory support service, beyond what is currently available on GOV.UK. This will help businesses trade across UK and EU markets and benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access. We have also established a triage process to support co-ordination between the Government and Northern Ireland departments on relevant EU legislation. This Government are clear that Northern Ireland is and should be a core player in that relationship. Arrangements that necessarily protect Northern Ireland’s place in the union and its internal market prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and deliver certainty to businesses on the basis of the agreement with the EU.

I recognise and respect that noble Lords may have different views on how we arrived where we are now from Brexit, and on its merits and otherwise. However, on behalf of the Government, I should be very clear that our focus must remain on what we do next to ensure that our relationship with the EU works best for all parts of the UK.

We are focused on looking forward to a new strategic partnership with the EU, which stands to benefit Northern Ireland. I assure the Committee that we will also remain focused on smoothing flows of goods to Northern Ireland where we can, with the arrangements that apply now, with an eye to the new and beneficial arrangements that we are seeking to obtain in future.

I am not sure that I have managed to answer all noble Lords’ questions. I will ask my office to write to all those who have taken part in today’s debate as I am happy to have a continued conversation about these very important matters. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Public Inquiries

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria are used when deciding on which subjects to carry out public inquiries.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

With apologies to your Lordships’ House, it is me again. Public inquiries can establish facts about what happened in order to learn from events and reduce the likelihood of recurrence. When deciding whether to establish an inquiry, Ministers consider a number of factors including its objectives, whether and why alternatives are not appropriate, the inquiry’s likely duration, the likely costs—including those that are deliverable and realistic—and whether the public interest outweighs those costs.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, why does the Ministry of Defence continue to oppose the requests for a public inquiry from the 29 bereaved families of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre? The Ministry of Defence stated that the evidence had already been considered and no further investigation was warranted. However, it is now reviewing thousands of documents and asking the families themselves to help identify the evidence relating to airworthiness. Will His Majesty’s Government please tell the families how this can be reconciled with a Government committed to a duty of candour in the Hillsborough law? Does this not demonstrate precisely why the MoD should not be left to investigate its own conduct, and why an independent review is now necessary to restore the families’ and the public’s confidence? Surely, seeking justice should have no expiry date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that seeking justice should not and must not have an expiry date. The hearts of all of us across your Lordships’ House go out to them, and we extend our sympathy. I understand there have been ongoing discussions and that my noble friend Lord Coaker has met with some of the bereaved families, and I think that there are ongoing discussions within the MoD as well.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, given that statutory inquiries are held when events have caused public concern, and often cost tens of millions—if not hundreds of millions—of taxpayers’ money, does the Minister agree that reasons should always be given by Ministers for rejecting inquiry recommendations, so as to ensure due openness and accountability to the public?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right in the sense that we think that it is really important that people understand when and why the Government would accept the need for a public inquiry. They are a really important way to investigate issues of concern, particularly around state failures, so that we learn lessons and that events do not happen again. As was reflected in the work of your Lordships’ House’s the Statutory Inquiries Committee, a public inquiry is not always necessarily going to provide the answers and resolution that people expect. One of the things that the Government are doing through the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, in particular through the duty of candour, is to make sure that, among the different types of reviews and inquiries, a statutory inquiry is not the one that has protected characteristics in relation to the responsibility of public servants to tell the truth. The Bill will extend the duty, and we hope this means that people will not necessarily see the need to have a full public inquiry to get answers.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain the way that people are chosen to sit on these various inquiries? The reason I ask this is that we had a Select Committee on obesity, which is very much a medical problem. Yet, although there were eight medical Peers available at the time, not one of them was asked to sit on the committee. Would the Minister look into ways of correcting that sort of anomaly, so that rather more balanced outcomes could be produced?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

That is generally a matter for the House, but I think that your Lordships’ House has noted the point.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, for decades the compensation schemes that have flowed from the issues that triggered public inquiries have often had a poor track record. The most recent scheme for victims of infected blood, for example, had to be created because of the many failings of four previous schemes over 40 years, and it seems there is no consistent learning from past mistakes. My noble friend Lady Brinton has campaigned to set up a single compensation body that would oversee schemes and would have that institutional memory, which would indeed save time and money as well as get compensation to victims more quickly. Would the Minister agree to look at that proposal?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the proposal. I understand her concerns about some of the issues that happened with the infected blood compensation schemes and the support schemes previously, having been briefed on those since I became a Minister in the Cabinet Office. We share the ambition of your Lordships and of the Infected Blood Inquiry that fair compensation is delivered as quickly as possible to every eligible person. That has not always felt as easy when there have been compensation schemes, and we want to actively look at ways we can make that feel more victim-centred rather than too bureaucratic.

[Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given recent scandals, it is perhaps not surprising that the public regard judge-led statutory public inquiries as the necessary standard. However, this is not always proportionate. Have the Government given consideration to how they can build confidence in other routes for the public, so that people can still get to truth and justice?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We have an inquiry team within the Cabinet Office that has a formal role advising departments and Ministers both on potential new inquiries and terms of reference, and it also gives advice across government on different routes. We are keen to look at what more we can do to advise the public and campaigners of the different options available. I would be happy to update your Lordships’ House at a future date when we have made more progress with this work.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the Government accepted a number of recommendations from the Statutory Inquiries Committee’s report, Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust, including on the format of future inquiries, proper consultation of victims and survivors and stronger Cabinet Office capability. When will the Government implement those commitments, and will the House be updated at that point?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am very happy to update the House on progress. Since the work of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee, we have undertaken a number of different actions, including launching a publicly accessible tracker reporting progress on delivering inquiry recommendations. We have also amended the Ministerial Code to ensure that Cabinet Office policy expertise informs decisions on establishing public inquiries, and we are looking further at what additional changes can be made to improve the inquiry system. That includes publishing guidance, which is a priority. This will take account of the changes to inquiries that will come into effect following the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on the earlier question about the importance of publishing a public audit of inquiry recommendations that will and will not be implemented and why, does the Minister agree that, without such a duty of candour, it could fuel mistrust in inquiries, which start to look like expensive ways of shutting down public debate and kicking concerns into the long grass, with no action, no accountability and no transparency?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are determined that the duty of candour will address some of the concerns that people have had about public inquiries in the past. The length of some public inquiries causes additional trauma for some of the people involved in what are often huge injustices and sometimes major state failures. We are clear that we need to make sure that people get the truth. There have been some issues in the past: for example, some people lied to the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack, but, obviously, the statutory inquiry that followed got answers. We need to make sure that people get the answers, and that is what we think the duty of candour will deliver.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, when looking at public inquiries, could the Minister also look at the issue of the veterans Bill that will come forward? This is the same sort of thing, as it is exposing veterans of conflict in Northern Ireland to inquiries 30 and 40 years later. There is something very odd about this. Could she please look at that as well, because most of us feel that it is unwarranted and disreputable?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will speak to my noble friend Lady Anderson and my noble friend Lord Coaker regarding the point that the noble Lord raised.

Public Sector Fraud Authority

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government why they have transferred the Public Sector Fraud Authority from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Work and Pensions, given the function and powers of the Minister of the Cabinet Office set out in Part 1 of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Public Sector Fraud Authority’s repositioning into the Department for Work and Pensions reflects the Government’s commitment to tackling public sector fraud. Both organisations will use their unique expertise to tackle fraud and error in welfare and across the public sector. The Treasury will continue to co-sponsor the Public Sector Fraud Authority. A transfer of functions order will ensure that functions under the public authorities Act 2025 are transferred to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I start by saying that this is not intended to be a dig at the First Secretary of State, who I thought was poorly treated by the previous Prime Minister. However, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act, which we passed only last year, was billed as key to tackling billions of pounds of fraud beyond HMRC and the DWP. It gave many powers solely and specifically to the Minister for the Cabinet Office with regard to tackling fraud and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. How effectively can the powers in this legislation now be deployed? I am surprised to hear that an Order in Council will be sufficient. It is better to get on and just use these powers and not worry about one day’s bad publicity.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The functions under the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act will still be able to be used. They will be appropriately transferred, as I said to the noble Baroness, to a relevant DWP Minister and they will be able to be exercised in the way that the Act intended. In addition, the Public Authorities Fraud Investigation and Enforcement Service, which was established as a result of the Act, will continue to legally pursue cases of fraud against government while the transfer takes place.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, in response to the Public Accounts Committee’s report earlier this year on using data to tackle public sector fraud, the Government committed to supporting a review of relevant legislation, to be concluded by March next year. Can the Minister tell us what forward planning the Government are doing to ensure that any proposals from that review can be put promptly to Parliament? In particular, will she commit that any necessary secondary legislation will come to Parliament before the end of 2027?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This will all take place when parliamentary time allows. I am happy to make sure that the noble Lord gets a briefing from the relevant team about the progress and where it is all going. We want to make sure that we get this right, but I am happy to arrange for a briefing for the noble Lord.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, when we were debating this Act only about a year ago, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, explained with her usual clarity that the purpose of the PSFA is to drive cross-government collaboration to tackle fraud across all public authorities. In what possible parallel universe can the DWP be the best department to drive cross-government collaboration? Does the Minister perhaps have some examples of where that might have happened?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The DWP is one of the departments that routinely work to tackle fraud, so there is considerable expertise in the department. The Public Sector Fraud Authority will continue to work with all departments and public bodies across the public sector to drive counterfraud performance and accountability, deliver cross-system services and increase counterfraud capability. In our view, this will be further bolstered by its repositioning in the DWP, in that it will be able to learn from existing, mature counterfraud capability in the department to optimise its services, and vice versa.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

How much fraud did the PSFA find last year and how much more does it think it will find with the enhanced methods of going about it?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The PSFA has a strong record of delivering beyond its annual financial target. In the 2024-25 financial year, it delivered over £480 million in audited counterfraud benefits, which is a return of £34 for every £1 invested. The PSFA has delivered a total of £1.2 billion in savings since its establishment in 2022. Clearly, it could go further, and we are absolutely determined to make sure that it does.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

Fraud was rife during Covid, both in the loans that were granted when they should not have been and in PPE contracts, for instance. Can the Minister tell us how much has been recovered of that fraud and how much is still outstanding?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right to highlight that there were particular issues in relation to fraud during the pandemic. I will need to write to her about the amount that has been recouped so far, because the figures change on a regular basis. It involves considerable amounts but, obviously, more can be done. I will write to the noble Baroness and make sure that a copy of my letter is placed in the Library.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether any investigation, information notice, recovery action or other statutory power has been exercised by DWP Ministers or officials since responsibility for the PSFA was transferred, and whether the Government have taken legal advice on the susceptibility of any such decision to judicial review, if the statutory transfer of functions has not yet taken effect?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is in the process of being transferred. My understanding is that this is not holding up enforcement, but I will need to write with a detailed answer to the noble Baroness’s question.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the opposition parties are very keen on fighting fraud in the welfare system, but they are very slow to fight blue-collar fraud and their own fraud?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I could not possibly comment on that. What I can say is that public sector fraud wastes public money, drives up the deficit and damages the public sector. We are clear that we want to tackle it, and put structures in place to do this. My noble friend is correct, however, that it is not just public sector fraud that affects the public, and we are determined to do whatever we can to keep the public and the public finances as safe as possible from fraud and error.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, these interventions are all very commendable, but are the Government going to get behind the idea of letting those agencies fighting fraud on our behalf retain more of the money they recover so that they can exponentially increase their effectiveness?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

That is a really interesting proposal. I understand from my amazing noble friend Lady Anderson that a number of trials are under way. I am very happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this, having offered letters to other people—obviously, I am happy to meet any noble Lord at any point.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I was responsible in the Cabinet Office for the fight against public sector fraud—and energetically so. I share my noble friend Lady Coffey’s concern about the move to the DWP, which risks focusing the fight against fraud too narrowly. Is this because it was too awkward a portfolio for the First Secretary of State?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Of course not; I find that an absolutely appalling question. The Public Sector Fraud Authority’s repositioning reflects the Government’s absolute commitment to tackling public sector fraud. Both organisations will use their unique expertise to tackle fraud in welfare and across the public sector. The co-sponsoring by the Treasury of the Public Sector Fraud Authority will enable a cross-government perspective as well, and the transfer of functions order will make sure that its functions are transferred to the DWP Secretary of State.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that whistleblowers have a big role in uncovering public sector fraud? Does she also agree that there is an awful lot more the Government could do both to encourage whistleblowers and to protect their identities? Will she agree with the measures my noble friend Lady Kramer has been talking about for a long time and bring in an office of the whistleblower to make this happen?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct; DBIST is undertaking a review into how this can be achieved.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that our most famous whistleblower here in the House of Lords is probably the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, who was very dissatisfied indeed with the way that fraud was being pursued? Can we ensure that his views are again sought to see whether he feels that sufficient change has been introduced?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would be very happy to arrange a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and I thank my noble friend for that suggestion.

Australia: Social Media Algorithms

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Australia’s proposed legislation that would permit individuals to disable algorithms on social media.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, Australia’s draft legislation was published only on Monday. The Government have therefore not made a full assessment, but as I am sure my noble friend would expect, we are following developments closely. The UK’s Online Safety Act already requires platforms to address algorithmic risks, including the promotion of illegal content and content harmful to children. Building on that, we have announced measures to switch personalised recommendation algorithms off by default for 16 and 17 year-olds. We also committed earlier this year to giving users greater control over their feeds, including through algorithmic reset.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, there is now a clear international shift towards giving users a genuine choice over their algorithmic feeds on social media. The recent Meta settlement and connected structural remedies in the United States, Australia’s proposed legislation that came out this week and the EU’s Digital Services Act, under which this option has already been live for three years, all reflect a growing consensus. Yet our Online Safety Act currently stops short. It does not give any adult or child the ability to turn off their algorithm. I listened very closely to my noble friend’s response, but I ask what more steps the Government are considering in order for us to catch up.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government completely agree with my noble friend that users should have greater control over their online experiences. We have committed to taking steps for 16 and 17 year-olds that go further than Australia’s proposal and Meta’s commitments by switching off teenagers’ personalised feeds by default. Services will also have to use highly effective age assurance to enforce this. The Online Safety Act’s user-empowerment duties will come into force next year and will allow users of the largest platforms to control what content they see in their feeds. Ofcom is currently consulting on this measure. In addition, we committed earlier this year to building on these duties to give users greater control over their algorithms.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the burden for safety should be with the platform rather than the user? She made reference to the Online Safety Act in terms of tackling algorithms in this way. Why has not Ofcom used those powers?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We have been really clear that the Online Safety Act is not the end of the road for online safety, and we had the Secretary of State’s announcement earlier this week. The Secretary of State has met the new chair of Ofcom to reinforce the importance of robust enforcement of the Online Safety Act. The Government have also asked Ofcom to publish a clear enforcement strategy and report to Parliament on progress. As the noble Baroness will be aware, it has significant enforcement powers and launches investigations, but we are trying to work with it to make sure that these are used as effectively as possible.

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, the Expert Panel for Growing Up in an Online World was convened by DSIT earlier this year to provide independent, evidence-based advice supporting the growing up in the online world national consultation. It met three times in May and June this year, and the panel’s views informed the Government’s response to the consultation in July. Does the Minister agree that DCMS should reconvene this expert panel and ask it to work at pace to make recommendations on how best to give individuals greater control over what social media content is presented to them?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank everyone involved in the panel. It is really important that we address such issues collectively. I will speak to my colleague, Minister Murray, about the future of the panel and come back to the noble Lord as soon as possible.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, at the heart of this issue is surely whether the Online Safety Act is capable of dealing with the issues that are arising through technological change and the way in which users are experiencing difficulties. Can my noble friend explain to us whether the Government plan to look again at some of the underlying structure of the Act in order to address these issues, which I think would respond better to these questions?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This whole area is clearly developing on an ongoing basis. We will always keep under review whether the measures we have in place are adequate; we will always make sure that we take steps to do that. It is an absolute priority of this Government to keep people safe online, and we want to work across party divides to make sure this happens and that we both harness the benefits of this sector and everything that the online world can contribute and make sure that we keep everyone safe online.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the Australian proposals are are all about allowing users to have the choice about what sources they see on their feeds, as are the tools and user empowerment in the Online Safety Act. Does the Minister see a tension here with the approach outlined in the Government’s media Green Paper, which is about giving the Government the power to decide which news sources are trustworthy? If we are giving people choice to switch off algorithms, will they have the opportunity to opt out of government-sanctioned trustworthy news in due course?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very interesting point, and I would be very keen to discuss it further with him. We are working with different and conflicting issues. We are really keen that it is a priority to make sure that people have trusted sources of news and they know that those news sources that come to the top of their feeds are the most trustworthy. I would be surprised if there was a huge number of people who wanted to turn off an option to get trusted news at the top of their feed, but I am happy to discuss that further with the noble Lord.

[Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)]

My Lords, alongside the Question my noble friend rightly asked about how we might ban or prevent people accessing harmful content and poorer models, can my noble friend the Minister say what we are doing to help generate good role models, and therefore algorithms that do not get banned? If I think about my own sport, boxing, which I have been involved in since I was 15 years old, it is awash with really good male role models, rather than the toxic kind we often see. How is her department helping to support grass-roots youth, sports, community hubs and interventions in a way that might generate better content that people do not need to ban?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend must be commended for being the first person to bring a boxing ring into the Houses of Parliament. It was a remarkable event and full of energy. The young people who came along were a credit to themselves, their families and the very trusted adults who brought them along. We are keen to counter the impact that online content can have, particularly on boys and young men. We think about the exposure to misogynistic, abusive and extremist content in this field. We co-produced the Government’s youth strategy with young people. As well as ensuring that more young people have access to trusted adults, we will have a £500 million investment in youth services over the next few years. We are also working with departments across government to increase the investment in this space. I commend all those who are involved in getting positive role models.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister realise that her response to my noble friend Lord Parkinson on trusted news is precisely what is concerning about the Government’s proposals and their media Green Paper when it comes to giving prominence to what the Government define as trusted news?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Where we talk about trusted news, there is a difference between that and the misinformation and disinformation that has fuelled hate in this society. It is not about what I think that people should read but about getting a factual basis for the news sources that people have access to. We have a huge amount of misinformation and disinformation circulating. We see this spill out on to our streets with the extremist views that should be countered with this.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the earlier points, particularly the point about Ofcom and its use of enforcement powers, the Communications and Digital Committee is just starting an inquiry into the Online Safety Act—in effect, post-legislative scrutiny. We will be looking at that issue, but it is heartening to hear my noble friend the Minister say that the Secretary of State is already raising this with the chair of Ofcom. We want to see Ofcom using those powers. There is a very strong public feeling that it has not done so. It is a case of “Watch this space”. I would be interested to talk to the Minister about that.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would be very happy to meet my noble friend regarding this issue. We find with all legislation that the Bill becoming law is not the end of the road. We are determined that it is enforced and that people are as protected and as safe online as possible. I look forward to hearing more about the committee’s inquiry.

No. 10 North

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the cost of establishing No.10 North and relocating central government functions outside London.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, No. 10 North is central to the Prime Minister’s commitment to get good growth in every postcode, drive devolution and bring government closer to the communities it serves. It will put senior decision-makers in the same room as mayors, employers, councils and public services, so that decisions about this country’s economic future are no longer taken only in Westminster. The cost of establishing No. 10 North is covered by existing departmental budgets.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Having known the Minister for a number of years, I congratulate her not just on rejoining the Government but on her additional responsibilities at the Cabinet Office.

As a proud northerner, from God’s own county of Lancashire, I am genuinely delighted by the Government’s emphasis on the north, but I would hazard a guess that most people care more about fixing the issues that matter to them than the postcode from where it is being done. So, first, what specific and material issue will No. 10 North fix that Whitehall has been unable to? Secondly, am I right to assume, based on the Answer I just got, that the overall cost and the size of government will increase as a result of this additional Downing Street?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On the second point, it will not necessarily increase but we will make sure that invoices and costs are reported in the normal way. On the noble Lord’s first point, I wrote down that he is from Pendle, just in case he went for an anti-Manchester perspective. From my perspective, I went to No. 10 North and spoke to the people working there. They are passionate about rewiring the state and making sure it works for people in every part of the country. Clearly, having the same conversations with the same people in Whitehall, in the same way, is not necessarily going to deliver anything other than the same results. No. 10 North carries the authority of the Prime Minister to drive forward his objectives, bringing decision-making long held by Ministers in Whitehall closer to the communities we all serve.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that 14 of the 15 cities with higher than average productivity are in the south; the only exception is Edinburgh. No cities in the north, no cities in the Midlands —not even Birmingham or the famed Manchester. Will the Minister ensure that, to get value for money, she reports annually on how the Downing Street of the north is making a difference to our cities in the north and the Midlands particularly?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We intend that No. 10 North will make a difference for every part of the country. The noble Lord rightly identifies that not every part of the country has benefited equally from economic success in the past. People will not be able to stop us shouting about the success of No. 10 North in terms of delivery once we get going, but I am very happy to come back to your Lordships’ House and talk about it in more depth over the coming months.

[Baroness Linforth (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an interesting Question from the noble Lord, and of course, every Government should be mindful of the costs of doing business and the return on investment. With that in mind, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could inform us of the benefits that will accrue to the country from establishing No. 10 North.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend is right, and as the Question identifies, there have clearly been some costs associated with establishing No. 10 North. However, it is important to recognise that this office is going to sit at the centre of this Government’s agenda to deliver economic growth across all our regions. As the First Secretary of State informed the other place last week, it is vital that, to do this, we rewire the state to deliver the change people up and down the country voted for.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, No. 10 North is approximately 200 miles north of where we are. Perthshire, where I am from, is more than 200 miles further north than that. The north of Scotland is another more than 200 miles north of that. I wondered whether there were any plans to rethink the name “No. 10 North”—it does not feel right to someone who lives 200 miles north of it.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Earl makes a valid point. No. 10 North is in the north of England for the purposes of general geographic designations in this country. On the points he made about Scotland, in making sure that we recalibrate how the state works, including in respect of the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we will be taking into account the needs of all those areas. We feel that this is a project, a way forward and a way of working that should benefit every part of the country—even those for whom No. 10 North is in the south.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I see that Ministers and senior officials will be mainly working from No. 10 North. Why does No. 10 south lack the prime ministerial authority to make good decisions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is quite clear that No. 10 just across the road does have the authority to make those decisions. As I said to noble Lords earlier, having the same conversations in the same place in the same room is not necessarily going to produce a different outcome. A number of Ministers have spent a considerable time in No. 10 North, and the Prime Minister is committed to working there on a regular basis. So far during his premiership, he has done so at least once a week.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I welcome the establishment of No. 10 in the north of England. If the Government agree that centralisation in London is a problem, should the answer not be to strengthen devolution across these islands, giving the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the powers and resources to act in the best interests of their peoples, rather than simply relocating functions within England?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not sure how it would have gone down with the Governments in the devolved Administrations if we had suddenly popped up with a new central government office. It is clear that there is no way we will succeed in rewiring the state if we do not take into account the devolved nations and their needs. Collaboration with the devolved Governments will be required to ensure the benefits of regional empowerment and of doing things differently, so that people feel that growth in every area. We need to make sure that we work very closely together, and Ministers are looking forward to close collaboration with the devolved Administrations to succeed in this.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place—again. Having worked in No. 10 and having had the enjoyable task of managing a Prime Minister’s diary, I know that time is the most precious commodity. There are sudden, unexpected events and logistical pressures. Can the Minister explain how practical implications such as the convening of a high-security meeting at short notice will be managed when the centre of government is effectively split between two centres—No. 10 and No. 10 North? Will there need to be a duplication of resources so that both centres are equally well equipped?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words. I think both centres will be equally well equipped. I am very glad that I have never had to manage a Prime Minister’s diary. I would like to think that those who do and who are organising these meetings, which are often at very short notice, as the noble Baroness rightly said, are better equipped than I would be to make sure that everything is absolutely in the right place at the right time—including the Prime Minister.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that, whatever the cost of No. 10 North, it pales into complete insignificance compared with the £1 billion in PPE contracts that the party opposite fraudulently gave its friends and others?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend’s words speak for themselves; I am not sure I have anything further to add.

Touring: Impact of EU Exit

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take in response to the report commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, The economic benefits of touring and impact of EU exit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

The report provides important new evidence on the economic and practical impacts of EU exit on UK artists touring in the EU for both the UK and the EU. We remain committed to our manifesto pledge and will use the report to strengthen the case that practical solutions will deliver benefits to both the UK and the EU alike. We are sharing the findings of European partners and the Cultural Exchange Coalition to allow them to be used in engagement with European counterparts.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I give all credit to the Government for commissioning what is a devastating report, if predictably so. Will the Government use the detail of this report to inform the next UK-EU summit, including especially the significant effect of Brexit on the creative economies of EU member states? Clearly, we need to stress the mutual benefits of sorting out what, frankly, should have been sorted out years ago.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The report does indeed provide evidence of an issue many noble Lords have raised with me, and the sector has raised with the Government: the impact of the post-Brexit restrictions on artists. The report provides new evidence of the impact on UK artists and on the EU itself—significant amounts of income are lost as a result. We will ensure that its findings inform our engagement with European partners as we continue to pursue practical improvements for touring artists. As the noble Earl will understand, the agenda for the UK-EU summit has not yet been finalised and it would not be appropriate to pre-empt discussions between the UK and the EU on its contents.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Has my noble friend had time to reflect on the merits and demerits of EU membership, and the decision in particular of the people of Iceland over the weekend? Does she agree that a particular significance of that, which might be of relevance to this country, is that it was a decision made by the people of Iceland by over 80% of the electorate voting? There were also marked differences between the views of people in the capital and the views of people in the wider countryside.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The referendum in Iceland is a matter for the people of Iceland and Iceland’s Government; it is not necessarily appropriate or useful to comment on other countries’ decisions in this regard. As my noble friend will be aware, this Government do not intend to rejoin the single market or the customs union, and that policy stands.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the co-chair of the APPG for dance. Bringing it back to matters cultural, this report highlights that dance companies lost £4.5 million in international revenue between 2022 and 2024. The report comes on the back of the ACE report on touring in the UK, which highlights that touring itself is in crisis. Will the Government commit to supporting the measures identified in this DCMS report that would mitigate and remove barriers, particularly for small and medium-scale companies, and help the dance sector across the UK to tour again?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It remains a government priority to support UK artists and to make it easier for them tour across Europe. The report makes it clear that there is a mutual economic and cultural benefit to the UK and the EU. The research also reflects what we have heard from industry, and we are now reflecting on the topics that emerged. We have shared this with sector partners, and I am absolutely confident that it will be a really useful tool in demonstrating, with evidence, what people have been telling us anecdotally. It is always useful to have this report, but I will take the noble Baroness’s comments back to the department as well.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, this report confirms the damage being done by the many barriers to touring introduced by the botched Brexit deal. As predicted, it has cost the UK dearly in GVA and in jobs in music, theatre, fashion and dance. We are losing a generation of creative talent to Uber and Deliveroo. When will the Government start treating this problem with the urgency it needs?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would like to think that the Government’s commissioning research on this issue, which we have now published, demonstrates to noble Lords across the House that we take it really seriously. One of the key findings from the report is that reducing the current touring barriers through policy or regulatory changes could generate a range of economic and cultural gains for both sides—it would be mutually advantageous. The loss of GVA to the EU is significantly greater than the loss to the UK, according to this report. I hope that this can form the basis of taking matters forward with the urgency the noble Lord describes, a view which we share.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, a very precious object that is on tour arrived in the UK recently from an EU country. Will the Minister join me in celebrating the launch very shortly of the Bayeux Tapestry exhibition as an example of cultural diplomacy and the benefits of this—not least in inspiring a new generation of children to take an interest in history?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would like to start by thanking the noble Lord for his considerable efforts in making sure that the Bayeux Tapestry is in the British Museum for the next few months. It is a really good example of how, by working closely with European partners—in this case, our colleagues in France—we have been able to facilitate an historic exhibition. We are hoping that as many people as possible will be able to see it, particularly children and young people. This is a really important moment for this country and our relationship with France.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, as a member of the European Affairs Committee, I went on a cultural exchange coalition delegation, with the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I also played in a band with the new Prime Minister. Has she had a chance to talk to the new Prime Minister about making this a higher priority? I welcome the report because, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, says, it is action that we need now, and that has been lacking so far. Can the Minister give the House the guarantee we are looking for: that this will be a priority and will be on the agenda at the next UK-EU summit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I said previously, it is not appropriate for me to pre-empt the agenda for the UK-EU summit. We do not yet have a finalised date, and I should not pre-empt discussions between the UK and EU on the content of the agenda. Regarding our new Prime Minister, I am not sure we have ever had a Prime Minister who is as enthusiastic and passionate about music and the music industry, including performing himself. I think we should take that as an indication of his commitment to the music sector and to touring artists.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister says, other countries lose out when the UK’s brilliant musicians and other artists are unable to tour. Will she make that point, and the point made in this report, to the Government of the United States, who introduced higher artist visa charges in 2024, so that our artists are able to travel not just to the countries closest to us in Europe but all over the world?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is really useful research, and I hope we use it in our dialogue with countries across the world. I will feed that point back to Minister Ian Murray. It is really important that we use what information we can to demonstrate the huge benefit to people; it is a mutual benefit and similar issues apply.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I too very much welcome the commissioning of this report. At every meeting of the PPA so far, Members of this House have been making the point about mutual loss. Every time, EU Ministers have come back and claimed that there is no financial loss—but here we see there is. Does the Minister acknowledge that the artistic, audience and skills development that comes from cultural exchange over centuries has been important in shaping our cultural landscape and that, in losing touring, we are losing both important revenue and that cultural gain? That really matters.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It absolutely matters. From the Dispatch Box, I have regularly spoken about the importance of soft power. All these things matter. Cultural exchange is central to our future as a European country, and we are keen to do whatever we can to make sure that that is as strong as possible.