House of Lords (Alternative Second Chamber) Bill [HL]

Lord Pack Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and express my envy of her luck in coming out of the ballot. I hope she might perhaps be tempted to buy me some lottery tickets this weekend. This is an important issue and, as both the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have noted, this debate today forms a fortuitous pair with yesterday’s debate about written constitutions. It is a particularly enjoyable pair for those of us enthusiastically speaking in both debates.

There is an important commonality about how we best ensure our constitutional arrangements are well suited for the challenges that our country faces. Yesterday, we heard from many noble Lords the virtues of flexibility and the ability to evolve our constitutional arrangements. That is something that this Bill is very much in tune with, as it proposes—to pick up on the points of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and others—setting out a route that would lead potentially to an improved and different Chamber rather than its simple abolition.

I am not sure how many of the categories of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I fall into, but I should at least plead guilty to having a bedroom and occasionally dwelling in it. I often think about reform of this place on a Sunday morning—this may make the noble Lord feel that I definitely fit some of his other categories—because that is when I usually do my work preparing for a meeting of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and go through the paperwork. That committee’s work is a good example of the sort of scrutiny that we often rightly pride ourselves on this House having a key part in. I often reflect that I am only able to spend the time working through the paperwork on a Sunday morning in part because I am not an MP. If I were an MP, I would either be rushing around various fêtes and other community events—no doubt acquiring many raffle tickets along the way—or I would be spending some precious time with my family ahead of doing exactly that in the afternoon. It is important to acknowledge that there are some benefits in the difference in the structures that we have.

There is also a very significant downside, because if I chose to stop doing that work diligently—I reassure noble Lords that I have no intention of doing so—what could anyone do about it? As a member of a political party, I could be sacked from my current role or even be threatened with the withdrawal of the party Whip. But for anyone who is less diligent, threatening them with those things is threatening them with having less work to do and having fewer WhatsApp groups to be in. It is, even in the hands of the most persuasive leaders or Whips, not the most effective of threats.

That is a real problem, because there are undoubtedly some changes to how this House operates—in due course, we will debate participation rates and retirement ages—that can get a bit close to the edge of that fundamental lack of accountability for anyone who does not do their job properly. Likewise, standards codes, such as the Members’ Code of Conduct and related documents, can address that. But for all that it is important to have a Members’ Code of Conduct that properly protects staff in this place from bullying, even the most enthusiastic supporter of such processes will not argue that how well you read page 32 of a PDF document is going to be subject to such processes.

We should always be cautious about any process that allows a Member of this House or the House of Commons to be removed in some way. It is why we have such a complicated—one might even say tortuous—process in the House of Commons by which somebody can be removed for misbehaviour. But one of the key safeguards and one of the reasons it has now become a well-established system and an acceptable process to have a ruling against an MP, a recall petition or a subsequent by-election is because, in the end, it places power with the public. It allows voters to decide, not party bosses. As a former party boss, I am very keen on the public having the power in those cases.

However, we do not have the equivalent in the House of Lords. We do not have the accountability to the public that should be at the heart of a democracy. There are many important details to work out—for example, on the roles of the Bishops in this place, as my noble friend Lord Scriven touched on—but the Bill wisely sets out a route by which we can address some of those issues.

Another area, quite rightly mentioned by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Bennett, is the relations between the House of Commons and a reformed House of Lords. I mentioned yesterday the risk sometimes in debates outside this place of a certain myopic insularity, as if problems such as that are somehow insuperable. We forget to look, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, wisely pointed out, at the many other countries which have faced an equivalent problem and found solutions to it. We should have self-confidence that, if other people can find solutions to it, it should not be beyond us.

There are already ways in which the different roles of the House of Commons and this House are embedded in our approaches. There are the Parliament Acts and the rules about money Bills. There are many ways that those sorts of differences could be further embedded, such as making it much more than just a constitutional convention, perhaps with the requirement for the Prime Minister to be in the House of Commons. One can be pretty sure that wherever the Prime Minister is, that place will get more attention than the other. Many other countries managed to sort out those problems, and we should not put ourselves off with the thought that we would struggle to find solutions ourselves.

There is one issue, touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, where I think the solution that we need to reach is having more power for this place and less subservience—if I might put it like that—to the House of Commons, and that is to do with secondary legislation. Statutory instruments often get precious little scrutiny, sadly, in the House of Commons. We have these different processes of negative, affirmative and super-affirmative processes, but even the super affirmative process for secondary legislation is not really that super. Fundamentally, for reasons that I politely disagree with but acknowledge, and for key points of principle that both Labour and Conservative Peers have consistently expressed, neither party when in opposition will vote down a piece of secondary legislation, except in the most exceptional and unusual of circumstances.

However good our scrutiny of a piece of secondary legislation, however pertinent the criticisms of its drafting by, say, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and however pertinent the questions raised about whether the statutory instrument is really right, statutory instruments will all but always go through unamended, exactly as the Government wished. Therefore, in a way, having some more democratic legitimacy for our House that might make us feel more empowered to be a bit difficult now and again on secondary legislation would be a good thing, and it would end up in enhancing the work of the House of Commons rather than undermining it.

As several noble Lords have touched on, this is obviously a very long-running issue. As a good Liberal Democrat, I do of course have the preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act engraved on my heart:

“And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis”.

I think it is fair to say that Parliament agreeing that in 1911 and not yet having managed to act on it is fairly slow-moving, even by the standards of restoration and renewal.

As I know colleagues on the Conservative Benches often like historical precedents and quotes to bolster arguments, I cannot help but observe that the Conservative manifesto from the December 1918 general election included:

“it will be one of the objects of the Government to create a Second Chamber which will be based upon direct contract with the people”.

I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and others may be tempted to rediscover the spirit of December 1918.

More fundamentally, however, as several noble Peers have touched on, form should follow function. There is an important function for a second Chamber, but it is one that requires legitimacy, and legitimacy in a democracy fundamentally comes from the public. I therefore commend this Bill because it sets out a route for applying that; it rightly acknowledges that there are many areas of detail to be worked out and gives us a chance of finally moving on from that commitment in 1911 to actually taking effective action.

Public Procurement: Prioritising British Suppliers

Lord Pack Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will look into the noble Baroness’s second point and commit to write to her. The Government are open to considering all lawful means of achieving our ambition that half of all food purchased across the public sector should be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards. Our commitment to farmers and growers in this respect remains steadfast.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, a crucial element of getting procurement right is transparency, so that British suppliers know what they can bid for and we can all judge how the public sector is doing in awarding contracts. But the latest research by procurement specialist Chris Smith shows that, since the transparency requirements in the Procurement Act came into force, three in 10 public contracts have not been published, despite the legal requirements to do so. When can we expect the public sector to start fully complying with that requirement of the law?

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology: Abolition

Lord Pack Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I said in my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, we have a Minister for AI at the Cabinet table. We also have a new and renewed BIST, which has been created to signify the UK’s global leadership in innovation and maximise the growth potential that can be contributed to the UK economy by emerging strategic sectors. This is part of our reindustrialisation agenda. BIST is now responsible for emerging and frontier technologies, and I am confident that this will be part of its key work going forward.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, we have in recent weeks had yet more evidence of AI agents going rogue, including hacking websites and even sending a fake tip about a real crime to the US police. Can I ask not about overall headcount, but specifically what the impact of these changes will be on the headcount for AI regulation? Is that headcount going to go up, go down, or stay the same?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The percentage of staff in digital and data roles is projected to increase. We are clear that when we are looking at overall responsibilities, functions and roles within the Civil Service, we need to make sure that we are ready for future opportunities, but also future threats, as the noble Lord made clear. I had the pleasure of going to talk to AISI last week and I was impressed by the calibre of civil servants there and the work they are doing to protect us and to build a rigorous scientific understanding of both the capabilities and the risks associated with AI.

G20 Summit 2027: Objectives

Lord Pack Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Civil Service: Impartiality

Lord Pack Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, talked earlier about protecting people from improper pressures, I thought that there is a different aspect to that from that which we have heard in the many varied speeches so far, which it would be helpful to explore a bit: the importance of ethical standards and processes to protect impartiality, for Ministers and lobbyists.

Good Ministers, just like good leaders in any sort of organisation, inspire and lead, and they see challenging advice and robust critique of their ideas as a strength, or even as being essential to them to do their best. Weak leaders or poor Ministers can get annoyed by it and can feel threatened when not surrounded by compliant yes-people. Sadly, we have had a series of scandals, particularly those involving allegations of bullying, which highlight the problems of the shortcomings in the Ministerial Code as an effective safeguard both for impartiality and, frankly, for treating people decently and well.

The Ministerial Code is a slightly unusual document in that it is not a law; it is not even in that more nebulous but important category of a constitutional convention. As the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons described it earlier this year, it is very much “the Prime Minister’s document”. At its heart, it is very dependent on the Prime Minister to decide what it says, when to change it and how to apply it. Indeed, as that House of Commons committee complained earlier this year, albeit when talking about it in a slightly different respect, it seems to be possible for people to break the code, sometimes with impunity. That was not a partisan but a cross-party conclusion.

It reminds us of the importance of having stronger foundations for the Ministerial Code in future, and stronger enforcement, because protecting the Civil Service’s impartiality is in part about protecting civil servants from improper behaviour by Ministers. There is a similar risk with lobbying. The examples I have given so far have highlighted the risk of civil servants perhaps deviating from impartiality because of the threat of the stick. With lobbyists, it is perhaps more a case of the carrot—the lure away from impartiality.

As we heard in the debates earlier this year on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on the regulation of lobbying, we often talk about the significant loopholes in the current protections in the context of Ministers and lobbyists, but the interaction between lobbyists and civil servants can be just as important as an area of risk. The Ethics and Integrity Commission’s report earlier this year set out a very good road map for improving the regulation of lobbying.

I say this as somebody who, in a previous role, was for a period covered by the existing lobbying regulations. I have to say that they were very light-touch. At the time, I quite enjoyed the fact that I did not have huge amounts of paperwork to fill in or hugely detailed records that needed keeping. Unfortunately, however, we have seen from practical examples the risks that come from that very light-touch approach and from the exclusion of in-house lobbyists and lobbying firms that are not VAT-registered. If there is an improper conversation between a lobbyist and a civil servant, the questions of whether the lobbyist is in-house or out-house, or whether the lobbyist firm pays VAT, are not really germane to whether there is something in that conversation that is a risk from which we need protection.

I hope that, in due course, we will hear from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to continue the initial progress they have made—to be fair—in improving the regulation of lobbying and strengthening the Ministerial Code.

Public Sector Fraud Authority

Lord Pack Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Public Inquiries

Lord Pack Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Newspapers: Foreign Ownership

Lord Pack Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Pack]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to publishing the names of respondents to the consultation on foreign ownership of newspapers, and what assessment they have made of the evidence base provided by the consultation.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as the author of email newsletters, which, in theory, may be subject to the legislation in question.

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

The consultation on the foreign state influence regulations was published on 9 May 2024 by the previous Government. This made it clear that individual responses and organisation names would not be published, but their content would be summarised in the Government’s consultation response. This was published on 15 May 2025. Our assessment of the responses showed that respondents had a strong preference for a higher limit. On 14 July, we published the consultation responses, with appropriate redactions, following a number of FoI requests.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer and for responding to the issue by publishing the responses. However, only four responses is a very small number, given the widespread interest in the issue and its importance. Although the Government have leaned heavily on the consultation in their explanations for their policy, three of the four responses were from parts of the newspaper sector that might be seeking foreign funds. Should the Government not be listening more widely to the many other voices concerned about potential foreign government ownership of our newspapers?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Although we received four responses to the consultation, they were quite detailed and technical. We have had quite a lot of discussions in your Lordships’ House about the future of media and the need to make sure that we get good funding sources in so that media groups can modernise. It is appropriate that the Government paid account to the media organisations, but, as the noble Lord will be aware, we settled on 15% because this is within the CMA’s views on where it might be appropriate to set things so that there is no inadvertent material influence.