Public Service Delivery: Devolved Governments

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Macintosh of Eastwood]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve joint working between the UK Government and the devolved governments in the delivery of public services.

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

While the majority of public services are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK Government are committed to a collaborative relationship with the devolved Governments on how we deliver effective public services. As part of this, the Prime Minister will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council in Scotland for further talks on empowering the regions across the UK through deeper devolution.

[Lord Macintosh of Eastwood (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that positive reply. Does she agree that one of the biggest opportunities offered by devolution is for our respective Administrations to offer varied approaches to the common challenges that face us, and to learn from the successes, or sometimes the failures, of those respective approaches? To that end, what arrangements are the Government putting in place so that we can collaborate across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in Whitehall to learn from successful innovation and good practice and improve the lives of the people we serve?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The vast majority of Scots, and indeed Welsh and Northern Irish people, want their devolved Governments and the UK Government to work together to increase living standards and improve public services. The Prime Minister set out his vision for deeper devolution in Scotland and has underlined the importance of engaging collaboratively with the Scottish Government to make that happen. We are looking forward to seeing the outcome of the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Heads of the devolved Governments at the National Economic Council this Friday.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, the NHS app in England and the NHS app in Wales do not communicate. This leads to lots of missed appointments, lost test results, duplication of medical histories and a real cost to the NHS on both sides of the border in respect of Welsh patients being treated in England. I have tabled Amendment 244 to the Health Bill to address this issue. Can I urge the Minister to initiate a discussion about the interoperability of health apps across the four nations in her discussions with the devolved Governments?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I know that my noble friend Lady Merron looks forward to debating the issue that the noble Baroness raises, and I shall feed it back to those taking part in the discussions later this week. We want things to be interoperable across borders. There are some really good examples of where the UK Government have worked effectively with devolved counterparts, but this can always be improved on. At the heart of how we approach this must be the end user or, in this case, patients who require that cross-border co-operation.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

Among the useful tools that we used to have for assessing how intergovernmental relations were going were the annual and quarterly reports that were published. The last annual report, for the year 2023, was published in April 2024. The last quarterly report, for the fourth quarter of 2025, was published shortly after that. Will those reports be restarted? They are extremely useful for us to be able to see what intergovernmental relationships are going on and in which departments.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Earl on his question and on what sound like very interesting reports.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the 2024 Labour Party manifesto promised to make the Council of the Nations and Regions a major element in improving relations between the devolved Assemblies and Governments and central government. Can the Minister tell us how active this council is, how often it meets and how much it contributes to closer co-operation in the delivery of public services and in negotiations on financial transfers within the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Council of the Nations and Regions has met twice. The UK Government work in partnership with the devolved Governments and mayors through a range of fora, including the mayoral council and the National Economic Council, to deliver on shared priorities. At the council’s first meeting, in October 2024, the priorities were inward investment and economic growth. In May 2025, the council discussed principally the opportunities of trade agreements that the UK Government had concluded, as well as the challenges of artificial intelligence. One aspect of that second meeting was bringing together for the first time the chief data officers of the devolved Governments and the mayoral strategic authorities. We will look at a number of ways of taking this type of work forward.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will have seen that the Russian Foreign Minister welcomed the recent meeting between the Sinn Féin First Minister, the SNP First Minister and the Plaid Cymru Minister in Cardiff. Can she arrange for the appropriate Ministers to have a look at the implications of this both for the devolution settlement and in relation to foreign affairs?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Nationalism is never the answer. The UK Government are committed to delivering change across all four nations of the UK and believe strongly in the benefits of the union, as the Prime Minister has made clear.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, the Northern Ireland Executive have failed to set a budget for the first seven months of this financial year. This is hitting public services particularly hard, and health service workers are balloting for industrial action. As Northern Ireland departments will begin to run out of money at the end of January, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will set a budget here if there is no resolution by that date?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK Budget is being held tomorrow. In relation to the Northern Ireland budget, the Government have in difficult financial circumstances offered a generous package of over £1.5 billion to help manage pressures there and provide stability to public services. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been personally involved in the negotiations and has made it clear that if the Executive continue to fail to agree a budget, he will consider all options to ensure that public services get the clarity and certainty that they need.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, Robert Jones from Cardiff University has published this morning a report on the state of the Prison Service in Wales. It cites, in terms of the justice system, the complications of social policy and public services being devolved but the Prison and Probation Service being reserved. What is the Government’s response to this report?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I have not had the opportunity to read the report that the noble Baroness references. When it comes to devolution, the UK Government are committed to delivering change, and if there is a strong case for looking at doing things differently, we will of course give it careful consideration.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, one of the Labour Government’s flagship policies to support the economy in Scotland was the establishment of GB Energy, to be headquartered in Aberdeen. What does the Minister make of the reports in today’s Times newspaper that only half of GB Energy’s executives have moved to Scotland?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not aware of the report—apologies to the noble Baroness. GB Energy is intended to and will deliver for British people, including the area in which the headquarters are located.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, a number of bodies have been set up to improve the relationship between Whitehall and the devolved Administrations, such as the Joint Ministerial Committee and the Council of the Nations and Regions. Following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, can I suggest to the Minister that they should be the place for the sharing of best practice? At the moment, some people perceive those bodies as talking shops, but much more use could be made of them.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. We want to share best practice, and that can go both ways, obviously. We are particularly keen to collaborate around the delivery of public services, and the Test, Learn and Grow work that has been centred in the Cabinet Office is at the heart of the UK Government’s initiatives to do that. We are committed to sharing findings and fostering dialogue with the devolved Governments to ensure that all parts of the UK can learn from different experiences of transforming the state and enhancing public services. I am also very clear that this includes the UK Government learning from other parts of the UK.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, on 24 October, it was reported that a 93 year-old woman from Abercynon who had suffered a fall had to wait 10 and a half hours for an ambulance to arrive. This is just the latest in a series of horror stories about Welsh ambulance waiting times, which hit record lows under Labour. Although healthcare is devolved, what work are the Government are doing to support the Welsh Government in tackling unacceptable ambulance waiting times?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The primary way that the Government will support the devolved nations is through the financial settlements that we make. It is important to note that through the spending review and through the Spring Statement earlier this year, the UK Government confirmed additional funding for the devolved countries. We are clear that these matters are devolved. We are also clear that we can work across borders and through different levels of government to make sure that people see the improvements they are looking for at every level of government.

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

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on securing the Second Reading of her Bill. The noble Baroness has spoken passionately and eloquently in previous debates about reforming your Lordships’ House and today is no different. As a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, pointed out, it is the second debate in two days on constitutional reform. Both debates have been fascinating, and today there has been a considerable range of views about the way forward on reform and, with a couple of exceptions, significant agreement on the need for reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, made clear in his speech, we recognise the many calls for reform across the parties, including in the Labour Party.

Speakers including the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and my noble friends Lady Bolton and Lord Stansgate have also highlighted the many strengths of your Lordships’ House, not least in holding the Executive to account in relation to scrutiny of legislation. The strengths do not negate the need for reform, however. The relationship between your Lordships’ House and the other place has also been highlighted, including in a particularly thought-provoking way by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, in his winding-up remarks.

As we have heard, the Bill before us would require the Government to consult on an alternative second Chamber, with the consultation period beginning within six months of the Act being passed. If passed, the consultation would run for at least 12 weeks. The Secretary of State would be required to publish a summary of responses and a statement detailing the Government’s response within six months of the consultation closing.

The Government have significant sympathy with the central principle behind the Bill. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway made clear in her remarks, the Government have made clear commitments in our manifesto on the reform of the House of Lords. This includes a manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations.

Although we understand the motivation of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in putting the Bill forward, the Government wish to express their reservations about the legislation. The Bill would, in our view, constrain the Government’s ability in how we approach the delivery of our manifesto commitment by prematurely imposing a duty on the Government to consult.

As noble Lords will know, the Government have taken a staged approach to reform of your Lordships’ House. I dispute the noble Baroness’s view that we have not acted or that we are hesitant. We have already made a significant change to your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, said, we have removed the hereditary rights of Peers to sit in the House of Lords. Most recently, through the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act, we removed the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House on the basis of hereditary right. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, might call that piecemeal; we think this fulfils a long-held commitment on the part of the Labour Party to do so.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Taylor of Bolton, spoke to the work that the Retirement and Participation Committee undertook on reform, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Taylor. We are really grateful for the committee’s work and for the report published in July. The Government are carefully considering the committee’s recommendations, alongside thoughtful and considered remarks from across the House during the debate on the report in September. The Government will respond to the committee’s recommendations substantively later this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, spoke about the proposals for HOLAC gaining a statutory footing. This proposal was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Stansgate. We have strengthened transparency in the appointments system by introducing a requirement for nominating parties to provide a public citation for appointments. Putting HOLAC on a statutory footing is a matter that this House has considered many times and, as the Leader of the House of Lords has said, this is not the right path to take at this time.

To return the Bill before the House, while we agree with the broad sentiment behind it, the Government’s view is that passing this legislation would require the Government to prematurely consult on an alternative second Chamber. A meaningful consultation on such an important issue demands a careful and thought-through plan. The noble Lords, Lord Burns, Lord Wigley and Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lady Taylor, among others, raised important points around regional and national representation. This Government also want to see a second Chamber that better represents the regions and nations, and I am pleased to note this was a manifesto commitment. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, shares that vision. There are many ways of achieving this goal and we owe it to the public to get any consultation and any changes right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, noted the number of previous pieces of work undertaken on House of Lords reform—for example, the royal commission and the number of White Papers that have been produced, including under the previous Labour Government. The coalition Government also attempted—unsuccessfully—to bring about substantial reform, despite the introduction of a Bill. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, chaired the Speaker’s Committee, which made an important contribution to the ongoing debate on reform of the House of Lords.

In response to the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, we recognise that the manner in which and the context of how the Government engage the public on these issues are almost as important as the content of the proposals themselves. The Government are open to different methods of getting input from the public.

To conclude, I thank the noble Baroness once more for leading a very thought-provoking discussion on an alternative second Chamber and how we get there. The Government remain committed to fundamental reform of your Lordships’ House. The Government’s priority is politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places. My noble friend Lady O’Grady stressed how vital it is that we restore trust in politics. The Prime Minister set out in his first speech the importance of putting the right values and standards at the heart of government to do so. To achieve this, we have begun the biggest redistribution of power this country has seen.

The Government welcome feedback and continued discussion on the next steps on constitutional reform, and we will consider a range of views and evidence. It is right that the Government decide how to deliver our manifesto commitment and consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber. Although the Bill is well intentioned, in our view it would pre-empt that process. The Government’s ultimate focus is on outcomes rather than process, and our overarching objective is to see a House that is more representative, including of the nations and regions. I believe that this goal is broadly shared across the House, but there are, of course, many different ways of achieving it. Rushing into a consultation for its own sake will not bring us any closer to fulfilling our objectives.

Ultimately, the Government have reservations about this Bill so, unfortunately, I cannot support it on their behalf. However, we look forward to the ongoing conversation both inside and outside this Chamber about how we may bring about lasting reform to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, she said that this Bill would restrict the right of the Government on when and how to consult. As there is a manifesto commitment, what she did not give from the Dispatch Box was a commitment that the Government will start, or even end, the consultation before the general election. Is that the Government’s aim?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It was a manifesto commitment. I cannot say now exactly when it would start. What we do not want is to be bounced into a 12-week consultation from the point at which this Bill would become law.

Public Procurement: Prioritising British Suppliers

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spellar]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of WTO rules and EU regulations on their ability to prioritise British suppliers for public procurement.

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

We are changing public procurement to work harder for Britain. In the last six months, this Government have issued new guidance on steel transparency requirements and the use of the national security exemption, as well as revising their social value model to support local communities. These reforms will support growth, create more jobs and strengthen skills while complying with our international agreements, and we will continue to do more.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but can she reflect on the fact that we are still getting replies from Ministers that their ability to preference British manufacturers, for example of buses, is constrained by the World Trade Organization and our agreements with the EU? Yet the United States is a member of the WTO, and not only does it have “buy American” legislation on the statute book but the federal Government mandate in their grants to states and local authorities that they have to buy American. Within the EU, the founding members Italy, Germany and France blatantly preference their own suppliers. Can we change the mindset inside government to put British industry and British workers first?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government have been working to ensure that public procurement plays its full role in delivering our industrial strategy. My noble friend is right about the value of public procurement: every year, this country spends around £400 billion. We think that the new social value model will encourage contracting authorities, including central government departments, to deliver good-quality jobs, skills and opportunities in communities. We believe we can do this while still upholding our international commitments. Guidance will be published in the near future.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Trade Act specifically stipulated that farm produce imports should meet the same high animal welfare and environmental standards as this country’s. Can the Minister assure the House that that is happening, and will she investigate the reason why country of origin rules have not been applied so that the consumer can be aware of which country produce is coming from?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not aware of the point the noble Lord raises, but I thank him for drawing it to my attention. I will look into it and revert to him.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the WTO is widely held to be in deep trouble. Its dispute resolution mechanism is scarcely used and countries are imposing unilateral tariffs everywhere. The UK has to reconsider its position in the light of this. To think that through—that was part of what the noble Lord implied in his Question—have the Government made an assessment of the overall effect of the decline in WTO effectiveness on UK trade?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The World Trade Organization remains a really effective way for us to enable British businesses to get that reciprocal access to £1.3 trillion in public procurement opportunities overseas annually. We think that this is a valuable way of ensuring that our suppliers and businesses get access to opportunities across the world.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Government produce their guidance, will they notify local and regional governments about their decision and expect them to abide by the rules or suggestions they make? Quite frankly, a lot of procurement is done through those bodies.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree that a lot of procurement is done through local authorities. There are some really good examples from local areas of what local government already does. We will endeavour to make sure that local government is aware of the new regime in the same way as we want central government to adapt how it works.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

The noble Baroness has again committed the Government to buying from local farmers throughout the system. The trouble is that the Government do not publish facts regularly so that we can see how they are doing. Everyone locally knows perfectly well that it is not working at the moment. Can she assure the House that we will have regular updates about the proportion of food in schools that is bought locally, where the food comes from and how often people look carefully at where it comes from to see whether, as my noble friend pointed out, it meets the same standards that we insist British farmers meet?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding is that food standards in schools are an issue that the Department for Education has been looking at. It feels like it would be easy for me to commit to that but quite difficult for us necessarily to deliver it. I will look into the noble Lord’s point and get back to him.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to ask this Question. When we discussed the public procurement Act in 2023, it was an issue of great interest. There is an opportunity and a remit for this: authorities can pursue UK jobs, skills, local supply chains and social value through properly designed award criteria and contract conditions. Is the Minister satisfied that the public bodies have that skill and knowledge to properly design those contracts so that we can make sure that British businesses can get them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that you can do a lot within the rules to ensure that we really focus on the benefit of British spend for the British population and British jobs. This is largely why we published the new social value model, which has a much sharper focus on good-quality jobs, skills and opportunities. We have committed to publishing guidance on that and establishing pilots with mayoral strategic authorities on this before the new approach comes into force on 1 January next year.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to prioritise national security in our procurement processes. How will that policy affect the Government’s flagship gimmick, Great British Energy? Might it mean an end to our reliance on Chinese solar panels?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There is nothing gimmicky about our work on Great British Energy. It is intended to deliver for the British population and it will. We are clear that the national security guidance supports the use of the national security exemption in a way that is consistent with our domestic procurement regime and international trade agreements on procurement and will continue to do so.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that WTO procurement rules and, in Northern Ireland, the continued application of EU procurement rules can make it harder to prioritise UK-built buses? What are the Government doing to ensure that investment in zero-emission buses supports jobs in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as greener transport?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Department for Transport recently published a 10-year pipeline for zero-emission buses, covering procurement through to 2035. This will help give British manufacturers the long-term capacity they need to plan ahead and invest in their workforce. It will benefit producers and manufacturers from across the UK.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, if the Government are serious about growth in every postcode, what specific actions are they taking to make sure that smaller businesses are able to scale up, grow and compete with companies in the bigger cities across the UK?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We want SMEs to benefit from the Government’s spend in the same way as larger companies and manufacturers. For that reason, on 23 March, the Government published new targets for the amount we will spend with SMEs by the end of March 2028. Small businesses across the country are set to receive over £7.4 billion of government money a year by 2028. We hope that this will help them grow but, in particular, it will also help make sure that we get the best opportunities for small businesses.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology: Abolition

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what impact the abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will have on overall civil service headcount.

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

Before answering the noble Lord’s Question, I refer Members to my ministerial declaration of interests. My husband works for the Government Digital Service.

The redistribution of the function of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is independent of decisions on overall Civil Service headcount, as is the case with all machinery of government changes. Artificial intelligence, science and technology are major priorities that cut across the whole of government and are vital for the country’s future economic prosperity. DSIT’s functions have been accordingly redistributed so that policy relating to science and technology is better aligned across government.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, approximately in excess of 4,000 civil servants were employed in that department. I wonder whether this has led to the abolition of any posts, or are people simply being redistributed? Can the Minister perhaps tell us what impact there will be in the Civil Service on total numbers, which rose dramatically after Covid? Can the Minister tell us whether the number in the Civil Service is reducing? If she does not have figures, perhaps she could write to me and place a letter in the Library.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As is the case with all machinery of government changes, the redistribution of the functions of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is independent of decisions on overall Civil Service headcount. These changes are about ensuring that we have the right structures in place to drive the Government’s priorities, in light of the significant difference in terms of how important digital is to the world. It is not about reducing headcount.

However, we have committed to future central government becoming smaller and more strategic. The Cabinet Secretary is leading a review into the organisation, performance and transformation of the permanent Civil Service, which will include, among other things, the size, shape and structure of the service. This review will report before summer 2027.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the closing down of DSIT has caused bemusement in the science and technology community. We have departments that focus rightly on health, education, culture, defence and other areas. At a time when both the challenge and opportunity in this sector are so enormous, why is there no focus on science and technology?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We absolutely have a focus on science and technology, which is why the Minister for AI has a seat at the Cabinet table. I agree with the noble Lord that the UK stands at a critical juncture, where unprecedented global changes mean that we need to secure our position in relation to these areas, but we cannot see science and technology as an isolated issue that is limited to one department; it is a fundamental priority that cuts across the whole of government and is crucial to the UK’s future economic prosperity.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, the Government were doing reasonably well through DSIT in helping a booming industry in UK AI find its way through the plethora of initiatives and policies, including the AI growth zones, the AI opportunity action plan and sovereign AI. As well as for civil servants, the removal of DSIT has caused confusion in industry, and I declare my interest as a co-founder of the Business AI Alliance and an adviser to a number of AI businesses. All these businesses have said the same thing to me: where do they go now? Where are all these policy areas sitting? How can they navigate their way as they try to bring that key element of growth to the UK economy?

[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.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, there is a problem. The Minister’s remarks seem perfectly reasonable, although rather difficult to understand, but can she indicate to the House precisely how many people, and what categories of people, will be working with the Minister, who now has a Cabinet position?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am unclear about how I am going to come up with an exact figure for somebody who covers a cross-government function, albeit that he will have teams such as AISI working specifically with him. I cannot stress enough that this Government see AI as so crucial that we have a Cabinet-level Minister who has responsibility for drawing all these threads together and for making sure that we are well equipped for both the opportunities that are presented and the well-documented risks associated with AI.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, a large number of civil servants, paid as civil servants, are in fact working for trade unions. Have the Government considered prioritising replacing them with AI?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Honestly, no.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, we are concentrating a lot on the impact of AI on outside industry. To what extent is the Civil Service looking at using AI in its own internal operations? In particular, what impact will it have on the increased headcount that we have post Covid?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We have a huge amount of work going on across government to make sure that we use AI to its potential, from the Department of Health and Social Care looking at how it will use it in a cutting-edge AI trial to transform cancer care—albeit that that is within the health service. We are confident that AI will improve public services and boost productivity, from identifying fraud and potential fraud to making sure that we have automated policy analysts and AI tutoring tools. We are rolling out AI tools that will save time and money to get the most effective Civil Service for the public.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, headcount is irrelevant. The real issue is the outcomes and outputs that the department delivers. In closing the department down, what will now be able to be done more efficiently, for those in industry and for the country?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am going to repeat myself, with apologies to your Lordships’ House. Not just the UK but the whole world is at such a critical juncture in relation to the rapid increase and developments in AI science and technology. I understand on one level why people think “Well, we’ll put it all in one department and one box”, but putting it across government and making sure somebody is driving that progress across government is critical to making sure that this is embedded and part of everybody’s work across every department, rather than it sitting in DSIT.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, between 2010 and 2016, under the coalition and Conservative Governments, the Civil Service headcount fell by 21%. We simultaneously set up the award-winning Government Digital Service in 2011. Despite this Government’s repeated pledges to reduce headcount, the numbers have risen by 2% since they took office in 2024. Can the Minister say whether Ministers at any point approved that increase?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness would have to ask the previous Conservative Government, which saw an increase from 2016 of 140,000 civil servants. We can have a discussion about numbers, but while that might be true of the coalition Government, it definitely was not true of the Conservative Government that followed.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.