Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, unlike the Conservatives, with their somewhat lukewarm response, we on these Benches very strongly welcome the Statement, not least because it is a clear promise of action. We welcome the words of the Minister in the other place, Chris Bryant, that

“the House should be in no doubt that we intend to act”.

To date, there has been too little action to address concerns that have been raised over very many years. Twenty years ago, in the other place, I asked the then Labour Government what they planned to do about widespread concerns about ticket touting. I waited until 2006 to get an answer, which was to call on the industry to find a voluntary solution to ticket touting. After four so-called summit meetings, very little was achieved.

More recently, the same voluntary approach was adopted by the then Conservative Government, who said in response to the CMA’s report and recommendations in 2021:

“The Government believes in the power of competitive markets to give consumers choice and flexibility”,


and concluded that

“it is too soon to conclude that the only way forward is further legislation focused on this market”.

The voluntary approach has not worked.

There have, of course, been some improvements over the years—measures restricting the use of bots have been referred to already—but overall, Governments of all persuasions have failed to seriously address these issues, despite the growing concerns of fans, artists, event promoters, live venues and many others. With the Government doing little, many in both Houses have pressed for action. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who, together with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, has doggedly raised concerns and, more importantly, offered solutions to the ticketing and touting issues that are now at last being covered in the consultation.

It is no wonder that the Statement—a statement of intended action—is so widely welcomed, including on these Benches. That is, of course, hardly surprising, since we supported amendments covering many of the points in the consultation paper during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. The FanFair Alliance, which also deserves praise for its dogged campaigning on these issues, has gone so far as to say that the suggested measures “are potentially game-changing”.

The Statement sets out the issues to be addressed very clearly, but while it illustrates the Government’s intended direction of travel, I would have preferred, and wished for, greater clarity about some of the preferred options. I hope the Minister will provide more detail. What is the preferred limit on resale price? Are the Government in favour of a licensing system for resale platforms? Will they prohibit platforms from allowing sellers to list more tickets for an event than the seller can legally procure from the primary market? Will they make platforms strictly liable for incorrect information about tickets listed on their websites?

There are two further issues. Not included in this consultation is dynamic pricing, which is to be consulted on separately. Although I welcome that it is only in relation to the live events sector, I regret that it is not part of the main consultation. Surely it would have been better for implementation if the two were considered alongside each other with the outcomes forming one plan of reform. Can the Minister explain why they are not? Given that we know that the separate consultation is to last 12 months, can she tell us when it will start and how the two consultations will work together?

Finally, it is obvious that there is little point in new legislation unless it is rigorously enforced, but despite existing regulation on bots, for example, we know that there are still cases of them being used. We need tougher enforcement in this area. There are continuing concerns about the black market and even about our ability to deal with touts operating outside the UK. Can the Minister say a little more about plans for enforcement of both existing legislation and the new legislation that will arise following the consultation? Does she accept that a licensing system for resale platforms will be a great help in that enforcement procedure? Is she aware that various bodies, such as the CMA, will be involved? Trading standards departments will certainly be involved, yet in recent years there has been a significant drop in the number of available qualified trading standards officers right across the country.

Trading standards and other enforcement bodies will require additional resources, including to recruit new staff to take on additional responsibilities. What assurances are there that funds will be provided to meet these additional needs? Will the new burdens principle apply, for example?

Our current ticketing market is not working for fans, and voluntary measures will not solve the problems. We have waited too long for action, so we welcome the Statement and the promise of action. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, as has been noted by the noble Lords, Lord Effingham and Lord Foster of Bath, on Friday, 10 January, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation on live events and the resale of tickets, and a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live event sector. Tackling the resale market was a manifesto pledge and I am grateful for the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, noting and reminding us of the work over many years by Members of your Lordships’ House. I am also grateful for the broad support for these measures from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and for the support of the Opposition—albeit caveated—from the noble Lord, Lord Effingham. I hope I can respond to the noble Lord’s concerns as I go through my speech.

The UK has a world-leading live events sector, which is the heartbeat of the UK’s cultural and economic landscape. It employs, as noble Lords will be aware, over 200,000 people and contributes to local economies and communities up and down the country. Live performances create unforgettable shared experiences, uniting communities up and down the country. However, too many fans are still missing out on opportunities to experience these live events, because ticket marketing, as noble Lords will be aware, is not working for fans.

We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Effingham, that a well-functioning ticket resale market can and will play an important role in redistributing tickets between genuine fans. Far too often, however, we see tickets being listed on the resale market at extortionate prices—many times the original price in the primary market—which removes tickets from the ability of legitimate fans to buy. It is not a question of legitimate fans buying tickets they cannot use and needing to get their money back by reselling their tickets; what we are talking about here, and we need to be clear about this, is the work of organised touts—big business buying up tickets in bulk on the primary market, solely to sell on to fans at hugely inflated prices.

These people are not only denying true fans the opportunity to buy tickets on the primary market, they are pocketing any profit for themselves. Very little of the additional revenue goes to the live music sector. This Government are committed to putting fans back at the heart of live events and clamping down on unfair, exploitative practices in the secondary ticketing market. In doing so, we want fairness for fans and an economically successful live events sector.

We have launched this consultation as the first major step towards delivering on this ambition. The consultation outlines a range of options to address problems in the resale market, including a statutory price cap on ticket resales, a licensing regime for resale platforms, new limits on the number of tickets individual resellers can list, and new requirements on platforms to ensure the accuracy of information about tickets listed for sale on their websites. We also want to understand whether there is scope for the primary market to do more to prevent touts getting hold of tickets in the first place.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on whether the Government have a preference on where that price cap would land, we are open through the consultation to hearing from a range of stakeholders and we do not have a preference on that. The noble Lord, Lord Effingham, suggested that it is possible that the price cap could lead to an increase in unregulated activities, scams and a potential increase in black-market sales. We have launched a consultation to learn from the experience of other countries introducing measures such as price caps on the resale of tickets. The ticket marketing is broken for fans, in our view; doing nothing is not an option. The measures will be intended to ensure that revenue flows to the sector, including the venues and artists, and not to the touts.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about enforcement. I absolutely recognise the importance of enforcement of consumer protection legislation, and the consultation seeks views and proposals to make this more effective for ticket resale. In many areas, there are successful enforcement measures taking place. For example, in May last year, following an investigation by trading standards, notwithstanding the point the noble Lord made about trading standards officers, four people were sentenced to a combined total of six years and five months in prison, with substantial fines, for criminal activity in relation to ticket touting. Prosecutions such as these send a message to the ticket touts. We hope the consultation will allow us to strengthen the enforcement of consumer protection legislation, as well as making it more difficult for touts to operate.

There were a number of other questions the noble Lord raised to which I do not have the answer now, but I will write to him. There was a question around dynamic pricing more generally. For our live events industry to be successful and sustainable over the long term, we believe that fans, artists and organisers all need to feel fairly treated, so, where dynamic pricing is used, it must be done in a way that is compliant with consumer protection law.

We are also issuing a call for evidence on pricing practice across the live events sector to better understand the changes adopted by the sector in selling tickets in recent years, including the use of new pricing strategies and technologies, and how these impact on the experiences of fans. It is important that fans are treated fairly and openly, with timely, transparent and accurate information presented ahead of sales.

We are seeking evidence on how the ticket pricing system for live events generally works in UK, if and how consumers are being impaired by lack of transparency in this area, and whether new business models and technologies are creating new risks for consumers or gaps in the consumer protection framework. The consultation and call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks. It is closing on 4 April. We will then decide on next steps, but be in no doubt that we intend to act. I look forward to hearing Members’ views in the debate today and also, hopefully, through the consultation period. For too long, fans have been excluded from seeing the artists and shows that they love, due to organised touts. This Government are determined to clamp down on touts. The question is not whether but how we improve protection for fans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Having spent many weeks on opposing sides on some of the aspects of the Football Governance Bill, I am delighted to be able to agree with the noble Lord on the importance of these measures. I particularly note, as did the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the long-standing work the noble Lord has done over many years. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as possible, and I will come back on others that I do not get the chance to cover.

The noble Lord asked about legislation. We are clear that this issue may require additional legislation, and we will look to do that as soon as possible, potentially in the second Session of this Parliament. We are clear that taking a view on where we would land on a cap could lead to accusations that we are pre-empting the consultation, but we are keen to hear views, and I have heard the noble Lord’s point on that very clearly.

The point about touting based overseas is an important one. We want to make it easier for enforcers to tackle breaches of the law, and the consultation explores options for achieving that. We know that many touts target UK fans while operating abroad, and that will be an important factor to consider in the design of any new measures. However, that issue is not exclusive to ticketing, and enforcers such as the CMA and trading standards are empowered to take action against traders outside the UK. The reformed consumer enforcement powers in last year’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act will empower enforcers to impose penalties on or directions against traders that target UK consumers, regardless of where they are based.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing this forward, and I welcome what is there. Until three and a bit years ago, I chaired National Trading Standards, and we were involved in trying to pursue some of precisely these cases. My question is simple: do the Government recognise the need for equality of arms in respect of those responsible for enforcing these new regulatory new arrangements, given that these are potentially multibillion-pound operations, sometimes operating overseas? It is quite difficult for either National Trading Standards or an individual local authority trading standards to pursue cases, given that heavy court costs will often be involved.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a critical issue. This is about major ticket touting, which is incredibly well organised and heavily financed. The issues that have been raised are ones we will want to explore through the consultation, because there is no point in our having stronger laws unless they have an effect. We are clear that we need to act on ticket pricing, and that cannot just be words; there has to be action.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this initiative. Can the Minister assure the House that the consultation and eventual legislation will stretch to cases where it is the seats that are owned rather than the tickets, and the seat holders are putting the seats up for resale? At the moment it is impossible to get tickets through the Albert Hall for the Last Night of the Proms because the programme has not yet been devised, but online you can pay £13,000 for a single ticket. But don’t worry: if you cannot run to £13,000 then for £450, if you move fast, you can get a restricted-view ticket. I ask the Minister to reassure me that this sort of resale will be included.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Mindful that your Lordships’ House is going to be debating the Royal Albert Hall Private Member’s Bill, if not next week, then the week after, I raised this issue myself. On debentures, we are consulting on a range of measures, including a price cap on the resale of tickets for live events. We will consider all views in determining the best route forward once the consultation is concluded.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is time to take action to protect fans from extortionate ticket prices and the illegal practices that are now the hallmark of the secondary ticket market, with the profits going to ticket touts rather than to the artists and performers at live events. As shadow Minister for Music and Tourism, I was pleased to put forward this policy on capping resale of live event ticket prices for the Labour manifesto. So I welcome the Government’s consultation on this policy and the call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector.

I must say that my actions followed years of campaigning by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, my friend Sharon Hodgson MP and the FanFair Alliance, which has done sterling work on this. However, as my friend the Minister, Chris Bryant, said in the Commons, it is not a consultation on whether to act; it is about how we should act. I too feel that enforcement is essential in this crackdown on the black market for ticket sales. We saw so few investigations and prosecutions taking place under the previous Government. Will my noble friend the Minister and the DCMS team take that challenge on board, as other noble Lords have asked?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely. I mentioned in a previous response that there was a successful prosecution relatively recently. Without prosecutions, without teeth and without action, all the work by Members of this House, including my noble friend and others who have been campaigning for years to address these issues, will have been in vain. I am clear, as my noble friend indicates, that this needs to lead to clear action.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I am going to break the cosy consensus here. The Conservative Party always used to be, and perhaps still is, the party of markets and economic freedom, so I am going to say what I think a lot of Conservatives might still think, which is, I am afraid, that this is a silly idea and the price of a sporting event or a Taylor Swift concert is nothing to do with the Government and can safely be left to the market. Does the Minister agree—I suspect she does not, but I will ask her anyway—that the best way of avoiding the problems we have been discussing is to deregulate, legitimise secondary markets and allow individuals who want to participate in cultural events to decide how much they want to pay for them and get access to them accordingly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord correctly identifies that I am not going to be in agreement with his views. There is a difference between a market that acts fairly and one that does not. All UK Governments look at competition markets to make sure that they are legitimate and fair. What is happening at the moment with the ticket resale market is not fair and does not reflect the ability of individuals to see the shows or live events they want to see, nor does it give money back to the artists and venues. So although this is very much about people accessing tickets at a fair price, it is also about making sure that people do not skim off huge profits through the illegitimate means that we want to regulate. I could not disagree more with the noble Lord.

National Insurance: Charity Sector

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer your Lordships to my registered interests.

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

The Government highly value the charity sector and its positive contribution across society. However, as noble Lords are aware, we have had to take a number of difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending to fix the public finances, fund public services and restore economic stability. The Government publish tax information and impact notes for tax policy changes, which give a clear explanation of the policy objectives and an assessment of the impacts. This was published on 13 November 2024.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. In an open letter to the Chancellor, co-signed by 7,361 charities, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations gave as its initial estimate of the impact of the proposed increase in the employer national insurance contribution on charities an additional annual bill of £1.4 billion. This will have a devastating impact on the sector and the services it provides. Does the Minister agree that we have to protect our valuable charity sector by exempting it from this damaging national insurance increase in the same way that the Government are protecting the public sector from the impact of these increases?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I have not seen the workings out where the sector arrived at the figure, but I am not trying to play down its concerns about the NICs increase. It is a usual approach for the Government to support the public sector with additional employer NICs costs, as was the case with the previous Government’s health and social care levy. The Government have committed to provide support for departments and other public sector employers only. I know that Ministers have met voluntary sector representatives and are aware of the sector’s concerns. There are other measures within the suite of the tax regime—including exemptions from business rates, for example—that are among the most generous of anywhere in the world.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why this Government have decided to tax charities through national insurance contributions and yet to persist at the same time with the Conservative Government’s unfair tax relief to banks, using Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt’s cuts in bank surcharges—an estimated £4 billion a year in effect given away due to cuts in the bank levy since 2016? Why not return those taxes to 2016 levels, stop this tax rise on charities and tax the banks instead?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Without wanting to repeat what my noble friend Lord Livermore would have said had he been here, we inherited a £22 billion black hole. I appreciate the sector’s concern, but, regrettably, as part of the Autumn Budget, the Government had to take a number of difficult decisions on tax and welfare spending. I know the Chancellor highlighted this decision as one of the hardest she had to make in respect of the Autumn Budget.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the impact of national insurance contributions on the charity sector can be alleviated by levying national insurance on capital gains and dividends?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

That is a matter for the Chancellor, and I will pass on my noble friend’s suggestion.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, the state contracts out important family services work in prisons to charities, as they are more trusted by families and by the prisoners they are visiting. However, these contracts are so skimpily financed that increased, unbudgeted NI costs will likely mean many charities are forced to hand them back to the Government. Will additional funds be made available to bridge that shortfall so that agreed work can be delivered without risking charities’ financial integrity?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord gives a powerful example of the valuable work that charities undertake. It is hugely difficult for this Government to find ways of filling the £22 billion black hole. The Charities Minister has met representatives and we are keen to work with and hear from individual charities where they have concerns, so if the noble Lord has specific examples that he would like to share with me, I ask him to get in touch.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister received an apology from the Opposition for crashing the economy, driving public services to the worst state they have ever been in and for not coming forward with any solutions as to how we can address these problems? They left us to make difficult decisions that we do not want to make, but it is their mess.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. I have not personally received an apology. I would not necessarily expect such an apology to come to me; I would expect it to be made to the nation.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, in the middle of this political shenanigans going on, the average hospice in this country will be hit by a £200,000 funding gap based on the Government’s national insurance contribution rise. What advice would the Minister give to managers of hospices who are now looking at either laying off staff or reducing services?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be well aware of the Secretary of State for Health’s commitment to hospices, including supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices to ensure they have the best physical environment for care and £26 million to support children and young people’s hospices. I am not playing down how hard it is going to be for organisations to find the additional revenue, but not all organisations will find that their NICs bill increases.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register as a trustee of several charities. Can the Minister say what discussions she has had with her Secretary of State about the presumed job losses there will be in the sector and the lack of delivery caused by this increase in national insurance contributions?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I think we need not to talk ourselves into a corner on this, where we assume that things are going to be as dire as they might be. In response to the question put to my noble friend Lady Taylor, who is here today, let me say that we would not have made the choice unless we had to, but there is a need to protect small businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 and extended it to all eligible employers. The OBR expects about 250,000 employers to gain from the changes and a considerable number to see no change at all, so more than half of all businesses, including charities, will not see the rise that the noble Lord suggests will happen.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, having worked with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux some years ago, I am very conscious that most bureaux operate on an absolute shoestring. Will the Government consider exempting these small bureaux and other small charitable organisations from the national insurance rise? Many of them simply will not be able to deal with it and they will go out of business.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I hope it is reassuring to the noble Baroness that the smallest charities and organisations should not see a rise in their national insurance contributions. If she has examples of citizens advice bureaux where they think this is not the case, I ask her to let me know. I am hugely aware of and in awe of the work that the citizens advice bureaux do in supporting some of our most vulnerable citizens.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the increase in NICs is highly regressive and the very general impact note does not make that clear. It disproportionately affects charities employing those on lower incomes or working part-time and, unfortunately, the employment allowance barely scratches the surface of the problem that has been created. Does the Minister think it is right to target the lower-paid in this way through the NICs changes?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding of the NICs change is that it is about employer increases. This Government have not increased the tax paid by workers, including national insurance.

Civil Servants: Compulsory Office Attendance

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this really interesting debate on an important issue. Rightly, we have heard a range of views; I will do my best in the time I have to respond to the various points made. I will also make sure that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, who is responsible for the Civil Service, receives a copy of the record of this debate as she works through planned work in this area.

Rapid advancement of technology in the past few years, particularly since the pandemic, has enabled the Civil Service, like many other private, voluntary and public sector employers in the UK and abroad, to strike a balance of remote and office working that benefits both employers and employees.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, about a move by some organisations to full-time office working, it is clearly up to each individual organisation. Like all employees in the UK, civil servants have the statutory right to request flexible working, including working from home or contractual home working, under legislation which came into force on 6 April last year. They are able to make a statutory request to make permanent changes to their contract from the first day of employment. In this regard, civil servants are no different from employees elsewhere in the wider economy.

The Government believe that a balanced approach to office attendance and remote working across the Civil Service provides best value in the services that it delivers. I welcome my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton’s point about the fact that approaches to work—how and for how long we should work, and under what conditions—have changed over time and will continue to do so.

There was a point—my apologies, but I cannot remember which noble Lord raised it—around an expectation from civil servants during the pandemic to be able to work from home. I remind your Lordships’ House that employees were told explicitly that they should work from home unless they had a business need not to do so during the pandemic. At that time, I had a letter in case I was challenged as I went into work—I was expected to work in the office—that gave me permission, should the police challenge me as to why I was out of my home. So this was not a stealth move, nor was it necessarily a demand from workers, but a shift in how people imagined the workplace. That has shifted back slightly towards the office environment, but it can be seen as a shift that happened because people realised that they could have that hybrid working.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made clear, there is no doubt that the pandemic has created such a shift. The technology that we have now, which not all of us had immediately before the pandemic, has enabled effective flexible working, including hybrid working. This is why, in October 2024, heads of department made it clear that the 60% office attendance expectation for all office-based civil servants, introduced under the previous Administration, was to continue. To address the question from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, directly, there are no plans to change or lower that 60% office attendance expectation, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, that business need is paramount. This is our expectation as a Government.

In our view, the 60% office attendance expectation for office-based civil servants reflects the benefits of regular office-space working and the instances where remote working is either required or useful. Today, for example, I was briefed by a civil servant who is based in the Manchester DCMS office, who 10 years ago might have been expected to come down on the train or be London-based to brief the Minister. There are distinct advantages to hybrid remote working as well. What we have now reflects office attendance requirements broadly similar to those of other employers in the UK, including in the private sector.

I agreed with many points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer—although not all of them—particularly around the benefits to younger or newer members of staff. Going back to my experience during the pandemic, at the Greater London Authority we found that a significant number of younger staff who lived in rented accommodation were literally working and socialising online from their bedroom. There was a mental health aspect to that. Now they are no longer in lockdown that situation is limited, and those younger members of staff may find it beneficial to have hybrid working as well.

However, it is clear that physically working together is proven to have many benefits, such as collaborative working, which increases productivity, with complex tasks and problem-solving undertaken more efficiently when ideas and views are exchanged more spontaneously. I really recognised the noble Lord’s point about not having to schedule a Teams meeting to have a conversation if you are able to have a five-minute chat.

I know from experience that being together creates better opportunities for coaching, hands-on learning and more project collaboration. It can help with well-being and the development of effective relationships across teams. As the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Maude of Horsham, said, junior colleagues in particular benefit from having face-to-face time with managers, mentors and senior leaders. Those early in their careers can find that working face to face with their peers and managers enhances their learning and makes them more effective more quickly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Maude, also said, managing that hybrid working requires a different and rigorous type of management, but that is not impossible. It all plays an important role in effective and efficient service delivery to the public. However, it does not need to be a binary choice—a point that my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie made clear very well.

At the same time, we need to recognise the benefits to employers and employees of working remotely and from home, particularly for specific tasks that require quiet concentration and confidential conversations. The ability to offer hybrid working is also a key attraction, retention and talent management tool. It helps to enable recruitment in a competitive job market, particularly in specialist or highly skilled roles, such as digital experts, where the Civil Service cannot always compete with the remuneration—I have never been able to say that word, even when I was running a committee called the remuneration committee—available in the private sector.

We want the best of the best to work with us in the Civil Service. This is how we will deliver the change that this Government feel the country needs. We hope that hybrid working helps to make the Civil Service an employer of choice, including for those with valuable skills who may otherwise be economically inactive or find accessing the workforce difficult. This includes parents, carers and people with disabilities—a point made by my noble friend Lord Watson.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked for statistics on the number of home workers and how this is tracked. Like the previous Administration, we publish regular data on office occupancy, et cetera, but not the number of flexible working arrangements, which are held at a local level. This information is not held centrally as it is for each department to manage the contract arrangements of its own staff. However, I understand that it is a relatively small number overall for specific home workers. The numbers are published in the same way as they were under the previous Administration.

The authorisation of various types of contracts or arrangements varies from department to department, but it would normally be done by the line manager of the individual in question, in line with the department’s overarching HR policy and any relevant legislation. It is tempting to think that Ministers should wade into this but actually, for a task-based approach, where the task is at the heart of whether it is appropriate for somebody to work from home or of the level at which they should come into the office, I feel this should be for the line manager. We potentially deskill line managers if we take that aspect away from them.

It is worth thinking about the interesting report from Nationwide’s chief executive, Debbie Crosbie, when we look at who can progress in the workforce. She recently said that it is important for career growth to have a “physical presence” in the workplace. We need to recognise that, although flexible working can be useful for those with caring responsibilities, it is important for businesses to make sure that they support those who take up flexible working opportunities so that they do not lose out on career progression opportunities. It is important for workers to see leaders in action in this regard.

As noble Lords may know, the Cabinet Office publishes data on the average occupancy of Civil Service headquarter buildings, and I am pleased to report that the latest data demonstrates that rates are regularly in excess of the 60% expectation and were higher compared with the same period in 2023 for the vast majority of government departments. Departments have tools in place to deal with where office attendance falls below the required level.

I got a bit enthusiastic about the subject, so I think I will run out of time, but I will try to get through as much as possible before my 12 minutes are up. It is clearly not the case that all civil servants have hybrid working. Many civil servants, such as prison officers, immigration officers and those working in our courts and tribunals, have to be in their workplaces or on official business every working day. This has not changed. My private office is in the office whenever I am, so there is clearly a business need for some people to be in.

However, I find it regrettable that some of the push towards greater office attendance is around the issue of trust. A number of noble Lords spoke about trust, which is clearly vital, but I do not think that mistrust is a good starting point for this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, noted an instance of a certain Minister leaving notes for civil servants who were away from their desks or working from home. I do not think that contributed to a constructive relationship between the Government and the Civil Service.

I am going to finish by saying a little on the wider issue of public sector reform, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Maude. Where I agree with noble Lords is on the importance of public sector reform. I had a number of points relating to the speech from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on reform of the state, which he made shortly before Christmas. I refer noble Lords to that.

I have now run out of time, and I apologise for cutting my intervention short—it is through enthusiasm and not from lack of planning on my own part. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for introducing and initiating such an important debate. The Government have set out a clear position, and we do not intend to change it.

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Does the Minister feel any shame that the Labour Party has constantly assured the country how devoted it is to propriety and the Ministerial Code, while the Speaker of the House of Commons has rightly criticised the Government for an unparalleled breach of that code? There was a major announcement overseas last week on the fiscal rules. As we have now seen, this formed a critical part of today’s Budget, allowing a huge increase in spending. What a contrast with the Government’s previous attitude. The Government could, and I believe should, have made a Statement to Parliament on Thursday on these changes. Will the Minister, in her position at the Cabinet Office, seek to persuade her colleagues that they should abide by conventions and the rules of the code? Will she apologise now for this unfortunate breach?

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

My Lords, the Government take their obligations to Parliament extremely seriously. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said in the other place yesterday, the Speaker’s comments have been heard by Ministers across government, including in this House. As for Treasury Ministers making announcements in the other place, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made an Oral Statement to Parliament on Monday about the fiscal rules and Treasury Ministers answered questions in the other place yesterday. Today, the Chancellor set out in Parliament the full details of the Budget, which will fix the foundations of our economy. Anyone who was watching the faces of the Opposition Front Bench will know that most of the measures were clearly a surprise. The leader of the Opposition seemed particularly glum as he looked at his phone for his revised lines.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand why we on these Benches feel that we keep hearing the pot calling the kettle black? I note that, in the Commons, the Conservative spokesperson complained that the Labour Party was behaving just as badly as the Conservatives had. Perhaps I should admit that, during the coalition Government, George Osborne, as Chancellor, was heard to complain that Nick Clegg’s office briefed out all the juicy bits from the Budget before he had a chance to give his Budget speech—so everyone does it to a certain amount. Does the Minister accept that the idea that everything in the Budget should be unknown beforehand and sprung immediately on Parliament is perhaps not the best way to handle financial and spending planning in today’s complicated environment, and that that is one of the things the new Government should be reconsidering, in consultation with the other parties?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This party and the Government understand our obligations to Parliament and take them extremely seriously, but I note the noble Lord’s points. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said in the other place, we have heard what the Speaker said, and all Ministers are very clear about their responsibility to the other place and, on this Front Bench, to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, on Friday, we heard about the fiscal rules from the Chancellor. On Saturday, there was an announcement from the Secretary of State for Education of £1.4 billion for school building. On Monday, the pace accelerated and we heard about the bus fare cap and £240 million to get Britain working. On Tuesday, there was a briefing about the national living wage, and today, even before the Budget, there was an announcement of £3 billion extra for defence. Was this not authorised and centralised briefing from 10 Downing Street?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I repeat that we take our obligations to Parliament seriously. I do not think that most of what was in the Budget was pre-briefed. This Budget makes difficult choices on tax, spending and welfare, with the intention of restoring stability, fixing the foundations and investing in the future of Britain. Importantly, we are delivering on our manifesto, which will protect people’s payslips as income tax, employee national insurance and VAT stay the same but businesses and the wealthiest are asked to pay their fair share. We make no apologies for the content of the Budget and I am very proud of the history of the Labour Party in rebuilding our country; we intend to rebuild it again.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, while the principle behind this Question is undoubtedly right, does the Minister agree that trying to prevent Governments in this day and age rolling the pitch before a major announcement is like King Canute asking the tide to turn? I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said; there is some merit, as recent experience has shown, in not surprising the markets with very sensitive announcements.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord on markets and I am sure that, in the other place, previous Chancellors from previous Governments might feel that they would have been better placed had this happened. We need to get the balance right. We are very clear that we have an obligation to Parliament. The point about the markets and having a bit of common sense has considerable merit.

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, back in March 2013, the Budget was comprehensively leaked and the then Chancellor, George Osborne, commissioned me to do a review into the pre-release of Budget information. I published a report in July 2013 and recommended a ban on the pre-release of the core of the Budget. The Government accepted my recommendations. Do the current Government still stick to the policy agreed at that time?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We do. To anybody who watched that Budget and who had not been involved in its development and thought that they knew every single detail that was announced in the Chancellor’s speech, I would question whether they were watching the same speech as I was.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will not repeat what I said yesterday, but I was outraged by the complete circus of trailing in advance and trying things out that has gone on for three months while this Budget was prepared. There were no surprises to anybody in today’s Budget, and they got away with it as far as the markets were concerned—but I said I would not repeat that. I now do not understand what the policy is. The Minister sounds as though she still asserts that it is a serious matter to trail in advance the contents of the Budget before they have been announced to Parliament. She says it with a completely straight face. My learned noble friend Lord Macpherson, who was with me in the Treasury in the 1990s, when we did not have leaks of any kind—

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

We did not—even the Cabinet did not know what was going to be in the Budget until the day before, because someone in the Cabinet would have leaked it.

Will the Minister not acknowledge that this Government are now approaching Budgets on the basis that things have to be tried out with the public and various Labour lobbies, and nastier things leaked in advance to lower their impact? It is all deliberate media management nowadays and the old obligations to Parliament are, in practice, being completely, deliberately and openly abandoned.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I find the outrage from Opposition Members to be in the category of faux outrage. As I said earlier, the Speaker’s comments were heard by Ministers across the Government, and Treasury Ministers have been hardly out of the other place this week, with Statements and Question Time. I cannot see how anybody could assert that all the decisions in the Budget—which makes difficult choices to fix the foundations of the economy and public services in this country—were trailed in advance.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is not about party politics or outrage; no one is playing politics here. This is about the rules and a set of conventions that are democratic in nature. It is not fair to dismiss concerns about manipulation. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke—and, goodness knows, he and I agree on nothing—raises perfectly valid arguments. Can the Minister listen seriously to the concerns? It is true that I did not know in advance everything that was going to be Budget—in some ways it was a lot worse for ordinary working people than I anticipated—but I did know far too much. The attempts at manipulation break the rules. If the public break the rules on anything, they get a lecture from this Government, so maybe the Government should listen in this instance.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I do not recognise the scenario that the noble Baroness presents. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said yesterday, we take this extremely seriously. We are going to shortly produce a new Ministerial Code and we will be increasing the transparency of a whole load of measures as a result. It is clear that we are not going to agree on this point across your Lordships’ House. We have heard the Speaker’s comments and they apply to Ministers in this House as well.

Procurement Act 2023

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change procurement guidance and operations under the Procurement Act 2023.

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

My Lords, the Procurement Act 2023 aims to create a simpler and more transparent regime for public sector procurement that will deliver better value for money and reduce costs for businesses and the public sector. I commend the noble Baroness on the Benches opposite for the commitment to small businesses, in particular, in the Act that she personally championed. The new regime will now go live on 24 February next year—a short delay of four months from the previous go-live date—in order to allow time for a new national procurement policy statement to be produced that clearly sets out this Government’s priorities for public procurement and economic growth.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy. I remind the House that, in June, Prime Minister Starmer said that his number one mission was economic growth, so it is ironic that in addition to the Employment Rights Bill, the Government are planning to damage economic growth by delaying the Procurement Act 2023. Why are they adapting the rules on procurement to help their union paymasters and to encourage costly equality and green add-ons? My concern is the resulting red tape, which is against the direction that the Prime Minister set—yesterday he said that he wants to get rid of red tape —and which I believe will harm efficiency and the path to growth.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I absolutely and wholeheartedly refute the noble Baroness’s suggestion. I would also note that, last week, I was criticised for continuing with measures announced by the previous Government and this week I am being criticised for their delay. I hope that noble Lords from across the House agree that we should look at such matters on a case-by-case basis to ensure that this country gets back on the stable footing it needs and deserves.

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

My Lords, will the Minister give a complete assurance that this Government will not introduce a VIP lane which gives preference to Conservatives and their colleagues? Will she also give an assurance that the Government will appoint a Covid corruption commissioner as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This Government are absolutely committed to using every means possible to recoup the public money that was lost in pandemic-related fraud and contracts that have not delivered. In July, the Chancellor announced that the Government would appoint a Covid counterfraud commissioner, who will be appointed by open competition for a fixed term. I am pleased to say that applications closed on 30 September and the Chancellor will announce the commissioner in the coming weeks. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this measure to address some of the shocking instances of pandemic-related fraud and awards of contracts that happened in the past.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it was a pleasure to work cross-party on the Procurement Act, but my party objected to the NHS and the Ministry of Defence being granted an exception from having to follow the Act. Avid readers of the Health Service Journal will see that about once per week the NHS is being taken court to by its suppliers for its new procurement rules. Will the Government now review the recent NHS procurement rules in the Health and Care Act 2022 to see if they are up to the standard that the rest of the public sector is required to follow?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

In passing the Health and Care Act 2022, Parliament recognised that healthcare services delivered to NHS patients and service users, such as 999 emergency ambulance services and cancer-screening services, had particular issues and challenges which necessitated special procurement measures. Consequently, as the noble Baroness made clear, the Procurement Act does not include special provisions for those healthcare services.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, during the proceedings on the Procurement Act, the noble Baroness will recall that the House was united in not wishing to see goods made in Xinjiang by slave labour, particularly Uighur Muslims, being brought by public policy into our own supply chains. Can the Minister tell us what this Government are doing to ensure we maintain a prohibition on goods that have been made by Uighur slave labour?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Abhorrent practices such as these have absolutely no place in public supply chains. The Procurement Act strengthens the rules around excluding suppliers due to serious misconduct anywhere in their operations, including the supply chain.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, what effect will this have on the defence procurement budget, which is already under considerable pressure?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I do not have any detail specifically on the defence procurement budget. This is more about the processes. The Procurement Act includes specific rules for defence and security procurement, including flexibility for contracts to be upgraded.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to me that it would be good for the Opposition to visit Germany, where there is a great relationship between trade unions and employers and the productivity rate is much higher, and compare it with the failed policy of the last Government.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I can only agree with my noble friend.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that, when the Procurement Act was first presented—it started in the Lords—it was one of the most badly drafted Bills I have ever seen, and that the Government themselves produced 350 amendments between Second Reading and Committee? Do the Government intend to look again at the rules covering outsourcing, particularly to companies which have in the past made excessive profits from government contracts?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will look into that matter and write to the noble Lord on that point.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, in their manifesto, the Government committed themselves

“through public sector targets to source locally-produced food”

to help farmers. We on this side would applaud that, but how does the Minister square that with the terms of the Procurement Act, which prevents farmers and others from bidding to be sources of food in schools, prisons and hospitals?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not aware of any particular measures that would prevent them from doing that, but I will look into that matter and revert to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. Defence procurement has previously had a policy of global competition by default, so what plans do the Government have to look more carefully at what can be sourced from the UK and support our domestic industries in this area?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Procurement Act has provisions around defence to enable a contracting authority to exclude suppliers from procurement if they present a threat to national security. This can identify suppliers that must be excluded from certain contracts, as well as suppliers that contracting authorities should consider excluding from the procurement. I hope that at least partly addresses the noble Lord’s point.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister max out, as it were, on the provisions to help small businesses achieve procurement? As well as doing that, can she look at the Subsidy Control Act and its effect on early-stage procurement and pre-procurement? Can she look at the chilling effect of contracts requiring the sharing and licensing of innovative companies’ development of intellectual property with competitors in order to comply with the Subsidy Control Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am happy to look into the point the noble Baroness raises. A new duty under the Procurement Act will require contracting authorities to have regard to small businesses, including ensuring 30-day payment terms on a broader range of contracts. We are keen to encourage more suppliers, particularly SMEs, to bid, which increases competition and should in turn support growth.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

On my noble friend’s point, I am not sure the Minister quite grasped the key issue, which is that if small businesses are required to make public their intellectual property and innovation—so that it then becomes available for much larger firms to take it over and use it without any payment—they are totally discouraged from putting forward their names for contracts to government.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I understood the point that was raised, but I did not have the answer. I apologise that I did not have the exact answer. I will go back and look into this, and I will make sure that I write to both noble Baronesses.

Public Procurement: Data Offshoring

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of public bodies and services, including the NHS Digital app, procuring professional services through processes which purport to be “onshoring” to firms which contract third parties outside the United Kingdom to do the work; and what assessment they have made of the risk this poses to private data and cybersecurity.

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

Each contracting authority carefully considers and makes risk-based decisions on whether, and where, data can be offshored, and what restrictions are appropriate for service delivery and development activities. The new standard security schedules for all central government contracts, published on 1 October 2024, include greater controls over data offshoring and stronger security requirements. Buyers also have greater transparency over where, and how, their data is hosted and processed, and stronger remedies where suppliers do not follow buyers’ requirements. Outsourcing contracts also contain complementary provisions on the offshoring of this personal data under GDPR.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. NHS Digital has contracted with Splunk, which subcontracts to the Bulgarian company Bright Consulting. This practice, which Splunk refers to as “onshoring”, began during the Covid-19 pandemic and continues to this day. Can the Minister reassure the House that under this practice of onshoring to third-party non-UK-based companies patient data really is safe? Is the taxpayer getting value for money by paying UK rates to a company that outsources the work for a considerable margin?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The government model services contract is one of three template contracts for use by government departments and wider government when procuring complex outsourced services. Value for money for taxpayers is central to good government procurement. The Government recognise the potential risk of data offshoring taking place without the explicit consent of public sector buyers. New standard security schedules for all government contracts include greater controls over data offshoring and stronger security requirements.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, thanks to a whistleblower, we learned on 4 August from the Daily Telegraph that, up to 2021 when it was discontinued, a chain of outsourcing resulted in software for our nuclear submarine engineers being developed by private companies in Minsk and Siberia. The Telegraph reported Ben Wallace, the then Defence Secretary, as saying that the breach left the UK’s national security “vulnerable to undermining”. Can my noble friend tell us whether this story is true? If it is true, where can we find a credible, comprehensive rebuttal? Otherwise, is it not likely that our deterrent will be undermined?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As my noble friend will appreciate, the Ministry of Defence took these reports extremely seriously. In response, on 6 September this year, Maria Eagle, the Minister of State for Defence, confirmed that both the MoD and Rolls-Royce Submarines had conducted an investigation into the matter. The Minister assured that the investigation found no evidence that Belarusian nationals had access to sensitive information and concluded that no change to the MoD procurement policy was required. The Ministry of Defence has set a policy of using Secure by Design. This is a modern approach whereby senior responsible owners, capability owners and delivery teams are accountable and responsible for delivering systems that are cybersecure. This includes ensuring new systems being bought or built carry out due diligence on the security of their systems.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my dental practice changed its IT supplier a year ago. After going online to confirm an appointment and agree the usual dental practice use of my data, I was invited to check the IT supplier’s data. Seven layers down, it appeared that I gave permission for all my medical data to be used by the UK company, its parent US company and all its commercial subsidiaries. The practice has now got a new IT contractor. How well aware are clinical practices and surgeries of this underhand technique by major digital contractors?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. I will speak to my noble friend Lady Merron, to make sure it is taken forward through DHSC. The Government are quite clear that government data is owned by the Government and any commercialisation should be agreed with His Majesty’s Government.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, obviously cybersecurity is vital for the NHS Digital app, as it is for anything. However, we know that the app is way behind, say, banking apps, which in this country are very good. Can the Minister make sure that NHS digital services are not held up by all the other stuff that is going on, because NHS apps are a vital part of NHS reform?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I think the security piece and the development piece can and should go in tandem, otherwise neither is sustainable. Three in every four people in England have already downloaded the app. This Government want to establish adoption through improved patient experience and system benefits, and to expand the services offer. This is part of making sure that more people can access the services they require.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, Microsoft gave a view to the Scottish Government in June this year that it could not guarantee that data held by public services on its Microsoft 365 and Azure hyperscale cloud infrastructure will remain in the UK. What mitigations are the Government looking at in the light of this statement by Microsoft?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I refer back to my initial Answer, which is that each contracting authority should carefully consider, and make risk-based decisions on, whether and where data can be offshored. We can get really hung up on offshoring, onshoring or where the data is stored, but we have to make sure that all data and cybersecurity are central to how we move forward with this type of procurement. This is why the Government are introducing a cybersecurity and resilience Bill, which will help ensure our cybersecurity for the future.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Browne, I think that the response from the MoD is not satisfactory. These Belarusians, although they might not have had access to highly classified information, were writing software that would be used within our nuclear deterrent. This cannot be satisfactory. Can the MoD give an answer, maybe through the Minister, to say that this is no longer allowed to happen? We all know how you can use software in various clever ways to cause real damage.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will speak to my noble friend Lord Coaker and ask him to provide a letter responding to that point.

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)]

My Lords, the heart of this Question is the safety of public data and the resilience of services. As we saw with the ransomware attack on Synnovis in the summer, cyberattacks of these sorts on supply chains can cause significant disruption to public services. Can the Minister say exactly how the cybersecurity Bill that is coming up will improve the regulatory framework for the supply chain, and when exactly it will be brought forward?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I can give a bit more detail on what the Bill will focus on. I cannot give a precise date for when it will be brought forward, but it was in the King’s Speech, so we can anticipate it coming forward in due course in the relatively near future. The Bill will make crucial updates to the legacy regulatory framework by expanding the remit of regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and mandating increased incident reporting, which will give the Government better data on cyberattacks, including where companies or organisations have been held to ransom.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the new Procurement Act will bring more transparency and new entry into contracting, which will help with these kinds of outsourcing and security issues. Will the Minister ensure that the disappointing delay in the commencement of that Act into next year is minimised? In the meantime, will the model services contracts that she mentioned ensure that patient data is kept in the UK or in a country with which we have a robust data- sharing agreement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On the national procurement policy, our entire focus is on delivering change through our national missions. We will therefore be publishing a bold new procurement policy statement in February to harness the billions of pounds spent by public sector organisations each year and ensure that commercial activity aligns with our missions. We think it is really important that that statement is in place before the Procurement Act goes live, so that everything is aligned and as effective as possible. The Government recognise the potential risk of data offshoring, as I mentioned, and the new standard security schedules for all central government contracts include greater controls over data offshoring and stronger security requirements.

Whitehall: Prioritising Performance

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report, Making the grade: Prioritising performance in Whitehall, published by Reform on 1 May; and what steps they are taking in response.

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

His Majesty’s Government remain committed to attracting and retaining the most talented people to build a highly skilled and capable Civil Service. The recommendations contained within the Reform report are detailed and wide-ranging. Time is being taken to consider carefully all the recommendations. A number of activities are under way to continuously improve how talent recruitment and performance are managed.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Reform emphasises the need for greater cognitive diversity in the Civil Service and a clear route for public service-minded and exceptionally talented applicants without a specific role to apply for. Will the Government set up a mid-career fast stream to bring in high-flyers experienced in other ways of working to help break the groupthink? Similarly, using “behaviours” in success profiles favours internal candidates, so will the Government scrap this and assess instead on skills and experience?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Success profiles provide a common framework for recruiters to assess the key attributes for roles, including skills and experience. Behaviours are not compulsory. The Government People Group is due to review the content and application of, and support for, success profiles in 2025 as part of continuing work to improve the quality and openness of recruitment. The Government are reviewing the options for a mid-career scheme as workforce demands in the next spending review are established. Many roles are open to external recruitment at all grades, with talent schemes such as the Future Leaders Scheme available to support rapid progression through to more senior levels. Regarding diversity of thinking, currently around 10% of those on the Future Leaders Scheme declare as neurodiverse.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, having discovered that, in this context, Reform is a think tank rather than a political party, I warmly welcome the recommendations in the report for the identification and development of talent in the Civil Service. Does the Minister agree that the Civil Service is more likely to respond to positive and constructive leadership than to the scapegoating and bad-mouthing from which it too frequently suffered under the last Government?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his clarification that this is the think tank, which might have been a useful clarification as a first point. The report looks at brand issues, and there is a quote within the report that the Civil Service brand is “battered”. One of the things that the report makes very clear is that, as a Government, we need the best people to get the best results for the country. In Keir Starmer’s message to the Civil Service on his succession to the role of Prime Minister, he made it clear that he knew how much civil servants believe in what they are doing for the country, and he said that they had taught him a great deal about what public service really means.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one of the recommendations in the report is on the need for better succession planning for key roles and the need to keep an updated list ready for recruitment exercises. I urge the Minister to give due regard to this recommendation. This comes from my own experience with the Northern Ireland Civil Service. When you have a key person in a role performing an excellent job and he or she leaves, it can leave a huge gap, so this recommendation really is something to take on board.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

All of us have probably come across points at which people are treated as almost indispensable. Part of the value of people stepping back and having a report of this kind is that we can focus on what those critical single points of failure are. I will feed back the noble Baroness’s comments to the relevant Minister.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that retention of the exceptionally talented is a problem. I have been distressed in the last five years to discover that some of the most talented civil servants I worked with in the coalition have given up and left the Civil Service, partly because of the rapid turnover of Ministers, partly because of the way in which some Ministers treated their officials, and also because a number of Ministers always seemed to prefer advice from consultants to that from civil servants. In that context, can the Minister explain why the Government have just given—perhaps she inherited the idea from her predecessor—a £200 million contract to KPMG to train civil servants? To my knowledge, KPMG is not particularly expert in training governmental officials, and it would be much cheaper and more effective to ask the university sector to train civil servants instead. I declare an interest as I used, as a university academic, to train civil servants.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This is not an issue that I have got specific details on. I will go back and ask about it, but I assume that this would have been subject to a pretty rigorous procurement process.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Reform report feels HR led. While I agree with some of the recommendations, for example on the induction of outsiders, I know from my experience in business, as well as in Whitehall, that this is not the route to success. In a sense, the fewer HR directors there are, the better the policy and outcomes. What the report does not bring out is that public sector performance has been very disappointing in certain areas, particularly following Covid. Important services like probate, driving tests, property registration and tax collection are all lamentably slow. This is in stark contrast to the private sector, where you go bust if you do not serve the customer and manage well; you will not be sustained. In that context, does the Minister agree that rewarding the public sector with a huge pay rise and bigger pensions, without any link to productivity improvement, has been a real missed opportunity? This is the chance we have to help the public services, which I very much support, to improve themselves.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I previously quoted the report as saying that the Civil Service brand is “battered”, and part of our reset as a new incoming Government must be to reset the relationship between the politicians and civil servants. All of us fortunate enough to come on to the Front Bench have been incredibly well supported over recent weeks and months by the Civil Service. I also do not think we should get into a battle about private sector good or private sector bad, or public sector good or public sector bad—that does not serve any of us well.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that concerns about a lack of rigorous performance management in the Civil Service, which is not unique to the British Civil Service, have been around for decades. While valiant attempts have been made by Ministers on both sides and by officials to remedy this, where there has been success, it has not been sustained. Will she accept, from one of those who has tried, that this will never be achieved on a sustainable basis until there is a dedicated full-time head of the Civil Service who has a proven track record of system leadership and a real mandate from the Prime Minister, with his statutory power to manage the Civil Service, and who is held accountable to an independent body, which could be a strengthened Civil Service Commission that reports to Parliament? Until then, we will continue to be in a position where the only organisation that looks at the internal workings of the Civil Service is the Civil Service itself.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As a relatively new Minister, I need to reflect on the noble Lord’s experience; he makes some very interesting points. I will look into the points he raised and get back to him if that is acceptable?

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend expand a bit further on what the role of KPMG is in this as regards the senior service? I declare my interest as a former graduate in the Civil Service and as a former general secretary of the First Division Association. It would be very helpful if the Minister could be more specific about the role that KPMG is undertaking.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will look into the role of KPMG further and I will revert to my noble friend on that point.

Horseracing and Bloodstock Industries

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Herbert of South Downs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the horseracing and bloodstock industries.

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

The noble Lord has been a tireless champion for horseracing, which forms such a key part of our national sporting story. I am sure he is looking forward to the start of the Glorious Goodwood festival tomorrow and, like me, will have been thrilled to see Team GB’s first gold medal of the Paris Olympics in eventing this lunchtime. The Government recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British culture and its particular importance to the British economy.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her place. She may have anticipated my sporting plans for later this week. Racing is the country’s second biggest spectator sport; it is worth over £4 billion a year to the economy, and it contributes to the Exchequer, employing tens of thousands of people. Yet it is not a sport that is in as good a financial state as it should be. The reason is that it receives a far lower share of betting turnover than in any of our peer group countries. As a result, prize money is far lower than in other countries, which poses a threat to the UK’s racing industry, which is a world centre of excellence.

I encourage the Government not to repeat the mistakes made, regrettably, by the previous Government and to look again at the clumsily introduced affordability checks, which have cost the racing industry some £50 million a year in lost revenue. Also, will they return to the table with the betting industry and the racing industry to secure an increase in the levy, which is long overdue, and look at its reform, making it index-linked for the future? None of that would cost the Exchequer a penny, but it would be of immense importance to the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government entirely recognise the importance of the horseracing industry but also of the horserace betting levy to the industry and to the financial sustainability of the sport, which, as the noble Lord rightly states, contributes a considerable amount to the economy. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the topic further and understand his views on the issue.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, could the Government go a little further when it comes to things such as the levy, when remembering that the vast majority of people who work in racing are doing so on something like the living wage? They are undertaking an activity that is often physically dangerous. A half-tonne of fight-or-flight response animal can take a fairly heavy toll on the human body in many circumstances. Can the Government make sure that they look at something so that this workforce is properly protected and supported?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are committed to making sure that the sector is sustainable, but I would be interested in discussing further with the noble Lord the issues that he raises. We are committed to making sure that the levy is administered efficiently to best support racing. It is too soon for me to commit to the shape of future policy.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my entries in the register of interests—specifically, my role as senior steward of the Jockey Club—and welcome the Minister to her place. If someone in the UK places a bet on racing overseas—in Ireland, for example—Irish racing benefits. If someone in Ireland places a bet on UK racing, Ireland benefits. Does the Minister think that is unfair? If she does, as I do, will she commit to extending the horseracing levy to bets placed in the UK on international racing and, in doing so, level the competitiveness between British and international jurisdictions?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome. As she will be aware, the previous Government undertook a review that concluded in April. It is too soon for us to comment on the process or what might emerge from that, but we are keen to work with all parties and explore all the evidence before setting out next steps.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the two questions just asked by my noble friends, will the Minister reflect on the point regarding Ireland? The discrepancy in the prize money between the UK and Ireland has become very severe, with the result that a number of UK owners are now locating their horses in Ireland. What can be done specifically to address that problem?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am aware of the difference between how different countries administer this. As I mentioned in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, the previous Government undertook a review that concluded only in April. It is too soon for us to comment on that process, but I am very keen to work with all parties and explore all the evidence before setting out next steps.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is good to see a fair degree of agreement across the House that horseracing is very important. There are 4.8 million racegoers, and there is support right across the country, including from Her Majesty Queen Camilla and Lady Starmer. Does the Minister accept that the sport is disadvantaged? The competitiveness issue has been raised relative to France and Ireland on prize money, but it is also relative to Ireland in support for its bloodstock industry. How do the Government plan to remedy the situation, and is it possible for us to have a timetable?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I have said to other questions from noble Lords, the previous Government undertook a review that concluded only in April. I am committed to working with noble Lords across the House to make sure that we get the right arrangements for the industry and the levy is administered efficiently to best support racing. It is too soon, however, for me to commit to the shape of future policy.

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register. While we all want to tackle problem gambling, very wealthy punters who can comfortably sustain large losses really are not the issue. However, by driving them to the black market with poorly targeted affordability checks, the finances of racing have, as the Minister has heard, gravely damaged both a major national sport and an important rural industry. Will she make sure that any regulatory action proposed by the Gambling Commission is sensible and proportionate and, above all, avoids unintentional consequences?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Most people gamble without issue, but we recognise the huge impact that harmful gambling can have on individuals and their families. As the noble Lord states, however, there is a difference between those who can gamble without issue and those who come to serious harms, both in their lives and those of their families. As stated in the Government’s manifesto, we are absolutely committed to strengthening protections for those at risk. The Gambling Commission’s new survey which came out last week really helps to show the wider picture of gambling behaviour across Great Britain, and we will consider its findings very carefully.

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

My Lords, I am mystified again. With all the knowledge on that side, with the former Member for the South Downs and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who is—what is she in the Jockey Club?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

With respect to the previous Government, they undertook a review of the levy, but it concluded only in April. If noble Lords bear with me, I will return to the matter as soon as is practical using a very evidence-based approach to make sure that we get the right arrangements in place for this important sector.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, following our departure from the European Union, the transportation of racehorses around Europe became much more difficult. What steps can be taken to assist that procedure?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Shall I just say yes? My understanding was that there were arrangements in place to facilitate the movement of racehorses around Europe. I will double check the facts on that and write to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, considering the issues that have been raised today, would my noble friend—whom I welcome to the Front Bench—consider meeting her ministerial equivalent in the Irish Government? Would she also encourage the British Horseracing Authority and the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board—which is all-Ireland—to meet to discuss the various industries? In my own area, we have a racecourse, and it is vital to the local economy and the tourism industry.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would be delighted to meet my equivalent in the Irish Government, and I thank the noble Baroness for her question.

Global IT Outage

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name, I refer to my interests as an adviser to Performanta and as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.

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

The CrowdStrike software update caused an IT outage affecting millions of devices around the world. In the UK, while government emergency and security systems remained operational, our retail, transport and healthcare sectors were disrupted. I have huge sympathy for all those affected. COBRA officials’ meetings were convened and officials from across government and the devolved Administrations met throughout to monitor impacts and recovery and to update Ministers as appropriate. UK sectors have now returned to normal operations, and the Cabinet Office will work with partners to review the lessons learned.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. It highlights the vulnerability of all the systems on which the public and the private sectors rely, and how much they depend on the software and so on. Software manufacture is largely unregulated. Can the Government look at how they can strengthen the requirements for software providers to ensure the safety and security of what they supply to the public and private sectors? At the same time, will the Government remind all operators that they should plan for failure and for when something does not work? What are their back-up arrangements in the event of their software failing?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question and for his huge support for me in my previous role as chair of the London Resilience Forum. Although the outage is not assessed to be a security incident or cyberattack, the issues that he raises will be covered in the cybersecurity and resilience Bill included in the King’s Speech. This will strengthen our defences and ensure that more essential digital services than ever before are protected. For example, it will look at expanding the remit of the existing regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and increasing the reporting requirements to build a better picture in government of cyber threats.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, among the companies most adversely affected in this country were airlines. Many thousands of passengers were hugely inconvenienced. How should they be compensated, and should CrowdStrike be held accountable?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I think we all have huge sympathy for those affected. As the noble Lord rightly says, thousands of people were affected on the day. However, compensation is a matter for the individual operators and subject to consumer rules, which would cover any entitlement to compensation or refunds.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in the light of recent events, we are clearly talking not just about bad actors. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be a rethink about critical national infrastructure and our dependence on a few overly dominant major tech companies for cloud services and software, which are now effectively essential public utilities? Will the Government reconsider how we are wholesale replacing reliable analogue communications with digital systems without any back-up?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises critical issues, a number of which will be covered by the cybersecurity and resilience Bill. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with him further.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I warmly welcome the noble Baroness to her new role and look forward to working with her on the Bill she mentioned. This serious incident affected operations not only in the UK but right around the world. It appears that the system we had set up—co-ordination, monitoring, business continuity and back-up, which we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Harris—worked well. Does the Minister agree that this area is about defending national assets and is likely to be increasingly important as the cyber and tech threat grows? Should it not therefore be a government priority?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and her openness and engagement with me when she was a Minister. Her passion for improving resilience was clear in how she carried out the role. This is definitely a central concern of the incoming Government, which is why we introduced the cybersecurity and resilience Bill in the King’s Speech. I look forward to discussing that further with her and other noble Lords from around the House as it progresses through the legislative process.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Government continue to consider the issues arising from this serious outage, I invite my noble friend the Minister to consider seriously the reports issued by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, of which I have been a member, which deal with issues such as ransomware, against which the software was designed to protect us. These issues will only become more important in the years ahead.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend raises similar points to other noble Lords; Members across the House are quite rightly concerned about this. As part of the process of developing and taking the cybersecurity and resilience Bill through this House and the other place, all learning from a range of reviews, including some of the public inquiries that have reported and are yet to report, will be key to improving our country’s resilience.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her place and will pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The noble Baroness is right to say that millions of devices throughout the country were affected, but they were, as I understand it, all devices using the Microsoft operating system. Is it not the case that the dominance that the Microsoft operating system has achieved in this country, reinforced by cautious corporate IT managers who always recommend it, has potentially become a threat to our security? I hope the Government are able to recommend that the Competition Commission or some other competent authority should look at this, with a view to reducing the dominance of Microsoft and increasing our resilience.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question, which packed a lot in. I agree that the dominance of any particular software company or IT system is a risk to resilience, as government has known for some time. But we need to look at this as a whole and—I do not want to sound like a broken record—this will be covered by the cybersecurity and resilience Bill as it proceeds through the House.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, one of the public services specifically hit was the NHS, so why are systematic back-up systems not in place in the NHS for primary care and pharmacy? Who has been asked to take this forward to ensure that such systems are in place as a matter of urgency for those who are ill?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

All relevant departments will take part in the review, and I will feed back the specific points made to the Cabinet Office and colleagues in the Department of Health. Going back to the previous point about the widespread use of specific software systems, this needs to be taken seriously as we move forward with the proposed legislation.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, one area of weakness is PNT, so how will we ensure that we still have traditional navigational and time signals of the correct type to enable all our systems to work? Will we maintain a task group to work in this area to try to resolve it by next year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will discuss my noble friend’s point with colleagues and will write back to him as soon as possible.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, a member of my family returning to the United States in the last few days has been very inconvenienced by what occurred. I ask the Minister to adequately look at the question of redress in any legislation that we now pursue in relation to data protection generally, and to AI for that matter. It is a vital component of the GDPR. I therefore ask her to look carefully at this and make sure that adequate redress is available across all these matters.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are reviewing what happened and will implement any lessons learned as a matter of urgency. We appreciate the significant inconvenience caused to those affected, but it is a matter for individual operators. The consumer rules cover specific compensation entitlement. From my view, the essential point arising from the issues caused by CrowdStrike is the need to strengthen our resilience, which is what this Government intend to do.

Emergency Alert System: Fujitsu

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We have to follow due process. An inquiry is rightly taking place into the Horizon and Post Office scandal. In the meantime, it is important that procurement processes are open, that people are allowed to bid and that awards are made in accordance with the rules. I emphasise the point that I have already made: there is no link between the work that Fujitsu has done for DCMS and the Cabinet Office and the work done for the Post Office.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the London Resilience Forum. The emergency alert system is a really good idea. In fact, it is such a good idea that the Cabinet Office first successfully tested the use of emergency text alerts in 2013. Why has it taken a decade to hold a nationwide emergency alert system test? Can the Minister confirm how quickly the test will be evaluated and how soon the Government think this potentially life-saving system can be rolled out?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her support. Indeed, I think this alert system appeared in the Labour Party manifesto; we have had cross-party support for it. We have set up the test in consultation with various affected parties, which obviously means that it has had to be done properly—with motoring organisations, for example, and for vulnerable groups. That has taken time. The test is now taking place on Sunday. My hope is that it will be successful. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, we had trials in East Sussex and Reading, and the feedback we had from the people involved in the test was very positive, with 88% of people wanting to keep going and encouraging the test. We need to move things forward, which is exactly what we are doing.