G20 Summit 2027: Objectives

Lord Pack Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pack (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Civil Service: Impartiality

Lord Pack Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Pack (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Sector Fraud Authority

Lord Pack Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pack (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Public Inquiries

Lord Pack Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pack (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Newspapers: Foreign Ownership

Lord Pack Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Pack]

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

[Lord Pack (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Pack (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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