Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.

Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 and 19 November.

Motions agreed.

Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking to these regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 13 October 2025. I would like to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny provided on this draft statutory instrument.

This Government have now fulfilled our promise by establishing the Independent Football Regulator, following the Football Governance Act 2025 achieving Royal Assent in July. The Act was born out of necessity; just look at what has happened at Sheffield Wednesday over recent months and years. Despite the global success of English football, we have seen too many clubs overshadowed by irresponsible owners, unsuitable financial models and inadequate regulations. Too often, fans have had to fight to protect their club’s very identity and existence.

Following the Act, the Independent Football Regulator was established with three key objectives: clubs’ financial soundness, systemic financial resilience and safeguarding club heritage. The regulator is the first of its kind and is designed to protect our cherished clubs, empower fans and keep clubs at the heart of their communities. By delivering the necessary stability and long-term viability required to stimulate future investment and growth, the regulator will safeguard the football pyramid.

The Act itself did not define which clubs and competitions would fall under the regulator’s scope—an issue much discussed in this place during the passage of the Bill. This approach mirrors other sporting legislation and ensures that the regime can adapt swiftly to any changes in the football pyramid. As noble Lords are aware, amending delegated powers is quicker and easier than amending primary legislation. Following extensive discussion during the Bill’s passage, the scope set out in this statutory instrument remains consistent with the recommendations in the fan-led review and the scope proposed by the previous Government.

This statutory instrument sets out the scope of the regulator as follows: the Premier League competition, organised and administered by the Football Association Premier League; the Championship, League One and League Two competitions, organised and administered by the English Football League; and the Premier Division of the National League competition, organised and administered by the National League. The critical issues in English football that warrant the regulator’s existence, identified in the excellent fan-led review led by Dame Tracey Crouch, are most starkly and prominently evident in the top five professional tiers of men’s English football. Extending the scope beyond the top five tiers would be disproportionate, in our view, as the burden on smaller clubs would outweigh the benefits of regulation.

The independent review of domestic women’s football, led by Karen Carney and published in July 2023, recommended that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate. We support this position.

We acknowledge that football is constantly evolving and circumstances may change, which is why the review of the Act is scheduled to take place within five years of the licensing regime’s commencement and will again review the scope. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is empowered to carry out an assessment of the regulator’s scope at any time, consulting the regulator, the FA and other stakeholders as deemed appropriate. This statutory instrument represents another pivotal milestone in the establishment of the Independent Football Regulator for the good of our national game.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I know we are talking about English football in this debate, but I want to put on record my congratulations to the Scottish team for their epic victory last night and their qualification for the World Cup. Well done to them.

I have a brief question for the Minister about what a future process for expanding the remit of the regulator might be. During the passage of the Bill, she set out the Government’s reasons—she reiterated them just now—for not including the women’s game in the scope of the regulatory regime at this stage. Hence, it is not covered in the SI we are discussing. She mentioned the five-year review but say that in 18 months’ time, those involved in running women’s football and the clubs approach the regulator and say they would like the women’s game to be included within the regulator’s remit? If the regulator agrees with that request, what will the process be to take that forward?

Will the Government simply agree and table a revised SI to be debated again, to include the women’s game within the scope of the regime, or will Ministers and DCMS officials be more actively engaged in the process if they believe the status quo that they have argued for until now remains a sensible position? Or will they say they have to wait for five years? It would be useful to know whether the Government have given any thought to what process might be able to take place if something happens before the review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I first share in the felicitations that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, sent to the Scottish team on their result last night. I send my best wishes to all the home nations for good results in the next World Cup.

The regulations before the Grand Committee define the statutory scope of the Independent Football Regulator created under the Football Governance Act 2025. The Government have chosen to include the top five professional leagues in English men’s football—116 clubs—on the basis that financial and governance risks are greatest at this level. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there is no surprise here; this was the policy direction that was set out in the Explanatory Notes that accompanied the Bill that became that Act.

However, he was not quite right when he said that this is more or less what the Act says because, as the Minister alluded to in her remarks, the reason we are here making this law in a rather sparsely attended Grand Committee, rather than through primary legislation on the Floor of the House, is that making that clear in the Bill would have made it a hybrid Bill. As she said, that was much discussed during our debates on the Bill, so here we are.

Nobody disputes the need for clearer oversight of the beautiful game, but the question before the Committee today is whether the Government have brought forward a regime that is proportionate, workable and credible. On each of these tests, some doubts remain, and those doubts were only heightened by the unanswered questions in the exchanges we had yesterday on the leadership of the new regulator.

The Government say that the clubs at the five levels set out in the instrument before us can absorb the new compliance obligations, but the reality, as we heard across your Lordships’ House in our debates on the Bill and from the sector itself, is rather different. Premier League clubs have the structures to cope; many League Two and National League clubs do not. Some operate with only one or two staff; many others rely on volunteers. For them, these regulations are not a technical adjustment but a material burden. In her introductory remarks, the Minister spoke of the regulatory burden that the Government have decided would be too great for clubs in lower leagues, but I hope she will acknowledge that there will be burdens on many of the 116 clubs that we are proposing to designate today.

The Government have produced no clear assessment of this disparity. We think that is an omission. If regulation becomes too onerous, investment will dry up and the base of the pyramid—the foundations of our national game—will be weakened. The very system that this Act is seeking to protect could be undermined by the way that the new law is implemented.

The timing compounds the problem. These regulations come into force in less than a month, half way through the season, giving clubs minimal time to adjust. That is not proportionate regulation; it is regulatory pressure imposed without due preparation.

These concerns become even sharper in light of yesterday’s unanswered questions on the credibility and independence of the regulator’s leadership. These matters are directly relevant to this statutory instrument because the effectiveness of the regulatory regime is inseparable from trust in those enforcing it. As I set out in the House yesterday, this matters not because of what it means for trust in the present Government but because UEFA and others have been very clear that English teams’ continued participation in international tournaments depends on the demonstrable independence of the new football regulator.

In our exchanges yesterday, the Minister said that I asked a number of questions. In fact, I asked just two and she gave full answers to neither. Before we decide whether to allow this statutory instrument to pass, I hope that she will give some clearer answers to them.

When the Urgent Question that we repeated yesterday was taken in another place last week, the Secretary of State said that the appointment of David Kogan as the chairman of the new regulator was

“not a prime ministerial appointment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/25; col. 170.]

If that is the case, why did the official read-out that the Secretary of State gave to the submission that she was sent by her department on 19 March, quoted at paragraph 27 of the report by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, say that her “preferred candidate” was Mr Kogan? I quote from the Secretary of State’s own words given in that report,

“subject to No. 10 giving the green light”.

Why did she send the Prime Minister a note asking for that green light? That is my first question.

Last week, the Prime Minister was forced to write to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, because of the partial information given in another place during the debate on the Urgent Question. That letter said that in the light of the hospitality that the Prime Minister had received from football clubs and the Football Association, he had agreed with Sir Laurie last autumn that:

“I would recuse myself from decisions relating to the Football Governance Bill”.


Despite that recusal, the Prime Minister was not only sent a note asking for the green light on Mr Kogan’s appointment but responded in writing to confirm that he was supportive of it. The Prime Minister now says:

“This was an unfortunate error for which I express my sincere regret”.


This note was sent in April before it became public knowledge that, like the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister had received political donations from Mr Kogan for his Labour leadership campaign.

In the light of that revelation, the Prime Minister and Sir Laurie Magnus had another meeting in June this year and, as his letter of last week puts it, agreed that he should stay out of the appointment process for the new football regulator. My second question is: given these recusals, originally made in autumn last year and strengthened and repeated in June this year, how can the Prime Minister play a part in exonerating the Secretary of State for her breaches of the appointments code? How can he determine whether she has breached the Ministerial Code in this matter?

These are not peripheral matters. They go to the heart of whether Parliament and international sporting bodies can have confidence in the regime and the regulator, whose scope we are asked to approve today. Independence, transparency and good governance are not optional extras in regulation; they are prerequisites. I hope that we will get clearer answers to those questions today. Until the Government provide full and credible answers to them, this Committee cannot be confident that the framework underpinning this instrument is as robust, independent or transparent as it must be.

I look forward to the Minister’s answers on that, as well as to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Evans about the possible future inclusion of the women’s game.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an important and useful debate; I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to it. In line with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and other noble Lords, I congratulate Scotland on its impressive win last night. However, while we are congratulating home countries, I should like to note that Wales also won last night; I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in wishing that team well in its future efforts to qualify.

In relation to the SI before us, the implementation of this regime, which prioritises the protection of clubs from financial distress and protects the interests of fans nationally, remains a priority for the Government. That is why we are working at pace to deliver the next phase of the independent football regulator’s framework, for which the delineation of scope is a necessary step. Despite the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, we believe that the new regulator is proportionate and will not place unnecessary burdens on smaller, less affluent clubs. I am also clear that the scope of the regime has been appropriately defined.

A number of other points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—in relation to whether, when or how the women’s game or other leagues might be added to the scope. I want to make it clear that I would like nothing more than the women’s game being viewed as mature enough and financially independent enough to be considered to be included. I said several times during the debates on the independent football regulator in your Lordships’ House that I was not allowed to play football at school; it is of huge regret to me still, but I am delighted that my nieces have that opportunity.

The regulations that we are discussing can be updated to change the scope of the regulator’s remit. The Secretary of State must, in that instance, carry out an assessment of whether it would be appropriate to make changes, including consulting the regulator, the FA and any other stakeholders whom they consider relevant. On the process that the Secretary of State would need to go through, a report on her assessment would need to be laid before Parliament; the Secretary of State can then make regulations, if they so choose. We will continue to monitor the health of the game to ensure that the regime is regulating the right competitions. For this first use of the power, we have chosen, as was outlined during the course of the Bill, the top five leagues of men’s football. This is based on years of work, evidence and consultation, including the independent fan-led review.

My noble friend Lord Faulkner raised the issue currently being addressed by National League clubs in the 3UP campaign. The Independent Football Regulator will have a tightly defined scope, as set out in the Act, focused on ensuring the financial sustainability that will protect clubs for future generations of fans. The IFR will not legally be able to act outside of this tightly defined scope and so will not be able to intervene in matters such as the promotion and relegation model between leagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what she set out. We had 10 minutes yesterday for the Urgent Question; it was not quite the opportunity to set out things at length. I am grateful for the further information she has given. The Secretary of State said, when that Urgent Question was taken in another place, that this was not a prime ministerial appointment. Given that, was she wrong to have written, on the submission sent to her on 19 March, that her

“preferred candidate is Mr Kogan, subject to No. 10 giving the green light”?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I have not taken any part in the appointment process. This matter has been investigated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. We should let this matter rest and let David Kogan get on with the job.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

There has been an investigation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Government announced Mr Kogan and confirmed him as their preferred candidate to be chairman before the commissioner had completed his inquiry or published his report. Does the Minister regret moving with that haste, given that the commissioner has now found that three material breaches of the Governance Code on Public Appointments were committed by her department? I am casting aspersions not on the character of Mr Kogan but on the conduct of DCMS in this appointment. The three material breaches imperil the impression of his independence, which is paramount for the future of the game.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On the question about the green light from No. 10, officials sent questions about the process to the No. 10 appointments teams, but that was not formally sent to the PM for his approval.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Would the Minister be willing to let the note that was sent to the Prime Minister be published in the Libraries of both Houses? It would be helpful to see the note that was sent and what the Prime Minister wrote. He has said publicly in his letter to Sir Laurie Magnus that he regrets that having been seen and written. Therefore, it would be helpful if we could see it and determine for ourselves whether that was an official submission to the Prime Minister.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to prolong this debate and obstruct the progress of the IFR going forward but, no, I am not going to make the commitment that he has asked for today.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

If it is acceptable, I hope that the Chair can express his congratulations to Scotland on their wonderful victory and on the wonderful goals that secured it; of course, like all noble Lords present, we wish all of the home nations every success in every sporting endeavour.

Telegraph Media Group

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of the withdrawal of the RedBird bid for ownership of the Telegraph Media Group.

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

My Lords, the Secretary of State and I are acutely aware that the Telegraph and those who work there have been in limbo for too long. We are keen for this to be resolved as soon as possible in the public interest. The Secretary of State has now received a formal withdrawal of RedBird IMI’s request to progress the sale of the call option to RedBird Capital Partners. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot provide a running commentary or go into detail on this commercially sensitive live case. The Secretary of State will update Parliament when regulatory decisions are made.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. When the Government hastily tabled the statutory instrument that was specifically designed to allow RedBird to make its acquisition, it was crystal clear to many of us that the deal was wrong. Now the financial wreckage left behind by RedBird’s exit is very complex. For example, some reports suggest that Abu Dhabi-based International Media Investments could retain huge residual interest in the Telegraph and, depending on the final price of any sale, that could be well more than 15%. The Telegraph Media Group clearly needs a white knight acquirer, but to ensure the best interest does the Minister agree that none of the players involved in the deals to date should be driving the sale process? Does she also concede that, given DCMS’s failure to read the financial room, it too should stand aside in favour of the Cabinet Office or perhaps an external adviser experienced in dealing with these kinds of complex issues?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has adhered to the letter of the law and diligently carried out her quasi-judicial responsibilities. There is no basis to the suggestion that the decision should be made elsewhere. Securing a swift outcome in the public interest is a priority for her, and she will continue to act within the bounds of the regulatory framework as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. Noble Lords wanted powerful legislation to prevent foreign states from owning a stake in our newspapers and rightly so. Now we must allow for resolution to be sought to secure stability for the Telegraph.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is 18 months since this House effectively forced RedBird IMI to sell the Telegraph. It is more than unacceptable that the Telegraph’s ownership remains unresolved. Can the Minister confirm that IMI, the Emirati fund, cannot transfer any debt on to the Telegraph that it incurred from paying an inflated £500 million for the business and that such a poison pill would breach all legal limits on foreign state investment funds as well as the law preventing foreign states from owning, controlling or influencing a British newspaper?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The parties have given public assurances that this is not how the deal has been structured, which the Secretary of State was pleased to see, and I hope gives reassurance to the noble Baroness. They stated:

“The structure of the transaction has always been that upon any sale, the security and guarantees granted by the Telegraph companies in respect of the Redbird IMI loan will be fully extinguished and discharged. Further, the Telegraph would not assume any debt owed by the Barclay family”.


On that basis, it is not my current understanding that the Telegraph would be responsible for the debt. I hope that gives the noble Baroness the reassurances she requires.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, has this uncertainty for the staff and for a great national newspaper not gone on long enough? Should the Secretary of State not use her powers to get the Competition and Markets Authority to put this on a block so that there is a proper option and normal order can be restored?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the potential approaches that might be taken at this stage, although I and the Secretary of State are keenly aware that the sale process has taken too long. We are clear about the negative impact of this uncertainty, not least on the Telegraph staff. For this reason, the Secretary of State will be moving this forward as a priority. However, the need for decisive action cannot overshadow the need for thorough and diligent consideration of the approach which will deliver the best outcome.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State thought about approaching the mutual world? It is highly successful in the United Kingdom at the moment, both in the financial dimension and across a whole spectrum of activity.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not privy to the Secretary of State’s thinking on this matter, but I will pass on the noble Lord’s suggestion.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a Telegraph contributor and as the director of the Free Speech Union. Can the Minister assure the House that, in keeping with the principle that foreign states should not be able to exercise any influence over the editorial content of a British newspaper, foreign states should not be able to exercise any influence over the sale of a British newspaper either? To repeat the request of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, assuming that the Minister agrees with that principle, will she ask the Secretary of State to guarantee that RedBird IMI is not involved in the decision regarding to whom the Telegraph is sold?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I have said previously, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any live merger case. I agree with all noble Lords who have stated their support for the Telegraph, which is a world-renowned title, with a long and proud history that we want to see continue. The public interest intervention notice and pre-emptive action order on RedBird IMI’s proposed acquisition of the Telegraph both remain in place. As I have stated previously, the Secretary of State is keen to make sure that the matter is resolved, as she agrees, as I am sure do noble Lords from across the House, that the sale process is taking too long.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s understanding of the limbo in which this leaves the Telegraph’s journalists and readers. We all understand that there are commercial sensitivities and quasi-judicial processes that have to be respected here, but these add to the sense of frustration that is experienced by potential buyers, vendors, Parliament and the public alike. Do the Government have any plans, when this is finally resolved, to look again at the Enterprise Act regime that governs it, to ensure that we have protections in place for our media, but also so that we can send a clear signal that the UK is open to investment from potential businesses?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK is most certainly open for investment. It is probably premature for me to do a review of a sale that has not yet taken place, but I assure your Lordships’ House that any lessons that can be learned from what has happened over the past year or so will be.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the Minister said that it was premature to look into this unless and until the sale took place. Surely part of this sorry story—the “will she, won’t she?”—relates to the pre-sale process, and that is something that should be looked at just as much as what has happened after any hypothetical sale that may or may not occur.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a fair comment, and I will pass on his comments to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain some contradictions here? On the one hand, the Government are quite keen that a foreign Government should not own a UK newspaper, while being simultaneously content for foreign Governments, including dictatorships, to own UK water, energy, rail, ports, airports, oil, gas, hospitals, care homes, GP surgeries and more. Why this hypocrisy about foreign Governments that is just applicable to newspapers?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend is allowing me to explain why we want a pluralistic free press. It is fundamental to our democracy. I think that there is a difference between foreign investment in other parts of the UK economy, including utilities, and the free press that is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, and which we want to continue without foreign state interference.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Government are actively concerned about balance in the broadcast media. Are they also concerned about the maintenance of balance in the written media?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We would love to have a bit more balance in the written media. However, I am absolutely committed, as is the Secretary of State, to continuing to see the Telegraph remain as one of the key newspapers among a whole host of newspapers with centuries-old traditions.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, as no one else is seeking to ask a question, may I just return to this? The Minister seems to be suggesting in her answers that the Telegraph’s future remains in the destiny or hands of RedBird IMI, which has been found to be non-compliant with the law that Parliament has passed. Can I press the Minister again on the question that I asked? She suggested that they were not indicating that they would do something to transfer the debt, but surely the law prevents them from doing what has been reported and sounds so horrific in relation to this poison pill?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Unfortunately, I can only repeat the response that I gave previously. It is not my understanding that the Telegraph will be responsible for the debt. I will clarify to the noble Baroness in writing the extent to which that is because of the law or the extent to which it is because of the commitment, but we are absolutely clear that the Telegraph is not responsible for the debt.

Independent Football Regulator

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, these three breaches of the appointments code are not just about trust in government. UEFA and others have made it clear that English teams’ participation in foreign competitions depends on the new regulator’s independence.

Mr Kogan certainly appears to be very lucky. He did not originally apply to be chairman and was allowed to apply after the deadline had passed. He withdrew from the process last November, so was not one of the 10 people interviewed or three found appointable. He was reinserted in March by the Secretary of State, having previously made two donations to her Labour leadership campaign—something she says she did not know about. He was given his own interview. Within six hours, he was her preferred candidate,

“subject to No. 10 giving the green light”.

A note was sent to the Prime Minister, whose leadership and general election campaigns Mr Kogan had also donated to, and the Prime Minister gave his approval. He now says he should not have done that.

When this Urgent Question was taken in another place last week, the Secretary of State said this was not a prime ministerial appointment. If that is the case, why did she send the Prime Minister a note asking for the green light? If the Prime Minister had agreed with Sir Laurie Magnus that he would play no part in the appointment of the regulator, how can he play a part in exonerating the Secretary of State for these multiple breaches of the code?

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

That was quite a lot of questions in one question. I will do my best to answer the noble Lord, but on his points about UEFA and the success of the Independent Football Regulator, I want to make it very clear that the report does not question the suitability of Mr Kogan as chair of the IFR. The plight of clubs, including Sheffield Wednesday, shows why the Government were right to establish the IFR, which is to put fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.

The noble Lord asked about the Prime Minister’s reply to a note. The Prime Minister’s letter to Sir Laurie Magnus on this point shows that he knew that the decision was for the Secretary of State. He replied on the basis that the decision had been taken. He made it clear that it would have been preferable for him not to have been given the note or confirmed that he was content, and he sincerely regrets this. The Football Governance Act is clear that DCMS Ministers alone make appointments to the board of the IFR. In practice, in the end, David Kogan was appointed as chair of the IFR not by the Secretary of State nor by the Prime Minister but by the Minister for Sport.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, if we are to assume that this is cock-up and not conspiracy, can the Minister assure us of the process that will happen next time to make sure that this does not happen again? Also, it might be helpful for this ongoing situation if we could get some definition of what we are looking for as regards the success of the Independent Football Regulator.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The department has reviewed all appointments processes to ensure that this issue does not arise again. We will work with the Cabinet Office and the commissioner, as per the recommendation in the report. On what success looks like for the Independent Football Regulator, I know that the IFR under David Kogan will protect clubs, empower fans and keep clubs at the heart of their communities, which is exactly where they belong.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, whatever the imperfections —and there manifestly were some—identified by the commission in the selection process, Mr Kogan did not apply but was invited to apply for the regulator post when it was first advertised, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, just reminded us, under the previous Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that whether Mr Kogan had been appointed under a Conservative or a Labour Government, it would have been solely because of his unique ability and expertise, which are widely admired right across football?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There is no doubt in my mind, and I know in the minds of noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, that David Kogan is supremely qualified for the role to which he has now been appointed. As the noble Lord highlights, he was approached under the previous Government for this role and is eminently qualified for the job.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, the Hillsborough law that this Government are introducing will make it a criminal offence for an elected official to mislead the public even if he or she did not intend to do so. Does the Minister agree that, had the Public Office (Accountability) Bill been on the statute books, the Prime Minister would now be liable for prosecution for telling his independent ethics adviser that he had recused himself from the appointment of David Kogan, only to then sign off on David Kogan’s appointment?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely not. The Prime Minister replied, as I have said previously, on the basis that this decision had been made, and he made it clear that it would have been preferable for him not to have been given a note or confirmed that he was content. He sincerely regrets this. As I have previously stated, the Football Governance Act is clear that this is a matter for DCMS Ministers alone.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a shame that the Opposition are sniping away at something that they first supported when they were in government. They proposed a regulator to ensure that the game became more sustainable, that owners were genuinely fit for purpose and that clubs thrived at the centre of their communities. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, had it not been for the Opposition’s delaying tactics, we could have had the Bill on the statute book earlier, sending a signal to owners and fans that the state of the game must be improved? Does she further agree that the only thing that supporters of clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe want to see is the regulator up and running, effective, and protecting the interests of fans, footballers and supporters at large?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I could not agree more with my noble friend. He highlights a number of clubs that have gone through an incredibly difficult time. We are pleased that we have now made it through all the parliamentary hurdles. At one point, it felt like we were never going to get there. For players, fans and clubs across the country, I am absolutely delighted that the regulator is going to bring rigour and new financial regulation, which should improve the financial resilience of clubs across the football pyramid so that no owner can jeopardise clubs’ futures. We can all be pleased that we have finally got there. It is regrettable that it took so long.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that, in the light of the manifest suitability of Mr Kogan to perform this important job—given, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, his unique expertise and experience—it is unfortunate that this synthetic dispute should seek to undermine the important responsibilities he is performing?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am pleased that, despite the potential distractions around the process, there is pretty much universal support for David Kogan and the incredible range of skills and experience he brings to this role. The Secretary of State was clear that she will own up when she gets things wrong, as will this Government. As she said, when we make mistakes—and we will make mistakes; we are human beings—we will put ourselves through those independent processes, which are there for a reason, and take the consequences.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a long-suffering Sheffield Wednesday supporter. Now that the regulator is in post, is the Minister assuring us that there will never be another debacle like the one we have seen at Sheffield Wednesday?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would love to say that there will never be another debacle like the one we have seen at Sheffield Wednesday. It has clearly been a very difficult time for the club, its players and fans, and, no doubt, the noble Lord. We have established the Independent Football Regulator, following the incredible work by the former Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, on her fan-led review, to make sure that we introduce much stronger financial regulation, which will improve the financial resilience of clubs across the country and across the football pyramid. We are really keen that fans will be at the heart of football, where they rightly belong.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. There is nothing synthetic about the fact that the Prime Minister has had to apologise for something he said he did not do. That is the issue. The least that should happen is that “independent” should be taken away from the name of the Independent Football Regulator, because there is nothing independent about it.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I have huge respect for the noble Lord and quite regularly agree with points that he makes in this House; I simply cannot agree with this point.

Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I shall also speak to the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.

I am pleased to be speaking to these regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 13 October 2025; they were recently debated, and subsequently approved, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2025. The regulations have also been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Neither committee raised any concerns about the legislation.

How audiences access TV content has fundamentally changed with the introduction of streaming services, so it is important that regulation keeps pace with these changes. Our public service broadcasters have, prior to the Media Act 2024, been governed by laws written over 20 years ago, so the implementation of the Media Act is vital both to reform outdated broadcasting laws and to ensure that our public service broadcasters can compete in the digital world and continue to deliver for audiences.

Specifically, the Act seeks to modernise the public service broadcasting remit and PSB quota system; it is the quota system to which these regulations relate. Quotas are an important regulatory tool to ensure that our PSBs make and broadcast a range of content. This includes: requirements for PSBs to commission a certain amount of programming from independent producers, known as the independent productions quota; requirements to broadcast programmes commissioned by the PSB, typically called the original productions quota; and requirements to produce programming outside London, referred to as regional programme-making or the regional productions quota.

PSBs are required to comply with these quota obligations in exchange for certain benefits, such as prominence on TV guides. Currently, PSBs can deliver against these quotas only via their main linear broadcast channel. However, once fully commenced, the Media Act will permit their delivery via a wider range of services, including on-demand services. This is in recognition of the fact that audiences are increasingly choosing to watch PSB content via on-demand content.

Historically, our PSBs generally meet—and often surpass —these quotas, so our overall ambition is to replicate the effect of the existing quotas, enabling them to be fulfilled by making on-demand content as well as traditional linear broadcasts available. To make this operable, the Act amends the quota system by converting the existing percentage quota to a specific number of hours so that they can apply to on-demand programming. Although the Secretary of State sets the minimum level of the independent productions quota, as set out in the Schedule to the SI, the responsibility for setting the levels of the original and regional productions quotas is delegated to Ofcom.

With this in mind, this Government took the decision to use the power to delegate responsibility for determining the treatment of repeats for these quotas to Ofcom, in order to make sure that any decisions it makes regarding these quotas are made in the round and operationally make sense. Ofcom leads this process and has been engaging with the PSBs on their approach to determining quota levels, as well as the treatment of repeats. More widely, Ofcom has overall responsibility for monitoring the delivery of the public service broadcasting quotas.

These regulations bring forward the necessary amendments to implement all of the changes that were set out in the Media Act. For example, the draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 will, if approved, update relevant definitions in the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to align with the amendments made by the Media Act, as well as introducing a requirement on Ofcom to determine whether repeats may be counted towards the original and regional productions quotas.

Meanwhile, the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 will, if approved, revoke and replace the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 and update relevant definitions, as well as setting the level of the modernised independent productions quota for each PSB.

As required by the Communications Act 2003, the department has consulted the BBC, S4C and Ofcom, as well as the other PSBs and PACT, throughout the drafting process. An initial draft of both instruments was shared with the statutory consultees and all other PSBs on 19 March this year. Both draft regulations were then published in draft on 6 May 2025. We have used this engagement with industry to inform the drafting of these regulations. No substantive concerns were raised; I want to take this opportunity to thank the PSBs, Ofcom and PACT for their constructive engagement throughout to ensure that the regulations work.

DCMS is continuing to progress the implementation of the other remaining provisions in the Act, recognising that the Act delivers important reforms to support the future sustainability of our PSBs. A key priority is to ensure that our PSBs are equipped to face the challenges posed by changes in technology, consumer behaviour and increased competition on demand. The commencement of the modernised PSB remit and quota system on 1 January 2026, alongside bringing forward these draft regulations for debate today, is an important part of this work. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, in preparing for what will, in general, be a very short contribution—with one or two questions for the Minister —I went back to 1955 and the establishment of ITV in Britain. When it was established, it came in the form of a great number of companies all over the country—admittedly running analogue services, but nevertheless very much based on the regions that those companies wished to represent, with a real flavour.

I emanate from Newcastle, where I had Tyne Tees Television on channel eight—it was a very good television company—and subsequently moved to Yorkshire, where Yorkshire Television still is a substantial regional company, together with the BBC and the regions that have been set up for it. I was also involved as a director of ausb company that applied for a commercial radio licence in the early 1970s. Again, that was very much a company based not only on regional interests: the content to be put out was required at that time by the IBA to be sufficiently broad, not simply playing records one after another. Over many years, I have seen a drop in the regional nature of productions. Luckily, in a region such as ours, in Yorkshire, we are still left with local programming—from the BBC and ITV, of course, as well as some commercial radio stations—although, as I say, this has been massively diminished.

I have a great concern about this whole question of regional output being maintained. With the current threat to ITV—it looks as if it could be sold to a contractor that may not feel so strongly about having the regional identities of different programme-makers and companies—we might lose Yorkshire Television, Tyne Tees, Granada and companies in the south of England. I am really worried about this.

In that context, I want to ask the Minister one or two quick questions. The Minister referred to the fact that we are moving away from free-to-air TV to on-demand services, but, as she knows—indeed, as we all know—on-demand services have to be paid for. I know that free-to-air TV is also paid for in certain ways, but we have here a situation where a different audience, who can financially afford to move to one of these on-demand services, will be established. Therefore, there does not seem to be a level playing field here.

As far as the regional component is concerned, therefore, I would like to know whether there has been any comment from Ofcom, from the Government or from elsewhere about the balance that has to be drawn between regional programming on free to air and those for which a subscription is necessary. Is that going to be clearly defined between the two so that we continue to have sufficient regional programming, hopefully through the retention of regional television stations? That is an important question.

Secondly, I am confused about the question of repeats. They can be counted against quotas in some cases, but what is the position where a programme is first seen free to air and then consigned to on demand, or never intended for free to air showings? What happens with the repeat situation there?

The third question concerns the definition of regions. As I said, it was very clear in 1955, when the television regions were created, although there have been consolidations since. Are we simply stating, as the Minister did, that anything regional just means outside London? Is there no division here between different regions as to what components? I think there is in the case of the Welsh, with S4C, for instance, where there is a separate arrangement, but is there anything that determines different regions, as opposed to one amorphous thing?

The other thing I would like to ask about is the difference between programmes that are commissioned and paid for by a PSB and those that are simply bought in from an intermediary company. There is a reference here to intermediary companies. Are those intermediary companies subject to the same rules as to regional content as those that are actually commissioned directly by a PSB? I think that is important too, because we have, burgeoning around our country— I know there is one in Sunderland, for instance—companies that are now producing a lot of good regional material. Where that goes and how it is utilised is another matter. Are we therefore looking at the emanation of the regional programmes or the actual putting out of those programmes, either free to air or on an on-demand service? I hope those odd questions are of help.

I finish by saying again that I am deeply worried. Most of us in this House benefit from appearing from time to time, if we wish to, on regional programmes. Certainly, the BBC is very good at giving the views of politicians and so on, and allowing them to speak. ITV does this, but not quite as regularly as it used to do in the regions. I just do not want anything to happen here that further diminishes the way in which the public can enjoy programmes that have a clear regional content or regional basis. I hope that these measures will not affect that and I hope that the Minister will not mind me asking her those questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I am right in saying that despite the lack of numbers in Grand Committee today, this has been an important and useful debate with interesting points made. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon.

It is clear from the contributions that we all recognise the important role our public service broadcasters play, both on and off screen, in their contribution across the country and in our day-to-day lives. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, gave an insightful contribution on some of the background and the value of regional output, reflecting the conversation earlier where he also gave some of the broad texture around it. There is a value to having such insights and it is hugely important for people across the country to recognise their own region in the output of public service broadcasters—I will come to that later when I respond to the noble Lord’s questions.

I also recognise the validity of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on the importance of regional media in the context of an age of devolution of decision-making, and the importance of making sure that we have an appropriate level of coverage where the decisions are made at a regional and local level. As the noble Lord will be aware, given how speedily he and others made sure it received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024, the Media Act 2024 makes much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting, which was last substantively updated in 2003.

Since then, as I mentioned, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. We are aware that the media landscape is going through a period of rapid change, which is why we are getting on with implementing the provisions in the Media Act designed to modernise the public service broadcasting system, including the PSBs’ quota regime. These regulations simply update and replace existing secondary legislation to implement the changes introduced by the Act, such as permitting the delivery of certain quotas via a wider range of services.

I come to the points and questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, asked a number of questions about regional commissioning and the extent to which public service broadcasters are doing enough in this area. I will go through a number of those points. We think PSBs are leading the way in this area. On average, they spent 62% of their external production budgets outside the M25 last year, and they are among the largest employers outside London. For example, 69% of ITV staff are based outside the capital. However, we want them and the rest of the sector to go further by investing more and opening up more opportunities for people across the country beyond just these quotas.

The noble Lord also asked about repeats and whether they would count towards the regional production quotas. As with original productions, decisions on whether repeats can count towards the regional production quota sit with Ofcom. Following consultation, Ofcom has proposed excluding repeats from regional production quotas, as is the case currently. Its decision reflects the importance of regional programming and the continued investment in productions in the nations and regions.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about the extent to which “regional” is classed as just outside London. Ofcom guidance sets out the definition currently of what can count towards the regional production quota. To qualify as a regional production, at least two of the following three criteria must be met. The production company must have a substantive business and production base in the UK outside the M25; at least 70% of the production budget, excluding some specific costs, must be spent in the UK outside the M25; and at least 50% of production talent by cost must have their usual place of employment in the UK outside the M25. I do not have a more nuanced detail on regional breakdown beyond this. However, I am happy to commit to contacting Ofcom and raising the points the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, raised, because for large parts of the country, outside the M25 does not necessarily count as being close to where they are regionally.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

This is important. If we simply talk about “regional” output, it could all be just in Hertfordshire, which would have no effect whatever on the north-east of England, Yorkshire, Lancashire or, indeed, anywhere else. That is what we are looking at here—how this is divested downwards, as it were. I should be grateful if the Minister can find out for me the proportions.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely. I will get in touch with Ofcom about the noble Lord’s point, which was well made. As somebody who has spent a large part of my life in London and the south-east, the one thing I would say is that outside the M25 is not the same as outside London, but, at the moment, it is quite clear that not all the remaining production takes place in Hertfordshire, for example, albeit some of it will. I take some comfort from that, but the noble Lord made the point extremely well. We will get in touch with Ofcom, and I will share the letter with him and others taking part in this debate.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

We have seen the model that happened with commercial radio, where they said, “Yes, we’re going to keep local news”, but the local news is commissioned from London and does not involve local people or local journalists; they just literally opt out. We do not want to see the same happen with Herefordshire, Hertfordshire or wherever hurricanes happen; we want to make sure it is actually made in that region.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will add that point to the list of questions I send to Ofcom, and as I said, I shall share the response I get from Ofcom with noble Lords.

The other point that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised was on current media developments around ITV and the current situation regarding the potential purchasing of ITV Media & Entertainment by Sky. I am afraid that, as he is probably aware, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any live discussions regarding a potential media merger, but we want to make sure that our public service broadcasters continue to thrive and compete.

These statutory instruments are important to ensure that our PSBs remain fit for the modern technological and digital age and so that they can continue to deliver for audiences. The commencement of the modernised PSB framework on 1 January next year will be an important milestone in the implementation of the Media Act, and demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to ensuring that the regulatory framework that our PSBs operate in keeps pace with changes in the media landscape.

In conclusion, this debate has offered a great opportunity to discuss the value of our PSBs and the vital content they provide for UK audiences. We want to ensure that our PSBs can continue to thrive and compete with global competitors as viewing shifts online, and ultimately so that they can continue to do what they do best. As I said earlier. implementation of the Media Act and introducing the updates to PSB quota systems via these regulations is an important component of that work. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who contributed, and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.

Motion agreed.

Covid-19 Pandemic: Commemoration

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, I draw attention to my role as chair of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration.

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

My Lords, I am pleased that today the Government have published their response to the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration, setting out plans to mark this period in our nation’s history. I thank the noble Baroness and all the commissioners for the careful consideration they have given to their report, as well as the Covid-19 bereaved family groups: Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, Covid-19 Families Scotland, Covid19 Families UK, the Friends of the Wall, the Memory Stones of Love, and Yellow Hearts to Remember. We are grateful for their involvement in developing this commemorative programme and for their tireless voluntary efforts to support others in their grief. I also thank DCMS officials for their work on this issue. Through this programme of commemoration, we will ensure that those we lost are honoured, that we remember the sacrifices and the resilience of so many, and that, as a country, we do not forget.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister very much for her comments. I thank the Government for their considered and thoughtful response, published today. I thank the Minister and her predecessors, both in this Administration and the last. I thank the Cabinet Office and DCMS officials, who have been outstanding throughout this process, my fellow commissioners and those who gave us evidence, including the key workers who gave us evidence about their public service.

Above all, as the Minister has said, I thank those bereaved families who shared their perspectives on what it was like to lose a loved one in the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. Many of them are here in Parliament today. They were generous with their time and commitment in the public consultation events. I remember two things that really struck me. The first was somebody saying that during the pandemic, “Everyone lost something”. The second was their determination both to honour their loved ones and to learn the lessons of the pandemic for the future. I ask the Minister to set out in a little more detail, because many will have not had the chance to read the considered and thoughtful response, how the Government have struck the balance between commemoration, remembering the loss and the loved ones, and preparedness for a future pandemic or other natural hazard.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are clear that the impact of Covid-19 should never be forgotten. I echo the noble Baroness in quoting the evidence given to the commission in terms of everybody losing something. A quarter of a million people lost their lives. That leaves a huge, tragic legacy for those left behind. We want them to be central to the Covid commemoration programme. We continue to support the UK-wide Covid-19 Day of Reflection that will take place each March, and we are going to confirm the dates for the next few years.

We are working with Forestry England and NHS Charities Together on the creation of new Covid-19 commemorative green spaces across England’s forests and in the grounds of NHS sites. We are setting out our support for the long-term preservation of the National Covid Memorial Wall, which is just across the river from Parliament, where we are sitting today, as a national memorial to the lives lost to Covid-19. To do that, we will continue to work closely with the Friends of the Wall and with a range of other partners that we need to include in that work.

In relation to the prevention of future natural hazards, including pandemics, we are launching a new UK-wide fellowship scheme on national hazards to support future national resilience, as recommended by the commission. I am pleased to say that the first cohort will start next year, in February 2026. Alongside this, we are launching new web pages on GOV.UK, dedicated specifically to Covid commemoration, which will include education materials, a repository of oral histories, and a map highlighting more than 100 memorials that already exist, to allow the public to easily find this information. I have a lot more information, but I am aware that other people may want to come in to ask questions.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I add my sentiments and those of my Benches to remember all those who, sadly, lost their lives. I also pay tribute to the workers, not just in health and care services, who delivered many of our public services while many were able to stay at home and shield.

We recently had a debate on bereavement and how some people lost loved ones during Covid. While we want to commemorate those who did fantastic work and kept this country going, there are still some who have not yet found closure. We had a very interesting debate a few months ago on this same issue. Is there any update on what the Government are doing to help those who still have not found closure as a result of bereavement and loss that they suffered of loved ones during the pandemic?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a really important point. A number of noble Lords will be aware that I had the privilege to work on the response in London. People who I was working with, at the same time as they were leading that response, also lost loved ones. For example, when I went to the wall a couple of weeks ago, I looked for the heart remembering Diana Walker, who was the mother of the woman who was my researcher during that dreadful period. How do you get over a loss of that kind? We are aiming to work with a range of organisations, including bereavement organisations, to make sure that we get it right. We need to get it right so that we commemorate what happened, but also so that, as a Government, we recognise that for so many people the pandemic and the devastating impact it had on people’s lives are still very much part of their present.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, we too send our remembrance to all those who have died and their families. We send our thanks to so many people across the country who went beyond the call of duty to keep people safe and alive and to keep the country running during the pandemic. The commission’s report talks about preparedness. I ask about one specific issue. What extra help and provision will be given to local public health departments across the country, because they are the ones who have the data and the resources of shoes on the ground and can make a big difference in such problems to do with pandemic or local emergencies?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this issue on a national level. I appreciate that he was asking about public health officials at a local level, but we have been conducting a pandemic preparedness exercise at a national level: Exercise Pegasus. Clearly, a huge amount is delivered locally, but I am happy to set up a meeting for the noble Lord with either me or the relevant officials, so that he gets that level of detail that I unfortunately do not have before me today.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister say what the Government’s plans are for the World Health Organization’s pandemic convention, which is moving ahead all too slowly in the United Nations machinery? Do the Government have a firm objective for that convention to be agreed and signed up to in 2026?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Lord on his important point.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, this appalling pandemic killed thousands of people. I am sure everybody in the Chamber knows people who were killed and these were often nasty and unpleasant deaths. Since then, the Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson, has said—this is my understanding; I am willing to be corrected—that lockdowns did not achieve very much. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are looking at what the lockdowns achieved? After all, thousands of people died during lockdowns; what did they achieve and what are the Government looking at for the future?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is important to recognise that a whole inquiry and its machinery are looking at the effectiveness of particular measures. The next module publication will be within a couple of weeks. The work we are announcing our response to today is around commemoration. From a personal perspective, however, I remind noble Lords that the NHS was in a very perilous state at the point that we went into lockdown. For somebody working on the response, the question was not whether we should do that but when.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I add my condolences and prayers to those who lost somebody during Covid, particularly those in the Chamber. I also recognise the hard work of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the commission. What effort is being made on ongoing engagement with communities to rebuild trust in public services, including the health service, which was lost during Covid?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for the leadership that she showed in London during the pandemic. Rebuilding trust is clearly important but is potentially for a wider conversation. I am happy to meet the right reverend Prelate to talk through this. In our approach to the commemoration, we are keen to make sure that, at the heart of what we are announcing today is the recognition of the loss of nearly 250,000 lives.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I also offer the Green group’s deep sympathies to those who continue to live under the shadow of Covid bereavement, those who are suffering continually from long Covid and those who gave so much during the pandemic. The Minister referred to preparedness: there is a high probability that the next pandemic, which the WHO calls Disease X, will be a flu virus; it will almost certainly be an airborne pathogen. Are the Government ready with up-to-date medical supplies to deal with that now and in the future? What are they doing on issues of ventilation and air filtration to make sure that our public spaces are safe in that environment?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Ensuring that the UK is prepared for a future pandemic is absolutely a top priority for the Government. We are embedding lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic, including the inquiry’s recommendations, within our pandemic preparedness. Like other noble Lords, we are hugely grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, and her team for their important work. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the UK Government have been conducting a national exercise on pandemic preparedness, which is exploring a lot of these issues, called Exercise Pegasus. It involves Ministers from across the UK Government, and is working closely with devolved Governments, to ensure that we have the preparedness that we need for a future pandemic. We are clear that this will not necessarily be after another 100 years and that we need to be prepared now. The exercise is the first of its kind in nearly a decade and the largest simulation of a pandemic in UK history. Its findings and the post-exercise report will be delivered in due course and I am sure will be of interest to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, in following the noble Baroness’s Question and the Minister’s Answer, I add my condolences to those that have been expressed by noble Lords. The Minister said that preparations are under way and that they do not necessarily need to wait on the detailed results of the inquiry. I am reminded, however, that such an exercise in preparation was carried out in 2016 and that it apparently had no effect after it concluded and the lessons were drawn. Can the Minister assure me that this time any preparations and exercises will be translated into operational capabilities? The best memorial and legacy that we can give those who suffered during Covid, and their families, is to ensure that, if this ever happens again and it is not preventable, at least we will be prepared and action will be based on the experiences of the exercises that we have carried out.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Ensuring that the UK is prepared for a future pandemic is a top priority for this Government. We are already embedding lessons from Covid-19 within our pandemic preparedness. I have already mentioned Exercise Pegasus, so will not go through it again, but the DHSC has committed to publish a new pandemic preparedness strategy, which will set out how the health and care system is implementing the principles of its new strategic approach to pandemic preparedness. We owe it to every person who lost their life or loved ones to make sure that we learn from the Covid-19 pandemic and get it right for the future.

BBC Leadership

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement and her robust defence of the BBC, but let us not mince words: it is under attack as never before. A free press is the foundation stone of freedom and democracy, and the BBC is the foundation stone of our free press. The highly respected Reuters Institute has just updated its data on news and trust, and its findings should remind us all of the BBC’s importance for not just the UK but the world. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy. As the Secretary of State says in her Statement:

“It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world”.


The BBC is not just the news; it is important to remind people of this. It has radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC Online, iPlayer, Sounds and the World Service. It develops and invests in talent in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. It plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through the programmes it exports and the World Service, which is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. Through its mission to inform, educate and entertain, the BBC has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all. To quote the words of the man who in so many ways exemplifies the BBC, Sir David Attenborough:

“It is that miraculous advance … that allows a whole society, a whole nation, to see itself and to talk to itself.”


The origin of the word “broadcast” is to sow seeds widely, and that is what the BBC does.

Of course, the BBC is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake and we welcome the BBC’s apology. However, it is obvious that the issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories, so, as the Government navigate President Trump’s latest tantrum, as he threatens to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what are the Government doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC?

Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Government truly believe in an independent BBC, will they sack Robbie Gibb, as the BBC charter permits?

The new charter offers an opportunity to rethink the BBC appointments process and end the political grip on the BBC board. Will the Minister listen to calls from this Bench for both the chair and non-executive members of the board to be appointed by an independent body and not, as currently happens, by the Government?

The BBC cannot be allowed to fail. Mistakes will happen and should be dealt with better and more quickly, but it is essential to our democracy, is trusted by its audience, provides much more to the nation than just news and current affairs, and is globally unique. We should remember the words of Joni Mitchell —or perhaps of my noble friend Lord McNally:

“That you don’t know what you’ve got

Till it’s gone”

Please let us not be in that place.

I echo the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in adding my gratitude to Tim Davie for his service as DG.

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

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their points and questions on this matter. I am sure the BBC agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, in his aspiration for it not to be newsworthy.

As the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday, the BBC has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. When standards are not met, firm, swift and transparent action must follow. Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have both taken responsibility for the mistakes that they admit the BBC has made. It is right that the Government now continue to support the BBC as an important national institution and support the BBC board in managing the transition.

Before I go further, like the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, I place on record my thanks to the outgoing director-general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years, and I thank the CEO of news for leading the BBC News operation through turbulent times. As the Secretary of State made clear, we do not underestimate the challenges that these roles pose and the pressure that they put on those who hold them.

However, I also agree with the noble Baroness that the BBC is about more than news. This Government support a strong, independent BBC. In an age of disinformation, the argument for a robust, impartial British news service is stronger than ever. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in this country, and it has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century. Each of us has our own personal connection to the BBC. We can all point to the programmes that we watched growing up and the deep impact that they had on us. My own addiction to BBC News probably started with “Newsround”. The BBC continues to be an integral part of the life of almost every single person in this country, and undoubtedly every person in your Lordships’ House.

It is not possible to talk about the BBC without acknowledging the people at the heart of it and, particularly in relation to BBC News, the incredible work of BBC journalists across the country and around the world. Their tireless work enables stories to be told that would otherwise not be heard, and many BBC staff put themselves in danger in order to report fearlessly from around the world. In particular, as the Secretary of State said yesterday in the other place and as the noble Lord referenced in his remarks, the World Service is a light on the hill for people in times of darkness. We undervalue the BBC at our peril. That is why this Government will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public and people it serves.

I will now endeavour to answer the points raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I start by welcoming the tone of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and his clear commitment to preserving the BBC, but also to holding it to account. In relation to his question about the appointment of the director-general, that is a matter for the board. I am sure it is considering whether it should keep the role as it stands, but this can also be part of the governance consideration that will be looked at in the charter review, which I will come on to in a moment.

With respect to the lawsuit threatened by the President of the United States, the BBC has confirmed that it has received a letter from President Trump’s legal team. Lawyers for the BBC are now dealing with this. It would not be appropriate for me to comment or speculate on this point. The chair’s letter on Monday made it very clear that the “Panorama” edit of President Trump’s speech gave the impression of a direct call for violent action, and it included an apology for that error of judgment. As a Government, our commitment to an independent, impartial and empowered BBC is unwavering.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised the potential consolidation of public service broadcasters. It is clear that the TV market is transforming, so we are asking the CMA and Ofcom to look at how that could impact their work. At the heart of our views on this, though, we support public service broadcasters, particularly because we believe that they benefit audiences and their sustainability—however, I cannot read my own writing, as I was scribbling, so apologies if that was a bit garbled.

In relation to other topics, the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, named Robbie Gibb. I have no doubt that noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individuals. The Culture Secretary has been speaking regularly to the chair of the BBC board to ensure that he and the board, as a whole, are in the best possible place to lead the BBC forward. As the Culture Secretary made clear yesterday in the other place, the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so she is unable to pursue that course of action.

In relation to questions around the timing and content of the charter review, raised by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, the review will consider how best to ensure that the BBC continues to deliver the high standards of reporting that the public expect, so that it does not just survive but actually thrives for decades to come. As the Secretary of State said yesterday, we will publish a Green Paper and consultation shortly. I am not going to go further than that, as I am sure your Lordships might anticipate, but I understand that “shortly” does indeed mean shortly. I look forward to future debates on this in your Lordships’ House.

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the points that they have raised this afternoon. I conclude, however, by reiterating the Government’s view on the BBC, which is that it is an institution of national importance and one that we will protect. We fail to protect it at our collective peril.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

I ask that the noble Baroness should support the gold standard of the BBC in its reports, and in its general reporting duty.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Secretary of State for Culture said in the other place yesterday that if we did not have the BBC, we would have to invent it. It has a proud history of over 100 years, and it can have a proud future, hopefully, of more than 100 years going forward. I concur with the noble Lord’s sentiment. Some 94% of UK adults use BBC services each month. The majority of people still believe that it is effective at providing trustworthy news. In an age of misinformation and disinformation—when we have hostile states attempting to confuse the whole context in which we are operating—it has never been more important. But we want it to be the absolute best it can be: we want that gold standard.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the presenter of a yet-to-be award-winning radio show on Times Radio. My noble friend Lord Parkinson asked the Minister whether it is still the case that one can be director-general and editor-in-chief of the BBC. Is it not time now to consider a fundamental structural reform of the BBC, in which BBC News and the World Service are made completely structurally separate from the rest of the BBC, with their own chief executive, their own board and their own accountability?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I refer the noble Lord to the charter review. As part of the review process, the Government expect to publish the terms of reference and launch a public consultation in due course. In relation to the point around the specific role of the director-general and whether different parts should be distinctly separate, I anticipate that in the first instance that would be a conversation for the board, and then for the board with the Government. It would also be a matter for the charter review in due course.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, the children’s BBC—especially CBeebies—is highly trusted. Parents feel safe and confident for their children to watch it. The content is mostly homegrown and culturally relevant, so that our children grow up understanding their world. We need to do everything in our power to protect this last bastion of high-quality content, as children migrate to unregulated online platforms. I fear for the future of this high-quality children’s content if the BBC is weakened. How are the Government going to ensure that we do not abandon children, and maintain a robust BBC? I declare an interest as a presenter of CBeebies.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I probably need to declare an interest as somebody who, as a child, watched the noble Baroness on the BBC. I have huge respect for her work and for the work of the children’s BBC, but also for the noble Baroness’s campaigning to make sure that children and young people get access to high-quality, accurate content. I know that the noble Baroness has spoken to the Secretary of State about this, but I am happy to follow up with a conversation on this point.

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not sure I have anything other than “yes” to say in response to my noble friend. I love the BBC; we want it to be the best it can be. That is everything, as the noble Lord on the Benches opposite said, from coverage of key national moments such as Remembrance Sunday and ceremonial events to general news content and programmes such as “The Traitors”, which three generations of my family enjoyed thoroughly.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the extremely constructive tone from all three Front Benches about the BBC and will make three points. First, the BBC, as some have said already, has been in the making for well over a century—an achievement unmatched in any other country in the world. It is a crucible for our best writers, funniest humourists, scientists, naturalists and historians—for every aspect of our culture. It is the BBC of “Strictly”, “Last Night of the Proms”, “Farming Today” and “The Archers”. Secondly, in my experience, everyone working at the BBC, from the director-general to front-line journalists, works with honest integrity and is utterly dedicated to public service. Thirdly, as with all organisations, mistakes are made. They are mostly innocent, but some are not. Some are the result of inexperience, some are the result of local management laxity and on occasions, including in my 13 years, some are the result of a wider cultural malaise. The critiques of some of the BBC’s journalism by Mr Prescott and others on all sides of the political spectrum need to be calmly considered and, where necessary, addressed. I have no doubts that, under current leadership at the BBC, they will be.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with much of what the noble Lord said, although I am not clear what the question was. I can affirm that I agree whole- heartedly with the noble Lord that we have world-class programme-making and journalism at the BBC. This does not take away from the fact that the BBC also has work to do on some of the issues. We are also confident that the chair of the board is dealing with these issues. I know that the content of the letter to the chair of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee outlines some of these issues and that it will hold the BBC to account. The Secretary of State is also speaking regularly to the chair of the board and is confident that he is taking this situation extremely seriously, exploring all the relevant issues and taking the necessary action to ensure we can continue to have the gold-standard journalism that everyone in your Lordships’ House would expect.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, we need to have some reality. Why are we having this Statement at all? The Prescott report revealed that the BBC flagship programme, “Panorama”, had faked a video of President Trump, and that Mr Davie and Ms Turness knew about it for six months and did nothing.

The Prescott report also exposed systematic anti-Israel bias, antisemitism at BBC Arabic and impartiality problems on the wider coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. Dr Shah, Mr Davie and Ms Turness knew this for six months, yet BBC executives were sent out to say publicly and privately that there was no systematic problem and to tell the Jewish community that there was no issue. This cover-up is the whole problem; they have been caught out. Does the Minister agree that, to regain the reputation of fairness, transparency and truth, the BBC needs to act fairly, be transparent and tell the truth?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This Government will not tolerate antisemitism; it has no place in our society. The BBC has rightly acknowledged and admitted mistakes, and the error of judgment was referred to by Dr Shah in his letter to the Commons Select Committee.

Where coverage standards and enforcement of those standards have fallen short, we are anticipating and would expect things to improve, as I have no doubt the noble Lord would understand. The chair has set out actions to address these, which we welcome, and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee will have the opportunity to scrutinise these in due course.

However, the BBC is an incredibly important institution. It is important that we get the standards right, but it plays a crucial role in ensuring that all communities are heard and feel valued as part of our public life. That is a standard we expect, and we expect that to be driven through in any subsequent actions that the BBC might take.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I have just returned from a visit to a country in west Africa that I know very well, and which has sadly suffered a number of coups in recent years. However, I can testify first-hand that the role of the BBC in such situations is highly regarded. In a situation where people do not know where to turn to find out what is happening around them, and where there are huge amounts of fear and anxiety, it is to the BBC that they turn to find out what is happening. I believe that remains true today, even in the face of mistakes that have been made. Can the Minister reassure us that the BBC will continue to have the people and resources needed to play this vital role internationally?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The World Service is renowned and revered the world over. I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that this Government believe that it plays an essential role in our global democracy. As the Secretary of State said in her remarks yesterday, which have been repeated in your Lordships’ House, it is a light on the hill for people in places of darkness. This Government strongly support the World Service and will continue to do so.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is now broadly accepted that the BBC made a serious error in broadcasting the edited clip on “Panorama”, and that it did not act swiftly enough to issue an apology. But it is deeply concerning to hear today from respected BBC journalists Kirsty Lang and Misha Glenny that they are firmly convinced that the BBC is under an unprecedented level of political pressure that threatens its future existence. They rightly say that allowing the BBC to fail would be disastrous for our democracy and Britain’s reputation around the world.

Will my noble friend the Minister work with the Secretary of State to address these deep concerns about political pressures? Will we do whatever we can to improve the governance of the BBC? Will those of us who support the BBC as our most trusted news brand be vocal, as we are mainly in today’s Statement, in our support for our national broadcaster, particularly as it now has to fill those two difficult leadership roles and prepare to go forward to the charter review?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

For any public service broadcaster, accountability and trust are key, including in relation to the board. But what is important here is that the BBC maintains the high standards for which it is rightfully recognised, both nationally and internationally. It is right that the Government continue to support and work with the BBC, as an important national institution, and to manage the leadership transition. A number of the issues that my noble friend raised are likely to be addressed through the charter review, but I would be happy to meet with her to discuss the concerns that have been raised with her directly and to make sure that the Secretary of State is aware of them.

[Lord Hall of Birkenhead (CB)]

My Lords, there can be no doubt that what happened on “Panorama” was both wrong and damaging, but will the Minister agree with me that there is no institutional bias within the BBC? There are hard-working journalists seeking after the truth and sometimes they get it wrong. We all need a BBC that is confident about its future: a strong BBC at the cornerstone of our public life and creative economy, a powerful purveyor of this country’s soft power and a beacon of impartial news for all. It seems to me that the BBC is now more vulnerable than I have ever known it. Restoring confidence must be the key. Will the Minister look at ways of ensuring that the charter process, which is a defining moment for the BBC, is made available so that the new director-general can come in, take the helm and drive that process on behalf of all of us who believe in a strong BBC?

Will she also agree that one way of strengthening the BBC’s independence is to make this almost the last charter review process? This is used as a way of upsetting, damaging and taking questions about something as important as the BBC each time. Saying that there is a charter that runs on and on would be an amazing legacy from this Government for the BBC.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On whether this Government believe that the BBC is institutionally biased, I say no, we do not. The BBC provides trusted news and high-quality programming. It is important that it maintains that trust and rebuilds it by correcting mistakes quickly when they occur. I agree that, for any public service broadcaster, accountability is important to maintain trust. Arguably, the charter review process comes at a good point in the BBC’s history, because it will enable us to have a national conversation, including voices from across the political spectrum and across the country, to make sure we get the right outcome both for the BBC and, more importantly, the country.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Baroness said about the BBC having voices from across the country, we have heard a lot about the problems occurring at the BBC emanating out of London, but I am sure the noble Baroness knows that BBC Scotland is in crisis at the moment. We have a long-standing presenter who has been suspended, we have our flagship radio news programme under review and we have an election to the Scottish Parliament in May. It is extremely important that BBC Scotland, as a characterful voice that is respected across the different genres, is put in order in time for that election. So what are the Government doing, and what can the noble Baroness do, to ensure that the voices of the nations and regions are heard through our BBC?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said yesterday that she has voiced her concerns about the overwhelming concentration of the media industry being from one background and in one region. The noble Baroness makes a valid point and I will feed it back to the Secretary of State and Minister Murray. However, I highlight the work that the BBC has done over the years in this area—albeit from an English regional perspective—not least in MediaCity in Salford and through its work at Digbeth Loc in Birmingham. We are clear that this is important to make sure that the BBC does not represent the views of just one part of the country or one demographic. We are clear that that will also be part of the charter review, although the issues that the noble Baroness raises need to be addressed before the elections next year.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this is a shameful state of affairs, sending a message that groups of fans and indeed groups of people across our country are not safe on the streets of Britain. Can the Minister tell us when the Government were first told by the safety advisory group that it was intending to advise a ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attending this football match? Were any Government departments besides her own notified before DCMS was aware of it?

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

My Lords, I very much associate myself with the noble Lord’s sentiment of being appalled. Discrimination in all forms, including antisemitism, is fundamentally opposed to our British values of fairness, decency and respect. In relation to the noble Lord’s question, the Home Office, through the UK football policing unit, was involved in the risk assessment process led by West Midlands Police. Banning away fans was one of a package of potential operational options being considered. The initial ban was confirmed by Birmingham City Council only last Thursday and this is when intervention from the Secretary of State, DCMS, and broader government intervention began.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister go a bit further about the Government’s activity? It is quite clear this was not a conventional situation for the local boards that were operating. Is there not some structure by which this intelligence can be brought forward to make sure that local authorities know that there is support from outside available to them, as the Government now seem to be telling us there was?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Clearly, we need to look at why no request for additional resource through mutual aid, which is quite a standard process, was sought beforehand. I assure your Lordships’ House that, as soon as the decision was made known, the Culture Secretary, Home Secretary and Community Secretary had extensive discussions with the police, local government and others, trying to come up with a form of support that would enable the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to be present at the match. Noble Lords will be aware, however, that since then Maccabi Tel Aviv has decided to refuse any allocation of tickets. I assure the noble Lord that the Government were very active in trying to resolve the issue, particularly over the weekend after this became known.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this incident has increased the perception of the UK, here and abroad, as an unpleasant, indeed hostile, place for the Jewish community? The obsession of some politicians with banning the attendance by Maccabi has increased it. Does the Minister agree that it is not enough for the Government to carry on saying, “We will not tolerate antisemitism?” It is not enough for the Government to say, “Here is a few more million pounds for security”. That is just whack-a-mole. Instead of spending money on security, the Government need to get to the roots of where antisemitism is coming from. I suggest it has come from the way young people have been taught nonsense about colonialism and apartheid, and from religious teaching. Does the Minister agree that it is time to bring together all the Jewish organisations and get their collective wisdom to deal with the roots of this and not just stick more plaster on it?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We know people are scared, including people in your Lordships’ House. We also know that there is no easy answer, but no answer is appropriate without the involvement of the community. This Government are working with the community to try and address this. Antisemitism is an age-old hatred, and responsibility lies with each and every one of us to fix what is clearly broken. We will use every lever available to the Government to make sure that we build community cohesion and tackle extremist hate wherever it is found across society. I know all my colleagues will agree with me that words are not enough; we will take the action that is required to address this.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. What plans do the Government have to ensure that they can call in and, if necessary, overturn decisions made by safety advisory groups, and what would the implications be for the operational independence of chief constables?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are clear that there should be operational independence for the police; it is one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy. The safety advisory group role has been much debated, but it is generally seen as a role that works consistently and has an advisory function. What would have been desirable here would have been for those discussions to have taken place and been escalated sooner, before the decision was made. That is a matter for the MHCLG to deal with going forward; however, at the moment MHCLG is working hard on the immediate issue around community cohesion. I think it is right that we allow operational decisions to be made by the appropriate people, but we also need that to happen within the wider context. Clearly, there was a much wider context, and there were much wider potential repercussions of the decision. That will be a matter for MHCLG to discuss with local government.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement says:

“It is a long-established principle, set out in law, that the … safety advisory group are operationally independent of government, and that it is for them to take decisions on safety”,


as the Minister has repeated today, but would the Minister agree that this is only half the story? The Safety of Sports Grounds Act, in legislation which I piloted through another place as the Minister responsible, ensures that safety advisory groups must routinely consider relevant government advice and policies, such as from the Home Office on crowd management. Why did it take until the weekend to offer clear, unequivocal advice that nobody in our country would be excluded from football matches because of who they are or their legally held beliefs? Can the Minister assure the House that discussions are under way with safety advisory groups to ensure the full protection of Jewish community fan groups at matches this weekend and in the future?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

In relation to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, absolutely: the safety of Jewish fans is of the utmost importance and priority to this Government. On the safety advisory groups, I have not been party to all the discussions with the people concerned, but my understanding is that the resource implications did not get escalated to the right level. That is not an excuse for it happening, but now that we know it happened, we can address it for the future. I know that my colleagues across government are desperately keen to make sure that this happens.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that inflammatory and racist comments by a local Member of Parliament in this matter are an absolute disgrace and contrary to all decent concepts of British values, shared by almost every Muslim as well as every Jew in our population?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I could not agree more wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. I found it absolutely appalling that a Member of Parliament would initiate a petition of the nature and content that the relevant local MP did. It also highlights the need for us to be clear that, while we might want political interference through the Government in one way, political interference was clearly also at the heart of what went wrong in this instance.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it seems clear that the main motivation locally was in fact to boycott Israel. None the less, it is necessary to get clear the degree of blame that has been attributed to the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv. There is an account in the Guardian today which seems seriously distorted. Have the Government got it clear in their own mind, at least for all useful purposes, that while there may well have been bad behaviour, hooliganism and even some racist behaviour by a minority of fans in Amsterdam, the majority of the harm was committed against them and not by them? It is important to capture the picture that the Government have of what happened in Amsterdam, because it has been recycled a lot.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding of what happened in Amsterdam is as the noble Baroness has just outlined. One of the things that I found most appalling about the decision that was made is that it was based on the risk to fans, primarily. In a country where we manage violence associated with football on a regular basis, we cannot have a situation in which it is the risk to fans which means that those fans themselves are barred from a sporting or other public event.

Telegraph Media Group: Ownership

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Twycross on 16 September (HL10228) and following media reports in August of Redbird Capital Partners’ formal notification to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to acquire Telegraph Media Group, when they will update Parliament on action they are taking to resolve the Telegraph’s ownership and ensure compliance with Chapter 3A of the Enterprise Act 2002.

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

Noble Lords may have seen press reports that the department has received a formal request from RedBird IMI to progress the sale of the call option to own the Telegraph. Thorough due diligence will be conducted on the proposed transaction, and should the Secretary of State have reasonable grounds to suspect either public interest or foreign state influence concerns, she will intervene. The Telegraph Media Group remains protected under pre-emptive action order. The Secretary of State will inform Parliament when regulatory decisions are made, as is consistent with standard practice.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that the formal bid has been received and that during this phase of scrutiny the existing protections for the Telegraph remain in place. I very much hope that the Secretary of State will soon be able to say that she is minded to involve the CMA and Ofcom in the scrutiny of this bid. That will be important, should she decide to give it the go-ahead, for our future confidence in the Telegraph’s editorial independence. Meanwhile, can the Minister please confirm that the regulations to prevent multiple 15% equity stakes from state investment funds will be laid before the end of this month and applied to this case? Will she also make clear—and confirm, I hope—that the 15% is an absolute cap, and that any financial arrangements such as debt or earnout on top of a state investment fund’s proposed 15% stake would go against the intention of those regulations?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her engagement, not least with me, with the Secretary of State and with officials, which has enabled us to get to what I hope everyone agrees is a better place than where we were previously. I would like to reassure her that we still intend to lay the regulations preventing multiple foreign state-owned investors owning an aggregate of more than 15% of UK newspapers by the end of this month. This cap will apply to any live merger at the time it comes into effect. The cap means that state-owned investors can own up to a maximum of 15% of the total shares or voting rights in a UK newspaper, provided that their investment is passive. We are absolutely clear that the overall intention of the policy is that a foreign state should not have any control or influence. This is what the Secretary of State considers carefully when she looks at the details of each case.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with all the comments about the Lord Speaker—or, at least, with all those that we have heard so far.

As we know, a fund with Abu Dhabi money, and probably Chinese money, is acquiring what in global terms is a small media player. It is relatively small, but the Telegraph is significant in the UK, and the best explanation of their motives that I can come up with is that they are buying influence. With that in mind, will the Minister commit that her department will investigate any prima facie breaches of the orders protecting the Telegraph from influence by RedBird—breaches that may already have occurred? Will she commit to publishing the investigation’s findings?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any live merger case, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware. Under the Enterprise Act this is a quasi-judicial process, and it is for the DCMS Secretary of State alone to exercise her statutory powers, based on the evidence and following the established regulatory process. As for publication, I will write to the noble Lord to clarify the points he raises.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, do we not need to review the whole issue of ownership of newspapers in the UK? Bearing in mind that papers such as the Express and the Mail are nothing more than propaganda, do we not need some balance in a democracy, to make sure that people who are rich do not influence our politics too much?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an interesting point. The ownership of our media is an interesting area. The tradition of having a broad church of opinions expressed through our media is important, and is one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister for some clarification? She talked about a 15% limit for a foreign state having an interest, but what if a number of foreign states got together and each bought up to a maximum of 15%? Is that also being considered by the Government?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s point is exactly the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has been raising with the Government. It will be addressed by the statutory instrument that is intended to be laid by the end of the month.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, will the Secretary of State, as part of her consideration, keep open the possibility of invoking the National Security and Investment Act in this case, given the indirect involvement of China in the consortium bidding for the Telegraph?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s consideration is for her alone. However, noble Lords will be aware that it is possible to have cases of this nature considered under the National Security and Investment Act if the transaction is deemed to raise national security concerns.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we know from the witness statements released overnight that the Deputy National Security Adviser considers that China

“presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”,

but also that the present Government are

“committed to pursuing a positive economic relationship”

with it. Given that, and not in relation to the case under consideration but in general terms, can the Minister tell us what sort of percentage stake in a British newspaper the Government would be comfortable with a Chinese state investor obtaining?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will not go into hypothetical examples. All the instances raised would be examined on a case-by-case basis. The noble Lord will be aware that we are deeply disappointed that the case he referenced has not gone to trial; we really did want to see prosecutions.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I will ask the Minister a more general question. Are the Government considering whether 15% may be too high?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We have settled on 15% as the cumulative amount, and this House had the opportunity to debate it at some length in July. Whether that is one FSI, one state-owned investor or a number of state-owned investors, it will not exceed 15%. The Competition and Markets Authority has been clear that it does not consider that a material influence would be likely to occur below 25%, so 15% is well within that limit.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, on the topic of media ownership, can the Government please clarify why the Senedd is not having a say on the appointment of the chair of S4C?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will need to write to the noble Baroness on that matter, as it did not come up in the preparation for this Question and I do not want to give an incorrect answer.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Further to my noble friend Lord Newby’s question on whether China is part of the consortium, and given what the Deputy National Security Adviser said about China being a threat, why would this not automatically trigger a referral through the provisions under the National Security and Investment Act?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There are no specific rules relating to the media merger regime on hostile states, but the bar for intervention within the regime is low. I would like to reassure the noble Lord that any sale of the Telegraph will be subject to the regime. As I stated earlier, it could be considered under the National Security and Investment Act if the Secretary of State deems, in her considerations, that the transaction would raise national security concerns. As I said earlier, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a live merger case; this is a quasi-judicial process, and it is for the Secretary of State to determine the matter.