Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 May be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall also speak to the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 and the Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025.
This set of regulations will broaden the scope of media merger regimes and strengthen the public interest protections, as well as setting the scope of exceptions that will apply to foreign state influence in UK newspapers. Taken together, these are the most significant changes to the media public interest regime since the Communications Act 2003. I know that many noble Lords have sincerely and strongly held views on the matters to be debated today and I am grateful to those across your Lordships’ House who have met me, the Secretary of State or officials to discuss them. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Fox, back in his place.
I will go back to first principles to place the new measures in their proper context. Fundamental to this is the need for us all to consider the very real risks to the survival of UK newspapers, including very high-profile names, and the wider news media. I understand and share noble Lords’ concerns about the growing threat of foreign state actors seeking to undermine our institutions and our democracy. There is a risk that this might translate into efforts to interfere with our media and freedom of the press. This is not the only risk, although it is a risk that these measures seek to manage.
The far greater risk is how UK news media, national and local, face significant, genuinely existential—I do not use that word lightly—challenges as their business models move away from print towards digital, and new technologies emerge. Publishers have sought to consolidate and make efficiencies in response, with three publishers accounting for over 80% of national print copy sales in the UK, and three accounting for about 70% of the local news market. There have been some notable successes for newspapers that have been able to develop and deliver a strong subscription offer, but others have fared less well. Some are struggling in an economy where good-quality news content does not always translate into the revenues that our news media needs to prosper and innovate.
The issue is seen most starkly in our local media, a particularly trusted news source that has consolidated to survive, and in many places local newspapers have had to reduce journalist numbers to a bare minimum. While it is vital that we support stronger protections for UK newspapers and other news media, we need to make sure that we do not inadvertently make it harder for newspaper groups to survive.
A UK-wide free press, which I know all noble Lords value—the type of press landscape we are rightly proud of in this country—also has to be sustainable. Let me be clear: the Government are unequivocal supporters of a free and plural news media, even when it does not agree with us. A free media is an essential safeguard that ensures accountability and effective government. The measures being debated strongly support this objective.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Is the Minister seriously arguing that the survival of our newspapers, both national and local, depends on changing the law, as she is doing, to allow foreign Governments to have ownership of them?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is important to distinguish between foreign Governments and state-owned investors. If the noble Lord will allow, this is covered in my opening remarks.
The first set of measures extend the scope of the media merger regime to online news publications. The Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 will amend the definition of “newspaper” in the Enterprise Act 2002 to encompass both print and online newspapers and periodical news magazines. Crucially, this will enable the Secretary of State to intervene on public interest or foreign state influence grounds, subject to jurisdiction, in the acquisition of an online-only newspaper. Until now, she has not had the power to do so. The Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 creates the term “news media”, which captures newspapers, as newly defined, and news programmes that are broadcast. The order extends key public interest considerations in Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to all news media.
Noble Lords have long called for these changes, and Ofcom recommended them in its 2021 and 2024 media ownership rules reviews. The definition of newspaper order also ensures that the foreign state influence regime introduced in May last year will be extended such that foreign powers will now also be banned from acquiring control or influence over the policy of an online newspaper or an online news magazine enterprise.
Let me now turn now to the draft foreign state influence exception regulations, which are the subject of the fatal amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. The FSI regime, for which, as noble Lords will be aware, the previous Government legislated in May last year, bans foreign states from having any control or influence over the policy of UK newspapers or news periodicals. The legislation includes a wide definition of foreign power that includes sovereign wealth funds and public pension funds, among the largest investors globally, whose objectives are to seek long-term, stable investment opportunities in sectors requiring new capital for growth.
The previous Government also made clear before the election that they would put in place exceptions to encourage investment by sovereign wealth and other state-owned investors and issue a consultation. To clarify —in response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—this exception applies only to a very narrow group of public bodies: sovereign wealth funds and public pension schemes or similar. It does not apply to states themselves or other state bodies, so a foreign Government cannot buy and own a newspaper.
The responses received, including from News UK, said that the proposed thresholds were overly complex and drawn too tightly. We broadly agree with this assessment; we believe that a higher 15% threshold is appropriate and would meet their concerns. However, this would not weaken the regime. The 15% threshold would still be below the level that the CMA considers typically gives rise to material influence when assessing jurisdiction under the Enterprise Act 2002, meaning that the risk of influence would be low.
Noble Lords have raised questions about whether an investor with up to 15% of shares or voting rights can really be a passive investor. The regulations include a strict requirement that the state-owned investor must hold the investment passively. They must have no right or abilities to appoint or fire directors or other officers, and they must have no ability to direct, control or influence a newspaper’s policy or activities. These are continuing requirements that must be satisfied every day the shares are held. The exceptions should be seen as a privilege and not a right.
The legislation requires the Secretary of State to refer a merger to the CMA if she suspects that a state-owned investor is not entitled to the exception or is not complying with these requirements. If the CMA advises that the investment does not comply and concludes that a foreign state newspaper merger situation has arisen, the Secretary of State must take action to unwind the transaction or to block it. This is a very significant penalty and safeguard.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government published a further draft SI for consultation last week to deal with two specific concerns that noble Lords raised about the draft regulations, which we laid on 15 May. First, the changes proposed by the draft SI would close off any risk of multiple state-owned investors acting on behalf of different states, each being able to hold up to 15%. This change would be applied retrospectively from 13 March 2024 to ensure that there is no regulatory gap.
Secondly, we have addressed concerns around the lack of a notification requirement on state-owned investors who plan to take significant shareholdings. This second draft SI proposes a new requirement for direct investments by state-owned investors of more than 5% to be notified to the Secretary of State as a condition of the exception. If the notification is not made, or made late, the investment would not comply with the exception and would be prohibited.
Following a consultation, which will run until 16 September, the Government will aim to lay, in draft, the second statutory instrument by the end of October. The new notification requirements will come into force after the second regulations are made. The changes proposed in the second draft SI, while important, are not fundamental to the operation of the exceptions and not so critical to the FSI regime that we should delay these regulations and leave newspapers—which are publicly calling for us to act—to a further period of uncertainty. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her constructive engagement with the Secretary of State and DCMS officials on these issues. I hope that she and other noble Lords who have raised these concerns feel that this safeguard fully deals with the issue.
I will now address the constitutional questions that arise from the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The second regulations to follow later this year will strengthen protections and put the issue of multiple-state ownership beyond doubt. As I explained earlier, the provisions on multiple-state ownership will be backdated to 13 March 2024 to ensure that there is no regulatory gap.
It is also important to recognise that existing sovereign wealth fund investments at any level made after March 2024 in a UK newspaper may trigger the Secretary of State’s requirement to intervene under the FSI regime. We are very concerned that a protracted delay in putting exceptions into place would prolong the uncertainty this creates for investors and the wider investment climate. I appreciate that the noble Lord’s amendment comes from concerns around the impact of the FSI regime on the British press. I have not come to the same conclusion that he has, and I will of course reflect very carefully on the points that he and other noble Lords make during this debate.
It is perfectly legitimate for your Lordships’ House to debate the fatal amendment before it today, but it is a very firm convention that the power to annul is not used. In this specific case, the FSI exception regulations have been expected since the passage of the digital markets Act last year. They have been subject to consultation and extensive parliamentary engagement and have now been approved in another place. This Government have come to a different conclusion to the previous Government on thresholds. Although the threshold is slightly higher, it is also simpler and supplemented by additional safeguards. I have set out our reasoned arguments for settling on 15%, including why we gave weight to the views of UK newspaper groups that are directly affected.
When noble Lords debate legislation, a small but significant phrase is sometimes heard: that Parliaments cannot bind their successors, and commitments made by one Government cannot bind any future Government. While the 5% and 10% split threshold was announced by the previous Government during the debate on the digital markets Bill as a possibility, and subsequently featured in the consultation, it was not a settled matter. It was left open at the time of the general election last year. It is both right and responsible for the Government to look at this afresh. However, we agreed that in some sensibly managed circumstances, an exception to the regime was reasonable. Our intention in doing so is to make a decision which protects press freedom from foreign state interference while not, in the words of one consultation respondent, creating a chilling effect on the investment the British press tells us it so badly needs.
To conclude, I urge Peers from all sides to look at these issues in the round. The Government believe these regulations provide the certainty that UK newspapers desperately need and have asked for. They will, in spite of suggestions to the contrary, guard against foreign state influence while allowing our news media to face the future with confidence. I hope noble Lords will accept the rationale I have presented to the House in support of this important package. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated for their contributions. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his closing remarks and for his graciousness and support. I have appreciated the conversations we have had. Like him, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I know this is the noble Lord’s last speech as leader of the Liberal Democrat group, but his incredible contribution to your Lordships’ House will continue.
I am going to start, perhaps unusually, by accepting the criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, which was echoed by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about how long it has taken us to bring this matter before your Lordships’ House. I think it was right to consider the matter carefully, but I appreciate that the criticism is fair. We have the chance to enact this now, however, and I believe your Lordships should support the Government’s effort to act on this point. There is, no doubt, disagreement on how we achieve our aim, but the underlying theme throughout this debate has been the fundamental importance that noble Lords attach to media freedom and the sustainability of our free press. I know this is key to all noble Lords’ responses to this matter. We need to make sure that our news media has a vibrant future and not just a proud past that we can look at in the bookcases outside the House of Lords Library. It is essential to our democracy.
As many noble Lords will be aware, the media public interest regime we have now came from the work by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, now retired from this place, and other noble Lords in 2003 to persuade the then Government that there needed to be an effective public interest regime covering cross-media mergers. It is that regime that we are strengthening today.
I am slightly surprised that noble Lords appear to think that it is inappropriate for the Government to take on board the views of newspapers or the views of those such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Wheatcroft, or the noble Lord, Lord Black, who have huge track records in journalism; we take their positions and points seriously. I appreciate, however, that the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, has taken a different view; I respect that as well.
At the heart of the debate today are the three statutory instruments before us, which, taken together, represent the most significant resetting of the media mergers regime since the Communications Act 2003. The regulations will broaden the scope of our media merger regimes, strengthen the public interest protections and, crucially, bring into effect a strong and practical regime to regulate against undue foreign state influence in UK newspapers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made specific reference to the Telegraph sale and foreign influence in that regard. The Government are committed to seeing the Telegraph thrive and want to see a sale that aligns with public interest considerations and the FSI regime. Thorough due diligence will be conducted on any advance bid to purchase the Telegraph. Should the Secretary of State have reasonable grounds to suspect that either the public interest or foreign state regimes are engaged, she would intervene.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that legislation is designed to facilitate RedBird’s ambition. The legislation banning foreign state control or influence over UK newspapers seeks to preserve the freedom of the press. This is not about any particular country. Just as the press is independent from the UK state, we do not want any foreign state owning or influencing our newspapers or news magazines.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also raised concerns about China and set out his views about the transactions. I cannot comment on the circumstances of any particular case. That is for the Secretary of State. It is why I was not able to provide the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with answers to the specific questions that he asked about a quasi-judicial matter before the Secretary of State.
The suggestions made contradict the clear steer given by the House during previous Oral Questions that this is an important matter and that the Government should put the exception in place at the earliest opportunity. Without exceptions in place, there cannot be investment from any investment organisation with any foreign sovereign wealth shareholding.
A large number of points have been made during the debate. I will briefly address those made specifically on the slightly less controversial regulations regarding expansion of the media mergers regime and online news. These did not get a huge amount of coverage but are, in our view, very significant.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised the exclusion of online intermediaries. At present, the Government are focusing on the reforms to the media ownership rules suggested in Ofcom’s 2021 review, which did not recommend that online intermediaries, including social media platforms such as Facebook or X, should fall within the scope of this regime. At this point, it is important to note that Secretary of State does have powers to intervene. However, if an online intermediary buys a media enterprise, the Secretary of State does not have powers to intervene if it is an online intermediary that is being bought; so that is a distinction. Ofcom has to date not recommended that online intermediaries be brought into scope of the media mergers regime but continues to keep it under consideration. We will continue to monitor developments and respond to recommendations from Ofcom and others in this area. I think the noble Lord is correct in relation to where people are increasingly getting their news from.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, and others asked why the new SI for multiple states is being introduced. Our policy intention has always been to prevent any foreign state influence over the affairs, activities and policies of UK newspapers and news periodicals. In theory, these could all be passive investors with no ability, at least on paper, to influence a newspaper’s policy but they could still collectively own the majority of the enterprise. Although the provisions prevent states acting in concert to secure control, the new SI will put matters beyond doubt.
The second draft SI also proposes a new requirement for direct state-owned investor investments of more than 5% to be notified to the Secretary of State as a condition of the exception. If the notification is not made, or is made late, the investment will be prohibited.
I will cover a number of other points made about the foreign state influence exception regulations now, as well as the fatal amendment in the name—
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
If the Minister is going to come back to it, I will happily sit down, but I asked her a question about those new notification requirements in the draft regulations yet to be made, and whether the Government would consider my recommendation that the Secretary of State be required to notify Parliament on a twice-yearly basis if she receives any such notifications, and about the actions that she has taken as a result. Is she able to give me a response to that?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is not in my speech, but I have an answer for the noble Baroness. We think that it is a reasonable suggestion. We need to work out how we can do that. There was a suggestion, for example, that it might require primary legislation. Obviously, that feels a little bit heavy-handed in terms of where we would want to get to. If the noble Baroness is content, I will come back to that. We think that it is a good point and it is worth doing, but I am not able to commit until we have clearer legal advice on how we could achieve that.
Going back to the other points, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords. I thank many noble Lords for the time that they have taken to meet me and the Secretary of State as well as officials. On the new regulations that we put out for consultation on 16 July, we have committed to change the legislation to eliminate entirely the risk that was identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and others, and to backdate this change to 13 March last year, which is the date on which the foreign state influence regime came into effect. I give noble Lords an absolute commitment that we will lay regulations in the autumn. I am not allowed to say that we will do it by the end of October; I am allowed to say that we will aim to do so by the end of October.
Some noble Lords queried the difference between sovereign wealth and government control. I want to be explicitly clear: for the avoidance of doubt, this is not state ownership. It is not about Governments owning or influencing our media. We do not want that to happen either. The term “state-owned investors” refers to a narrow group of organisations that will need to be different and distinct from the Government who sponsor them. Foreign Governments will not be allowed to hold a direct stake. Key is the requirement that they make or manage investments, including international investments, as their principal activity. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, that this is not necessarily about influence. I give way—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The Minister has just made an absolute commitment that “Foreign Governments will not be allowed”. That is what I understood her to say, so why does she not incorporate that in the regulations?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My understanding is that that is what the regulations would mean in effect. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I want to be explicitly clear that this is not going to allow foreign Governments to buy newspapers. This is about state-owned investors, which, as I made clear in my opening remarks, is a different matter.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
If that is what she thinks the regulations already say, she will not have a problem with making it explicit.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We have the regulations before us. I cannot be more explicit than I have already been.
To continue, investment by single or multiple state-owned investors will be capped at 15%. The regulations that we aim to bring in by the end of October will require a state-owned investor taking a direct holding of shares or voting rights of more than 5% to notify the Secretary of State of the transaction. This will enable her to quickly review any cases where there are suspicions that the shareholding may be more than a passive investment and to refer appropriate cases to the CMA for advice on whether a foreign state merger situation has emerged. This will be a condition of the state-owned investor exception. A failure to make this notification or making it late will mean that the investment in question is prohibited.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the redactions in the consultation responses and why they were not published earlier. I have already outlined my acceptance of the criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. DCMS has now published the responses. One organisation asked for its views not to be attributed and for some information to be redacted on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. The original consultation by the previous Government specified that responses would not be published and respondents would not be named. This Government’s current consultation makes it clear that they will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the Secretary of State’s role. The legislation requires that the Secretary of State must refer a merger to the CMA if she suspects a state-owned investor is not entitled to the exception or is not complying with this requirement. This should provide protection in the interim, and was why we did not think the original SI defective. The one in draft was published in response to concerns, not, in our view, to correct an error, although it puts everything beyond reasonable doubt and was a reasonable request.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the protections we have against hostile states trying to acquire influence or control. The FSI regime strengthens the Secretary of State’s powers and sits alongside her powers to intervene in a relevant merger situation on the basis of public interest concerns. These powers can be applicable in acquisitions involving state-owned investors within the threshold set by the draft regulation. Taken together, the existing legislation, draft regulations and second statutory instrument would allow the Government to act to guard against the kind of malign interference with UK democracy and press freedom about which noble Lords are concerned.
Additionally, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 can enable the Government to call in and, if necessary and proportionate, block, unwind or impose conditions on acquisitions of control over UK newspapers, including acquisitions that may give rise to national security concerns.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. As I recall from debates on that Bill, there was a huge annexe that listed all the things within the remit of the National Security and Investment Act, but I did not notice newspapers. Will the Government be bringing forward an amendment to that Act to include newspapers, as she has just suggested?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My understanding is that they already can, on the basis of the Act. I do not have the detail that the noble Lord has asked for, but I have been told definitively that that is an existing power within that Act. I can only commit to write to the noble Lord explaining where in the Act that comes.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested—the previous Government put this out for consultation—that the FSI threshold should be lower. We believe that the 15% cap we have arrived at is a more straightforward approach than the one consulted on. It strikes a careful balance, enabling newspapers and news magazines to receive investment from a wide range of sources, while ensuring that foreign states are not able to acquire control or influence over editorial and other decision-making through that investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked how things could be truly passive. The legislation would not permit state-owned investors to acquire rights to directly or indirectly appoint or remove directors or other officers of the company. Nor would it permit a state-owned investor acting on behalf of a foreign power to hold the right or ability to direct, control or influence, to any extent, the policy or activities of UK newspapers. Interference in a newspaper’s editorial policy or personnel decisions about senior staff or feature writers is not permitted. Even if a state-owned investor has 15% of the voting rights, it cannot actively use those voting rights in a way that influences the company’s policy or activities, such as editorial direction. The investment must be truly passive to be permitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the limited use of FSI. It is important to remember that this regime sits alongside the existing media public regime. This works in parallel so that the Secretary of State, as well as having to refer any case with reasonable grounds, can look at whether the transaction raises wider public interest concerns.
I repeat that it is important to give UK media and potential investors greater certainty about the overall regime. I appreciate that it has taken quite a long time to get here. Newspapers have been calling for this, and it will help end uncertainty and support the overall sustainability of the UK newspaper industry at a time when accurate news and public-interest journalism are more important than ever. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that there is an existential problem; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, when he says that, effectively, it is five minutes to midnight.
The power to make exceptions is included in the Enterprise Act 2002, following the amendments made in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. We looked at the issue of thresholds and came to a different conclusion from the previous Government. It is different, but arguably not radically different, given that their upper limit for diversified businesses was 10%. I know that is arguable, and I am not sure I will convince all noble Lords. I have, however, set out our arguments as to why we settled on 15% and why—in my view, reasonably—we gave weight to the views of UK newspaper groups, which are directly affected by the FSI regime.
The issue of the exception threshold was left open by the general election last year. It is both right and responsible for the Government to look at this afresh; indeed, I am sure we would have been criticised by some noble Lords had we simply ignored the consultation. Our intention in coming to a final view on the 15% threshold is to balance the need to protect press freedom from foreign state influence with not setting the threshold so tightly that it deters investment in newspapers.
The ongoing dialogue with noble Lords has demonstrated commitment across all parts of the House to guarding against malign influence on UK democracy and press freedom, an aim this Government share. However, while it is entirely appropriate for the House to discuss the fatal amendment today and to raise the concerns noble Lords have expressed, there is a strong convention against exercising the power to annul. We feel that, when we were in opposition, we respected this.
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that it is also the wrong thing to do in terms of policy. We have listened and we have agreed to make changes to put the issues noble Lords have raised beyond doubt. Above all, we will have a robust, effective and operable regime that limits foreign state involvement in UK newspapers while providing the sector with the certainty it needs as it plans for the future.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who made kind comments. It is good to be back and to participate in such an important and serious debate.
Just when I thought I was beginning to get to grips with what the Government are intending, the Minister introduced a whole new layer of ambiguity that is completely opaque. What is and is not permitted is not clear. Reading the SI and listening to the Minister, they are at odds, and this underlines why we should not be approving this measure.
This has thrown up many procedural arguments, which the Government confess to, and worrying aspects regarding the outcome of this measure. These problems and worries render a regret amendment, in my view, inadequate. That is why I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the Order laid before the House on 26 June be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 June be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Newspapers: Foreign Ownership
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as the author of email newsletters, which, in theory, may be subject to the legislation in question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The consultation on the foreign state influence regulations was published on 9 May 2024 by the previous Government. This made it clear that individual responses and organisation names would not be published, but their content would be summarised in the Government’s consultation response. This was published on 15 May 2025. Our assessment of the responses showed that respondents had a strong preference for a higher limit. On 14 July, we published the consultation responses, with appropriate redactions, following a number of FoI requests.
Lord Pack (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and for responding to the issue by publishing the responses. However, only four responses is a very small number, given the widespread interest in the issue and its importance. Although the Government have leaned heavily on the consultation in their explanations for their policy, three of the four responses were from parts of the newspaper sector that might be seeking foreign funds. Should the Government not be listening more widely to the many other voices concerned about potential foreign government ownership of our newspapers?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Although we received four responses to the consultation, they were quite detailed and technical. We have had quite a lot of discussions in your Lordships’ House about the future of media and the need to make sure that we get good funding sources in so that media groups can modernise. It is appropriate that the Government paid account to the media organisations, but, as the noble Lord will be aware, we settled on 15% because this is within the CMA’s views on where it might be appropriate to set things so that there is no inadvertent material influence.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, why are the Government inviting the House to vote for secondary legislation that they have now admitted is defective in so far as it allows foreign Governments to own 15% and several foreign Governments collectively to own an additional 15%? Although the Government may have tabled amending legislation today, which will have retrospective effect, what is the reason for the speed of this, and why are the Government using secondary legislation to reverse what was clearly understood before, which is that foreign Governments could not hold stakes in our newspapers and media interests? Now, they are allowing foreign Governments to do so, despite undertakings given when the primary legislation was passed that that would never be allowed.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the regulations and the exception, I want to be clear: this is a privilege, not a right. It is about passive investment, which is why the level has been set at 15%. The Government have published the second set of regulations today, to put it beyond doubt that multiple states cannot act in concert to take a stake in a UK newspaper that is bigger than 15%. The FSI regime gives the Secretary of State a specific duty to intervene and to refer to the CMA for investigation merger cases that she suspects may have resulted, or may result, in foreign state control or influence over a newspaper enterprise’s policy. So these safeguards are in addition to what we would already consider to be quite clear duties on the part of the Secretary of State.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we have all experienced the closure of local newspapers and radio stations—a worrying loss to local identity and politics—with those that remain generally having sought a future by being subsumed into a larger group. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, although foreign investment is not entirely free of risk and should not be seen as a quick fix, unless these foreign companies invest in the future of outlets we all care about, those outlets will continue to lack the certainty and security they seek?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Media organisations desperately need investment to secure their modernisation and their future. It is really important that these historic or local titles, which we all value, are not something of the past but something of the future. Supporting the provision of high-quality, public-interest journalism is a priority for this Government; we need serious investment in order to support this sector to thrive and to meet the challenges of the future.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note that the strategic defence review lists “efforts to manipulate information” among the methods of attack in any future security crisis. Clearly, the question of foreign influence by hostile states—or “unfriendly” states; they may not necessarily be entirely hostile—is a real issue that the MoD is flagging up as important. We have seen that, in many companies, 15% is enough to ask for a representative on the board. When the Minister says “passive investment”, is she implying that the investment will come without any attempt at all to intervene in the direction of the newspaper?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
If there were any attempt to intervene in the direction of the newspaper, the Secretary of State would, as I have mentioned, have a specific duty to intervene. We have followed the CMA guidance very closely; I ask your Lordships’ House to note that page 20 of the CMA’s jurisdiction and procedure guidance sets out how the CMA assesses whether material influence arises. Generally, the CMA views shareholdings of below 25% as
“less likely to confer material influence”,
but it may scrutinise shareholdings below this figure to consider whether there are factors that indicate material influence.
As I mentioned, though, we should all be explicitly clear that the foreign state influence regime gives the Secretary of State not just the ability to intervene but an explicit duty to do so: she must intervene and refer to the CMA for investigation merger cases that she suspects may have resulted, or may result, in foreign state control or influence over a newspaper enterprise’s policy.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, how on earth would the Secretary of State know whether a particular individual on a particular committee was influencing that newspaper?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State does not have to have all the evidence: it is for the CMA to investigate. The regime has a duty to intervene where she suspects that there may be influence. I am happy to provide further information to the noble and learned Baroness, or to meet her and others who have questions about this. The Secretary of State does not have to have material evidence; she just has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that this might be the case. If it were to be the case—for example, if a newspaper took a radically different position or there was a nuance change—it is likely she could intervene in that regard.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in terms of media ownership, has the Minister seen that Nigel Farage has increased his shareholding in GB News and apparently has not declared it in his House of Commons declaration of interests? He also presents a programme regularly on GB News which is becoming a Reform UK propaganda organisation. Yet Ofcom is doing nothing about it. Can the Minister’s department ask Ofcom to take an interest in it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I was not aware of the point that my noble friend raises. I will take that back to the department and write to him in due course.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the letter that she sent to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others who have an interest in this, ahead of this Question, drawing attention to the publication of the consultation documents. It is of course right that the UK has regulatory protections in place for important industries such as our news media, but does she agree that Governments and regulators must exercise those protections swiftly? Does she accept that long periods of delay and uncertainty harm business confidence and may deter investment from the sorts of people we do want to see investing in the UK?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes many points that sound entirely reasonable. We are clear that we need serious investment in our media and we hope that the certainty that these SIs will provide, albeit with considerable protections around them, will enable media groups to obtain that investment.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that a lot of our media and our press are controlled by the right wing? Do we not need a regulator that will start to protect the public from the propaganda that we see from the right-wing press on a daily basis?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would find it very difficult to disagree with my noble friend.
Parthenon Sculptures: Return
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to enable artefacts, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned to their country of origin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government have no plans to introduce legislation to permit artefacts, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned. National museums are prevented by legislation from de-accessioning objects unless, broadly, they are duplicates or unfit for retention. There are two exceptions: human remains less than 1,000 years old and Nazi-era looted objects. Partnerships and loans have been successfully used as a way for museums to share objects with other countries and museums.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, there is a case for amending the existing legislation in a narrow way to allow our national museums to return permanently certain artifacts to their country of origin on a case-by-case basis—none more so than the Parthenon sculptures, so that the frieze and other sculptures can be seen in a museum close to the original environment and, importantly, in as complete a state as possible, as this is the work of a single master builder, Phidias, and his workshop. Surely aesthetically, this is the right solution. Will the Government amend the legislation to allow this and other returns to happen?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I can only repeat to the noble Earl that the Government have no plans to change the law or introduce legislation to permit objects, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, this legislation is a throwback to the time when our national museums were little more than adjuncts of the Office of Works. As they gained their independence, the Government at the time quite rightly wanted to stop that. The trustees and leaders of our national museums have shown, admittedly with substantial government support over the years, that they are more than capable of running their own affairs. This legislation is well out of date. There is precedent. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art works extremely well in reviewing objects that are poised to leave the country and deciding whether they are part of our heritage. Surely setting up something like that to review contested objects would be a wonderful way to independently assess these very contentious issues.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that the British Museum operates independently of the Government, and so decisions relating to its collections are, within the law, a matter for its board of trustees. I know that the British Museum recognises the strength of feelings on this issue, and the museum is actively pursuing the possibility of a new partnership approach with Greece. I repeat that we as a Government do not have any plans to amend the law.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, I know the Minister thinks deeply about these issues. Will she please assure the House that the intention of the Government not to legislate in relation to the Elgin marbles does not extend to the modified bones—sometimes hideously so—of indigenous peoples, such as the Naga, held in our national collections like the British Museum? Will she ensure that the law is modified or clarified to make it clear that those items should be returned? Their retention is deeply offensive to indigenous peoples who lost their ancestors’ bones in the course of colonial wars and occupation and who now seek a decent return of their remains.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The majority of museums are able to deal with the restitution of human remains on a case-by-case basis. My noble friend will be aware that I am planning to have a meeting with my noble friend Lady Merron to discuss issues relating to the Human Tissue Act. There is human remains guidance for museums, issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2005, which covers the legal and ethical framework for the treatment of human remains. I understand the strength of feeling of my noble friend and I am happy to have a conversation with him to discuss this further.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in supporting the noble Earl’s plea to the Government to look at this issue, I draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that there are artefacts, such as the ap Huw manuscripts of Welsh music, that have been in the British Library for many years. They are of little interest to those coming to the British Library but would be of great interest in Wales. Would she consider writing to some of these institutions to see whether an arrangement can be reached to meet the very reasonable pleas that have been made in this House already?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The loan of documents, whether it is from the British Museum or the British Library, is routine. I am happy to raise this particular point with the British library, but it operates independently of the Government, so a decision on that would be for its trustees.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am glad the Minister has confirmed that the Government have no plans to change the law. She is right that we do not need any change in the law to allow our national museums to lend or borrow items with their partners around the world. Some of the Parthenon sculptures in the care of the British Museum have been loaned overseas before, and we were all delighted to hear that the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry, first discussed in 2018, is going ahead. Would the Minister agree that, for any loan to be consistent with the British Museum Act 1963 or with its open individual export licence, any borrowing party must acknowledge the museum’s ownership of those items and agree to return them at the end of the loan period?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Parthenon sculptures were lawfully acquired and are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum. By definition, any loan agreement acknowledges that. The requirement of a loan is that the item be returned and assurances as to the return would be provided.
Baroness Black of Strome (CB)
My Lords, in March, there was a short debate which addressed the sale of human remains at public auctions. Following yet another disrespectful online auction recently, what progress has been made since the debate on that matter? What are the Minister’s future plans for banning the sale of human remains?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Like the noble Baroness, I viewed the online footage of the sale of human remains that she referred to. It was incredibly shocking. Having met with my noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Baroness, I committed to convening a cross-departmental meeting with Ministers and officials to discuss the issue. I have spoken briefly to my noble friend Lady Merron about this. The meeting has been scheduled for immediately after the Summer Recess. I will be happy to report back to the noble Baroness then.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has been rolling out excuses for no action on the Parthenon sculptures that have been used by Ministers of all parties for the last 50 years, at least to my knowledge. The role of museums is changing and there is great capacity for what I would describe as museum diplomacy. Is she aware what a massive gain it would be for our relations with Greece if—where there is a will, there is a way—we were to be able to return the Parthenon statutes and work with Greece on a celebration of Greek sculpture and art at the British Museum? That is the way museums should be moving, not as receptacles of our imperial past.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The UK and Greece have a strong bilateral relationship, built on shared values and history, and we greatly value the friendship that exists between our peoples today. I would question the noble Lord’s definition of an excuse; it is a reason and a view, not an excuse.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer and all the subsequent answers. If there is an object of religious significance to its country of origin which is seen as a work of art in a museum here, is there not a case for amending or at least considering ways of adapting legislation? Although it is not the Government’s decision, a museum director is not completely free to make a decision if they are constrained by existing legislation which may have been made many years ago.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We do not have any current plans to change the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, talked about loans. In many cases these artefacts can be loaned, and we would support that. The Bayeux Tapestry has been mentioned, and we are very fortunate in this country to be able to borrow items from other countries. We get them on the basis that people know we are going to return them, even if we would like to keep them.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Baroness Twycross ExcerptsTuesday 15th July 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Act 2025 View all Football Governance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 July 2025 - large print - (8 Jul 2025)
Baroness Twycross
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this Motion I will also speak to Amendments 2 to 62.
I tried very hard to avoid the overuse of football metaphors or puns at the earlier stages of the Bill but, despite the Bill having left your Lordships’ House previously, I think we can say that we did think it was all over, and I sincerely hope, with your Lordships’ agreement, it almost is now.
Over the course of the passage of the Bill, we have heard concerns about the risk posed by the distributions mechanism outlined in the Bill. I thought that the original model had its merits. However, as I committed to do on Report and at Third Reading in your Lordships’ House, the Government have taken another look at the mechanism and in response have made a series of important amendments in the other place.
The Government are grateful for the careful and considered scrutiny from noble Lords across this House, which was invaluable in the development of this new model. I take this opportunity to again put on record my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his extensive and thoughtful work in providing such scrutiny. I know that he was sorry not to be able to be here in person today, but I also know that he will be well represented by his Cross-Bench colleagues. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for the expertise they have provided over the last few weeks.
The amendments we have made alter the distributions model through changes to Part 6, alongside supporting amendments to other clauses. These are primarily designed to change the mechanism from the previous binary choice mechanism to a new “staged regulator determination” model. This new model is designed to give more certainty to parties while ensuring that the backstop is designed to reach the best solution possible for all of football.
I will briefly explain how the amendments achieve this goal. First, the amendments introduce two new clauses. Clause 61 has been replaced with a completely redesigned proposal process. We have been clear that our strong preference is for the leagues to reach an independent distributions solution without the need for the backstop to be triggered.
Since the Bill was last before this House, the Government have announced David Kogan as our preferred candidate to chair the regulator. I know that David Kogan shares this view that the backstop should be triggered only as an absolute last resort, and our new proposal stage has been designed to incentivise that. If the backstop process is ever triggered, the regulator would invite the leagues to submit proposals detailing their solutions to the questions for resolution. The leagues would then submit their proposals to both the regulator and to each other. This will allow for more constructive negotiations, as the leagues will be more informed regarding each other’s position on core issues.
The leagues would also be able to submit revised proposals, ensuring both sides have the best chance possible to outline their position to the regulator, and, in turn, allowing the regulator the opportunity to request additional relevant information. This structure will ensure that the regulator is in the position to make the best possible evidence-based decision, while incentivising the leagues to make their own agreement.
We have replaced Clause 62 to introduce more flexibility for the regulator. Our new clause removes the binary choice for the regulator. Instead, it sets out how the regulator can create its own distribution order if, after all previous stages have concluded, the leagues still cannot strike a deal.
In the creation of this order, it can choose all of a league’s proposal or part of either or both proposals, or can propose unique solutions based on the evidence. The regulator would first have 60 days to create a provisional order. The regulator would share this provisional order with the leagues and invite representations, which it must consider before finalising the order. Any finalised order that it produces would have to take into account any relevant issues raised by the “state of the game” report, the evidence the regulator has gathered throughout the process, its engagement with the leagues and any proposals that they have submitted. Finally, under the new model, the regulator would be required to consult the FA before setting the questions for resolution, ensuring that the national governing body can now raise any views about the scope of the backstop process.
We are confident that the regulator, with its clear objective to promote sustainability and its duties to avoid adverse effects on growth and sporting competitiveness, would come to a balanced solution. I know that there is probably a slight variance with models that noble Lords view as ideal. However, I am confident that this new model is the right one, and I hope that noble Lords will support it as being substantially better than the original model that we debated earlier in the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House.
In addition to the changes to the backstop, we have also made some minor and technical changes to other parts of the Bill to aid the implementation and effectiveness of the regulatory regime and reduce the burden on the industry. I am happy to answer any questions noble Lords have on these changes. I hope that noble Lords understand and can support the changes that we have made in the other place. They have been arrived at after much careful consideration and conversation with noble Lords and the industry, and will ensure that the regulator can best deliver for fans. We believe the changes strengthen the Bill and will strengthen the regulatory model.
This Government promised in our manifesto to safeguard the future of our national game. In fact, as all noble Lords will be aware, the commitment to establish an independent football regulator was in the manifestos of all three main parties at the election a year ago. I hope that noble Lords will support this much- needed piece of legislation, which delivers on that commitment by protecting and promoting the sustainability of English football in the interests of fans and the local communities that football clubs serve. I beg to move.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments and for setting out the reasons behind them. On Report in March, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, introduced a series of amendments. These were aimed at addressing what he regarded as some weaknesses in the role of the independent football regulator in the distribution of funds between the various football bodies. I supported the amendments, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Unfortunately, neither the noble Lord, Lord Birt, nor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, can be here this evening, and I have been asked to respond jointly for our little group, in place of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is in his place, I am pleased to say, and I hope that we will hear from him in due course.
Throughout debate on this Bill, we have emphasised the uniqueness of this situation. Under the proposed legislation, a regulator could potentially make decisions to transfer income from one regulated body to another. Moreover, both bodies are part of the same football family and they must coexist. Many clubs could find themselves moving between the Premier League and the English Football League. We argued that the arrangements should take these factors into account, including the objective of the overall success of the football pyramid.
We are very grateful to the Minister for the time that she has spent on this since then. Subsequently, the Government have brought forward their own amendments, which were agreed by the Commons and now come to this House today. I think I can say that as a group we support these amendments. While they are not entirely as we hoped, they address many of the concerns we had with the original Bill and go some way towards meeting the tests that are involved.
The most significant change is the fundamental re-engineering of the backstop process. This removes the Russian roulette binary mechanism, where an expert panel would have chosen between the final offers of the two parties, without the option of finding middle ground. Instead, the regulator now has the driving seat in both the negotiation and the determination process. The amendments strengthen the role of the “state of the game” report and modify the principles and criteria to explicitly refer to the regulator’s duties as well as its objectives. While it does not go as far as we hoped, it is an improvement and it means that, if the regulator is called on to decide, it will consider domestic and international competitiveness, growth and investment in the industry. I think that is a significant step forward.
We are confident that David Kogan, the preferred candidate to be chair of the IFR, will be able to make these arrangements work. He has exceptional football knowledge and expertise. Following the publication of the “state of the game” report, we hope that the regulator will set out its views about the most significant challenges that are faced by the leagues covered by this process. At the same time, we hope that the regulator will set out the criteria that it will apply in determining the appropriate funds flow down the pyramid. Overall, I am satisfied that this leaves us in a much better position than when we last discussed the Bill, and we support the amendments.
Lord Markham (Con)
I too start by declaring my interest as a Chelsea season ticket holder, and while I will not speak too long about Chelsea’s Club World Cup success, I will note that three of the four big European and world tournaments were won by English clubs—I can even say that half of them were won by Chelsea. We can see that we currently have a very successful game. Also, four of the starting 11 were English players and one, Cole Palmer, was the player of the tournament and even had President Trump celebrating alongside him. If only we could teach him to do the Palmer rub, we would really be there.
So we start off in a good position, and I have to add my thanks to the Minister. I think she took some political risk in bringing back amendments to the Lords when everything had obviously passed here already, and opening this up to possible further challenges and ping-pongs. She did that because she thought it would make this a better Bill, and I support everything she was trying to do and the intentions behind that, because I think it has made it a better Bill. While I agree with both my noble friends, the two Lords Moynihan, that there are dangers in the introduction of a regulator, and with my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Maude that we need to ensure that it is a light-touch regulator, this is an improvement—but there are dangers still out there. I think we all remember the long conversations we had about the risk of UEFA, and we need only to look at the last few days, with the demotion of Crystal Palace, to see that we have to be sure that we are not doing anything here that falls foul of UEFA.
The Minister was at pains to confirm that UEFA was on board with the last version of the Bill. What we see now is, of course, quite a different version in terms of the backstop. It is a better version, particularly with the removal of what we all thought was a fairly crazy pendulum mechanism. However, it allowed the Government to say at the time, keeping to one of the UEFA golden rules or red lines, that a decision has to be a football decision. In the past, it can be said of the pendulum that it was either an FAPL or an English Football League solution. Now that the regulator is able to negotiate to find its own solution, which is very sensible measure that I support, UEFA could argue that we are now imposing a potential government solution. It is the right approach to take, but has the Minister sought similar assurances from UEFA that this new backstop does not fall foul of some of its red lines, and that it is as comfortable with this new version as it was with the old version?
That said, this is a better version, and I thank the fab four Cross-Benchers for bringing together this solution. I am sorry that both the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, are not in their usual places to take their laps of honour. It is a sensible amendment which tries to lead to a negotiated outcome with compromise, rather than the arbitrary pendulum mechanism.
At the same time, it is very sensible—and I know David Kogan was very involved in this—that the regulated board are now responsible for the decision, with the removal of the expert panel, and they are willing to be accountable for that decision. I have known David Kogan for some 15 years and, like others, I truly believe that we have a real expert with deep knowledge of the game and sports rights; he is a valuable addition. As so many of these issues are judgment calls, I feel much better knowing that we have David Kogan’s judgment. We all have to accept that the appointment process was perhaps a bit unfortunate. Can the Minister say where we are with the investigation, and when can we expect an outcome? Obviously, we would all like to get him on board as quickly as possible.
I conclude by thanking the ministerial team, the Bill team and all noble Lords for their work during what has been a long, thoughtful, informative and good process, which has ultimately improved the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for a constructive and good-natured debate on the amendments made in the other place and for their very kind comments, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, recognising why I took the risk to bring the Bill back, which was to ensure that we get a better Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, including the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for their support for changing the backstop mechanism. I am grateful too for the support for, and confidence across your Lordships’ House in, the Government’s preferred candidate.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right that we need to see the regulator as taking a light-touch approach, and I am grateful to all those involved in helping us get this over the line in a much more match-fit state than it left us. I note the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Moynihan and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. I will send a transcript of the debate to the chair designate, although I am confident that he is following the debate and is already aware of the need—and their call—to tread lightly.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, asked how we would incorporate evidence from the “state of the game” report. Under the amended model, it would be explicit that the regulator must use the “state of the game” as the basis for its decision. The regulator must explain in its notice how its solution addresses the evidence from the “state of the game” report. Leagues must also submit supporting evidence alongside their proposals, which the regulator must take into account. The regulator can request additional evidence as well as gathering its own information to ensure it has a wide evidence base for making a decision. This is a more evidence-based and data-driven process than before. We are also proposing an extension of the final proposal stage to allow for more time for the regulator to come to a considered solution based on evidence.
The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham, asked whether UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands. As noble Lords will know and as I have stated previously, UEFA has written to confirm that it is content with the Bill and the FA has confirmed it. Its issues were with the previous Government’s version of the Bill and requiring the regulator to have regard to the Government’s foreign policy, something we have removed and something your Lordships’ House clearly debated at some length.
Past examples of Italy and Spain legislating in relation to football broadcasting without facing repercussions from UEFA should offer reassurance. Italy in 2008 and Spain in 2015 legislated setting out how TV rights are to be sold and how the revenues are to be distributed. Neither association has faced consequences from UEFA. I will return to exactly where we are with the process a bit later.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I do not want to prolong this at all except to just place on the record that both the examples the Minister has given us are totally different and in fact reflected the model that the Premier League had in place, which was effectively a non-legislative agreement. Just for the record, we need to be clear that the very short legislation introduced in both those countries did not bear any resemblance whatever to the substantive Bill before us.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Appreciating the noble Lord’s point, I can confirm that UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands.
I am going to return to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, on where exactly we are with the chair’s appointment. The lines I have in my pack do not entirely reflect his question, so I will try to answer it rather than just use the line in the pack.
In closing, I thank several noble Lords who have been involved throughout the passage of the Bill. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, who was not able to be here today, and my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Grantchester. I also thank a number of Labour Back-Benchers who have been really restrained at various points in what has been a very long process, by rationing their contributions to try to get the Bill to move forward. As noble Lords are aware, most noble Lords—probably with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Addington—are absolutely passionate about the game, so to not contribute as much as they wanted was quite painful for a number of them.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds for the excellent job she has done in supporting me, which continues now, and officials whose patience has been outstanding, and I was pleased that this was noted by noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House. They have worked with me, the Minister for Sport, the Secretary of State, stakeholders and many noble Lords to redesign the backstop over the past few months.
I also thank the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham. It is always a pleasure to face them across the Dispatch Box—occasionally, I might have wished it was slightly less late into the night. I particularly thank noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Goddard of Stockport, not least for their good humour and constructive approach to raising and resolving their concerns, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who took the time in his contribution today to focus on the fact that this is about how football speaks to local communities—that is at the heart of why the Government have pursued this.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords on the Cross Benches, particularly the A-team of the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Pannick and Lord Burns, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. They raised issues that made us pause to consider. I was sorry we were not able to bring back amendments before we got to Third Reading, and I hope noble Lords understand why this was. We are keen now to make sure that the football regulator can get on with the job.
Baroness Twycross
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 62.
Artificial Intelligence: News Media
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Trustworthy journalism plays a vital role in our democracy. Rapid recent developments in generative AI pose both significant risks and opportunities for news media. We are engaging with press stakeholders on this. The Media Minister and the Technology Secretary each held roundtables earlier this year with publishers and broadcasters to discuss the issues around AI in journalism. The Government will support our news media to capitalise on the huge potential benefits of the technology while mitigating its risks.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, AI poses an existential threat to independent media because of the way it scrapes their high-quality content without either attribution or payment to those who created it, which is an act of theft directly threatening the provision of quality news and the jobs of thousands of reporters. Is the Minister aware that research by market leader Cloudflare shows that, for example, for every 73,000 pages of content scraped by Anthropic’s AI crawlers from news providers, there is just one single referral back to publishers’ websites? Does she realise that without this vital traffic, publishers cannot sell advertising or subscriptions, and their businesses become unsustainable? The free press cannot wait years for copyright reform because there is nothing left to protect. We were promised immediate action on this issue when the data Act went through; when will we get some of it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone. All our work is around protecting existing rights for creators and the press and ensuring that AI creates new revenue streams for them. We are carefully reviewing all the responses to our consultation to ensure that any proposals taken forward properly support both the AI and creative sectors, including the media.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Will the Minister undertake to view the opening session of the new inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, held last Wednesday, into human rights and artificial intelligence? In particular, will she look at the evidence of Professor David Leslie, the director of the Alan Turing Institute, who was very clear that this cannot be dealt with unless there is transnational co-operation? He drew attention to the Council of Europe document, published last September, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory but has not yet ratified. Can the Minister tell us when we will do so?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will need to get back to the noble Lord on the second point. On the first point, I am more than happy to watch the session to which he refers. As noble Lords are aware, we have a number of late sitting days, so I will make sure I use at least one of the evenings to watch what sounds like a really interesting evidence session.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, during the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Government asked repeatedly that Parliament trust that they had the interest of UK copyright holders front and centre. So can the Minister explain why the UK Government have now signed a memorandum of understanding with Canadian AI firm Cohere, when Cohere is facing legal action from 13 news media copyright holders, including the Guardian, Forbes and the Atlantic? Does she not agree that the Government might better earn Parliament’s trust if, instead of rewarding with opportunities AI companies which infringe copyright, they limited those opportunities and future Government contracts to companies that lawfully license inputs?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I said, we want to, and need to, make sure we get this right for everyone. I am happy to have a conversation with the noble Baroness about the issue she raises.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the way the Government have approached AI and how they are dealing with different stakeholders, especially in the media. There is challenge regarding how the data is produced, but in its editorial guidelines our national broadcaster says that AI is part of the process in informing insight analysis, but not the production process. Are the Government looking at how the BBC and other broadcasters and content providers are adopting their policies to AI?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The BBC did a recent study on the use of AI and has done a quite a lot of work on, for example, the accuracy of chatbots. It is very well placed to get that real sense of how appropriate it is to use it. We want people to use best practice, and we are clear that AI offers the most powerful lever we have for national renewal, but we need to get the balance right, as I and other ministerial colleagues have said before.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the risks in AI of the impersonation of human reporting. A number of jurisdictions are experimenting with and exploring the watermarking of AI content, so that it is clear what is produced artificially and what is produced by people. The former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says in an article in the Times today that he is very sceptical of that approach. There is a counter-comment from Professor Michael Wooldridge of Oxford University commending it. Do the Government have a view on watermarking, and are their plans to introduce such legislation in the forthcoming AI Bill?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Without having read the article or looked into it in detail, I am hesitant to give a response, other than to say that we need to make sure that we get AI use up to an accurate level. Ultimately, in terms of news reporting, we are also very clear that the original source—the newspapers—need the revenue they get from people going through their pages for advertising, for example. I am happy to write to the right reverend Prelate on that point.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee on Communications and Digital, under the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley. I am as keen to see trustworthy journalism as are the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Black, but before we all go marching shoulder to shoulder, I wonder if we can look at some of the behaviour. For example, in today’s Daily Mail and MailOnline, there are several articles of a highly personalised nature about the Chancellor. I will give noble Lords a flavour.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Lord sit down, because he has asked his question?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure there was a question there, but I note the noble Lord’s comments.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, earlier this year, 61 countries, including France, China, India, Japan, Australia and Canada, signed the landmark Paris AI declaration, led by President Macron, the remit of which was to ensure AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy. So why did this Government refuse to sign it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Earl clearly raises some important points. We genuinely want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone. All our work so far has been on protecting existing rights. In that context, I am happy to write to the noble Earl on that question.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, further to the points made by the noble Lord opposite, does my noble friend agree that misogyny in any shape or form, including in our newspapers or the media, is unacceptable?
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister keeps saying that the Government want to get this right—and of course, who could argue with that—but does she agree that in the broader sense, there are two fundamental tenets that we should be aware of? The first is that AI cannot be uninvented. The second is that it is developing extremely rapidly, so action to keep it under some sort of control has to be taken rapidly. Getting it right too late will not be the answer.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree that getting it right too late would be an issue, but we need to work through all the consultation responses properly. In preparation for this, I asked officials how fast they could do it, and they pointed out that it would not necessarily be appropriate for them to use AI to go through over 11,000 submissions. In addition to going through the submissions, we have announced plans to convene two working groups over the summer to look at transparency and technical tools, as well as a parliamentary group to engage Members as policy is developed. We will be reaching out to key contacts in the AI and creative sectors, including news media, to identify a mix of attendees as we work through our policy in this area.
Arts Sector
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the value of the subsidised arts sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government strongly believe in the benefits of publicly funded arts. The arts are vital to the UK’s economy and our well-being and fundamental to our cohesion as a society and our national story, fostering pride and earning global recognition. A recent report for the Arts Council by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that its national portfolio alone accounted for 7% of the gross value added of the sector, equivalent to £1.35 billion.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, at its best, the ecosystem of the arts and creative industries is a dynamic combination of the non-commercial and commercial, a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, in her excellent maiden speech last week. Does the Minister agree that there would be no Steve McQueen, the commercially successful director, without the experimental visual artist supported through the Arts Council by the DCMS? The sectoral plan is a plan principally for the already commercialised creative industries; it is not a plan for the subsidised arts. Is there a plan for the arts and, if so, when will that happen?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Everything we do at DCMS centres around this point, if you look at the work that Arts Council England does in terms of the huge spend on its programmes. I am happy to have a longer conversation with the noble Earl, but the Arts Council England review will look at the whole piece, and the conclusions of the review and the Government’s response will be published next year.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, public subsidy extends beyond public arts venues. Indeed, at the height of the Covid pandemic, £900,000 of public money was paid to support Glastonbury. In that context, does the Minister agree with me that the scenes that we saw from Glastonbury this weekend were absolutely disgraceful? Does she further agree that the BBC must explain its decision to broadcast live and uninterrupted an antisemitic diatribe, a decision for which there must be not only an explanation but personal—not just institutional—responsibility?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My right honourable friend the Culture Secretary will be providing a full Statement in the other place on this matter today. The BBC has issued a statement acknowledging that it should have pulled the stream during the performance and regrets that this did not happen. I share the noble Lord’s sentiments. I found the whole thing appalling—and terrifying, to be honest, that this could happen in our country. Avon and Somerset Police has already confirmed that it is looking into what happened.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Lowry in Salford, which has a successful public-private mixed economy model, as mentioned by the noble Earl, but this depends on our relationship with subsidised national organisations. The National Theatre’s “Dear England” is currently being performed across our stages thanks to that. We are lucky. Recent cuts to London-based national organisations have led across the board to the reduction, indeed jettisoning, of touring. Does the Minister recognise that the creative industries growth plan must focus on collaboration, and that both regional and national organisations must be properly funded for this to continue to be so rich?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State is clear that, when she talks about “arts everywhere”, this genuinely means that every part of the country should have access to arts and theatre not just here in London but around the country. I can reassure the noble Baroness that this principle is at the heart of our plans.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with me that, when we audit the arts in simply economic terms, we undervalue them hugely? The value of the arts goes so much towards our social capital, our social well-being and our cultural health. Is the DCMS preparing an audit that will enable us to see this in its full dimension, so that when we do get a coherent arts policy, we will be able to judge how it impacts on the community, on individuals and on social health and well-being?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. Participation in publicly funded arts programmes is associated with improved mental health and well-being, as well as the impact on social capital and social cohesion to which my noble friend pointed. Research already commissioned by DCMS reveals that cultural engagement contributes approximately £8 billion annually in health and well-being benefits. Engagement with the arts shows improved quality of life, reduced use of health and social care services, and increased productivity. It has a huge public benefit—one that we seek to protect.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has rightly highlighted the multiple benefits of investment in arts and culture, but is she aware of the role that arts and cultural organisations play in the wider economy, both as a generator of product innovations that are then adopted for mainstream use, and, indeed, through the demands that artists make on tech firms to create new products that will deliver their artistic vision? The recent sector plan, as we have heard, understandably exploits the commercial elements of the creative industries. Can the Minister say what work is under way to better understand and leverage the value of the arts and cultural sector in driving innovation and, therefore, financial value across the wider UK economy?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Research shows that, where young people explore creative subjects, their overall attainment improves. The same is the case throughout people’s lives—creativity is so important. For us in DCMS, it was hugely exciting to have the creative industries recognised as part of the industrial strategy. As part of the creative ecosystem, the sector will benefit from the cross-cutting measures in the sector plan and industrial strategy, including greater access to finance. Over the spending review period, DCMS is committing significant funding to safeguard and modernise much-loved arts and cultural institutions across England as part of this creative ecosystem.
Lord Swire (Con)
Can the Minister explain the logic and the Government’s thinking whereby a British tourist trying to visit a museum such as the Prado, the Uffizi or the Louvre has to pay to go and see those collections, whereas foreign visitors here do not have to do that to see our national collections, which are hard pressed for funding?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The introduction of universal free admission to national museums and galleries was a landmark policy of the previous Labour Government that we are really proud of and do not currently have any plans to change. These museums attract huge numbers of both national and international visitors, which supports jobs and investment across the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that small provincial theatres, such as the Blackpool Grand Theatre, the Burnley Youth Theatre and the Dukes Theatre in Lancaster, make a substantial contribution to education and community cohesion and should be viewed as good candidates for continuing public support through the Arts Council?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not the person who makes the Arts Council’s decisions, but I assure the noble Lord that one of the key things that my noble friend Lady Hodge—who is undertaking the Arts Council England review—is examining is whether the regions have access to high-quality arts and culture and whether everyone is able to participate in and consume culture and creativity.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
Will the Government take the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, that the state is not the only source of money? Will they take the advice of the chairman of Arts Council England to follow France in offering incremental tax breaks to businesses that sponsor arts organisations, and thereby help alleviate the funding pressures that the sector is currently facing?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
DCMS is not suggesting that there should be one source of funding and that the arts’ only source of funding should be public funding—a mixed economy is really important. DCMS in particular is committed to championing philanthropy, which has a rich tradition in our country. It is key across the DCMS sector, supporting our most beloved institutions, such as our museums, heritage sites and performing arts venues.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl’s Question asks an even bigger question. Given the country’s requirement to encourage growth, surely we should invest in the arts much more than we do at the moment. Compared with our European partners and other nationalities, we are doing extremely badly in how we support the arts.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
DCMS has secured £8.2 billion over the next spending review, and we will invest almost £3 billion in capital funding over the next four years—that is an additional £371 million compared with the previous Government’s final year allocation. I appreciate that my noble friend may have a different view but, in our view, this settlement represents a positive outcome for DCMS and the sectors we represent in a really challenging economic context, with increased investment in the creative industries and maintaining a significant capital uplift.
Live Music Industry: Support
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government engage regularly with the live music sector on our shared goal of a sustainable grass-roots music ecosystem and to maximise opportunities for growth. Today we have published our Creative Industries Sector Plan as part of the industrial strategy, including up to £30 million for music. Ministers have recently convened two round tables with the live music industry to drive progress on the industry-led ticket levy, in addition to a round table on improving ticket resale and combating touts.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. This week, 200,000 people will gather at the world’s greatest live music event, but Glastonbury is simply the apex of the great pyramid of the UK’s live and electronic music sector, which generates over £6 billion for our economy and brings immeasurable pleasure to millions. The base of that pyramid is in danger of crumbling without due care and attention, so the Commons Culture Committee has asked me to head a fan-led review of live music in the coming months. Will my noble friend the Minister commit our Government to engaging seriously with the findings of that review and doing their bit to support our world-beating live music sector?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I cannot think of anyone better than my noble friend to carry out this work. We welcome the launch of Parliament’s fan-led review of the live music industry and look forward to considering its findings. From the industry’s own recent fan-led review, we know that fans are deeply invested in supporting live music, particularly local artists and independent venues, but rising financial pressures, dynamic pricing concerns and the closure of beloved venues threaten long-term sustainability. We recognise those same challenges, which is why today, as I mentioned previously, we have announced a major investment to drive growth in the UK music industry.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, will the Government, particularly in the light of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, ensure that existing music venues are fully protected in areas that face redevelopment? If the agent of change principle were to be incorporated by government into primary legislation, that would be very welcome.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that new developments should be able to be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities such as music venues. Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. We want to enable new developments such as housing to coexist with culture and infrastructure such as music venues.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us some undertaking that the Government will look at well-being and things such as mental health that go with participation in live music, particularly at accessible events? If we lose sight of that linkage, we are losing much of the benefit.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My own health is considerably enhanced by being able to attend events. From a government perspective, it is key that all children have the chance to realise their musical talent and that music events are open to all. That is why the Government are working with Young Sounds UK on a four-year music opportunities pilot to break down barriers to music education for disadvantaged students.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The noble Earl made an excellent point about the agent of change. The ad hoc committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003, which I had the honour to chair, made a specific recommendation that the agent of change should be enshrined in law. Without that, real pressure is put on existing music venues, which suffered terribly, along with the hospitality sector more generally, during Covid. Will the Minister look favourably on enshrining the agent of change into law to ensure a vibrant future for existing music venues?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are committed to developing a truly plan-led system with a policy framework that is accessible and understandable to all. To that end, we intend to consult on a set of national policies for decision-making later this year. As I mentioned in a previous response, we want to enable new developments such as housing to co-exist with cultural infrastructure such as music venues. I understand the frustration behind the noble Baroness’s question.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
The Minister’s response is very welcome. Although the agent of change principle was introduced—I played some part in that in my role in the other place—local councils still do not seem to be getting the message. Does she accept that the money in music these days is in venues and events and therefore that people need to be able to learn their trade in small venues? Otherwise, our enormously successful music industry will not maintain its position. Nobody starts by playing at The O2; they start in local venues. Can we get that message through to local authorities?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I think that many local authorities recognise the significance of grass-roots music venues, not least as a way of attracting people to live in their areas. The Government are also of the view of my noble friend that supporting grass-roots music is vital. To that end, we are providing £2.5 million for Arts Council England’s Supporting Grassroots Music fund for the coming year.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, one way in which the next generation of talent develops its skills and craft is through international touring, which has been so important in building fan bases and growing skills. The mention of artists touring in the post-Brexit UK-EU summit was very welcome, but it is not clear what next steps are being taken to resolve the absence of touring arrangements in the post-Brexit agreements.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct that it is a positive sign that it was mentioned in the announcement following the UK-EU summit on 19 May. Both the UK and the European Commission are committed to supporting travel and cultural exchange, including the activities of touring artists. We are continuing to engage constructively with the European Commission to address the challenges that touring artists and their support staff face, while respecting regulatory frameworks on both sides. My colleague, Sir Chris Bryant, has held a number of bilateral meetings with other countries and the Commission to try to move this forward.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
Given that music has disappeared from many state schools, what are the Government doing to bring music back, particularly to primary and secondary school children?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that every child has access to quality creative education, including music. As noble Lords will be aware, we launched an independent curriculum and assessment review, which seeks to deliver a broader curriculum so that young people do not miss out on music and the arts. The Government are also working with Young Sounds UK on a four-year music opportunities pilot to break down barriers to music education for disadvantaged and SEND students.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the sector plan which the Minister mentioned today. As that recognises on page 50:
“Grassroots venues are struggling to break even”,
why are the Government making their job even harder with their changes to business rates and national insurance contributions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the business rates question, I will throw back to the noble Lord this Government’s fiscal inheritance. We recognise that grass-roots venues have faced a challenging set of circumstances in recent years, and that is why we are committed to working with industry to maximise the uptake and impact of the voluntary ticket levy.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for allowing me again to draw attention to the fact that the department has today published its Creative Industries Sector Plan. That identifies the music industry and other parts of the cultural sector as a high-growth subsector and sets out the actions from the Government and industry to drive music sector growth. As a number of noble Lords have highlighted, this has to include action on grass-roots music, which is the platform on which so many people start their careers.
Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 May be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 June.