Arts and Creative Industries: Social Mobility

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to improve social mobility for careers in the arts and creative industries.

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

My Lords, making creative careers accessible for everyone is a key priority for the Government. I agree wholeheartedly with the premise of the Question that there is an issue for us to address. That is why our refreshed £9 million creative careers service will focus on supporting priority areas where young people face the greatest barriers to accessing creative opportunities. It is also why last month we announced new funding for the King’s Trust to support direct routes for underrepresented groups into jobs, education and training in the sector.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the Sutton Trust finds that there are barriers to young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds at every stage of the creative industries pipeline—in schools, higher education and job opportunities. Does the Minister agree that the continuing loss of arts courses in higher education, from the loss of the prestigious undergraduate drama course at the Bristol Old Vic to the suspension of music courses at Nottingham University, does not sit well with the Government’s intent to improve arts education in state schools and increase social mobility in the creative industries?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

High-quality arts education cannot be for the privileged few. To provide certainty over future funding, we are increasing tuition fee caps by forecast inflation next year and the year after. Alongside this, we continue to invest in creative arts through the strategic priorities grant, which includes support for world-leading creative institutions. We will also revitalise arts education in schools through a reformed curriculum and support for teachers.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the millions of pounds of investment announced by Cardiff-based company Bad Wolf at the summit in Newport will create thousands of creative industry jobs and support local business and talent development? The projects will include investment in trainee placements and work shadowing opportunities, which is a great example of social mobility in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I recognise what an important role my noble friend has had in inspiring young people to take up creative careers through her role and career as a teacher. We welcome the £2 million investment committed by Bad Wolf at the Wales Investment Summit last week, which is set to bring £30 million to the Welsh economy. Bad Wolf is a UK success story, having created thousands of jobs in Wales, and a key driver of the success of the Cardiff creative cluster, one of the largest film and TV hubs in the UK. It is really great to see that this investment will further grow this thriving cluster.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, to follow up on what the noble Baroness said, increasing the take-up of apprenticeships could help the many with aspiration and aptitude, but no financial net, to get into the creative industries. As the Minister is aware, the present apprenticeship system does not fit well with the sector, given the prominence of SMEs and freelancers. Can she give us an update on reform in this area? How is her department progressing with Skills England to consider industry proposals on how a reformed growth and skills levy could better work with this industry?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are working with the DWP and Skills England to refine and develop the growth and skills offer to deliver apprenticeships and skills training that recognise the particular needs of the creative industries. We will introduce short courses in areas such as digital, artificial intelligence and engineering to support industrial strategy sectors such as the creative industries from April 2026. The first wave of these courses will be called apprenticeship units.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that one of the ways we support young people to enter careers in the creative industries is through the music and dance scheme, but that scheme has not been reviewed since 2011. The eight schools that participate, ranging from the Royal Ballet School to the Purcell School and others, are on their knees for multiyear funding and some sort of increase on 2011. What can the Minister do to support these very important training institutions that will produce the Billy Elliots, the Nicola Benedettis and the wonderful artists in the creative industries of the future?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss this. I agree that those schools have an incredible record in this area. We are reforming the area of post-16 training pathways generally to make options simpler, clearer and better aligned to student needs and employer demand. We want to make sure that we preserve the best and increase opportunities by opening those up through our work. My noble friend Lady Smith, who is sitting beside me, is working to open up the skills area across the piece.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, a recent survey by BECTU, the broadcasting union, found that 49% of new entrants to the creative industries have been pressurised to take on unpaid work, often in the form of unpaid internships. Can the Minister tell the House whether the new fair work agency will be tasked with enforcing minimum wage legislation against unpaid internships and ensuring that internships are genuine learning experiences?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Noble Lords will be aware that unpaid internships are already largely banned. The law is clear that if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage, and anybody eligible must be paid accordingly. The Government published a call for evidence on unpaid internships, which closed recently, and our response is due to be published in early 2026. I am happy to meet the noble Viscount to discuss this and other issues raised in the excellent report by BECTU; I will also draw his attention to the response on unpaid internships when it is published.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, music hubs play a key role in teaching music in state schools, so they play a key role in social mobility for the careers in music, stage, film and theatre that we are talking about. The management of music hubs is the subject of a tender that was due to be placed currently but has now been postponed until the new year. I know this is causing concern, so can my noble friend the Minister talk to our noble friend Lady Smith, who is sitting next to her, to ensure that the tender and the setting up of the national centre for arts and music education go ahead as planned?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are making good progress on the national centre for arts and music education, which will lead the music hubs programme from September next year. As my noble friend rightly identifies, this is a DfE programme, so I will offer to write to her with the details she asks for.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, alongside internships, work experience programmes are a very effective gateway for young people who are considering a career in the creative industries. Will the Minister ensure that all taxpayer-funded creative organisations offer a fair and transparent work experience programme that is widely advertised and available to all, whatever their background?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

One of the key barriers to social mobility is opportunity. We are keen for those programmes not to be overly informal because, as soon as they are, they become very dependent on networks and exclusive entry routes. We are clear that we need to make sure that the roles filled through personal networks, including work experience, are open to everyone. This is an issue that the Minister of State in DCMS is keen to explore further, but I will write to the noble Baroness with specific details.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, a recent study by the Association for Art History and the Courtauld Institute of Art showed that just 17 state schools offer history of art at A-level, and only two of them are north of Nottingham. The subject is important not just for those who might become the curators and museum directors of the future but for a generation that will need to distinguish fact from fiction in an age of AI and deepfake images. What are the Government doing to make sure that everybody, no matter who they are, where they live or what their parents did, is able to enjoy this part of our shared cultural inheritance?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord opposite that it is important that people get the opportunity to study art history. I raised this with a sector organisation this morning. That organisation was very clear that, although it is concerned about the geographical distribution of art history, there are so many more routes in. It was keen for us to make sure that people know about the opportunities that exist within the sector, because if people do not know about the opportunities that exist, how do they get those jobs? I am keen to explore this, both with my noble friend and with others, but, beyond that, there is a basic question about how we make sure that, in primary schools, children of all abilities and interests get to know about the hugely exciting range of opportunities that exist within the creative industries and sector as a starting point for what they might study later.

Draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control”

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, my life would be truly boring without the chance to talk about football in your Lordships’ House, so I am very pleased to have the opportunity to provide clarity on the draft statutory guidance on the meaning of “significant influence or control” in the context of the Football Governance Act 2025, guidance that was laid before both Houses of Parliament on 27 October 2025. I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny provided on this draft statutory guidance. The committee did not draw the guidance to the special attention of the House and no objections were raised in the other place.

It is always a pleasure to debate issues relating to football regulation with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. However, I cannot help but share my surprise and regret that he felt the need to do this by tabling a fatal Motion against the guidance. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt that this feels like a disproportionate approach. I am also tempted to agree with my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is attempting to rerun the debates we held over the past year. I regret this not least because I sent the draft guidance to the noble Lord myself and offered to meet to discuss the guidance in a letter sent to him, and a number of other Peers with a known interest, over a month ago, an opportunity I also offered to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Notwithstanding this, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised no concerns directly to me or my team before this evening’s debate—not when he received my letter, nor even when the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported on this guidance on 13 November. I am a little confused about the noble Lord’s quoting of the Minister for Sport, as beyond her Written Ministerial Statement, this has not been discussed or had concerns raised about it in the other place. I am grateful, however, for the opportunity to stress how vital this legislation is in delivering for fans.

The implementation of this regime, which prioritises the protection of clubs from unsuitable owners and financial distress, and the interests of fans nationally, is a priority for this Government. That is why, during our lengthy discussions on and scrutiny of the primary legislation, the Government committed to producing this guidance before clubs are required to identify their owners in the personnel statement. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that this guidance does not add clarity. The Government are pleased to have delivered on this commitment and to provide clarity regarding the concept of “significant influence or control”. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not find it clear. I read it twice and I thought it was clear. If I understand it, as somebody who is not a regulator, I believe that it is relatively clear.

This guidance plays a key role in the regulator’s regime, with this unexpected Motion disrupting progress and preventing David Kogan and his team from getting on with their important job. As my noble friend Lady Debbonaire made clear, the regulator now has an excellent, experienced and well-respected chair in post. He has wasted no time in meeting clubs and stakeholders from across football, including the top five English leagues, consulting industry on new rules and building up an executive team of regulatory experts. I hope that noble Lords across the House agree that the regulator needs to be able to make progress on these priorities without delay. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, we need to let him get on with his job.

As someone who has a terrier, I might not agree with the phrasing of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, but I agree with the sentiment of his interventions. We just need to look at the plight of Sheffield Wednesday to understand the urgency of giving the regulator the tools to get to work. With regard to concerns raised by noble Lords today, it is important to note that this guidance was drafted collaboratively. I make it absolutely clear that officials have worked with both industry and non-industry experts to ensure that it is clear, useful and user-friendly.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about consultation. I give him an assurance that this has been extensive. Officials have spoken to UEFA, to all the competition organisers, to a wide range of clubs throughout the different leagues and to DBT officials about their comparable Companies Act guidance. In developing the draft, we have drawn on the approach used in the Companies Act “persons with significant control” regime to ensure that we are aligned with current precedent. Building on the Companies Act guidance, it introduces industry-specific examples that have been tested with the football industry, makes these concepts more tangible for those who will have to interpret the guidance, especially clubs, and ensures that this guidance is suited to the regulated industry.

In relation to the point on consultation from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I say that, crucially, the guidance has also been tested with the regulator itself to ensure that the concepts are clear and that the non-exhaustive examples are helpful. David Kogan and his team have confirmed that this guidance provides them with the product they need to undertake their important work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering the questions that were posed. I apologise if I missed this, but does she accept that, under paragraph 2.11, it might be possible for a sponsor of a club to be considered as part of the new owners and directors test, if the sponsor’s recommendations are usually followed by the club? That is the test that paragraph 2.11 shows.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will have to defer to the Box on that point, but I will be happy to pick that up with the noble Lord afterwards.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. I will pick up on some of the points she has made and try to answer the other interventions that came from the packed Benches on the Government side, which I am delighted to see for this debate. I have rarely been called a trout-fishing terrier. I love trout fishing and I also love terriers, so I take those both as compliments. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, that I am passionately committed to football, both amateur and professional; I always have been in 40 years involved in sport. There is no one who would regard my intervention on this subject as coming from any other position than being passionate about sport and football.

The Act is detrimental to the future of professional football; it is a view I spoke about a great deal in Committee. This evening, I did not address any of those points but focused exclusively on the guidance. I say to the Minister and to others that the debate this evening does not stop the regulator for one day. The statutory guidance is laid before both Houses until 5 December, and there is the opportunity to debate it in either House until that point. It is not a delaying tactic; it does not delay the regulator getting on with its job. To say that and to imply that is fundamentally wrong. We cannot do anything about this until 5 December, when both Houses will have had the opportunity to consider it. We have had the opportunity in advance of that to have a debate.

I say to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Watson, who are passionate about sport and highly knowledgeable about football—they may not take this as the greatest compliment coming from me, although it is meant to be a compliment at the highest level—that I tabled this Motion because, if we have secondary legislation, we have the opportunity to review it in the normal way, but if we have draft statutory guidance the only way we can debate it is by tabling a fatal Motion. I have no intention of pressing it to a vote, but I absolutely intended to make sure that what we looked at during the passage of the Bill—the decision to bring forward statutory guidance on this so that the whole of Parliament could consider it—was given due consideration.

Having read the guidance, I made it clear to the House this evening that I was concerned it went too closely along the lines—which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said was inevitable and important in the drafting—of being kept purposefully and precisely vague, to use his phrase. I was a little nervous that, in responding, the Minister might do exactly what the noble Lord encouraged her not to do and provide clarity and precision. Understandably, she could not, because it is vague, and intentionally so.

I say to the Minister that this could be far better written. I genuinely believe that it is important to take it away and write it with greater clarity, because the guidance needs to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the need for the regulator to look into significant interest or control and, on the other, having to think about investors and the best interests of every club. It is my firm belief that, if you go too closely down the road of being so precisely vague and wide ranging, it could deter investors in professional football. That is why I felt it important to have this debate.

This Motion does not delay the regulator at all and gives this House the opportunity to consider something it requested in Committee on the Bill and which the Government granted. This debate has been very well attended. I am exceptionally grateful to those who have contributed. I avoided completely going down the line that the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, thought I might by focusing exclusively on and going into detail on this guidance. Having placed this on the record, I hope that the regulator and the world of football will be able to go away and consider whether there are ways to improve the statutory guidance and that, when we sit down with the football clubs, we avoid overlapping with the regulatory frameworks of UEFA, the EFL and the Premier League, which is also vital and to be avoided here.

I am grateful to the Minister for sitting through another debate on football and for the very helpful contributions from, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Watson, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, feared that we will see this in case law; I fear that he is absolutely right.

It may help the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, if I repeat one point. I was absolutely opposed to this legislation all the way through and thought that it would be bad law. I believe it is bad law. I thought Boris Johnson’s knee-jerk reaction to go to legislation on the Monday after the Saturday announcement of the super league was wrong. That is not the right way for professional sport in this country. But I did not go down that road this evening. I focused on this because I want to make it as good as possible and passionately want this Act to succeed now that it is in statute, in the interests of football and investors as well as of regulation. I wish the regulator every success with this. I hope it gets it right and has the opportunity to reflect on what has been said on both sides of this House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October be approved.

Relevant document: 41st 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, the foreign state influence regime is designed to prevent foreign states controlling, influencing or owning our newspapers and news magazines. It is essential that we safeguard our free press and a pluralistic media landscape for the sake of our democracy. Newspapers remain a vital trusted news source. The Ofcom survey News Consumption in the UK: 2025 reported that 73% of regular news users consider newspapers trustworthy, which is more than any other media.

However, noble Lords are aware of the considerable challenges faced by the news media industry. Newspapers require investment to grow and thrive. Balancing this need for investment with protecting news from the influence of a foreign state is at the heart of the foreign state influence regime. This is what underpinned the three statutory instruments that we made in July. We made regulations to amend the foreign state influence regime to allow 15% of shares or voting rights in a newspaper or news magazine to be held by a state-owned investor provided that they are investors with no right or ability to control, direct or influence the newspaper’s policies. The 15% threshold is below the level where the Competition and Markets Authority typically considers that material influence may arise.

The foreign state influence regime, rightly, has a low bar for intervention. The Secretary of State is given no discretion. She must intervene if she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a foreign power may hold the ability to influence or control the policy of a UK newspaper enterprise as a result of a merger. This is regardless of whether there is an intention to influence. When we introduced the previous regulations earlier in the year, colleagues in your Lordships’ House and the other place challenged us on whether they had the unintended consequence of permitting multiple foreign powers, investing through state-owned investment vehicles, to each invest 15%. The argument was made that it would be possible for the majority of a newspaper enterprise to be owned by state-owned investors, albeit passively.

We were clear that this is a remote risk. However, we understood the concerns of your Lordships’ House. The Government committed to bring forward an additional statutory instrument to put the matter beyond doubt. That is why we are here today, following our consultation in the summer and the response published on 30 October. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, for her invaluable engagement on this matter. I recognise the excellent role that your Lordships’ House so regularly plays in scrutinising and improving legislation.

Noble Lords may find it helpful for me to set out the detailed effect of these regulations. First, the regulations ensure that a 15% cap applies to the percentage of shares or voting rights that may be held in a newspaper by state-owned investors acting on behalf of foreign powers. This means that we are now putting it in statute that multiple state-owned investors, acting on behalf of different states, will not be able each to hold up to 15% in one newspaper. The 15% cap will apply to the combined total of direct and indirect holdings of shares or voting rights. We are introducing a specific and narrow exception for stakes of 5% or below in quoted companies. The exception affects the calculation of whether the 15% cap has been reached in cases where multiple state-owned investors from different countries or territories all have investments in the same newspaper. The exception catches only small shareholdings, and its purpose is to avoid a chilling effect on investment.

Secondly, we are using this opportunity to impose new transparency requirements on state-owned investors that invest in UK newspapers and news magazines. If a state-owned investor acquires a direct holding of more than 5% in a newspaper, they must notify the Secretary of State within 14 days of the relevant transaction being made. State-owned investors which are required to notify the Secretary of State must also publish these details within the same timeframe. This will enable the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on a regular basis—we intend for this to be every six months—on the published details of these acquisitions. This will benefit public and parliamentary confidence by increasing transparency around state-owned investment in newspapers.

If a state-owned investor which acquires a direct holding of more than 5% of shares or voting rights fails to comply with the notification and publication requirements, the transaction will be a foreign state newspaper merger situation, and the Secretary of State will be under a duty to issue a foreign state intervention notice and refer the case to the Competition and Markets Authority.

I want to reassure noble Lords about the nature of the 5% quoted company exception. It applies only to a limited type of investment by state-owned investors, as defined in the legislation. Additionally, the intention behind it is to avoid state-owned investors having to take account of holdings by state-owned investors from other countries, which newspaper groups are unable to track. Holdings in companies with publicly traded shares are disclosable only if they cross certain thresholds. These thresholds differ in different markets, but 5% is a common benchmark. If crossed, the investor must declare the interest to the company and the wider market.

The provision prevents the regulations having a chilling effect on investment. It removes the need for state-owned investors to establish whether state-owned investors from other countries have existing undisclosed or small investments in the same newspaper, which would affect whether their intended investment would or could exceed the 15% cap. Ultimately, these regulations address what the Government believe is a remote risk that multiple state-owned investors from different states could each invest 15% in a single newspaper. This cements the measures that can be taken against foreign state influence in UK newspapers and news magazines. These regulations also further improve transparency around investment, thereby helping to protect a thriving plural press essential to our democracy. I hope your Lordships’ House will support these important steps.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the Minister’s second statutory instrument debate today, I commend her stamina, and indeed I commend my noble friend on my own Front Bench for his, too. I welcome this statutory instrument, which meets the commitment that the Minister gave in July to close what was a gaping regulatory loophole that would have allowed multiple foreign states each to own up to 15% of a British newspaper, with all the risks that flow from that. I am also grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its thorough examination and report on these No. 2 regulations. I am also pleased that the Government Chief Whip scheduled this debate on the Floor of the House and not in the Moses Room.

Of course, all of us could have been spared this additional work if the Government had done what I and others advised some months ago, once the so-called “multiples loophole” was spotted, and that was to withdraw, amend and lay a consolidated set of regulations, rather than us having to handle this piecemeal approach. I am not going to get sidetracked, but, as I have said before, the Government’s unwillingness to take the straightforward route raises questions about who or what has been prioritised when dealing with this matter. However, we are where we are, as they say, and I am pleased that these regulations now ensure that the 15% limit for investment from state-owned investment funds is a single aggregate cap.

Since it became apparent two years ago that our legal framework could not prevent foreign Governments owning, controlling or influencing British newspapers and news magazines, it has been clear that the future of our free press is not just about protecting editorial independence; it is also about ensuring financial sustainability. The pace of technological change and the economic challenges facing the news industry continue to worsen, making investment urgent and consolidation within the industry increasingly likely. So, while I respect those who maintain their position that, even as an aggregate at 15%, the cap has been set too high, my view, as I said in July, is that, restricted to passive investment only and with additional reporting safeguards, which I will come on to in a minute, an aggregate 15% cap for state-owned investors is acceptable and still supports the principle of press freedom.

That said, the Government’s decision to tackle this in a piecemeal way means that these regulations are not the easiest to follow, so I am grateful to the excellent senior DCMS officials for their patience in responding to my questions seeking clarification over the past few weeks, and I am also grateful for the Minister’s explanation of these regulations in her opening remarks. Other noble Lords may still have questions about how the cap works, with the carve-out for small holdings of 5% and below for listed media companies, but I am satisfied that what is proposed is a reasonable approach. Indeed, I am conscious that we must not make this regime even more complex and that doing so could deter legitimate investment or prevent our news industry accessing much-needed investment capital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

I do not want to detain your Lordships’ House, and the speeches already made by several noble Lords are very much to the point. I should declare an interest as a long-serving employee of the Daily Telegraph. In that capacity, I draw the attention of the Minister to what it is like for a newspaper not to know who is owning it for such a very long time.

It seems to me that the greatest power of bureaucracy is delay, which increases the power of bureaucracy with every moment; that is its appalling leverage on everything else. But business, and particularly journalism, has the opposite desire. It needs to get on, and the word “journalism”, of course, comes from the French word for day. It happens every day, and every day lost is a disaster for us. In certain respects, we have been losing day after day—we have lost roughly half the length of the Second World War not knowing who is really going to own us.

I make no distinction really here between Governments of either party because both, it seems to me, were guilty of a similar failure. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a strong contrast between the quasi-judicial role that DCMS quite rightly operates, which is necessary in these cases, and all the manoeuvring and use of time and delay to try to satisfy—as the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Young, have pointed out—the needs of a foreign state that the British Government seem to be overzealously courting.

This is a very bad piece of politics—not party politics—and it puts us all in play. If we were to write the history of this, we would have to see that it fell to the journalists of the Daily Telegraph twice to start making a noise before anything could prevent very bad things happening. That seems to be nothing to do with the quasi-judicial process. I hope that the very sharp deadline of 15 December is tacit acknowledgement by the Government of the damage done by delay and that therefore something more drastic is being done now.

In another place, the Justice Secretary, when trying to do something about jury trials, has made the point that justice delayed is justice denied. We at the Telegraph have had justice delayed for a very long time and therefore denied. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and other noble Lords have been clear that it has to be acknowledged that a process of this sort should never go on again and that there is a big lesson here. If, for whatever reason, the Daily Mail bid fails or gets called into question, there has to be an open, swift and fair process.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an important and useful debate, and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, for her engagement over many months with DCMS. I think we have a better position as a result of her engagement and persistence on this matter, and I know that the Secretary of State is also grateful for the time she has taken to help us refine this, frustrating as it must have been for the noble Baroness at times.

This regime is about safeguarding a specific industry that has a unique, essential role in the health of our democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, made it really clear that this is important for democracy, and I think that is beyond doubt in your Lordships’ House. I need to put on the record that I do not recognise the scenario outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Moore of Etchingham, of the genesis of these SIs, but I hope all noble Lords feel that we have listened to and addressed concerns raised in your Lordships’ House and have got to a better place as a result.

I will address the points made by noble Lords during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised concerns about the 5% exception’s potential for misuse. I stress that this is a narrow exception, applying in limited circumstances. It intends to remove any potential chilling effect by providing that a state-owned investor, or SOI, from one country or territory may ignore smaller holdings that are in effect too small to confer influence in their own right in quoted companies by SOIs from other countries that are not visible to them.

A hypothetical example of the limited circumstances in which the carve-out is in our view necessary to avoid a chilling effect is that if a state-owned investor wanted to invest 15% in a publicly listed newspaper owner they would have to be sure that no other state-owned investors from any other states or territories already held shares in the same newspaper owner. Without the carve-out, they could potentially not be sure that their 15% investment would comply with the limit.

Charities: Advancement of Religion

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure charities cannot use ‘the advancement of religion’ charitable purpose to advance ideologies which promote misogyny, sexism or violence against women.

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

Anyone who advocates for violence against women has absolutely no place in a charity. The Charity Commission, as the independent regulator, will not hesitate to act where charities promote harmful or unlawful actions. The Government will consult in due course on new powers for the Charity Commission to automatically ban individuals convicted of hate crimes from serving as charity trustees or senior managers. We will also make it easier for the commission to take regulatory action against people promoting violence, terrorism or hatred.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. All charities have certain responsibilities to fulfil to qualify as charities and receive the generous tax allowances and kudos of the status of being a charity. However, some charities register under the charitable purpose of advancement of religion to promote misogynistic ideology in the name of religion, which threatens the rights and well-being of some of the most vulnerable members of their flock. In recent research, the National Secular Society found examples of charity sermons saying that a woman must serve her husband by cooking and cleaning, blaming rape on how women dress and saying that it is okay to hit your wife if she refuses to have sex. No charity worth its salt should ever promote misogyny or any other ideology that harms people and society. Should we not therefore review the role of the charitable purpose of the advancement of religion, with a view to its removal if it is a barrier to tackling misogyny or other forms of extremism?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Charity Commission is currently reviewing the National Secular Society’s recent report to determine whether it raises any new regulatory concerns. I read the report over the weekend, and some of the examples provided are shocking. However, I am pleased to say that the commission has already investigated a number of the charities cited. I have also spoken to the Minister for Civil Society and Youth, and I reassure the noble Baroness that she is looking at ways to strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle abuse of charities by extremists, whatever type of extremist they are .

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, the founders of different religions put forward straightforward ethical teachings of responsibility in our short journey through the world. Unfortunately, those ethical teachings have been overlaid by cultures, with culture even creeping into religious texts. Does the Minister agree that it is time to do a little spring cleaning of what we call religion and discard all the negative teachings about other people and about women, and to bring those ethical teachings to the fore? Sikhism stresses the complete equality of women. Does the Minister agree that that should be carried forward and be obligatory in the 21st century?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It would be a brave Minister who decided which religious teaching we should prioritise above another. I will say that we have a proud tradition of religious freedom in this country, but those rights extend to everyone, and we condemn acts of violence against women and girls. Noble Lords will have heard from my noble friend’s answers on the previous Question that we are clear that we want the Charity Commission to have the power it needs, and we will consult in due course on new powers that will enable it to deal with this issue.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, having spent the whole of my professional life combating those who, in the name of religion, promote misogyny, sexism or violence against women, I hope the questioner will agree that the highest values, both of religion and of humanism, are conjoined in the effort to suppress, marginalise and deal with all these aberrations. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

All charities should be safe spaces for everyone: employees, volunteers and members of the public. I agree that, at their best, our values, across all religions and those who have no religion, would uphold the freedom of individuals as well as our collective responsibility to one another.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government consider the advancement of education to be a valid charitable purpose? If so, why are charities delivering this treated differently from the rest of the sector?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I think the noble Baroness is aware, the Government have removed the VAT exemption for education and boarding services provided by private schools and removed the eligibility of private schools that are charities for business rates and charitable relief. The Government are taking these steps to raise revenue to support the public finances and help deliver their commitments relating to education and young people, including the 94% of school children in the UK that attend state schools.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, just two weeks ago, Sheffield City Council launched its faith and belief charter—a sort of service-level agreement between local faith communities and the local authority setting out what each might expect of the other for the wider benefit of our city. The charter assumes a shared commitment to the essential dignity of every human being, as created in the image and likeness of God. Will the Minister encourage the use of such covenants and charters between faith communities and local authorities, not least on account of their capacity to challenge precisely the behaviours identified in the Question put by the noble Baroness?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate raises a really good and positive example of how communities can come together in a particular area. I would welcome the opportunity to hear more about it from him.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the charities about which my noble friend is talking often get a great deal of funding from the United States, from extreme, allegedly Christian evangelical foundations. Do the Government intend to use the extended powers they are giving to the Charity Commission to insist on greater transparency about funding of charities? Will that require new legislation, or can it be done through the Charity Commission?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding is that a number of the measures being considered would not require primary legislation, but others might at some point in the future. I am happy to write to the noble Lord relating to the specific point that he raises.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the vast majority of charities work for the benefit of everybody, whatever their religion or their sex, so why did the Chancellor not take the opportunity earlier today to reverse the punitive rise in employer national insurance contributions that she imposed on charities in her last Budget, which many charities have warned will lead to hiring freezes or job losses?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware that we doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 at the previous Budget so that more than half of businesses, including charities, with NICs liabilities would either gain or see no change. Employers will also continue to benefit from NICs reliefs, including for hiring those under 21 and apprentices under 25 where eligible. We provided charitable tax reliefs and exemptions worth £6 billion in the year 2023-24. The biggest individual reliefs provided are gift aid, at £1.6 billion, and business rates relief, at nearly £2.4 billion. With the civil society covenant being a key priority for this Government, we are supporting charities to deliver for the country.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare, as ever, that I am a teacher. It is the wrong department, I know, but does the Minister agree that a lot of this can be combated in schools but that we need the time to teach it. One day a term—when parents who hold some of these abhorrent views can take their child out for the day—is not enough.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will feed the noble Lord’s point back to my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern and will be happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss it further.

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

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

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

Motions agreed.

Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

Telegraph Media Group

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox]

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

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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


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

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Independent Football Regulator

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Birt (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Polak (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

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

Motion agreed.