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.

Covid-19 Pandemic: Commemoration

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of London]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

BBC Leadership

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

“That you don’t know what you’ve got

Till it’s gone”

Please let us not be in that place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Birt (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Polak (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hall of Birkenhead (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement says:

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


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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Telegraph Media Group: Ownership

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

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

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

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

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

but also that the present Government are

“committed to pursuing a positive economic relationship”

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

UK and EU Trade: Arts and Creative Industries

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards improving the conditions of trade between the UK and the EU with regard to the arts and creative industries, including for touring musicians.

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

My Lords, the Government have reset relations positively with European partners, agreeing a substantial package at the first UK-EU summit in May. This included a commitment to support travel and cultural exchange, recognising the value of artistic exchange, including the activities of touring artists. We will continue to engage with the European Commission to deliver this commitment. It is mutually beneficial and it will help our artists to contribute to Europe’s rich cultural landscape and support shared growth.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the almost five years since we left the single market have already cost us tens of billions of pounds in trade—that includes the creative industries—not to mention the red tape and frustration that continues to be experienced on a daily basis. For musicians touring, there has been no resolution of the problems of cabotage, carnets, CITES, the need for a visa-waiver agreement and the 90 in 180-day limit, which particularly affects ancillary staff. Bands cannot afford to tour; income and opportunities are lost. I say to the Minister: enough warm words, we need action.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Earl outlines the range of issues that the Government need to work through. There is action; it is a high priority for this Government, and it was a manifesto commitment to address these issues. The Prime Minister mentioned it as top of the list in relation to the EU reset to the Liaison Committee, and it came up in the Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this week. This is something that Ministers are actively working through, and I know that it is a priority for the new DCMS Minister covering this area and for the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the Welsh Government promote creative arts and education through the creative learning through the arts programme. Its aim is to integrate arts and creativity into the core of the education system, ensuring that all learners have access to creative experiences, regardless of their background. Does my noble friend agree that this is something that the UK Government could explore for young people in England?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There are a number of ways in which the UK Government are working towards ensuring youth mobility and exchange. We are working towards association with Erasmus+ on mutually agreed financial terms with the EU. We want to ensure that any agreement reflects a fair balance between the UK financial contribution and the number of UK participants. I am aware of the work that the Government in Wales have done on this and that many young people have benefited from that programme.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have been giving those bureaucrats who like designing red tape an absolute charter to have a field day on this? When will they give us a reduction of, say, 25% in the number of forms that you have to fill in? At the moment, it is just ridiculous.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I repeat that this is a high priority. A number of noble Lords asking questions today have highlighted how complex this is in terms of reducing the bureaucracy. I can only reiterate that large parts of the Civil Service are working very hard to ensure that the bureaucracy is reduced. It remains a priority for this Government and for DCMS.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, touring artists are important for not only the UK economy but our soft power. Can the Minister update the House on the progress being made by the UK Soft Power Council in putting together a coherent and effective soft power strategy for the UK?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree that they are an important part of soft power. I revert to the noble Lord on specifics around the UK Soft Power Council, which he has managed successfully to segue to from a quite specific Question. I will write to the noble Lord in due course.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, before the EU-UK summit in May, I raised the issue of withholding tax which impacts our orchestras when they tour in Germany, Spain and Italy. In Germany, withholding tax is reclaimable, but it can take two years to be refunded. One orchestra has £200,000 outstanding and will shortly claim another £50,000 but then have to wait two years. Removing or reforming Article 17 of the UK’s tax treaties with the EU or its member states could help to resolve this. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether our Government will try to find a resolution of this vital issue, which is having such a detrimental impact on the cash flow of British orchestras touring to the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a really important point. The Government recognise the financial and administrative challenges that withholding tax presents for UK artists touring the EU. We are actively engaged with the sector to better understand the impact and explore ways to mitigate these burdens, but we appreciate that this is a significant burden on those who are already facing challenges touring the EU. As a result of all these questions, I will flag this debate to the incoming Minister so that he is aware of concerns within your Lordships’ House and of the wider issues that the questions highlight.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, next month the long-delayed additional travel document requirements come in. Have the Government done any work on calculating how much these will add to the delays, particularly for orchestras needing to move instruments through customs with heavy lorries, and how costly this will be?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

All the questions today highlight the significant range of challenges. There are ongoing discussions at a variety of levels within government with the EU as part of the discussions following the EU reset. I will not give a running commentary on negotiations, but I am happy to meet the noble Baroness to talk about this in more detail.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that barriers for touring artists are bad news for the UK’s £7 billion music industry and for an already squeezed economy. Over 20 EU member states have confirmed that they offer UK musicians visa and work permit-free short-term touring for UK musicians. However, the EU’s policies mean that there are still barriers. Can the Minister explain exactly how the Government are engaging with the remaining individual member states to remove these barriers, or will they commit to resolve this at an EU level? Please, can we have some detail?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I appreciate that this is a question for me from His Majesty’s Opposition, but these are things that presumably came up as part of the impact assessment when we withdrew from the EU.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, music is international. Having spent many summers touring with youth orchestras, for whom the problems are just as great as those for the professional musicians that have been referred to in the noble Earl’s Question, can my noble friend please add to the list of things that the Government are hoping to negotiate easier arrangements for youth orchestras to tour in Europe? It enriches their lives in every possible way, musically and in terms of travel.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely—we are looking to increase youth mobility through any scheme that creates new opportunities for young Britons to travel, whether as part of wider academic experience or exchange of culture, including youth orchestras.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, if this is such an important area for the Government, why do they not take action in those areas which lie within their own competence, such as making the St Pancras terminal CITES capable? Surely our negotiations with the EU would go better if we put our own house in order first.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Our priority remains keeping arrangements as straightforward and supportive as possible for musicians and the creative industries. I recognise how important musical instrument certificates are for touring musicians in the wider creative sector. There are no plans, however, to make St Pancras International a CITES-designated port.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, would it not be slightly easier if the Government’s approach to the reset with the EU was a little less timid? We could then begin to tackle some of the unnecessary bureaucracy and delays. There is a customs union that we could be renegotiating, and we could move further on that. We want a little more courage from the Government in standing up to the right-wing press and to the legacy of the Conservatives and now Reform.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I do not recognise the timidity that the noble Lord suggests that this Government are approaching this with. This Government have been extremely clear on what our priorities are for the EU reset. That includes not going in aggressively but working constructively with our EU neighbours to ensure that we get the right outcome to deal with the huge range of issues that have been highlighted by this important Question this morning.

Football Governance Act 2025: Implementation

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will set out a timetable for the implementation of the various parts of the Football Governance Act 2025.

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

Every effort is being made to ensure that the independent football regulator is up and running as soon as possible. This includes consultation with industry and passing essential secondary legislation required for the regulator to carry out its functions. There are some important milestones coming up, including the recruitment of a CEO and the appointment of the regulator’s board. A shadow regulator team is already in place, carrying out the preparatory work required to ensure the regulator is operational as quickly as possible.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s reply, and perhaps I should declare my interest as the only known member of the Brighton & Hove Albion (Lords) Supporters’ Club. Given the Euros success of the Lionesses this summer, the upcoming expanded Women’s Super League and the growth of the women’s transfer market, does the Minister foresee a time when the women’s game will need to enter a system of regulation? Also, can the Minister say how the Government see the role of the regulator developing to tackle the problems experienced this summer by Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe FC?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Alongside millions across the country, I was really proud to watch the Lionesses’ victory this summer, and I hope this continues to grow the game and inspire girls across the country. Karen Carney OBE led an independent review of domestic women’s football, published in July 2023. We agree with the recommendation that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate, rather than moving immediately to independent statutory regulation. Should it be appropriate to do so in the future, we could include the women’s game. On Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe, it is precisely because of such situations that we took decisive action to introduce the Football Governance Act.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, the nomination of David Kogan as the new football regulator has been widely welcomed in football and beyond—his capability and deep knowledge of the game are well recognised. Mr Kogan’s appointment was first announced in April, but four months later he is yet to be confirmed. The uncertainty affecting Morecambe FC and Sheffield Wednesday over the summer, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, just referred, amply underlines why the sooner we have a football regulator up and running, with a chair, a board and an executive, the better. When does the Minister think this will all happen?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I was delighted to see David Kogan endorsed as the Government’s preferred candidate for chair of the regulator. David was subject to a pre-appointment hearing with the CMS Select Committee on 7 May, giving Members of Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise this important appointment before it is made. The committee endorsed David’s appointment, noting his extensive football and media experience. As noble Lords will be aware, the Commissioner for Public Appointments is conducting an inquiry into the process and DCMS is co-operating fully. No conclusion has been reached at this stage and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the noble Lord’s observation about the women’s football team, I take the opportunity to welcome and congratulate the Rugby Football Union on the excellent start to the Women’s Rugby World Cup tournament. Rick Parry, the chairman of the EFL, at a meeting of an all-party group on football a few months back, commented that he saw that the necessity in terms of regulation in this country and the numbers employed should be somewhere between six and 99—preferably closer to six. Does the Minister agree with Mr Parry’s observation? If not, why not?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord mean in relation to how many people are employed by the regulator? To be honest, that will be largely down to the incoming regulator itself. As the noble Lord will be aware from our lengthy discussions during the passage through Parliament of the Bill, now an Act, there is a broad understanding of what we think the overall operational costs will be. We put them at around £8 million to £10 million. Clearly, the staffing costs, as well as other operational costs, would need to come within that.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, can the Government give us further reassurance that they will not only look at the body they have created and make sure that it is functioning quickly but give it the backing it will need to take on vested interests? We have this periodic disaster in which people nearly lose their clubs again and again; we have had it in the past, and we are supposed to be getting rid of it. Do the Government agree?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Football Governance Act 2025 was put in place exactly to address the issues that the noble Lord identifies. As I said in my initial Answer, to make sure that we do not see any repeat of previous issues, every effort is being made to ensure that the independent football regulator is up and running as soon as possible. It is vital to ensure that we get the regulator on a firm footing and able to address the issues facing the game.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a Sheffield Wednesday supporter. I think that noble Lords will understand why I am returning to the issue of what is unfolding as a Greek tragedy. The solidarity payments paid wages for August, but a tragedy is unfolding in front of us. I make an appeal to my noble friend and to the Secretary of State to move beyond the normal speed with which the Civil Service works, which I remember very well. This is not a matter of the great phrase “working at pace”; it is about getting people off their bums and getting this regulator up and running this autumn. If we do not, the impact on the pyramid and the league will be considerable.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend might observe that I did not use the term “working at pace”, which as it happens was in the original draft of my initial response. In all seriousness, though, we understand and share my noble friend’s concerns. We are keen for the current ownership to bring the issues facing Sheffield Wednesday—we do not underestimate them—to an appropriate resolution as quickly as possible. The Minister for Sport has already spoken with Clive Betts MP, who has been a strong advocate, as have others, for Sheffield Wednesday. The Minister for Sport is also meeting the Sheffield Wednesday Supporters’ Trust on 8 September.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, as everyone seems to be registering an interest, I will register one as a Liverpool football fan. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am not alone. The transfer window, which has just closed, was a great success, especially for Liverpool. The Premier League continues to be a great success. I urge the Government and the Minister to urge the regulator not to tinker with this great British success, the Premier League.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Clearly, we are really proud of the Premier League and of English and British football. It is our national game. However, the genesis of the Football Governance Act was based on some real issues within the game of football and the entire pyramid, and I expect and anticipate that the chair of the regulator will see these as a key priority, while not undermining the competitiveness of the Premier League.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be wrong to single out clubs such as Morecambe and Sheffield Wednesday as outliers or exceptional? I say that because, in the last two seasons, all 24 clubs in our second tier—the EFL Championship—have generated operating losses, with wage bills continuing to spiral. The clubs together now carry a debt of £1.5 billion. Time is surely not on the regulator’s side.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This is exactly why we intend to get the regulator up as quickly as possible.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, many people across football are looking forward to working with David Kogan, but one of the difficulties that he and the new independent regulator have is that the process for appointing him is still under investigation by the commissioner for public standards. Has Mr Kogan been able to start his work, pending the outcome of that investigation? Has the noble Baroness’s department been given any indication of how much longer it might continue?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I should not comment on the inquiry being carried out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments—as I said earlier, this is ongoing. The noble Lord will be aware that David Kogan has met a number of Members of this House, and he is fully engaged with the task ahead at the point at which he is able to be appointed formally.

Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 May be approved.

Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, I shall also speak to the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 and the Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025.

This set of regulations will broaden the scope of media merger regimes and strengthen the public interest protections, as well as setting the scope of exceptions that will apply to foreign state influence in UK newspapers. Taken together, these are the most significant changes to the media public interest regime since the Communications Act 2003. I know that many noble Lords have sincerely and strongly held views on the matters to be debated today and I am grateful to those across your Lordships’ House who have met me, the Secretary of State or officials to discuss them. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Fox, back in his place.

I will go back to first principles to place the new measures in their proper context. Fundamental to this is the need for us all to consider the very real risks to the survival of UK newspapers, including very high-profile names, and the wider news media. I understand and share noble Lords’ concerns about the growing threat of foreign state actors seeking to undermine our institutions and our democracy. There is a risk that this might translate into efforts to interfere with our media and freedom of the press. This is not the only risk, although it is a risk that these measures seek to manage.

The far greater risk is how UK news media, national and local, face significant, genuinely existential—I do not use that word lightly—challenges as their business models move away from print towards digital, and new technologies emerge. Publishers have sought to consolidate and make efficiencies in response, with three publishers accounting for over 80% of national print copy sales in the UK, and three accounting for about 70% of the local news market. There have been some notable successes for newspapers that have been able to develop and deliver a strong subscription offer, but others have fared less well. Some are struggling in an economy where good-quality news content does not always translate into the revenues that our news media needs to prosper and innovate.

The issue is seen most starkly in our local media, a particularly trusted news source that has consolidated to survive, and in many places local newspapers have had to reduce journalist numbers to a bare minimum. While it is vital that we support stronger protections for UK newspapers and other news media, we need to make sure that we do not inadvertently make it harder for newspaper groups to survive.

A UK-wide free press, which I know all noble Lords value—the type of press landscape we are rightly proud of in this country—also has to be sustainable. Let me be clear: the Government are unequivocal supporters of a free and plural news media, even when it does not agree with us. A free media is an essential safeguard that ensures accountability and effective government. The measures being debated strongly support this objective.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Is the Minister seriously arguing that the survival of our newspapers, both national and local, depends on changing the law, as she is doing, to allow foreign Governments to have ownership of them?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is important to distinguish between foreign Governments and state-owned investors. If the noble Lord will allow, this is covered in my opening remarks.

The first set of measures extend the scope of the media merger regime to online news publications. The Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 will amend the definition of “newspaper” in the Enterprise Act 2002 to encompass both print and online newspapers and periodical news magazines. Crucially, this will enable the Secretary of State to intervene on public interest or foreign state influence grounds, subject to jurisdiction, in the acquisition of an online-only newspaper. Until now, she has not had the power to do so. The Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 creates the term “news media”, which captures newspapers, as newly defined, and news programmes that are broadcast. The order extends key public interest considerations in Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to all news media.

Noble Lords have long called for these changes, and Ofcom recommended them in its 2021 and 2024 media ownership rules reviews. The definition of newspaper order also ensures that the foreign state influence regime introduced in May last year will be extended such that foreign powers will now also be banned from acquiring control or influence over the policy of an online newspaper or an online news magazine enterprise.

Let me now turn now to the draft foreign state influence exception regulations, which are the subject of the fatal amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. The FSI regime, for which, as noble Lords will be aware, the previous Government legislated in May last year, bans foreign states from having any control or influence over the policy of UK newspapers or news periodicals. The legislation includes a wide definition of foreign power that includes sovereign wealth funds and public pension funds, among the largest investors globally, whose objectives are to seek long-term, stable investment opportunities in sectors requiring new capital for growth.

The previous Government also made clear before the election that they would put in place exceptions to encourage investment by sovereign wealth and other state-owned investors and issue a consultation. To clarify —in response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—this exception applies only to a very narrow group of public bodies: sovereign wealth funds and public pension schemes or similar. It does not apply to states themselves or other state bodies, so a foreign Government cannot buy and own a newspaper.

The responses received, including from News UK, said that the proposed thresholds were overly complex and drawn too tightly. We broadly agree with this assessment; we believe that a higher 15% threshold is appropriate and would meet their concerns. However, this would not weaken the regime. The 15% threshold would still be below the level that the CMA considers typically gives rise to material influence when assessing jurisdiction under the Enterprise Act 2002, meaning that the risk of influence would be low.

Noble Lords have raised questions about whether an investor with up to 15% of shares or voting rights can really be a passive investor. The regulations include a strict requirement that the state-owned investor must hold the investment passively. They must have no right or abilities to appoint or fire directors or other officers, and they must have no ability to direct, control or influence a newspaper’s policy or activities. These are continuing requirements that must be satisfied every day the shares are held. The exceptions should be seen as a privilege and not a right.

The legislation requires the Secretary of State to refer a merger to the CMA if she suspects that a state-owned investor is not entitled to the exception or is not complying with these requirements. If the CMA advises that the investment does not comply and concludes that a foreign state newspaper merger situation has arisen, the Secretary of State must take action to unwind the transaction or to block it. This is a very significant penalty and safeguard.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government published a further draft SI for consultation last week to deal with two specific concerns that noble Lords raised about the draft regulations, which we laid on 15 May. First, the changes proposed by the draft SI would close off any risk of multiple state-owned investors acting on behalf of different states, each being able to hold up to 15%. This change would be applied retrospectively from 13 March 2024 to ensure that there is no regulatory gap.

Secondly, we have addressed concerns around the lack of a notification requirement on state-owned investors who plan to take significant shareholdings. This second draft SI proposes a new requirement for direct investments by state-owned investors of more than 5% to be notified to the Secretary of State as a condition of the exception. If the notification is not made, or made late, the investment would not comply with the exception and would be prohibited.

Following a consultation, which will run until 16 September, the Government will aim to lay, in draft, the second statutory instrument by the end of October. The new notification requirements will come into force after the second regulations are made. The changes proposed in the second draft SI, while important, are not fundamental to the operation of the exceptions and not so critical to the FSI regime that we should delay these regulations and leave newspapers—which are publicly calling for us to act—to a further period of uncertainty. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her constructive engagement with the Secretary of State and DCMS officials on these issues. I hope that she and other noble Lords who have raised these concerns feel that this safeguard fully deals with the issue.

I will now address the constitutional questions that arise from the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The second regulations to follow later this year will strengthen protections and put the issue of multiple-state ownership beyond doubt. As I explained earlier, the provisions on multiple-state ownership will be backdated to 13 March 2024 to ensure that there is no regulatory gap.

It is also important to recognise that existing sovereign wealth fund investments at any level made after March 2024 in a UK newspaper may trigger the Secretary of State’s requirement to intervene under the FSI regime. We are very concerned that a protracted delay in putting exceptions into place would prolong the uncertainty this creates for investors and the wider investment climate. I appreciate that the noble Lord’s amendment comes from concerns around the impact of the FSI regime on the British press. I have not come to the same conclusion that he has, and I will of course reflect very carefully on the points that he and other noble Lords make during this debate.

It is perfectly legitimate for your Lordships’ House to debate the fatal amendment before it today, but it is a very firm convention that the power to annul is not used. In this specific case, the FSI exception regulations have been expected since the passage of the digital markets Act last year. They have been subject to consultation and extensive parliamentary engagement and have now been approved in another place. This Government have come to a different conclusion to the previous Government on thresholds. Although the threshold is slightly higher, it is also simpler and supplemented by additional safeguards. I have set out our reasoned arguments for settling on 15%, including why we gave weight to the views of UK newspaper groups that are directly affected.

When noble Lords debate legislation, a small but significant phrase is sometimes heard: that Parliaments cannot bind their successors, and commitments made by one Government cannot bind any future Government. While the 5% and 10% split threshold was announced by the previous Government during the debate on the digital markets Bill as a possibility, and subsequently featured in the consultation, it was not a settled matter. It was left open at the time of the general election last year. It is both right and responsible for the Government to look at this afresh. However, we agreed that in some sensibly managed circumstances, an exception to the regime was reasonable. Our intention in doing so is to make a decision which protects press freedom from foreign state interference while not, in the words of one consultation respondent, creating a chilling effect on the investment the British press tells us it so badly needs.

To conclude, I urge Peers from all sides to look at these issues in the round. The Government believe these regulations provide the certainty that UK newspapers desperately need and have asked for. They will, in spite of suggestions to the contrary, guard against foreign state influence while allowing our news media to face the future with confidence. I hope noble Lords will accept the rationale I have presented to the House in support of this important package. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Minister is able to give the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the reassurance that he needs not to press his fatal amendment to a Division today. If he does so, I will certainly vote against it and encourage noble Lords to do so. I think there is much to regret in where we find ourselves, but I do not think it warrants outright rejection.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have participated for their contributions. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his closing remarks and for his graciousness and support. I have appreciated the conversations we have had. Like him, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I know this is the noble Lord’s last speech as leader of the Liberal Democrat group, but his incredible contribution to your Lordships’ House will continue.

I am going to start, perhaps unusually, by accepting the criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, which was echoed by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about how long it has taken us to bring this matter before your Lordships’ House. I think it was right to consider the matter carefully, but I appreciate that the criticism is fair. We have the chance to enact this now, however, and I believe your Lordships should support the Government’s effort to act on this point. There is, no doubt, disagreement on how we achieve our aim, but the underlying theme throughout this debate has been the fundamental importance that noble Lords attach to media freedom and the sustainability of our free press. I know this is key to all noble Lords’ responses to this matter. We need to make sure that our news media has a vibrant future and not just a proud past that we can look at in the bookcases outside the House of Lords Library. It is essential to our democracy.

As many noble Lords will be aware, the media public interest regime we have now came from the work by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, now retired from this place, and other noble Lords in 2003 to persuade the then Government that there needed to be an effective public interest regime covering cross-media mergers. It is that regime that we are strengthening today.

I am slightly surprised that noble Lords appear to think that it is inappropriate for the Government to take on board the views of newspapers or the views of those such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Wheatcroft, or the noble Lord, Lord Black, who have huge track records in journalism; we take their positions and points seriously. I appreciate, however, that the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, has taken a different view; I respect that as well.

At the heart of the debate today are the three statutory instruments before us, which, taken together, represent the most significant resetting of the media mergers regime since the Communications Act 2003. The regulations will broaden the scope of our media merger regimes, strengthen the public interest protections and, crucially, bring into effect a strong and practical regime to regulate against undue foreign state influence in UK newspapers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made specific reference to the Telegraph sale and foreign influence in that regard. The Government are committed to seeing the Telegraph thrive and want to see a sale that aligns with public interest considerations and the FSI regime. Thorough due diligence will be conducted on any advance bid to purchase the Telegraph. Should the Secretary of State have reasonable grounds to suspect that either the public interest or foreign state regimes are engaged, she would intervene.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that legislation is designed to facilitate RedBird’s ambition. The legislation banning foreign state control or influence over UK newspapers seeks to preserve the freedom of the press. This is not about any particular country. Just as the press is independent from the UK state, we do not want any foreign state owning or influencing our newspapers or news magazines.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also raised concerns about China and set out his views about the transactions. I cannot comment on the circumstances of any particular case. That is for the Secretary of State. It is why I was not able to provide the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with answers to the specific questions that he asked about a quasi-judicial matter before the Secretary of State.

The suggestions made contradict the clear steer given by the House during previous Oral Questions that this is an important matter and that the Government should put the exception in place at the earliest opportunity. Without exceptions in place, there cannot be investment from any investment organisation with any foreign sovereign wealth shareholding.

A large number of points have been made during the debate. I will briefly address those made specifically on the slightly less controversial regulations regarding expansion of the media mergers regime and online news. These did not get a huge amount of coverage but are, in our view, very significant.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised the exclusion of online intermediaries. At present, the Government are focusing on the reforms to the media ownership rules suggested in Ofcom’s 2021 review, which did not recommend that online intermediaries, including social media platforms such as Facebook or X, should fall within the scope of this regime. At this point, it is important to note that Secretary of State does have powers to intervene. However, if an online intermediary buys a media enterprise, the Secretary of State does not have powers to intervene if it is an online intermediary that is being bought; so that is a distinction. Ofcom has to date not recommended that online intermediaries be brought into scope of the media mergers regime but continues to keep it under consideration. We will continue to monitor developments and respond to recommendations from Ofcom and others in this area. I think the noble Lord is correct in relation to where people are increasingly getting their news from.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, and others asked why the new SI for multiple states is being introduced. Our policy intention has always been to prevent any foreign state influence over the affairs, activities and policies of UK newspapers and news periodicals. In theory, these could all be passive investors with no ability, at least on paper, to influence a newspaper’s policy but they could still collectively own the majority of the enterprise. Although the provisions prevent states acting in concert to secure control, the new SI will put matters beyond doubt.

The second draft SI also proposes a new requirement for direct state-owned investor investments of more than 5% to be notified to the Secretary of State as a condition of the exception. If the notification is not made, or is made late, the investment will be prohibited.

I will cover a number of other points made about the foreign state influence exception regulations now, as well as the fatal amendment in the name—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

If the Minister is going to come back to it, I will happily sit down, but I asked her a question about those new notification requirements in the draft regulations yet to be made, and whether the Government would consider my recommendation that the Secretary of State be required to notify Parliament on a twice-yearly basis if she receives any such notifications, and about the actions that she has taken as a result. Is she able to give me a response to that?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

That is not in my speech, but I have an answer for the noble Baroness. We think that it is a reasonable suggestion. We need to work out how we can do that. There was a suggestion, for example, that it might require primary legislation. Obviously, that feels a little bit heavy-handed in terms of where we would want to get to. If the noble Baroness is content, I will come back to that. We think that it is a good point and it is worth doing, but I am not able to commit until we have clearer legal advice on how we could achieve that.

Going back to the other points, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords. I thank many noble Lords for the time that they have taken to meet me and the Secretary of State as well as officials. On the new regulations that we put out for consultation on 16 July, we have committed to change the legislation to eliminate entirely the risk that was identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and others, and to backdate this change to 13 March last year, which is the date on which the foreign state influence regime came into effect. I give noble Lords an absolute commitment that we will lay regulations in the autumn. I am not allowed to say that we will do it by the end of October; I am allowed to say that we will aim to do so by the end of October.

Some noble Lords queried the difference between sovereign wealth and government control. I want to be explicitly clear: for the avoidance of doubt, this is not state ownership. It is not about Governments owning or influencing our media. We do not want that to happen either. The term “state-owned investors” refers to a narrow group of organisations that will need to be different and distinct from the Government who sponsor them. Foreign Governments will not be allowed to hold a direct stake. Key is the requirement that they make or manage investments, including international investments, as their principal activity. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, that this is not necessarily about influence. I give way—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

The Minister has just made an absolute commitment that “Foreign Governments will not be allowed”. That is what I understood her to say, so why does she not incorporate that in the regulations?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding is that that is what the regulations would mean in effect. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I want to be explicitly clear that this is not going to allow foreign Governments to buy newspapers. This is about state-owned investors, which, as I made clear in my opening remarks, is a different matter.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

If that is what she thinks the regulations already say, she will not have a problem with making it explicit.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We have the regulations before us. I cannot be more explicit than I have already been.

To continue, investment by single or multiple state-owned investors will be capped at 15%. The regulations that we aim to bring in by the end of October will require a state-owned investor taking a direct holding of shares or voting rights of more than 5% to notify the Secretary of State of the transaction. This will enable her to quickly review any cases where there are suspicions that the shareholding may be more than a passive investment and to refer appropriate cases to the CMA for advice on whether a foreign state merger situation has emerged. This will be a condition of the state-owned investor exception. A failure to make this notification or making it late will mean that the investment in question is prohibited.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the redactions in the consultation responses and why they were not published earlier. I have already outlined my acceptance of the criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. DCMS has now published the responses. One organisation asked for its views not to be attributed and for some information to be redacted on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. The original consultation by the previous Government specified that responses would not be published and respondents would not be named. This Government’s current consultation makes it clear that they will be.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the Secretary of State’s role. The legislation requires that the Secretary of State must refer a merger to the CMA if she suspects a state-owned investor is not entitled to the exception or is not complying with this requirement. This should provide protection in the interim, and was why we did not think the original SI defective. The one in draft was published in response to concerns, not, in our view, to correct an error, although it puts everything beyond reasonable doubt and was a reasonable request.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the protections we have against hostile states trying to acquire influence or control. The FSI regime strengthens the Secretary of State’s powers and sits alongside her powers to intervene in a relevant merger situation on the basis of public interest concerns. These powers can be applicable in acquisitions involving state-owned investors within the threshold set by the draft regulation. Taken together, the existing legislation, draft regulations and second statutory instrument would allow the Government to act to guard against the kind of malign interference with UK democracy and press freedom about which noble Lords are concerned.

Additionally, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 can enable the Government to call in and, if necessary and proportionate, block, unwind or impose conditions on acquisitions of control over UK newspapers, including acquisitions that may give rise to national security concerns.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. As I recall from debates on that Bill, there was a huge annexe that listed all the things within the remit of the National Security and Investment Act, but I did not notice newspapers. Will the Government be bringing forward an amendment to that Act to include newspapers, as she has just suggested?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding is that they already can, on the basis of the Act. I do not have the detail that the noble Lord has asked for, but I have been told definitively that that is an existing power within that Act. I can only commit to write to the noble Lord explaining where in the Act that comes.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested—the previous Government put this out for consultation—that the FSI threshold should be lower. We believe that the 15% cap we have arrived at is a more straightforward approach than the one consulted on. It strikes a careful balance, enabling newspapers and news magazines to receive investment from a wide range of sources, while ensuring that foreign states are not able to acquire control or influence over editorial and other decision-making through that investment.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked how things could be truly passive. The legislation would not permit state-owned investors to acquire rights to directly or indirectly appoint or remove directors or other officers of the company. Nor would it permit a state-owned investor acting on behalf of a foreign power to hold the right or ability to direct, control or influence, to any extent, the policy or activities of UK newspapers. Interference in a newspaper’s editorial policy or personnel decisions about senior staff or feature writers is not permitted. Even if a state-owned investor has 15% of the voting rights, it cannot actively use those voting rights in a way that influences the company’s policy or activities, such as editorial direction. The investment must be truly passive to be permitted.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the limited use of FSI. It is important to remember that this regime sits alongside the existing media public regime. This works in parallel so that the Secretary of State, as well as having to refer any case with reasonable grounds, can look at whether the transaction raises wider public interest concerns.

I repeat that it is important to give UK media and potential investors greater certainty about the overall regime. I appreciate that it has taken quite a long time to get here. Newspapers have been calling for this, and it will help end uncertainty and support the overall sustainability of the UK newspaper industry at a time when accurate news and public-interest journalism are more important than ever. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that there is an existential problem; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, when he says that, effectively, it is five minutes to midnight.

The power to make exceptions is included in the Enterprise Act 2002, following the amendments made in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. We looked at the issue of thresholds and came to a different conclusion from the previous Government. It is different, but arguably not radically different, given that their upper limit for diversified businesses was 10%. I know that is arguable, and I am not sure I will convince all noble Lords. I have, however, set out our arguments as to why we settled on 15% and why—in my view, reasonably—we gave weight to the views of UK newspaper groups, which are directly affected by the FSI regime.

The issue of the exception threshold was left open by the general election last year. It is both right and responsible for the Government to look at this afresh; indeed, I am sure we would have been criticised by some noble Lords had we simply ignored the consultation. Our intention in coming to a final view on the 15% threshold is to balance the need to protect press freedom from foreign state influence with not setting the threshold so tightly that it deters investment in newspapers.

The ongoing dialogue with noble Lords has demonstrated commitment across all parts of the House to guarding against malign influence on UK democracy and press freedom, an aim this Government share. However, while it is entirely appropriate for the House to discuss the fatal amendment today and to raise the concerns noble Lords have expressed, there is a strong convention against exercising the power to annul. We feel that, when we were in opposition, we respected this.

Noble Lords will not be surprised that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that it is also the wrong thing to do in terms of policy. We have listened and we have agreed to make changes to put the issues noble Lords have raised beyond doubt. Above all, we will have a robust, effective and operable regime that limits foreign state involvement in UK newspapers while providing the sector with the certainty it needs as it plans for the future.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who made kind comments. It is good to be back and to participate in such an important and serious debate.

Just when I thought I was beginning to get to grips with what the Government are intending, the Minister introduced a whole new layer of ambiguity that is completely opaque. What is and is not permitted is not clear. Reading the SI and listening to the Minister, they are at odds, and this underlines why we should not be approving this measure.

This has thrown up many procedural arguments, which the Government confess to, and worrying aspects regarding the outcome of this measure. These problems and worries render a regret amendment, in my view, inadequate. That is why I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 June be approved.

Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Motion agreed.

Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Order laid before the House on 26 June be approved.

Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Motion agreed.