In-game Purchases: Protections for Children

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards implementing protections for children from harmful in-game purchases, including loot boxes.

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

The Government are committed to ensuring games are enjoyed safely and responsibly by everyone, including children. Industry-led guidance to improve protections to players in relation to loot boxes was published in 2023. A 12-month implementation period ended in July 2024, and we commissioned independent research to assess its effectiveness. We have engaged relevant government departments and regulators to consider the research. We will publish the report and set out our next steps in the coming months.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Is it not time that loot boxes were recognised for what they are—a form of gambling highly addictive to children? The last Government opted for industry-led regulation, but independent research shows that it is not being effectively applied. Will the Government act to ensure safe regulation, particularly for children?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Clearly, protection for children is key. But as the noble Lord rightly states, loot boxes are not currently legally considered gambling, as individuals are not able to cash out their purchases as currency. Where unlicensed gambling is identified, the Gambling Commission has shown that it will take swift enforcement action. I mentioned the report that was finalised and received in December; the Government are considering the implications of these findings along with other government departments and relevant regulators. We have committed to publishing its findings and we will do so shortly alongside our next steps, including keeping our position on possible future legislative options under review.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Last year, research published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions found that, of 394 popular mobile console and PC games containing loot boxes, only 8.4% correctly disclosed their presence. Action on non-compliance by the Advertising Standards Authority is taken through informal resolution, without transparency or meaningful consequences, resulting in a failure to deter. Neither the ASA nor the Gambling Commission is taking ownership of the gap in enforcement. Will the Minister convene a meeting of the ASA and the Gambling Commission to clearly define responsibilities and strengthen enforcement action against companies which continue to breach the rules?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness would expect, I regularly meet with the Gambling Commission and discuss its enforcement activity. I have also met with the Advertising Standards Authority, and, indeed, officials also meet with representatives of the ASA and the Gambling Commission on a range of matters. DCMS has previously raised concerns detailed by Members with the ASA, and I am happy to do so again. Although we are confident that the two regulators talk to each other, I will take steps to make sure that they are liaising very clearly and in detail on this particular point.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Gambling Commission report is clear: many children spend their money on gambling, and 31% of young people who saw gambling-related content on social media say influencers had advertised it. Whether it is loot boxes or social media, we now have a mountain of indisputable evidence. Children are addicted to smartphones, and gambling is a small part. Why are the Government not acting on the voices of parents and teachers across the country who are urgently asking for a formal smartphone ban in schools?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As the noble Earl will be aware, most schools—90% of secondary schools and 99.8% of primary schools—have a mobile phone policy limiting students’ use of mobile phones during school hours. We do not want to exclude children from services which are age appropriate. In relation to screen time, the Government are taking action, but it is important to recognise that screens are part of family life now. The question that parents are asking is not whether they should use them but how to use them well. The Government are going to issue their first guidance on screen use for under-fives in April. This will include tips on how it can be incorporated into activities such as talking, reading and playing safely.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my declaration of interest: I run a service for those with gambling-related harms on the NHS. I wonder whether the Minister considers that any product where you can exchange money for a random reward could be classified as gambling, which loot boxes are. The Minister mentioned that the reason why loot boxes are not classified as gambling is that there is no exchange in real life of the monetary reward. That is currently very disputed. You can exchange, in the so-called grey market, the money that you gain. Loot boxes have all the features of gambling, and to call them gambling lite does not protect children and young people.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I have not referred to them as gambling lite. The law is clear that loot boxes are not currently legally considered gambling, for the reasons that the noble Baroness outlined. The grey market is not a legal market, and the Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, where appropriate, take action on illegal gambling in whatever form it takes.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have talked about this quite often before. The fact of the matter is that, even if loot boxes are not to the technical definition of gambling, they are close enough. The Government sound as if they are hiding behind pedantry here. Can we take some action that stops this compulsive behaviour being pushed on to children?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This is about making sure that children are safe. The Government are committed to ensuring that games are enjoyed safely and responsibly by everyone, including children. The Government maintain the view that loot boxes should not be purchased by children, unless enabled by a parent or guardian, and that is our clear position. All players should have access to spending controls and transparent information. This is why we have funded detailed academic research into the implementation of loot box guidance, which, as I mentioned earlier, will be published in the near future.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

With quite a number of countries around the world having already banned loot boxes and quite a number of gamers having developed a resistance and an anger about them, some online commentary suggests that loot boxes are already on the way out. There is the next new thing, which is known as sweeps or sweepstakes, which involve buying coins for social gameplay. Then, engaged in that, there is a raffle-like or a slot-machine-like process that produces rewards. Are the Government aware of that? Are the Government looking at that? We know that the industry will react—if you just legislate against loot boxes, it will try and find something. Do we not need legislation that covers the whole thing of a gambling-like system set up in gaming?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness correctly identifies that sometimes our debate does not necessarily keep up with developments. One of the major protections we have in place is the Online Safety Act, which applies to online services that allow users to share content and interact with each other. As I have said in previous responses, the Government keep up to date with developments and keep all options under review.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that gamblers face bigger problems from offshore unregulated sites? What will the Government do to make sure that those are held accountable, given that there has been a massive growth in recent years on such sites?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend is referring to what we are doing to tackle the illegal market. As Members of your Lordships’ House will be aware, as part of the Budget the Treasury announced an increase for remote duty but at the same time increased funding to tackle the illegal market. We will be working with the licensed sector on how we increase enforcement—obviously, this will be led by the Gambling Commission—to make sure that we focus on tackling the illegal market, which is an element of the risk that people associate with online activity.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out that voluntary industry regulation was not working, and evidence now exists that that is the case. Are the Government satisfied with continuing with industry-led regulation, or do they see that change is required to keep children safe from these loot boxes?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This is exactly the matter being dealt with in the research that the Government have commissioned, which will be published in the near future, along with the Government’s response. I am happy to invite noble Lords who have raised concerns about this into the department to be briefed on the research and the Government’s response in due course.

Heritage Craft and Building Sector

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to support the heritage craft and building sector; and how they will develop its skills pipeline.

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

The Government are committed to supporting the heritage, craft and building sectors to protect, maintain and adapt heritage for future generations. Last year, I hosted a round table on challenges facing the heritage skills sector and met my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, to discuss the sector’s specific needs. A follow-up sector round table is being organised. The Government are providing an additional £1.2 billion a year towards skills development until 2028-29. We are working across government to ensure heritage skills are supported.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the meetings we have had in this area. Does she agree that, with our heritage in crisis with regard to the repair and maintenance not just of our historic homes and churches but of much pre-1919 build, specialist skills are needed more than ever for an industry that is split across government departments but crying out for a co-ordinated policy? Will the Government provide clear training pathways from school to professional practice, including better level 3 funding and, post-18, a better choice of university-comparable practical courses, building on examples such as York Minster’s apprenticeship centre?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Earl about the need for specialist skills and the many organisations around the country that are doing excellent work in this area. I was hugely impressed by the offer at York Minster when I visited last year, and by the calibre and commitment of the apprentices and teaching staff. We are currently working with the heritage sector to identify key skills gaps and on how to protect the future of heritage skills. Through fully funded SME apprenticeships for under-25s, this Government are giving every smaller heritage organisation the opportunity to deliver flexible, affordable apprenticeships.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, there are approximately 60,000 thatched properties in the United Kingdom. The great majority are in the county of Devon in which I live; in fact, I live in a thatched property. Thatch used to be a sign of poverty; it is now deemed to be a sign of wealth—I cannot quite get my head around that when you look at the levels of insurance we are obliged to pay. The problem is that 75% of thatched properties are listed properties and therefore extremely expensive to maintain. Can the Minister give some encouragement to the idea that there might be parity and that we can get rid of the anomaly between VAT on newbuild and VAT on repair once and for all? Given that there are now only about 1,000 thatchers in the country, what can the Government do to encourage that skill and to encourage better access to authentic reed and thatch to maintain and enhance an important part of our built rural heritage?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am very aware, as the noble Lord clearly is, of the shortage of specialist thatchers. Since I have been in this role, I have learned a huge amount about the different types of techniques that are used around the country. This is one of the issues we have been talking about with the sector. I point to the work of museums such as the Weald & Downland Living Museum in this area, as well as other organisations.

On VAT, noble Lords will be aware that that is a matter for the Treasury. However, I ask the noble Lord to note that a blanket VAT cut for all historic building repairs would be a significant fiscal intervention and potentially subsidise repairs that might have happened anyway. In a tight fiscal climate, it is arguably better value for money to direct taxpayers’ money into targeted funds such as the heritage at risk grants or the Heritage Revival Fund, where we can ensure that every pound delivers genuine public benefit and regeneration rather than a broad tax relief.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, the time was when schools—particularly boys’ schools, sadly—routinely taught woodwork and metalwork, which led young people into the crafts and skills that are now in such short supply. Given the importance of heritage craft skills to the economy, as well as to well-being, what steps are being taken to reintroduce these important subjects into schools to encourage enthusiasm for skills so that the shortages in the workforce can begin to be remedied?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Helpfully, my noble friend Lady Smith is sitting next to me, and I have confirmed with her what I understood to be the case, which is that schools still routinely teach children those skills. One of the challenges is how we make sure young people understand the exciting careers available. Within some of the work that is going on with regard to building skills and the targets for new homes, there are a lot of retrofitting skills and expertise being rolled out, which is clearly one way in which we can make sure that we restore heritage buildings given the amount of our built environment that is over a particular age.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip. I am very interested in what the noble Baroness has said about the range of initiatives, and very glad that she is talking to the rest of the heritage sector. The question that was raised, however, was about the strategic direction and need for systematic and scaled-up investment on a credible and systematic basis in terms of heritage skills. Although we need the skills to bring the historic environment up to scratch and to make the most of it, whether we are repurposing buildings or restoring them, this is not a niche issue. These skills are transferable into the whole of the construction economy, and we desperately need a lot of additional quality in that sector as well. Can the Minister give me some assurance that there is an endgame here where we will see a significant increase in the quality of apprenticeships and other qualification routes, whereby we will build our capacity to do these jobs over the next decade?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am sure that my noble friend is in no doubt about the commitment of the Prime Minister and this Government to apprenticeships. From my perspective, it is an exciting opportunity for us to make sure that we increase the number of apprenticeships available in heritage skills. We have a problem in that heritage construction is not recruiting fast enough to replace an ageing workforce; that will become critical if we do not address it. Rather than tell the sector what we think should happen, I want to work with it to make sure that we get the workforce we need for the future to restore and maintain our incredible built environment within the heritage realm, which we know the public value hugely.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister recognised, our historic churches do not just rely on the talents of skilled craftspeople; they provide fantastic opportunities to acquire new skills and pass them on—I have met some of the stonemasons at Gloucester Cathedral who are apprentices there. For a second year running, the custodians of our churches and cathedrals are uncertain about whether the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme will continue beyond March. Some 260 churches and cathedrals have said that they have put essential repair works to one side while they wait to see whether this will happen. Can the Minister shed some light on whether the scheme will go beyond March and whether the cap that was imposed last year might be lifted?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord is aware that the current scheme is funded until the end of March, when the budget is reached. We are very clear as a department that huge value is placed on listed places of worship by local communities and by their congregations. We extended the scheme in recognition of the importance of the listed places of worship scheme. The cap has not affected the majority of applications—94% of applications will be unaffected by the change; most claims are under £5,000. Immediately before Christmas, I met key stakeholders such as the National Churches Trust and the Church of England to make sure that they are kept up to date on where we are going as a department. I appreciate that people will be anxious to know about potential future funding and potential changes, and I will provide an update as soon as possible.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, government funding for level 2 and 3 diploma courses in some building crafts, such as stonemasonry, has recently been withdrawn. For a craftsperson, who is usually a micro-entity business, to take on a novice apprentice without previous foundational training is a big risk and potentially a big immediate cost. How are the Government planning to support busy craftspeople to take on novice apprentices?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I recognise what the noble Baroness said about the issues faced by some craftspeople in taking on apprentices. That is why I met my noble friend last year and why we are working with the sector to make sure that what we put in place, and what is put in place by the sector and supported by government, reflects the needs of the heritage sector so that we get the workforce that we need.

Broadcasting: Recent Developments

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate on UK broadcasting. Given the limited time that we have, I will commit to writing to noble Lords on points that I cannot cover in my concluding notes—I have a lot of bits of paper in front of me, so noble Lords must please bear with me.

As the noble Lord highlighted in his opening remarks, he and many others across your Lordships’ House have significant interest and expertise in this subject. It has therefore been a wide-ranging debate, with much to consider. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that your Lordships’ House undoubtedly has a particular interest in news and current affairs. I note that I enjoy hearing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on “Thought for the Day”, as I know many others do.

We are rightly proud of our broadcasting sector in the UK. It is unique, with a dynamic, mixed ecology of public service broadcasters, commercial broadcasters and streamers. It is a sector that is indispensable to our culture, society and economy. However, there are many different pressures on the broadcasting sector at the moment, as contributions to this debate have illustrated powerfully. It was particularly helpful to have the perspective of the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bailey of Paddington, who talked about the generational shift and the fact that not everybody recognises themselves in our public service media or uses the BBC and other public sector media to access media. We need to be clear that there is a broader issue, and a broader fight for truth and unbiased broadcasting, with new challenges in the market and increased competition. These are just a few of the issues that the sector is currently facing. It is vital that we do not lose the need to address these issues and that we ensure that the UK’s broadcasting remains one of our greatest assets.

Today’s debate comes, as I think most noble Lords highlighted, shortly after the Government have published the BBC royal charter review Green Paper. Before I go on to cover the charter review briefly, I will speak to some of the work that DCMS is undertaking more generally in relation to broadcast media. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, highlighted the importance of the implementation of the Media Act. I acknowledge the work on this Act by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. As noble Lords will be aware, the Media Act 2024 made much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting. Since the previous Act, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. My noble friend Lord Chandos highlighted the importance of the regulatory framework. The commencement of the modernised public service broadcasting framework on 1 January marks an important milestone in the implementation of the Media Act and demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to ensuring the regulatory framework that our PSBs operate in keeps pace with changes in the media landscape.

As part of the Media Act implementation, we will be extending vital audience protections and accessibility requirements to mainstream video on demand services, securing a fairer competitive environment for our broadcasters by ensuring that TV-like on-demand services are regulated to similar standards as traditional TV. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, on prominence, we are in the process of implementing the new online prominence regime, which will require particular TV platforms to carry and give appropriate prominence to PSB TV apps. This will ensure that UK viewers can continue to find and watch the public service broadcasting content they value on demand.

I move on to the BBC now. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, not getting on to its graduate scheme, I would argue that he has done all right—it is clear that we have gained and the BBC has lost. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted the moral case for the BBC and for funding the BBC. Not surprisingly, the future of our national broadcaster was raised throughout the debate by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose speech I enjoyed and will reflect on.

On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his opening remarks, I agree that we should defend the BBC. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, that the BBC must own its problems and failings in order to rebuild trust.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, I say that the Government are also clear that the BBC is a vital part of our society that projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries and is pivotal in telling our national story. In the words of the Culture Secretary, which the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, quoted:

“the BBC, alongside the NHS, is one of the two most important institutions in our country”.

I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, echo the Secretary of State in saying that it is the light on the hill.

From Salford to Belfast, the BBC has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched by any other, and it is one of the most trusted news providers, both at home and abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Hall, described some powerful examples of how the BBC tells our national story, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. My noble friend Lord Chandos highlighted the importance of drama.

As our national broadcaster, the BBC fulfils a vital public service role, telling the story of who we are: our people, our places, and giving cultural definition to our communities. As made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the BBC was created to serve the whole of society. The noble Baroness made a powerful case for the BBC being a public service resource and for universality—no doubt themes we will return to throughout this year of debate on the charter review.

As noble Lords are aware, we have launched the BBC charter review. This will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and, through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC story. Through the review, we will ensure the BBC is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. The charter review will look at how to secure the BBC’s future against a rapidly changing media landscape to ensure the BBC does not just survive but thrives for decades to come.

The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, highlighted the digital age we are in, noting that how the BBC embraces this ethically and for the public benefit will be key. The debate on how to do this will be central to the BBC charter review, and it was helpful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, about the variation across different parts of the country, including the extent and proportion of people who access free-to-air content.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, focused on funding models. Essential to the charter review will be ensuring the financial sustainability of the BBC. We approach this charter review with an open mind, and we are consulting on a range of funding options, including how the BBC can operate more efficiently and generate more commercial revenue, and how the licence fee might be reformed.

Let me address the point on non-payment, made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and on the value for money the BBC represents if broken down to a daily cost per household, made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. We know that some funding options would represent a significant shift for both the sector and the BBC, as well as for audience experiences and expectations. We want to see a thriving media sector, including our public service broadcasters. Our decision-making in relation to the Green Paper will carefully consider the potential impacts on this ecosystem.

As the consultation is ongoing, it probably would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the range of fascinating views that have come out of today’s debate. I know, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clearly does not agree with some of the suggestions. I look forward to future debates with him and with others across your Lordships’ House as the year, and the work of the Government on the BBC royal charter review, continues.

I will try to cover a few of the other points made relating to the BBC; I apologise if I miss any out. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, spoke about BBC market impact on local online news. We recognise the importance of a plural local news sector and are aware of the issues and headwinds facing the green sector. As noted in the Green Paper, we want to make sure that the BBC works alongside, and does not crowd out, high-quality local media organisations.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, raised BBC board appointments. Most board appointments are for the BBC to make independent of government; moving forward, it is important that the BBC continues to demonstrate how it is working diligently to maintain the high standards for which it is rightly recognised. As we set out in December, the charter review will look at strengthening the BBC’s independence so that the public continue to have trust in the organisation and its programmes and content, and that will include considering the Government’s role in board appointments.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, raised a number of points concerning political interference. We are clear that the BBC is the world’s most trusted international news service. A critical reason for that is its independence from government and other political actors. This Government are committed to ensuring that the BBC remains, I emphasise, fiercely independent. This is vital to the principle of press freedom more broadly.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and others raised the importance of the World Service. We are clear that the World Service is vital, which is why we gave it a £32.6 million funding uplift this financial year. It is a vital element of our soft power and a big part of why the BBC can be seen as that light on the hill. I will come back in writing on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about ongoing certainty of funding, because I do not have the answer—one of the disbenefits of speaking just before the Minister is that it is quite difficult to get answers inserted at the last minute. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, also referred to BBC World Service funding. Our ambition is to establish a long-term sustainable funding model that provides predictable and stable funding for the World Service through the charter review. We will be able to come back to this throughout the year.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made a point about the potential influence of foreign state actors. We feel quite strongly about this as well. As I said, the Government are committed to making sure that the BBC has that freedom and remains fiercely independent.

As a postscript to this section of the debate, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Hannay and Lord Inglewood, raised the lawsuit by President Trump. It is not for the Government to comment on ongoing legal matters, but I point your Lordships’ House to the assertion by the BBC’s chair, who has gone on record strongly disagreeing with the assertion that it was the basis for a defamation claim.

I move on to public service broadcasters more generally. It was really useful to hear the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, on PSBs. I also found the contribution on this from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, of huge interest and it should be reflected on. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted the increased scrutiny of public service media, including the BBC. As has come through in the debate, not least from the noble Lord, our public service media is wider than the BBC and we need trust to be retained and, where necessary, rebuilt across the range of broadcasters.

The Secretary of State has been clear that we will ensure that the high standards we expect from our public service media are reflected across the whole of broadcast media so that the highest standards are upheld. Generally our media have high standards, but we must not be complacent. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted the importance of truth and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlighted the debate around politicians presenting current affairs. Polemic should not be presented as fact. The lines between broadcast news and opinion are in some cases becoming dangerously blurred. It is a dangerous place for democracy if people cannot trust what they see and hear. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Parekh about truth, trust and bias. This is why balance matters. We are now considering whether the Government need to go further to protect audiences.

Public service media providers are contending with funding shortfalls, changing and new habits, and regulation that has not really kept pace with the media revolution of recent years, and we want to fix this for the future. We want to ensure our public service media can continue to thrive and compete with global competitors as viewing shifts online so that they can continue to do what they do best. That is why we have committed to taking action to support public service media and the wider TV sector in the Creative Industries Sector Plan. We are also considering the findings in Ofcom’s public service media review, which will inform our work, and engaging with the sector on next steps. We also recognise the need to diversify the TV workforce, move commissioning out of London and ensure the whole nation is reflected in the story we tell about ourselves as a nation. We will work with the sector to ensure the right framework, conditions and support are in place for this to happen.

I have a couple more points which I will cover, but I am going to conclude to allow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to respond before we run out of time for this debate.

On local news, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised, the Government recognise the importance of local media, including local TV and its role in providing trusted and accurate news at a local level. I am pleased that local TV licences have been renewed by Ofcom to enable local TV to continue until at least 2034.

In relation to a point about Netflix made by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who asked for assurance on Netflix’s proposed acquisition of Warner Brothers, given the legal and commercial sensitivities involved, it would not be appropriate to comment on any potential live media merger involving US media companies, but should any merger progress, the Competition and Markets Authority will examine the implications for competition and consumers, providing relevant jurisdiction criteria are met. We remain in regular contact with stakeholders, including the BFI and the UK Cinema Association, on how best to support the UK film and cinema sectors.

I am going to ditch the bit on radio, although I love radio, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, but I will again plug the programme by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted the pipeline that BBC Radio has provided for some of our greatest talent.

I will conclude there. It is clear from the debate today that UK broadcasting is at a pivotal moment. The Secretary of State was clear when she spoke at the Royal Television Society’s Cambridge Convention that public service media is fighting to be seen and heard in an increasingly competitive market. Our public service media is dealing with multiple challenges in funding, viewing habits and regulation. I know we will return to this debate throughout the year, but it has been a useful first step in our discussion on the future of broadcasting.

Arts and Creative Industries: Social Mobility

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

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

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

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

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

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

Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charities: Advancement of Religion

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

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

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

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

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

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

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

Motions agreed.

Telegraph Media Group

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox]

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

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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


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

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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