Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

It is completely inexplicable that our Government—I say that as a subject—appear to be blocking this opportunity for us all to have a means to use the existing copyright law, with no cogent explanation as to why and no attempts to compromise on this single vital point. Unless the Government can give a reason as to why they do not want people in this country to use this country’s current copyright law against AI companies that have breached it—some transparency, we might say—I will continue to support amendments to try to give people that facility.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I think I am right in saying that it is approximately 25 years since I joined this House, so perhaps I have been here too long, but I do not recall any occasion when ping-pong has been done in the dinner-break hour. I sympathise with the complaint that the Government Chief Whip made about the amount of precious parliamentary time that has been spent on ping-pong; I do not know how long it has been exactly, but it must be more than eight hours.

Anyone listening to any of the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, could not fail to be impressed by her arguments. It is extraordinary that the House of Commons has been so tone-deaf and tin-eared to those arguments. That is why we have spent so long on this and why we are here now. I am conscious that my Chief Whip is in her place and, understandably, we are whipped on the issue of principle that we do not challenge the House of Commons over and again. However, I argue that that depends on the other place actually showing respect for this place and the arguments put here. It has not done so.

I feel sorry for the Minister—she is unable to do anything because of the view that has been taken in the other place—but, frankly, to keep coming back, saying the same thing over again and expecting things to change is an act of political madness. I do not understand the politics of this. The Government are alienating some of their traditional key supporters.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has come forward with an ingenious amendment to continue the process. I suspect that many of my colleagues are thinking, “Do we really want to extend this?” I am sorry that more noble Lords were not present to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It is devastating in its impact, and what the Government are doing is devastating because of the implications. The noble Lord said that he was delighted that there were now musicians in the Government. Well, we must have a few pipers, because he who pays the piper calls the tune. The fact that, as the noble Baroness said, the Prime Minister entertained at Chequers over the weekend the people who want to put their hands in the pockets of our most creative and productive people, without any opportunity to make recompense, is pretty extraordinary.

I say to the Government Chief Whip that we have reached this position because of the Government’s recalcitrance and the foolish way this has been handled. I am sure that I speak for many noble Lords in saying that even a modest concession would have prevented us getting into this continuing ping-pong position. It just will not do. To put it in the dinner hour—many people might think that the dinner break is limited to an hour but we can go on for as long as we like, although I think we might upset a number of our colleagues if we did so—is just not right. I suspect that the Government Chief Whip might say, “Oh, well, I thought there weren’t going to be any more amendments”. I say in response: I thought that at the very least, after such substantial defeats, there would be some give.

There is a big principle here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, touched on at the end of her speech. Today it is the creative industries, but what will they come for next? They will come for our health data. Where will they be on the protections for our children, for which we fought so hard and on which the noble Baroness played such a leading role? Will we really go all the way with these big crony capitalists—that is what we are seeing now in the United States—at the expense of some of our most precious industries and values?

That is why, if the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, presses this matter to a vote, I will go through the Lobby in support of his Motion, feeling that I should not have been driven to that position by a Government who show no proper respect to this House or its arguments. It is not enough for them to have a majority and to do anything they like; that is the road that the previous Viscount Hailsham described as leading to elective dictatorship in a democracy. The elective dictatorship is looking to those who have substantial financial means instead of the interests of the people of our country.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

I support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS.

It is no secret that Governments have built AI policy around the views of those with the deepest vested interests: companies whose business models rely on opacity. The noble Lord’s amendment is modest, but it is a line in the sand. If we want a fair digital economy, we must start by listening not only to shareholders and Silicon Valley lobbyists but to creators, researchers and small businesses. Transparency is not a threat to innovation; it is the precondition for accountability.

I will explain the reasons behind that. First, this amendment aligns perfectly with established IP disclosure requirements. Under Regulation 16 of the collective rights management regulations, copyright users must already provide information to collecting societies about works used. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would simply extend this proven principle to AI companies to ensure they disclose what copyright works they use in training. This would create consistency across our IP regime, rather than carve out special exemptions for big tech.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already said, the amendment involves no financial burden on the Government.

Finally, disclosures benefit everyone, including AI companies themselves. When both rights holders and AI developers can see what works have been used, they can properly assess whether legitimate exceptions exist under copyright laws and whether they apply. This legal clarity reduces litigation risks and encourages proper licensing arrangements. I hope that the House will support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I apologise to the creative sector if it did not get a response. I can follow that up, but I was responding to a different point made by other people casting aspersions about our ministerial involvement with this sector, which is an important sector for our economy.

It is clear that several noble Lords still have concerns about the Government’s plan. I understand their concerns, even if I do not share them—just as I am sure that they understand our concerns with the proposed alternatives, even if they do not share them. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that it is a matter of fact that the Bill does not change, weaken or block anything in copyright law. We believe in transparency, protection and enforcement, and we agree with remuneration. This is our task ahead. But the Government’s firm view remains that we cannot prejudge the consultation, the technical or parliamentary working groups or the proposals resulting from these that will be brought forward in our report.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I understand the Minister’s point about not wanting to prejudge the consultation—although on other issues, such as VAT on school fees, that did not seem to apply. What I have difficulty with is why the Government were not prepared to take a power that would enable them to act at a subsequent date and does not require them to do so.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, this is because we believe the powers we already have are sufficient to enable us to enact the regulations once we have finished the piece of work we are working on.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his speech, and repeat my assurances in response to his ask. Our plans will give copyright holders as much protection as possible via transparency, enforcement and remuneration. Our report, nine months from Royal Assent, will contain our proposals to put this in place. The Government are also looking at the case for more comprehensive AI legislation that delivers on our manifesto commitment. I expect any comprehensive legislation to address the opportunities and challenges presented by AI to the creative sector.

I turn now to concerns that the Government have not compromised on this issue. Noble Lords are right that we have deep concerns about pre-empting all the work that is necessary to determine what future laws should contain. It is an important principle that good government consults, respects the responses and then sets out its proposals. I expect any comprehensive legislation that follows—to address the opportunities and challenges presented by the AI sector—to encompass those principles.

However, I want to remind noble Lords of everything I am referring to when I say that the Government have compromised. The Government have compromised on the consultation with the Secretary of State, recognising concerns about the preferred option and the lack of an impact assessment, and by introducing a report that will set out proposals and which will be accompanied by a full impact assessment.

The Government have also compromised on the process. The reports will be brought forward even more quickly, with more topics included in them, and there will be a progress statement, and technical and parliamentary working groups will now be set up to complement this process.

I press my point to noble Lords: the Government have compromised many times on many issues, but where we cannot compromise is on one of the principles of good government: namely, that we cannot prejudge the outcome of these processes.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

I know that ping-pong is a game that many noble Lords do not wish to play, and I respect that, but it is the Government who are actively failing to protect the property rights of our citizens and businesses, it is the Government who are actively failing to give UK citizens the tool to protect their own property rights, and it is the Government who have failed to answer the concerns of noble Lords who time and again have asked them to reconsider. I hope that enough noble Lords will continue to come with me until the Government think again, because 2.4 million people, a £126 million contribution to the economy, our very precious press and our national story are at stake. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I propose to be brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in a formidable speech, has set out all the issues. Still, I will make a couple of points.

The first is that I do not like protracted ping-pong. I think it is constitutionally not great. When it happened when I was a Minister in the other place, I was none too pleased. However, the difference between then and now is that when your Lordships sent something to the other place, first, it was established that the Government would not comment on it until they had considered it properly, and, secondly, you would have discussions with whoever had proposed the amendment and try to find an accommodation in the interests of ensuring that good legislation got on to the statute book. On many occasions when I was irritated, I came to realise that actually what the House of Lords was saying was absolutely right, and that in that House there were lots of people who knew what they were talking about—and today the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is one of those people.

The second is that on this occasion I think it is perfectly apparent that Ministers’ response has been to stick their fingers in their ears and basically continue saying the same thing, notwithstanding the eloquence of the Minister’s introductory remarks today, although when a Minister starts complaining about the tone of the debate you know they have lost the argument.

To me, as a Conservative, this is a vital issue. For a Conservative, the protection of private property is absolutely central to having a free society. That is a fundamental principle which I believe is shared on all sides of the House; in respect of the last debate that we had, we saw a huge majority in the House asking the Government to think again.

I have not always been a Conservative; when I went up to university, I thought I was a socialist.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

One of the things that I believed then and still believe now is that people have a right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, that people have the right to be able to own their property and that they have the right to sell their labour in a fair and reasonable manner. I am afraid that the Government are running headstrong against that basic principle, which again I would have thought could be accepted on both sides of the House.

What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with something we are absolutely brilliant at. I do not know how many noble Lords have seen the Channel 4 programme “The Piano”, where people turn up at railway stations and play the piano. The talent in this country that we do not know about is amazing—unbelievable talent, people who can compose and play the piano to a level that is just extraordinary. Those people will have no chance to develop their careers if their work can just be scooped up by big tech.

Now I am going to say something that will upset the Minister, and she will say that I am being unfair to the Government. It just looks to me as though crony capitalism and the Government have got into bed together and the Government are being told, “Just give this away and we will give you data centres outside your main cities”—quite where the electricity is going to come from to run this is another issue, but I will not divert—“and you will be leaders in the world”. Only a very naive Minister would believe that kind of nonsense. Where does it end?

What makes the Government think that the other place, or the Government, have the authority to give away people’s property and their right to earn a living? That is the issue raised here today. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that, although I deprecate extended ping-pong, on this occasion, the House of Lords is doing its duty, which is speaking up for the interests of the country. I hope that the Government will listen, that the noble Baroness’s amendment will be carried with a good majority, and that the Government will think again.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I find it worrying that I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but it is probably more worrying for him.

Now is not the time for long speeches but for commitment. I support this amendment, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on so brilliantly moving it. I refer to my registered interests as a rights holder. To the Government Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, I say that, as a rights holder and a royalties holder, reassurances do not, sadly, pay the rent, but royalties do.

When it comes to technology, creatives have embraced every single challenge of developing technology—from the printing press to cable and satellite television, television on demand, streaming, Spotify and so on. We have always proceeded on the basis that the user must pay. Now is not the time to deflect from that principle and now is not too late for the Government to embrace that principle.

It is incomprehensible for me to believe that jobbing actors, singers, writers and other creatives—people at the beginning or at the end of their careers—will be able to police the internet in such a way as to find those using their material so that they can then opt in or opt out. That is not part of the reality of people in the creative professions.

It is for those most in need of the protection of copyright that I speak—it is they who will lose the most. It is for them that I urge your Lordships to support the amendment. It is reasonable, and I believe any reasonable Secretary of State should welcome and indeed embrace it.

Finally, for the record, much has been said about Minister Peter Kyle. He is a good, decent, fair and highly intelligent person, and a friend of many years. I say to him and to the Government that the art of compromise is to give a little in order that we all win a lot—and I am not talking about the dog food. Therefore, I think it is in the Government’s domain to move forward, to compromise and to accept the amendment as—to quote the Minister—a workable solution, because it makes sense.

--- Later in debate ---

People say we have not compromised. We have compromised, and we are trying to find a way through. The Secretary of State said that we will convene the technical working groups and use them to work through the detail of how to address transparency and technical standards in practice in a way that supports the creative industries and the tech sector.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Could she just deal with the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others? Why, if the Government are working and looking for a compromise, have they sent this back to the House without any proposal from the Government?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, when I set out my comments, I said that I have made compromises, and I will reiterate them. We are trying to find a way through on the detail of how we are going to find something that is workable and deliverable in the longer term. That is the real challenge here. We all agree that we need to find something that will support the creative sector. It is about finding a model that will work internationally as well. That is our real challenge, and that is what we are attempting to do.

I think noble Lords feel that it is simpler than it is, because this is a huge challenge for us on a global basis. Let us not just think that there is a simple solution; I do not think for one second that there is.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I am obviously dealing with this in wash-up. The priority is to ensure that we get this Bill through. The arguments have been very well rehearsed across your Lordships’ House and in the other place about Horizon, the Post Office, Fujitsu and the outcomes of that. At Second Reading, I was struck by the contributions from all sides of your Lordships’ House and the language that was used about making sure that we do, and are seen to do, the right thing. The Labour Front Bench has submitted no amendments at this stage for that simple reason. We looked at purpose, but we think the issues around the Bill are clear enough that it deals just with this set of circumstances, which is obviously one of the big issues from across the judiciary.

On the relationship with the Government and the department on the Bill, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the team for those discussions. If we can get to a situation, following the Minister’s response and conversations with the Minister down the other end, where these amendments go through and are accepted by the Government, the Bill will be in a better place and all of us will have played our part in delivering that. We support where we are at just now. We intend this to go through, to be dealt with in the other place tomorrow and then to be legislated for. I look forward to the Minister’s response so that we get the warm words and assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, has worked so hard to achieve.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly intervene to thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, who has done really sterling work on this, together with my noble friend. I very much agree with his optimism that this matter can be adjusted. I think all of us realise that 13 is an unlucky number and 13 people were going to suffer a degree of injustice. This is an important matter. It is a very good example of what we were talking about earlier: how this House can work consensually to deliver the right result. I look forward to what my noble friend the Minister has to say.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will follow on and, I hope, echo that spirit of consensus. One of the spin-offs from the decision to call the election is, of course, that this Bill will make the statute book quicker than it would have in the event that it had gone through a normal process. This is a good thing. However, it will have lost some of that scrutiny. The amendments set out some of the abiding issues that I hope the Minister will address from the Dispatch Box, bearing in mind that we will not have the legislative routes to do that.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, raised the DWP in his Amendment 1, which may or may not be an issue, but the core issue that he, along with the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, raised is the 13 appellants. If the Government stay firm in not accepting Amendments 2, 4 and 6, we really have to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box what they are going to do instead.

When my noble friend Lady Brinton and I met the Minister and his team—I thank them for that—it was clear to me that the Minister understands the injustice that is built into this. I understand that there is a wrestling about how much judges are offended in this, but the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made it clear that the point has been made already in the substance of the Bill. The 13 are merely an extension of the same issue and have to be included in the same way, because they were the people who had the best case to defend and bravely went to law to do it, and now they are in danger of being hung out to dry. I know that is not what the Minister wants and I believe that a way must be found.

My noble friend Lady Brinton made the point that it is not for this Bill to legislate on this. However, it is for the Minister to say that, in the event that Capture proves also to have lured people into situations where they have been unjustly prosecuted, the Government of the day will act promptly and properly to make sure that they are not dragged through the same mess as those trapped by Horizon.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, raised three issues in his amendments; unfortunately, he is not here to speak to them. They are all important issues for the future. I suggest that they are not substantive to this Bill, but they are issues that I hope, whichever party is in government, will be looked at going forward. The inviolability of computer evidence has clearly been compromised. The ability of organisations to make their own prosecutions has raised concern and a thorough review is needed. There is also the role of corporate governance within the Post Office to be considered. I know the noble Lord has also made comments on this on a number of occasions. Clearly, there is something wrong. Whoever is running the Government needs to understand that Post Office governance has been broken.

I would just like to say a word to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Offord. He came to this relatively late and picked up the issues very quickly. He has humanely and swiftly dealt with them, and he should be praised, along with the Bill team and all of those working on it. With the inclusion of the 13, I hope we can put this thing to bed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. We have been clear in our discussions with him that there are two sides to this argument and great sympathy is expressed for the group in the Court of Appeal cases. At this stage in proceedings, however, the Government are retaining the position as outlined from the Dispatch Box.

Amendment 13, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would require the appropriate authority to notify bodies other than the convicting court that a conviction has been quashed. The effect of this amendment would be potentially onerous. It is not clear what would constitute an appropriate body or how the appropriate authority would decide which bodies ought to be notified. The reason the Bill currently requires that the convicting court be notified is to reflect what would happen when the Court of Appeal quashes a conviction. This amendment would create a difference between the two processes and it is unclear what purpose it would achieve. Therefore, I hope the noble and learned Lord will be happy not to move this amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I may have misunderstood but, when I spoke earlier, I understood that there had been agreement between the various parties, as my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot indicated. My noble friend said that there are “two sides to this”, but I understood that that was part of the agreement and the understanding. This is very important for 13 people.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

May I suggest that we have a 10-minute break to discuss this, please?

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, we are at Third Reading and this is not a time for long speeches, but I want to congratulate my noble friend and his colleagues on having listened to what was said. He remarked that I had gone from moving a regret amendment to signing an amendment. I gently point out that it is not me who has moved position.

I am struck by how the attempts to get this dealt with under both the Media Bill and this Bill came across the problems of the Long Title of the Bill and getting it in order. Going from an amendment that was 16 lines long to one that is 16 pages long tells us how much hard work has gone into this with the civil servants in both departments that are affected. It is fashionable to be rude about this place and the work it does, which I believe is outstanding, but it is even more fashionable these days, even among some Ministers, to criticise the Civil Service. To turn this around in this period, and to do it with such diligence and careful consideration, is a great tribute to the officials in those departments. It just goes to show that, contrary to what is believed, if Ministers give a clear view of what needs to be done, the Civil Service is more than capable of delivering that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has done a fantastic job on this. I agree with everything that she said, and I see no need to repeat it. My understanding—I am very conscious of Pepper v Hart here—is that what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box is absolutely clear. I have to say that, when I read the amendment, I thought, “Is this secondary legislation a Maginot line that will enable a future Government to get around the clear principle that no foreign Government should be able to own or influence in any way a newspaper or a news magazine?” The words that have been stated from the Dispatch Box make me confident that that is not the position. That has to be right. After yesterday’s events, it is inconceivable that the Chinese Government could own 1% or even one share of a British newspaper.

The carve-out is sensible, if sensibly applied, and there will be an opportunity for this House and the other place to consider it. I very much look forward to this legislation receiving Royal Assent, which will mean that there is a complete ban on any foreign Government having either ownership or influence over our press. That must be right in a free and democratic society.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I also pay tribute to the Government, Ministers, officials and lawyers for their speedy response to the amendment put down on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and others. I declare an interest as the chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which regulates 95% of the printed press and its online manifestations.

I shared with many other noble Lords concern about the prospective acquisition of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator by the United Arab Emirates—or at least the acquisition of a substantial part of those important titles. It seems to me that this amendment will make this sort of acquisition much more difficult, if not impossible, as soon as the Bill becomes law.

I agree with other noble Lords that it is most important in framing the necessary secondary legislation that the driving principle behind the amendment, which is to prevent foreign state ownership of newspapers, is reflected appropriately. There is a risk that too tightly drawn definitions might catch wholly benign investors who might have a very modest and non-active interest in newspaper organisations. Sovereign wealth funds have already been mentioned, and the noble Lord has given assurances in this area. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his citation of Pepper v Hart and its importance, but none the less we will be much reassured by anything the Minister might say. I also ask him to consider the position of banks which may provide a newspaper organisation’s finance. Banks are often part of a consortium, and one part of a consortium may well be a bank with a connection to a foreign state. It is important that that is not captured.

There has been a deliberate choice by those drafting these amendments to change the language of the Enterprise Act 2002, which speaks of “material influence” to provide in the amendment that a relevant merger situation arises where one party acquires “influence” over another. That is plainly a much lower bar. I imagine that the change is designed to protect against somewhat unconvincing assertions by prospective acquirers of an interest in newspapers that editorial independence is protected by some form of editorial board or other Chinese wall. I welcome the Minister’s clarification on this.

The definition of a newspaper in the amendment is,

“a news publication circulating wholly or mainly in the United Kingdom or in a part of the United Kingdom on any periodic basis”.

That seems to exclude news websites or broadcasters. News websites are increasingly a source of news for consumers, many whom have deserted conventional newspaper models. It may be that more power and influence can in fact be obtained there than in the traditional format. I hope that the Minister can continue to reassure the House that these websites are in the Government’s sights, simply on the basis of consistency. I venture to suggest that the Media Bill might provide an appropriate parent for relevant provisions to bring websites into the same category as newspapers. I welcome clarification on that.

The provisions make it clear that the Secretary of State must—I emphasise the word “must”—

“make an order … reversing or preventing … the foreign state newspaper merger situation”.

There is no discretion here. That makes it all the more important that any exemptions should provide that remote or benign interest in newspapers by various emanations of foreign states will not necessarily fall foul of these provisions.

I would like to make it clear that I am entirely in favour of the thinking which animates this amendment, but it is inevitable that when an amendment is drafted, at considerable pace, at a late stage in the progress of a Bill, there may be gaps or ambiguities. Freedom from state interference is of fundamental importance. Our newspaper industry is not in anything like the healthy state it once was, and its vulnerability is what makes newspapers potentially prey to outside investment from foreign states which seek influence. However, important though it is to keep our newspapers free of such influence, we want them to survive and, indeed, to prosper. I hope that the amendment entirely comprehends that aim.

Finally, I simply ask for clarity—the drafting is impressive, but sometimes the meaning is a little hard to tease out—on how the Minister envisages parliamentary involvement in the case of a contentious merger situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their support for these amendments and the work undertaken. I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell for commending the work of Julia Lopez, the media Minister, and indeed the department and the officials more broadly. My noble friend also acknowledged the specific quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State in her ongoing determination of the case before her, but acknowledged that she obviously has a role in all this. On the broader question of media mergers, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State of course remains very much involved as well, but I thank my noble friend for her appreciation for both. I agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth in his praise for the civil servants who worked thoroughly and quickly on this matter, including over Mother’s Day weekend. I am grateful for that recognition.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth rightly pointed out that he has not moved since tabling his regret amendment to the Media Bill. The Government have made explicit and put beyond doubt what was implicit and possible in the existing regime, as I set out on Report. We are very happy to take the opportunity to do that clearly, in the way that we do through these amendments, and, indeed, to set out now the new lower threshold. My noble friend Lady Stowell is right: we will set it at 5%, which is considerably lower than the existing threshold. I am glad that my noble friend welcomes that. She is right in the characterisation of what I said: anyone blocked at what she calls stage 1—the new automatic block on foreign state investment—will not be able to be exempted at what she calls stage 2. She is right, as well, to make the distinction between foreign investment and foreign state investment, and to make it clear, as I was very happy to, that the UK remains open for business. This is a discrete area and an important one in our national life, which is why we are acting in the way we have.

My noble friend Lord Faulks and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about the role of banks. We do not think that, in the ordinary course of events, debt and debt refinancing from foreign banks which have a state interest should be captured, unless the structure of the transaction gives rise to concerns about influence. We are considering precisely how debt and debt refinancing should be treated in cases where the structure of debt may give rise to concerns about foreign state investment organisations. But as I say, as we bring these provisions forward in secondary legislation, I am very happy to continue conversations with noble Lords and, indeed, to have conversations with those who will be directly affected.

My noble friend Lord Faulks invited me to set out what we are doing in consulting shortly on expanding the existing media mergers regime and the foreign state ownership provisions, to include online news websites. That will enable us to make changes that ensure that online news, whether from an established newspaper group or an online publisher, is covered by the media regime and the new measures we are introducing for foreign state media ownership.

The Secretary of State will maintain a quasi-judicial role in media mergers. The public interest regime will remain as it is, but we are adding a new parallel foreign state intervention regime. The Secretary of State will not have discretion under that; she will have to follow the report of the Competition and Markets Authority, both on whether there is a foreign state merger and an exemption. She would need to lay an order before Parliament to block a transaction, which would be under the negative procedure. We will debate what I have announced in the provisions that we will bring forward after Royal Assent, setting out an exemption for investments where the stake is below 5%, and noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise that under the affirmative procedure.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have engaged with us and our officials in recent days as we work on these amendments. I am glad that they have your Lordships’ support. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, when can we expect the secondary legislation to appear?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

Can I ask a question as well, to save the Minister from getting up several times? I do not think that he said anything about broadcasting. Where is the department on reviewing policy in that area?

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

This is not simply about the Daily Telegraph or the Spectator magazine, but what that case has done is illustrate the vulnerability that we have, in this modern world, to the way in which foreign Governments might seek to impose their views and attitudes on the British public. I do not intend, given that Sky News has already told me that the Government are giving in, to make a huge issue of this here. As the noble Baroness said, I will listen with great interest to what the Minister says and what the department has told Sky News in advance; if that is right, we will all be satisfied, and the United Kingdom will be a safer place as a consequence.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her skill and thank the splendid, clever people in our Public Bill Office who enabled her to find a way through this legislation to have an amendment that is in scope—because, for a very long time, we thought that would not be possible. I tried with the Media Bill, and the best I could come up with was a regret Motion on the Second Reading that showed there was widespread support. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, deserves considerable credit for making that navigation and getting us to the point where, in her courteous way—she is much more diplomatic than me—she gives the Government an opportunity to do the right thing and support an amendment to this Bill to protect the freedom of the press in our country and, with that, the very foundations of our democracy.

I will say something about the Telegraph bid made by this curious organisation called RedBird IMI—it is a very odd bird indeed. We are told that Sheikh Mansour, the vice-president and Deputy Prime Minister of the UAE, is acting in a purely private capacity by those who wish to advance this so-called investment. Now I am a banker, but I do not really understand how you can have an investment strategy that involves paying multiples of the value of the asset and, in carrying out the bid, briefing the press to the effect that you would be prepared to have a minority interest and, presumably, not have a vote—that strikes me as an odd investment strategy indeed.

What it is, is what it is: an influence strategy. The payment of a rich price is about getting influence through the medium of the Telegraph and the Spectator magazine—it is not a commercial issue. Money talks, of course, and ownership matters. One of the very few things that I disagreed with Mrs Thatcher on was that she tended to the view that ownership did not matter. Ownership does matter, and the freedom of our press should never be up for sale.

I said in an earlier debate that he who pays the piper calls the tune—but this is not a melody. The very idea of an autocratic state with a poor record on human rights owning or holding any influence in a major British daily newspaper is utterly surreal: a country that hosts Putin, greets him as dear friend and purchases oil as he circumvents sanctions and conducts his blood-soaked regime and brutal, illegal war in Ukraine; a country whose laws ban any direct criticism of their rulers through the Government’s national media council, where citizen journalists and bloggers are targeted for criticising the regime and accused of defamation, insulting the state and posting false information with the aim of damaging the country’s reputation; a country that puts journalists in jail, deports critics and closes down any criticism; a country that is bottom of the class in international freedom tables; a country where, according to Amnesty International, at least 26 Emirati prisoners remain behind bars because of their peaceful political criticism.

The bidders at IMI promise editorial independence, just as they did in the case of CNN Business Arabic. According to the Times report of 12 January, Sultan Al Jaber, chairman of IMI, put pressure on CNN Business Arabic to avoid negative news about the UAE, despite promises to preserve journalists’ editorial independence. The Times reported that the editor-in-chief was forced out within months of his appointment for refusing to submit to requests from Al Jaber for positive coverage. Al Jaber was previously head of the UAE’s censorship agency, so had much experience in this area.

I hope I have convinced the House—I do not think I need to try very hard—that this bird cannot fly, but it is not just about this particular bird, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said. No insult was intended earlier—I was just pulling his leg. There is a principle here. Foreign Governments should be nowhere near the ownership of newspapers and magazines. In fairness to the Government, no one could have predicted how this utterly bizarre bid would come to pass. I know of no democratic country that would allow a foreign state to take ownership of key national newspapers. I now regret my regret amendment. Perhaps it was a little unfair to criticise the Government for not including measures in the Media Bill and drawing the Long Title so tightly that it was impossible to amend the Bill in that respect. The debates in this House showed universal opposition. The poll by Lord Ashcroft, which has been mentioned, reflects that in the country.

This amendment may not be perfect. It is an old trick of Sir Humphrey to say, “Well, I accept the amendment in principle but unfortunately the drafting is not quite right”. From my experience of talking to Minister Lopez and from the work done by my noble friend Lady Stowell, I believe the Government are working sincerely to try to find a way of having an amendment that will produce what I believe everyone in the House would like to see. They should continue to work with my noble friend and the other sponsors to ensure that the Bill leaves this House amended. Nothing less than a complete ban on foreign Governments having any role in the governance, ownership or financing of our media is acceptable. It is, as I have said before, a no-brainer.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my entry in the register. I have been on the staff of the Telegraph Media Group since 1979, so this interest bulks large in my mind; I had to confess it at once. I am very grateful for everything that has been said and to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for moving this amendment. I am also very pleased that this has been a cross-party affair coming from all sides of the House.

My only regret so far is that the Government were inclined to regard this as a technical matter that had to be looked at in terms of rules. It is important to look at the rules, which DCMS is doing, but it is not really about that. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and all other speakers, this is a very important matter of principle. The delay involved has been very difficult for newspapers in general, and particularly for my own and for the Spectator, because while you do not know what will happen you cannot really get on with doing your journalism. That tends to erode things if you are not careful, so it is very important that we have got to the heart of it.

I endorse absolutely everything that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about the Abu Dhabi bid, but I am quite glad that I do not have to say it myself, because if we had had such a rule and such clarity from the start, people would not have had to get into this issue of saying rather difficult truths about many regimes across the world. We would simply have been able to say, “No, sorry, the rule is the rule, and that’s that”. I hope we can learn something from all that.

I have seen the leak, if that is the right word, so I have a rough idea about what we might hear later. I want to make two important points. One is that I hope the Spectator, and magazines like it, will be properly included in any decisions, because, as I understand the rules at present, they refer to national newspapers and not automatically to national news magazines, and I think precisely the same point should apply.

There is room for possible problems about minority ownership. It is possible, in the way that ownership works in companies, that an ownership of less than 50% can amount to a controlling interest; that can be done in a covert way or sometimes in an open way. If it were the case that, for example, RedBird IMI took a minority stake, that would be better than a majority stake but would not automatically solve the problem. I hope the Government will address that.

At the Daily Telegraph we have always been proud advocates and practitioners of a free press, but we have not particularly enjoyed having to advocate it quite so hard and so repeatedly to get the message across. I am glad to sense that the message has got across, and I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House. I hope we can now move forward with due expedition.

--- Later in debate ---

I should note that the Government remain committed to encouraging and supporting investment into the United Kingdom and recognise that investors deploying capital into this country rely on the predictability and consistency of our regulatory regime. The UK remains one of the most open economies in the world, which is key for the prosperity and future growth of our nation. Our focus here is not on foreign investment in the UK media sector in general; this new regime is targeted and will apply only to foreign states, foreign state bodies and connected individuals, and only to newspapers and news magazines.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said. Could he clarify the position on minority stakeholders? He used the word influence. Would that mean having a small number of shares?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, in order to help, can we be absolutely clear that this covers minority ownership and control? We need clarity on that. The noble Lord, Lord Moore, made that point. It would help the House for the avoidance of doubt.

Post Office: Executive Remuneration

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for submitting his claim for attendance at public inquiries. He is absolutely right. I have to be careful with my language for many good reasons, but the idea that we should reward staff for attending an inquiry of such seriousness did seem clearly out of kilter with how the governance should have functioned at the time. Two reports have been written, the Burton report and the Simmons & Simmons report, both of which are very clear on the governance of paying Post Office staff; that the remuneration committee should have clearer direction and more resourcing; and on how the department’s policy team should interact with the Post Office. The fact that there were not necessarily enough personnel in the department overseeing some of these arrangements is now going to be reviewed very clearly.

When the Horizon inquiry moved on to a statutory footing, the idea that you should reward people for attending what was effectively a quasi-judicial environment was of course a bit bizarre. It certainly would not happen in any other environment going forward. There are huge lessons to be learned, not just for one party or one Government but for the body politic and the institution of our bureaucracy, so that we do not have bureaucratic indifference. Ministers have the opportunity to take responsibility for doing the right things and to take an active part in organisations that perhaps we felt should be completely ring-fenced and separate. I do not believe that that is the right thing to do.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest as chairman of a public company. The Government and the regulators insist that public companies have proper arrangements for malus and clawback, so that bonuses which have been paid to people who did not deserve them can be clawed back. Does the Post Office have such a system in place? If not, why not, because the Government insist that everybody else should have outside the public sector?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My noble friend raises a very good point. I am aware of people’s frustration over the longevity of the processes, but Sir Wyn Williams’s review will be extremely important in informing us about what has happened. I agree with my noble friend’s point: long-term incentive plans should be as common in public sector bodies as they are in the private sector. I encourage that when looking at how we review governance in these sorts of organisations.

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Racism

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. He is referring to the historical document that was released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2023. It has clearly been identified to have offensive language in it, which had not been updated since the 1980s. There is an ongoing inquiry into this. We all want to know the answer. The reason we got into this position in the first place is that people were deemed guilty rather than innocent without due process. Let us not do the same thing again.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, is it not obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, that there has been a complete failure of corporate governance here, and the only way to deal with that in the real world is to clear out the people responsible and put in some people who are capable of bringing order and good management to the Post Office?

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Compensation Payments

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

Once again, we are in a situation where we are dealing with private individuals and HR. We should not be doing that in this Chamber, or indeed in television studios; individuals’ livelihoods are at stake here. We did not want to be in this position, but we have to refute the allegations made against us. A judgment will be made by the Secretary of State as to all supporting documentation, and read-outs of minutes will be put in the House of Commons Library. At the end of the day, it comes back to the fact that we need a full inquiry to find out what has actually happened here.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I have seen reports that there are still problems with the Horizon system and that some postmasters are still experiencing the problem of underpayments that created this disastrous position. My question is about ensuring that compensation goes to people as quickly as possible. Can my noble friend assure me that that will be the case and that we will look into the suggestion that this is still an ongoing problem, and, if so, ensure that remedial action is taken?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The response from management on this—and this has now been audited—is that issues with the software system are minimal, and £150 million of government money has now gone in to completely replace the system. A lot of investment is going in to ensure that this does not happen again. On compensation for victims, of the 2,700 claims in the HSS, 2,400 have already had their payments cleared—that is 85% of that category. The more sluggish category is the GLO, because those people have more complicated claims. As I said before, we have received only 58 claims from that cohort. As soon as we get them, we will process them.

Post Office Appointments: Ministerial Responsibility

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that: no one can disagree with his sentiments. As I said, the machinery was put in place, but there was a lack of scrutiny, inquiry and challenge from the non-executive directors, from, perhaps, the chair, and from, perhaps, the Ministers. The Permanent Secretary role is a key one because, using the public accounting model, they meet with the DBT on a quarterly basis to have that line of communication as well. There was no shortage of lines of communication here.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has vast experience in private equity and elsewhere in business. Does he not agree that, faced with this kind of disaster, the first thing any private business would do is clear out the entire board, without necessarily attributing any blame, and put in a new team of people who did not have any baggage in order to sort it out. Why do the Government not get on and do that?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

Three new non-executive appointments were made in 2023 and there will be a new senior independent director appointed and a new chair. Two postmaster directors have also been appointed to the board. The current chief executive, who came in in 2019 at the point of the judgment, remains in place. We continue to have faith in him to move this thing forward quickly, with the right amount of oversight. We have confidence in the board as it is reconstituted. But, as has been said, the question is: why did the original failure happen? We need to find that out.

Alan Bates and Others v Post Office Limited

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I know that there is a lot of frustration in this House and the other place on the timelines. This has been going on for a very long time—almost one generation. However, we have been very clear that we have to separate the two elements of this sad story. The immediate action we are taking is to overturn convictions and give compensation. We then come to accountability. A statutory inquiry is in place, and it will look at all the facts of the matter. At that point, a cascade of actions will be taken by the various bodies concerned. We need to understand the role of directors, the ministerial oversight and the role of Fujitsu and the auditor, EY. All that will be done once the facts are established and the Williams commission has reported.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, that is all very well and good, but is it not obvious that there was a catastrophic failure of governance on the part of the Post Office? This is a government-owned business. It is inconceivable that the board did not read the newspapers and was not aware of this. The Post Office is still operating. Should there not at least be a review of the standards of governance on that board?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The Post Office is publicly owned and set up as a limited company with a sole shareholder, which is the Government. Its governance is as an arm’s-length body with its own board, where the Government have a shareholder representative. It is clear that, over the years, not enough inquiry was made—particularly by non-executive directors—about what was going on. Why was it not asked why, pre-Horizon, prosecutions were between five and 10 per annum and then moved to between 80 and 100 per annum? The question is obvious: what happened here? As a High Court judge said at the 2019 appeal, the faith in the Horizon system was the modern-day

“equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat”.

There has been a massive failure of corporate governance. Once we have the outcome of the inquiry, steps will be taken to make improvements to ensure this will not happen again.