Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I never in my wildest dreams thought my last speech as leader of the Liberal Democrats in your Lordships’ House would be to express my concern about the future of the Daily Telegraph. Politics is a funny business.
The arguments that we have been hearing this afternoon fall under two broad headings: the substance and the procedure. On the substance, there is no need to rehearse the argument about why foreign influence on our media is thought to be a bad thing. There is agreement about that. The logical way in which we stop there being foreign influence is to make sure that there is no foreign ownership. But we have heard this afternoon, first from the Government and then from others, that it is better to have some foreign ownership than for the press to face an existential threat.
This argument, one would have thought, was not entirely new. Yet, when the digital markets Bill was being debated in your Lordships’ House, amazingly, our media did not face an existential threat—nobody argued that. So, in the course of a year, we have gone from a point where a 5% stake by a non-state foreign actor was thought to be acceptable to where we now find that our newspapers face an existential threat unless foreign Governments are allowed to own 15%. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, asked—although he did not put it quite like this—if the stake has gone from 0% to 15% in a year, where are we going to be next year, given that we are told that the traditional media are on a slippery slope? I find that a very curious and uncompelling argument.
The question, though, is whether to accept the assurance that a 15% foreign-government stake will not influence or be allowed to influence the editorial stance of a newspaper. The first argument is that this 15% stake is merely passive: you are buying 15% in a newspaper in the same way that you might buy 15% in an oil company or conglomerate. However, given that we are told equally by the same people that these newspapers are facing an existential threat, is it likely that a hard-headed Government will decide that the best use of their funds is to buy a newspaper or part of a newspaper on a passive basis? Having looked all around the world, is that the best return that they will find for their funds? The answer is palpably “No, it is not”.
The next argument in defence of what is proposed is that there is a backstop and that the DCMS will be able to intervene when there is undue influence. However, as the Minister said only last week that, in those circumstances,
“it is likely she”—
the Secretary of State—
“could intervene”.—[Official Report, 16/7/25; col. 1827.]
I emphasise “likely” and “could”.
Suppose that the influence was being exercised in a manner to which the Government were sympathetic; would a Secretary of State intervene in those circumstances? If they did not, what pressure from whom would cause a Secretary of State to intervene? We know that influence over the way a paper presents itself is a subtle thing. In circumstances where you have a Government who are sympathetic to that influence, my contention is that those exercising the influence would get away with it. They amount to the substantial arguments against the proposition before us.
The question about procedure relates to how this has been undertaken. There was a consultation to which there were four responses. Normally, if a consultation receives four responses, you start again, because clearly more than four entities have a view. But, blow me, the four entities all have a similar and partial view, because they potentially stand to gain from this change, and the Government accept that as a reason to change their mind. This is extraordinary to me. I can think of no other consultation where four entities peddling their own argument would get a Government to change their mind. This is an extraordinary consultation, if we can think of it as consultation at all.
The next thing, as has been pointed out, is that this SI is amending primary legislation. I think everybody agrees that this question of press freedom is quite important, so what happened when this SI was debated in the House of Commons? Did they spend this sort of time on it? Did they have impassioned argument with people changing their mind? They spent 18 minutes on it, the vast bulk of which was the Minister at the start and the end. There were literally a couple of speakers in the entire debate. Either the House of Commons is not interested in the issue or it did not realise what was going on, because it is an SI and, as we know, MPs regard being put on an SI committee as a bit like being sent to Siberia for a month. So, in reality, this issue has not been debated at all in the House of Commons, which is extraordinary. If most MPs had realised what they had agreed to, without actually agreeing to it themselves, they would have opposed it.
The whole thing seems to be potentially very damaging and shows parliamentary scrutiny to be non-existent, except in your Lordships’ House in this case. For it to proceed would be bad for freedom of the press and for the way we deal with these things. When, on 3 June, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, urged people to vote for a fatal Motion on the Chagos Islands, he said that it was his
“duty to bring this fatal Motion to the House”.—[Official Report, 3/6/25; col. 614.]
We think that it is our duty to bring this fatal amendment to the House, and we urge noble Lords to support it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it feels like a long time since I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite, taking part in similar debates on what became the Media Act 2024 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, but I have been genuinely heartened to know, from the contributions from across the House today, that the concerns raised in the passage of those Acts remain strongly at the forefront of noble Lords’ minds. As I said then, and as noble Lords have rightly said today, our free and independent press in this country is an absolute cornerstone of our democracy and a vital part of public discourse. It is right that we should devote so much time to making sure that it remains healthy, robust and independent.
Like other noble Lords, I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Fox, back in his place and on fighting form. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Newby, well in his retirement as he vacates the leadership of his Benches. There is a slightly unfair characterisation of the Daily Telegraph as having a letters page that attracts contributions from the retired, fulminating against things. I look forward to the noble Lord’s green-ink letters. I wish him a happy retirement and thank him for his many contributions. I particularly enjoyed the closing words of his speech, which seemed to me to make the case against elected Houses and in favour of the power and independence of appointed ones. I shall leave that for further debates.
I start with what some have called the constitutional position, because it is important that we understand the unusual amendment that is before us. It is within the rights of your Lordships’ House to table, divide on and even, if it wishes, on rare occasion, to support fatal Motions, but those are serious steps, and the last of them, in particular, should be taken very sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. I am not convinced that the circumstances here warrant an action of that gravity.
I say that as somebody who has some skin in the game here. As noble Lords have reminded the House, I was in the position of outlining the beginning of the policy that the Minister is continuing today. I find myself in the position of seeing the Minister tearing up the words I uttered at that Dispatch Box, or at least signalling an intent to depart from them. She is entitled to do that because, shortly after I made those comments, there was a general election that ushered my party from power and brought hers in with a landslide result. She has been admirably candid about that. I tried to scribble down what she said in her opening remarks: “This Government have come to a different conclusion to the previous Government about the appropriate threshold”. They are entitled to do that, and your Lordships’ House is, of course, entitled to probe how and why they have reached that conclusion.
However, the new Government cannot ignore what Parliament has agreed to put on the statute book, unless they convince us to change the law. The last Conservative Government, I am proud to say, strengthened the powers available to Governments and to Parliament to protect this country and key sectors of our economy and society against malign foreign interference. We passed the National Security and Investment Act in 2021, the National Security Act in 2023, and, in our final weeks in power, following campaigning by noble Lords, particularly my noble friends Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, amendments to the Enterprise Act regime, delivered through Schedule 7 to the digital markets Act. I pay tribute to my noble friends and all the other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who persuaded us to do that.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for pointing out the other statutory provisions that are on the statute book compelling the Secretary of State to take action to protect our independent and free media. This is not just a debate about the difference between a 5% and a 15% shareholding threshold, important though that is for us to explore—as we have done. The question is, is the will of Parliament being ignored here? The change that I had the privilege of making to the statute book towards the end of the previous Parliament was delivered at Third Reading of a Bill after much debate. It was done in great sincerity, but also in the recognition that further work needed to be carried out and that secondary legislation would be brought before your Lordships’ House to implement it.
Newspapers: Foreign Ownership
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I was not aware of the point that my noble friend raises. I will take that back to the department and write to him in due course.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the letter that she sent to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others who have an interest in this, ahead of this Question, drawing attention to the publication of the consultation documents. It is of course right that the UK has regulatory protections in place for important industries such as our news media, but does she agree that Governments and regulators must exercise those protections swiftly? Does she accept that long periods of delay and uncertainty harm business confidence and may deter investment from the sorts of people we do want to see investing in the UK?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes many points that sound entirely reasonable. We are clear that we need serious investment in our media and we hope that the certainty that these SIs will provide, albeit with considerable protections around them, will enable media groups to obtain that investment.
Parthenon Sculptures: Return
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The loan of documents, whether it is from the British Museum or the British Library, is routine. I am happy to raise this particular point with the British library, but it operates independently of the Government, so a decision on that would be for its trustees.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am glad the Minister has confirmed that the Government have no plans to change the law. She is right that we do not need any change in the law to allow our national museums to lend or borrow items with their partners around the world. Some of the Parthenon sculptures in the care of the British Museum have been loaned overseas before, and we were all delighted to hear that the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry, first discussed in 2018, is going ahead. Would the Minister agree that, for any loan to be consistent with the British Museum Act 1963 or with its open individual export licence, any borrowing party must acknowledge the museum’s ownership of those items and agree to return them at the end of the loan period?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Parthenon sculptures were lawfully acquired and are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum. By definition, any loan agreement acknowledges that. The requirement of a loan is that the item be returned and assurances as to the return would be provided.
Live Music Industry: Support
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that every child has access to quality creative education, including music. As noble Lords will be aware, we launched an independent curriculum and assessment review, which seeks to deliver a broader curriculum so that young people do not miss out on music and the arts. The Government are also working with Young Sounds UK on a four-year music opportunities pilot to break down barriers to music education for disadvantaged and SEND students.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the sector plan which the Minister mentioned today. As that recognises on page 50:
“Grassroots venues are struggling to break even”,
why are the Government making their job even harder with their changes to business rates and national insurance contributions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the business rates question, I will throw back to the noble Lord this Government’s fiscal inheritance. We recognise that grass-roots venues have faced a challenging set of circumstances in recent years, and that is why we are committed to working with industry to maximise the uptake and impact of the voluntary ticket levy.
Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is right: nothing catches the eye in an impact assessment like a redaction, and there are a number of them in this assessment. I know that some of the information will of course be commercially sensitive, but, if we are to have evidence-led policy, it is important that we can share as much as possible. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about the reasons for the redactions that have been made here.
We on this side of the Committee remain broadly committed to a regulatory framework for gambling that seeks to strike the right balance between addressing harm, upholding consumer protections and recognising the significant role that land-based casinos play in the UK’s leisure and hospitality economy, in the ways that the Minister outlined in her opening speech. We support the principle of reforming the rules governing casinos to reflect changes in technology, consumer behaviour and market pressures, which have been seen over the past two decades.
The proposals contained in this statutory instrument are, as the policy rationale section of the Explanatory Notes makes clear, grounded in the gambling White Paper, which was published by the previous Government in 2023. That White Paper acknowledged the outdated nature of land-based regulation and set out a number of sensible, evidence-led proposals, including changes to the machine-to-table ratio, adjustments to minimum casino floor space and lifting restrictions on in-casino betting. A consultation followed and, in May last year, the previous Conservative Government confirmed their intention to implement these modernising reforms.
The regulations before the Committee today follow directly from that process, so we welcome the fact that the Government have brought them before us. They aim to provide much-needed flexibility to land-based casinos, which have been hit particularly hard by rising operational costs and the impact of the pandemic, in contrast to the growth seen in the online gambling sector. We recognise that a standardised 5:1 gaming machine-to-table ratio, applied fairly across casinos regulated under both the 1968 Act and the 2005 Act, is a proportionate change.
We also support the reduction in minimum table gaming space for small casinos to 250 square metres, which will bring consistency and allow smaller venues to remain viable. Permitting all casinos to offer betting, subject to proportionate safeguards, also aligns the land-based sector more closely with online operators, as the Minister said. So these changes reflect much of what operators have long called for: a level playing field across the different licensing regimes, as well as the ability to offer a wider mix of products and experiences to their customers.
While we support these parts of the reforms, we note that the Government are largely following through on decisions that flowed from the White Paper in the previous Parliament. What is needed now is a clearer vision of how the Government will support the land-based sector going forward, particularly in the face of sustained inflationary pressures; increased taxation, including the rises in national insurance contributions; and rising regulatory compliance costs. We continue to have concerns about the rise of the gambling black market and urge the Minister to do all she can to ensure that her colleagues at His Majesty’s Treasury do not proceed with their tax hike, which we think will hurt bingo halls and much-loved sports across the UK and could fuel the dangers of the black market.
We remain clear that any regulation must be accompanied by rigorous safeguards. As my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, made clear, gambling is never without risk of harm. The land-based sector may not present the same immediacy of risk as online gambling, but the need for effective harm prevention measures remains in this form of gambling as it does elsewhere. The statutory levy, the requirement for casinos to maintain non-gambling areas and the obligations to monitor and intervene with customers who are at risk must be properly enforced. We would welcome assurances from the Minister on how those safeguards might be monitored and what role the Gambling Commission will play in doing that.
I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction to these statutory instruments. I have four questions for her. First, how will the Government ensure that the Gambling Commission is adequately resourced and empowered to enforce the new machine-to-table ratio and the betting provisions across all forms of casinos? Secondly, given the significant transition costs outlined, what specific support or guidance will be offered to smaller and medium-sized casinos to help them adapt to these reforms without risking closures or job losses?
Thirdly, what mechanisms will be put in place to evaluate the impact of these reforms on gambling-related harm and the sustainability of the sector, and when might we expect the first published review? Fourthly, and finally, can she clarify why the Government are taking a different approach to machine reforms in adult gaming centres? I am sure that she is aware of the widespread concerns raised in that part of the sector.
While we support the objectives of these regulations, which rightly aim to bring greater coherence and modernisation to the regulation of land-based casinos, these changes must be the start of a broader, evidence-led strategy for growth, investment and safer gambling. We will continue to press the Government to deliver on that ambition and to ensure that the sector remains sustainable and socially responsible.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their insightful contributions. It is clear from today’s discussion that all noble Lords share the Government’s intention of and commitment to protecting the British public from gambling-related harm. I am keen to do that while ensuring that those who wish to gamble can continue to do so safely and have protections around them to enable them to do so. As outlined, these changes will modernise the regulatory framework for land-based casinos and allow the sector to grow while still protecting its customers.
I turn now to specific points raised about the instrument. The noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Foster of Bath, raised concerns around gambling harm. Casinos are a highly regulated environment. They have a significant amount of player supervision alongside a number of protections on gaming machines themselves. Importantly, this instrument contains a number of protections that will ensure that customers will continue to be offered a range of gambling and non-gambling opportunities that help to reduce the risk of harm.
Casinos will be allowed to increase the number of machines they offer only if they meet a number of strict requirements. Operators will have to submit an application to vary their licence to their licensing authority, setting out how they meet these conditions and enclosing a new plan. The licensing authority will have to approve this application before more machines can be offered.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, raised concerns about dormant licences. As noble Lords will be aware, there is only a limited number of casino licences. Converted casinos can move only within their permitted area and instances of relocation are very rare. Stakeholder engagement suggests there is highly unlikely to be a significant increase in the number of these licences that are revisited. The 2005 Act casinos cannot move from the location that their licence granted them. Therefore, no new casino licences will be granted as part of this process.
Craft Industry: Support
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and welcome the Minister to her first debate as Heritage Minister. What a fine debate it has been—long overdue, well attended and very perceptive. I was very proud to be the Minister who ratified the 2003 UNESCO convention on intangible cultural heritage, and I am delighted to see the Minister taking forward that work with great enthusiasm, as her department leads on encouraging people to bring forward crafts and practices to be enrolled in the UK’s new inventory. Perhaps she can give us an update on that work and remind us how people can make a nomination. We all have our favourite examples: today I am wearing the Northumberland tartan tie that I wore with pride as Heritage Minister.
Inscription on the UK’s inventory and with UNESCO are important as a recognition not only of what we value as a nation but of what we stand to lose if we are not careful. Heritage Craft’s latest red list has been mentioned. It now lists 165 distinct crafts as “endangered” or “critically endangered”—19 more than previously. One should catch the attention of our Prime Minister as it is flute making. This work comes at an urgent time.
That is helpful to the Government for so many of the missions that they have set themselves. Whether it is creating economic growth and opportunity across the UK, providing new homes—not just building new ones but retrofitting historic properties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said—or making us a greener country as we seek to insulate old buildings and protect them from the changing climate, we will need all our skilled craftspeople. As in 1979, this Government could do with more thatchers, so will the Minister use her good office and things such as the cross-government Heritage Council to impress this point on her colleagues in other departments?
Will she press them, notwithstanding the “outright cuts” that her department was handed yesterday, in the words of the IFS, to ensure that heritage crafts are properly supported? As we have heard, at present there is no direct funding for heritage crafts. The Crafts Council receives £2.2 million through the Arts Council, but its focus is on contemporary craft, which is very important but distinct. Surveys such as Mapping Heritage Craft have shown that some 210,000 people are involved in crafts, contributing, as we have heard, £4.4 billion of GVA. Surely some of that can be reinvested to help the sector to grow further and to pass on skills to new generations.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned some of the specialist training we have lost. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and draw attention to the National Glass Centre in Sunderland, so close to the Education Secretary’s constituency, which continues the tradition of glass-making on Wearside.
Many organisations are doing excellent work. We have heard about livery companies. I was delighted to meet some of English Heritage’s brilliant gardeners and apprentices at Belsay Hall with the noble Lord, Lord Lemos.
I am very glad that we have two Lords Spiritual with us today. The Church of England provides apprenticeships and training opportunities, such as the cathedral workshop fellowship. We look forward to the opening of York Minster’s Centre Of Excellence, and we also heard about the Wren International Centre of Excellence from my noble friend Lord Lingfield.
We all share their anxiety about the changes and uncertainty surrounding the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I know that the Minister recently visited one of the properties in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust in Rugby and had the opportunity to see for herself how the trust helps to keep specialists, such as Jim Budd, in work repairing stained-glass windows. Last summer, the CCT organised a heritage building skills summer school in Lancaster, helping to spread opportunity to people from a wide range of backgrounds. On a recent trip with the CCT, I was delighted to meet some of the apprentice stonemasons at Gloucester Cathedral, who are caring for that building as their forebears have done for more than a millennium.
As we have heard, we need skilled craftspeople for this very building if we are to look after the UNESCO world heritage site in which we presently sit. That was mentioned at the end of the debate in the Chamber last night, so, as my noble friend Lord Lingfield and others have said, there is an opportunity for us to lead by example.