Draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for speaking when the Front Benches have started speaking—I was going to stand up, but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, jumped up far too quickly.
When it comes to football, I want to use a phrase that the late Bishop of Southwark, Roy Williamson, applied to me. We had been working hard to get the Holy Trinity Church restored; it was a very poor congregation and fundraising was really very difficult, but we managed to do it. He came to open this amazing refurbished place, with the organ returned to its great glory. The church was full, and he said, “Your vicar, John Sentamu, can almost be compared to a Yorkshire terrier—never letting go, or only doing so in order to get a firmer grip”. That is how I see the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: when it comes to football, he is like a Yorkshire terrier. He does it not wanting to control or anything but just because he loves football, and he knows a lot about football. He is doing this with an honest attitude. I do not think he is doing it to prevent regulations and all that is happening. But because he is like a terrier, I think this is the moment he needs to let go.
This stands on a three-legged stool. The first is what we passed here in your Lordships’ House—an Act of Parliament, the primary legislation. If you go there, you discover that the Secretary of State has power to do what he has just done. He is not doing it out of any reason other than that the Act that we passed gave him that power. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said exactly the same thing.
Secondly, there is the regulator, with powers given, again, by an Act of Parliament. The third leg is guidance—but I always look at guidance not as the key driver of things, which is why it cannot be clearly defined on every occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, guidance always has to be understood in context. You cannot simply talk about what happens to my little club, which is not in paradise. York City Football Club is climbing up slowly, but it fell out of League Two a long time ago. You cannot say to the people of York City that paragraph 1.6 should not apply to them, when it says that
“regulated football clubs will be required to submit and publish a personnel statement identifying all owners. The definition of ownership, including the concept of significant influence or control, will ensure this statement publicly identifies the correct persons as owners, providing transparency to fans and the wider public”.
That will also apply to my little York City Football Club. Therefore, I do not see those phrases needing to be more precise.
This three-legged stool of the Act, the regulator and the guidance provided by the Secretary of State will, I am sure, make even my little club of York City feel emboldened that it actually knows who really owns it and who those people are. I think this is a good thing. I beseech the highly admired noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is the time to drop the Motion. He can continue to be keen on football, but this is not the time—otherwise, you are going to play a game that is not going to take you anywhere.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I for one am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for giving us the opportunity to consider this guidance in full and for acting, if I follow the metaphors correctly, like a trout-fishing terrier who loves football too much but did not read the Tory manifesto with enough diligence. Of course, had my noble friend not brought this Motion, I doubt we would have had quite as many people here, or quite as many speeches, or spent such a long time looking at the guidance that is before your Lordships’ House—and I am glad that we have, because much has changed even since the debates we had on the Bill before it left your Lordships’ House and went to another place.
For instance, we saw just yesterday the sanctions that the EFL has handed to Sheffield Wednesday, following multiple breaches of its regulations relating to payment obligations. The EFL has given that club a six-point deduction and banned its former owner from owning any club in the English Football League for three years. Had we known that example at the time of the Bill’s passage, we might have taken it into consideration when discussing the amendments allowing some of the regulation to be delegated to the leagues themselves—but that debate has passed.
We are also meeting this evening after the Commissioner for Public Appointments appeared before a Select Committee in another place, where the appointment of the chairman of the Independent Football Regulator was likened to a
“mafia appointment in Sicily sometime in the 1950s”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Well, those were the comments of the chairman of the Select Committee in another place. But rather more pertinent are the comments not by a politician but by the commissioner, Sir William Shawcross himself, who spent the morning giving evidence to a Select Committee of Parliament and who said that he had never seen an appointment with as many breaches of the Governance Code on Public Appointments as this one. He said that it was
“not easy to set those breaches aside”
and called that very disappointing. I am sure we all agree that it has been a very disappointing process.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but are we not somewhat straying from the subject of this Motion? We appear to be now discussing the football regulator and some very flowery language used by the chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee this morning, which was wholly unfair and wholly unreasonable, when we are actually supposed to be discussing the guidance. Are we not just using a political opportunity to have a go?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
This is guidance and this is a Bill that is to be enforced by a new independent regulator. We did not know the name of the Government’s preferred candidate for the regulator when the Bill went through, regrettably. We know now who is entrusted with applying this new regime, and we know that the Commissioner for Public Appointments has criticised not just the Government but this morning Mr Kogan himself for a lack of transparency. It is straying from the guidance, but I wonder whether the Minister, when she rises, will have anything to say about the comments made by the Commissioner for Public Appointments today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, is right: the focus of this debate is the guidance before us. On this too, my noble friend Lord Moynihan has raised a number of pertinent questions, some of which we touched on during our scrutiny of the Bill and some of which are raised by the guidance that has now been published. Under particular consideration today is an issue that we spent considerable time on. When we were looking at the Bill, we were provided with rather scant information about what significant influence or control would mean in practice. We now have draft guidance—but, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan says, that appears to raise rather more questions than it answers.
As my noble friend pointed out during our scrutiny of the Bill, there is no requirement in the legislation to consult before publishing the guidance, which has now been published. I think that is regrettable. I see from some of the comments that there has been informal consultation with some in football, but maybe the Minister can set out in a bit more detail the consultation and discussions that were had, which led to the drawing up and publication of this draft guidance.
A second and rather more serious point of contention regarding the new owners’ test, again raised by my noble friend in his speech and his Motion today, is the significant departure from the current concepts of ownership employed by the Premier League, the EFL, UEFA and others in football. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made some remarks about obscenity—not obscene remarks, I note carefully—drawing attention to other areas of law, both in this country and in the United States, where different tests are made. But in a football context alone, the Premier League’s handbook uses the notion of control and control only, whereas here in the guidance we see the new concept of significant influence or control. So this is introducing some new thoughts into this particular sphere of football regulation. The draft guidance states:
“The right to exercise significant influence or control over a club may result in that person being considered an owner for the purpose of the Act, regardless of whether or not they actually exercise that right”.
Surely the combination of this broader interpretation of the meaning of owner and the fact that one does not actually have to do anything to be considered as such, under the Act, means that this guidance would capture a far greater number of people than one might initially anticipate.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Of course the guidance goes further than addressing ownership. That is because the legislation which Parliament enacted requires attention to “significant influence or control”. That is the whole point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My question to the Minister is: will that capture more people than one might imagine? I think the lay person looking at this imagines a single owner of a club, but as in the legislation that Parliament has passed, a number of people can be considered an owner and to have “significant influence or control”, and I will come on to a few more examples of that. For instance, on page 7 of the guidance, paragraph 2.11 states:
“A person might exercise significant influence or control if their recommendations or instructions are always or almost always followed by other owners and/or officers, due to the financial relationship of the person to the club”.
What does that mean, for instance, for a club sponsor? They have a clear financial relationship with the club, and they might make recommendations to the club which are often followed by the officers of the club. Does that mean, under these regulations and the Act that we have passed, that they could be considered to have “significant influence or control”? Would a sponsor in any circumstance count as an owner under these regulations?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I do not like interrupting the noble Lord, because he always puts the facts as he wants to put them, but the question that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked was: would it catch everybody? Yes, if they are regulated football clubs. Paragraph 1.6 states that
“regulated football clubs will be required”,
so it will catch everybody. Everybody must do what paragraph 1.6 says.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My point was a broader one about whether, under the definitions in paragraph 2.11, a club sponsor could be considered to have “significant influence or control”. It seems to me, on a reading of the guidance, that they might, but I look forward to the Minister’s response. It certainly seems that there is quite an expansive list of people that the regulations might apply to. Paragraph 2.12 states that a former owner who sold his or her shares to a close friend could still be considered an owner if he or she makes recommendations on how to vote to the person to whom he or she sold those shares. So, under the guidance, a person with no current financial stake in the club at all could actually count as an owner. I would be grateful for confirmation of that from the Minister. I see her nodding, but I look forward to her confirmation.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out, through the history of Leeds United, the complicated arrangements by which football clubs are owned. Another example might be Bournemouth. In 2022, Turquoise Bidco Ltd obtained 100% of shares in Bournemouth Football Club. Turquoise was then renamed Black Knight Football Club UK Ltd, which is a UK-based holding company wholly owned by Black Knight Football Club US based in Nevada. That American entity is in turn owned by Cannae Holdings, Inc. According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Cannae owned 44.3% of Black Knight, but Cannae is in turn owned by institutional investors, including BlackRock and the Vanguard Group. An American businessman, Bill Foley, owns 7.7% of Cannae, meaning that his beneficial ownership of Bournemouth is 3.4%, but a filing in April this year disclosed that his economic interest in Black Knight is 28%. That adds to the example of Leeds given by my noble friend Lord Moynihan of the complexity of even the most straightforward football clubs and the difficulty that will be involved in setting out all the people that might need to be regulated, investigated and brought before the regulator.
I conclude by echoing the question that my noble friend asked, as the Minister would expect, given my roots in Tyneside. The question that my noble friend posed will be of great interest to my friends and family there: would she advise the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to continue to invest in Newcastle United, through the Saudi Public Investment Fund, given what this might mean for him and for the club? That is just one of many questions of great interest to football fans, which is not made clear through this guidance. I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to probe those in a rather fuller House than I think we would have had in Grand Committee.
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.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, where we are now is, I think, not where the Minister expected to be when the previous statutory instrument was introduced. So how did we get to this point? With great haste, and I would say possibly fuelled by intense pressure from beyond these shores, the Government tabled the secondary legislation that, as we have heard, allowed an unlimited number of 15% stakes to be taken by funds that, to all intents and purposes, have an element of control by foreign Governments—the FOCIs. Then, in late July, when I tabled a fatal Motion, the Minister agreed at least to deal with the multiple-stake issue, which is what we have here.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who managed to explain to me the convoluted nature of this SI, having herself presumably had some coaching from the department. It is clear that this is not an easy piece of statutory legislation and her suggestion regarding future changes to the Enterprise Act is something that I do think the Government should consider.
Although the Minister agreed to deal with the multiple-stake issue, she did not agree with the strong yet minority view of the House that even one 15% stake was one too many. That is because, at the time, in my view, this regulation was designed to achieve just one thing: the sale of the Telegraph Media Group to RedBird IMI, which of course included the 15% stake from Abu Dhabi. This is moving into the realms of a dangerous dogs Bill approach to legislation, but actually it is bespoke regulation for a discerning billionaire.
Just as that flawed SI had been rushed through, the RedBird bid backed out, leaving us today with handmade regulation but no obvious client. Had the Conservative Party, with obvious honourable exceptions, not backed the Government and voted through the last SI, I would have suggested that we do not need this one at all. But this at least deals with the multiple-stake issue while, in my view, leaving the substantive elephant in the room.
The other pachyderm lurking behind this statutory instrument is, as the noble Baroness broached, the future of the Telegraph Media Group. As your Lordships will be well aware, and as was outlined, the Daily Mail and General Trust group has tabled an offer of £500 million to acquire it, and this has apparently been agreed by RedBird, with detailed negotiations proceeding.
I do not expect the Minister to offer judgment as to whether this should succeed, as she will correctly cite quasi-judicial qualms in this area. What I would welcome is an overview of process going forward and some element of timescales. As I am not a quasi-judge, I am happy to offer your Lordships some thoughts and point to some key issues that I hope the Minister will be able to elaborate on.
First—and here I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell—the continued involvement of Redbird IMI in the sale process is almost certainly counter to the long-term interests of the Telegraph and its readers. This situation means that the UAE, through the back door, is currently deciding who will own the Telegraph in the future. Will the Minister give assurances that there will be full transparency, if a deal is done, on the funding and structure of any deal?
Again as the noble Baroness has pointed out, the Secretary of State has given the Mail group a very short time to demonstrate that it can go through with this acquisition. Can the Minister outline what steps the Secretary of State will take to ensure the timely sale of the Telegraph in the public interest, should the deal not be ready by the deadline in the Secretary of State’s Statement of 24 November, or should the proposed deal fail the tests also contained in that Statement?
Secondly, there are not many modern precedents, but the Murdoch acquisition of the Times newspaper is perhaps a helpful example. Until the intervention of Nadine Dorries in 2022, the Times and the Sunday Times had been subject to legally required independent directors on their parent company’s board, following Rupert Murdoch’s News International acquiring them in 1981, specifically to safeguard editorial independence after the takeover. These arrangements created, and later updated, an independent board that approved key editorial appointments and was designed to prevent undue interference. I am sure this was far from a perfect solution, and I am also sure that Lord Rothermere is a different sort of owner from Mr Murdoch, but I ask the Minister to take this on board as an option going forward, should the Daily Mail group bid succeed.
Thirdly, the public interest on plurality grounds needs to be assessed, particularly given that both the Telegraph and the Daily Mail occupy similar political spaces. This almost certainly creates a concentration of ownership. Ofcom is the place to make this determination, and this bid should be referred accordingly. I would welcome the Minister’s general response on these three points.
This is secondary legislation that seeks to correct an earlier piece of misdrafted secondary legislation—regulation that we do not now need and that many of us did not want in the first place. It is a living example of how the folly of pandering to specific interests that are themselves mercurial and subject to summary change based on self-interest is the wrong way to legislate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who opened this, the second part of our foreign investment regulatory double bill, this evening. I thank her for the remarks she made in outlining these regulations.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I broadly welcome these regulations, to which the Government committed when we were discussing the No. 1 set of regulations before the Summer Recess. We are here today thanks to careful scrutiny, not least by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who should be congratulated on helping us get to this point. As she says, we could perhaps have got here through a different route and rather more elegantly, but I am glad that she welcomes the closing of the loophole that she and others identified when we looked at the previous set of regulations earlier this year.
Unlike the guidance on football governance, which we were discussing earlier, these regulations have been drawn to the special attention of the House by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Like others, I thank the members of that committee for their careful consideration and for the report that draws our attention to the points that they have raised.
The most serious question the committee raises concerns the 5% carve-out, as we have heard. It quotes the correspondence it has had with the noble Baroness’s department, about that carve-out and the way it will be used. DCMS said:
“Our judgement is that the possibility of the carve out being misused is remote”.
BBC Leadership
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we need a trusted, respected and unnewsworthy BBC more than ever. Poll after poll shows that our country feels more divided than it ever has been, not just in terms of party politics but by geography, generation, race and religion. At home, politics seems to reward those who seek to exploit those divisions rather than overcome them. Foreign conflicts seep over into our politics and distressing images from across the globe animate our discussions, along with a preponderance of highly partisan reporting from different media environments.
Algorithms, social media and our own prejudices make it easier than ever to close ourselves off to the news that we do not want to hear or opinions that differ from our own. That is why the BBC’s founding mission—to inform, educate and entertain—which it has performed with such distinction for more than a century, still matters so much, and why it seems to be getting harder. It is also why serious and avoidable errors, such as the ones that have been highlighted in recent days, cause such dismay from across the political spectrum and do such harm to the BBC’s journalistic reputation.
At a time when populists are on the march, when criminal acts seem to be no bar to high office, when facts themselves come under attack and people are encouraged to choose their own truth, the BBC and other news organisations have to be more scrupulous than ever to set out facts clearly and dispassionately, and to own up quickly when mistakes are made. On all those fronts, it has fallen short in recent days.
Not everybody watching the BBC should come away with the same conclusions about the Middle East, the wisdom of the American electorate, or the application of sex-based rights in modern society. But how much more dangerous a society we would be if they turned off the BBC altogether.
Rightly, the BBC remains one of the most trusted sources of news in this country, but each year 750,000 fewer people choose to pay the licence fee. Millions more have grown up, whether here or overseas, without the BBC as their bedrock. Ofcom’s most recent annual report showed that YouTube has already overtaken other broadcasters to become the second most popular media service in the United Kingdom. People are increasingly importing their news and their entertainment from the far reaches of the internet. No wonder the national conversation seems so cacophonous and so confused.
The process that begins shortly—perhaps the Minister will set out some more detail about it—to renew the BBC’s royal charter and to try to anticipate the next decade in our rapidly changing media environment is a crucial moment for public service broadcasting. As well as working out how the BBC can remain a “light on the hill”, as the Secretary of State put it in this Statement, we will need to chart a course for all our public service broadcasters. Does the Minister think we will have the same number of public service broadcasters in a decade’s time as we do today? Channel 5 is owned by the US company Paramount. ITV is in discussion with Sky, itself owned by another American firm, Comcast, about its future. The respected former chairman of ITV, Sir Peter Bazalgette, has said there needs to be consolidation among our public service broadcasters. What are the Government doing to ensure that these cherished British channels remain distinctive, prominent and popular in an increasingly crowded media landscape?
On the BBC itself, what discussions have the Government had with the corporation about the threat of legal action from the President of the United States because of the errors it has made? In the absence of an ambassador in Washington, have the Government raised this matter with the US Administration directly? If the BBC ends up paying millions of dollars, whether as a result of foreign litigation or in a humiliating out-of-court settlement, who will bear the cost: the taxpayer or the licence fee payer? More broadly, what specific actions do the Government want to see from the BBC to demonstrate that it has learned the lessons of this sorry episode and that it is changing in the ways that it needs to in order to avoid a recurrence?
I put on record my thanks and appreciation for Tim Davie, the corporation’s 17th director-general. He has had more than his fair share of crises to contend with, emanating from different parts of the huge and varied organisation that he has led. In his resignation statement, he referred to the
“very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role”,
and I do not underestimate those challenges. As the process begins to appoint a successor, do the Government have a view on whether the role of director-general should be reconsidered? Mr Davie has said that it is not an impossible job, but does the Minister think that its striking breadth—in effect asking somebody to be both chief executive and editor-in-chief—is as practical now as it was in 1922?
In the past week, the BBC has brought me to tears more than once, with its moving coverage of Remembrance Day and with the final of “The Celebrity Traitors”—perhaps I tear up too easily. Today and yesterday, I listened with pride and admiration to Radio 2 as people from across Northumberland and County Durham lined drizzly rural lanes to cheer Sara Cox on as she ran through their villages, raising more than £1 million and counting for Children in Need, a charity the corporation founded 45 years ago. That is the BBC at its best. If we criticise the BBC or express our frustrations in weeks such as this, it is because we care so much about it and what it represents. While respecting its vital independence, I urge the Government —indeed, everybody across this House and another place—to hold its feet to the fire and make sure that it continues to be the best of British, now and long into the future.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement and her robust defence of the BBC, but let us not mince words: it is under attack as never before. A free press is the foundation stone of freedom and democracy, and the BBC is the foundation stone of our free press. The highly respected Reuters Institute has just updated its data on news and trust, and its findings should remind us all of the BBC’s importance for not just the UK but the world. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy. As the Secretary of State says in her Statement:
“It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world”.
The BBC is not just the news; it is important to remind people of this. It has radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC Online, iPlayer, Sounds and the World Service. It develops and invests in talent in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. It plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through the programmes it exports and the World Service, which is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. Through its mission to inform, educate and entertain, the BBC has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all. To quote the words of the man who in so many ways exemplifies the BBC, Sir David Attenborough:
“It is that miraculous advance … that allows a whole society, a whole nation, to see itself and to talk to itself.”
The origin of the word “broadcast” is to sow seeds widely, and that is what the BBC does.
Of course, the BBC is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake and we welcome the BBC’s apology. However, it is obvious that the issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories, so, as the Government navigate President Trump’s latest tantrum, as he threatens to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what are the Government doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC?
Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Government truly believe in an independent BBC, will they sack Robbie Gibb, as the BBC charter permits?
The new charter offers an opportunity to rethink the BBC appointments process and end the political grip on the BBC board. Will the Minister listen to calls from this Bench for both the chair and non-executive members of the board to be appointed by an independent body and not, as currently happens, by the Government?
The BBC cannot be allowed to fail. Mistakes will happen and should be dealt with better and more quickly, but it is essential to our democracy, is trusted by its audience, provides much more to the nation than just news and current affairs, and is globally unique. We should remember the words of Joni Mitchell —or perhaps of my noble friend Lord McNally:
“That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone”
Please let us not be in that place.
I echo the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in adding my gratitude to Tim Davie for his service as DG.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is a shameful state of affairs, sending a message that groups of fans and indeed groups of people across our country are not safe on the streets of Britain. Can the Minister tell us when the Government were first told by the safety advisory group that it was intending to advise a ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attending this football match? Were any Government departments besides her own notified before DCMS was aware of it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I very much associate myself with the noble Lord’s sentiment of being appalled. Discrimination in all forms, including antisemitism, is fundamentally opposed to our British values of fairness, decency and respect. In relation to the noble Lord’s question, the Home Office, through the UK football policing unit, was involved in the risk assessment process led by West Midlands Police. Banning away fans was one of a package of potential operational options being considered. The initial ban was confirmed by Birmingham City Council only last Thursday and this is when intervention from the Secretary of State, DCMS, and broader government intervention began.
Telegraph Media Group: Ownership
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s consideration is for her alone. However, noble Lords will be aware that it is possible to have cases of this nature considered under the National Security and Investment Act if the transaction is deemed to raise national security concerns.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we know from the witness statements released overnight that the Deputy National Security Adviser considers that China
“presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”,
but also that the present Government are
“committed to pursuing a positive economic relationship”
with it. Given that, and not in relation to the case under consideration but in general terms, can the Minister tell us what sort of percentage stake in a British newspaper the Government would be comfortable with a Chinese state investor obtaining?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will not go into hypothetical examples. All the instances raised would be examined on a case-by-case basis. The noble Lord will be aware that we are deeply disappointed that the case he referenced has not gone to trial; we really did want to see prosecutions.
Football Governance Act 2025: Implementation
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This is exactly why we intend to get the regulator up as quickly as possible.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, many people across football are looking forward to working with David Kogan, but one of the difficulties that he and the new independent regulator have is that the process for appointing him is still under investigation by the commissioner for public standards. Has Mr Kogan been able to start his work, pending the outcome of that investigation? Has the noble Baroness’s department been given any indication of how much longer it might continue?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I should not comment on the inquiry being carried out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments—as I said earlier, this is ongoing. The noble Lord will be aware that David Kogan has met a number of Members of this House, and he is fully engaged with the task ahead at the point at which he is able to be appointed formally.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(4 months, 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(4 months, 3 weeks 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(4 months, 3 weeks 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(5 months, 2 weeks 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.