Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I was hoping that there would be other contributors—there will be a double-banking on this amendment.

I support Amendment 99, tabled by my noble friend. Throughout our deliberations on this Bill, the Government have placed enormous emphasis on imposing tough, outcomes-based statutory duties on operators and suppliers across our critical infrastructure, but we must confront an uncomfortable truth: we can pass the most sophisticated cyber security regulations in the world but, if our economy lacks the trained, qualified human beings required to design, implement and maintain those defences, those regulations remain completely meaningless. Without a professional workforce capability, this Bill merely codifies what ISC2 has rightly termed “compliance theatre”—an expensive box-ticking exercise that produces mountains of paperwork without making our national networks one bit safer.

Look at the scale of the crisis facing our domestic cyber workforce. In its landmark 2025-26 cyber security workforce study, ISC2 revealed that 52% of UK cyber security professionals identify severe skills shortages as their single greatest barrier to complying with cyber regulations. Further, 58% of organisations reported a critical or significant skills deficit, with an astonishing 87% suffering direct operational consequences from missed system patches and delayed vulnerability remediation to active security oversights. Across the civilian economy, the UK currently faces an 88% shortage of certified cyber practitioners. In an environment of such extreme scarcity, how on earth do the Government expect regulated water utilities, transport operators and medium-sized managed service providers to fulfil the heavy duties created by this Bill?

Amendment 99, from my noble friend, would provide a structural solution to this workforce crisis by placing the UK Cyber Security Council on a formal statutory footing. Crucially, as she explained, this connects directly to the definition of a skilled person under Clause 43. If the Government are serious about raising our national resilience floor, they must recognise that human competence is just as vital as technological hardware. By embedding the UK Cyber Security Council’s competence mandate in primary legislation, Amendment 99 would ensure that our cyber laws are backed by the skilled workforce needed to defend us.

I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment. By professionalising our cyber workforce, we would elevate this Bill from more than a compliance exercise to a genuine national capability.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I do not want the Liberal Democrats to be on their own, so I hear the call from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It brings me back to the coalition days, when I and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, were once Ministers in the same department—so my support is heartfelt.

I support the substance of the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, says, it may not necessarily be the right amendment but the spirit behind it is absolutely one that the Government should recognise. I was a bit concerned when the noble Baroness was outlining the intention behind the amendment whether it could perhaps be seen as a burden on business, particularly when we talk about small businesses and the need to audit their cyber preparedness. However, to recall my contribution at Second Reading, I said at the time that, although we tend to debate cyber in the Chamber and other places as a great threat that we need to address, it is also a fantastic economic opportunity. I should declare that I am an adviser to a company called Digital Futures, which trains software developers. We do not train them in cyber but obviously the need to build up a skilled workforce in cyber is absolutely essential.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to the patchwork of qualifications that exist in this area. It seems to me that the Government have a clear opportunity and a clear role to guide us through the maze and to put the National Cyber Security Centre on a statutory footing to give it the ultimate role in deciding the appropriate qualifications in cyber and to begin a sustained campaign to show young people, people returning to the workforce or people who are considering a new career that there is a route through to recognised, well set out cyber qualifications that will contribute to the national economy and our cyber resilience. I therefore wholeheartedly back this amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. It strikes me as a practical and important contribution to the Bill.

In addition to the points that have already been made by noble colleagues, there is one more thought to be added: one of the weaknesses of the present marketplace in which these skills are operating is the cost and affordability of advice and help for SMEs on security issues. It is costly—security does not come cheap. Many of these small businesses that nevertheless provide sophisticated services are up against it when it comes to making an adequate profit to stay in business. Therefore, a source of guidance and help, of the kind that is being suggested by this structure, would make a real contribution to not only the viability of these small firms but the general security of cyber security services.

We should never forget that these SMEs feed into the bigger ones. Often, it is an outlying service being provided to a bigger provider that is the cause of a fault or of an essential service proving insecure. Helping SMEs in this way would not only make them more secure but make the market generally more secure. This is a very important and helpful amendment, which I hope the Government will accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I rise early to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, partly to spare the stress of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and also because there is a Liberal Democrat amendment imminent in the Chamber, although we of course will be abstaining—our solidarity with the Liberal Democrats does not extend too far.

However, it does extend to this amendment, which ties in well with the noble Baroness’s earlier amendment concerning qualifications. I was fascinated to hear her referring to the Australian cyber service, which I had not heard about before. I would be fascinated to know more and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what other lessons there may be for us to learn from similar jurisdictions around the globe. I suspect the Canadians, for example, some of our European partners and some of the south-east Asian nations, such as Singapore or South Korea, will probably have very advanced and sophisticated bureaucracies, if I can put it that way, or institutions looking at the cyber threat.

Again, I shall address, rather than the technical detail of the noble Baroness’s amendment, the spirit in which it is brought and why it fits so well with her earlier amendment. It is about injecting a sense of urgency into how we raise our game in cyber in terms of our economy. When she mentioned the cyber action toolkit, it took me back to the days when I was one of the Cyber Ministers in the coalition Government. My responsibility was towards small businesses, and we launched endless small business toolkits, mainly because we wanted to say that we had launched a small business toolkit. We certainly never put in place any mechanisms for auditing its impact or success, and I think the constant references to about 7% of SMEs now having cyber policies in place may point to my abject failure in that role, and perhaps that of some of my successors.

The more I have listened to this debate, the more it takes me back to my childhood, when we would get leaflets about a possible nuclear conflagration. I know that Ministers and the Government are now telling people to stockpile water and baked beans because of the impact of El Niño, but we know that a cyber attack on the UK would cripple our economy and essential public services, so it is akin, given the geopolitical situation, to a national emergency.

The noble Baroness mentioned the views of the Association of British Insurers. Again, that was part of the toolkit. The feeling was that professional services would drive small businesses towards becoming more skilled in assessing their cyber risks, that you could not get insurance, or indeed cyber insurance, unless you had clear policies to deal with cyber attacks. With professional services firms, you could not necessarily get legal liability insurance for a data breach, which is not necessarily going to cripple your business but will affect your customers and therefore leave you open to liability, unless you could demonstrate that you had proper processes in place to protect your data. There is a whole ecosystem, it seems to me, that needs to be brought to bear to support the uptake of cyber skills and cyber audits by small businesses: we cannot be complacent and assume that 7% is an acceptable figure and that it should be allowed to evolve.

To a certain extent, the noble Baroness’s amendment is about the after-effects: if you suffer a cyber attack then you should be able to call on skilled people, whom we hope will have achieved the kind of recognised qualifications that the noble Baroness talked about earlier. She compared them to doctors but, when I thought about the amendment, I thought more about plumbers and electricians and the technical qualifications that you need to have to do a technical and difficult job.

We also need to look at what happens before. How do we increase the number of small businesses that put in place policies that will protect them from cyber attacks? That involves using the private sector, insurance companies and professional services firms to push forward clear protocols to which small business should be expected to adhere in order to receive the cover that they need to carry on doing business.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 100, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I spoke in support of this type of amendment at Second Reading and I still support its intentions, but I will give it an added twist. The question in my mind is where this resource for SMEs should sit and whether it should have any statutory powers or simply be an information and advisory centre.

There is no doubt that cyber security is needed—and here is another scary statistic—because 96% of all successful cyber attacks in the UK are perpetrated on SMEs, which represent soft targets for hackers. I suggest—here I take noble Lords back to day 1 of Committee— that this resource should sit within the office for cyber resilience proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Birt. Indeed, this is yet another example of the need to establish a body like an OCR, given the disturbingly fragmented approach to cyber security in this Bill.

Where can we sensibly draw the line between SMEs across all sectors and the rest of the business world? For instance, advice given to a medium-sized company with, say, 200 staff will overlap hugely with that given to a company with 2,000 staff. In the minds of the hackers and the ransomware merchants there is very little distinction. I argue that our economy needs a coherent, joined-up approach, run by a single competent authority with statutory teeth, for the benefit of SMEs and other companies and sectors.

I am afraid that, as it stands, this Bill is a recipe for chaos. Cooks and broth would be a kind analogy—there is barely any room in the kitchen for the number of departments, teams, councils, centres and agencies involved. The last count I heard was 30 or so, but I believe a few more have cropped up since.

--- Later in debate ---

We cannot allow a “compliance first, justice second” culture to take root. If we are to grant the Executive these sweeping, unprecedented powers, we must match them with equivalent modern and constitutionally sound safeguards. We must ensure that the citizen and the business are protected by a full, merits-based process, as recommended by our own Constitution Committee. I urge the Minister to accept this vital constitutional correction, and I beg to move.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, in addressing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I may increase his stress levels, unfortunately, as I oppose it. This means, I guess, that I am supporting the Government—that is, unless the Government are going to perform a volte-face in the face of the noble Lord’s strong arguments for a merits-based review of any decision reached by the First-tier Tribunal.

I do so because it brings back memories of when I was the telecommunications Minister and was, therefore, responsible for Ofcom. At the time, all Ofcom decisions were subject to a merits-based review in front of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which meant that, in effect, every decision it took regarding broadcasters or telecoms companies was reheard at appeal. As noble Lords can imagine, technical decisions on the charges being levied by wholesale carriers—or, in the case of Sky, the charges being levied on other broadcasters to carry, for example, the Premier League—were extremely complex, and Ofcom faced an army of lawyers deployed by those companies.

Without wishing to give away too many confidences—this was 10 years ago, so I do not think it is a matter of national security—Ofcom found itself extremely frustrated by all this. It was costing millions and millions of pounds. It was being used by commercial providers as a delaying tactic, a firepower tactic, almost, in order, understandably, to put off decisions that were not in their commercial favour. I initially resisted Ofcom’s blandishments to say that we should move away from merits-based appeals, partly because I thought that we would just start a whole new process of the courts feeling their way under the new system and would end up with a whole new set of delays as the courts had to make novel decisions under a novel regime.

However—one of the great telecom chief executives, my noble friend Lady Harding, has just walked into the Committee right on cue; I do not think, though, that she ever used her firepower in the cynical way that others did against Ofcom—the changes did go through. As far as I am concerned, although I have not done my homework properly, things have settled down into a straightforward process whereby a regulator makes a decision based on the facts and, if that decision can somehow be seen as unlawful by the company in question, it can be judicially reviewed.

It must be stressed that removing merits-based appeals would not remove the right of appeal. It seems fairly obvious to me that, as in civil and criminal cases, decisions would be arrived at based on the facts. However, if that decision were somehow so outside the normal judicial process of making a decision and so irrational, as it were—which is what judicial review exists to review—then it could be reviewed. That system should be consistent across regulatory appeals. I cannot necessarily comment on the effective points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the clandestine nature of some of the findings, but it may well be that, given the issues to do with cyber security, attacks on critical national infrastructure and so on, some elements of cases must be kept confidential. That is a matter for further debate, perhaps, but I would be extremely concerned if we were to go back to merits-based reviews for regulatory appeals.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this important group and all noble Lords for their contributions. Beginning with Amendment 148A, it is reasonable to suggest that there should be a further right to appeal, given that we are talking about potentially large penalties of £17 million or 10% of annual turnover. But, like my noble friend Lord Vaizey, I have concerns about whether the Upper Tribunal system can handle such a process. Right now, it has an open case load of over 800,000, which is a 19% year-on-year increase, and disposals have decreased by 4%. As such, I am hesitant to offer my support without being assured that further pressure will not be placed on tribunals and that this is a workable mechanism.

Amendments 174A and 174B, in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Camrose and Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require the Secretary of State to establish a register of foreign powers posing a cyber security risk to this country, and to review and report on the extent of the risk posed by powers on that list. Part 4 gives the Secretary of State significant new powers to intervene where the use of vendors’ goods and services or facilities pose a risk to national security. We support that objective. A power of that kind is only as good as the intelligence that informs it. At present, the Bill is silent on how the Secretary of State is to identify, in a systematic and transparent way, which foreign powers actually present that risk.

Amendment 174A aims to fill that information gap, outlining a thorough set of criteria for inclusion: a state confirmed by GCHQ to have perpetrated or attempted a cyber attack against the UK in the preceding seven years—one directed at an operator of an essential service or a critical supplier and carried out through a state department, agency or affiliate—or a state that GCHQ has separately warned poses a risk to such systems.

The importance of ensuring that we are fully informed of foreign threats can hardly be overstated. Just this year, the NCSC’s chief executive reported that three-quarters of all attacks on our critical national infrastructure over the preceding 12 months were carried out by hostile states, with Russia, China and Iran named specifically. The NCSC’s annual review recorded 204 nationally significant incidents in the year to August 2025—more than double the previous year, with 18 rated highly significant.

For illustration, the cyber attack that last month shut down a British power plant is reported to have been committed by Iran-backed hackers. Over the course of the last Parliament and this one, China has targeted Parliament and compromised the Electoral Commission; Russia’s FSB has targeted British parliamentarians and successfully stolen and leaked politically sensitive documents; and Iranian state actors have targeted British politicians, Governments and defence with sustained cyber espionage campaigns.

We are seeing a surge in cyber attacks driven largely by foreign threats. If the Government are serious about security and resilience, tackling foreign interference must be a priority. As a start, a published criteria-based register would bring much-needed transparency and rigour to the process. Amendment 174B seeks to achieve such transparency. It would require the Secretary of State, for each foreign power added to the register, to conduct a review of the extent and nature of the risk that that power poses. It also includes a built-in safeguard for the Government: where the Secretary of State considers that laying their report would be contrary to national security interests, they may instead make a Statement to Parliament confirming that the review has taken place and explaining that it cannot be published. It attempts to strike a balance between accountability and the sensitivities that intelligence assessment of this kind will naturally carry.

I anticipate that the Minister may say that such a register already exists in substance within government and that formalising and publishing it risks informing those very powers of the extent of our knowledge. I gently observe that the amendment does not require publication of intelligence sources, substance or methods—only the fact of designation against published criteria and a review to assess the risk. Given the scale of the threat that the NCSC describes and, given the very significant powers that this part confers on the Secretary of State, I believe that Parliament is entitled to ask that those powers rest on a clear, evidenced and reviewable basis. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 164 is in my name and, I am delighted to say, that of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom. Sadly, he is tied up next door with matters of national security—I hope that I am not giving away any secrets—and is unable to speak to this amendment, but I value the support that he has given as a long-standing campaigner for changes to the Computer Misuse Act.

This amendment addresses a long-standing, globally recognised and increasingly dangerous absurdity in our criminal law: the fact that our primary cyber crime statute, the Computer Misuse Act 1990, criminalises the very cyber security professionals who are actively working to defend our country. The Computer Misuse Act is now 36 years old. It was drafted in 1990—an era before the world wide web had entered public consciousness, when less than 0.5% of the British public had ever sent an email and when the entire concept of proactive, ethical vulnerability research was completely unimagined. Because the Act was drafted at such a primitive stage of the digital revolution, it contains a blanket, indiscriminate prohibition on all unauthorised access to computer material. In its current form, it draws no legal distinction whatever between a malicious hacker, backed by a hostile foreign state and seeking to sabotage our critical national infrastructure, and an ethical, good-faith cyber security researcher—a “white hat” hacker, if you like—seeking to discover and responsibly disclose vulnerabilities before criminals can exploit them.

The real-world consequence of this statutory blind spot is that British cyber defenders are forced to operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Consider the day-to-day operational reality: if an ethical researcher in the UK scans an internet-facing network, identifies a critical zero-day vulnerability that leaves an NHS hospital dataset or a municipal water control system exposed, and takes the basic technical steps necessary to verify the flaw, they have technically committed a criminal offence under Section 1 of the 1990 Act. They face prosecution and imprisonment, even if their actions were undertaken entirely in good faith, strictly in the public interest and followed by immediate responsible disclosure to the National Cyber Security Centre or the affected operator.

I and others have received overwhelmingly passionate representations from the CyberUp campaign, representing what might be described as the elite of our domestic cyber security industry. Alongside the Criminal Law Reform Now Network and the NCC group, its evidence is stark. It says that the chilling effect of the Computer Misuse Act is actively undermining our national cyber resilience. Leading UK cyber security companies are routinely forced to prohibit their researchers conducting proactive threat intelligence gathering and vulnerability research on UK-based infrastructure because the legal risks are unacceptable. When British researchers identify an active cyber threat originating abroad, they are legally constrained from investigating the command and control servers if doing so involves touching a remote system without explicit owner authorisation.

Meanwhile, our international competitors have moved ahead. The United States updated its Department of Justice charging policies explicitly to protect good-faith security research. Countries such as Portugal, France and Australia have established clear and legal safe harbours for ethical cyber defenders. As a direct result, British cyber talent and commercial investment are migrating overseas to jurisdictions where proactive defence is recognised as a public good, rather than a criminal act.

During the Bill’s passage in the other place and during our Second Reading debate, the Government’s response was to agree with the principle of reform while arguing that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle. Ministers pointed to an ongoing Home Office review and suggested that reform must wait for a hypothetical future security Bill. We have been waiting for the outcome of that Home Office review for more than five years; it was kicked into the long grass of Whitehall interdepartmental delays while our critical network remained under siege.

There is potentially a contradiction at the heart of the Government’s strategy on this issue. On one hand, Ministers are using this Bill to impose sweeping new legal duties and heavy, turnover-based penalties on operators to secure their networks; on the other hand, the Government continue to criminalise the very security professionals and ethical researchers whom these operators must hire to test and harden their systems.

Amendment 164 would resolve this contradiction cleanly, decisively and safely. It seeks to insert a direct substantive statutory defence into Sections 1 and 3 of the CMA. An individual charged under the Act would have a complete legal defence if they can prove that their conduct was reasonable for the detection or prevention of crime, or that they were carrying on legitimate cyber security activities, specifically defined in the Bill as vulnerability research, penetration testing, threat intelligence-gathering or a responsible disclosure necessary to safeguard system security.

Crucially, this amendment would not create a free-for-all or a loophole for malicious actors. It would empower the Secretary of State to approve a statutory code of practice, setting out the precise standards, rules of engagement and reporting protocols that constitute legitimate, good-faith cyber security activity. Anyone who acts outside those clear standards remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. Let us also consider the significant economic dividend of this reform. Independent economic modelling from the CyberUp Campaign demonstrates that introducing a statutory defence for legitimate cyber security activities would add 9,500 high-skilled, high-wage jobs and generate £2.5 billion in additional revenue for the UK economy.

We cannot build a resilient nation by preserving laws written for the floppy disk era. In an age of automated AI exploits and state-sponsored ransomware, we must unchain our cyber defenders. We have been here before, and the Government’s arguments for delay have run completely out of road. During our debates and correspondence on the then Crime and Policing Bill and, previously, the then Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Government repeatedly acknowledged the strength of our case. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, stood at the Dispatch Box and conceded that the Computer Misuse Act is dangerously outdated and that the Home Office were actively preparing a statutory defence under Section 1 to protect ethical cyber security researchers. Indeed, in correspondence following those debates, Ministers confirmed that engagement with industry and system owners was well advanced, but their stock excuse for resisting our amendments was always the same: “This is the wrong legislative vehicle. Wait for the upcoming cyber security legislation”. Well, here we are—this is the cyber security and resilience Bill. If primary cyber legislation cannot fix the statute that actively criminalises our front-line cyber defenders, what on earth can?

When the Government updated law enforcement powers under the Crime and Policing Act to seize domains and IP addresses, Ministers were quick to assure us that police powers are tightly bound by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and statutory exemptions under Section 10 of the CMA. Yet independent security researchers, who discover over half of all critical system vulnerabilities before hostile state actors can weaponise them, enjoy zero statutory protections. They are left entirely at the whim of prosecutorial discretion and the threat of catastrophic legal action. The review of the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, recommended this defence three years ago. The CyberUp Campaign and techUK have drafted the ethical safeguards. In correspondence, Ministers have told us that they agree in principle. It is time to honour those commitments and put a direct statutory defence in this Bill. I urge the Minister to support this vital amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whether technically or in spirit. He is right to point out how outdated the Computer Misuse Act is and that its blanket prohibition on undertaking cyber security activities without any public interest defence is ridiculous.

The noble Lord’s amendment goes to the heart of the frustrations that have been expressed in debates on this Bill, particularly at Second Reading; sadly, I was not able to attend Committee last week, but I imagine they were reiterated again. This is an incremental and technical Bill that clears up some important anomalies. Time and time again, noble Lords have raised the point that it is missing the bigger picture. Now that we live in a digital age when absolutely everything depends on digital infrastructure, it seems to be absolutely extraordinary that we are not taking a much bigger view on updating our legislation, institutions, resources and skill base, to make this core infrastructure fit for purpose. It seems extraordinary to me that the Computer Misuse Act has not been touched for 36 years. It is well out of date. It may well be that there are other elements of it that have to be looked at.

Live Music

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on his epically superb speech. I declare my interest as a trustee of the KOKO Foundation. As all noble Lords know, KOKO is a fantastically cool music venue in Camden. In fact, it was made live music venue of the year.

Stemming from my involvement with KOKO, I want to make a point about businesses in general. KOKO has never received a penny of government money. Since its creation, it has created about 10,000 jobs, paid £80 million in taxes and helped the regeneration of the area. But the recent increase in NI means that KOKO now has to attract 4,000 additional customers a week in order to meet its NI bill. At the same time, KOKO has set aside £500,000 for the foundation to help local people; it works with the Department for Business and Trade in welcoming foreign Governments to look at hospitality; and it has helped in many other ways. My point is more general: every time the Government impose taxes on business, they are harming or impacting venues such as KOKO.

Everybody knows the importance of live music. The recent Harry Styles tour, for example, generated about £1.1 billion in revenue beyond the actual events. However, we cannot be complacent about the success of the major live music industry in the UK. We did not go ahead with the Sphere—that was nothing to do with this Government—but the London fireworks are falling behind. Major countries in the world see live music and events as central to diversifying their economy. It is incumbent on the Government and on local government to work more closely with the private sector.

I echo the points that have already been made about secondary ticketing and flag the point about visas for musicians, which is becoming a particularly thorny issue for many involved in the live music business.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for initiating this important debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. It is clear from the number of speakers how much passion and expertise there is among noble Lords for music. I may struggle to respond to all the points and questions during the debate but will follow up in writing where required. Unlike my noble friend Lady Hyde of Bemerton, however, I will not use lyrics to make my point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, might have got a few in as well.

There can be no doubt among noble Lords of my noble friend Lord Brennan’s passion, talent and expertise, both as a performer and as a staunch advocate for the music sector over many years. I have been told we cannot encourage him to use any excess time to entertain us in your Lordships’ House, but hopefully we will find another time in the near future.

To quote my noble friend, I agree that everyone’s lives are enriched when they gather with others to enjoy live music. The sheer joy brought by our country’s performers from popular music, through folk, country, rock and jazz to some of the foremost classical performers is unparalleled. This Government are committed to protecting one of our country’s most valued and valuable sectors.

As my noble friend Lady Dacres said, British music has changed not just this country but other countries around the world. That reflects what my noble friend Lady Gill said about the richness and diversity of music within our rich and diverse country.

I commend my noble friend Lord Brennan for his recent work chairing the fan-led review of live and electronic music, launched in the other place by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which the Government warmly welcome and which I thoroughly enjoyed looking through. Fans and music lovers are at the heart of our live music ecosystem. The Government will be responding to the report’s recommendations shortly, alongside our upcoming music plan, which I will come on to. I can commit to my noble friend, however, that we do not intend to let his report and the views of fans gather dust.

As many noble Lords mentioned, music is a fundamental part of our nation’s life, with human experience sparking inspiration. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, there is a benefit to our general well-being and our mental well-being. It is also a universal language that connects us across generations, backgrounds and communities. It is vital that all fans, wherever they live, have access to live music. Whether it is thousands gathering for a mega stadium gig, as I did last night at Wembley to hear Shania Twain and Harry Styles—I was fortunate enough to be there—or neighbours packing out a local pub to hear a local band, live music fosters a powerful sense of community in all its forms, bringing different generations together in shared spaces. It deepens local pride, connects our communities and gives a powerful voice to our national story, not least to Wales, as my noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport said.

I welcomed the example given by my noble friend of the importance and value of music in her hometown of Newport. Those points were echoed by my noble friend Lady MacLeod’s description of the festival in Skye. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, music strengthens our society.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and my noble friends Lady Wilcox, Lady Gill and Lady MacLeod, reflected on the positive economic impacts of live music. The music industry makes an incredible contribution to our economy; a record-breaking £8 billion in GVA in 2024 generated £4.8 billion in export revenues and supported over 220,000 jobs across the country. The suggestion that we use it to finance the defence plan is an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which I will pass on. Indeed, the Government’s industrial strategy explicitly identifies our creative industries as one of eight priority growth-driving sectors, fully backed by our 10-year creative industries sector plan to support long-term growth.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, asked what the Government would do to work with the private sector. To fulfil our ambitions for the UK to be the best place in the world to create and invest in music, we are delivering on our commitment to a dedicated music plan. We will soon set out how this Government are working hand in hand with the industry to unlock talent, empower entrepreneurs and give our creative businesses the definitive conditions they need to thrive. We are backing this commitment with a landmark investment, our new £30 million music growth package, which more than doubles previous government funding for the music industry.

My noble friend Lord Brennan highlighted support for grass-roots music and a number of noble Lords spoke about the importance of strengthening our grass-roots infrastructure. We have this at the heart of our music growth package, alongside boosting domestic touring and expanding international exports. Ultimately, this will support at least 40,000 creators and professionals across the UK over the next three years. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and my noble friends Lady Dacres and Lord Watson of Invergowrie also mentioned grass roots. Alongside government investment, there is a vital role for industry here, too. We are actively backing the live music sector’s £1 voluntary ticket contribution, led by the LIVE Trust, to ensure that success at the top is reinvested into the grass-roots spaces that forge our global headliners. In relation to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I agree. We recognise the significant role played by charities and, indeed, the LIVE Trust is one of the foremost examples that the noble Baroness shared.

My noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton and other noble Lords asked what will happen if the industry fails to adopt the voluntary levy at scale. While we welcome the significant progress made by the LIVE Trust, we have been absolutely clear that we are prepared to explore legislative options if necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of our world-leading live music.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Keeley, raised creative education for our young people. The Government are committed to ensuring that every child has access to a quality creative education, with £13 million over three years for the National Centre for Arts and Music Education and our £37.8 million music and dance scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the Every Child Can programme. DCMS is rebuilding opportunities through that £132.5 million programme, which will ensure that every young person has something to do, somewhere to go and someone who cares. That obviously includes access to music education—a point made by my noble friend Lady Keeley. The Government are committed to revitalising arts education, including music, through reform of the national curriculum. Arts Council England supports national youth music organisations to help talented young people from less privileged backgrounds access high-quality music and dance training.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about strengthening the agent of change in planning policy to better protect grass-roots music venues from noise complaints. The Government are currently consulting on strengthening the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure consistent application of the agent of change principle by local authorities.

Noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Hyde and Lady Gill and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, all raised issues arising post Brexit, including European touring. Helping touring artists is a manifesto commitment. The UK and European Commission have jointly committed to supporting UK-EU cultural exchange, specifically recognising the vital activities of touring artists at the inaugural UK-EU summit. It is very good to have the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, back to continue the debate on EU touring, artists and other matters that he has championed over the years.

Following the Prime Minister’s resignation, we have agreed with the EU that it will not be possible to go ahead with the summit on 22 July. We will, however, continue to discuss options with the EU for the summit to take place at the next and earliest opportunity. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, asked a range of EU-related questions. The only thing that I can say to the noble Baroness in this context is: please watch this space. I hope we will continue to discuss that and I hope I will be able to come back with some firm commitments at a later date.

My noble friend Lady Gill raised AI—I apologise if other noble Lords raised it. We are backing the sector with targeted investment while building safeguards around AI. We remain firmly committed to protecting creators while supporting AI innovation. We are launching a consultation on digital replicas later this year, establishing a taskforce on AI labelling and launching a working group for smaller creative organisations to drive progress.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Brennan, raised secondary ticketing. We are tackling industrial-scale ticket touting head-on. Through our upcoming secondary ticketing legislation, we will destroy the touts’ business model once and for all, protecting hard-working fans from being ripped off. We are working at pace—a phrase I do not like, but I have said it out loud now—and I will continue to push for this to be published at the earliest stage, not least for the purpose of my response in the Sporting Events Bill. We are working at pace to publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in this Session to ensure that our measures are truly effective and, more importantly, enforceable and future-proof.

I appreciate the wealth of expertise illustrated in today’s debate and the commitment to making sure that our fantastic, world-class live music sector is supported. I look forward to future discussions, with my noble friend Lord Brennan and others, to take forward this agenda.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is going to sum up, because we have time.

Oh. Can we not use the remaining seven minutes for more points? I had such an incredible point to make.

2026 FIFA World Cup: Replica Kit Pricing

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely. Whichever club noble Lords support—I support a club that has, sadly, been relegated—the joy that was apparent from all supporters, including the Prime Minister, at Arsenal’s victory is just uplifting. Congratulations to them and to all their supporters.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, as a Chelsea fan, I take this opportunity to congratulate Arsenal on winning the Premier League and to commiserate with Spurs on their imminent relegation.

I have to say that I am confused by these exchanges— a retailer inviting government interference on prices, a Conservative doing the same and a Scotchman inviting English interference in Scottish sport. I do not know which way to turn. However, while I appreciate the sentiment of regulating sports shirts, where does this end? We know that the Government are apparently planning to regulate prices in supermarkets on eggs and milk, which has been roundly condemned by retailers. Will that extend to season tickets and Sky Sports subscriptions? It is a dangerous road that the Minister is being invited to travel down.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is also a road that is full of mythology and misunderstandings about where the Government are going. The Exchequer Secretary was emphatically clear this morning that capping supermarket prices is not something that the Government are considering, although clearly the price of food is of deep concern to many people, given the rising cost of living, and is something that the Government share their concerns on.

Broadcasting: Recent Developments

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I briefly declare that I am the co-chair of the All-Party Group on Creators, which means I meet a lot of YouTube influencers. I am also a broadcaster on Times Radio. In fact, I should be plugging my show right now on Times Radio—it is on Fridays at 10 am—but I have chosen instead to listen to some excellent speeches.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this important debate, and also say how thrilling it was to see the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, appearing as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. I know it is something he has wanted to do for years, although I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, will later be appearing as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I feel like I am in the middle of a pilot for a new BBC comedy series.

Back in 2009, when I was still the opposition spokesman, I suggested to a media analyst that the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 should merge. She told me I was a complete idiot—but I was obviously making a point about scale. Although we are still a large, medium-sized country, we know we need scale in broadcasting. The BBC cannot compete—that ship has sailed—against the global streamers such as Netflix, Apple, Amazon Prime and, of course, YouTube, which we never talk about, but which has become the absolute Goliath in terms of media broadcasting. So, what we are really debating here is how we secure the future of the BBC in this new ecosystem.

Of course, the BBC is not the only game in town when it comes to producing high-quality British content. It is also worth pointing out that it is not just the licence fee that funds high-quality content. The tax credits for film and television, which the last Government introduced but which have been secured by this Government, are also vital in securing good quality British content. But the BBC really is, as far as domestic broadcasting is concerned, the only game in town.

It is incumbent on all of us to support the BBC. We can be critical friends of the BBC, but we should be careful what we would lose without it. I really react with astonishment and a bit of horror when I see people supporting the move by President Trump, for example, to sue the BBC because they happened to have watched BBC News the night before and disagreed with its tone or supposed bias. The BBC is an incredibly important institution.

When I did charter review with John Whittingdale, we had a very easy time of it. There was not really much we needed to change. We changed the regulation from the BBC Trust to Ofcom, but otherwise we effectively kicked the challenges the BBC faces into the long grass. These challenges are now more real today than they have ever been.

I will make three or four suggestions of areas we should look at. We seriously need to look at a structural separation of BBC News and a merger with the World Service, with its own board, charter and chief executive. I, for one, would welcome the BBC investing properly in local news, which is so important with the death of local newspapers. The BBC has to accept that, realistically, there is no more money. It has to cut its cloth. I was always a bit sceptical of people who said that, because everyone pays the licence fee, the BBC must do everything—and I accept that, by doing a lot, it actually raises the quality of what the BBC produces. However, the BBC seriously needs to look at the breadth of services it provides.

The noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned the importance of religious programming and children’s programming. We introduced the content fund, which had a short shelf life but was apparently quite successful. It may be that part of what the BBC does is provide content for other programmers, focused on where the market has failed, such as children’s programming. We need to have a debate about how much of the IP the BBC now keeps. We had a trend of pushing it out to independent producers. If we want the BBC to be more commercially successful, let us look at that.

We need to be more open-minded about subscription—I know that I have to wind up, but I will need to speak for another 15 seconds—but in my view that opportunity should be put forward by the BBC, not by the Government. I would counsel against changing the licence fee. It is very tempting, but the public will see any change as a new tax, not an alternative tax.

BBC Leadership

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

UK and EU Trade: Arts and Creative Industries

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Parthenon Sculptures: Return

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, this legislation is a throwback to the time when our national museums were little more than adjuncts of the Office of Works. As they gained their independence, the Government at the time quite rightly wanted to stop that. The trustees and leaders of our national museums have shown, admittedly with substantial government support over the years, that they are more than capable of running their own affairs. This legislation is well out of date. There is precedent. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art works extremely well in reviewing objects that are poised to leave the country and deciding whether they are part of our heritage. Surely setting up something like that to review contested objects would be a wonderful way to independently assess these very contentious issues.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the British Museum operates independently of the Government, and so decisions relating to its collections are, within the law, a matter for its board of trustees. I know that the British Museum recognises the strength of feelings on this issue, and the museum is actively pursuing the possibility of a new partnership approach with Greece. I repeat that we as a Government do not have any plans to amend the law.

Live Music Industry: Support

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a governor of an independent school—and give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Can the Minister hear the noise from today’s discussion, in which Members are raising all sorts of problems that the cultural industries face? Do we not need a complete strategy that deals with all these issues, and do we not need to be clear about how we are going to support the arts and culture in the UK?

Media Bill

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, it is an extremely surreal moment to stand up just as the Prime Minister is about to walk out of the door of No. 10, maybe to announce a general election for 4 July. Of course, if that does happen it means we will be dealing with these very important issues during the wash-up process.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

I just wanted to let the noble Lord know that Downing Street is delaying the announcement for 10 minutes so that we can hear his speech in full.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am always grateful for suggestions from my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey.

The amendments that have already been debated are extremely important. I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for explaining the somewhat complex details surrounding the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments are really important in the context of going back to the sort of local radio stations we used to enjoy. He is also right to point out that a number of our debates have already demonstrated how important it is for Parliament to give a clear direction to Ofcom about its various activities.

I will concentrate on my Amendments 75 and 76. On Monday, I referred to the vital importance of Sections 319 and 320 of the Communications Act in creating an impartiality framework for TV and radio, building on earlier ones. That tradition of impartiality is the basis for the very high level of trust in our broadcast journalists—a tradition as vital for radio as it is for television. As I said on Monday, in an era of disinformation and conspiracy theories, spread so easily and quickly via social media, those impartiality requirements and the trust they engender in broadcast news and information are more important than ever. However, they are now under threat from a combination of a new generation of opinionated news stations and what appears to be the increasing reluctance of Ofcom to implement Parliament’s will.

Those impartiality rules, laid down by Parliament in 2003, are very clear. Section 319(2)(c) of the Act lays down that one of the standards objectives to be enforced by Ofcom is that

“news included in television and radio services is presented with due impartiality and that the impartiality requirements of section 320 are complied with”.

Section 320 states clearly that, for every radio and television service, due impartiality must be preserved in—this is critical—

“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.

In simple terms, I believe that means that the due impartiality requirements must apply equally to both news and what we might call current affairs.

Recently, however, Ofcom seems to be making a distinction, allowing greater latitude for current affairs programmes to escape the due impartiality requirement. The distinction was first raised on 21 March last year in an Ofcom blog posted by its then group director for broadcasting and online content, Kevin Bakhurst. It was headlined, “Can politicians present TV and radio shows? How our rules apply”. Mr Bakhurst stated that,

“generally speaking, if it’s a news programme, a politician cannot present”,

but

“They are allowed to present other kinds of shows … including current affairs”.


Yet that distinction between news and current affairs appears nowhere in the relevant statute; nor did it appear in Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code or in the guidance that accompanies the code, yet Ofcom now clearly sees a distinction.

Last month, looking further into the issue of politicians presenting programmes, Ofcom commissioned IPSOS to carry out some focus groups among audiences. One of the conclusions in the IPSOS report was:

“Participants thought they could easily distinguish between news and current affairs … However, in practice, the presentation and style of these types of content blurred the line between news and current affairs which confused participants”.


IPSOS concluded that:

“The most prevalent opinion was feeling uncomfortable with politicians presenting current affairs content”.


While Ofcom appears to want news and current affairs to be treated separately, audiences have difficulty distinguishing between the two, so, just as the 2003 Act intended, news and current affairs programmes should both be covered by Sections 319 and 320 of the Act. The arbitrary distinction that Ofcom appears to have made between news and current affairs has no basis in law. After all, both quite clearly relate to

“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.

Were the distinction to continue, it would significantly weaken the impartiality framework, so Amendment 75 makes it clear that Parliament always intended news to incorporate current affairs, in line with audience expectations.

This brings us back to the issue about partisan presenters. We have some outstanding radio show presenters with well-known political allegiances, including some from this House. I mention in passing the excellent programmes on Times Radio presented by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the newly ennobled noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika. We would not want to banish them from the air waves any more than we would want to banish, say, Nigel Farage from GB News. We are a liberal democracy, and we want to protect those contributions, but surely only if their shows live up to the same standards of impartiality required for news programmes.

Given the very high trust that audiences have invested in our broadcast services, as well as the clear audience discomfort with politically partisan presenters, we should seriously consider whether additional impartiality guardrails might be necessary for programmes hosted by well-known figures with well-recognised political allegiances. Amendment 76 addresses the rules around partisan presenters, whether on news or current affairs programmes, and it offers the simple proposal that the Secretary of State should review whether an enhanced duty of impartiality for such presenters might be necessary. The current rules around impartiality should not be allowed to be weakened by a regulator, certainly not without Parliament’s permission. Taken together, Amendment 75 and 76 seek to protect the legacy of trust which our broadcast media has taken decades to construct and which must not carelessly be disregarded.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

Well, if no one is going to fill the gap, I will. I can confirm that a general election has not yet been announced—in deference to the excellent speech on radio from the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I thought I would make a few brief remarks —while we wait for this imminent event—with some reflections on radio.

I was lucky enough to be the Radio Minister for six years in the DCMS and now I am lucky enough to be a broadcaster on Times Radio—which is duly declared in my register of interests—so I have seen both sides of the fence. Ofcom has had a fantastic team looking after radio for many years and they are great experts on it. They were very much on the front foot when we discussed some of the mechanics and the engineering needed to extend digital radio.

The watchwords for radio are that we in Britain have an extremely successful radio ecosystem. We love our radio. We are also very far in advance of many other countries. To all intents and purposes, we have a universal digital network, which not many countries have. We still have our FM network. We have a plethora of radio stations, from legitimate national stations to quasi-national stations—which are really a group of regional stations knitted together—through to local radio stations and community radio stations. One of the things that I wanted to do most as a Minister was to support community radio. There is not enough money for it; there should be more money for it and for the engineering to support it. It is truly local radio. I used to visit places such as Swindon community radio which provided a vital service. It was run by volunteers and, rather like hospital radio, it is a great gateway into the radio industry and lots of young people still want to work in radio. That is very important.

It is a good thing, as it were, that the Government never made a firm decision on whether to switch over FM to digital and have allowed the radio industry in effect to lead that process and wait for it to come and say when it might be ready—when the dual costs may be too much or it might be sensible to go to a purely digital system. The other important point about radio is that the BBC sits at the heart of that radio ecosystem. That is one the important reasons to support the BBC but, at the same time, the BBC should be very mindful of its place and, in my view, be leaning in to providing the kind of radio services that commercial radio cannot afford to provide. In particular, that is local radio.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that there is far too much broadcast regulation being made up on the hoof by Ofcom, without any guidance from Parliament. That is partly up to the Government to drive consultation and to frame the debate so that Parliament can have that debate and make some decisions. However, I accept that, as a Conservative Peer, broad- casting a show on Times Radio, it feels very odd to interview Wes Streeting about Labour’s health policy. The people who run Times Radio and who run other radio stations take their obligations to Ofcom very seriously. They have compliance departments and ask whether something will comply with Ofcom or cross a line. They are very mindful of the existing guidance that Ofcom prepares.

As I said in the Second Reading debate, we should not be misled in terms of thinking about this kind of regulation for opinionated news—if you like—a sort of hybrid. We should not be misled because we might not like GB News, because it is deemed to be a right-wing station. We should have a proper debate about whether there is room for opinionated news in the broadcast ecosystem, particularly as we are now so deep into such a rich information environment with social media.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I can usually spot a cunning plan when there is one afoot, and I fancy that our debate this afternoon is going to be overshadowed by events outside this House as the lectern has already been rolled out. This is an eclectic group of amendments which raise some important issues on radio regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, in Amendments 71, 73 and 74 seeks to establish a baseline of locally provided programmes. I suspect we all have some sympathy with this.

There was a time when local radio was genuinely that: local. I well remember, as a local government leader, a time when both commercial and public service broadcast—BBC—radio stations used to call me up to face a quizzical reporter or phone-in audiences on local issues. But it has been a while since those days, as less and less content is generated from a locality. Basically, “local” means anything but that, as the programmes can be made and broadcast anywhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, accurately described, and have no particular geographical audience.

Most commercial radio stations now work to the same format and are owned by fewer and fewer companies, with little or no community input. Sadly, they have contributed to the overall decline of local news as well. As we know, the BBC has much reduced its local services—several noble Lords have mentioned this—as part of its slimming down of local radio. It remains an open question as to how practical and workable the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, are in the current context, and that is a question for us to consider.

I turn to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, particularly Amendment 72, which I think we would all accept hits on a very significant issue. If we want to look at radio coverage in the context of levelling up—and I think we should—we clearly have a long way to go, because there are definitely issues of access. Last year, we passed legislation that in theory should enable better coverage digitally, but it remains the case that rural areas are still significantly disadvantaged. In replying to the noble Baroness, can the Minister update the Committee today on progress and how the Government see, and are seeking, other means to redress this widely perceived imbalance? Are there, for instance, any government targets in place that are designed to move the UK towards a more universal quality of coverage that will take account of rural and local needs?

Turning to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on radio news impartiality, I say that, yes, of course there should be careful consideration by Ofcom, both for television and radio, when current affairs shows are on either news stations or channels, or stations that focus heavily on news and current affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, seems to have introduced a new expression into our debate today: “opinionated news”. I thought that was a very good expression and not one I had heard before. I do not think that we can easily move away from challenging that. How we resolve the fact that politicians of a particular party host such shows in the face of regulations that are pretty clear on impartiality and balance is something we need now to seriously consider, and the noble Lord raises a telling question.

We must also ensure that Ofcom has the tools it needs to decide on impartiality when it comes to politically hosted shows. Perhaps the Minister could outline what discussions he and his department have had with Ofcom on this matter, because it is a matter of serious concern. We need considerable reassurance on this because, hand on heart, we cannot say that it is working as well as it should—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, says about Ofcom having a very good team covering radio. I am sure that is true and that great diligence is exhibited there, but we need to move on and ensure that Ofcom can get on with the job in a way that satisfies widespread public concern about impartiality rules.

Media Bill

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter—I thank her for the name check—which I have put my name to in support. I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in everything she said in her speech. I declare my interests as set out in the register.

When I started my career in television, more than 50 years ago, diversity and inclusion was not a priority for public service broadcasters. I personally had to break down so many barriers to get diversity on the agenda to where we are today. Thankfully, enormous strides have been taken and the diversity landscape has been transformed, both in front of and behind the camera. Although we have not yet reached what I call “diversity nirvana”, we are well on the way. Broadcasters such as ITV have made huge progress with their diversity and inclusion strategy and should be applauded.

But, talking to people across the industry, the big concern is the redundancies that are sweeping throughout the industry, combined with the slowdown in commissioning, which in turn will lead to many production companies going out of business and will therefore have a negative effect on all the diversity gains over the past few years. As ITV and Channel 4 look for new financial models and tighten their belts, they need to make sure that they do not take their eye off the ball when it comes to diversity and inclusion, because most TV workers are freelancers and work for independent production companies. So perhaps some programme-level data is necessary in order for us to properly see how many of the PSBs’ full-time staff are from under- represented backgrounds and how much of their programming is made by diverse talent from the freelance community.

Adeel Amini, a series producer and the founder of The TV Mindset, said, “While PSBs have certainly been saying all the right things regarding diversity, their impact on the ground level and on the wider industry structure as a whole has been harder to see. In fact, many people from underrepresented backgrounds feel like the industry has gone backwards. Given the current crisis, they feel they are being squeezed out quicker than ever before. This particularly applies to roles at mid and senior level, with not enough representation at decision-making level. It’s important that diversity is seen not as a box-ticking exercise, but something that demands accountability if we are to change the fabric of this industry and make it truly welcoming and inclusive to all”.

Amendment 33 is very much the start of making this process a reality.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I shall just slip in on the back of the excellent speech on diversity from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, because this is a subject very close to my heart. I think Amendment 33, put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, is very telling in calling for public service broadcasters to put forward a diversity strategy.

But I would go behind the amendment and say that, in my experience, it is often the case that public service broadcasters can hide behind a strategy, and a strategy can often be an excuse for inaction. I remember that when I first got involved in the diversity in broadcasting debate, which is now more than a decade ago, I was very struck by the fact that, when we had a meeting with the broadcasters—there were three main broadcasters in play: ITV, BBC and Sky—the BBC came in and said, “We totally get what you’re saying and we’re going to produce a strategy”. ITV came in and said something in between. Sky came in and said “We’re just going to go for 20%”—and it did go for it, in terms of people both in front of and behind the camera. So it is very important that the Minister himself gets very engaged with the broadcasters, because if they simply put strategic documents on his desk, nothing will change.

The other important part of any strategy that is legislated for in this Bill is that it brings forward proper, in-depth statistics about what is happening in broadcasting in terms of diversity and equality. On that point, I would like the Minister to update me on the Diamond network, which was the measurement standard put in place in the mid-2010s in which broadcasters had to report for every production. It gradually included the independent producers, because that was another thing that we discovered made life more difficult, because you then had to go to all the independent production companies and bring them within the system. What has happened to the Diamond system? What kind of statistics is it throwing up that reveal what is actually happening in broadcasting?

I am fully aware that, when one talks about diversity, there may be a small element of the public—perhaps a Venn diagram overlapping with Garrick Club members—who regard talking about diversity as some sort of woke totemic point. But the point is that we live in an extremely diverse country. It is so important—and it really emphasises why this Bill and broadcasting are still so important, no matter how diverse and fragmented broadcasting has become in terms of platforms—that people in this country are able to tell their stories and see themselves represented. Equally, to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, it is not just the people in front of the camera; it is the people making the programmes and making the decisions about what is commissioned. You can have as many diverse people as you like appearing in a television programme but, to be blunt with the Committee, if the people commissioning the programmes are all white, those are the stories that will get told.

As far as the other amendments are concerned, since I am on my feet, I am obviously very much in favour of the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, put forward about putting back the Reithian principles into broadcasting. But I simply say at the beginning of what will be a mammoth session of days and days of scrutiny of this Bill that I am also very deregulatory minded. It is important for the Committee to be aware as much as possible that broadcasters sit under a plethora of regulations and there must also be a mindset as we debate this Bill that we do not simply put every single issue and principle that we care passionately about—albeit I am now massively contradicting everything I have just said—into the Bill, because technology is changing rapidly, costs are rising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, hinted, and putting a lot of people under pressure, and people need flexibility. To a certain extent we need to trust our broadcasters, for whom quality programme making is to a certain extent embedded.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, capped by a single show of dichotomy from the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I am sure that most of us found it both entertaining and enlightening, in line with true Reithian values.

As we draw this debate to a close, we should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on tabling her amendments in this group. As we have heard, they broadly relate to the Reithian principles that have under- pinned public service broadcasting for much of the last century. We on the Labour Benches have co-signed Amendments 1 to 3 and 7. Additionally, we support Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We also support Amendment 33 on diversity. On reflection, having spoken to my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I feel that we should have had a separate debate on the whole issue of diversity. It is merited in the context of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, underlined the importance of workplace diversity, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. There is much to think through about what we see and how it is measured to ensure that our public service broadcasters reflect the diversity of our great nation.

I turn to the Reithian principles. My honourable friend Stephanie Peacock in another place said that she welcomed the attempts to simplify the remit of PSBs. I made a similar observation at Second Reading. As we have heard, a number of commentators have argued that this may have the unintended consequence of leading to rather more restricted content. The Communications Act 2003, which this part of the Bill seeks to update, gave a fair expression of the PSBs’ Reithian principles. Over time, these have become partly enshrined in particular genres. These amendments attempt to take the debate beyond genres and to talk to the issue of the fundamental purpose of public service broadcasting, in particular the purpose of broadcasting in a multimedia world now tackling the challenges of the digital age and digital content.

At Second Reading I said that, while the Bill was very welcome—it continues to be very welcome—and for the most part highly supportable, it seemed to lack an overarching purpose and principle: an abiding vision, if you like. As we have heard, Lord Reith believed that PSBs should “inform, educate and entertain”. The 2003 Act sought to flesh out what that meant. Labour enshrined those principles in legislation. In that regard, it did a more than serviceable job. This new legislation seeks to do it slightly more flexibly. Flexibility is one thing, but I think we need firm statements of principle and purpose. These amendments move to set Reithian standards and values in a more modern context.

We want public service broadcasters to retain high standards of content. We want them to maintain high- quality production and editorial integrity, as referenced in Amendment 1. We want to see content that meets the Reithian dictum of informing, educating and entertaining, while recognising the role of the sector in stimulating, reflecting and supporting the cultural and creative industries.

Finally, these amendments take us to the educative purpose of public service broadcasters and help promote a culture that values learning as a lifelong activity to serve all. Together, one could paraphrase a sort of John Prescott-ism and place old-style Reithian values in a modern setting. For that, and for the other reasons I have set out, we are very happy indeed to support this group of amendments. We hope to receive some words of encouragement from the Minister. I do not think public service broadcasters will object at all to this renewed obligation. It does much that will help Ofcom in its periodic reporting on this aspect of the public broadcasters’ remit.