Media Green Paper

Debate between Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Twycross

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really interesting point. I hope the noble Baroness will take part in the consultation, but I will feed that back. We are clear that a free and fair media is essential to our democracy; part of that is people actually accessing information, and that trust piece has to go beyond just the surface level. I will feed the points back.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, the Green Paper does not simply propose that the prominence regime be confined to public service media, including public broadcasters; it suggests that it should also be extended to news publishers. Therefore, if some news publishers are going to be included in the prominence regime and given various privileges, and social media companies will have to promote the content of those news publishers, how are those news publishers going to be selected? Can the Minister assure the House that this is not a Trojan horse for forcing some news publishers to bend the knee to a state-approved press regulator, such as Impress?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This is entirely why we have a consultation period that runs to 31 August. As part of the consultation, we will work and engage with relevant parties to determine the criteria that we use. We will decide the criteria for a trustworthy news provider in an open and transparent manner. On protecting media freedom, this is not about censorship or people having to take a different view; this is about making sure that the general public—and we as the part of the general public with a particular interest in news—can understand what is more likely to be high-quality content, and ensuring that that comes further up the search mechanisms.

Telegraph Media Group

Debate between Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Twycross

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Independent Football Regulator

Debate between Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Twycross

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There is no doubt in my mind, and I know in the minds of noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, that David Kogan is supremely qualified for the role to which he has now been appointed. As the noble Lord highlights, he was approached under the previous Government for this role and is eminently qualified for the job.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, the Hillsborough law that this Government are introducing will make it a criminal offence for an elected official to mislead the public even if he or she did not intend to do so. Does the Minister agree that, had the Public Office (Accountability) Bill been on the statute books, the Prime Minister would now be liable for prosecution for telling his independent ethics adviser that he had recused himself from the appointment of David Kogan, only to then sign off on David Kogan’s appointment?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely not. The Prime Minister replied, as I have said previously, on the basis that this decision had been made, and he made it clear that it would have been preferable for him not to have been given a note or confirmed that he was content. He sincerely regrets this. As I have previously stated, the Football Governance Act is clear that this is a matter for DCMS Ministers alone.