The Future of News (Communications and Digital Committee Report)

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Communications and Digital Committee The future of news (1st Report, HL Paper 39).

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open today’s debate on the future of news, which follows the report from the Communications and Digital Committee last autumn.

Like my noble friend Lord Bridges, I am no longer the chair of the committee, having been part of the rotation earlier this year, so I must take this opportunity—my first—to congratulate my esteemed successor, the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley; I look forward both to her contribution today and to following the work of the committee under her chairmanship. As I am sure she has already discovered, she has inherited a fantastic team from the Committee Office, which will provide great support to her and the whole committee; as always, my thanks go to the Committee Office for its work on this report and throughout my term.

I also thank the other members of the committee alongside whom I had the great pleasure of working. Even if I do say so myself, as a team, together with the committee staff, we created an effective operation; speaking for myself, this led to work that I found both enjoyable and rewarding. Finally, my thanks also go to everyone who contributed to both this inquiry and all the others that we conducted during my time in the chair.

The future of news matters. Access to professional news that supports a shared understanding of basic facts and helps us to understand each other is critical for a healthy democracy. However, as this report makes clear, we cannot take the future of news for granted. The economics of mass market journalism are worsening, trust is low and a growing number of people actively avoid mainstream reporting.

Let me paint a little detail into that picture. The Press Gazette reported just last week that digital ad spend with news brands has fallen by a third since 2019. Less than half of people surveyed in a recent Opinium poll said that they regularly watched television news, while only a quarter said that they visited news websites. In addition, the scaling back of local newspaper and radio journalism has led to worrying “news deserts” in many areas. I would say that the situation in local news is most serious: let us not forget that this deterioration is happening as more power is being devolved to mayors and unitary authorities, and power without scrutiny is dangerous.

When it comes to the impact of new technology on business models, the news industry is of course not alone. However, tech firms now have unprecedented influence over the type of news that we see and are competing with the news providers. The committee’s visit to San Francisco last year left us with no illusions about the fact that generative AI news summaries will continue to upend news publishers’ business models.

As to where all this is leading, our report concluded that a two-tier media environment was becoming increasingly likely. We warned that news aficionados would be well served with a variety of outlets, old and new—there are some great new offerings in news—but while us news junkies are okay, a growing demographic has limited engagement with professionally produced news. Sky News’s recent decision to create a premium paid content model is evidence that our prediction of fragmentation is already happening.

With all that said, a changing media environment should not be conflated with its imminent demise. Journalism has, thankfully, defied apocalyptic predictions over the past decade, but for news to survive and thrive into the future, some things need to change. It is critical that they do, because a two-tier news environment is bad news for democracy.

Clearly, the role of government must be limited; it cannot compel people to engage with news and must avoid doing anything that could undermine media independence. But the Government can and should establish the conditions that enable UK media to stand on its own feet. It is up to the news industry itself to ensure that audience needs and expectations are well served, to generate the demand and to rebuild trust.

The regulated broadcasters, especially the BBC, have work to do. They play an important anchor position in our media market, but this anchor role is earned, not ordained. In some areas they have failed to reflect the perspectives of large sections of their audience who feel criticised or caricatured, rather than authentically represented. Many are voting with their feet and turning to other providers, because they now have a choice. The public service broadcasters, and most importantly the BBC, will drift into irrelevance if they do not address urgently what is causing some people to feel they cannot be relied upon. As our report noted, the 2027 charter review provides

“an opportunity to re-examine the BBC’s future, including funding models and its strategic priorities”.

The Government have said that all options are still on the table for the future of BBC funding. But what assurances can the Minister provide today that the charter review process will engage critically with the purpose and performance of the BBC, and not just be an exercise in preserving the status quo?

Ofcom, too, must step up to the mark. Broadcasters will need to adopt innovative formats to compete in this attention economy while also respecting the rules. But these rules need to be clear, and I welcome Ofcom’s decision to review its Broadcasting Code following GB News’s successful judicial review, not least because the committee’s report raised concerns about ambiguity in broadcasting roles.

While the Government must not pick winners or prop up failing outlets, we identified two specific areas where the need for government intervention was clear. The first is support for local journalism. Local news has been hit hard by the changing advertising market and shift to online, leaving millions of UK citizens with no dedicated local news outlet. Some new models of local journalism have emerged, and that is very welcome, but the Government need to do more to champion innovation and investment in the sector. We recommended measures including tax incentives for hiring local journalists and changes to local government advertising rules. We also called for a review of the impacts of business rates relief on local newspaper offices introduced by the last Government, but the Chancellor simply allowed those reliefs to expire last month without committing to a review.

The Government told us that the financial health and sustainability of local journalism was an area of particular concern, but their actions to date seem to suggest otherwise, and details of a forthcoming local media strategy remain vague. Can the Minister shed any light on how this strategy is being developed and when we can expect it to be published?

Secondly, I remain disappointed by the Government’s inaction on strategic lawsuits against public participation, more commonly known as SLAPPs. These have a chilling effect on journalism and are a clear abuse of our legal system. The Government’s assertion that they are committed to upholding justice and tackling SLAPPs is undermined by their apparent determination not to legislate in this area. Can the Minister explain why this Government refuse to bring forward primary legislation—and they have an opportunity in the victims Bill that was promised in the King’s Speech—when they were vocal on SLAPPs in opposition?

The committee first considered the vital issue of AI and copyright in its 2021 report on the creative industries—long before it became the hot topic it is today. The committee has routinely examined this from different angles since. During our news inquiry, it became clear that up-to-date, high-quality news from reputable sources is valuable to AI companies, especially as they develop search products. We therefore must find a path forward that enables the tech and creative industries to reach mutually beneficial arrangements. Technical viability, transparency and enforcement will be key to any regime.

What must not happen—and, based on their actions so far, I worry it might—is for the Government to pursue rules that primarily benefit foreign big tech firms, which seem prepared to pay vast sums on energy, computing facilities and staff but not on data. Bearing in mind that the Data (Use and Access) Bill is actively passing through the other place, and that the amendments passed in this House have already been retabled, can the Minister tell us when the Government will set out their response to their recent consultation and provide clarity on the way forward?

This report also repeatedly highlighted the need for effective implementation of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act to allow the news industry to compete on a level playing field. We called on the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate allegations of anti-competitive practice by big tech firms acquiring AI training data, and were pleased to see this included in the scope of the CMA’s investigation into Google’s position in search.

It is worth emphasising that the strength of the UK’s new digital competition regime is its agility and nuance. It is not the blunt instrument deployed by the European Union. It is regrettable that I have to ask this, bearing in mind that the Government wholeheartedly supported the regime when in opposition, but their actions are making UK businesses, including news organisations, nervous, so can the Minister reassure me that the CMA has the Government’s full support in its implementation of the DMCC Act? On a more specific point, can the Minister provide an update on their consultation on updating the media mergers rules regime?

Before I conclude, I must raise the issue of foreign government ownership of British news organisations. This was not a feature of our inquiry, but the economic challenges and threats to business models facing the industry made it clear that, without action by Parliament, this serious risk to press freedom would not be limited to the Telegraph and the Spectator. I am pleased that the matter was put beyond doubt in the DMCC Act a year ago, but it is hugely disappointing that the Government have allowed the Telegraph sale process to drift, placing additional pressure on one of our national newspapers—particularly bearing in mind all the challenges the industry is facing, which I have just outlined. It is also disappointing that the Government have still not brought forward the relevant secondary legislation, which is vital to provide clarity to the whole news industry about future investment from sovereign wealth funds and foreign public sector pension funds.

Recent media reports suggest that there may, finally, be a resolution to the Telegraph’s ownership. If so, that is very welcome news, but it makes the secondary legislation even more urgent because regulators will need clarity. I have asked the Minister this several times in recent weeks and I ask her again: can she tell us, today, when the Government will bring forward that secondary legislation? I really hope she is able to answer that today.

The challenges faced by the news industry are immense, and the changes necessary to meet them must be led by the industry itself. But the industry needs government and legislators to provide a regulatory framework that creates a level playing field and provides clarity on ownership and foreign investment rules, so that it can compete and be financially sustainable. Fundamentally, our job is to support press freedom so that people can have confidence in the news they read, hear and see about what we are doing and deciding in their name.

I look forward to all the contributions in the debate, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, who is giving his maiden speech, and I hope for an informative response from the Minister. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious of time and that there is another debate still to come. If I may say, very briefly, because the Government Deputy Chief Whip is in her place right now, I am hugely grateful to the Government for scheduling these debates today in the Chamber, but she may have heard frustration in the last debate about the time available for contributions. She might want to consider, if we were to do a similar sort of exercise in future, whether two debates on a sitting Friday might be a more realistic way of accommodating this kind of debate—but I say that with all due respect and huge thanks for the time that has been allocated.

I am also very grateful for all the contributions to the debate. We have heard speeches from Members reflecting the expertise in the House, as well as the expertise we have been able to enjoy on the committee and which the committee continues to enjoy.

I welcome back my noble friend Lord McNally—I call him my noble friend as both a noble friend in the past and during our time on the committee. He blew a bit of a hole in some of the euphemistic tributes that were paid to me by others by describing me as rather strict in my term as chair, but I am very grateful for all the kind remarks about me and the committee’s work. I restate what I said at the beginning: it was a real pleasure to chair the committee.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pack, on his great maiden speech and the emphasis that he put on email newsletters. They are important, not just to local media but to national media. One thing which is worth us reflecting on is that the reason a lot of news organisations are now investing in these newsletters is because it reintroduces for them a direct relationship with their readers, and it takes out the aggregators—the platforms—that my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Gilbert referred to, in terms of the control that they exercise. I look forward to more from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, in the future.

Time prevents me from going through in any great detail all the various points that have been raised by other noble Lords. The Minister covered a huge amount of the points that were raised in her response to the debate, and I am grateful to her for that. I know that she is a diligent member of the Front Bench and takes her responsibilities in the department seriously. It is somewhat disappointing, though, that we leave this debate not much better informed about some of these important issues than we started, in terms of where the Government are going on SLAPPs, for example, or when they are going to come forward with their local media strategy. I was pleased that she was as positive as she was about the CMA and the digital markets legislation, and I am grateful to her for that, as I know those watching this debate will be.

On the issue of ownership by a foreign Government, as the Minister will know and as I said—and as restated by my noble friend Lord Young—time really is of the essence here as far as ownership of the Telegraph is concerned. It really cannot be left unresolved. As I said, I am pleased that there are signs of a potential deal coming to an end, but that secondary legislation has to be in place. Bearing in mind all that the Minister said in response to an Oral Question before the Easter break, I really thought she would have been able to give us some comfort that those regulations would be coming forward very soon. I urge her to go back to the department today and say, “Keeping on saying that this is complicated and requires more time is not good enough”. The Government have now had nine months to sort this out, and there does not appear to be any legitimate reason why they have not done so. Again, I am grateful to the Minister for her efforts, but I urge her to press even harder.

As I say, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions today.

Motion agreed.