Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the regulations in front of us. I strongly support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the question of the inclusion of the women’s game. It is an argument that I have heard on a number of occasions. The fact that there is willingness and a desire on the part of women’s football to come under the aegis of the regulator is, I hope, something of which the Minister will take account.
I want to mention briefly one aspect of this instrument: its scope. As the Minister correctly said, it covers the Premier League, the three divisions of the Football League and the top level of the National League, which used to be called the Football Conference. It is quite appropriate for the line to be drawn at that, as the clubs below that level are not in need of the regulatory burden that I suspect the introduction of a regulator and its activities would impose, but there is one aspect of the relationship between the National League and the Football League that I would like her to take on board and, perhaps, discuss with the regulator when she next sees him.
Between the Premier League and the Championship, there is a promotion and relegation arrangement: three clubs go up and three clubs go down. Between the Championship and what is now the first division of the Football League, again, it is three up and three down. When you go down from the first division of the Championship to the second division, it is four up and four down. However, when you get to the second division of the Football League and the top level of the National League, it is only two up and two down; indeed, the introduction of a second place was awarded only as recently as 2003.
A very powerful campaign is under way in the non-league game, if one can call it that, to introduce three up and three down. If any of your Lordships attended a match in the National League or its feeder leagues last Saturday, they will have discovered that the kick-off was put back by three minutes in order to draw attention to this campaign. It is strongly supported by the Football Supporters’ Association. If there is to be fairness, as well as an opportunity for clubs below the Football League to thrive, it is very important that “three up” comes into being. I hope that the regulator will take account of that and will be prepared to consider it when it looks at the structure of the game. I would like my noble friend to be prepared to raise this with the regulator at the first opportunity.
I am sorry; I should have declared my interest as the honorary vice-president of the National League.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I first share in the felicitations that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, sent to the Scottish team on their result last night. I send my best wishes to all the home nations for good results in the next World Cup.
The regulations before the Grand Committee define the statutory scope of the Independent Football Regulator created under the Football Governance Act 2025. The Government have chosen to include the top five professional leagues in English men’s football—116 clubs—on the basis that financial and governance risks are greatest at this level. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there is no surprise here; this was the policy direction that was set out in the Explanatory Notes that accompanied the Bill that became that Act.
However, he was not quite right when he said that this is more or less what the Act says because, as the Minister alluded to in her remarks, the reason we are here making this law in a rather sparsely attended Grand Committee, rather than through primary legislation on the Floor of the House, is that making that clear in the Bill would have made it a hybrid Bill. As she said, that was much discussed during our debates on the Bill, so here we are.
Nobody disputes the need for clearer oversight of the beautiful game, but the question before the Committee today is whether the Government have brought forward a regime that is proportionate, workable and credible. On each of these tests, some doubts remain, and those doubts were only heightened by the unanswered questions in the exchanges we had yesterday on the leadership of the new regulator.
The Government say that the clubs at the five levels set out in the instrument before us can absorb the new compliance obligations, but the reality, as we heard across your Lordships’ House in our debates on the Bill and from the sector itself, is rather different. Premier League clubs have the structures to cope; many League Two and National League clubs do not. Some operate with only one or two staff; many others rely on volunteers. For them, these regulations are not a technical adjustment but a material burden. In her introductory remarks, the Minister spoke of the regulatory burden that the Government have decided would be too great for clubs in lower leagues, but I hope she will acknowledge that there will be burdens on many of the 116 clubs that we are proposing to designate today.
The Government have produced no clear assessment of this disparity. We think that is an omission. If regulation becomes too onerous, investment will dry up and the base of the pyramid—the foundations of our national game—will be weakened. The very system that this Act is seeking to protect could be undermined by the way that the new law is implemented.
The timing compounds the problem. These regulations come into force in less than a month, half way through the season, giving clubs minimal time to adjust. That is not proportionate regulation; it is regulatory pressure imposed without due preparation.
These concerns become even sharper in light of yesterday’s unanswered questions on the credibility and independence of the regulator’s leadership. These matters are directly relevant to this statutory instrument because the effectiveness of the regulatory regime is inseparable from trust in those enforcing it. As I set out in the House yesterday, this matters not because of what it means for trust in the present Government but because UEFA and others have been very clear that English teams’ continued participation in international tournaments depends on the demonstrable independence of the new football regulator.
In our exchanges yesterday, the Minister said that I asked a number of questions. In fact, I asked just two and she gave full answers to neither. Before we decide whether to allow this statutory instrument to pass, I hope that she will give some clearer answers to them.
When the Urgent Question that we repeated yesterday was taken in another place last week, the Secretary of State said that the appointment of David Kogan as the chairman of the new regulator was
“not a prime ministerial appointment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/25; col. 170.]
If that is the case, why did the official read-out that the Secretary of State gave to the submission that she was sent by her department on 19 March, quoted at paragraph 27 of the report by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, say that her “preferred candidate” was Mr Kogan? I quote from the Secretary of State’s own words given in that report,
“subject to No. 10 giving the green light”.
Why did she send the Prime Minister a note asking for that green light? That is my first question.
Last week, the Prime Minister was forced to write to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, because of the partial information given in another place during the debate on the Urgent Question. That letter said that in the light of the hospitality that the Prime Minister had received from football clubs and the Football Association, he had agreed with Sir Laurie last autumn that:
“I would recuse myself from decisions relating to the Football Governance Bill”.
Despite that recusal, the Prime Minister was not only sent a note asking for the green light on Mr Kogan’s appointment but responded in writing to confirm that he was supportive of it. The Prime Minister now says:
“This was an unfortunate error for which I express my sincere regret”.
This note was sent in April before it became public knowledge that, like the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister had received political donations from Mr Kogan for his Labour leadership campaign.
In the light of that revelation, the Prime Minister and Sir Laurie Magnus had another meeting in June this year and, as his letter of last week puts it, agreed that he should stay out of the appointment process for the new football regulator. My second question is: given these recusals, originally made in autumn last year and strengthened and repeated in June this year, how can the Prime Minister play a part in exonerating the Secretary of State for her breaches of the appointments code? How can he determine whether she has breached the Ministerial Code in this matter?
These are not peripheral matters. They go to the heart of whether Parliament and international sporting bodies can have confidence in the regime and the regulator, whose scope we are asked to approve today. Independence, transparency and good governance are not optional extras in regulation; they are prerequisites. I hope that we will get clearer answers to those questions today. Until the Government provide full and credible answers to them, this Committee cannot be confident that the framework underpinning this instrument is as robust, independent or transparent as it must be.
I look forward to the Minister’s answers on that, as well as to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Evans about the possible future inclusion of the women’s game.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important and useful debate; I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to it. In line with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and other noble Lords, I congratulate Scotland on its impressive win last night. However, while we are congratulating home countries, I should like to note that Wales also won last night; I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in wishing that team well in its future efforts to qualify.
In relation to the SI before us, the implementation of this regime, which prioritises the protection of clubs from financial distress and protects the interests of fans nationally, remains a priority for the Government. That is why we are working at pace to deliver the next phase of the independent football regulator’s framework, for which the delineation of scope is a necessary step. Despite the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, we believe that the new regulator is proportionate and will not place unnecessary burdens on smaller, less affluent clubs. I am also clear that the scope of the regime has been appropriately defined.
A number of other points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—in relation to whether, when or how the women’s game or other leagues might be added to the scope. I want to make it clear that I would like nothing more than the women’s game being viewed as mature enough and financially independent enough to be considered to be included. I said several times during the debates on the independent football regulator in your Lordships’ House that I was not allowed to play football at school; it is of huge regret to me still, but I am delighted that my nieces have that opportunity.
The regulations that we are discussing can be updated to change the scope of the regulator’s remit. The Secretary of State must, in that instance, carry out an assessment of whether it would be appropriate to make changes, including consulting the regulator, the FA and any other stakeholders whom they consider relevant. On the process that the Secretary of State would need to go through, a report on her assessment would need to be laid before Parliament; the Secretary of State can then make regulations, if they so choose. We will continue to monitor the health of the game to ensure that the regime is regulating the right competitions. For this first use of the power, we have chosen, as was outlined during the course of the Bill, the top five leagues of men’s football. This is based on years of work, evidence and consultation, including the independent fan-led review.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner raised the issue currently being addressed by National League clubs in the 3UP campaign. The Independent Football Regulator will have a tightly defined scope, as set out in the Act, focused on ensuring the financial sustainability that will protect clubs for future generations of fans. The IFR will not legally be able to act outside of this tightly defined scope and so will not be able to intervene in matters such as the promotion and relegation model between leagues.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what she set out. We had 10 minutes yesterday for the Urgent Question; it was not quite the opportunity to set out things at length. I am grateful for the further information she has given. The Secretary of State said, when that Urgent Question was taken in another place, that this was not a prime ministerial appointment. Given that, was she wrong to have written, on the submission sent to her on 19 March, that her
“preferred candidate is Mr Kogan, subject to No. 10 giving the green light”?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have not taken any part in the appointment process. This matter has been investigated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. We should let this matter rest and let David Kogan get on with the job.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
There has been an investigation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Government announced Mr Kogan and confirmed him as their preferred candidate to be chairman before the commissioner had completed his inquiry or published his report. Does the Minister regret moving with that haste, given that the commissioner has now found that three material breaches of the Governance Code on Public Appointments were committed by her department? I am casting aspersions not on the character of Mr Kogan but on the conduct of DCMS in this appointment. The three material breaches imperil the impression of his independence, which is paramount for the future of the game.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the question about the green light from No. 10, officials sent questions about the process to the No. 10 appointments teams, but that was not formally sent to the PM for his approval.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Would the Minister be willing to let the note that was sent to the Prime Minister be published in the Libraries of both Houses? It would be helpful to see the note that was sent and what the Prime Minister wrote. He has said publicly in his letter to Sir Laurie Magnus that he regrets that having been seen and written. Therefore, it would be helpful if we could see it and determine for ourselves whether that was an official submission to the Prime Minister.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to prolong this debate and obstruct the progress of the IFR going forward but, no, I am not going to make the commitment that he has asked for today.
Telegraph Media Group
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s understanding of the limbo in which this leaves the Telegraph’s journalists and readers. We all understand that there are commercial sensitivities and quasi-judicial processes that have to be respected here, but these add to the sense of frustration that is experienced by potential buyers, vendors, Parliament and the public alike. Do the Government have any plans, when this is finally resolved, to look again at the Enterprise Act regime that governs it, to ensure that we have protections in place for our media, but also so that we can send a clear signal that the UK is open to investment from potential businesses?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The UK is most certainly open for investment. It is probably premature for me to do a review of a sale that has not yet taken place, but I assure your Lordships’ House that any lessons that can be learned from what has happened over the past year or so will be.
Independent Football Regulator
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, these three breaches of the appointments code are not just about trust in government. UEFA and others have made it clear that English teams’ participation in foreign competitions depends on the new regulator’s independence.
Mr Kogan certainly appears to be very lucky. He did not originally apply to be chairman and was allowed to apply after the deadline had passed. He withdrew from the process last November, so was not one of the 10 people interviewed or three found appointable. He was reinserted in March by the Secretary of State, having previously made two donations to her Labour leadership campaign—something she says she did not know about. He was given his own interview. Within six hours, he was her preferred candidate,
“subject to No. 10 giving the green light”.
A note was sent to the Prime Minister, whose leadership and general election campaigns Mr Kogan had also donated to, and the Prime Minister gave his approval. He now says he should not have done that.
When this Urgent Question was taken in another place last week, the Secretary of State said this was not a prime ministerial appointment. If that is the case, why did she send the Prime Minister a note asking for the green light? If the Prime Minister had agreed with Sir Laurie Magnus that he would play no part in the appointment of the regulator, how can he play a part in exonerating the Secretary of State for these multiple breaches of the code?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
That was quite a lot of questions in one question. I will do my best to answer the noble Lord, but on his points about UEFA and the success of the Independent Football Regulator, I want to make it very clear that the report does not question the suitability of Mr Kogan as chair of the IFR. The plight of clubs, including Sheffield Wednesday, shows why the Government were right to establish the IFR, which is to put fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
The noble Lord asked about the Prime Minister’s reply to a note. The Prime Minister’s letter to Sir Laurie Magnus on this point shows that he knew that the decision was for the Secretary of State. He replied on the basis that the decision had been taken. He made it clear that it would have been preferable for him not to have been given the note or confirmed that he was content, and he sincerely regrets this. The Football Governance Act is clear that DCMS Ministers alone make appointments to the board of the IFR. In practice, in the end, David Kogan was appointed as chair of the IFR not by the Secretary of State nor by the Prime Minister but by the Minister for Sport.
Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to consider these two statutory instruments. They form part of the implementation of the Media Act 2024, which I had the pleasure of taking through your Lordships’ House in practically the final hours of the last Parliament.
I thank the Minister for her introduction to the two instruments in front of us. As she clearly outlined, these instruments are technical but important. They ensure that the quotas applying to our public service broadcasters—whether for independent productions, original productions or regional programme-making—remain meaningful, measurable and fit for purpose both at a time when the balance between how people consume their news and their entertainment is shifting from linear channels to on-demand services and at a time when people are watching not just British broadcasters but streaming services owned by international entities.
I turn first to the regulations relating to independent productions. We on this side of the Committee have no difficulty with the changes that these regulations introduce. They are designed to reflect the clear shift in how viewers consume content and the wider reforms that were implemented through the Media Act. The statutory instrument updates the independent production quota by converting the long-standing 25% requirement into a minimum number of hours; that seems to us a sensible evolution, ensuring that the quota can be applied consistently across linear broadcasting and on-demand platforms. It will help maintain a strong and diverse pipeline of high-quality programming from the UK’s independent production sector.
The SI also updates the definitions of “independent productions” and “independent producer”, while rightly preserving the important principle that qualifying content must be made by companies not owned or controlled by broadcasters. The Government are also correct to uphold the established position that repeats should not count towards the quota, given the importance of commissioning new content and supporting our creative industries. These are proportionate changes which strike the right balance.
The first instrument relates to regional programme-making and original productions. Again, these amendments ensure consistency with the new regime brought in by the Media Act. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope for his contributions based on his own extensive experience in broadcasting—and it was very good to have another contribution from the land of Tyne Tees. I agree particularly with what he said about probing the description “regional”, which must not become a way of saying “not London”. For plenty of us in other parts of the country, London is a region, too. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said about the importance of local news. It is particularly important at a time when we have a greater number of metro mayors and further devolution. With decisions made at an ever more local level, it is all the more important that the decision-makers are held to account by rigorous and independent local news productions.
The changes in this SI update the definitions of “original productions” and “regional” programming so that programmes can qualify whether they are first made available via linear broadcasting or online—which, again, is a necessary alignment with modern production and viewing habits. Importantly, they also give Ofcom the discretion to determine how repeats should be treated in these quotas, which is a practical and coherent approach reflecting the operational realities of commissioning and scheduling. It maintains the integrity of the system while giving the regulator appropriate flexibility.
Taken together, the two instruments before us bring significant aspects of our public service broadcasting framework up to date without altering the underlying principles that have long supported the UK’s world-leading broadcasting ecosystem, diversity of supply, strong regional representation, and the central role of independent producers in delivering high-quality British content. They reflect the changing nature of viewers’ behaviour, provide regulatory clarity and maintain the balance between public service broadcasters’ obligations and the flexibility that they need. We are very happy to support both instruments before the Grand Committee today.
BBC Leadership
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we need a trusted, respected and unnewsworthy BBC more than ever. Poll after poll shows that our country feels more divided than it ever has been, not just in terms of party politics but by geography, generation, race and religion. At home, politics seems to reward those who seek to exploit those divisions rather than overcome them. Foreign conflicts seep over into our politics and distressing images from across the globe animate our discussions, along with a preponderance of highly partisan reporting from different media environments.
Algorithms, social media and our own prejudices make it easier than ever to close ourselves off to the news that we do not want to hear or opinions that differ from our own. That is why the BBC’s founding mission—to inform, educate and entertain—which it has performed with such distinction for more than a century, still matters so much, and why it seems to be getting harder. It is also why serious and avoidable errors, such as the ones that have been highlighted in recent days, cause such dismay from across the political spectrum and do such harm to the BBC’s journalistic reputation.
At a time when populists are on the march, when criminal acts seem to be no bar to high office, when facts themselves come under attack and people are encouraged to choose their own truth, the BBC and other news organisations have to be more scrupulous than ever to set out facts clearly and dispassionately, and to own up quickly when mistakes are made. On all those fronts, it has fallen short in recent days.
Not everybody watching the BBC should come away with the same conclusions about the Middle East, the wisdom of the American electorate, or the application of sex-based rights in modern society. But how much more dangerous a society we would be if they turned off the BBC altogether.
Rightly, the BBC remains one of the most trusted sources of news in this country, but each year 750,000 fewer people choose to pay the licence fee. Millions more have grown up, whether here or overseas, without the BBC as their bedrock. Ofcom’s most recent annual report showed that YouTube has already overtaken other broadcasters to become the second most popular media service in the United Kingdom. People are increasingly importing their news and their entertainment from the far reaches of the internet. No wonder the national conversation seems so cacophonous and so confused.
The process that begins shortly—perhaps the Minister will set out some more detail about it—to renew the BBC’s royal charter and to try to anticipate the next decade in our rapidly changing media environment is a crucial moment for public service broadcasting. As well as working out how the BBC can remain a “light on the hill”, as the Secretary of State put it in this Statement, we will need to chart a course for all our public service broadcasters. Does the Minister think we will have the same number of public service broadcasters in a decade’s time as we do today? Channel 5 is owned by the US company Paramount. ITV is in discussion with Sky, itself owned by another American firm, Comcast, about its future. The respected former chairman of ITV, Sir Peter Bazalgette, has said there needs to be consolidation among our public service broadcasters. What are the Government doing to ensure that these cherished British channels remain distinctive, prominent and popular in an increasingly crowded media landscape?
On the BBC itself, what discussions have the Government had with the corporation about the threat of legal action from the President of the United States because of the errors it has made? In the absence of an ambassador in Washington, have the Government raised this matter with the US Administration directly? If the BBC ends up paying millions of dollars, whether as a result of foreign litigation or in a humiliating out-of-court settlement, who will bear the cost: the taxpayer or the licence fee payer? More broadly, what specific actions do the Government want to see from the BBC to demonstrate that it has learned the lessons of this sorry episode and that it is changing in the ways that it needs to in order to avoid a recurrence?
I put on record my thanks and appreciation for Tim Davie, the corporation’s 17th director-general. He has had more than his fair share of crises to contend with, emanating from different parts of the huge and varied organisation that he has led. In his resignation statement, he referred to the
“very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role”,
and I do not underestimate those challenges. As the process begins to appoint a successor, do the Government have a view on whether the role of director-general should be reconsidered? Mr Davie has said that it is not an impossible job, but does the Minister think that its striking breadth—in effect asking somebody to be both chief executive and editor-in-chief—is as practical now as it was in 1922?
In the past week, the BBC has brought me to tears more than once, with its moving coverage of Remembrance Day and with the final of “The Celebrity Traitors”—perhaps I tear up too easily. Today and yesterday, I listened with pride and admiration to Radio 2 as people from across Northumberland and County Durham lined drizzly rural lanes to cheer Sara Cox on as she ran through their villages, raising more than £1 million and counting for Children in Need, a charity the corporation founded 45 years ago. That is the BBC at its best. If we criticise the BBC or express our frustrations in weeks such as this, it is because we care so much about it and what it represents. While respecting its vital independence, I urge the Government —indeed, everybody across this House and another place—to hold its feet to the fire and make sure that it continues to be the best of British, now and long into the future.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement and her robust defence of the BBC, but let us not mince words: it is under attack as never before. A free press is the foundation stone of freedom and democracy, and the BBC is the foundation stone of our free press. The highly respected Reuters Institute has just updated its data on news and trust, and its findings should remind us all of the BBC’s importance for not just the UK but the world. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy. As the Secretary of State says in her Statement:
“It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world”.
The BBC is not just the news; it is important to remind people of this. It has radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC Online, iPlayer, Sounds and the World Service. It develops and invests in talent in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. It plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through the programmes it exports and the World Service, which is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. Through its mission to inform, educate and entertain, the BBC has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all. To quote the words of the man who in so many ways exemplifies the BBC, Sir David Attenborough:
“It is that miraculous advance … that allows a whole society, a whole nation, to see itself and to talk to itself.”
The origin of the word “broadcast” is to sow seeds widely, and that is what the BBC does.
Of course, the BBC is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake and we welcome the BBC’s apology. However, it is obvious that the issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories, so, as the Government navigate President Trump’s latest tantrum, as he threatens to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what are the Government doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC?
Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Government truly believe in an independent BBC, will they sack Robbie Gibb, as the BBC charter permits?
The new charter offers an opportunity to rethink the BBC appointments process and end the political grip on the BBC board. Will the Minister listen to calls from this Bench for both the chair and non-executive members of the board to be appointed by an independent body and not, as currently happens, by the Government?
The BBC cannot be allowed to fail. Mistakes will happen and should be dealt with better and more quickly, but it is essential to our democracy, is trusted by its audience, provides much more to the nation than just news and current affairs, and is globally unique. We should remember the words of Joni Mitchell —or perhaps of my noble friend Lord McNally:
“That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone”
Please let us not be in that place.
I echo the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in adding my gratitude to Tim Davie for his service as DG.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is a shameful state of affairs, sending a message that groups of fans and indeed groups of people across our country are not safe on the streets of Britain. Can the Minister tell us when the Government were first told by the safety advisory group that it was intending to advise a ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attending this football match? Were any Government departments besides her own notified before DCMS was aware of it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I very much associate myself with the noble Lord’s sentiment of being appalled. Discrimination in all forms, including antisemitism, is fundamentally opposed to our British values of fairness, decency and respect. In relation to the noble Lord’s question, the Home Office, through the UK football policing unit, was involved in the risk assessment process led by West Midlands Police. Banning away fans was one of a package of potential operational options being considered. The initial ban was confirmed by Birmingham City Council only last Thursday and this is when intervention from the Secretary of State, DCMS, and broader government intervention began.
Telegraph Media Group: Ownership
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s consideration is for her alone. However, noble Lords will be aware that it is possible to have cases of this nature considered under the National Security and Investment Act if the transaction is deemed to raise national security concerns.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we know from the witness statements released overnight that the Deputy National Security Adviser considers that China
“presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”,
but also that the present Government are
“committed to pursuing a positive economic relationship”
with it. Given that, and not in relation to the case under consideration but in general terms, can the Minister tell us what sort of percentage stake in a British newspaper the Government would be comfortable with a Chinese state investor obtaining?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will not go into hypothetical examples. All the instances raised would be examined on a case-by-case basis. The noble Lord will be aware that we are deeply disappointed that the case he referenced has not gone to trial; we really did want to see prosecutions.
Football Governance Act 2025: Implementation
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This is exactly why we intend to get the regulator up as quickly as possible.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, many people across football are looking forward to working with David Kogan, but one of the difficulties that he and the new independent regulator have is that the process for appointing him is still under investigation by the commissioner for public standards. Has Mr Kogan been able to start his work, pending the outcome of that investigation? Has the noble Baroness’s department been given any indication of how much longer it might continue?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I should not comment on the inquiry being carried out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments—as I said earlier, this is ongoing. The noble Lord will be aware that David Kogan has met a number of Members of this House, and he is fully engaged with the task ahead at the point at which he is able to be appointed formally.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I never in my wildest dreams thought my last speech as leader of the Liberal Democrats in your Lordships’ House would be to express my concern about the future of the Daily Telegraph. Politics is a funny business.
The arguments that we have been hearing this afternoon fall under two broad headings: the substance and the procedure. On the substance, there is no need to rehearse the argument about why foreign influence on our media is thought to be a bad thing. There is agreement about that. The logical way in which we stop there being foreign influence is to make sure that there is no foreign ownership. But we have heard this afternoon, first from the Government and then from others, that it is better to have some foreign ownership than for the press to face an existential threat.
This argument, one would have thought, was not entirely new. Yet, when the digital markets Bill was being debated in your Lordships’ House, amazingly, our media did not face an existential threat—nobody argued that. So, in the course of a year, we have gone from a point where a 5% stake by a non-state foreign actor was thought to be acceptable to where we now find that our newspapers face an existential threat unless foreign Governments are allowed to own 15%. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, asked—although he did not put it quite like this—if the stake has gone from 0% to 15% in a year, where are we going to be next year, given that we are told that the traditional media are on a slippery slope? I find that a very curious and uncompelling argument.
The question, though, is whether to accept the assurance that a 15% foreign-government stake will not influence or be allowed to influence the editorial stance of a newspaper. The first argument is that this 15% stake is merely passive: you are buying 15% in a newspaper in the same way that you might buy 15% in an oil company or conglomerate. However, given that we are told equally by the same people that these newspapers are facing an existential threat, is it likely that a hard-headed Government will decide that the best use of their funds is to buy a newspaper or part of a newspaper on a passive basis? Having looked all around the world, is that the best return that they will find for their funds? The answer is palpably “No, it is not”.
The next argument in defence of what is proposed is that there is a backstop and that the DCMS will be able to intervene when there is undue influence. However, as the Minister said only last week that, in those circumstances,
“it is likely she”—
the Secretary of State—
“could intervene”.—[Official Report, 16/7/25; col. 1827.]
I emphasise “likely” and “could”.
Suppose that the influence was being exercised in a manner to which the Government were sympathetic; would a Secretary of State intervene in those circumstances? If they did not, what pressure from whom would cause a Secretary of State to intervene? We know that influence over the way a paper presents itself is a subtle thing. In circumstances where you have a Government who are sympathetic to that influence, my contention is that those exercising the influence would get away with it. They amount to the substantial arguments against the proposition before us.
The question about procedure relates to how this has been undertaken. There was a consultation to which there were four responses. Normally, if a consultation receives four responses, you start again, because clearly more than four entities have a view. But, blow me, the four entities all have a similar and partial view, because they potentially stand to gain from this change, and the Government accept that as a reason to change their mind. This is extraordinary to me. I can think of no other consultation where four entities peddling their own argument would get a Government to change their mind. This is an extraordinary consultation, if we can think of it as consultation at all.
The next thing, as has been pointed out, is that this SI is amending primary legislation. I think everybody agrees that this question of press freedom is quite important, so what happened when this SI was debated in the House of Commons? Did they spend this sort of time on it? Did they have impassioned argument with people changing their mind? They spent 18 minutes on it, the vast bulk of which was the Minister at the start and the end. There were literally a couple of speakers in the entire debate. Either the House of Commons is not interested in the issue or it did not realise what was going on, because it is an SI and, as we know, MPs regard being put on an SI committee as a bit like being sent to Siberia for a month. So, in reality, this issue has not been debated at all in the House of Commons, which is extraordinary. If most MPs had realised what they had agreed to, without actually agreeing to it themselves, they would have opposed it.
The whole thing seems to be potentially very damaging and shows parliamentary scrutiny to be non-existent, except in your Lordships’ House in this case. For it to proceed would be bad for freedom of the press and for the way we deal with these things. When, on 3 June, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, urged people to vote for a fatal Motion on the Chagos Islands, he said that it was his
“duty to bring this fatal Motion to the House”.—[Official Report, 3/6/25; col. 614.]
We think that it is our duty to bring this fatal amendment to the House, and we urge noble Lords to support it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it feels like a long time since I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite, taking part in similar debates on what became the Media Act 2024 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, but I have been genuinely heartened to know, from the contributions from across the House today, that the concerns raised in the passage of those Acts remain strongly at the forefront of noble Lords’ minds. As I said then, and as noble Lords have rightly said today, our free and independent press in this country is an absolute cornerstone of our democracy and a vital part of public discourse. It is right that we should devote so much time to making sure that it remains healthy, robust and independent.
Like other noble Lords, I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Fox, back in his place and on fighting form. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Newby, well in his retirement as he vacates the leadership of his Benches. There is a slightly unfair characterisation of the Daily Telegraph as having a letters page that attracts contributions from the retired, fulminating against things. I look forward to the noble Lord’s green-ink letters. I wish him a happy retirement and thank him for his many contributions. I particularly enjoyed the closing words of his speech, which seemed to me to make the case against elected Houses and in favour of the power and independence of appointed ones. I shall leave that for further debates.
I start with what some have called the constitutional position, because it is important that we understand the unusual amendment that is before us. It is within the rights of your Lordships’ House to table, divide on and even, if it wishes, on rare occasion, to support fatal Motions, but those are serious steps, and the last of them, in particular, should be taken very sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. I am not convinced that the circumstances here warrant an action of that gravity.
I say that as somebody who has some skin in the game here. As noble Lords have reminded the House, I was in the position of outlining the beginning of the policy that the Minister is continuing today. I find myself in the position of seeing the Minister tearing up the words I uttered at that Dispatch Box, or at least signalling an intent to depart from them. She is entitled to do that because, shortly after I made those comments, there was a general election that ushered my party from power and brought hers in with a landslide result. She has been admirably candid about that. I tried to scribble down what she said in her opening remarks: “This Government have come to a different conclusion to the previous Government about the appropriate threshold”. They are entitled to do that, and your Lordships’ House is, of course, entitled to probe how and why they have reached that conclusion.
However, the new Government cannot ignore what Parliament has agreed to put on the statute book, unless they convince us to change the law. The last Conservative Government, I am proud to say, strengthened the powers available to Governments and to Parliament to protect this country and key sectors of our economy and society against malign foreign interference. We passed the National Security and Investment Act in 2021, the National Security Act in 2023, and, in our final weeks in power, following campaigning by noble Lords, particularly my noble friends Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, amendments to the Enterprise Act regime, delivered through Schedule 7 to the digital markets Act. I pay tribute to my noble friends and all the other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who persuaded us to do that.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for pointing out the other statutory provisions that are on the statute book compelling the Secretary of State to take action to protect our independent and free media. This is not just a debate about the difference between a 5% and a 15% shareholding threshold, important though that is for us to explore—as we have done. The question is, is the will of Parliament being ignored here? The change that I had the privilege of making to the statute book towards the end of the previous Parliament was delivered at Third Reading of a Bill after much debate. It was done in great sincerity, but also in the recognition that further work needed to be carried out and that secondary legislation would be brought before your Lordships’ House to implement it.
Newspapers: Foreign Ownership
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I was not aware of the point that my noble friend raises. I will take that back to the department and write to him in due course.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the letter that she sent to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others who have an interest in this, ahead of this Question, drawing attention to the publication of the consultation documents. It is of course right that the UK has regulatory protections in place for important industries such as our news media, but does she agree that Governments and regulators must exercise those protections swiftly? Does she accept that long periods of delay and uncertainty harm business confidence and may deter investment from the sorts of people we do want to see investing in the UK?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes many points that sound entirely reasonable. We are clear that we need serious investment in our media and we hope that the certainty that these SIs will provide, albeit with considerable protections around them, will enable media groups to obtain that investment.