Arts and Creative Industries: Social Mobility
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
One of the key barriers to social mobility is opportunity. We are keen for those programmes not to be overly informal because, as soon as they are, they become very dependent on networks and exclusive entry routes. We are clear that we need to make sure that the roles filled through personal networks, including work experience, are open to everyone. This is an issue that the Minister of State in DCMS is keen to explore further, but I will write to the noble Baroness with specific details.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, a recent study by the Association for Art History and the Courtauld Institute of Art showed that just 17 state schools offer history of art at A-level, and only two of them are north of Nottingham. The subject is important not just for those who might become the curators and museum directors of the future but for a generation that will need to distinguish fact from fiction in an age of AI and deepfake images. What are the Government doing to make sure that everybody, no matter who they are, where they live or what their parents did, is able to enjoy this part of our shared cultural inheritance?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord opposite that it is important that people get the opportunity to study art history. I raised this with a sector organisation this morning. That organisation was very clear that, although it is concerned about the geographical distribution of art history, there are so many more routes in. It was keen for us to make sure that people know about the opportunities that exist within the sector, because if people do not know about the opportunities that exist, how do they get those jobs? I am keen to explore this, both with my noble friend and with others, but, beyond that, there is a basic question about how we make sure that, in primary schools, children of all abilities and interests get to know about the hugely exciting range of opportunities that exist within the creative industries and sector as a starting point for what they might study later.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, where we are now is, I think, not where the Minister expected to be when the previous statutory instrument was introduced. So how did we get to this point? With great haste, and I would say possibly fuelled by intense pressure from beyond these shores, the Government tabled the secondary legislation that, as we have heard, allowed an unlimited number of 15% stakes to be taken by funds that, to all intents and purposes, have an element of control by foreign Governments—the FOCIs. Then, in late July, when I tabled a fatal Motion, the Minister agreed at least to deal with the multiple-stake issue, which is what we have here.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who managed to explain to me the convoluted nature of this SI, having herself presumably had some coaching from the department. It is clear that this is not an easy piece of statutory legislation and her suggestion regarding future changes to the Enterprise Act is something that I do think the Government should consider.
Although the Minister agreed to deal with the multiple-stake issue, she did not agree with the strong yet minority view of the House that even one 15% stake was one too many. That is because, at the time, in my view, this regulation was designed to achieve just one thing: the sale of the Telegraph Media Group to RedBird IMI, which of course included the 15% stake from Abu Dhabi. This is moving into the realms of a dangerous dogs Bill approach to legislation, but actually it is bespoke regulation for a discerning billionaire.
Just as that flawed SI had been rushed through, the RedBird bid backed out, leaving us today with handmade regulation but no obvious client. Had the Conservative Party, with obvious honourable exceptions, not backed the Government and voted through the last SI, I would have suggested that we do not need this one at all. But this at least deals with the multiple-stake issue while, in my view, leaving the substantive elephant in the room.
The other pachyderm lurking behind this statutory instrument is, as the noble Baroness broached, the future of the Telegraph Media Group. As your Lordships will be well aware, and as was outlined, the Daily Mail and General Trust group has tabled an offer of £500 million to acquire it, and this has apparently been agreed by RedBird, with detailed negotiations proceeding.
I do not expect the Minister to offer judgment as to whether this should succeed, as she will correctly cite quasi-judicial qualms in this area. What I would welcome is an overview of process going forward and some element of timescales. As I am not a quasi-judge, I am happy to offer your Lordships some thoughts and point to some key issues that I hope the Minister will be able to elaborate on.
First—and here I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell—the continued involvement of Redbird IMI in the sale process is almost certainly counter to the long-term interests of the Telegraph and its readers. This situation means that the UAE, through the back door, is currently deciding who will own the Telegraph in the future. Will the Minister give assurances that there will be full transparency, if a deal is done, on the funding and structure of any deal?
Again as the noble Baroness has pointed out, the Secretary of State has given the Mail group a very short time to demonstrate that it can go through with this acquisition. Can the Minister outline what steps the Secretary of State will take to ensure the timely sale of the Telegraph in the public interest, should the deal not be ready by the deadline in the Secretary of State’s Statement of 24 November, or should the proposed deal fail the tests also contained in that Statement?
Secondly, there are not many modern precedents, but the Murdoch acquisition of the Times newspaper is perhaps a helpful example. Until the intervention of Nadine Dorries in 2022, the Times and the Sunday Times had been subject to legally required independent directors on their parent company’s board, following Rupert Murdoch’s News International acquiring them in 1981, specifically to safeguard editorial independence after the takeover. These arrangements created, and later updated, an independent board that approved key editorial appointments and was designed to prevent undue interference. I am sure this was far from a perfect solution, and I am also sure that Lord Rothermere is a different sort of owner from Mr Murdoch, but I ask the Minister to take this on board as an option going forward, should the Daily Mail group bid succeed.
Thirdly, the public interest on plurality grounds needs to be assessed, particularly given that both the Telegraph and the Daily Mail occupy similar political spaces. This almost certainly creates a concentration of ownership. Ofcom is the place to make this determination, and this bid should be referred accordingly. I would welcome the Minister’s general response on these three points.
This is secondary legislation that seeks to correct an earlier piece of misdrafted secondary legislation—regulation that we do not now need and that many of us did not want in the first place. It is a living example of how the folly of pandering to specific interests that are themselves mercurial and subject to summary change based on self-interest is the wrong way to legislate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who opened this, the second part of our foreign investment regulatory double bill, this evening. I thank her for the remarks she made in outlining these regulations.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I broadly welcome these regulations, to which the Government committed when we were discussing the No. 1 set of regulations before the Summer Recess. We are here today thanks to careful scrutiny, not least by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who should be congratulated on helping us get to this point. As she says, we could perhaps have got here through a different route and rather more elegantly, but I am glad that she welcomes the closing of the loophole that she and others identified when we looked at the previous set of regulations earlier this year.
Unlike the guidance on football governance, which we were discussing earlier, these regulations have been drawn to the special attention of the House by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Like others, I thank the members of that committee for their careful consideration and for the report that draws our attention to the points that they have raised.
The most serious question the committee raises concerns the 5% carve-out, as we have heard. It quotes the correspondence it has had with the noble Baroness’s department, about that carve-out and the way it will be used. DCMS said:
“Our judgement is that the possibility of the carve out being misused is remote”.
Draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for speaking when the Front Benches have started speaking—I was going to stand up, but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, jumped up far too quickly.
When it comes to football, I want to use a phrase that the late Bishop of Southwark, Roy Williamson, applied to me. We had been working hard to get the Holy Trinity Church restored; it was a very poor congregation and fundraising was really very difficult, but we managed to do it. He came to open this amazing refurbished place, with the organ returned to its great glory. The church was full, and he said, “Your vicar, John Sentamu, can almost be compared to a Yorkshire terrier—never letting go, or only doing so in order to get a firmer grip”. That is how I see the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: when it comes to football, he is like a Yorkshire terrier. He does it not wanting to control or anything but just because he loves football, and he knows a lot about football. He is doing this with an honest attitude. I do not think he is doing it to prevent regulations and all that is happening. But because he is like a terrier, I think this is the moment he needs to let go.
This stands on a three-legged stool. The first is what we passed here in your Lordships’ House—an Act of Parliament, the primary legislation. If you go there, you discover that the Secretary of State has power to do what he has just done. He is not doing it out of any reason other than that the Act that we passed gave him that power. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said exactly the same thing.
Secondly, there is the regulator, with powers given, again, by an Act of Parliament. The third leg is guidance—but I always look at guidance not as the key driver of things, which is why it cannot be clearly defined on every occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, guidance always has to be understood in context. You cannot simply talk about what happens to my little club, which is not in paradise. York City Football Club is climbing up slowly, but it fell out of League Two a long time ago. You cannot say to the people of York City that paragraph 1.6 should not apply to them, when it says that
“regulated football clubs will be required to submit and publish a personnel statement identifying all owners. The definition of ownership, including the concept of significant influence or control, will ensure this statement publicly identifies the correct persons as owners, providing transparency to fans and the wider public”.
That will also apply to my little York City Football Club. Therefore, I do not see those phrases needing to be more precise.
This three-legged stool of the Act, the regulator and the guidance provided by the Secretary of State will, I am sure, make even my little club of York City feel emboldened that it actually knows who really owns it and who those people are. I think this is a good thing. I beseech the highly admired noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is the time to drop the Motion. He can continue to be keen on football, but this is not the time—otherwise, you are going to play a game that is not going to take you anywhere.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I for one am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for giving us the opportunity to consider this guidance in full and for acting, if I follow the metaphors correctly, like a trout-fishing terrier who loves football too much but did not read the Tory manifesto with enough diligence. Of course, had my noble friend not brought this Motion, I doubt we would have had quite as many people here, or quite as many speeches, or spent such a long time looking at the guidance that is before your Lordships’ House—and I am glad that we have, because much has changed even since the debates we had on the Bill before it left your Lordships’ House and went to another place.
For instance, we saw just yesterday the sanctions that the EFL has handed to Sheffield Wednesday, following multiple breaches of its regulations relating to payment obligations. The EFL has given that club a six-point deduction and banned its former owner from owning any club in the English Football League for three years. Had we known that example at the time of the Bill’s passage, we might have taken it into consideration when discussing the amendments allowing some of the regulation to be delegated to the leagues themselves—but that debate has passed.
We are also meeting this evening after the Commissioner for Public Appointments appeared before a Select Committee in another place, where the appointment of the chairman of the Independent Football Regulator was likened to a
“mafia appointment in Sicily sometime in the 1950s”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Well, those were the comments of the chairman of the Select Committee in another place. But rather more pertinent are the comments not by a politician but by the commissioner, Sir William Shawcross himself, who spent the morning giving evidence to a Select Committee of Parliament and who said that he had never seen an appointment with as many breaches of the Governance Code on Public Appointments as this one. He said that it was
“not easy to set those breaches aside”
and called that very disappointing. I am sure we all agree that it has been a very disappointing process.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but are we not somewhat straying from the subject of this Motion? We appear to be now discussing the football regulator and some very flowery language used by the chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee this morning, which was wholly unfair and wholly unreasonable, when we are actually supposed to be discussing the guidance. Are we not just using a political opportunity to have a go?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
This is guidance and this is a Bill that is to be enforced by a new independent regulator. We did not know the name of the Government’s preferred candidate for the regulator when the Bill went through, regrettably. We know now who is entrusted with applying this new regime, and we know that the Commissioner for Public Appointments has criticised not just the Government but this morning Mr Kogan himself for a lack of transparency. It is straying from the guidance, but I wonder whether the Minister, when she rises, will have anything to say about the comments made by the Commissioner for Public Appointments today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, is right: the focus of this debate is the guidance before us. On this too, my noble friend Lord Moynihan has raised a number of pertinent questions, some of which we touched on during our scrutiny of the Bill and some of which are raised by the guidance that has now been published. Under particular consideration today is an issue that we spent considerable time on. When we were looking at the Bill, we were provided with rather scant information about what significant influence or control would mean in practice. We now have draft guidance—but, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan says, that appears to raise rather more questions than it answers.
As my noble friend pointed out during our scrutiny of the Bill, there is no requirement in the legislation to consult before publishing the guidance, which has now been published. I think that is regrettable. I see from some of the comments that there has been informal consultation with some in football, but maybe the Minister can set out in a bit more detail the consultation and discussions that were had, which led to the drawing up and publication of this draft guidance.
A second and rather more serious point of contention regarding the new owners’ test, again raised by my noble friend in his speech and his Motion today, is the significant departure from the current concepts of ownership employed by the Premier League, the EFL, UEFA and others in football. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made some remarks about obscenity—not obscene remarks, I note carefully—drawing attention to other areas of law, both in this country and in the United States, where different tests are made. But in a football context alone, the Premier League’s handbook uses the notion of control and control only, whereas here in the guidance we see the new concept of significant influence or control. So this is introducing some new thoughts into this particular sphere of football regulation. The draft guidance states:
“The right to exercise significant influence or control over a club may result in that person being considered an owner for the purpose of the Act, regardless of whether or not they actually exercise that right”.
Surely the combination of this broader interpretation of the meaning of owner and the fact that one does not actually have to do anything to be considered as such, under the Act, means that this guidance would capture a far greater number of people than one might initially anticipate.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Of course the guidance goes further than addressing ownership. That is because the legislation which Parliament enacted requires attention to “significant influence or control”. That is the whole point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My question to the Minister is: will that capture more people than one might imagine? I think the lay person looking at this imagines a single owner of a club, but as in the legislation that Parliament has passed, a number of people can be considered an owner and to have “significant influence or control”, and I will come on to a few more examples of that. For instance, on page 7 of the guidance, paragraph 2.11 states:
“A person might exercise significant influence or control if their recommendations or instructions are always or almost always followed by other owners and/or officers, due to the financial relationship of the person to the club”.
What does that mean, for instance, for a club sponsor? They have a clear financial relationship with the club, and they might make recommendations to the club which are often followed by the officers of the club. Does that mean, under these regulations and the Act that we have passed, that they could be considered to have “significant influence or control”? Would a sponsor in any circumstance count as an owner under these regulations?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I do not like interrupting the noble Lord, because he always puts the facts as he wants to put them, but the question that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked was: would it catch everybody? Yes, if they are regulated football clubs. Paragraph 1.6 states that
“regulated football clubs will be required”,
so it will catch everybody. Everybody must do what paragraph 1.6 says.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My point was a broader one about whether, under the definitions in paragraph 2.11, a club sponsor could be considered to have “significant influence or control”. It seems to me, on a reading of the guidance, that they might, but I look forward to the Minister’s response. It certainly seems that there is quite an expansive list of people that the regulations might apply to. Paragraph 2.12 states that a former owner who sold his or her shares to a close friend could still be considered an owner if he or she makes recommendations on how to vote to the person to whom he or she sold those shares. So, under the guidance, a person with no current financial stake in the club at all could actually count as an owner. I would be grateful for confirmation of that from the Minister. I see her nodding, but I look forward to her confirmation.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out, through the history of Leeds United, the complicated arrangements by which football clubs are owned. Another example might be Bournemouth. In 2022, Turquoise Bidco Ltd obtained 100% of shares in Bournemouth Football Club. Turquoise was then renamed Black Knight Football Club UK Ltd, which is a UK-based holding company wholly owned by Black Knight Football Club US based in Nevada. That American entity is in turn owned by Cannae Holdings, Inc. According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Cannae owned 44.3% of Black Knight, but Cannae is in turn owned by institutional investors, including BlackRock and the Vanguard Group. An American businessman, Bill Foley, owns 7.7% of Cannae, meaning that his beneficial ownership of Bournemouth is 3.4%, but a filing in April this year disclosed that his economic interest in Black Knight is 28%. That adds to the example of Leeds given by my noble friend Lord Moynihan of the complexity of even the most straightforward football clubs and the difficulty that will be involved in setting out all the people that might need to be regulated, investigated and brought before the regulator.
I conclude by echoing the question that my noble friend asked, as the Minister would expect, given my roots in Tyneside. The question that my noble friend posed will be of great interest to my friends and family there: would she advise the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to continue to invest in Newcastle United, through the Saudi Public Investment Fund, given what this might mean for him and for the club? That is just one of many questions of great interest to football fans, which is not made clear through this guidance. I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to probe those in a rather fuller House than I think we would have had in Grand Committee.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering the questions that were posed. I apologise if I missed this, but does she accept that, under paragraph 2.11, it might be possible for a sponsor of a club to be considered as part of the new owners and directors test, if the sponsor’s recommendations are usually followed by the club? That is the test that paragraph 2.11 shows.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will have to defer to the Box on that point, but I will be happy to pick that up with the noble Lord afterwards.
Charities: Advancement of Religion
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My understanding is that a number of the measures being considered would not require primary legislation, but others might at some point in the future. I am happy to write to the noble Lord relating to the specific point that he raises.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the vast majority of charities work for the benefit of everybody, whatever their religion or their sex, so why did the Chancellor not take the opportunity earlier today to reverse the punitive rise in employer national insurance contributions that she imposed on charities in her last Budget, which many charities have warned will lead to hiring freezes or job losses?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that we doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 at the previous Budget so that more than half of businesses, including charities, with NICs liabilities would either gain or see no change. Employers will also continue to benefit from NICs reliefs, including for hiring those under 21 and apprentices under 25 where eligible. We provided charitable tax reliefs and exemptions worth £6 billion in the year 2023-24. The biggest individual reliefs provided are gift aid, at £1.6 billion, and business rates relief, at nearly £2.4 billion. With the civil society covenant being a key priority for this Government, we are supporting charities to deliver for the country.
Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(4 weeks 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(4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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.
Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day 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.
Independent Football Regulator
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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.
BBC Leadership
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, 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, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is a shameful state of affairs, sending a message that groups of fans and indeed groups of people across our country are not safe on the streets of Britain. Can the Minister tell us when the Government were first told by the safety advisory group that it was intending to advise a ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attending this football match? Were any Government departments besides her own notified before DCMS was aware of it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I very much associate myself with the noble Lord’s sentiment of being appalled. Discrimination in all forms, including antisemitism, is fundamentally opposed to our British values of fairness, decency and respect. In relation to the noble Lord’s question, the Home Office, through the UK football policing unit, was involved in the risk assessment process led by West Midlands Police. Banning away fans was one of a package of potential operational options being considered. The initial ban was confirmed by Birmingham City Council only last Thursday and this is when intervention from the Secretary of State, DCMS, and broader government intervention began.