To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend by regulations under Schedule 7 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 to provide exemptions for certain funds associated with foreign powers, such as sovereign wealth or public-sector pensions funds, to invest in UK newspapers and news magazines.

My Lords, the Government are clear that foreign states should not be permitted to influence the policy or operation of UK newspapers and news magazines.

Exceptions to the new foreign state intervention powers in the Enterprise Act are required to permit sovereign wealth funds, public sector pension funds or similar to invest up to strict limits.

As I mentioned to the noble Baroness in our previous debate on this, we are carefully considering responses to the consultation published by the previous Government. We hope to publish a response to that very soon and lay the SI shortly after.

My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised that I am disappointed that the department has not provided her with any more information than that which she gave us last time.

If the Minister is not able to tell us when the Government will bring forward these important regulations—they are important to the whole news industry and to the sale of the Telegraph—I must ask her why they have not done so.

It is not a question of time—they have had eight months since the consultation closed.

We are left to assume that the Government are prioritising the sensibilities of a foreign Government, who do not share our commitment to press freedom, over the news industry, the importance of press freedom and the survival of one of our national newspapers.

I ask again: could the Minister please tell us why the Government are not acting in line with the intentions of Parliament when we legislated last year to ensure the financial sustainability of the news industry and to protect press freedom?

My Lords, I declare an interest as a Telegraph employee. I regret the way the Minister appears to be just reading out the same answer. It is important in a news business that we can get on. The most important word in the Question rightly repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, is “when”.

Are we not entitled for a term to be brought to this absurdly long process?

I can only apologise for having the same answers, but the issue has not yet been resolved. We are working to resolve it as soon as possible, but, as I mentioned, there are complex issues that need to be dealt with effectively.

It remains the case that I am confident I will be able to report back to your Lordships’ House in the near future. Clearly, I would have liked to have been able to have done so before today.

My Lords, the debate around the Telegraph is obviously important, but local newspapers are key to local democracy. In my own region of the north-east the Northern Echo and the Newcastle Journal are struggling.

What will the Government do to ensure the survivability of local and regional newspapers, which are vital to our local democracy?

My noble friend is right that local journalism is vital to local democracy. We are developing a local media strategy in recognition of the importance of this vital sector.

DCMS and the Secretary of State hosted a round table recently with a group of local news editors to discuss our proposed approach to the strategy and how we can collaborate with industry for the benefit of communities across the country.

My Lords, perhaps it might help your Lordships’ House if, rather than giving a specific answer, the Minister were able to give a process answer.

Given that the purpose of this is to distinguish between two different sorts of investor, perhaps she could tell the House how the Government are going about making that separation of two different sorts of investor.

Is the Government’s view as to how that process will be delivered materially different from the view that was clearly being formed by the previous Government?

I am going to frustrate and potentially annoy your Lordships’ House by not responding directly to that question. We are clear that we need to address the complex issues raised during the consultation. This is not about us not recognising how important the issue is; it is actually the opposite.

The noble Viscount raises exactly the type of complex issue that requires careful consideration.

I am committed to bringing this matter back to your Lordships’ House in the near future—I have been told that I can continue to say “in the near future”—and we will bring an SI to your Lordships’ House shortly thereafter.

My Lords, I sympathise with the Minister’s position. Later today, we are going to discuss the Employment Rights Bill. Are the Government considering the position of the employees of the Telegraph and the uncertainty that is occurring, as well as the important issue of the newspaper?

She gave a commitment to the House today that they would table the necessary secondary legislation. Will that be soon, shortly, in due course, or before the Summer Recess?

I reassure the noble Lord that it will be very shortly—though how you define “very” in that context is probably open to interpretation. As noble Lords will know, I did go back and press the point, having been told that I could say “very shortly” last time, as to whether that was still the case.

On staffing, I do not underestimate how unsettling this would be for staff. I note the noble Lord’s commitment to the Government’s legislation that is being discussed later this afternoon, which is welcome.

Staffing is clearly a matter for the paper itself, but we hope that all decisions made in the interim would be in the best interests of both the paper and the staff.

My Lords, it may come as a surprise to learn that most young people do not get their information from the Daily Telegraph. As we found out recently through TV series and so on, they get a lot of information and misinformation and disinformation online.

What steps can we take to ensure that young people have access to accurate information rather than content that fuels division?

I feel strongly that we owe it to young people to ensure they have access to accurate information rather than content that fuels division. On a cross-party basis, we need to make sure that we do not fuel that division in our discourse. Platforms need to act now.

As many noble Lords will be aware, since Monday 17 March this year, platforms have been required to proactively address illegal content and behaviour, much of which disproportionately affects women and girls.

This includes harassment, sexual exploitation, stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, extreme pornography and intimate-image abuse, all of which are matters of concern across your Lordships’ House. This is a matter that all of us should be concerned about.

My Lords, I sympathise with the position that the Minister is in, but it is more than a year since the House passed what is now the Media Act 2024, and, even accounting for the general election, it is eight months since the consultation on this matter closed.

As she will have heard from the questions across the House, this is causing concern for the staff and readers of the Telegraph. It is giving rise to questions about what representations the Government are receiving from other governments. It is also adding to confusion about the policy intent.

Our understanding was always that foreign powers, as defined under the 2024 Act, will not qualify for an exemption. Is that still the case? Is she able to shed any light on that matter between now and the measure that she will bring forward?

I genuinely do not underestimate the frustration that noble Lords feel on this point.

In relation to the future of the Telegraph, there is a pre-emptive action order in place which prevents parties taking action to transfer ownership or control of the Telegraph, integrate the Telegraph business into other enterprise, or make any significant changes to the structural management of the Telegraph without the Secretary of State’s consent.

This is to safeguard the business and its employees during the sale process. I can only restate the Government’s position, which is that I will be able to report back to your Lordships’ House very soon.

I have highlighted to the department that there will be a debate shortly after Easter in which this issue is likely to come up again.