Latest news with #HouseofLords
Budapest Times
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Budapest Times
PM's Political Director: Neoliberal world order is over
Balazs Orbán, the prime minister's political director, said the neoliberal world order is over, as it has failed to fulfil the promise of peace and prosperity. Speaking in Baile Tusnad (Tusnadfurdo), in central Romania, on Wednesday, Orbán added that, like Hungary, several countries were turning to sovereignty, traditional values and Christian Democracy. Speaking at a podium discussion on the changing world order at the 34th Balvanyos Summer Open University and Student Camp, Balazs Orbán said that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's speech at the event 11 years ago where he said democracy did not necessarily have to be based on the dominant liberal, progressive global ideology had turned out to be a 'prophecy'. The political director said there were various theories as to what the new world order would look like, but it was certain that there would be a transitional period which could last even decades. He said the transition to a new global order was dangerous when it had to be handled by politicians who managed it poorly, which could not only threaten the success of their own country, but could even lead to a third world war. This had to be avoided at all costs, Orbán added. He urged a form of international cooperation in which competing global powers did not force other countries to line up behind them. Hungary, he said, was now capable of maintaining good relations with both the United States and China. Lord David Frost, member of the House of Lords and visiting fellow at the Danube Institute, said the United States had forced progressivism and liberalism onto the world through the United Nations and other international institutions, as well as via development funds tied to the progressive agenda, but it was now clear that a new world order was taking shape. Marwan Abdallah, vice chairman of Lebanon's International Democracy Union and the foreign affairs leader of the Kataeb Party, said his country did not have the luxury of refusing foreign assistance even if it came with ideological conditions attached. He said smaller states had a vested interest in the success of large international institutions, but they did not want these institutions to force their will on them.
ITV News
12 hours ago
- Politics
- ITV News
Agreement on Hillsborough Law 'could come in weeks'
The topic was brought up in the House of Lords The Government is 'hopeful' it can come to an agreement on a Hillsborough Law with the families impacted by the disaster 'in the coming weeks and months', the House of Lords has heard. Speaking from the Government front bench, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede said talks 'have been going positively', as peers raised concerns the duty of candour element of the proposed law is being watered down. Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti said the families of the 97 football fans who died following the 1989 incident feel 'less positive' about its discussions with the Government. The deadly crush occurred during the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at the football ground in Sheffield. The proposed law would require public bodies to have a duty of candour, meaning they would need to co-operate with official inquiries and tell the truth in the aftermath of major disasters – or face criminal sanctions. A previous deadline set by Labour, that the Bill would be passed before the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster in April, has been missed. The Government had said it needed more time to finalise the Bill. A draft Bill has been criticised by campaigners, including the Hillsborough Law Now group, for not containing pledges previously made – including the duty of candour. Lady Chakrabarti told the upper chamber on Thursday: 'I'm grateful to (the minister), as always, for repeating the Government's commitment to introduce Hillsborough Law, but I'm afraid that the families and their representatives feel a little less positive about the engagement they had so far. 'Some worry that they've been briefed against to the newspapers, and generally speaking, they worry about the dilution that … Lord Storey has warned against.' Lord Ponsonby said he was 'sorry to hear that', adding: 'I am aware of very recent interaction with the families in Liverpool, and what I understand is those talks have been going positively, and it is very much hoped that we able to reach some form of agreement in the coming weeks and months.' He had earlier said: 'Since March, we have listened to stakeholder feedback to ensure that we deliver the best Bill possible. 'This engagement has been constructive and progress has been made. Engagement is ongoing and will continue over the summer.' Liberal Democrat peer Lord Storey said: 'Would he give a clear commitment there will be no watering down of that duty of candour intent when the Bill is published?' Lord Ponsonby replied: 'The Prime Minister has made a personal commitment to the affected families to work with them constructively to come up with an appropriate law. 'Regarding the duty of candour, the Government is clear that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster must never happen again. 'Under the Hillsborough Law, public officials will be bound by duties of candour with criminal and professional consequences. 'We are committed to achieving a true cultural change. The Bill cannot change culture on its own, but it can and should act as a catalyst, and we remain committed to launching a programme to encourage cultural change alongside the Bill.'
Cambrian News
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Cambrian News
Bill to devolve Crown Estate to Wales continues to pass through House of Lords
A Bill that would transfer responsibility for the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government has passed the report stage in the House of Lords without opposition and is now set for its third reading.
BBC News
13 hours ago
- Health
- BBC News
Will a new law prevent puppies being imported illegally?
Over 1,000 illegally imported puppies in five years have ended up in rehoming centres after being stopped at the British border, new figures Dogs Trust charity said the animals were taken on by its centres after being "illegally landed" at the Channel ports between 2020 and charity hopes a new law that has been proposed, which will be debated in the House of Lords, will help to clamp down on dog and cat government said new measures would close loopholes exploited by unscrupulous traders. Campaigners have warned that for a number of years some breeders have brought under age puppies - younger than 15 weeks - into the country, or smuggled in dogs without health Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), said "illegally landed" did not necessarily mean smuggled, but referred to any animal which did not meet import requirements and would need to be quarantined under anti-rabies its Puppy Pilot scheme, Dogs Trust pays for the quarantine costs of dogs seized at the border to aid the interception of illegally imported puppies by APHA. Once these dogs have been through quarantine, the animal charity then provides care and rehabilitation for them at rehoming centres, prior to them finding their forever homes. The proposed law would give the government power to stop the import of puppies and kittens that are under six months old. The Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill would also ban the import of dogs and cats beyond 42 days of pregnancy and limit the number of animals that are allowed in a Calder, head of public affairs at Dogs Trust, told BBC South East: "We've seen puppies that are too young, unvaccinated, transported in really terrible conditions and some just don't survive that journey."We've tragically seen puppies as young as four weeks old smuggled into the country, or dogs with open wounds from ear cropping and heavily pregnant dogs close to giving birth, so this new bill is incredibly important."Paula Boyden, a veterinary surgeon, said the pet travel scheme had been exploited for well over a decade, with many thousands of dogs imported for sale."In recent years we've also seen an increase in the import of heavily pregnant mums and dogs with mutilations, particularly cropped ears," he said. Any new legislation needs to be robustly enforced at the border, according to professional dog trainer Ryan O'Meara."Passing this law is a good first step, but it has to be backed by proper enforcement," he said."We do need clear and practical rules that make it easier for border officials to do their job, whilst still allowing for recognised rescues overseas to responsibly bring their dogs into the UK."Danny Chambers, vet and Lib Dem MP for Winchester, who put the bill forward, said the illegal smuggling of puppies had long caused serious public health worries that dangerous diseases could be brought back into the UK. "This bill will curb those concerns – stamping out savage practices that endanger animals everywhere," he bill will now go to the House of Lords on its route to becoming law. A Defra spokesperson said: "We were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans to improve animal welfare in a generation – and that's why we are supporting this Bill."These measures will close loopholes that are cruelly exploited by unscrupulous traders and stop the import of underage, mutilated and heavily pregnant dogs and cats."
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why it matters who owns a newspaper
The House of Lords this week approved government legislation that will allow foreign states to hold up to a 15% stake in British newspaper publishers. This vote clears the way for the American investment company Redbird to take control of the troubled Telegraph newspaper group following two years of uncertainty. An integral element of that bid is a 15% stake by the sovereign investment fund IMI which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates. The heated Lords debate raised fundamental questions about who should own newspapers, and the link between ownership and editorial content. On one side were those who argued that Britain's newspapers faced an 'existential threat' without outside investment. On the other were those who warned against the potential influence of a foreign power on one of the UK's longest standing publishers. Media mergers and acquisitions are often contentious. But given the parlous state of the newspaper industry, they are likely to become more frequent. A very different kind of newspaper deal was completed last December, when news website Tortoise Media bought The Observer. Tortoise, which was founded in 2018 by former Times editor and BBC director of news James Harding, startled analysts and journalists alike by taking over a newspaper first published in 1791. The deal prompted strong opposition from some Observer and Guardian journalists. But from a business perspective, the deal suited both sides. The Scott Trust, owners of the Observer since 1993, never seemed wholly committed to the Observer. (There was, for example, no dedicated Observer website). Tortoise, meanwhile, was keen to exploit the brand values of an established print product. It saw the Observer as a suitable vehicle for its approach of news analysis and explanation rather than breaking stories. The media world has also been fixated on the succession story of the Murdoch family and its implications for his UK newspapers. The Sun, News of the World (until its closure in 2011), the Times and Sunday Times have been the bedrock of Rupert Murdoch's economic and political power in the UK for decades. In December, he lost the battle to give his eldest son Lachlan exclusive control of his media empire. Speculation has grown as to whether any of Rupert's progeny will want to continue the family's print tradition after his death. His empire has suffered repeated financial and reputational hits since the phone hacking scandal. It is perfectly feasible that, once he goes, all the Murdoch press interests will be up for sale. These various battles beg the question: why does it matter who owns a newspaper? In short, it matters because ownership, to a large extent, determines content. Who owns the news? From the very beginning of printed news, proprietors have exercised control over their title's political direction and journalistic values. Prewar Britain saw Lord Beaverbrook famously exploiting his Express newspapers to campaign for free trade within the British empire. Meanwhile, fellow newspaper baron Lord Rothermere turned his Mail newspapers into propaganda sheets for Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, and cheerleaders for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the 1930s. The Rothermere family's continued ownership of the Mail has guaranteed a consistent anti-immigration, anti-Europe rightwing worldview to the present day. How this consistent framing has been transmitted through the Mail's editors has been well documented by journalist Adrian Addison. Murdoch's UK newspaper empire has also pursued his personal free market, anti-EU political vision. He has used his papers to attack the publicly funded BBC and the regulator Ofcom. Murdoch has, however, been slightly more flexible in adjusting his papers' party political allegiance (guaranteeing a succession of prime ministerial genuflections from Margaret Thatcher through to Keir Starmer). At the other end of the political spectrum, the Scott Trust – owners of the Guardian – was conceived by the son of C.P. Scott as a vehicle for sustaining his father's liberal mission for the paper. It has a policy of no editorial interference, apart from continuing the paper's editorial policy on 'the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore'. Editors are therefore enjoined to focus on the kind of progressive news agenda championed by Scott. The trust model allows a level of freedom from traditional commercial oversight. Editors can pursue the Guardian's well-established liberal tradition without worrying about shareholders driven by short-term profit maximisation, or an individual owner with a specific ideological agenda. This partly explains the hostility of Observer journalists to the Tortoise takeover. Why it matters The Lords debate focused on the risks of foreign state investment in British newspapers. But all commercial ownership models – and all owners – have their problems. Whether it be greedy shareholders, a power-hungry narcissist, an ideologically-driven family or a foreign state seeking influence in the UK, commercial models all involve editorial compromises. One approach to the problems raised by commercial ownership is an insistence, through legislation, on a plurality of owners. But this is increasingly difficult in an industry whose traditional advertising-funded business model is under severe pressure. This context is precisely why the Telegraph's new owner was desperate to access IMI funds. Upmarket publications such as the Financial Times and the Times can monetise subscriptions, but paywalls discourage easy access and diminish journalistic reach. Subscriptions are also a much less attractive proposition for tabloids whose readers are less willing to pay. Another approach is to diversify ownership models. Non-profit and charitable publishers, such as OpenDemocracy or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, can leverage donations and are less vulnerable to the whims of corporate owners or powerful individuals. But this model is much less developed in the UK than the US. I and colleagues have argued elsewhere that there are strong arguments for making charitable journalism easier. These models can enhance journalistic freedom, but they also come with potential downsides that need to be acknowledged. All these options presuppose, of course, that newspapers and their online sites still have sufficient relevance and reach for us to continue to worry about ownership at all – a topic for another article. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Steven Barnett is on the management and editorial boards of the British Journalism Review. He is a member of the British Broadcasting Challenge which campaigns for Public Service Broadcasting. He is on the Advisory Board of the Charitable Journalism Project which campaigns for public interest journalism and on the board of Hacked Off which campaigns for a free and accountable press.
