Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his amendment and the way he introduced it. He raised four very substantial issues—much more substantial than most of the issues we have spent most of the day debating. Should there be a maximum size of the House? How do we get there? How do we then stop recidivist Governments breaching it? Once we have got there, how do we balance the new appointments between the various parties?

The first and third questions are very straightforward. Yes, there should be a limit. Yes, it will mean that no Prime Minister can then threaten to flood the House with 100 new Peers, but the last time that was tried was over 110 years ago, and it has not proved to be a necessary part of public policy-making in the interim. Is the noble Lord, Lord Gove, right when he says the more voices, the better? Clearly, there is a point at which that ceases to be the case, and what we are arguing about is where that should be. If there were 5,000 people here, there would clearly be too many voices, and we would not be able to do anything. Those of us who have spent many hours debating here, including everybody who has been involved with the Burns amendment, have formed the view that the place would be better if it had a cap on its numbers. So, yes, there should be a cap on the numbers. It should be a legislative cap. If we have that, it solves the problem of how we stop future Prime Ministers ratcheting up the numbers again—they will not be allowed to do it by law.

How do we get to that number, 650 or whatever it is? Actually, if we do what we say we are going to do in terms of retirement and participation, we get beyond that number; we get below it. In fact, one of the arguments about having a straightforward retirement age is that we are taking out too many people, so I do not think that the bit of the noble Lord’s amendment that deals with how we get to the number would be needed in practice.

If we agree that there should be a limit and that it means you cannot ratchet up again, and if we say that we get to the limit by the combination of retirement and participation limits, the difficult question that remains is: once you have got below the limit, how do you decide on the balance of appointments? The noble Lord says there is a convention that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party should have broad parity of numbers. That may be fine, but there are some others of us here, both on these Benches and the noble Lord’s. What are we going to do about all that?

In his original report, the noble Lord came up with an elegant proposal to deal with the balance that related to votes and seats over a period of three general elections. It would have had the advantage of being a stabilising force while still reflecting the fact that the House has to move with the country. I supported that at the time, as I think the Government did, and would support it again.

On how we implement all this, if we could agree on it all, given that the debate about retirement is in part a debate about numbers, one of the issues will be how quickly we do it. If we require primary legislation to deal with retirement, I do not see why it would be illogical to include something about numbers in that.

How you deal with my point about how you rebalance over time once you have got below the cap, whether you do that by convention or statute, is a matter for another day. The only thing that worries me slightly is that framing a statute that could not be amended in the light of changing political circumstances might be quite difficult.

These are hugely important issues. There is quite a lot of consensus on some of them, but I hope we are able to debate them sensibly and make progress on them during the course of the Parliament and in the context of the other debates we are having, not least on retirement.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in many ways this is the most important amendment we are considering today, because it is the only attempt to curb the power of the Executive over Parliament. The Bill, as the Government drafted it, shifts the scales rather dangerously in their favour. It leaves the Prime Minister the sole person responsible for deciding who comes to this House and who leaves it. If we were to throw out the small number of excepted hereditary Peers in the way that the Bill as originally drafted put it, which the House has now voted against, every Member of this House would be appointed by, or subject to the approval of, the Prime Minister of the day—a situation found in no other democratic Chamber.

As we have heard from our debates in Committee and last week, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, has no power to insist on the nominations it makes, and no guaranteed number or guaranteed timescale. While this Parliament has already seen the introduction of 45 Labour Peers, 21 Conservatives and three Liberal Democrats, the independent commission has not been permitted to make any nominations under the present Prime Minister.

In our debate last week, the Leader of the House confirmed that the four Cross-Bench Peers announced last month were people of the Prime Minister’s own selection, not the House of Lords Appointments Commission’s. Moreover, in the statement the Prime Minister made alongside that announcement, he made clear that, like his predecessors, he would be prepared to overrule HOLAC in exceptional circumstances if it objected to one of his nominations on the grounds of propriety.

Even the Lords spiritual, notwithstanding the changes made under that great Presbyterian Gordon Brown, pass through Downing Street on the way to their episcopal throne. Crucially, the procedural changes made by Mr Brown are not set in statute and so could be undone by a future Prime Minister with a snap of their fingers.

I have served in government in different capacities under four Prime Ministers. I have seen the power of patronage and the seductive temptations it offers to Prime Ministers as their other powers wane. We have seen the current Prime Minister wielding that power already—that is not new and not unique to him, but the Bill he has sent us would leave him more powerful than any of his predecessors and leave him and those who follow him free to succumb to those temptations without, as noble Lords have put it, any guard-rails.

At the beginning of his premiership, Sir Keir Starmer began by appointing new Peers at a faster rate than any Prime Minister for three decades. I am glad that he has now slowed down, but he could change speed again whenever he wants. The Leader of the House has argued, and I can see will argue again, that that is because of the profligacy of his predecessors—following the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about the ratchet effect that leaves us in this situation after every general election. In doing so, she and the Prime Minister have given the game away that the Bill is not just about ending the hereditary peerage but about removing a large number of Peers from beyond the Government Benches.

The Leader has told us repeatedly that, even with that excision, the Labour Party will form only 28% of the seats in your Lordships’ House. Can she tell us today, with the same clarity, that she expects and intends the Labour Party to form the same proportion by the end of this Parliament, or does she see why so many of us, like Elvis Presley, have “Suspicious Minds” about that?

More worryingly still, we have seen the power of executive patronage in action throughout our debates on the Bill. I am sure I am not the only one to have noticed the conspicuous number of abstentions in some of the Divisions so far, or to have been surprised by the arguments of noble Lords who are usually so robust in asserting our role as a revising Chamber advising that on this Bill, which has such profound consequences not just for your Lordships’ House but for our constitutional settlement, we should not make any amendment at all or disagree with the House of Commons, who have still—the majority of them—sat for only 170 days. I detect a certain nervousness, not just among our hereditary colleagues or those over or approaching the age of 80, about voting for things that might annoy the present Government. I know the Leader will want every Member of your Lordships’ House to know that they can and should perform their legislative scrutiny on this Bill, as on any other, without fear or favour, so I hope she can reassure us that no one, even those who would vote on the Bill in a way that she would rather they did not, will suffer any ill feeling or consequence from the Government.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I disagree with all these amendments because I believe they are based on a misconception that the change we are discussing is a fundamental change. It is not; it is a tidying-up measure. It does not affect the powers of the Lords or our relationship with the Commons, far less our relationship with the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The amendments which say we need to institute a new process to evaluate the impact on all these broader things is totally pointless, because it will have virtually zero influence on all those things.

There are two areas of further change which we have spent lots of time debating which have nothing to do directly with the Bill. One has to do with how the current House of Lords improves the way it operates, whether that is by having a retirement age, participation levels or all the other things that we have spent a lot of time discussing that the Government have in their manifesto. We can possibly discuss how to achieve it in the next group.

The second question, which is certainly beyond the purview of this Bill, has to do with whether you have long-term democratic reform. Clearly, from these Benches we think we should. Clearly, the House of Commons in the coalition Government thought by a massive majority that we should. That is not a revolutionary change which has not been discussed and where MPs have not thought about the issues which concern the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, so much. They were discussed and a conclusion was reached—but whether the Bill proceeded had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the principle behind it.

So these amendments would get us nowhere. As for a constitutional conference, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has said, in the past they have reached no conclusion, because you do not reach a total consensus on this. If anybody thinks that, frankly, they have not been listening at all, and anybody who hears the words “constitutional royal commission” thinks “years of delay”—and whatever we need, we do not need that.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If there is a misconception here, it is about the continuing presence of our hereditary colleagues in your Lordships’ House. They were not kept here by some form of transition, as the Deputy Leader of the House put it in an earlier debate; they were kept here because, in the debates at the end of the last century, nobody could answer the fundamentally important question of what this House is for, how it ought to be constituted and whether there was a better route to come here than the route by which we have all come, in our different ways. We were kept here as surety to ensure that the reform process that the then Labour Government embarked on would continue. They had a further decade in power after 1999 and brought forward no further measures, which is why so many of us on this side are sceptical about the speed with which they will bring forward the further reforms that they proposed in their most recent manifesto. So this is a very important group of amendments because, as Amendment 95 puts it, it is about the impact of this Bill on the effectiveness of the House of Lords.

The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, have cast this Bill very narrowly and argued that this is a tightly focused Bill. In some ways it is too narrowly cast and too tightly focused. It ducks the questions of what this House is for and the questions that flow from it about how it should best be composed. But, although narrow, the Bill will have serious and sweeping impacts on this House of Parliament. As my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Swire put it, this Bill puts the cart before the horse. It avoids those questions and seeks to enact a very important change based on a misunderstanding of the position from the late 1990s.

Throughout this Committee, we have heard concerns raised from all corners of your Lordships’ House that this Bill will leave us a less effective legislative Chamber. Ministers have disagreed with the concerns that have been raised. Well, here is their chance to prove it. If those of us who have expressed our concerns are wrong, these reviews will be the opportunity to prove us wrong.

I believe that the fears we have heard in this Committee are well-founded. Our hereditary colleagues attend your Lordships’ House more frequently than life Peers. They play a more active role, not just in the Division Lobbies and in the Chamber but in our committees, on the Woolsack and in convening the Cross Benches. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin put it in our debate on the first group, armed with the data that the Library has provided him, our hereditary colleagues play a valuable and active role in the functioning of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in that debate, “Why are we thinking of removing those who work the hardest while leaving those who do not?”

I am sure the Deputy Leader will say that all these questions about participation and activity can be addressed later. Again, these amendments are an opportunity for him to do that. At no point in this Committee have we had any commitment from the Government about when they plan to turn to the next parts of the reforms that they proposed in their manifesto. Ministers have not even committed to do so by the end of this Parliament. So I share the concerns that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has raised: that we will be waiting another decade or longer to see the further reforms that noble Lords have called for throughout the course of these debates.

My noble friends’ amendments in these groups would give us the opportunity to review progress after 12 months, on the timetable proposed by my noble friend Lord Dundee, or two years, in the timeframe proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It would also be an opportunity for us to review what we have lost. We have heard in the course of these debates how our hereditary colleagues bring valuable experience from their work in business and agriculture, two areas where on the Government’s record it is clear that they have something of a blind spot, and it is important to have those voices raised in this scrutinising House of Parliament.

I am sure the Deputy Leader will seek to persuade us that, once again, our fears are misplaced and that these amendments are unnecessary, but I urge him to look seriously at these amendments, which call for modest but important reviews. The Government listened to the concerns that were raised in your Lordships’ House in our debate on the Football Governance Bill and gave us a statutory review of that new regulator after five years. I know football is something that attracts a lot more attention than reform of the House of Lords, but I think the constitution of our second legislative Chamber is about as important as the beautiful game. I hope the Deputy Leader will look at this and consider giving us a review in this Bill as well.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am not sure that all my noble friend’s constituents might phrase it like that. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the risk of doing nothing is to leave Channel 4 reliant on linear advertising. Currently 74% of its income comes from linear advertising, which is part of the broadcasting landscape that is changing rapidly. It is trying to compete with the likes of Netflix, which spent £9.2 billion on original content in 2019, compared with £2.1 billion by all the UK’s public service broadcasters. We want to ensure that Channel 4 is fit for the future so that it can continue to thrive and flourish.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in his initial Answer the Minister said that the current structure of Channel 4 was holding it back and that there was an urgency to move now. Yet in its own evidence to the Government, Channel 4 said that it had

“proposed a vision for the next 40 years”

seeking to

“build on the successes of the first 40”.

That is from the management of Channel 4. Why do the Government think they know better than the management of Channel 4 about its future?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the huge success that Channel 4 has been over the last 40 years. We want to make sure that it is fit for the future. Sometimes people who are close to organisations can be restricted in their thinking because of it. A responsible Government are looking to the next 40 years and the rapidly changing media landscape to ensure that Channel 4 has access to private capital to borrow, invest and continue to do what it is rightly renowned for.