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

Debate between Lord Shinkwin and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I will make brief points about each of the regulations, not only those relating to newspaper mergers. On that, I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Stowell. We are in the unhappy position of being presented by the Government with regulations that do not adhere to the policy intention. A number of noble Lords made it perfectly clear that the statute prohibits foreign powers having any stake in our newspapers, but it allows the Government to make exceptions. It was clear that the policy intention, outlined by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, was to bring in such exceptions by reference to a shareholding of 5% for this purpose.

However, the 15% figure, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just explained, is not the only condition. Schedule 6B presents other conditions that need to be met. Indeed, condition 4 makes it very clear that if there is control or influence over the newspaper that is not related to the shareholding, it can be the basis on which a foreign state influence intervention notice is presented. Although we appear to be debating only the shareholding, it is in fact only one of a number of potential issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, set out.

For my part, I agree with my noble friend Lady Stowell that we cannot vote for the fatal amendment—not for constitutional reasons, but simply because we would arrive at a position where we would not be giving effect to the policy intention because we would not be making any exceptions, even for investments that are not exercising any control or influence. I share my noble friend’s view on this subject.

I turn to the other regulations, which I welcome; I do not object to them, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, did. They take the definition of “newspaper” in our public interest media merger regime to where it ought to be; that is, publications that concern news-related material, both in hard copy and online.

However, I put it to the Government—I have discussed it with Ministers; I know that it is for further consideration in future—that because the definition of “newspaper” includes

“news-related material which is subject to editorial control”

and “editorial control”, among other criteria, includes that it should be first published by that publication, it excludes online news aggregators. I will give noble Lords a very simple example. I am sure that many of us use Google News or Apple News—I use the latter—which are news aggregators. I do not think that we should, for a minute, accept that they do not exercise control of our media. They have editorial teams to determine the most important stories that we should see each day. As many here will know, setting the agenda is an essential part of a political process. If we have news aggregators setting the agenda online for millions of people, for whom that source is one of the most trusted online sources, the control of that online news aggregator is an extremely important issue.

News aggregators are currently excluded from our public interest media merger regime because they do not first publish the material that they put online and present to their millions of subscribers. I put it to the Government—I hope that they will take this on board—that the definition should be amended to identify that kind of online news aggregator and include it under the public interest media merger regime.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the remarks made, and I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for making such a compelling case.

If only this were about the survival of specific newspapers; however, as we have heard so clearly today, it is about the survival of the fundamental freedom of our media from Governments, as Fraser Nelson has argued so persuasively. It is the insidious nature of the threat contained in this statutory instrument that alarms me and that should, I believe, alarm us all. That is why I urge all Members of your Lordships’ House to support this fatal amendment.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Shinkwin and Lord Lansley

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend. I want to focus on the point that he rightly makes about the Government’s accountability to Parliament and, in particular, the question of how they are going to be accountable to Parliament. I join the tributes to the noble Lord and others, including in the other place, who have put the arguments extraordinarily well, which will be sustained into the future. I also pay tribute to my noble friend on the Front Bench, not least for the constructive way he has approached all our debates throughout the consideration of this Bill.

First, before I get on to Parliament’s accountability, the Foreign Secretary, in exchanges on the Statement yesterday in the other place, said:

“the arguments around genocide and the importance of its being determined by a court are well rehearsed.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 625.]

They may have been rehearsed, but they have not been resolved, and that is important. I cannot compare with the descriptions in our previous debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, who will speak in a moment, but the questions that she set out of which court, under what circumstances and by what processes genocide will be determined are absolutely instrumental. It will not be in this Bill or the Act, but we need to keep pressing on that issue.

In this Bill, not least by virtue of Sir Bob Neill’s amendment, which we now see as Amendment 3C, we have a process. We have set up that process, it is important and we need to get it right, but I want to illustrate to your Lordships that it is not sufficient. Let me give two examples. First, it relates to free trade agreements; it does not relate to our treaty-making processes in general. We will come back to this regularly, but I think we are beginning to realise, not least after leaving the European Union, that we are making treaties to a greater extent and with greater importance than previously. Parliament should play a central role in those processes, which brings me to the point that my noble friend was making about how the Government are accountable. They should be accountable, but in some respects they are not, because the exercise of the prerogative means that we are not, in Parliament, involved; we simply receive. Where free trade agreements are concerned, we are going to be involved.

Secondly, Amendment 3C refers to a “prospective FTA counter-party.” What is that? It is a state with which the Government are in negotiations relating to a bilateral free trade agreement. We have all been hearing the debate about China. The Government are not in the process of negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement with China, so the question does not arise. If the Government were to enter into a bilateral investment agreement with China, would that qualify under this amendment? I think the Government would say not. If China were to seek accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership—of which, in due course, we hope to be members—would that qualify under this amendment? I think the answer is that it would not. So we could enter into a substantive, wide-ranging free trade agreement with China without this amendment ever being invoked.

The proposition I generally make, as a member of the International Agreements Committee, is that we have an instrument in this House that I hope we will use actively to examine not only bilateral free trade agreements but the whole structure of free trade agreements and international treaties and agreements. Not neglecting the Grimstone rule, which relates to free trade agreements, we should bring forward reports on the negotiating objectives and give at least this House—and, probably by extension the other place, by remarking on what we say—the opportunity to do what my noble friend said, which is say what Parliament will not put up with. That is really important. It may not be written into law at this stage—although I suspect that it ought to be one day—but it will be a further important step in moving the public debate. Although it is not in this Bill, which will be an Act, we should be active in considering by what means we exercise scrutiny of international treaties, trade agreements and agreements generally.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Lansley. I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Alton for the way he has brought noble Lords together in support of the Muslim Uighur people and the crucial principle of our common humanity.

I have only two points to make. First, I am saddened by the Government’s position, because the genocide of the Muslim Uighur people cannot be swept under the carpet as the Government’s rejection of the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House implies. The reason is simple: to be able to sweep an issue under the carpet, one has first to be able to lift the carpet. The carpet is too heavy to lift, because it is saturated with the blood of the Muslim Uighur people, who, as we have heard, are being subjected to genocide by the Chinese Communist Party regime for the supposed crime of being Muslim.

Secondly, in a few weeks’ time, on 6 May, Muslims will vote in the local elections. I trust they, and all who care about human rights, will ask their candidates what their party is doing to stop the genocide of the Muslim Uighur people.