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

Baroness Fleet Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I do not think any of us are concerned about sovereign wealth funds; we are concerned about Governments. As far as I know, the United States Government do not have any interest—hopefully—in any of the social media organisations the noble Lord is referring to.

[Baroness Fleet (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, who is an old friend and old colleague. I declare my interest as former editor of the Evening Standard¸ deputy editor of the Telegraph and the Daily Mail and independent director of Times Newspapers.

As an editor, I met many newspaper proprietors, and I know that the very rich who want to invest in newspapers do so primarily because they want to have influence. I have the highest regard for my noble friends Lady Stowell and Lord Black of Brentwood, and I commend their contributions to this debate.

However, while I know that, sometimes, there is need for pragmatism and compromise at times of political and financial crisis, when it comes to freedom of the press, there can be no compromise. There is a principle to fight for.

Several noble Lords have reminded us that in March last year this House came to the conclusion that foreign states should not own newspapers. State control undermines free speech. We have heard the splendid speech from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is one of the great masters of this subject. On that basis, the then Government compromised and agreed that arm’s-length sovereign wealth funds could indeed own a maximum stake of 5%. We are now offered a variation whereby a foreign state can own a maximum of 15% of a newspaper.

However, in the statutory instrument, there is no limit on the number of states that can each own 15%—we have heard the argument. In other words, a coalition of states could each own 15%, thus having a majority ownership and the ability to exercise control. Once the Secretary of State was alerted to this possibility of multiple 15% ownership over six weeks ago, the Government could have been fleet of foot and pushed through a second SI to ensure the spirit of the first SI was not abused. But no, we waited and waited. Only last week was a second SI brought forward closing the loophole—but not immediately or as part of the first SI, but with a possible date in the autumn.

Therefore, the SI has a giant loophole, and this is what we are debating today. Would any savvy business sign a deal with a giant loophole only with a promise to close that loophole sometime in the future? No, of course they would not. Either we want to protect our freedom of speech and freedom from foreign state control, or we do not. That is the principle.

What is the justification to vary the 5% ownership other than that a foreign state wants more control or to save face? We have not been told.

Arguing against the fatal amendment on the grounds that the Telegraph urgently needs the deal to be agreed is an unacceptable compromise. This House is not here to consider transactions. This House is here to consider a point of principle. Will the Telegraph fold if a foreign state is not legally allowed to own 15%? I do not know. None of us knows, but that is not the point. I do not accept that we should rely on the Government’s promise of a second statutory instrument—which we have heard it might actually not even be possible to introduce after the legislation—to close the loophole sometime in the autumn. There is no legal or parliamentary reason why the Government could not have pushed through the second SI by today, so I have grave doubts about this promise.

If we agree to today’s regret amendment, there is in theory and in practice nothing to stop, say, four foreign states buying 15% each, making the Government’s promise for the autumn irrelevant. The Government will say that we can rely on the regulator—the CMA, perhaps, or Ofcom. We have all seen the failure of regulators—just think of the water regulator or the City regulator. When it comes to freedom of the press, only the law protects, not regulators. To protect newspapers from any foreign state influence, I will support the fatal amendment.