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

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, I must inform the House that if the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is agreed to, I will not be able to call the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, for reasons of pre-emption. The Question I therefore have to put is that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, be agreed to.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, although I take a different position on this from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I too would like to welcome him back to his place, and I am pleased to see that he is making a good recovery from his accident.

Last year, the House protected and guaranteed press freedom by forcing the Government to change the law and put beyond doubt the risk of a foreign Government owning, controlling or influencing a British newspaper. None the less, we accepted that it would be necessary to allow limited exemptions to state-owned investment funds to ensure the industry’s financial viability. So the principle of what we are debating today is not new. Although I do not endorse how the noble Lord, Lord Fox, depicted some of the differences, we certainly cannot deny that the regulations before us today present a different model from the one we were promised over a year ago. The cap is, as we have heard, 15%, not 5%, and instead of distinguishing between different states’ investment funds so that only some are permitted, all are included but limited to passive investment only.

The other thing we should not ignore is how badly the Government have handled this whole process and made arriving at a solution far more complicated than it needs to be. I will come back to that in a moment, as well as raising some questions for the Minister to address when she comes to wind up.

The question I have grappled with is whether a 15% cap, restricted to passive investment only, still supports the much bigger principle of press freedom that we fought hard to protect. I have concluded that, with some safeguards, it does, and in reaching my view, I have not just considered what is best for the future of the Telegraph, I have very much taken account of how we need to safeguard the future of the whole news industry. Because, while we all care about protecting a free press, upholding that principle will serve little purpose if our news industry cannot survive, and its economic conditions are worsening.

Last year, when I brought forward my amendment, the Communications and Digital Committee was conducting a major inquiry into the future of news. It was plain to see then that the news industry was in jeopardy and its business models threatened like never before. The Minister has already outlined how the pace of technological change, as well as fierce and unfair competition from the tech sector, has eaten away at advertising revenue for many years. But the situation has accelerated since last year. The sharp decline in traffic to news websites from AI-generated news summaries via search pages or models such as ChatGPT, never mind the ongoing uncertainty over copyright law, which the House has debated many times in the last few months, presents an existential threat—I repeat that phrase which the Minister used, because I genuinely think that is real.

By the way, it is also worth pointing out that the major foreign tech platforms, which curate news stories based on algorithms and provide these AI summaries, are far more powerful and potent in shaping public opinion than any British newspaper. They have access to all the investment capital they need, without any constraints as to where they source their funds.

The news industry needs to invest heavily to compete with the tech sector, yet its routes to readers and revenue streams are shrinking rapidly. Subscription is not a viable model for all organisations, with the mid-market red-tops and local news at gravest risk. But, even though market consolidation is likely and conditions are bad, we can be confident that our action last year dealt with the threat of several British newspapers or news organisations ending up in the hands of foreign powers. Now, we need to make sure that the UK news industry itself can respond to the challenges it faces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before my noble friend leaves the point, would she just pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said? She just described the plight of the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers, basically saying they are struggling to be viable. So why would a foreign Government pay a premium price to invest in them? Are we assuming that foreign Governments are profligate with their money and that they do not invest to get a return? The noble Lord’s point was that the reason why they are prepared to pay £500 million or whatever it is for the Daily Telegraph, when other people are prepared to pay only £300 million or whatever, is that they are buying influence.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

As my noble friend knows and as I have already described, we are now in a different situation from that which we were facing in March of last year, when there was a real prospect that a foreign Government could be the owner of a British newspaper. That matter has been dealt with. What we are dealing with now is state investment funds and, as I am going to come on to talk about, the question is whether the safeguards in place are sufficient.

I am grateful to Lisa Nandy for meeting me on several occasions over the past few months and I am pleased that, because of pressure from me and other noble Lords, the intolerable prospect of multiple foreign powers each owning 15% of a newspaper will be ruled out in the supplementary regulations that the department published in draft last week. Let us be absolutely clear: the 15% must be an aggregate cap. But how on earth that loophole went unnoticed is hard to understand and, once it was pointed out to them, it is baffling, as well as hugely regrettable, that the Government took two months to find a way to close it and chose to do so via additional regulations, instead of immediately withdrawing the regulations before us today and relaying a comprehensive set, so that we could tie all this up in one go before the Summer Recess. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us why they could not do that. I know she has told us that they plan to lay the supplementary regs by the end of October, but I would like to know why it was not possible to do what I advised them to do back in May.

This foot-dragging and apparent incompetence have given rise to legitimate questions about who or what has really influenced the Government’s approach to this incredibly important matter. If the Government were acting only in the interests of the press industry, we would have sorted all this and resolved the Telegraph’s ownership long before now.

Although I can accept a 15% aggregate cap for state-owned investment, it will require rigorous government oversight of the boundaries that passive investors must not extend, and Parliament will need to be better equipped and more active in holding Ministers to account. In my view, it was frankly unacceptable for the Government to stay silent for 11 months on the matter of the secondary regulations and on what they were doing to safeguard the Telegraph’s future ownership during that time.

Noble Lords may have seen, and indeed have heard already from the Minister, that the supplementary regulations that are to follow these include a new notification requirement, meaning that any state-owned investor that acquires more than 5% must notify the Secretary of State within 14 days of that acquisition to be eligible for the exemption status. In my view, as a follow-on to that, the Secretary of State should be required to notify Parliament twice yearly about any or nil such notifications, together with information about action taken by her as a result. In future, we are going to need more information. Can the Minister ensure that this additional requirement of accountability to Parliament be added to the supplementary regulations the Government are now consulting on?

Although parliamentarians must respond to any failings by Ministers, when it comes to upholding press freedom, the most important line of defence is the newspaper proprietors. They are who and what must provide a strong shield between newsrooms and illegitimate pressure or demands from investors and advertisers. They know that not doing so undermines public trust in journalism, and that would damage the value of their investment.

It is not for Parliament to dictate how proprietors should discharge their responsibility, but in a media world that includes the presence of state-owned investors, clarity and some transparency about what proprietors are doing to protect their newspapers’ independence and editorial freedom becomes important. This is particularly so where proprietors are new to the newspaper industry or are private equity funds. Can the Minister tell us, therefore, what such demands the Government will make of the new Telegraph owners if and when that transaction is completed? Can she confirm that the Telegraph deal, once finalised, will be subject to detailed scrutiny by the CMA before it is completed?

If the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pushes his amendment to a Division, I will vote against it. Of course, as a former Leader of your Lordships’ House, I have a general aversion to this Chamber seeking to block legislation. Indeed, it was me, as Leader, who was the last Minister at that Dispatch Box defeated by this House on a piece of secondary legislation. But I am not against this amendment for any kind of constitutional-like reasons of convention or tradition, important though they are. Believe me, if I thought that supporting this amendment was the right thing to do, I would. But I do not.

While I respect those who are framing this debate as a battle over the future of press freedom, actually, if it is a battle about anything, it is over the future of a financially viable press. We do not just need our newspapers to be editorially independent; we need them to survive.

When it comes to the Telegraph, of course I would have loved someone serious to have come along with a consortium that could offer investment and honour a cap of 5%. Indeed, I would have loved it if this sorry saga, which has been so destabilising to the editorial team at that newspaper and has gone on for more than two years, could have been avoided altogether. But, as I have already argued, this is not just about the Telegraph; it affects all newspaper titles.

The regulations before us set the cap at 15%. As long as the Government follow through with the supplementary regulations to close that loophole and are prepared to give the necessary undertakings to ensure that that cap will be enforced, I am willing to accept them. Everyone else gets to fight another day; let us make sure the same applies to the Telegraph Group and the wider UK press industry.

Of course, if the noble Lord, Lord Fox, withdraws his amendment and supports mine instead, noble Lords can express their regret and record their dissatisfaction with how the Government have handled this matter by supporting my amendment.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the Government on this measure. I think that 15% passive ownership is perfectly okay. I very much support a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said about the roles of proprietors. I have edited three national newspapers, so I know a lot about proprietors. Indeed, my last proprietor sold our newspaper to a man who had made his money out of Big Ones and Asian Babes. If that is considered a good way to pass things on, I would really question this.

A passive investment is perfectly okay and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, the power and influence of a newspaper is absolutely about the proprietor. The proprietor will appoint an editor who is more or less in line with them. If this investment is passive, the Government have done something valuable because we have a lot of problems in our press and with various things. For instance, the Independent is highly linked financially to Saudi Arabia. I declare an interest as Geordie Greig, the editor, is a friend of mine. We have discussed this endlessly. He says that you cannot find any influence of Saudi Arabia within his newspaper, and I agree. The fact that it does a Saudi Arabian issue is its business. I am not saying I like it, but it is making a newspaper, which many of us read, available free at the point of delivery, and all sorts of good things that are otherwise going to disappear.

Rupert Murdoch is a very complicated proprietor. A lot of the stuff to do with phone hacking is still not resolved. It is very rich of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to say that everything is going to fall apart if we get some investment in the Telegraph. Proprietors have politics and they want things to be done their way. The Government have a right, indeed, a duty, not only to make sure that this passive investment is kept that way, but to look at the whole question of proprietors. Obviously, they are going to want influence, so it is very important that the Government carry on if this is going to be about general press and, indeed, media regulation, which looks also at online regulation. Heaven knows where the money for all of that is coming from.

We need to have very firm standards here. In the meantime, I thoroughly support what the Government are proposing today, and a fatal amendment against it would be a real mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

If the Minister is going to come back to it, I will happily sit down, but I asked her a question about those new notification requirements in the draft regulations yet to be made, and whether the Government would consider my recommendation that the Secretary of State be required to notify Parliament on a twice-yearly basis if she receives any such notifications, and about the actions that she has taken as a result. Is she able to give me a response to that?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

That is not in my speech, but I have an answer for the noble Baroness. We think that it is a reasonable suggestion. We need to work out how we can do that. There was a suggestion, for example, that it might require primary legislation. Obviously, that feels a little bit heavy-handed in terms of where we would want to get to. If the noble Baroness is content, I will come back to that. We think that it is a good point and it is worth doing, but I am not able to commit until we have clearer legal advice on how we could achieve that.

Going back to the other points, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords. I thank many noble Lords for the time that they have taken to meet me and the Secretary of State as well as officials. On the new regulations that we put out for consultation on 16 July, we have committed to change the legislation to eliminate entirely the risk that was identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and others, and to backdate this change to 13 March last year, which is the date on which the foreign state influence regime came into effect. I give noble Lords an absolute commitment that we will lay regulations in the autumn. I am not allowed to say that we will do it by the end of October; I am allowed to say that we will aim to do so by the end of October.

Some noble Lords queried the difference between sovereign wealth and government control. I want to be explicitly clear: for the avoidance of doubt, this is not state ownership. It is not about Governments owning or influencing our media. We do not want that to happen either. The term “state-owned investors” refers to a narrow group of organisations that will need to be different and distinct from the Government who sponsor them. Foreign Governments will not be allowed to hold a direct stake. Key is the requirement that they make or manage investments, including international investments, as their principal activity. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, that this is not necessarily about influence. I give way—

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not distinguish between state investment funds that are directly or indirectly controlled by a foreign power; that the Secretary of State must be relied upon to intervene if a state investment fund does not act in accordance with the Regulations; and calls upon the Government to withdraw the draft Regulations and replace them before 15 September with Regulations which cap foreign state investment to a total of 15 per cent of the ownership of any newspaper, as opposed to 15 per cent per foreign power.”

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have an awful lot to add to what I said during the debate. I think I covered all the important points. As I said, I have accepted that an aggregate cap of 15% for state-owned investment funds is necessary to ensure the financial viability of the news industry, but with some safeguards. I am grateful to the Minister for her gracious acceptance of the criticisms that I and others have levelled about the Government’s handling of this. It was good of her to do that, and I appreciate it.

I take the Minister at her word about bringing back the supplementary regulations to deal with the loophole. I am disappointed that she is unable to give us a guarantee that it will be before the end of October, but I hear that she says that that is the Government’s intention. As I say that back to the Front Bench, I am looking at the business managers there: the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House. They will know from listening to this debate—although I know they were not in the Chamber—the strength of feeling among all noble Lords that the loophole that currently exists in these regulations must be closed.

The Minister acknowledged my requirement that the new notification requirements that will be reflected in the supplementary regulations should also include a requirement on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament. I know that she was not able to give me a guarantee that they will be reflected in the regulations, but I hope very much that they can be. I find it surprising that the Government think that might require primary legislation—I am a bit baffled by that—but I am grateful for her commitment to explore that requirement. I hope that, between now and the Government laying those regulations, we can discuss that further and get it properly nailed down.

I will not detain the House any further by pushing this regret amendment to a Division, because the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already made it clear that the Liberal Democrats would not feel it necessary to support it—even though they have been so roundly defeated—but I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke. Some important speeches were made, even those by colleagues who supported the fatal amendment. I think we all recognise that, as I said earlier, this is a very important matter. If there is one thing we all share, it is our commitment to a free press. Today is about ensuring that it can survive.

Baroness Stowell’s amendment to the Motion not moved.