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

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

I agreed with him then and I agree with him now. That was the will of Parliament. Let us not allow it to be undone by stealth. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his clarity and conviction. This is the time to act, and I support his fatal amendment.

[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.