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

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I have been listening quietly to the debate, and I think I am the first person to rise who has actually chaired a newspaper company, albeit a small regional company, in this country.

It is my view that, where someone has 15% control, they have a presence in the boardroom; it depends on other circumstances exactly how that presence may work out. But nobody, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has really addressed what is a very serious point, which is that people who own things—and everything has to be owned by somebody —can change their minds. There is an underlying assumption behind much of what we have heard this afternoon, that if you are a foreign state, you can say, “I won’t use my ownership to exercise influence”, or you might be one that thinks, “I want to promote my own country in the receiving country”.

Of course, the problem we face is that the investment market for media is international and most media, particularly some of the papers we have been discussing this afternoon, are essentially nationally focused. There is a disjunction between the regulatory regime and the realities of the capital markets that lie behind a lot of these projects. All I would say is that it behoves us to be very cautious. As the Queen said before the Scottish referendum, “Be careful”.

[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.