Newspapers: Foreign Ownership

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to publishing the names of respondents to the consultation on foreign ownership of newspapers, and what assessment they have made of the evidence base provided by the consultation.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as the author of email newsletters, which, in theory, may be subject to the legislation in question.

The consultation on the foreign state influence regulations was published on 9 May 2024 by the previous Government. This made it clear that individual responses and organisation names would not be published, but their content would be summarised in the Government’s consultation response. This was published on 15 May 2025. Our assessment of the responses showed that respondents had a strong preference for a higher limit. On 14 July, we published the consultation responses, with appropriate redactions, following a number of FoI requests.

I thank the Minister for that Answer and for responding to the issue by publishing the responses. However, only four responses is a very small number, given the widespread interest in the issue and its importance. Although the Government have leaned heavily on the consultation in their explanations for their policy, three of the four responses were from parts of the newspaper sector that might be seeking foreign funds. Should the Government not be listening more widely to the many other voices concerned about potential foreign government ownership of our newspapers?

Although we received four responses to the consultation, they were quite detailed and technical. We have had quite a lot of discussions in your Lordships’ House about the future of media and the need to make sure that we get good funding sources in so that media groups can modernise. It is appropriate that the Government paid account to the media organisations, but, as the noble Lord will be aware, we settled on 15% because this is within the CMA’s views on where it might be appropriate to set things so that there is no inadvertent material influence.

My Lords, why are the Government inviting the House to vote for secondary legislation that they have now admitted is defective in so far as it allows foreign Governments to own 15% and several foreign Governments collectively to own an additional 15%? Although the Government may have tabled amending legislation today, which will have retrospective effect, what is the reason for the speed of this, and why are the Government using secondary legislation to reverse what was clearly understood before, which is that foreign Governments could not hold stakes in our newspapers and media interests? Now, they are allowing foreign Governments to do so, despite undertakings given when the primary legislation was passed that that would never be allowed.

On the regulations and the exception, I want to be clear: this is a privilege, not a right. It is about passive investment, which is why the level has been set at 15%. The Government have published the second set of regulations today, to put it beyond doubt that multiple states cannot act in concert to take a stake in a UK newspaper that is bigger than 15%. The FSI regime gives the Secretary of State a specific duty to intervene and to refer to the CMA for investigation merger cases that she suspects may have resulted, or may result, in foreign state control or influence over a newspaper enterprise’s policy. So these safeguards are in addition to what we would already consider to be quite clear duties on the part of the Secretary of State.

My Lords, we have all experienced the closure of local newspapers and radio stations—a worrying loss to local identity and politics—with those that remain generally having sought a future by being subsumed into a larger group. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, although foreign investment is not entirely free of risk and should not be seen as a quick fix, unless these foreign companies invest in the future of outlets we all care about, those outlets will continue to lack the certainty and security they seek?

Media organisations desperately need investment to secure their modernisation and their future. It is really important that these historic or local titles, which we all value, are not something of the past but something of the future. Supporting the provision of high-quality, public-interest journalism is a priority for this Government; we need serious investment in order to support this sector to thrive and to meet the challenges of the future.

My Lords, I note that the strategic defence review lists “efforts to manipulate information” among the methods of attack in any future security crisis. Clearly, the question of foreign influence by hostile states—or “unfriendly” states; they may not necessarily be entirely hostile—is a real issue that the MoD is flagging up as important. We have seen that, in many companies, 15% is enough to ask for a representative on the board. When the Minister says “passive investment”, is she implying that the investment will come without any attempt at all to intervene in the direction of the newspaper?

If there were any attempt to intervene in the direction of the newspaper, the Secretary of State would, as I have mentioned, have a specific duty to intervene. We have followed the CMA guidance very closely; I ask your Lordships’ House to note that page 20 of the CMA’s jurisdiction and procedure guidance sets out how the CMA assesses whether material influence arises. Generally, the CMA views shareholdings of below 25% as

“less likely to confer material influence”,

but it may scrutinise shareholdings below this figure to consider whether there are factors that indicate material influence.

As I mentioned, though, we should all be explicitly clear that the foreign state influence regime gives the Secretary of State not just the ability to intervene but an explicit duty to do so: she must intervene and refer to the CMA for investigation merger cases that she suspects may have resulted, or may result, in foreign state control or influence over a newspaper enterprise’s policy.

My Lords, how on earth would the Secretary of State know whether a particular individual on a particular committee was influencing that newspaper?

The Secretary of State does not have to have all the evidence: it is for the CMA to investigate. The regime has a duty to intervene where she suspects that there may be influence. I am happy to provide further information to the noble and learned Baroness, or to meet her and others who have questions about this. The Secretary of State does not have to have material evidence; she just has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that this might be the case. If it were to be the case—for example, if a newspaper took a radically different position or there was a nuance change—it is likely she could intervene in that regard.

My Lords, in terms of media ownership, has the Minister seen that Nigel Farage has increased his shareholding in GB News and apparently has not declared it in his House of Commons declaration of interests? He also presents a programme regularly on GB News which is becoming a Reform UK propaganda organisation. Yet Ofcom is doing nothing about it. Can the Minister’s department ask Ofcom to take an interest in it?

I was not aware of the point that my noble friend raises. I will take that back to the department and write to him in due course.