House of Lords voted to approved foreign government investors to own 15% of UK newspapers.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
House of Lords 22.07.25
My Lords, I hope to be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has just spoken and who knows that I have enormous respect for him, that the safeguards are not good enough and that he should reconsider before we get to a vote on this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, at the end of his remarks, commented about Fraser Nelson’s article this morning. It is a long article, but I will just read a sentence from it:
“But the Emiratis and others are using their state investment vehicles as levers of political power.That is the democratic threat. It is one that Parliament has protected us from, but that protection is now compromised.”
That is why we are here today.
None of us speaking in this debate wants eagerly to support a fatal amendment. I, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others have not supported fatal amendments on any kind of regular basis, but this is an extraordinary set of regulations that we are being asked to approve and these are extraordinary times. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, and others who have expressed opinions outside your Lordships’ Chamber, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I have arrived at the same conclusion, albeit reluctantly.
One of those others is the former leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Iain Duncan Smith. For the record, I remind the House that Sir Iain and I, along with five other parliamentarians including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, have been sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party regime. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, suggested in a curtain-raiser at the end of his remarks, I will talk about the influence it is seeking to exert in this country and beyond.
Let us be clear: these regulations fundamentally contradict the intentions of Parliament expressed just months ago, as we have heard, in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. That Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, reminded us, was underpinned by overwhelming cross-party consensus that foreign Governments must not own or influence our press. As Fraser Nelson points out, influence is the issue here. Yet these draft regulations, hastily brought forward, would allow precisely that.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, with whom I am grateful to have had conversations outside the House, that the defects should have been ironed out beforehand and that we should not be asked to agree these regulations today in the expectation that there will be amendments in the autumn. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the importance of new primary legislation. That is how the House should do it, not through these unamendable regulations and orders, as we have been reminded.
As we have heard, we are being asked to agree something that permits multiple foreign state investors to acquire up to 15% of a UK newspaper without, as it stands, cumulative limits—a defect in these regulations that will not be addressed until the autumn. That is not a safeguard but a revolving door through which foreign interest may reach into the heart of our democratic discourse. And for what? It is to facilitate one single deal.
The timing is no coincidence.
We are being asked to rewrite press freedom protections not for principle but for expediency. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said when she kindly invited me to meet her last Thursday that she cannot comment on who the sources of the funding are or on whether RedBird’s bid is fully funded and ready to go. So much for the transparency to which we are entitled before coming to a conclusion on these issues.
I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, that the proposed acquisition of the Telegraph Media Group by RedBird Capital Partners is not merely a commercial transaction but a matter of national interest and democratic integrity.
To be clear, the chairman of RedBird, John Thornton, is a board member of Chinese state-backed companies including Lenovo and the China Investment Corporation. He has openly advocated for China to “get into” English language media. By the way, he has received the PRC’s highest honour for foreigners—from a regime accused by the House of Commons of genocide in Xinjiang and which has incarcerated over 1,000 pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong, including Jimmy Lai, the British national who has been such a champion of media freedom and paid such a price for it. Let us not forget: the CCP has long understood that controlling the narrative is as vital as controlling the army.
Zhao Qizheng, a senior Chinese official, put it bluntly in saying that they
“need to … try to dominate the overseas media. Our goal is to have the overseas media follow our steps”.
According to the Centre for European Policy Analysis, China spends up to $10 billion annually on international propaganda. That is not soft power: it is sharp power, designed to erode trust, manipulate information and bend foreign societies toward the CCP’s interests.
With all we now know about the PRC’s global ambitions and influence operations, are we really prepared to allow a known intermediary of Beijing—a man described by Chinese state media as “a modern-day Kissinger”—to acquire a seat at the table of one of Britain’s most influential newspapers? To allow that would be the abdication of our duty to Parliament, democracy and the people we serve.
The Government argue that further regulations will come in the autumn to address this “cumulative” problem. This raises the obvious question: if the regulations are defective now—and they are—why not fix them now? On Thursday, I asked the Minister to withdraw them and do just that. Why rush them through with full knowledge of their flaws?
I also wish to use this opportunity briefly to make a formal representation to the Government. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, as amended by the DMCC Act 2024, the Secretary of State has a legal duty—not a discretion—to issue a foreign state intervention notice if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a foreign power may gain influence over a UK newspaper. Given the extensive ties between RedBird Capital Partners and the Chinese state, including Mr Thornton’s affiliations with PRC institutions and even co-investments with Chinese military-linked firms, there is clear evidence that meets the statutory threshold. Under Schedule 6B, even indirect influence or the ability to shape policy may suffice. Parliament’s intention in passing the DMCC Act was precisely to prevent this.
Therefore, the Secretary of State is bound by law to investigate and cannot lawfully ignore the risk of PRC-linked influence over the Telegraph Media Group. This position is supported by a legal opinion from Tom Cross KC, which I know the Minister has seen. I ask her to confirm whether that opinion will be formally considered and if the Secretary of State will now act.
Democracy dies not in thunder but in whispers. It dies when we look the other way and convince ourselves that 15% here and 15% there means nothing. It dies when influence becomes indistinguishable from ownership and when we abandon the courage to act in defence of a free press. Let us remember the words of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, during the passage of the digital markets Bill. He said that there should be a
“complete ban on any foreign Government having either ownership or influence over our press”.”.—[Official Report, 26/3/24; col. 588.]
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.
