Britain’s Parliament has protected press freedom

In a landmark ruling for press freedom in Britain, the UK government has moved to outlaw ownership of national newspapers and magazines by foreign powers. The text of the proposed new law has not been published but it would appear to rule out any Emirati ownership — in whole or in part — of the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator. The move came after backbenchers in the Lords and Commons gathered in such numbers that, had the government not acted, Parliament would have done. It’s a case study of democracy at work.

Tina Stowell, a backbench Conservative peer, organized an amendment in the House of Lords to be voted on on Wednesday — galvanizing the debate. Politicians from all parties rallied to argue that ownership of the press by government — any government — is incompatible with press freedom. Robert Jenrick ended up with close to 150 Tories willing to rebel in the Commons if Stowell’s amendment passed in the Lords. The balance was tilted by Thangham Debonnaire, the shadow culture secretary, who said Labour believed that, on a point of principle, governments cannot own publications. This made it politically impossible for the Conservatives to keep considering the Emirati deal, given the depth and breadth of political opposition.

A free press means freedom from government: it’s fundamental to our democratic apparatus

The new proposal is that a “foreign state intervention notice” will allow British ministers to block or unwind purchase of national news provider by a foreign power. Importantly, the definition of “foreign power” would be expanded to include people like Sheikh Mansour who is providing most of the money for the bid. RedBird had insisted that he is acting in a private capacity.

Baroness Stowell withdrew her amendment when the government relented, but said that she may bring it back on March 26 (the third reading of the Digital Markets Bill) if loopholes are discovered in the text that’s eventually published.

But there is a remaining question: whether the Emirati government would be able to buy influence by keeping a minority stake. My understanding is that ministers don’t intend to leave any loopholes and intend to outlaw this. They’d do it in such a way that it doesn’t, for example, force the Norwegian State Pension Fund to sell a 2 percent stake in the Daily Mail.

My sense is that even George Osborne (who is advising the Emiratis) will be able to read the mood of Parliament, not seek a way to fudge this. As Charles Moore said in the Lords, this is not a technical issue that can be resolved by non-voting shares or minority stakes: this is a principled declaration that foreign powers cannot own UK media in whole or in part. Lord Robertson, a Labour peer and former secretary-general of NATO, made the point: this is about national security. “There is a very significant principle involved at this point,” he said. “There is no provision in the legal framework of this country at the moment that prevents a foreign government from gaining control or ownership of our media outlets.” Michael Forsyth, who has made much of the running, said he knows of “no democratic country which would allow a foreign state to take ownership of key national newspapers.” This goes for a minority stake.

The Liberal Democrats were ready, said Tim Clement-Jones. “On these benches, we wholly support the noble Baroness Stowell’s amendment. It is extraordinary that we don’t have this already on the statute books, given the importance of pluralism and freedom of speech in our media. The thought of foreign governments impacting our media in the way that it being threatened currently seems, to me, extraordinary.”

Steve Bassam, Labour’s media spokesman in the Lords, said it “might seem to some people as being slightly ironic that we on the Labour benches are trying to come to the rescue of the Daily Telegraph. But there is a much more important principle at stake here and it’s an obvious point to start, but let me just begin with first principles. Labour believes in a free and fair press without state interference.” Not so long ago, I’d have given a horse laugh to that. But I have to say, Debbonaire has made me think twice. Labour has been every bit as good as its word on this front.

“Of course money talks,” said Forsyth. “And ownership does matter. It’s one of the very few things I disagree with Mrs. Thatcher tended to be of the view that ownership didn’t matter. Ownership does matter and the freedom of the press should never be up for sale.” Veronica Wadley, Baroness Fleet, also pointed to the danger of allowing a minority stake. “It is now suggested that to avoid a blanket ban on this purchase, the Abu Dhabi government would be content with a minority stake. My Lords, allowing that would also endanger the Telegraph.”

All told, it seems something quite important happened on Wednesday. Caught in the legalistic minutiae of the bid referral process, the Sunak government felt it could not pass any comment — so it fell to others to make the point. A free press means freedom from government: it’s fundamental to our democratic apparatus. And on Wednesday, we saw backbench peers and MPs from all parties move to defend the principle of the free press. In this way, Parliament moved to protect Britain’s democratic apparatus at a time when government was unwilling or unable to do so.

This battle is not over — and won’t be, until we see the text of the government amendment. But for now, the backbenchers in the Lords and in the Commons have shown that the principle of a free press is still valued — and on Wednesday, it was defended. 

This article was originally published on The Spectator’s UK website.