N※N

House of Lords block attempt to limit foreign investment in UK papers

House of Lords Rejects Bid to Curb Foreign Ownership of British Newspapers Amid Telegraph Takeover Fears

In a dramatic turn of events in the upper chamber of the UK Parliament, the House of Lords has effectively blocked an attempt to impose strict limits on foreign investment in British newspapers. The move comes at a critical juncture, as concerns mount over a potential takeover of the Telegraph Media Group by a consortium backed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Peers had sought to amend the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill to prevent foreign governments from acquiring stakes in UK media outlets, but the proposal was withdrawn following government assurances of alternative measures. This development has sparked intense debate about press freedom, national security, and the influence of overseas powers in Britain's fourth estate.

The controversy centers on the proposed acquisition of the Telegraph newspapers and The Spectator magazine by RedBird IMI, a joint venture between US private equity firm RedBird Capital and International Media Investments (IMI), which is majority-owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE's vice president and owner of Manchester City Football Club. The £1.2 billion deal, announced last year, has raised alarms among politicians, journalists, and free speech advocates who fear it could compromise editorial independence and allow undue foreign influence over British public discourse. Critics argue that state-backed ownership from authoritarian regimes like the UAE, known for its restrictive media environment, poses a direct threat to democratic values.

During a heated session in the House of Lords, Conservative peer Baroness Stowell of Beeston led the charge for reform. As chair of the Communications and Digital Committee, she tabled an amendment that would explicitly ban foreign states from owning, influencing, or controlling British newspapers. Her proposal gained cross-party support, including from Labour's Lord Bassam of Brighton and Liberal Democrat Lord Clement-Jones, who co-signed the measure. Baroness Stowell emphasized the urgency, stating that the current regulatory framework is inadequate to safeguard against such takeovers. "The freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy," she argued in the debate. "Allowing foreign governments to buy into our newspapers risks eroding that freedom, potentially turning our media into tools of propaganda rather than independent watchdogs."

The amendment was not limited to the Telegraph bid but aimed to establish a broader principle. It would have required the Secretary of State to approve any merger or acquisition involving foreign state ownership, with a presumption against approval unless it could be proven not to harm public interest. Proponents highlighted precedents from other countries, such as France and the United States, where similar protections exist to shield media from foreign governmental control. Lord Bassam drew parallels to historical concerns over media moguls like Rupert Murdoch, but stressed that state ownership represents an even greater peril. "This isn't about xenophobia; it's about protecting our institutions from entities that don't share our commitment to free expression," he said.

However, the government, represented by Culture Minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, resisted the amendment, arguing that it could disrupt the bill's primary focus on digital competition and consumer rights. Lord Parkinson assured peers that the government is "alive to the concerns" and is considering its own interventions. He revealed that ministers are exploring options under existing laws, including the Enterprise Act 2002, which allows intervention in mergers on public interest grounds such as media plurality and national security. "We are committed to ensuring that any foreign investment does not undermine the integrity of our press," Lord Parkinson stated. He hinted at forthcoming announcements, possibly including a public interest intervention notice (PIIN) that could trigger a deeper investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Ofcom, the media regulator.

Faced with these assurances, Baroness Stowell reluctantly withdrew her amendment, but not without a stern warning. "I am doing so on the understanding that the government will act decisively," she said. "If they fail to do so, we will revisit this issue at the report stage." This withdrawal averts an immediate clash but leaves the door open for future battles. The bill, which has already passed the Commons, is now progressing through the Lords, with further debates expected in the coming weeks.

The backdrop to this parliamentary skirmish is the ongoing saga of the Telegraph's ownership. The newspaper group was put up for sale after Lloyds Banking Group seized control from the Barclay family over unpaid debts exceeding £1 billion. RedBird IMI stepped in with a proposal to repay the debts and take ownership, promising to maintain editorial independence through a so-called "golden share" structure. However, skepticism abounds. Former Telegraph editor Charles Moore, now a Conservative peer, has been vocal in his opposition, labeling the bid a "threat to British democracy." In a recent column, he wrote, "The UAE is not a free country; its rulers suppress dissent at home. Why should we trust them with our newspapers?"

Broader implications extend beyond the Telegraph. The case has reignited discussions about foreign investment in UK media more generally. For instance, the ownership of The Independent by Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev (father of Lord Lebedev) has previously drawn scrutiny, though it is not state-backed. Advocates for reform point to global trends, such as China's state media expansions and Russia's propaganda outlets, as cautionary tales. In the UK, the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics a decade ago recommended safeguards, but little has been implemented regarding foreign ownership.

Supporters of the RedBird IMI bid, including some business leaders, argue that foreign investment is essential for the struggling newspaper industry, which faces declining print revenues and digital disruptions. They contend that the UAE's involvement could inject much-needed capital, modernize operations, and ensure the Telegraph's survival. RedBird IMI has repeatedly assured that editorial decisions would remain independent, with an advisory board overseeing any potential interference.

Yet, public and political pressure is mounting. A petition against the takeover has garnered thousands of signatures, and MPs from across the spectrum have called for action. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has remained tight-lipped, but sources suggest the government is wary of alienating the UAE, a key ally in trade and security matters post-Brexit. The UK-UAE relationship has deepened in recent years, with billions in investments flowing both ways, including in renewable energy and defense.

As the bill moves forward, all eyes are on the government's next steps. If a PIIN is issued, it could lead to a prolonged review, potentially derailing the deal. Alternatively, if the bid proceeds unchecked, it might set a precedent for further foreign encroachments. Baroness Stowell and her allies have vowed to keep fighting, possibly introducing a revised amendment later. "This is not over," she declared after the session. "The British press must remain British in spirit and control."

In the meantime, the Telegraph's staff and readers await clarity. The newspaper, a bastion of conservative commentary, has covered the story extensively, with opinion pieces decrying the bid as an assault on sovereignty. The outcome could reshape the landscape of UK media ownership, balancing economic necessities against the imperatives of democratic integrity. As one peer put it during the debate, "In an age of misinformation and geopolitical tensions, who owns the news matters more than ever."

This episode underscores the tensions at the heart of modern Britain: the pull of global capital versus the push to preserve national institutions. With the Lords' rejection of the amendment, the ball is now in the government's court. Will they intervene to block the UAE-backed bid, or allow it to proceed under safeguards? The answer could define the future of press freedom in the UK for generations to come. (Word count: 1,128)

Read the Full Daily Mail Article at:
[ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14930751/House-Lords-block-attempt-limit-foreign-investment-British-newspapers.html ]