In the end, it was watertight. A new law has been just voted through banning foreign powers from owning British newspapers and magazines – in whole or in part. Any influence has been banned; that means not even a 0.1 per cent stake for the United Arab Emirates or any other ‘foreign power’ in The Spectator, Daily Telegraph or any similar publication. Tina Stowell, the Tory baroness who led the debate, has withdrawn her Lords amendment and the Digital Markets Bill has passed its third reading with the government amendment accepted.
I expect that the UAE, which had hoped to add The Spectator and the Daily Telegraph to its list of British assets, has accepted parliament’s decision in letter and spirit and will now agree to a resumption of the sale process which was halted last December. It’s over.
I read somewhere that the thwarting of the UAE bid was somehow a victory for the ‘Tory establishment’. Tell that to George Osborne and Nadhim Zahawi, both former chancellors who were both working for the Emiratis in this deal. Tell that to David Cameron who was living in Abu Dhabi last year on a cushy lecture deal paid for by the UAE government. Tell that to Lord Dominic Johnson, who said that press freedom is an ‘sentimental’ concept (he just happened to have agreed the deal where the Emiratis offered £10 billion.
No: today we have seen a defence of the free press by parliament where backbenchers from all parties set the agenda and won the day. They forced the hand of a hamstrung and compromised government. Ministers, fearful of a judicial review, had treated the UAE bid as a technical matter when, in fact, it’s one of principle.
Success has many fathers – but Thangham Debonnaire, the Shadow Culture Secretary, moved the dial when she renewed Labour’s commitment to press freedom and declared herself against the UAE deal on principle. The Liberal Democrats were resolute, in the Lords and Commons. Even SNP members pointed out that it was obvious madness to let foreign powers buy national newspapers. This was a real cross-party consensus acting in defence of an important democratic principle.
No democracy anywhere in the world has allowed a national newspaper to be bought by the government of another country
Julia Lopez, the media minister, declared in January supports ‘a free media, not interfered with by government – or governments’. But the law, then, offers no protection. Lopez may say this, but the deal could not be blocked on this basis. The law only allows a media takeover to be blocked on competition grounds, hence the pointless Ofcom referral. The Emiratis persisted, thinking the law was on their side and that they’d win in the end. They were probably right. What happened today was that the Lords demanded – and were given – a change in the law.
A free press means freedom from government: there is no other definition. This had not been defined by law, as it never needed to be: no democracy anywhere in the world has allowed a national newspaper to be bought by the government of another country. The UAE, seeking to buy soft power, wanted to test the limits. Today, they found them. Parliament has today shown autocracies what money can’t buy.
This is how parliament is supposed to work. This is the whole idea of a second chamber filled with people who have made their names or see politics as a stepping stone. They are free to speak on principle, free to introduce laws, when needed – whether the government likes it or not.
Rishi Sunak has been as good as his word: after a weekend wobble there was, in the end, no fudge. A clear and robust law and one that I suspect will set a precedent not just for Britain but the democratic world. American congressmen should be alarmed by news, out today that the Qatari royal family has taken a $50 million stake in Newsmax: this is part of precisely the same menace.
The principle at stake here is that the free press is not just a business: it is part of any country’s democratic apparatus. And in an era of acquisitive autocracies, this needs to be protected. If the cash-hungry government cannot see that, or is so anxious for investment that it won’t act, than parliament can. The Lords, rather than be a sleepy second chamber, was where the action took place.
Britain’s tradition of free freedom is as fragile as it is crucial. It often comes close to being extinguished: by regulatory threat or, in this instance, autocratic acquisition. But thanks to the Stowell amendment and parliament’s revolt, our 300-year-old tradition of a free press is set to carry on for some time yet.
Parliament has defended press freedom
2
0
26.03.2024
In the end, it was watertight. A new law has been just voted through banning foreign powers from owning British newspapers and magazines – in whole or in part. Any influence has been banned; that means not even a 0.1 per cent stake for the United Arab Emirates or any other ‘foreign power’ in The Spectator, Daily Telegraph or any similar publication. Tina Stowell, the Tory baroness who led the debate, has withdrawn her Lords amendment and the Digital Markets Bill has passed its third reading with the government amendment accepted.
I expect that the UAE, which had hoped to add The Spectator and the Daily Telegraph to its list of British assets, has accepted parliament’s decision in letter and spirit and will now agree to a resumption of the sale process which was halted last December. It’s over.
I read somewhere that the thwarting of the UAE bid was somehow a victory for the ‘Tory establishment’. Tell that to George Osborne and Nadhim Zahawi, both former chancellors who were both working for the Emiratis in this deal. Tell that to David Cameron who was living in Abu Dhabi last year on a cushy lecture deal paid for by the UAE........
© The Spectator
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
