Ministers to face down opposition to Telegraph sale
The Government on Thursday confirmed that it will press ahead with a Lords vote next week that will decide whether foreign powers should be allowed to own up to 15pc of British newspapers.
The planned legislation is viewed as pivotal to ending the ownership uncertainty that has gripped The Telegraph for more than two years.
A proposed takeover led by the US private equity firm RedBird Capital is expected to include a passive stake of up to 15pc for IMI, a media company owned by the vice president of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
This week there has been determined lobbying for and against the legislation, which would ease an outright ban on foreign state shareholdings introduced last year.
Rumours have swirled in Parliament that Labour would abandon the vote over fear of a highly embarrassing defeat.
However, a spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: 'Tuesday's House of Lords debate on the Enterprise Act will go ahead as planned.'
Opposition to allowing foreign states to invest in newspapers has coalesced around a rare 'fatal motion' tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
The Conservative leadership is supporting the Government's plans, but a group of Tory rebels has gathered around Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who has called the proposed legislation 'a systemic threat to a free press'.
The plans could also face significant opposition from crossbench peers.
Lord Fox, the Lib Dem peer who tabled the fatal motion, said: 'We're working across the House to make sure we do everything we can to stand up to the Government's plan to sell out British press freedoms.
'Foreign states have no place in the UK's newsrooms. The Government should never have brought forward the legislation – but there's a growing group of peers from across the political spectrum who believe it can, and should, be stopped.
'This vote is about protecting a keystone of British democracy. I'm calling on peers to come together across the House and vote this dangerous legislation down.'
If approved by a majority of peers, the fatal motion would block the legislation and force the Government to rethink. Such votes are supported very rarely by peers as they spark arguments about the power of the unelected chamber.
MPs have already approved stakes of up to 15pc for foreign powers. Earlier this month, the Commons voted in favour of the plans by 338 votes to 79. Almost all the votes against it were Lib Dems.
RedBird's planned takeover of The Telegraph is expected to include a passive minority stake for IMI, as well as minority stakes for the Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere and Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the owner of the major record label Warner Music.
IMI had previously sought to be the majority backer of a takeover of The Telegraph alongside RedBird. It was blocked last year following a cross-party outcry, a decision that caused a serious diplomatic rift between Britain and the UAE.
The Lib Dems have argued that foreign states should be allowed to own no more than 5pc of a British newspaper, as was originally proposed by the Conservatives when they were in power and blocked the IMI-funded takeover of The Telegraph.
This week the Government sought to head off some of the opposition to its proposals by publishing plans to close a loophole.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
4 minutes ago
- BBC News
Blairs' discount designer clothes deal caused No 10 concern, files show
Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife Cherie received tens of thousands of pounds in discounts on designer clothing while in Downing Street, documents July 2001 and December 2002, Mrs Blair bought clothes worth more than £75,000 – equivalent to £150,000 today – but paid just £31,000 for them, newly released papers from the National Archives Street officials were worried these benefits would have to be declared under a new ministerial code, which was then coming into effect, and advised the Blairs to repay thousands of is not clear from the papers if this happened. From fashion designer Nicole Farhi alone, Mrs Blair bought clothes worth nearly £21,000 for herself and the prime minister, paying just over £8, also had substantial discounts from Burberry, James Lakeland, Ungaro, Joseph, and Maria Grachvogel, amongst "wholesale" discounts had been negotiated by Carole Caplin, Mrs Blair's trainer and personal Tony, who was prime minister between 1997 and 2007, also benefited from a 25% discount from Paul Smith, famous for his freshly released documents reveal how the optics of the discounts and spending was a concern for Downing Street officials at the time."In terms of public perception," wrote No 10 private secretary Clare Sumner, "the amounts involved are quite large".Along with the cabinet secretary, she recommended that the Blairs should pay back part of the discount, though Cherie was entitled to divide her purchases into two, on the basis that half the clothes were required for her role as a "career woman".They would say the Blairs had "commercial terms" from the designers, which were usually a discount of about 10 or 15%.She suggested other options, including saying that Mrs Blair had the same treatment as other high profile individuals with a personal shopper, and that she needed the clothes for public engagements of her said Mrs Blair sometimes gave her outfits to charities or exhibitions after use: "So it is difficult to see how anyone could seriously allege she is acquiring a clear personal benefit out of your position as PM." According to the memo, the discounts had been in place for several years, and dated back to before Sir Tony was prime Tony himself scrawled "Speak to me" on the memo, dated 19 February 2003. Later that day, Mrs Blair spoke to Ms note to the cabinet secretary, dated 4 March 2003, says Mrs Blair agreed to speak to Paddy Campbell, Paul Smith and Nicole Farhi to "ask them to set out in writing their terms of trade, confirm that these terms are available to others (with personal shoppers or as individuals) and to provide an estimate of the numbers of people who bought their clothes in a similar way".She would also confirm that "confidentiality agreements" were in place with these intent was to "satisfy" Sir Andrew Turnbull, the cabinet secretary, that "no preferential treatment had been given".There is no mention of gifts of clothes discounts in the ministerial gift list in the file – which was published on 14 March behalf of the Blairs, the Tony Blair Institute said: " We have nothing to add to what has already been disclosed which shows that advice was sought and followed." As prime minister, Sir Tony received some extremely generous presents from famous people and world leaders.U2 lead singer Bono had given him a guitar – as had Bryan Berlusconi, the then Italian prime minister, offered multiple designer watches, including timepieces from Piaget, Corum, Jaeger-Coultre, and prime minister asked Ms Sumner to make the list "more boring" – so the published version did not include the type of watch, which can retail at many thousands of pounds wrote: "I have taken out details of individuals, removed the valuations for all items except those which have been purchased and minimised the descriptions of items."The concern over discounted clothes has similarities with criticism faced by Sir Keir Starmer and his wife. Last year he accepted more than £18,000 for spectacles and work clothing from the Labour peer Lord Alli, who also paid for some clothes for Sir Keir's wife Victoria worth just over £6,000.
Sky News
19 minutes ago
- Sky News
Pressure grows to leave 'mad' Aarhus Convention used to block UK building projects
Pressure is growing to renegotiate or leave an international convention blamed for slowing building projects and increasing costs after a judge warned campaigners they are in danger of "the misuse of judicial review". Under the Aarhus Convention, campaigners who challenge projects on environmental grounds but then lose in court against housing and big infrastructure have their costs above £10,000 capped and the rest met by the taxpayer. Government figures say this situation is "mad" but ministers have not acted, despite promising to do so for months. The Tories are today leading the call for change with a demand to reform or leave the convention. In March, Sky News revealed how a computer scientist from Norfolk had challenged a carbon capture and storage project attached to a gas-fired power station on multiple occasions. Andrew Boswell took his challenge all the way the appeal court, causing delays of months at a cost of over £100m to the developers. In May, the verdict handed down by the Court of Appeal was scathing about Dr Boswell's case. "Dr Boswell's approach is, we think, a classic example of the misuse of judicial review in order to continue a campaign against a development… once a party has lost the argument on the planning merits," wrote the judges. They added: "Such an approach is inimical to the scheme enacted by parliament for the taking of decisions in the public interest," adding his case "betrays a serious misunderstanding of the decision of the Supreme Court" and "the appeal must therefore be rejected". Another case - against a housing development in a series of fields in Cranbrook, Kent - was thrown out by judges in recent weeks. The case was brought by CPRE Kent, the countryside challenge, to preserve a set of fields between two housing developments alongside an area of outstanding natural beauty. John Wotton, from CPRE Kent, suggested it would have been hard to bring the challenge without the costs being capped. "We would've had to think very carefully about whether we could impose that financial risk on the charity," he told Sky News. After his case was dismissed, Berkeley Homes said the situation was "clearly absurd and highlights how incredibly slow and uncertain our regulatory system has become". They added: "We welcome the government's commitment to tackle the blockages which stop businesses from investing and frustrate the delivery of much needed homes, jobs and growth. "We need to make the current system work properly so that homes can actually get built instead of being tied-up in bureaucracy by any individual or organisation who wants to stop them against the will of the government." 'Reform could breach international law' Around 80 cases a year are brought under the Aarhus Convention, Sky News has learned. The way Britain interprets Aarhus is unique as a result of the UK's distinctive legal system and the loser pays principle. Barrister Nick Grant, a planning and environment expert who has represented government and campaigns, said the convention means more legally adventurous claims. "What you might end up doing is bringing a claim on more adventurous grounds, additional grounds, running points - feeling comfortable running points - that you might not have otherwise run. "So it's both people bringing claims, but also how they bring the claims, and what points they run. This cap facilitates it basically." However, Mr Grant said that it would be difficult to reform: "Fundamentally, the convention is doing what it was designed to do, which is to facilitate access to justice. "And it then becomes a question for the policymakers as to what effect is this having and do we want to maintain that? It will be difficult for us to reform it internally without being in breach of our international law obligations" In March, Sky News was told Number 10 is actively looking at the convention. Multiple figures in government have said the situation with Britain's participation in the Aarhus Convention is "mad" but Sky News understands nothing of significance is coming on this subject. The Tories, however, want action. Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary and former housing minister, said the Tories would reform or leave the convention. He told Sky News: "I think the country faces a choice. Do we want to get the economy firing on all cylinders or not? "We've got to reform the planning system and we've got to ensure that judicial review... is not used to gum up the system and this convention is clearly one of the issues that has to be addressed. "We either reform it, if that's possible. I'm very sceptical because accords like this are very challenging and it takes many many years to reform them. "If that isn't possible, then we absolutely should think about leaving because what we've got to do is put the interest of the British public first." Mr Jenrick also attacked the lawyers who work on Aarhus cases on behalf of clients. "A cottage industry has grown. In fact, it's bigger than a cottage industry," he said.
Sky News
26 minutes ago
- Sky News
The wealth tax options Reeves could take to ease her fiscal bind
Faced with a challenging set of numbers, the chancellor is having to make difficult choices with political consequences. Tax rises and spending cuts are a hard sell. Now, some in her party are calling for a different approach: target the wealthy. Is there a way out of all of this for the chancellor? Economic growth is disappointing and spending pressures are mounting. The government was already examining ways to raise revenue when, earlier this month, Labour backbenchers forced the government to abandon welfare cuts and reinstate winter fuel payments - blowing a £6bn hole in the budget. The numbers are not adding up for Rachel Reeves, who is steadfastly committed to her fiscal rules. Short of more spending cuts, her only option is to raise taxes - taxes that are already at a generational high. For some in her party - including Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, the solution is simple: introduce a new tax. They say a flat wealth tax, targeting those with assets above £10m, could raise £12bn for the public purse. Yet, the government is reportedly reluctant to pursue such a path. It is not convinced that wealth taxes will work. The evidence base is shaky and the debate over the efficacy of these types of taxes has divided the economics community. 1:16 Why are we talking about wealth? Wealth taxes are in the headlines but calls for this type of reform have been growing for some time. Proponents of the change point to shifts in our economy that will be obvious to most people living in Britain: work does not pay in the way it used to. At the same time wealth inequality has risen. The stock of wealth - that is the total value of everything owned - is much larger than our income, that is the total amount of money earned in a year. That disparity has been growing, especially during that era of low interest rates after 2008 that fuelled asset prices, while wages stagnated. It means the average worker will have to work for more years to buy assets, say a house, for example. Left-wing politicians and economists argue that instead of putting more pressure on workers - marginal income tax rates are as high as 70% for some workers - the government should instead target some of this accumulated wealth in order to balance the books. 2:19 The Inheritocracy At the heart of it all is a very straightforward argument about fairness. Few will argue that there aren't problems with the way our economy is functioning: that it is unfair that young people are struggling to buy homes and raise families. Proponents of a wealth tax say that it would not only raise revenue but create a fairer tax system. They argue that the wealth distortions are creating a divided society, where people's outcomes are determined by their inheritances. The gap is large. A typical 50-year old born to the poorest 20% of parents in the UK is already worth just a quarter of what someone born to the richest 20% of parents is worth at that age. This is before they inherit anything when their parents die. A lot of money is passed on earlier; for example, people may have had help buying their first home. That gap widens when the inheritance is passed on. This is when inheritance tax, one of the existing wealth taxes we have in the UK, kicks in. However, its impact in addressing that imbalance is negligible. Most people don't meet the threshold to pay it. The government could bring more people into the tax but it is already a deeply unpopular policy. 1:51 Alternatives So what other options could they explore? Lord Kinnock recently suggested a new tax on the stock of wealth - one to two percent on assets over £10m. That could raise between £12bn and £24bn. When making the case for the tax, Lord Kinnock told Sky News: "That kind of levy does two things. One is to secure resources, which is very important in revenues. "But the second thing it does is to say to the country, 'we are the government of equity'. This is a country which is very substantially fed up with the fact that whatever happens in the world, whatever happens in the UK, the same interests come out on top unscathed all the time while everybody else is paying more for getting services." However, there is a lot of scepticism about some of these numbers. Wealthier people tend to be more mobile and adept at arranging their tax affairs. Determining the value of their assets can be a challenge. In Downing Street, the fear is that they will simply leave, rendering the policy a failure. Policymakers are already fretting that a recent crackdown on non-doms will do the same. Critics point to countries where wealth taxes have been tried and repealed. Proponents say we should learn from their mistakes and design something better. Some say the government could start by improving existing taxes, such as capital gains tax - which people pay when they sell a second property or shares, for example. The Labour government has already raised capital gains tax rates but bringing them in line with income tax could raise £12bn. Then there is the potential for National Insurance contributions on investment income - such as rent from property or dividends. Estimates suggest that could bring in another £11bn. This is nothing to sniff at for a chancellor who needs to find tens of billions of pounds in order to balance her books. By the same token, she is operating on such fine margins that she can't afford to get the calculation wrong. There is no easy way out of this fiscal bind for Rachel Reeves. Whether wealth taxes are the solution or not, hers is a government that has promised reform and creative thinking. The tax system would be a good place to start.
