§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he proposes to take regarding the future of The Observer newspaper.
§ The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit)None is required of me, unless a transfer of ownership falling within the scope of the Fair Trading Act 1973 is proposed. That Act provides that my consent is required to a transfer of a newspaper above a certain size to a newspaper proprietor. I may give my consent only after a reference to and report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, unless I am satisfied that the newspaper in question is uneconomic as a going concern, and either that the case is one of urgency or that it is not intended to continue it as a separate newspaper. I have received no application for any consent in relation to The Observer newspaper.
§ Mr. ShoreI note what the Secretary of State has said, but I am very sorry that he does not appear to share what I am sure is the widespread concern about the present threat to the future, and indeed the future independence, of The Observer newspaper, nor has he sought to deplore, as I would have expected him to do, the public display of the insolence of wealth and the arrogance of power that have accompanied that threat. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the statement made by his predecessor in July 1981 as a condition for the sale of The Observer that the editor
should not be subject to restraint in expressing opinion or reporting news that might conflict with the opinion or interests of the proprietors".Is he aware that it was the unanimous opinion of the five independent and specially appointed directors, following their meeting last Tuesday, that Mr. Rowland's attempt to muzzle and denigrate The Observer's editorconstituted an inhibition if not a restraint on the editor's freedom … they constitute improper proprietorial interference in the accurate presentation of news and the free expression of opinion"?Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that Mr. Rowland's further threats to close down — [Interruption.] This is important — to sell off, to withdraw advertising from, and to impose harsh new financial targets on, The Observer amount to a deliberate and massive effort further to coerce the editor and to deny him the free expression of his opinion?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under section 62 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, where a transfer of a newspaper subject to conditions has been made and where those conditions have been breached, the person concerned shall be guilty of an offence carrying with it on conviction imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both.
What action, if any — clearly the right hon. Gentleman is not without resource—does he intend to take to safeguard the editorial independence of The Observer?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain that, if any sale takes place to Mr. Maxwell or any other interest, conditions for safeguarding editorial freedom will be strengthened rather than weakened before his consent can be obtained?
§ Mr. TebbitIn the event that a transfer is proposed which comes within the provisions of the Act, it is likely that a reference may be made, as I explained, and then I shall take into consideration any comments that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission may make. But until such a matter arises the right hon. Gentleman's question is hypothetical.
The right hon. Gentleman may have misdirected himself on the other matters about which he worked himself up into something of a lather. First, he carefully did not quote in full, and omitted a vital part of, the statement of the independent directors of The Observer. I refer him to their statement, which says:
In our view under the terms of the memorandum of agreement dated 9 July 1981 they constitutethat is, the actions of Lonrho—improper proprietorial interference in the accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion.The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the memorandum of agreement dated 9 July 1981 is not made with or by or imposed by Her Majesty's Government. It is an agreement between Lonrho, the editor of The Observer, Outram Limited and the National Union of Journalists' chapel.The hon. Gentleman should further be aware that I am advised that there has not been a breach of the conditions of transfer. He will be aware that the condition of transfer was that certain arrangements should be made through the articles of association of the Observer Company Limited. Those articles of association have not been changed.
The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the agreements which were entered into make it plain that if the editor believes that he has a dispute concerning those matters his recourse is to the independent directors whose decision in such matters shall be final.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)Is the Secretary of State denying the extent to which his predecessor, now the Leader of the House, was involved in the setting up of the details of that agreement? Is it not apparent that the withdrawal by Lonrho of substantial amounts of advertising from The Observer is a deliberate attempt to negate the judgment of the independent directors that the freedom of the paper was being interferred with? Does he not therefore have a responsibility, dating from his predecessor's involvement, to ensure that those original conditions are satisfied?
§ Mr. TebbitI have a responsibility to ensure that the conditions of the consent are observed. That obligation I shall carry out. What the hon. Gentleman is confusing — as the right hon. Gentleman was confusing — are matters which are ancillary to the consent and are not directly part of the consent.
§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that should such a purchase take place the role of the independent directors would be maintained?
§ Mr. TebbitMy hon. Friend raises a hypothetical question. In the event that a proposal were made which fell within the terms of the 1973 Act, and in the event that a reference were made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, I would be bound to take into account the advice given to me by the commission. Until such events take place it would not be sensible for me to say what I would or would not do in such hypothetical circumstances.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Would it not help press freedom if the Secretary of State took this matter a little more seriously? Is it not a fact that Lonrho has broken the agreement made in 1981 that it would not interfere with the editorial judgment of the newspaper? Has not the row come about simply because the article carried by the editor clashed with the business interests of Lonrho? Does the Minister not recognise the seriousness of the position? Why does he not recognise the importance of the subject?
§ Mr. TebbitThe hon. Gentleman must not confuse the issue of whether I take these matters seriously with the question of what powers to act I have as Secretary of State. I have explained as carefully as I can what I am advised those powers are. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to tempt me, as Secretary of State, to become involved too deeply in matters concerning the balance between proprietors and editors of newspapers, he may subsequently regret offering me that temptation, particularly as I understand that a proposal has been mooted from time to time that there should be what is called a Labour newspaper whose principal objective would be to ensure that the proprietors made sure that the editor toed the party line.
§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)Does the Secretary of State agree that the editorial independence of The Observer should be protected from attacks by Mr. "Tiny" Rowland, the Attorney-General, who is seeking to prosecute the editor of The Observer, and she-elephant Mr. Robert Maxwell, who wants a knighthood and pretends that he is upset because The Observer has exposed the Prime Minister's conduct in Oman?
§ Mr. TebbitI am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should speak so harshly of a former parliamentary colleague and a most distinguished member of the Labour party. On the question of interference by Lonrho in the editorial policies of The Observer newspaper, I do not think that I can do better than quote from the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which said, at paragraph 8.40 on page 72:
In particular, Mr. Rowland assured us that, if he had to make a choice between bridling The Observer and risking other interests of Lonrho, he would not choose to impose limits on The Observer, 'whatever the cost'.It is open to anyone to have an opinion about whether that undertaking has been observed. It was to put the undertakings which were offered by Mr. Rowland into a firm form that the articles of association of The Observer newspaper were constructed in the way they were. That gave the independent directors of the newspaper the responsibility for observing these things. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ask for the Secretary of State to be responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of rows between a proprietor and an editor. The essential feature is that the editor is still the editor of the paper and that he is publishing what he likes. Although it has been said that threats have been made concerning the degree of subsidy which Lonrho is willing to give to The Observer newspaper, I understand that the directors of the newspaper have been asked to put up proposals for the continuing progress of the newspaper as a viable and profitable concern.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must protect the business of the House, and there is an important Bill to be debated.