"Today" Newspaper: Future (Hansard, 1 July 1987)

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships' House, I should like to make a Statement about the future of the Today newspaper.
Under the Fair Trading Act 1973 my consent is required for all newspaper mergers which concentrate into the hands of one newspaper proprietor newspapers having a paid-for circulation of 500,000 per issue. My consent cannot normally be given without a report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I can, however, give consent without such a report where I am satisfied that the newspaper concerned in the transfer is not economic and a going concern, is to continue as a separate newspaper, and that the case is one of urgency.
254 I have received such an application for the transfer of the Today newspaper from Lonrho plc to News International plc. I am satisfied that this application meets the criteria I have outlined, and taking account of all the relevant circumstances it is right for me to give my consent to it. I have accordingly consented to the transfer.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for making that Statement to the House, I must first of all declare a relatively minor interest, in that both Mirror Group Newspapers and BPCC, who were also bidders for the Today newspaper, are clients of mine. I also have to explain on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel that he did not feel able to stand at the Dispatch Box today because he is a director of Mirror Group Newspapers and of Pergamon Press, whereas my interest is relatively minor.
Will the Minister accept that it is the consistent view of Her Majesty's Opposition that this matter ought to have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? All such matters should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if the intention of the Act is to be complied with. In what circumstances does the Minister think that we can restrict the growing concentration of power in the newspaper industry of this country? Newspapers are nearly all of one political persuasion, and not of our political persuasion. The Act must he enforced and matters such as this must be referred.
The Minister has no doubt taken full account of the legal implications of his decision and I have no doubt that he is legally correct in the Statement. Can he tell the House how we are to preserve the freedom of the press above all from the concentration of power of newspaper magnates unless we stand firm on this principle?

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement on this matter. Perhaps I may ask him whether he really believes it is in the interests of this country that News International, which at present has 40 per cent. of the national daily sales, should acquire control of yet another paper? News International is controlled not by a British citizen but by an American citizen. Does the Minister think that is in the interests of this country in the circumstances?
Is the Minister also aware that the same man also controls a satellite which will have considerable impact on this country? Does he have any evidence to persuade us that handing over this additional paper to News International will raise journalistic standards in this country—the standards of impartiality which noble Lords on the opposite side of this House have been so insistent upon in the past few days for television but which they appear totally to neglect where they affect the press?
Does the Minister consider that the record of News International, at the top end of the market with The Times and at the bottom end of the market with the Sun, has raised journalistic standards in this country? Does he therefore think that this change will be to the advantage of journalism in this country? Does he also believe that yet another devoted supporter of the 255 Conservative Party in the national press is in the best interests of political discourse in this country? Does he further think that he should have been asked to make up his mind by four o'clock today?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. This is of course a matter in which my position is regulated by the Fair Trading Act 1973. I have to be satisfied that the newspaper itself is not economic as a going concern—and I have been so satisfied—that it will continue as a separate newspaper and that the case is one of urgency. The case is not one of urgency just because there was a particular deadline, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, seemed to feel, but because I was satisfied in the circumstances that the newspaper would not have continued in existence if there had been a reference. In those circumstances I took my powers as they exist under the Act and exercised them in favour of the continuance of Today as a newspaper.
Other matters have been raised where noble Lords opposite agree or disagree with the contents of newspapers and with journalistic standards, but those are matters purely for them. They are not matters for me because they are entirely outside my discretion and I believe I have exercised my power correctly.

§ Lord Ardwick
My Lords, perhaps I ought to declare an interest as a humble pensioner of the Mirror Group. I wonder if the noble Lord is aware that C. P. Scott, the owner-editor of the Manchester Guardian, put it in a nutshell when he said that a newspaper is a business but it is a business unlike any other business. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether this means that a multi-newspaper owner can freely buy any national newspaper provided it is not making a profit and that he can go on indefinitely adding to his quasi-monopoly. I should like also to ask whether in this case any safeguards have been agreed to protect editorial freedom.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords. I hope your Lordships will appreciate that what I am doing is consenting to an application for a transfer from one newspaper proprietor to another. If I read my morning newspapers correctly, as I have read them over the past few days, it might well have been that yet another name would come up this afternoon. In similar circumstances I suspect I would not have heard quite the same comments as I have heard from noble Lords opposite. That is a matter for them to decide, but we shall have to see.
Within the test of this particular section I have applied the test properly. I am satisfied that the newspaper is not economic as a going concern and I am satisfied that it will continue as a separate newspaper with a separate editor. I am also satisfied that the case is one of urgency.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, the only interest I declare is an interest in the proper working of 256 parliamentary government. If Parliament in its wisdom gives discretion to the Minister to make a decision on these matters instead of automatically sending them to the commission, it expects him to use that discretion. No one will object in this case that my noble friend has used his real view without fear or favour. It would be a departure from proper parliamentary procedure if he did anything different.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, I find the Secretary of State's answer most disturbing. Those of us who regard competition policy as the central issue in this field and who have had some experience in these matters are fully aware that it is always a matter of urgency. That is one of the tricks of the trade. I am disturbed that a senior and powerful Minister such as the Secretary of State in a government with a strong majority should already have been pushed into a matter which I believe is a matter of principle. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier, it ought to go to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The point which disturbs me most of all is: in what circumstances would such a matter ever get to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and be properly analysed? The case is always going to be made that the matter is urgent, that the paper is going to go out of business, and one ends up with a disturbing concentration of power. It has nothing to do with the politics of the matter and nothing to do with the owners; it is the concentration of power and it is a competition policy issue. I am extremely disappointed at the speed with which the Secretary of State has acted in this case.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I wonder how many of your Lordships would have been disappointed if other circumstances had prevailed. I must tell your Lordships that the board of Lonrho confirmed by way of a formal resolution that if the application for consent were referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the paper would be closed forthwith. In those circumstances, I judged it right to exercise my discretion in the way that I did.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the answers he has given to the questions that I and others have put to him. I am particularly interested in his last answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because in reply to my question the noble Lord said that the deadline of 4 o'clock today was a matter of no importance. He is now saying that the threat of closing the newspaper was a factor that led him to his conclusion. I want to put a rather wider question to him. In the case of other newspapers which have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission it has insisted, in the public interest, that an independent board be appointed to maintain that newspaper's independence. We may or may not believe that those independent boards have been effective, but in this case does not the noble Lord think that he has a duty to protect the public interest and to see that the newspaper's independence is preserved under its new ownership?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I mentioned the deadline because the noble Lord mentioned 4 o'clock and I wished to point out that there was no deadline by hour but that there was urgency if the newspaper were to continue. In those circumstances, I judged it right that consent be given unconditionally because Today is a relatively new newspaper; its circulation in relation to that of other national dailies is fairly small and there is therefore no reason to impose conditions in this case.

§ Lord Ardwick
My Lords, are we to take it that there were no editorial safeguards at all?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I have already said that I have imposed no conditions in this case. I have of course heard from the intended purchaser that it intends to keep the newspaper separate with a separate editor, but I have imposed no conditions.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, was the noble Lord's decision made as a result of the threat to close the paper, which many of us would regard as sheer, unadulterated blackmail, or was there a proper investigation into the viability of the newspaper? If the latter, how long did it take? How long did the Government's investigation take? How many hours? When did it begin and when did it end?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I have today announced the result of the exercise of my discretion. I do not think that it would be proper for me to go into the detailed reasoning behind it at great length.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, in answer to a supplementary question, the noble Lord implied that there were Members of this House who would have felt differently about the matter if another bidder had been successful in the hid for this newspaper. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Opposition's view would have been exactly the same had the successful bidder been Mr. Robert Maxwell; and that we are opposed to the concentration of power in the newspaper industry regardless of who the bidder is. I hope that he will recognise that that is the view of all Members of the Opposition and that we show no fear or favour in this matter as between one newspaper proprietor and another.
The question still remains: how has the noble Lord satisfied himself that there were no other appropriate bids for the Today newspaper? We read in this morning's newspaper that the proprietors of Sunday Sport were prepared to make a bid but that Lonrho would not talk to them. Under those circumstances, how can it be said that Lonrho behaved honourably in forcing this deadline by saying that the Today newspaper would close, when it was not willing to listen to bids from other people? How can the Minister he satisfied that all the procedures into which he should go before making such a decision have been gone into? In my earlier question I said that I did not question the legality of what he said. I seriously question the propriety of it in the light of the concentration of power in the newspaper industry.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, this is happening in a free society. My responsibility is to consider an application for the transfer of the Today newspaper from its present owner to a new owner. It is not for me to determine whether there was fair and open competition among a number of other proprietors. Presumably a willing bargain was made between two parties. For all I know, another application may be sent to me this afternoon or tomorrow. This matter may or may not proceed. All I have to do is look at the circumstances as they apply in this case and at the application from Lonrho to sell the Today newspaper to News International plc. I am satisfied that I am within my discretion under the Act. I have exercised my discretion. My remarks were not in reply to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but other comments were made in your Lordships' House about journalistic content and other matters. Those are not matters which apply in this instance.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, the noble Lord must accept that he has not answered the questions put by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter or the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. During this discussion he has merely fallen back again and again on saying that he has exercised his powers. Surely he recognises that it is the job of the Opposition to probe the exercise of those powers. That is what we have been attempting to do. The Minister has given us no satisfaction in the exercise of our duties as the Opposition.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, but the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and other noble Lords are not relevant in this case. I have to look at an application that comes before me from the proprietor of a newspaper and the intended purchaser of a newspaper. I have to look to see whether the newspaper involved is economical and a going concern, whether it will continue as a separate newspaper and whether the matter is urgent. It may well be that in another world people would have wanted to debate this matter for the days, weeks or months that the referral would have taken, but then I suspect that the newspaper may not have been in existence.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, may I put another point of view on this difficult issue to the Minister? Is he aware that I have had a great deal of experience of having a pistol put to my head at about 4.30 p.m. on a Friday for further government funds to meet that week's wages, and that that is a normal ploy? Would the Minister have preferred to have taken more time if he had not judged the matter to be of such urgency? Further, did he reach his conclusion on his expectation of what future circumstances would be in six or 12 months? If that is so, would it not be reasonable for the Minister, if not attaching conditions, to have some form of monitoring as to what happens after he has given his consent, because otherwise, as the House clearly fears, all the paraphernalia about the protection given by the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and 259 Mergers Commission will mean absolutely nothing? This is a wide open way of getting around all the protection that this House thought appropriate.

Lord Young of Graham
My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House will be fascinated to know what happened to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, at 4.30 p.m. on Friday afternoons, but I do not think that it is relevant to this point. I received a formal resolution from the present owner of the newspaper. I am satisfied that if it were referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for the three months that that takes, the owner would forthwith close the newspaper. It is my decision, and I decided that, having regard to that and all the other circumstances, I would consent to the transfer. I am glad that we shall see the newspaper continue.

Lord Winstanley
My Lords, the noble Lord told the House that the intended purchasers have undertaken to maintain the newspaper in its present form. Will he tell the House what powers he will have to intervene if that undertaking is not fulfilled?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, no. I have not asked for any powers. I have said that I saw no reason to impose conditions in this case.Today is a relatively new newspaper. Its circulation is small in relation to that of other national dailies. It is entirely different from other cases and other circumstances.

§ Lord Wolfson
My Lords, in a force majeure situation such as this, what else could my noble friend the Secretary of State do other than give his consent? The paper is reported to have lost £30 million. It told the Secretary of State that it was going to close down. If it had done so, would not noble Lords opposite have asked him why he was shilly-shallying with giving a decision and allowing it to close?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.

§ Lord Sefton of Garston
My Lords, did Lonrho have the ability to close the paper down at 4 o'clock this afternoon or was its ultimatum that it would withdraw its bid for the paper?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I have never mentioned 4 o'clock this afternoon. I have seen a resolution of the board of Lonrho which said that, if this matter had perforce to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, it would take steps to close the newspaper forthwith. That is the advice to which I listened before exercising my discretion.

§ Lord Sefton of Garston
My Lords, I take it from what the noble Lord has said that Lonrho had already bought the paper. Is that so?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, Lonrho are the owners of the paper. Lonrho acquired the paper some months ago when consent was given under this provision in equally speedy time. I did not notice any worry at that time.