A group of senior cross-party MPs are exploring ways of holding a parliamentary vote on whether Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox should be allowed to pursue the takeover of Sky. Sir Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat leadership candidate, confirmed that there had been informal talks. “There is some thinking on it and I am up for it,” he said. Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, and Ken Clarke, the veteran Conservative MP, are also thought to be aware of the discussions.

“I am happy to work with Ed and Ken on this,” Cable said. Cable, Miliband and Clarke made a joint submission to Ofcom explaining their opposition to the deal as part of the media regulator’s examination of the takeover.

If a vote were to take place and the result were to show a majority unhappy with the deal, it is likely to be symbolic and not legally binding, but it could be embarrassing for the government and the Murdoch family, who control Fox.

The Murdochs scrapped their previous bid to buy Sky in 2011 ahead of a parliamentary debate on a symbolic Labour motion calling for them to pull out of the deal. The motion was supported by all the major parties but came at a time of public furore over the phone hacking scandal.

Cable said there was “some unhappiness” with the parliamentary statement made by Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, on Thursday. She told MPs how she intended to proceed as she considered whether to approve or block the merger. The minister said she was minded to refer Fox’s deal to the Competition and Markets Authority for an in-depth investigation because of concerns that the deal would give the Murdochs too much influence over the news agenda and political process in Britain.

However, Bradley also opened the door for Fox to offer concessions to push the deal through by saying that she would not make a final decision on whether to refer the deal until 14 July. These concessions could include Fox committing to fund Sky News for more than five years and the creation of an independent editorial board.

Miliband, who urged Bradley not to do a “grubby deal” with the Murdochs, has written to the boss of Ofcom, Sharon White, to ask for a meeting. The former Labour leader told the Guardian that Ofcom’s report into whether the Murdochs are “fit and proper” owners of Sky was “appallingly weak”.

Ofcom concluded that the Murdochs were “fit and proper” despite phone hacking at the News of the World and allegations of sexual and racial harassment at Fox News, which it said was a “significant corporate failure”.

Miliband said: “The public know that the Murdochs are not fit and proper to 100% own Sky News, and any reasonable regulator would have concluded as such. Ofcom’s failure in this regard suggests anything goes when it comes to corporate failure of broadcasters.”

A lawyer representing alleged victims of sexual and racial harassment at Fox News has pledged to challenge Fox’s comments about the scandal to Ofcom, which he says were designed to “salvage” the company’s takeover of Sky. Fox told Ofcom that its executives, including Rupert Murdoch and his sons James and Lachlan, were not aware of the complaints about sexual and racial harassment until last year.



This led to Ofcom clearing the Murdochs because there is “no clear evidence” that Fox executives knew about the scandal until last year and therefore they could not have been expected to deal with the matter earlier.

Doug Wigdor, who is representing 21 current and former Fox News employees, said Fox’s claim would be probed in legal cases. “In its bid to salvage the merger, Fox has represented to Ofcom that no executive director was aware of any allegations of sexual and racial harassment at Fox News prior to July 2016,” he said. “I can assure you that the veracity of that statement will be probed in our current litigations.”

The Fox News chairman – the late Roger Ailes – and leading presenter Bill O’Reilly left the broadcaster as a result of the scandal, although they denied sexual harassment.

An Ofcom spokesperson: “We carried out a detailed evidence-based assessment, which found no evidence to conclude that Sky should not hold its broadcast licences in the event of the merger.”