How much of The Spectator and the Daily Telegraph should the United Arab Emirates be allowed to own? Tomorrow, parliament will discuss whether ‘foreign powers’ (as defined by the National Security Act) should be allowed to own national publications in light of the RedBird IMI bid for the two titles. However the vote goes, the debate will be landmark.
The consensus is that this is (as Michael Forsyth put it in the Lords) an ‘absolute no-brainer’ and that (as Lib Dem MP Jamie Stone put it) ‘the mood of the House (of Commons) is that this is simply not on’. The intervention of Thangam Debbonaire, the Shadow Culture Secretary, may be decisive: a free press, she says, is incompatible with the RedBird IMI bid.
The debate in the Lords tomorrow will be hugely important
So far, RedBird’s argument is that the money is from a private investor: Sheikh Mansour, who although vice-president of the UAE, is acting in a private capacity. George Osborne is acting for RedBird IMI and making this case: it’s not the government, it’s a private investment firm. This argument seems to be rejected by every bench of the Commons and the Lords and it appears the Emiratis are now switching tactics to change the deal in a way that is is designed to take it below the regulatory radar: reduce their stake to 49 per cent, 25 per cent or even lower.
RedBird’s position is that it wants the Telegraph and The Spectator as part of a wider business plan. If so, then what’s the logic in keeping a minority stake but losing operational control? That a minority stake solution is even being considered suggests the real motive for this bid is not operational, but simply to give a foreign government a stake in UK national debate by a significant stake in the national press. And, indeed, make the Emirati government the first autocracy in the world to do so. So Parliament has something new to debate: the risks and merits of an Emirati minority stake.
If 100 per cent RedBird IMI ownership is not compatible with a free press, then what is? In my view, the same concerns apply even when the stake is reduced. A few weeks ago, the government quite rightly voiced concern about the Emiratis owning a mere 15 per cent in Vodafone. If such a small stake in a telecoms infrastructure company causes national security concerns, then a stake in a national news provider does even more so – especially at a time when there’s a global battle for information. As Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly voiced concern about ‘hostile information manipulation by actors, including Russia and China’. He’s right to worry.
The Emiratis are our allies. But they are also, now, allies of Russia and China, buying Putin’s oil and berthing Xi’s ships. It is this Emirati/Putin relationship – the Emiratis giving Putin money, helping him dodge sanctions buying and transporting his oil – that has so many MPs concerned about (and minded to vote to outlaw) even the slightest UAE governmental influence in the UK media. Tom Tugendhat, the Security Minister, makes a general point. ‘Whether that be Newport Wafer Fab or Arm or Deep Mind, I’ve already made my views clear. Before selling these kinds of assets we should ask whether it’s in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom. And if the answer’s no, we shouldn’t be shy about standing up for ourselves and saying so.’
The Emiratis are our allies. But they are also, now, allies of Russia and China
RedBird’s view is that ‘Our bid is a joint venture bid between an American-led private equity firm [RedBird] and a business entity in the United Arab Emirates called IMI. This is not the UAE government.’ Debbonaire was addressing this point yesterday when she said:
‘My view – and the view of the Labour party – is that foreign governments should not own national newspapers. This is a bid by a foreign power, funded by the deputy Prime Minister of the UAE, and as such this bid should not pass. Labour is unequivocal and unambiguous on this point: ownership by a foreign power is incompatible with press freedom, which is essential in a democracy.’
The debate in the Lords tomorrow will be hugely important. And it will also involve what percentage of Emirati government ownership of the press is compatible with a free press: 100 per cent, 49 per cent or 4 per cent? My own figure is zero. Governmental ownership of national press is unacceptable at any level; unsafe at any speed. We’ll bring you all contributions to this important debate as they’re made in tomorrow’s debate.
Is an Emirati minority stake in the Telegraph compatible with a free press?
7
0
12.03.2024
How much of The Spectator and the Daily Telegraph should the United Arab Emirates be allowed to own? Tomorrow, parliament will discuss whether ‘foreign powers’ (as defined by the National Security Act) should be allowed to own national publications in light of the RedBird IMI bid for the two titles. However the vote goes, the debate will be landmark.
The consensus is that this is (as Michael Forsyth put it in the Lords) an ‘absolute no-brainer’ and that (as Lib Dem MP Jamie Stone put it) ‘the mood of the House (of Commons) is that this is simply not on’. The intervention of Thangam Debbonaire, the Shadow Culture Secretary, may be decisive: a free press, she says, is incompatible with the RedBird IMI bid.
The debate in the Lords tomorrow will be hugely important
So far, RedBird’s argument is that the money is from a private investor: Sheikh Mansour, who although vice-president of the UAE, is acting in a private capacity. George Osborne is acting for RedBird IMI and making this case: it’s not the government, it’s a private investment firm. This argument seems to be rejected by every........
© The Spectator
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Rami G Khouri
