If UK allows UAE to buy The Telegraph, it will set a dangerous precedent.
In a world where we are overwhelmed with information and deepfakes, and where a story can reach the other side of the world in a matter of seconds, the value of reliable journalism - with a commitment to integrity in its reporting - has never been clearer. A free press is the cornerstone of British democracy, especially when it makes life uncomfortable for politicians like me.
We have a proud tradition of journalistic independence and editorial freedom in this country. That tradition depends on journalists knowing that their publications will stand by them when others seek to silence them. That is why the prospect of the UAE government taking control of The Telegraph should concern us all.
Remarkably, at the eleventh hour, the RedBird IMI bid team has suddenly produced a new corporate structure, undoubtedly in an attempt to convince the regulators and responsible ministers that their proposed deal is something that it clearly isn’t. Notwithstanding the last-minute smoke and mirrors, the fundamentals remain the same.
The UAE government remains in charge of this deal. Even if that was the only issue, it would be important enough for the Government to refer it to the CMA for a “Phase 2” investigation, as soon as possible. However, it is not the only reason.
Let’s be clear. This proposed transaction is entirely unprecedented. It’s not just a matter for this country alone; it will be a test case with far-reaching implications. If the UK permits a foreign state to acquire a significant media asset, it sets a dangerous precedent for other democracies. And while this holds true in any era, the stakes are raised at a time of escalating geopolitical tensions.
Whether it’s the government of France, the US or the UAE, the control of a major media institution in another country by such a body is a grave concern.
No matter what assurances are given and commitments made, the spectre of control looms large over those within it. Proposed measures like an editorial charter cannot be relied on to prevent this as they rely on self-policing and do not carry sufficiently serious consequences for breach. They cannot stop the silent self-censorship and influence wielded behind closed doors.
It is particularly concerning that there is evidence of this type of behaviour at publications already controlled by the UAE, such as The National, where journalists have spoken of their reluctance to report on sensitive Emirati issues while at the paper.
In the UAE, there is no real distinction between the assets of the state and the assets of the royal family. IMI, as a company ultimately owned by Sheikh Mansour, is as much an arm of that regime as its National Media Council - the organisation in the UAE that enforces state censorship of press outlets. That Council was formerly headed by Dr Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, UAE Minister of Industry, CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, COP28 President, Chairman of IMI, and President of RedBird IMI.
UAE involvement raises wider security concerns. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is already scrutinising a number of deals involving UAE sovereign wealth funds on national security grounds, given the UAE’s increasingly closer relations with China - a brutal dictatorship with views on human rights anathema to our own.
The Secretary of State was entirely right to call for a “Phase One” review by Ofcom. This provides much-needed initial scrutiny of the deal, but it remains fundamentally limited. Its six weeks of work is insufficient. Deals of this complexity, for assets with this degree of significance, must be handled with the utmost rigour.
It is clear this deal should be referred for a “Phase Two” review by the CMA. That is the only way to fully investigate the deal in depth and give MPs, Telegraph staff, readers and the wider public much more confidence that the process has been thorough and rigorous.
If this deal is allowed, it will usher in a new era of media ownership in the UK and internationally. Owning a newspaper is very different to owning a football club. If one of the oldest democracies in the world allows a foreign government to control one of its most influential media assets it will pave the way for many more of these types of deals to happen across the globe.
The world is watching and the Government must use all the powers at its disposal to ensure that it comes up with the right answer, however long that process takes.
