Rivals would obliterate the Telegraph if the Emirates interfered
Foreign influence fears are being exaggerated – strong legal and commercial safeguards are in place
There is, as readers will know, a robust debate ongoing about the merits and demerits of the proposed new ownership of this highly respected newspaper.
Watching as an observer without a dog in the fight, but as someone who cares deeply about The Telegraph (as well as her distinguished and highly successful sister publication The Spectator) it seems to me that there has been a degree of confusion surrounding the consequences of such a sale.
As is often the case with politics there has been rather more heat than light in this debate, so I thought it might be useful to cast an eye on the issues at play.
In the House of Commons last week much was made of a “foreign state” owning this much-loved element of the British media landscape.
As a Conservative MP of the Jewish faith there are those who might expect me to be among the 10 or so Conservative members who have spoken out against the takeover bid. But in fact I support the Emirati bid.
The UAE are clearly important allies in a dangerous region at a very dangerous time; their continued support for the Abraham Accords and rapprochement with Israel clearly make them a key force for good in the region.
But this isn’t really about the merits of the UAE; instead it is necessary to interrogate the claims of those opposing this particular takeover bid.
IMI, one part of the Redbird IMI joint venture looking to buy The Telegraph, is apparently run by an ultra-high net worth individual who is also a minister in the Emirati government. But it has also been claimed that it is the clear legal position that the Emiratis are solely a passive investor, and by definition can therefore have no influence or impact on how their partner in this venture, the American private equity firm Redbird, would actually manage The Telegraph and Spectator.
These kinds of partnerships are perfectly common of course, and passive investors exist in every sector and walk of life. As the former attorney general in His Majesty’s Government, I am also highly confident in the wherewithal of the British courts (truly the very best in the world) to be able to maintain such a compact. In fact, a recent change was reported to the Commons last week that the ownership structure was to be based here in the UK, providing unambiguous certainty that our courts would have the jurisdiction to determine any issues which might in future arise.
Secondly, the American fund Redbird, has pledged to establish an “editorial trust” with powers to enforce the principles of editorial independence and free speech under the company’s articles of association. Appointing experts and those with “skin in the game” to this board may well, depending of course on who they are, reassure sceptics just how seriously the putative new owners are taking the concerns about editorial independence. The legally binding undertakings offered to the Secretary of State should also be a powerful assurance.
The structuring proposed for
The Telegraph is reminiscent of the “Oversight Board” that Facebook (now Meta) established in the wake of concerns about their “content moderation” decisions. In an increasingly complicated and complex world, companies willingly giving up power to impartial boards like this seems to me another way to help embed trust. This arrangement is such that it would provide a set of protections that are actually unprecedented in British media.
As a Conservative, I also believe in the power of the free market. It would be The Telegraph’s readers and rivals, and the country’s politicians and pundits who will keep a close eye on any developments. They will ensure that in the event of any deviation from editorial independence, despite the built-in safeguards, or any softening on the work obviously still needed for the UAE to join Britain in the top tier of free nations, it would be competitors who would obliterate The Telegraph long before the aforementioned legal protections ever did.
The exertion being applied to give cast-iron legal guarantees along with the commercial incentives should be reassuring to doubters.
It may be that some may still take a different view, but on the strength of the legal assurances as I understand them, it looks like fears around foreign influence are being significantly exaggerated. Strong safeguards are in place of both a legal and commercial nature to protect this important publication.