PM urged to back veto on Uae-telegraph bid

Law allowing MPS to block takeover of media assets by foreign states is vital for press freedom, Sunak told

RISHI SUNAK has been urged to back new laws that would give Parliament a veto over the Uae-backed takeover of The Telegraph by a Tory peer who warned that public trust in the media risks being damaged.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, Baroness Stowell said the “principle of our news media being free from government control or interference is in jeopardy”.

She vowed that if he did not support the amendment she had tabled, which would give Parliament a veto over any sale to a foreign state, she would force a vote on it next week to show the strength of feeling in the House of Lords. More than 100 MPS have pledged to back the amendment to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill that would create the new powers, while ministers and officials are holding discussions on whether to support it.

Labour is also considering whether to back the amendment.

In her letter, Lady Stowell, a former leader of the Lords, wrote: “Freedom of the press is a key pillar of our democracy. Public trust in news, Parliament, and the political class has fallen significantly in recent years. Allowing foreign governments to own such a critical and sensitive part of our nation would damage public confidence yet further.”

The proposed takeover of The Telegraph is currently in limbo pending investigations by Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

Redbird IMI, a fund 75 per cent backed by Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-nahyan, the vice-president of the UAE, has positioned itself to take control of The Telegraph in a complex £1.2billion debt deal.

In her letter, Lady Stowell wrote: “On more than one occasion in recent weeks, peers from all sides of the House of Lords have expressed concern that the principle of our news media being free from government control or interference is in jeopardy.”

She said her amendment to the Bill had garnered the support of a number of peers including Labour’s Lord Robertson, the former defence secretary and Nato secretary general, and Lord Forsyth, the Tory former Scottish secretary.

She added: “We will be debating my amendment [on March 13] and I strongly urge the Government to support it. If not, I wanted you to know that based on the widespread and growing support from all benches across the House of Lords, I will call a division.”

Calling a division means that there will be a physical count of all members in favour or against, with the names of all those voting each way recorded. Often this does not happen, with amendments accepted or rejected simply on the basis of people shouting yea or nay.

Ofcom is scheduled to deliver its report to Ms Frazer by Monday. She would then be able to block the deal following further investigation by the CMA of its potential threat to press freedom.

‘We are a government-owned newspaper ... Our writing must be informative and interesting, but we cannot afford to upset or offend anyone.” “Of course we would never directly criticise the Sheikhs, the government or the country, because this is illegal.”

These aren’t words taken from a dystopian novel. Rather, they are the anonymous testimonies of newspaper employees working over the past few years in the United Arab Emirates. Sadly, it’s a daily reality for journalists in the Gulf state. For the UAE’S laws ban any direct criticism of the country’s rulers through the government’s “National Media Council”, their Ministry of Truth. Journalists know that, if they get something wrong, they could be dismissed, and even arrested or deported from the country.

Britain’s newspapers – rambunctious, unruly – are, by contrast, often the cause of deep annoyance to government and politicians – myself included (and as it should be). Imperfect, but the envy of the world. As a collective, and encompassing the whole political spectrum, they are a check on improper use of power and even on each other. Democracy depends on a healthy disdain for those in positions of authority. And the conditions needed for this disdain to flourish are fearlessness and freedom. If our media can’t speak truth to power, no one can.

I’ve heard the argument made that powerful individuals, some foreign, have owned and influenced our newspapers, so what’s the problem with a state like the UAE owning The

Telegraph and the Spectator magazine? Well, we should not only be concerned over the UAE’S woeful record on censorship, editorial influence, and its track record of locking up journalists. We need to be alert to the domestic security concerns posed by this proposed state takeover.

As home secretary, I worked closely with our security agencies and saw the extent to which our adversaries go to undermine our democracy. China, Russia and Iran are all working against our interests, both on the outside and from within, and in ways that most of us may not appreciate. That is the enigma of the threat – it doesn’t make the front pages and isn’t the topic of dinner party conversation. But it is credible, active and intensifying.

There is evidence that the UAE engages in repression of political dissidents around the world, people whom it deems to be personae non grata. Recently, the Government intervened over the UAE’S acquisition of a 15 per cent stake in Vodafone. As a company involved in our cybersecurity infrastructure, the implications of the UAE state acquiring such an interest in our economy presented clear risks to our national security.

We need to be realistic about what is happening. China’s close links to the UAE have reached the point where the US has voiced concerns about Emirati-backed takeovers across the Atlantic. A US Congressional committee has warned about UAE tech firms’ ties to China’s military and intelligence services. Indeed, China was recently discovered to be secretly building a suspected military facility at an Abu Dhabi port. We know that China siphons technology, trade secrets and intellectual property from Uk-based companies. It deploys spies throughout universities, research institutes and businesses here, using proxies to further its malign interference into our state activity.

Not to mention that the UAE is a haven for Russian oligarchs, as well as British fraudsters and drug lords. I shudder to imagine this paper one day being prevented from exposing or criticising them, because the UAE’S National Media Council said so.

If there is evidence of a risk to national security, action must be taken. Why should one of the largest media outlets in the UK be excluded from national security protection? Controlling the media is an attack on democracy. That’s why, as home secretary, I worked with the Security Minister, Tom Tugendhat, to set up the Defending Democracy Taskforce. It’s why I’ve backed the Lords amendment to the Digital Markets Bill, with cross-party support, to block this deal. These threats are superficially innocuous, but devastating under closer scrutiny.

This proposed takeover would see two influential publications, critical to holding government to account, pass under the ownership and control of a foreign state with a track record of censorship and supporting countries we consider to pose significant threats to our nation. Are we to sit idly by and sell off the bulwarks of our democracy to foreign governments one by one? Where do we draw the line?

Surely the case for drawing it here is a compelling one. Yes we live in a free market, but not everything is for sale. And that includes the freedom of our press.