Why is Sunak so shy about defending a free press?
Tom Tugendhat, the security minister, said yesterday that the Government “shouldn’t be shy about standing up for ourselves” over foreign-state ownership bids. It should refuse them, he suggested, if they are not “in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom”. When asked if his view applied to the proposed Abu Dhabi purchase of this newspaper group and The Spectator by the vehicle of Redbird IMI, Mr Tugendhat did not demur.
The minister is making the right point, and raising a question to which the answer remains mysterious: “Why is the Government being shy in this case?”
After all, though the details are complicated, the issue is not. Would you want the British Government to own a national newspaper? Of course not. Whichever party were in power, such ownership would discourage a free press. The same would apply to any foreign country on earth trying to own us. It applies more strongly still to purchases made here by an Arab nation, from a part of the world which has almost no tradition of press freedom and incubates many issues which are explosive in Britain.
The Culture Secretary, Lucy Frazer, obviously must make sure that current regulatory conditions are satisfied – hence the report with which Ofcom yesterday presented her – but the issue is bigger than that. Mr Tugendhat articulated it. Rishi Sunak remains rather shy. We have reached the point where the Prime Minister’s instinct for propriety shades into dangerous indecision.
Perhaps he is worried about upsetting the ruling family of Abu Dhabi, who have been a longstanding, though nowadays somewhat ambiguous, ally of Britain. If so, he should recognise that delay has made things worse. It has prompted all sorts of unpleasant things being said publicly about the emirate and its rulers which would never have appeared if there had been a general rule which forbade all foreign-state control/ ownership of major news organisations in this country. A general ban would not put stigma on one foreign country rather than another.
Tomorrow, in the House of Lords, an amendment is due to be moved which would create such a rule, subject to parliamentary oversight. Lady Stowell, a Conservative, will move it, but it is a cross-party effort, seconded by a crossbencher and a Labour peer. Yesterday, Labour’s spokesman, Thangam Debbonaire, came out strongly against the UAE bid. Liberal Democrat peers will also vote for Lady Stowell’s amendment. It would be an irony not lost on Telegraph readers if the opposition helped us while a Conservative Government did nothing.
The Government should either come in behind the Stowell amendment or find a way of setting the right rule itself without further delay.
As a journalist, I mind more than anything else about the free press aspect. The Government should care deeply about that, too. But there is also another consideration which points the same way and may explain why Mr Tugendhat said what he did. This is a question of our security as a nation and of how best to protect the strategic assets of a free country.
Last autumn, one sunny Sunday morning, a country neighbour of ours drove down to check his beef cattle. Sitting on his quad bike, he lifted the electric fence to drive under it and felt fierce stabbing pains. He had been electrocuted. The electricians told him afterwards, “You should have died.” They attributed his survival to his quad bike’s rubber wheels. A mains cable – a three-phase 415-volt power line – had fallen in the field, sending its current through the farmer’s fence. It lay there live, sparking and smoking, so no one could go near it.
The farmer rang UK Power Networks (UKPN) and the fire brigade. He was desperate to avoid any shocks to his 56 cattle as they grazed. Normally, on such occasions, the mains power is switched off fast. But this time, for reasons which remain obscure, this did not happen.
The danger was great. Walkers on the nearby footpath, which is about a yard from the electric fence, were warned off only just in time.
The farmer, his family and the fire brigade tried to protect the herd from the live fence surrounding them. But then one cow moved, touched the fence and collapsed. This terrified the others, who ran straight over it. Most escaped, or fell stunned to the ground with lesions; but six, who were caught on the fence, died. All those present could only watch the terrible sight, helpless. Two hours later, the power was cut off. It took longer to move and calm the surviving cattle. The cleaning up was a grim and expensive task.
According to the farmer’s land agent, UKPN said the incident was “an accident which could not have been foreseen”. They maintained, without producing evidence, that their inspections were in order. They admitted no liability but handed over the value of the dead cattle and a modest sum for the ensuing vets’ bills etc “as a goodwill gesture”. No compensation. The contents of a so-called “independent report” commissioned by UKPN were never disclosed.
The farmer accepted the offer. Life, except for the six cows, goes on. He is not seeking more money. Why do I tell this story, then? Just because those involved feel that, if the company in charge of our country’s power cables can permit such literally deadly risk to people and animals, the public should know.
Bishop James Jones, speaking of the Hillsborough disaster, famously criticised “the patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. After the word “power”, I would add only the word “lines”.