Connect with us

Published

on

A Conservative MP is urging ministers to extend a probe into the prospective takeover of The Daily Telegraph, warning that the Abu Dhabi-backed vehicle which wants to acquire it may already be exerting “material influence” over the newspaper.

Sky News has learned that Neil O’Brien, a former health minister who sits on the Tory backbenches, wants the culture secretary to issue a public interest intervention notice (PIIN) which encompasses RedBird IMI’s repayment of a £1.2bn debt to Lloyds Banking Group on behalf of the Barclay family.

Mr O’Brien said that while Lucy Frazer had been right to issue a PIIN focused on the conversion of that debt into ownership of the Telegraph newspapers, she should go further by also subjecting the debt repayment to scrutiny from Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority.

This would, he said, be the only way to ensure that RedBird IMI could not challenge any subsequent action that the government may wish to take in relation to the deal.

Money latest: Millions will get more take-home pay this month – here’s why experts say you shouldn’t spend it

“It is clear that the Secretary of State is carefully considering the important issues around press freedom and national security raised by this deal,” he said.

“I am, however, deeply concerned by recent reporting that RedBird IMI told the Telegraph’s independent directors that it will determine the future ownership of the paper, even if their bid is blocked.

“This raises worrying questions about the level of material influence RedBird IMI, and therefore a foreign power, already holds over the paper through the debt arrangements currently in place, as well as the control they will still be able to exert even if the bid is blocked.

“It is vital that the government retains control over the process and its ability to protect the free press in this country.

“In light of these new developments, I think it’s crucial that the Secretary of State uses her powers to scrutinise this complicated deal by issuing a separate PIIN into the initial purchase of the debt.

Lucy Frazer, Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport, arriving in Downing Street, London, for a Cabinet meeting. Picture date: Tuesday January 9, 2024.
Image:
Lucy Frazer is being urged to broaden the inquiries she has ordered. Pic: PA

“Doing so will give myself, parliamentary colleagues, Telegraph readers, and staff, full confidence in this process.”

Mr O’Brien’s comments come just two days before a deadline imposed by Ms Frazer for Ofcom and the CMA to submit their preliminary findings to her department.

Neil O'Brien
Image:
Neil O’Brien is pictured during an appearance on Sky News last year

Many observers expect that the debt-for-equity swap will be referred by the CMA to a more in-depth Phase-II investigation that could leave the Telegraph’s future mired in uncertainty for months.

Sky News revealed recently that the Telegraph’s parent company’s independent directors had been notified by RedBird IMI that it intended to determine the titles’ future ownership even in the event that it is prevented from taking control of its shares.

The Gulf-based investor – a joint venture between RedBird of the US and Abu Dhabi-based IMI – had been keen to dispel the idea that either the independent directors or the Barclay family, the newspaper’s beneficial owners, would oversee any future auction.

Because RedBird IMI also owns a call option which can be exercised in exchange for ownership of the media assets, it believes it would be “in total control” of any process should the government block the acquisition, a source told Sky News earlier this month.

“In such an eventuality, RedBird IMI would be free to sell the loan and call option to whoever they wished,” they added.

Scores of MPs and peers have lined up to oppose the takeover, arguing that the UAE has a poor record of upholding journalists’ ability to report impartially.

A string of prominent Telegraph writers, as well as the editor of The Spectator – which also forms part of the transaction but is not subject to the PIIN – have complained publicly about the prospect of the Abu Dhabi-backed vehicle gaining control of influential British media assets.

However, RedBird IMI – whose bid is spearheaded by Jeff Zucker, the former CNN president – remains confident that the editorial protections that it has submitted to Ofcom will address any concerns and pave the way for the deal to be approved.

Under the terms of the PIIN issued by Ms Frazer, RedBird IMI is prohibited from exerting any influence over the titles while investigations by the competition and media regulators are ongoing.

That includes the removal of key executives and editorial staff or any attempt to merge the Telegraph with other assets.

However, Cormac O’Shea, the Telegraph finance chief, has since stepped down, and there is mounting speculation that Nick Hugh, the newspapers’ chief executive, is about to follow suit.

The Telegraph’s holding company was forced into receivership by Lloyds Banking Group last year, following a long-running dispute over the repayment of a £1.16bn debt.

The loans and interest were repaid in December after the Barclay family structured a deal with RedBird IMI, which is majority-owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the ultimate owner of Manchester City Football Club.

The Times reported last month that TMG’s independent directors had alerted Whitehall to possible irregularities in the accounts of the family’s media assets, with the National Crime Agency reportedly informed.

RedBird IMI’s move to fund the loan redemption circumvented an auction of the Telegraph, which drew interest from a range of bidders.

The hedge fund billionaire and GB News shareholder Sir Paul Marshall, Daily Mail proprietor Lord Rothermere and National World, a London-listed local newspaper publisher, had all hired advisers to assemble offers for the newspapers.

Continue Reading

Politics

The three key questions about the China spy case that need to be answered

Published

on

By

The three key questions about the China spy case that need to be answered

The government has published witness statements submitted by a senior official connected to the collapse of a trial involving two men accused of spying for China.

Here are three big questions that flow from them:

1. Why weren’t these statements enough for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to carry on with the trial?

For this prosecution to go ahead, the CPS needed evidence that China was a “threat to national security”.

The deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins doesn’t explicitly use this form of words in his evidence. But he comes pretty close.

Politics latest – follow live

In the February 2025 witness statement, he calls China “the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”.

More on China

Six months later, he says China’s espionage operations “harm the interests and security of the UK”.

Yes, he does quote the language of the Tory government at the time of the alleged offences, naming China as an “epoch-defining and systemic challenge”.

But he also provides examples of malicious cyber activity and the targeting of individuals in government during the two-year period that the alleged Chinese spies are said to have been operating.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Witness statements published in China spy trial

In short, you can see why some MPs and ex-security chiefs are wondering why this wasn’t enough.

Former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove told Sky News this morning that “it seems to be there was enough” and added that the CPS could have called other witnesses – such as sitting intelligence directors – to back up the claim that China was a threat.

Expect the current director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson to be called before MPs to answer all these questions.

2. Why didn’t the government give the CPS the extra evidence it needed?

The DPP, Stephen Parkinson, spoke to senior MPs yesterday and apparently told them he had 95% of the evidence he needed to bring the case.

The government has said it’s for the DPP to explain what that extra 5% was.

He’s already said the missing link was that he needed evidence to show China was a “threat to national security”, and the government did not give him that.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What does China spy row involve?

The newly published witness statements show they came close.

But if what was needed was that explicit form of words, why was the government reticent to jump through that hoop?

The defence from ministers is that the previous Conservative administration defined China as a “challenge”, rather than a “threat” (despite the numerous examples from the time of China being a threat).

The attack from the Tories is that Labour is seeking closer economic ties with China and so didn’t want to brand them an explicit threat.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is China an enemy to the UK?

3. Why do these statements contain current Labour policy?

Sir Keir Starmer says the key reason for the collapse of this trial is the position held by the previous Tory government on China.

But the witness statements from Matthew Collins do contain explicit references to current Labour policy. The most eye-catching is the final paragraph of the third witness statement provided by the Deputy National Security Adviser, where he quotes directly from Labour’s 2024 manifesto.

He writes: “It is important for me to emphasise… the government’s position is that we will co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

In full: Starmer and Badenoch clash over China spy trial

Did these warmer words towards China influence the DPP’s decision to drop the case?

Why did Matthew Collins feel it so important to include this statement?

Was he simply covering his back by inserting the current government’s approach, or was he instructed to put this section in?

A complicated relationship

Everyone agrees that the UK-China relationship is a complicated one.

There is ample evidence to suggest that China poses a threat to the UK’s national security. But that doesn’t mean the government here shouldn’t try and work with the country economically and on issues like climate change.

It appears the multi-faceted nature of these links struggled to fit the legal specificity required to bring a successful prosecution.

But there are still plenty of questions about why the government and the CPS weren’t able or willing to do more to square these circles.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump’s second term fuels a $1B crypto fortune for his family: Report

Published

on

By

Trump’s second term fuels a B crypto fortune for his family: Report

Trump’s second term fuels a B crypto fortune for his family: Report

The Trump family’s crypto ventures have generated over $1 billion in profit, led by World Liberty Financial and memecoins including TRUMP and MELANIA.

Continue Reading

Politics

SEC chair: US is 10 years behind on crypto, fixing this is ‘job one’

Published

on

By

SEC chair: US is 10 years behind on crypto, fixing this is ‘job one’

SEC chair: US is 10 years behind on crypto, fixing this is ‘job one’

SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the US is a decade behind on crypto and that building a regulatory framework to attract innovation is “job one” for the agency.

Continue Reading

Trending