ALEX BRUMMER: Public interest is paramount when it comes to overseas takeovers

Newspapers are different from horse racing, hotels, football and many of the other commercial activities in which Britain’s friends in the Gulf are involved.

It is only fair that Abu Dhabi, which has very different values ​​to those of the UK, is not considered a suitable owner for the Daily Telegraph group.

State-backed foreign funds should also not be allowed to control other free-market media outlets, whether left-wing or right-wing. It would not happen in other Western democracies.

A recent email was a reminder that broader issues are at play.

The author, who opposes the proposed Sizewell C nuclear project in Suffolk, wanted to know why Abu Dhabi (and China at Hinkley in Somerset) could be considered suitable financiers and co-owners of such sensitive strategic assets.

Remote and indifferent foreign owners are a feature of our business landscape. Who owns insurer Direct Line may not seem important unless the potential buyer has Chinese backing.

But it is critical that state actors keep their hands off vital infrastructure. Ferrovial has not been a particularly good owner of Heathrow, but at least the Spanish construction company is a free market player from a democratic point of view.

Replacing Ferrovial with Saudi Arabia, as proposed, might seem ideal.

He has a lot of money and could even back a third track. However, it does not make sense to allow a foreign government to have a large say over a strategic asset, with potential for security breaches.

In 2006, when P&O ports were sold to Dubai Ports World, the United States intervened and ordered that the east coast ports, owned by the UK company, be excluded from the deal for security reasons.

Riyadh will not want to be reminded that the 9/11 attacks were largely a renegade Saudi operation.

National security concerns prompted President Joe Biden this week to intervene at the last minute to question Nippon Steel’s £11.6bn deal to buy US Steel.

This is a considerable contrast to the UK, where India’s Tata and China’s Jingye have been allowed to swallow the small backside of British steel.

The UK remains a magnet for foreign direct investment and needs capital.

Newspapers are now off track for foreign state actors. They join aerospace and defense giants BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, where the Government has a golden stake to protect itself from predators.

It is time to tighten the network around other strategic assets.

Undersold leader

Sharon White has gone through difficult times during her tenure at John Lewis.

There have been complaints about a lack of knowledge in the retail sector, complaints about the over-reaching of plans for residential developments on some store sites and concerns that the much-admired partnership structure has been put at risk.

John Lewis has lived through the trauma of the pandemic, supply-side bottlenecks and price increases that challenged even the most experienced retailers.

Furthermore, as president, White inherited too many stores, some of them in the wrong places, and more debt than was reasonable.

White, who will step down in early 2025, deserves much of the credit for the turnaround.

Profits have been restored, cash reserves have been bolstered and there is a promise of £540m in new investment, including some Waitrose openings.

Partner bonuses remain off the agenda until the ship has completely stabilized.

The reputation of the John Lewis model is improving.

shell removal

When this article suggested last month that Shell was cooling its heels on less remunerative zero-carbon projects, there was a response from headquarters on London’s South Bank.

We were assured that Shell would spend between $10 billion and $15 billion (£7.8 billion to £11.8 billion) on zero-carbon activities between 2023 and 2025.

That is fantastic. But it is now revealed that chief executive Wael Sawan is scaling back his 2030 carbon reduction target and has ruled out a 2035 target as he focuses on higher-margin projects.

Who would have thought?