UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Culture

  • Tim Yeo – 2002 Speech to the Social Market Foundation Conference

    Tim Yeo – 2002 Speech to the Social Market Foundation Conference

    The speech made by Tim Yeo to the Social Market Foundation Conference on 19 June 2002.

    1. INTRODUCTION

    I am grateful to David Lipsey and the Social Market Foundation for this opportunity to set out my thoughts about the future of broadcasting and public service broadcasting (PSB) in particular.

    Television and radio touch all our lives. Their influence on social, cultural, commercial and political activity is far reaching. Every man, woman and child is a consumer of television and radio.

    Decisions on how they are regulated, on controls over ownership, on digital switchover, on the BBC Charter, and many other matters don’t just concern every family in the land. They affect how Britain exploits the huge economic opportunity which broadcasting represents.

    I’m on the early stages of a journey of exploration which started last September when I took on the DCMS portfolio within the Shadow Cabinet. Today what I want to do is float ideas, share thoughts, not set out Conservative Party policy. I will do that at a later date, after I’ve attended a few more events like this one.

    I start from the position of being on the side of the consumer. I want more progress to higher quality, better value, more control for viewers and listeners. Delivering these aims will open up greater opportunities for broadcasters.

    In charting a course for broadcasting’s future we mustn’t be prisoners of the past. Harnessing new technology for the benefit of consumers as well as suppliers involves new ideas and concepts.

    Trusting consumers doesn’t always come easily to powerful people in either politics or broadcasting. Viewers and listeners weaned on an out of date model of passive consumption of television and radio deserve to be treated better.

    Now is the time to move towards a market in broadcasting where viewers pay for what they choose to watch and not for much else; time to reduce the distorting effects of the BBC licence fee; and to set the BBC itself free to grow in competition with other suppliers.

    Let me, at the outset, salute the industry’s considerable achievements. The BBC has a distinguished history. It set high standards which were rightly and widely admired. ITV opened up new horizons, Channel Four provided an innovative model of a publicly owned television channel and Sky TV enormously enhanced viewer choice. The newcomer, Channel Five, has its own angle on news and arts coverage. As it happens all these success stories have been facilitated by applying Conservative philosophy to a rapidly changing industry.

    2. BACKGROUND

    Broadcasting is and will remain one of the most important industries in the twenty-first century. Fortunately it’s an industry where Britain enjoys advantages – a large pool of entrepreneurial and creative talent, a fine record of public service and other broadcasting, the English language and a country in which people from all over the world like to live and work. British influence on the development of the media industry should be considerable.

    Now viewers and listeners enjoy wider choice decisions about ownership of media companies should be left to the competition authorities. The market will protect consumer interests provided there is competition between suppliers. If unfair, monopolistic or anti-competitive practices creep in the authorities have backstop powers to intervene.

    On matters of taste and decency regulators should concentrate on the prevention of harm rather than offence. This may sometimes involve taking a stronger line than now, for example, over material which may encourage aggressive or violent behaviour.

    The present structure of broadcasting in Britain is a historical accident. Radio, and television, developed as state-owned monopolies funded by the licence fee, a television tax which is highly regressive. Gradually this monopoly evolved into a comfortable duopoly and eventually into today’s multi-channel environment.

    But payment methods haven’t expanded to match the range of channels. Broadcasting companies and programme makers exercise great power over consumers. There’s been an assumption that schedulers know best, that the consumer is a passive creature, content to flop down in front of the screen and accept a diet someone else has chosen.

    Today some viewers are starting to consume television when it suits them, choosing from a bigger menu and exercising more control, maybe accessing one item in a news bulletin and pursuing it in more depth. In future more people will do this and it’s time to throw overboard outdated assumptions about how television should be paid for.

    3. THE FUTURE

    The future is digital. The Government must drive the switchover from analogue to digital more effectively than they have done so far. Without real leadership their target date for switchover won’t be achieved. As a Sky subscriber and a former customer of ITV Digital I know how unreliable the reception of the terrestrial service was, a failing for which Ministers cannot entirely escape responsibility.

    The extra quality, choice and potential for interactivity on digital justifies moving ahead quickly, regardless of any residual value in the analogue spectrum. Britain’s leadership of the digital television revolution must not be thrown away.

    Switchover requires a thriving terrestrial platform, alongside satellite and cable. Without that the exclusion of many homes from cable by geography would mean that satellite exercised a monopoly over much of Britain.

    Ideally all three platforms will offer viewers free to air and pay TV channels, even if in the short term the survival of digital terrestrial television involves a limited period of only free to air. However viewers shouldn’t be encouraged to buy equipment which denies them the chance to upgrade to pay channels at a later date.

    An all digital Britain will widen the range of payment options, for the benefit of both viewers and suppliers. It’ll end licence fee evasion, saving £140 million a year, more than 5 per cent of the BBC’s total income.

    Radio is a very important part of PSB and I’ll speak in more detail about it on another occasion. For today let me just say that Britain enjoys high quality radio. Wider choice and higher standards will be possible as digital radio becomes the norm.

    As far as possible the future of broadcasting should be determined by consumers not politicians. The market is the best guarantor of efficient delivery.

    If the market is to work properly changes are needed. The distorting effect of the television tax must be reduced. Consumers must increasingly pay for what they watch, not for what suppliers choose to sell them.

    4. PAYING FOR BROADCASTING

    No other industry prices its products in the way broadcasting does. All viewers pay the television tax even if they never watch the channels it pays for. Severing the financial relationship between consumers of a product and its suppliers is seldom helpful.

    Buyers of books aren’t forced to pay an entry fee to get into a bookshop before they know what books are on sale. Lovers of music don’t pay a lump sum covering the cost of dozens of compact discs even though they know they will only want to listen to a handful. Theatre tickets aren’t sold in a block which gives entry to certain plays selected by someone else before the theatregoer has been told which they are.

    The structure of the publishing, music and theatre industries isn’t the same as television but there are enough similarities to question why television is sold this way.

    The answer lies in history. To get broadcasting going the television tax (originally a radio tax) was introduced. It may have been right in the early days that this tax funded all broadcasting. Today the situation has changed.

    The television tax affects the behaviour not just of the BBC but other broadcasters too. It limits the power of consumers to determine what they are offered. It’s a crude and undiscriminating way to charge for television. It wouldn’t survive if consumers were used to paying for what they want and nothing else.

    The television tax provides a smokescreen behind which other broadcasters price their products in a similar way. Sky has revolutionised viewer choice, winning a large market share on the back of a bold and well judged strategic gamble. It’s been able to bundle its product, like that of the cable companies, in a way which does not suit all consumers, partly because the market has been conditioned by the television tax.

    Let’s take this a stage further. If the consumer, having paid the television tax, equivalent to the price of entry into the bookshop, is a sports lover, he or she is then asked by pay television suppliers for a further entry fee to get inside the section containing sports books. There is no opportunity to state a preference for, say, tennis and rugby over golf and cricket.

    Pay television subscribers, unlike television taxpayers, do at least buy their product voluntarily. For many people a single comprehensive subscription may be convenient. But now digital makes pay per view (PPV) easy, subscription to a pre-packaged bundle of channels shouldn’t be the only option.

    PPV should be widely available so consumers can access programmes individually. Subscribers to one sports channel, for example, should be allowed to buy individual sports programmes on other channels on PPV in the same way subscribers to The Economist who receive a discount by buying a year’s issues at a time can buy a single issue of the Spectator at the full cover price when they want to.

    The present system restricts choice and insults the viewer’s intelligence. It could be replaced by one which gives viewers and listeners the power that cinema and theatregoers, that readers of books, magazines and newspapers take for granted. PPV isn’t a burdensome addition to charges already levied but an alternative which enhances viewer choice and control out of all recognition with past practice.

    It’s time for boldness and imagination. Why shouldn’t quality programmes be made in a freer market? The free market in book publishing doesn’t mean only trashy books get published. Trashy books do get published but quality books emerge as well.

    At present the sole recipient of the television tax is constantly accused of dumbing down. It’s hardly surprising the BBC is tempted to compete for audience but it cannot be said too often that ratings are a lousy guide to whether the BBC is carrying out its PSB role.

    The success of Hello Magazine hasn’t put The Economist out of business. Suppose, however, both were published by one tax funded organisation and supplied free to all readers. It is a sure bet The Economist would be the one threatened with the chop when a commercially orientated chief executive took charge.

    Promoting a television market where consumers are king requires a fresh approach to the television tax and a rethink of the role of PSB.

    5. PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING

    PSB is a public good on which public money can properly be spent. There’s a debate to be had whether that money should come from a hypothecated television tax or from general taxation, which is how the excellent BBC World Service is funded. However, the constant struggle of the World Service for proper funding isn’t an encouraging precedent for the general taxation option.

    A twenty first century model of PSB may still involve, at its core, an organisation whose main purpose is the delivery of certain specified obligations. But other channels apart from the BBC have an important PSB role and I applaud how they discharge their responsibilities. The public interest in the new century will only be properly served if there continues to be the widest possible choice for consumers, catering for all manner of individual tastes. However this morning I want to focus on the BBC.

    Many attempts have been made to define PSB and it’s often easier to say what it is not rather than what it is. I certainly don’t regard all the BBC’s output as constituting PSB. Plainly many viewers and even some BBC management don’t think so. Gavyn Davies didn’t claim it was in his 1999 Report on Future Funding.

    An important function of PSB is to remedy market failure. Taxpayer’s money can justifiably be used to fund broadcasting to ensure the supply of programmes which serve a public interest but which would not get made if the free market alone determined supply.

    Annex B of the Government’s own document – rather grandly entitled “The Policy” – refers to the General Public service broadcasting Remit whose first provision is “disseminating information, education and entertainment”.

    Back in the days of the BBC monopoly –as it happens anxieties over concentration of ownership weren’t so widely aired then, those concerns have grown louder as ownership has become more, not less diverse – back in those far off days, entertainment deserved inclusion within this definition of PSB.

    Today, however, the duty of a public service broadcaster to entertain is dramatically less now so much entertainment is available on other free to air channels. Market failure no longer applies.

    Information and education have stronger claims for inclusion within PSB, as does news and current affairs. Although Sky News has emerged as a valuable additional news provider alongside BBC and ITN, the regional news coverage of both BBC and ITV fulfils an important PSB function and might not be supplied by the market.

    The same is true of serious current affairs programmes. On The Record may not reach those elusive younger viewers who increasingly don’t vote but does contribute to political discussion. Regular viewing of Channel Four News and Newsnight not only allows time for dinner but also keeps viewers in touch with what’s happening at home and abroad. Neither would necessarily survive without a PSB obligation.

    In assessing where market failure applies there is a distinction between what the market supplies free to air and what it supplies on pay TV. This is more difficult territory. If croquet is covered on a pay channel does a free to air channel need to do so? Is croquet PSB? If it isn’t what difference is there between croquet and cricket, or golf, or rugby, or tennis? Or even, dare I say it, football?

    It’s doubtful if much sport can still be defined as PSB. And one model for the BBC I’ll float in a minute would allow viewers to enjoy the same sports coverage as now without paying more.

    Harder to judge is the extent to which drama, music and the visual and performing arts are PSB. Maintaining a significant British production capacity in these areas is desirable and reliance on the market may not achieve this goal. How these important elements are defined within a PSB remit requires further consideration.

    There is also the question of how the PSB package should be delivered. Should it be divided up into a series of individual components and bids invited from broadcasters able to deliver them? Or should PSB be bundled as a single package and put out to tender?

    This might appeal to free market theorists but it wouldn’t recognise reality. The BBC, despite faults which its detractors are quick to highlight, would deservedly have a head start in bidding to perform the PSB roles. A tender process would be cumbersome and expensive.

    The aim must be to deliver PSB as efficiently as possible. A new approach to BBC funding, overhauling the television tax, can encourage this.

    6. THE FUTURE OF THE TELEVISION TAX

    Much discussion over BBC Charter renewal will concern funding.

    I want the BBC enjoy the potential for a greater increase in its income than the television tax could ever provide. It is, after all, an internationally recognised brand, capable of considerable growth.

    Unlocking this potential depends on reforming the television tax. I hope the Secretary of State’s mind isn’t as closed as her recent FT interview suggested when she was quoted as saying that a significant change to the funding of the BBC lies “somewhere between the improbable and the impossible”.

    The BBC receives approximately £2.1 billion direct from television tax payers and another £390 million paid by the Treasury on behalf of households exempt from the tax, giving a total income of around £2.5 billion.

    Various options exist after the present Charter expires. At one extreme the BBC could be funded from advertising. But advertising revenue, as recent events have shown, is not infinitely expandable. This option would be unpopular with existing advertising funded channels and would not promote consumer choice. I do not support it.

    An alternative would be for the BBC to rely entirely on subscription or PPV. This would reduce its audience and unless those viewers who remained paid a higher subscription than the present television tax, money for programmes would be reduced.

    At the other extreme the television tax could continue, maybe growing in real terms as it has done recently. This alternative enjoys some support but is hard to justify unless everything the BBC does constitutes public service broadcasting.

    Changes to the present funding arrangements are therefore likely and I want to explore another option – shall I call it the Middle Way – because unlike the Secretary of State I want the BBC released from the shackles of the television tax.

    There’s nothing magical about an income figure of £2.5 billion. Could a high quality PSB function be provided for £2 billion? Or £1.5 billion? Perhaps PSB only needs one national television channel, not two?

    Now is the time to examine just how much television taxpayers should have to pay for the BBC’s PSB functions. I suspect that most television taxpayers believe it’s significantly less than £2.5 billion.

    Once a figure is decided the BBC would sign a public service agreement committing them to providing the core public service programmes. Its finances would be subject both to external audit and scrutiny by Parliament through the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee.

    But as I said a moment ago, I want the BBC to have more income, not less, so in addition to receiving this slimmed down television tax, it would be given new freedom to offer consumers additional television and radio channels on subscription or PPV.

    Under the Middle Way there’d be no ceiling on the BBC’s income. Its substantial reputation and assets could be exploited at home and overseas, creating new opportunities for programme makers and management. The BBC could grow without artificial constraints, develop new markets and improve services to consumers.

    A whole range of specialist new television channels and radio stations could emerge. All viewers would have more to spend as a result of the lower television tax. The market for pay television is growing. Would consumers not gain from competition, for example, between a subscription funded BBC Sport channel and other sports channels?

    No doubt it will be claimed that EU rules make it hard for the BBC to operate a dual structure of this sort. As Commissioner Reding pointed out recently to the Joint Scrutiny Committee examining the draft Communications Bill, total transparency is needed if a state controlled taxpayer funded body starts to compete in the market place. I hope that regulatory structures will not impede the evolution of the BBC.

    How far the BBC would grow under this model would depend on how successful it was at making programmes which consumers were willing to pay for. If its output is as good as its champions say, it has much to gain from greater exposure to the market. Timing the introduction of this new model would depend in part on the progress towards digital switchover and the start of the new Charter period is probably too soon for such radical changes. In any case they could be introduced gradually. But the time to debate whether they are desirable is now.

    7. CONCLUSION

    In considering the future of broadcasting generally and the renewal of the BBC Charter in particular our aims should be:

    1) to enhance viewer choice and control

    2) to help the BBC exploit its unique assets and reputation at the same time as preserving a properly funded PSB role

    3) to ensure that other broadcasters are free to develop as they wish

    4) to encourage a diversity of payment methods so that viewers increasingly watch what they pay for

    5) to help Britain maintain a leading role in broadcasting.

    Tessa Jowell’s rejection of changes to BBC funding must not be the last word on this important issue. Viewers and listeners deserve better. The ideas floated above are just that – ideas.

    I hope they will stimulate debate, enhance consumer power, widen the influence of the BBC and ensure that British broadcasters are leaders in this century as they were in the last.

  • Lisa Francis – 2004 Speech on Wales Needing a National Art Gallery

    Lisa Francis – 2004 Speech on Wales Needing a National Art Gallery

    The speech made by Lisa Francis, the then Conservative AM for Mid and West Wales, in the Welsh Assembly on 27 May 2004.

    The Assembly Government’s policy to ensure free access to museums and galleries has proved to be extremely popular and the Conservative Party supports that policy.

    Since this policy was implemented and entrance fees abolished, the number of visitors to St Fagans has doubled. St Fagans charges parking fees in order to cover the museum and car park maintenance costs.

    However, since the entrance fees were abolished, people expect the whole package to be free. Therefore, charging for parking makes the Assembly’s policy laughable.

    People now expect free entrance, which encourages families with children to visting educational sites and we should all support that.

    Given that St Fagans is outside the city centre and since public transport is so poor, people have to use their cars to reach the museum.

    St Fagans is the largest visitor attraction in south Wales and this policy of charging for car parking will hit those on low incomes, old people and students and so on. Therefore, this policy means that entrance to St Fagans is no longer free of charge.

    While public transport to St Fagans remains poor, we need to raise concerns about any car parking charges.

    The Welsh Conservative Party wishes to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the importance of the work of all those in the national museums and galleries industry and to acknowledge the many improvements that have been made and which will, hopefully, continue in the future.

    We also need to realise that, in Wales, a third of permanent museum collections are described as being in unsuitable stores by their curators, with several commenting on the poor environmental conditions and lack of space, according to the Council of Museums in Wales.

    Research has shown that the vast majority of museum stores in Wales are too full and that none have more than 10 years of growth capacity.

    Storage facilities at the National Museums and Galleries of Wales are in such poor condition that The Western Mail reported on 22 April that a member of staff had fallen through the floor of one building, which had sustained water damage.

    As has been said, a report by the Auditor General for Wales found that almost half the museum’s collection is at risk because of inadequate storage. That document, published on 21 April, revealed that only one-third of the museum’s collection is held on computerised records.

    At the Museum of Welsh Life in St Fagans, many storage areas are so full that they cannot be accessed by staff. It would take 20 members of staff 20 years to clear the museum’s conservation backlog. With less than 1 per cent of the museum’s collection of 4.7 million items on display at any given time, it means that millions of pounds worth of objects, from paintings and locomotives to shells and coins, are therefore kept in storage.

    Surely, it is high time, Minister, that you fulfilled the Labour Government’s manifesto commitment of providing Wales with a dedicated national art gallery. You indicated that it was a manifesto commitment in your exchange with Nick Bourne in the Chamber on 5 May.

    The Arts Council of Wales has not included a funding bid for that in its current corporate plan, as it was regarded as a medium-term strategy.

    Exactly when, Minister, will this strategy come to fruition between now and the end of your Government’s tenure of office? We need an answer.

    The public in Wales is being denied the chance to see some of the country’s greatest works of art because of the lack of a dedicated national art gallery.

    Such an institution would be a huge asset. It is a gallery that would be linked to other galleries in Wales, and where Welsh art could be displayed. Wales’s art collections cannot be truly appreciated if items are locked in vaults, swathed in dust-proof covers, or, worse still, inaccessible to curators and, more importantly, liable to damage.

    We believe that a national art gallery for Wales should be managed by a single organisation, comprising the national museum and the national art gallery, which would be connected, as I said, to a network of museums and galleries around Wales.

    Such a move would not take anything away, or detract from, the other galleries in Wales, such as Oriel Môn, Oriel Mostyn or the Glynn Vivian Art Gallery.

  • Tessa Jowell – 2012 Comments on Sports in Schools

    Tessa Jowell – 2012 Comments on Sports in Schools

    The comments made by Tessa Jowell, the then Shadow Cabinet Minister for the Olympics, on 10 January 2012.

    There is much to welcome in the Government’s announcement today, not least the fact that they have woken up late in the day to the need to secure our legacy promise to inspire a generation of young people through the Olympics.

    We particularly welcome the focus on reversing the drop off in participation rates in sport among young people above the age of 14 and the steps which build on Labour’s legacy to encourage schools to open their sports facilities to the whole community.

    Ensuring that Sports Governing Bodies’ links with schools is important too; clubs on school sites are vital to prevent a drop off in sports participation post 16.

    However, retaining the School Sports Partnership Coordinators introduced by Labour to ensure young people are enthused about sport in school in the first place will be paramount if this strategy is to be delivered. It makes no sense to make one set of sports coordinators redundant just as it becomes imperative to develop new links between schools and Sports Governing Bodies.

    It is also not the case that there was a decrease in participation under Labour – the number of people participating in sport for half an hour three times a week rose each year from 2005 and only fell in 2010 when the Coalition came to power.

    This strategy from the Government will only yield results in the long run. We therefore invite the Government to continue this key part of our Olympic legacy commitments on a cross-party basis in order that sport has the security and certainty it needs going forwards.

  • Andy Burnham – 2010 Comments on David Cameron’s Policy on School Sports

    Andy Burnham – 2010 Comments on David Cameron’s Policy on School Sports

    The comments made by Andy Burnham, the then Shadow Education Secretary, on 20 December 2010.

    David Cameron and Michael Gove have spent weeks seeking to justify a bad decision with dodgy statistics. Gove’s overruling by the Prime Minister is a victory for thousands of young people, teachers and athletes, and is a warning to this Tory-led Government that it cannot simply do what it likes. But this package from the Conservative-led Government, after weeks of scrabbling round for funding to save something it branded a “complete failure”, only raises one cheer at best.

    So today, in conceding the success of Labour’s School Sports Partnerships, the Government has nevertheless failed to put in place a proper funding package that will allow us to capitalise on the excitement of the 2012 Games. We are still looking at the prospect of fewer children playing sport in the run up to the Olympics, and no answer on what will happen to school sport following the Games.

  • Vera Baird – 2012 Speech at the Commonwealth Journalists’ Association Conference

    Vera Baird – 2012 Speech at the Commonwealth Journalists’ Association Conference

    The speech made by Vera Baird in Malta on 1 February 2012.

    The Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press is the title of the Leveson Inquiry, set up to deal with the phone hacking scandal.

    So let us turn away from press restraint, oppressive laws, the persecution of journalists in the Commonwealth, on which you so proudly campaign, and consider the ethical issues confronting the profession in the UK, how this Inquiry came about, the issues it faces and the impact that may have on your work.

    In brief summary, in January 2007, the News of the World Royal reporter, Clive Goodman and a Private Investigator he used, Glenn Mulcaire, were convicted of phone hacking in respect of what the Metropolitan Police called “a handful” of people. It appears that it came to light because of fears that Princes William and Harry’s phones were hacked. Goodman was a “Rogue Reporter” and the matter was at an end, said the paper’s owner’s News International, though there were some footnotes.

    Firstly, the editor of the NOTW at the time, Andy Coulson, though he was clear that he hadn’t authorised hacking, fell on his sword, as the man who had overall responsibility for the conduct of the paper. He didn’t stay impaled for long, however, because, in May 2007, he was appointed as Director of Communications by the Conservative Party. If the pollsters were right, he would shortly be running the press corps at No 10 Downing Street.

    My guess is that this is what motivated the hero of this story, the Guardian’s Nick Davies, into takig the matter further. He was clearly satisfied that more people had been targeted and worried that Coulson might be a completely inappropriate person to be at the centre of government. So, he continued to investigate.

    The second footnote was interest in why Simon Hughes MP and Gordon Taylor, Chief Executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association were listed as hacking victims on the indictment against Goodman and Mulcaire when they seemed unlikely targets for a royal reporter.

    Then, Gordon Taylor sued for breach of privacy and received a settlement of £700K, when the usual level of damages would have been in the tens of thousands. People wondered what it was that the Murdochs were paying for.

    The police told some people around the original case that they may have been targeted and others began to ask the police if they had been. It gradually emerged that 4332 people were thought to have been hacked – quite a large “handful” The information came from a spreadsheet from Glenn Mulcaire that Scotland Yard had had all the time.

    There was clear need for another police inquiry and Operation Weeting was established in January 2011. A shoal of arrests following quite speedily, including a number of journalists and News International bigwigs, some of whom resigned and additionally, in about July 2011, Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brooks, and a man called Neil Wallis.

    The Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee started an Inquiry and, in July called Sir Paul Stevens, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. In questioning it became clear that the Met had appointed Neil Wallis, who had been deputy when Coulson was NOTW editor, to its press relations office. Presumably this was to ensure good relations between police and No 10. However, what was sinister was that the Met should have been investigating Coulson at the time, not cosying up to him.

    The Commissioner resigned the next day to be quickly followed by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who had been in charge of the first inquiry with Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman. Hayman could not resign from the police. He had already done so and got a job as a columnist with, you have guessed it, News International.

    There was little reporting of anything other than these few dramatic events about the hacking scandal as a whole. It was about the press elite making disclosures about celebrities and politicians and the public were not greatly interested. Perhaps newspapers were wary of writing critically too.

    In July 2011 the public discovered that the phone of a schoolgirl murder victim, Milly Dowler, had been hacked between her being lost to her parents and the finding of her body. It was thought at first that the hackers had deleted her messages and given her parents false hope that she was deleting them and was still alive. It now seems that the messages deleted automatically and is ironic that the huge public anger this caused was actually due to mis-reporting.

    It soon became clear that victims of the London bombings had had their phones hacked, so had relatives of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. News International was running a campaign called “Help for Heroes” at the time, in apparent support of the very people whose phones they were hacking.

    Perhaps most breathtakingly hypocritical, was the hacking of Sara Payne’s phone. She is the mother of a child murdered by a paedophile, campaigning to change the law on sex offenders, and someone who had been personally supported by Rebekah Brooks.

    In July, the Rupert and James Murdoch gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee, culminating in the throwing of a custard pie at Rupert Murdoch, shortly after he had said, clearly badly tutored by a publicity trainer “This is the humblest day of my life”. The Murdochs said that the NOTW was only 1% of their empire and anyway though shameful, this was an old story now.

    So little was it an “Old Story” that Mark Lewis, the solicitor who had got such a staggering settlement for Gordon Taylor, and consequently accumulated a host of celebrity hacking victims, found that he had been hacked, his estranged wife and two daughters followed and a plan hatched to allege that he was having an affair with a colleague at his firm. So, in the summer of 2011 when these events were at their height, News International was using dirty, perhaps unlawful, tricks to discredit someone who was crossing Murdoch.

    A few days after the Commons hearings, the Murdochs closed the 168 year old NOTW, sacking several hundred people, most of whom had nothing to do with hacking. If the plan was to give the appearance that this was the “rogue paper” the equivalent of Goodman being the sole culpable “rogue reporter” it did not work.

    David Cameron announced the Leveson Inquiry in August to look into conduct of News International but there is an important tributary story too.

    Between 2003 and 2006, Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, had presided over something called Operation Motorman. This investigation showed that at least one private detective, working through a spiders web of bribed insiders and despite the Data Protection Act, was supplying data from HMRC and DWP, from the Police National Computer, from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre and from mobile phone companies to journalists.

    305 named journalists had paid to receive this information unlawfully, but top of the list were 952 requests through 58 journalists for the Daily Mail, 802 requests from 50 journalists at the People, followed by the Daily Mirror and the Mail on Sunday, none of which is part of the News International stable. Only fifth on the list with 228 inquiries from 23 journalists, was the NOTW.

    Here was a different kind of illegality, being used, as simply as going to a shop to buy goods, by journalists throughout the UK press world and not even principally by News International. The questions for Leveson therefore stretch beyond phone hacking and beyond News International.

    His Inquiry is currently hearing the first module of Part One of his Inquiry, looking into press relations with the public and featuring the whole hacking history. Innumerable victims have been called, from Hugh Grant to the Dowlers and more than a dozen Fleet Street editors have appeared, each regretfully accepting that the Press Complaints Commission is not strong enough but each cleaving, nonetheless, to a system of self-regulation.

    That is has gone far wider than the issue of hacking is evidenced by evidence last week from some women’s organisations, one of which I chair, about the way in which the press depicts women. They gave an example of the sexual abuse of two twelve year olds by a group of footballers which was described as “an orgy” when it was a sexual assault, capable of being seriously damaging to the girls. It featured too, stories of the sexist abuse poured upon women in public positions who are depicted as ugly and stupid while women cooks are idolised as domestic goddesses – examples of a culture of keeping women in “their place”. I relate these not for your views but to demonstrate that the Inquiry is looking at an array of ethical questions.

    A summary of the issues “in the air” in the UK at present would include:

    1. The interplay of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    ARTICLE 8 provides:

    Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    ARTICLE 10

    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    Clearly both are inherently conditional rights and have, additionally, to be balanced against each other on a case by case basis by the judiciary. I don’t think that it is an unrealistic generalisation to say that the judges have tended to favour privacy. There are calls from time to time for a statutory right to privacy, for its own sake and, alternatively, for such a statute in order to stop the judges from creating a right to privacy, without democratic sanction.

    2. The intense commercial competition in the newspaper world in the context of challenge from the electronic media. Increasing pressure for stories with weaker control over how they are obtained as papers cut staff and rely more on freelances.

    A cut throat approach to this has undoubtedly been led by Murdoch with his doctrine of doing whatever it takes to get a story, destroying the competition and the result justifying all.

    His politics have been brought into all his newspapers and his power and influence are well-known and have been effective for more than a decade. Tony Blair cultivated him as did Gordon Brown (with less effect) and now Cameron not only appointed Coulson but is said to ride with Rebekah Brooks, as part of “the Chipping Norton set” and there are stories about Murdoch going into No 10 by the back door so that the frequency of his meetings isn’t seen.

    People are afraid of Murdoch. The DCMS Select Committee was advised that if it started an inquiry into Murdoch it could expect intrusions into members private lives with a view to discrediting them.

    However the Daily Mail is equally ruthless and destructive now.

    There are taste issues with little apparent political content. The Daily Star, whose editor is a woman, not only objectifies women in photo after photo but has been described as “only a newspaper in the loosest sense” and its editor did have to admit to Leveson that story after story put to her by counsel to the Inquiry was completely without factual foundation.

    An important point is that these intrusions into people’s lives are extremely injurious. The damage done to the Dowler family and to others who are undermined by lies or private information, published to millions is immense.

    However, it is important to remember that phone hacking and paying police, or other officials, for information, has always been a crime and we could legislate to guarantee better media plurality if we wished, so that bias could be rectified, diversity improved and power limited.

    Perhaps the most important balancing fact is that almost the whole phone hacking scandal was disclosed, not by press regulators or police, but by the press itself, in the form of Nick Davies of the Guardian with his team, fully supported by the editor Alan Rusbridger.

    The late Hugo Young said that it was time to stop “the blackmail … that the interests of the Sun and the Guardian have anything to do with each other.” Why should investigative journalism be restrained because the redtops cannot act responsibly?

    I return to where I started, Leveson’s recommendations are bound to have an impact on the Commonwealth and your campaigns for press freedom, against oppressive legislation and to protect commonwealth journalists. It is important that CJA puts in a submission to his Inquiry so that he takes cognisance that his findings will be capable of having a deleterious effect, on the very different press in the Commonwealth, if he doesn’t frame them with care.

  • Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Speech on UK House Legacy Day

    Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Speech on UK House Legacy Day

    The speech made by Nigel Huddleston, the Minister for Sport, on 8 August 2022.

    Thank you. I’m absolutely delighted to be here today, at UK House, to join you all, on Legacy Day, to reflect on, not just what has been a truly fantastic Games, but on the array of future opportunities it presents to the region and the rest of the country.

    We’ve seen 10 incredible days of sport, cultural and business events, and it’s amazing to see the West Midlands front and centre on the world stage, something that will hopefully continue for a long time to come.

    Firstly, I wanted to offer my thanks to everyone involved in staging this incredible event and in working so hard to ensure it leaves behind a lasting legacy. Putting on the Games and harnessing the myriad benefits it can bring to the region and the UK has been a true partnership.

    It is only through collective effort that the Games has been the success that it has. My thanks to each and every one of you who has engaged in the event and the opportunities it has brought about. And a particular thanks to Andy for the vital role that he personally played in helping to secure this fantastic event.

    And let me say that this collective effort has resulted in what truly has been a Games of amazing achievements.

    The fastest Games ever delivered, four and a half years rather than the standard seven.

    An ambition to be the most sustainable Games yet, and first to strive to be carbon neutral.

    The most inclusive Games ever, with the largest ever integrated parasport programme and for the first time, more women’s medal events than men’s.

    But, beyond the event itself, I also want to reflect on the vast array of legacy opportunities that have been created, and that will continue to be created long after the closing ceremony has concluded.

    As a government, we’ve been resolutely focused on ensuring that Birmingham 2022 leaves a lasting legacy for the host city and region, and the whole of the UK.

    £778 million of public money has been invested to deliver the Games itself. This core £778 million, as well as providing for an amazing legacy itself, has enabled a further £85 million of additional funding to be unlocked from a wide range of organisations.

    The legacy of the Games ranges far and wide, with the ‘Games for Everyone’ vision embedded from the start.

    The Games has supported communities to access its opportunities and benefits, with equality, diversity and inclusion embedded in everything that partners have done.

    There has been significant new infrastructure with a new aquatics centre at Sandwell and the redevelopment of the Alexander Stadium that local communities will be able to benefit from, long after the Games is over. Plus the regeneration of Perry Barr has created 1,400 new homes.

    In addition, the Legacy programme for the Games has delivered:

    A £10 million Jobs and Skills Academy that’s made sure local residents have the skills they need to capitalise on the opportunities driven by the Games.

    More than £35 million invested by Sport England in delivering a physical activity and wellbeing legacy, supporting those who are least active to engage with sport and physical activity.

    A youth and schools engagement programme, ensuring that we’re engaging children and young people across the country in the story and excitement of the Games and the Commonwealth.

    A 6 month free-to-access Cultural Programme across the West Midlands, supported by £12 million investment from Arts Council England, the Heritage Fund and Spirit of 2012, as well as other partners.

    Ambitious sustainability commitments including, as I’ve already mentioned, an ambition to be the most sustainable Games yet and the ‘first ever carbon neutral Games’.

    And on top of this, £350 million worth of procurement opportunities, the majority of which were secured right here by firms from the West Midlands.

    And of course, the £24 million investment that we, along with the Combined Authority, have made into the Business and Tourism Programme.

    Here, at UK House, over the last 11 days, we’ve seen the power of this investment, bringing together business leaders from across the world, showcasing the West Midlands, as a place to live, work, visit and do business.

    This programme is a vital part of harnessing the positive profile generated by the Games to boost the global reputation of Birmingham, the West Midlands and the UK as a leading destination for tourism, trade and investment.

    In partnership with the West Midlands Combined Authority, the West Midlands Growth Company, the Department for International Trade and Visit Britain, as well as sponsors in our audience today, we’ve seen it deliver some incredible in opportunities.

    The opportunity to connect with Commonwealth nations and territories and other key global markets.

    The opportunity to re-establish a resilient and sustainable tourism sector in the West Midlands and, more widely, to contribute to the recovery of UK tourism as we emerge from Covid-19.

    And the opportunity to demonstrate to the world that the West Midlands and the UK are innovative, dynamic and investor-friendly.

    But this is far from the end for the Business and Tourism programme, in fact it’s only just the beginning. Building on the profile and momentum of these fantastic past two weeks we’ve rightly set ourselves some lofty ambitions. By 2027 we’re aiming to:

    Generate more than £700 million of investment, including more than £370 million in the West Midlands

    Attract 39,000 new visitors, including 12,000 to the West Midlands

    Create 1,000 new jobs, with up to 600 of these based in the West Midlands

    The drive and commitment of the Mayor and colleagues at the Combined Authority, West Midlands Growth Company, the Department for International Trade and Visit Britain has been a crucial part of ensuring the success of the programme. My thanks to them for all that they have contributed over many months and years.

    In many ways, the Business and Tourism Programme, as a partnership between national, regional and local government and with the private sector, represents devolution in action. Working together, as more than the sum of our parts, to achieve extraordinary things and level up our places.

    And on behalf of the Government, I look forward to working with the West Midlands as we explore opportunities to build on the success of the Games.

    The Games have been a fantastic experience and we’ve achieved so much.

    But as I’ve always said, this is about much more than the event itself. It’s about capitalising on the momentum of the Games to unlock the enduring benefits it can bring for the West Midlands region and its communities, and the UK as a whole.

    I look forward to seeing the fruits of our collective efforts materialise over many months and years to come. Thank you.

  • Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Speech at the International Working Group on Women and Sport Handover

    Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Speech at the International Working Group on Women and Sport Handover

    The speech made by Nigel Huddleston, the Minister for Sport, Tourism, Heritage and Civil Society, at New Zealand House, Edgbaston Golf Club on 4 August 2022.

    Thank you to New Zealand for your generous hospitality.

    I am genuinely delighted to be able to attend today’s event which starts the official handover of the International Working Group on Women and Sport from New Zealand to the UK.

    It is great that the event could be happening at the very same time as Birmingham 2022, which – and this is worth repeating – has the largest female sport programme in the history of the Commonwealth Games and will be the first time a major multi-sport event will feature more women’s than men’s medal events and I think that is fantastic.

    I am absolutely committed to supporting women’s sport at every opportunity – pushing for greater participation, employment, commercial opportunities and visibility in the media. The fantastic success of the Lionesses this weekend shows just how far we have come.

    The UK has a strong track record and strong history of empowering women and girls through sport. There is a long way to go but we have much to be proud of in this area.

    The media profile of women’s sport is continuing to rise and recent research shows that two-thirds of UK sport fans currently follow some form of women’s sport, and half have attended an event featuring women’s athletes.

    Our domestic initiatives, like This Girl Can, are inspiring millions of women and girls to get physically active. Something that is particularly important as we recover from the pandemic.

    We have also seen the growth in audiences for women’s sport.

    Recent research published by Women’s Sport Trust shows that domestic women’s sport attracted a record British broadcast audience of nearly 33 million in 2021, the main drivers being The Hundred and the FA Women’s Super League.

    And the leadership role of certain media outlets is very important, including the BBC, which made the strategic decision to make sure that many of those matches were on BBC One, peak time. It worked. It showed that there is a mass audience for women’s sport. And that is pivotal. If the eyeballs are there, then the money and commercial opportunities start flowing. Instead of just doing that because it is the right thing to do, we will have increasing competition to hold these events and make sure these events are on TV because they are commercially viable and commercially lucrative.

    And a record crowd of more than 87,000 attended this year’s UEFA Women’s Euros final – the highest attended match at either a men’s or women’s European Championship.  I was lucky enough to attend some of the matches including the final and I can honestly say that there was a superb atmosphere. The spectators were evenly balanced and importantly, more than 100,000 children were spectators in those matches. I know the whole nation will have been inspired by the Lionesses.

    There have also been record sponsorship deals struck with women’s sports leagues, such as Barclays’ sponsorship of the Women’s Super League, the premier women’s football league in England.

    And the UK is due to host a number of high profile women’s sports events this year, including the Rugby League World Cup and the Billie Jean King Cup. Plus Birmingham 2022 of course which is going on at this moment in time.

    We are working tirelessly to make the most of these events in showcasing women’s sport, and encouraging more women and girls to get active as a result. But we recognise that we need to go further.

    The IWG is a great opportunity to build on this success and not only share the fantastic work we are doing but to learn from other countries too.

    The UK Secretariat’s vision for a ‘just and sustainable post-pandemic world where women and girls play a full and equitable role’ is something that I feel passionately about.

    It is vital that we continue to strive for greater equality and opportunity in sport.

    We have been working with our women’s sport working group in the UK, which many of you have attended, to look at some of the challenges and opportunities that exist and I am really keen that we continue to make progress as a result of these discussions.

    I would also like to commend the work of the current hosts New Zealand in sharing, promoting and supporting stories of inspiring change from around the world.

    Their development of the world’s first IWG Insight Hub as a home for the world’s best research, insight, case studies, news and interactive programmes such as training and seminars has also been ground breaking.

    I believe the IWG can be a catalyst for women’s sport as we recover from the impact of the pandemic.

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the role you have all played in securing the IWG secretariat for the UK.

    It’s absolutely essential that we work collectively to share the messages behind the bid of inclusivity, equity and collaboration.

    I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that women’s sport continues to thrive not just in the UK but on the international stage.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Letter to England’s Women’s Football Team

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Letter to England’s Women’s Football Team

    The letter sent by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, to the England Women’s Football Team ahead of the World Cup final on 31 July 2022.

    Text of letter (in .pdf format)

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on Loot Boxes

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on Loot Boxes

    The comments made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 17 July 2022.

    We want to stop children going on spending sprees online without parental consent, spurred on by in-game purchases like loot-boxes.

    Games companies and platforms need to do more to ensure that controls and age-restrictions are applied so that players are protected from the risk of gambling harms. Children should be free to enjoy gaming safely, whilst giving parents and guardians the peace of mind they need.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Channel Four Television Corporation

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Channel Four Television Corporation

    The statement made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 13 July 2022.

    The Channel Four Television Corporation (C4C) report and financial statements 2021 have today been laid before Parliament.

    The 2021 annual report shows that C4C performed well last year, delivering on its remit and obligations and reporting a strong set of results, particularly in terms of growth in digital revenue and viewers. To enable C4C to continue to build on this success over the long term, it needs greater access to capital and the option to make and own content to ensure it has the best tools to support a long-term sustainable future. In this context, it is right that the Government acknowledge both the considerable opportunities and challenges presented by the dynamic market context in which C4C operates. The Government are committed to take the steps necessary to protect one of our most important public service broadcasters not just today, but in the years to come. That is why, as part of a package of reforms set out in the recent White Paper “Up next”, the Government are moving ahead with plans to move C4C out of public ownership to become a privately owned, free-to-air public service broadcaster, alongside other successful privately owned PSBs, including ITV, STV and Channel 5.

    On 14 June 2022, the House of Commons debated a motion on the future of C4C. This statement fulfils the Government’s obligation to respond to this debate.

    The motion called on the Government to reverse its decision on C4C. Like every broadcaster, C4C faces huge competition for viewers, for programmes and for talent. Streamers such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video and global media groups such as Disney and Paramount have far deeper pockets than our PSBs. C4C is uniquely constrained. Under its current ownership model, C4C has fewer options to invest, fewer options to innovate, and, crucially, fewer tools to support its growth than its competitors.

    As a responsible Government, we must recognise these constraints and be prepared to act now to address them. We therefore believe it is the right time to unleash C4C’s full potential, and open the broadcaster up to private ownership while protecting its public service broadcasting remit. A sale will allow C4C to access greater investment—meaning it can create more great programming made by people who live and work in the UK—without losing what makes it distinctive and without exposing taxpayers and the public finances to greater risk.

    The motion called on the Government to protect C4C’s contribution to levelling up and maintain its Leeds headquarters and commissioning expenditure outside of London. The Government recognise and value C4C’s ongoing commitment to levelling up, as emphasised in its annual report, and its support for national and regional economies. We will maintain C4C’s existing obligations in terms of production outside London and England. We expect C4C’s access to networks outside London and its ability to speak to a diverse range of audiences across the UK to be an attractive asset that any potential buyer will look to nurture and develop. Across PSBs, it is clear that ownership is not correlated with regional spending. In fact, though its latest annual report shows it is on an improving path, C4C spent less in the north of England as a percentage of its total production spend than PSBs as a whole in 2020, and less than privately owned ITV, with C4C spending 19.3% in 2020 in Northern England, compared with ITV’s 30.4%. There is no reason that a sale could not accelerate the process of growing the broadcaster’s impact outside London.

    The motion also called for the Government to maintain the publisher-broadcaster restriction. The Government will remove this restriction to enable C4C to diversify its revenue streams into content and improve its business resilience. C4C will still be required to commission a minimum volume of its programming from independent producers, in line with the quotas placed on other PSBs, ensuring its continued contribution to the sector. The Government believe that in the long run, the UK production ecosystem will benefit from a more sustainable C4C. A change of ownership that improves Channel 4’s access to capital could increase spending on production. For example, Channel 5’s overall content budget increased following its acquisition by Viacom in 2014, with first-run spending up by an average of 7% per year between 2014 and 2018. C4C has excellent relationships with independent producers right across the UK, and there is no reason this should change. Indeed, we expect a new owner to value and want to build on those relationships.

    The Government are clear that C4C will remain a public service broadcaster. Its public service broadcasting remit will remain written into law, and the right buyer for Channel 4 will be one who shares our ambition for the business and our belief in what makes it special. We are not trying to change the distinctive role C4C plays; we are seeking to give it the best set of tools and the freedom to flourish and thrive long into the future.