UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Culture

  • Tracey Crouch – 2022 Speech on Football Governance

    Tracey Crouch – 2022 Speech on Football Governance

    The speech made by Tracey Crouch, the Conservative MP for Chatham and Aylesford, in the House of Commons on 25 April 2022.

    I am grateful to Mr Speaker for his comments at the start of the statement. I appreciate that with Chorley in the play-offs, he has a deep interest in the future of football.

    With great community clubs such as Buckhurst Hill and Epping Town in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you share the concerns and thoughts of many colleagues. I will not test your patience; I will take just a minute or so, because I recognise that hon. Members have a lot to say and I know that I will be having a meeting with the Minister to go through some of the detail of the report.

    Regardless of any result on the pitch over the weekend, today is a good day for football fans. There has long been concern about the regulation and governance of football clubs throughout the English football pyramid, much of which has come on the back of various crises that in some cases have seen the disintegration of clubs as a result of financial mismanagement. That led to the fan-led review of football, which I was privileged to chair.

    I am enormously pleased that the Government have accepted, or support, all 10 strategic recommendations set out in the review, including the fundamental proposal to establish an independent regulator free from the vested and conflicted interests that currently govern the game. It is perfectly possible to celebrate the global success of English football while at the same time having deep concerns about the fragility of the wider foundations of the game. The implementation of better regulation, stronger governance and more involvement for fans will not threaten the success of our game, but will make it stronger than ever.

    All that said, I am concerned about the timeframe for implementation, and—with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—seek clarity on a few points.

    Will the Minister confirm that the White Paper will be published this side of the summer recess? “Summer” can mean a lot of things in Government parlance, including, quite often, what we, the public, think of as autumn. Will the Minister rule out the housing of the independent regulator in the FA? Can he clarify whether the owners’ and directors’ test will be split into two, as recommended in the review? Does he share my disappointment that there has been no progress in respect of discussions between the football authorities on redistribution and parachute payments? Will he outline his position on the transfer solidarity levy? Finally, the review was clear about the fact that fans should have a right of consent as part of the golden share on heritage items, but the Government’s response was less clear in that regard. Will the Minister confirm that there will be a veto for fans on heritage matters?

    There is much in today’s announcement on which to congratulate the Government, and I pay particular tribute to the officials who have worked so hard on this response. Momentum is on the side of reform, but, like most football fans, I am always fearful of two things: one-nil score lines with time to play, and games that head into extra time. Given that both football and politics can be volatile and vulnerable to sudden change, I urge the Government to nail the win for millions of fans across the pyramid, and deliver the reforms as quickly as possible.

  • Jeff Smith – 2022 Speech on Football Governance

    Jeff Smith – 2022 Speech on Football Governance

    The speech made by Jeff Smith, the Shadow Minister for Culture, in the House of Commons on 25 April 2022.

    I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. I also thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and all those who contributed to her excellent and timely review of our national game.

    I welcome the confirmation that the Government are supporting the strategic recommendations of the fan-led review. Labour has been calling for the plans to be fully implemented ever since the review was published and, in particular, for the independent regulator for English football, which is key to reform. But however the Government try to spin it, today’s announcement of a White Paper and further delay will come as a disappointment to fans.

    The fan-led review was a rigorous and wide-ranging piece of work, based on engagement with every possible interest group alongside more than 20,000 individual fan responses to a survey, and supported by an expert advisory panel from the world of football. As the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), rightly said when doing the media rounds this morning,

    “there has been huge input from fans up and down the country”.

    Eleven years after the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report, three years after the collapse of Bury, a year after the disastrous European super league proposal and five months after the publication of the fan-led review, we do not need further consultation or a road map. We need a clear timetable and new legislation to be included in the Queen’s Speech in 15 days’ time.

    The need for urgent action is clear. Oldham Athletic were relegated from the English football league on Saturday after years of mismanagement ending in fan protests. Derby County are in ongoing crisis and were relegated from the championship this week—not because the players are not good enough, but because of bad owner management and governance. Those two historic clubs, founding members of the premier and football leagues respectively, have been hit hard because of reckless owners.

    In the wake of the Ukraine war and sanctions, Chelsea are in limbo. Many supporters want the review recommendations to be incorporated in the club’s sale. The Government are missing an opportunity to embed fan representation, as recommended in the review, and give supporters a say on changes to the heritage assets of their club.

    The Minister’s statement, although welcome, left some questions unanswered. The Minister could not rule out to the Select Committee recently that a regulator might be located within the FA. Can he do so now? We believe that it is vital for the regulator to be truly independent.

    The statement confirmed that the Government are accepting all 10 of the strategic recommendations. That is good, but can the Minister confirm that the Government support the 47 detailed recommendations in the report? Perhaps more importantly, are there any that they do not support?

    The announcement today will do nothing to break the impasse on the redistribution of funding. The fan-led review gave the Premier League and the EFL until the end of 2021 to work it out between them, but that has not happened: the bodies have not been able to come to an agreement for months. If they fail, the review proposes action from the regulator, but on the current timescale—unless the Minister can tell me otherwise—a regulator will not be in place until at least 2024. At what point will he intervene urgently to get the Premier League and the EFL to an agreement?

    The dedicated review of women’s football, which was an important recommendation in the review, is really welcome. Can the Minister give any more detail on who will chair it, what timescale it might follow and how its recommendations will be taken forward in due course?

    The Government have said all along, quite rightly, that they accept in principle the proposals in the review, so let us get on with it. We are already too late for Bury, Derby and Oldham. If further clubs go under or suffer because of delays to the implementation of the review, responsibility will rest partly on the Government’s shoulders. The Labour party is happy to work with the Government to find space for legislation sooner rather than later. The right result is already clear; we do not need extra time. For the future of our national game, let us see legislation in the Queen’s Speech and action as quickly as possible.

  • Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Statement on Football Governance

    Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Statement on Football Governance

    The statement made by Nigel Huddleston, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 25 April 2022.

    First, I accept your comments, Mr Speaker—I certainly mean no discourtesy to this House—and I will have discussions about them with colleagues. With permission, I would like to make a statement setting out the Government’s response to the independent fan-led review of football governance. This is further to my written statement issued earlier today. The Government’s response has been provided in hard copy to the Vote Office, and I will place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

    First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for all her hard work, and indeed I thank the entire panel for their diligence on the review. I also thank colleagues from across the House and all stakeholders who have debated these matters at length—in many cases for a number of years. Most importantly, I want to thank the dozens of clubs and thousands of football fans from across the country who contributed to the review. They sit at the heart of the review and our response to it.

    Football is a defining part of our national identity and has been a central part of British life for over a century. English football has had some extraordinary success. Our premier league has grown to become the most watched sports league in the world. However, good governance of our clubs has not kept pace with that expansion and development. The football pyramid has come under threat in recent times, with clubs risking collapse. Many fans have felt alienated from their clubs. It is obvious that reform is needed to keep our national game alive and thriving.

    The Government have already taken strong action to support the reform of football. This includes financial support to help clubs through the pandemic, and amendments to competition law to provide financial stability to English football. We also committed to undertaking a review of football governance in our manifesto—a review led by fans, for fans, to protect the future of professional football in this country. In late November, the independent fan-led review of football governance published its report. I am today pleased to announce the publication of the Government’s response to that report. Our response acknowledges the clear case for reform and sets out our approach to moving forward. It marks a significant step in protecting our national game. Today, I am confirming that the Government will introduce an independent regulator for football, in law, as part of a wider plan for reform. An independent regulator is just one of 10 strategic recommendations set out in the report. I am pleased to say that the Government will endorse all of the review’s strategic recommendations. Some are for the Government to implement, and some are for the football authorities to take forward. We expect them to take action, too.

    As well as surveying thousands of fans directly, the review benefited from over 100 hours of engagement, involving representatives of over 130 clubs. This all built a clear picture of the challenges in the game. The review, and our response, are for the fans who make our national game what it is, and without whom football would be nothing. To coincide with the response, we are also publishing the findings of a Government-commissioned study by academics and football finance experts Kieran Maguire and Christina Philippou. Their analysis confirms that there is a widespread issue of fragile finances across English football clubs, and that action is needed to secure the sustainability of the game.

    The sum total of our plans amounts to significant reform. In our response, we are committing to publishing a White Paper in the summer, which will set out further details of the implementation of this reform. Through a new financial regulation regime, the regulator will usher in a new era of financial competency and sustainability for our clubs. We also recognise that who runs our football clubs goes hand in hand with how they are run, so the regulator will establish a new owners and directors test, replacing the three existing tests, in order to ensure that only good custodians and qualified directors can run these vital community assets. The strengthened test will include a new integrity test. Recent events have shown the importance of our having confidence in the custodians of our football clubs.

    Fans have a crucial role to play in the future of football in this country, and for that reason we believe that fans should be properly consulted by their clubs on key decisions. The regulator will therefore set a licence condition that sets out a minimum level of fan engagement to ensure that clubs are meaningfully engaging fans. We also acknowledge the crucial role that football clubs play in the identity of this country, particularly in the communities that are so intrinsically linked with their local team. The stadium, colours and badge are an integral part of that. We therefore believe that they should have additional protections. That includes a mechanism requiring fans to consent before any changes are made to those key items.

    Our manifesto commitment was instigated by the financial jeopardy that so many clubs were being pushed into. The long-term health of professional football in this country is dependent on fairer distributions throughout the football pyramid. That is why we agree that the Premier League should strengthen its support across the football pyramid. We expect further action from the football authorities on this important recommendation. If they do not come to an agreement on financial flows through the pyramid, we reserve the right for the regulator to have powers in this area.

    Football also needs to ensure that there is a clear and supportive pathway for players. That is why we agree with the recommendation that the welfare of players exiting the game needs to be better protected. I have asked the football authorities to act with urgency on that matter.

    Taking forward those recommendations and securing the future of football is a key priority of this Government, but that priority stretches beyond Government. The review contains actions specifically for the Football Association, the Premier League, the English Football League and the Professional Footballers’ Association, on which we expect to see action, without waiting for Government legislation.

    The majority of the review looked at issues related to the men’s game. Women’s football has gone from strength to strength over the past few years, with a record number of tickets sold for this year’s European women’s championship to be hosted here in England. The Government have shown that we are right behind women’s sport in every aspect, so we will launch a dedicated review of women’s football in this country.

    As well as the women’s football review, I am pleased to confirm that the FIFA women’s World cup and UEFA European women’s championship finals will be added to the listed events regime. As a result, the tournaments will continue to be available to free-to-air television broadcasters, hopefully inspiring the next generation of Lucy Bronzes and Ellen Whites.

    The changes that we have set out represent a real turning point for football and will have a considerable impact on clubs. It is crucial that we get this right to give confidence to fans and future investors. That is why we will set out further details on how reforms will be implemented in a White Paper in the summer, and we are committed to legislating to make football reform a reality. We will implement the reforms as soon as possible.

    We are paving the way for a more sustainable, accountable and responsible future for football—one that ensures that fans are front and centre of our national game. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on the Online Safety Bill

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on the Online Safety Bill

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

    The time has come to properly protect people online and this week MPs will debate the most important legislation in the internet age.

    Our groundbreaking Online Safety Bill will make the UK the safest place to surf the web. It has been significantly strengthened following a lengthy period of engagement with people in politics, wider society and industry.

    We want to arm everyone with the skills to navigate the internet safely, so today we’re also announcing a funding boost and plans for experts to join forces with the government to help people spot dodgy information online.

  • Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Statement on Incorrect Information Provided by Government

    Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Statement on Incorrect Information Provided by Government

    The statement made by Nigel Huddleston, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2022.

    I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Arts, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay:

    On 9 June 2020, the then Minister for Digital and Culture, Dame Caroline Dinenage MP, answered a parliamentary question from Anneliese Dodds MP (53581) on the tax treatment of emergency grants provided to freelancers by Arts Council England at the beginning of the pandemic, April 2020.

    The question was answered, in consultation with the Arts Council, on the basis of information believed to be true at the time. It stated that:

    “The Arts Council always recommends that grant recipients refer to HMRC and/or an independent advisor for advice that takes full account of their personal circumstances for tax. In general, as per the agreement reached between the Inland Revenue and the Arts Council of Great Britain in 1978, which we understand still applies, it is the Arts Council’s understanding that:

    Grants awarded to support people to take time out to develop and explore their artistic and cultural practice—such as those grants recently made under the Arts Council’s emergency response fund for Individuals—should not be treated as taxable income.

    Grants awarded to support the delivery of a specific project or projects would be treated as taxable income.”

    Arts Council England was subsequently informed by HMRC that it considered the payments made from the emergency response fund would fall into the taxable category. This was on the basis that—similar to other covid relief grants—they were made to support businesses and jobs, replacing lost revenue of the claimants. This means that, where the claimant is self-employed, the receipts should be included in the computation of their trading profits.

    Given the complexity of the tax treatment of grants, and the importance of this issue to recipients, Arts Council England and DCMS queried this decision with HMRC officials. Ultimately, however, HMRC were of the view that these grants needed to be treated consistently with other support funds.

    There was a regrettable delay between this decision being finalised and recipients being informed of the tax treatment by the Arts Council. In addition, incorrect information was given from HMRC channels which relied on the statement made in the original answer to the parliamentary question, compounding the confusion.

    I therefore asked DCMS and HMRC officials to agree that individuals would not be penalised where they had unknowingly submitted incorrect information and that they would be given the opportunity to correct their tax returns.

    Arts Council England wrote on 19 January to all those in receipt of payments from its emergency response fund to advise them of HMRC’s position.

    7,484 grants were awarded under Arts Council England’s “Emergency Response Fund for Individuals” programme, totalling £17.1 million, meaning an average grant of c. £2,285.

    Recipients were therefore advised, ahead of the submission deadline, that:

    they would not be charged a penalty if they filed their self-assessment return up to a month after the deadline;

    if they needed to correct their tax return, HMRC would not charge any penalties for errors related to the grant payment in the original return; and that

    if recipients did not correct their tax return—for instance, because they remain unaware that they have made an error—and HMRC subsequently discovers the error, HMRC would not charge a penalty if the error is a result of relying on incorrect official information.

    This was an unfortunate error on the part of a number of Government and non-governmental bodies. I am very sorry for it. I trust the actions taken by my officials and agreed with HMRC have ensured that no individual is unfairly penalised as a result of this error.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Online Safety

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Online Safety

    The statement made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 17 March 2022.

    Today the Government are introducing the Online Safety Bill. For most people, the internet has transformed relationships and working environments, but illegal and harmful content appearing online is a growing problem. This groundbreaking Bill will keep users safe while protecting freedom of expression and democratic debate online. Under the new laws, in-scope services will need to:

    Tackle criminal activity—There will be no safe space for criminal content online. Platforms will have to remove terrorist material or child sexual abuse and exploitation quickly, and will not be allowed to promote it in their algorithms.

    Protect children—The strongest protections in our new laws are for children and young people. They will be protected from harmful or inappropriate content such as grooming, bullying, pornography and the promotion of self-harm and eating disorders.

    Enforce their terms and conditions—The largest online platforms with the widest reach, including the most popular social media platforms (category 1 services) will need to set out clearly what harmful content accessed by adults is allowed on their sites, and enforce their terms of service consistently, while protecting freedom of expression and democratic debate.

    The strongest provisions in our legislation are for children. All companies in scope of this legislation will need to consider the risks that their sites could pose to the youngest members of society. This Bill will require companies to take steps to protect children from inappropriate content and harmful activity online, including from content such as pro-suicide material. The Bill will also require providers who publish or host pornographic content on their services to prevent children from accessing that content, including using age-verification technology where appropriate.

    Furthermore, this Bill will ensure companies take robust action against illegal content. We have included a new list of priority offences on the face of the Bill, reflecting the most serious and prevalent illegal content and activity, against which companies must take proactive measures. These will include, amongst others, revenge pornography, fraud, the sale of illegal drugs or weapons, the promotion or facilitation of suicide, people smuggling and the illegal sex trade. The Bill will also introduce a requirement on in-scope companies to report child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery detected on their platforms to the National Crime Agency. This will ensure companies provide law enforcement with the high-quality information they need to safeguard victims and investigate offenders. The updated Bill will also tackle scam adverts, by requiring the largest platforms to put in place proportionate systems and processes to prevent fraudulent adverts from being published or hosted on their service.

    This legislation will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content. Rather, the major platforms will need to be clear what content is acceptable on their services and enforce their terms and conditions consistently and effectively. We have refined the approach to defining content that is harmful to adults, so that all types of harmful content that category 1 services (the largest online platforms with the widest reach, including the most popular social media platforms) are required to address will be set out in regulations subject to approval by both Houses. This will provide clarity about the harms that services must address and will reduce the risk of category 1 services taking an overly broad approach to what is considered harmful. In addition, these companies will not be able to remove controversial viewpoints arbitrarily, and users will be able to seek redress if they feel content has been removed unfairly. Both Ofcom and in-scope companies will have duties relating to freedom of expression, for which they can be held to account. Category 1 services will also have duties for democratic and journalistic content. They will need to set in their terms and conditions how they will protect this content on their platforms explicitly. This will ensure that people in the UK can express themselves freely online and participate in pluralistic and robust debate.

    The Bill provides Ofcom with robust enforcement powers to take action when platforms do not comply. Options available to Ofcom include imposing substantial fines, requiring improvements and pursuing business disruption measures (including blocking). The Bill also includes criminal offences for senior managers who fail to ensure their company co-operates with Ofcom, and gives them the information they need to regulate effectively. The Government have also announced additional information-related offences, including ensuring employees do not give false information during interviews, which will further help ensure that companies give Ofcom full and accurate information. We will bring these criminal sanctions into force as soon as possible after Royal Assent (generally two months, in line with standard practice), to further promote strong compliance.

    The threat posed by harmful and illegal content and activity is a global one and the Government remain committed to building international consensus around shared approaches to improve internet safety. Under the UK’s presidency of the G7, the world’s leading democracies committed to a set of internet safety principles. This is significant as it is the first time that an approach to internet safety has been agreed in the G7. We will continue to collaborate with our international partners to develop common approaches to this shared challenge that uphold our democratic values and promote a free, open and secure internet.

    We are grateful for the extensive engagement and scrutiny of the Bill from the Joint Committee, DCMS Select Sub-committee and the Petitions Committee, which has helped us to create a framework that delivers for users and maintains the UK’s reputation as a tech leader. The Bill is sustainable, workable, and proportionate, and will create a significant step-change in the experience people have online.

    We are also publishing the response to the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill alongside publication of the Bill, and we thank the Committee once again for its work and its recommendations.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Chelsea Football Club

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Chelsea Football Club

    The statement made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 10 March 2022.

    Putin’s attack on Ukraine continues and we are witnessing new levels of evil by the hour. We are now turning the screw on influential oligarchs enabling his regime.

    The important measures announced today will clearly have a direct impact on Chelsea FC and its fans but we are working hard to make sure the club and the national game are not unnecessarily harmed.

    We have granted the club a licence so it can fulfil its fixtures, pay its staff and existing ticket holders can attend matches. We know football clubs are cultural assets and we are committed to protecting them.

  • Chris Elmore – 2022 Speech on Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

    Chris Elmore – 2022 Speech on Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

    The speech made by Chris Elmore, the Shadow Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2022.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I associate myself and the official Opposition with the comments that the Secretary of State has made about the courage of the Ukrainian people and those who are returning to fight for their country. I add my support to all the journalists who have travelled from the UK and around the world to report—free reporting, challenging Putin’s agenda and countering his disinformation. Those journalists are heroes and we owe them a great debt.

    We are in agreement. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who cannot be here today, has long been calling on the Government and sporting and cultural bodies to take tough action against Russian aggression and Belarusian complicity.

    Our thoughts today are with the Ukrainian people and armed forces. We see acts of heroism day after day and courage beyond words in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion. Only a few hours ago, Russian troops took control of the city of Kherson, a stepping stone to the port of Odesa, where Ukraine’s main naval port and navy reside. With each passing day, the situation continues to escalate. This situation requires the fullest and strongest possible international response.

    Across this House, we all recognise the importance that Putin and Russia place on participating and succeeding in sporting and cultural events, from chess to ballet, to football. Indeed, in 2010, when Russia won its bid to host the 2018 World cup, Putin spoke enthusiastically about the impact that football had had on his native Leningrad during the second world war and how

    “it helped people to stand tall and survive.”

    Success in sport buoys a nation, boosts national pride, and offers an unrivalled feel-good factor, bringing people together. Indeed, sport can offer a cloak of legitimacy and deflection. Despots such as Putin crave this international attention and spotlight. We know the value that Putin places on hosting international tournaments and on Russia competing in international competitions. That is why we have been calling for full and immediate sporting and cultural sanctions against Russia and Belarus from the start, and for those countries to be banned from international competitions.

    UEFA and Formula 1 moved quickly to cancel events in Russia. Others have now followed suit. Regrettably, though, some have dragged their feet, or are hedging their bets. International sporting and cultural bodies must hit Putin where it hurts and send a clear, immediate and unequivocal message to the Russian people that Putin has turned their country into a pariah state. We welcome this morning’s decision by the Paralympic committee to ban Russia from competing in the winter Paralympics. We should see no fudges, no ifs, no buts—outright bans must be the norm.

    We fully support what the Secretary of State has announced today, but we have some questions. What further discussions is she having with sporting bodies on the complete and total boycott of Russia and Belarus? I understand that some, such as FINA, have said that Russian athletes and officials can take part, but with neutral status. She rightly raises tennis, but Russian and Belarusian players will still be able to play at upcoming grand slams, including Wimbledon, under a neutral flag—

    Ms Dorries indicated dissent.

    Chris Elmore

    I can see the Secretary of State shaking her head, so does she agree with me and the Opposition that we must do more to ensure a total ban from tennis tournaments, ensuring that no Russian or Belarusian will play at Wimbledon?

    On culture, we have seen British institutions, many of them recovering from covid, left with no clear guidance regarding the cancellation of the Russian touring ballet, for example. It should not be for individual organisations, teams or nations to boycott Russia alone. What guidance will the Secretary of State provide to UK organisations and institutions to ensure that they speak with one voice, and what pressure will she place on international bodies that do not ban Russia and Belarus outright?

    What is the Secretary of State doing about those who have bought their way into the fabric of British life, such as Abramovich and others, buying football clubs and gifting to arts and other valued institutions? What is the advice for arts and cultural institutions that have received and do receive gifts from oligarchs and those who prop up Putin’s regime? What about football and sport more widely? Will she act quickly on Abramovich and other oligarchs to ensure that they cannot profit from Putin’s war? Why are the Government allowing oligarchs such as Abramovich time and notice to sort out their affairs and divest any assets that would otherwise be subject to sanctions?

    We stand ready to support the Government’s actions, but we want to see them go further and faster on international bans. We also want to see the Government take Russian money out of our world-renowned institutions such as the Premier League and our arts and cultural scene. We have seen sportwashing, culturewashing and artwashing of dirty Kremlin-linked Russian money. We need action to tackle that now.

    Finally, on disinformation, we welcome Ofcom’s investigation into RT. Online disinformation and fake news is rife. Russian bot factories are spouting lies and trying to distort the truth of Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine. We welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements this morning, but I ask her to go further. The online safety Bill should include additional measures on tackling that disinformation before it is put to the House for Second Reading. Can she give that commitment today?

    It is right that the international response to Putin’s aggression should be exclusion from sporting and cultural events. Words must become deeds, and Putin should feel the consequences of his actions.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

    The statement made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2022.

    We have entered the eighth day of Ukraine’s fight for survival. In the week since Vladimir Putin launched his unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack on a free and peaceful neighbour, the UK has led a united Western response to his brutality. We are working with allies around the world on multiple fronts to ensure that the Russian dictator feels the full cost of his invasion. On the military front, we have provided Ukraine with the weaponry to inflict significant losses on the invading Russian forces. On the economic front, we have worked with international partners to cripple the Russian economy, but as history has shown us, there are other powerful ways of isolating rogue regimes.

    Culture and sport can be as effective as economic sanctions if used in the right way, and so in the last week I have been working to mobilise the full might of the UK’s soft power against the Russian state, and applying pressure both publicly and privately across the sectors to use every lever at their disposal to entrench Putin’s position as an international pariah. Culture is the third front in the Ukrainian war. Earlier this week, I brought together governing bodies from across sport and I made the UK’s position clear: Russia should be stripped of hosting international sporting events, and Russian teams should not be allowed to compete abroad.

    Across sport, the arts and entertainment, we are ostracising Putin on the global stage. The upcoming Champions League final and Formula 1 Grand Prix will no longer be held in Russia. Likewise, Russia has been banned by UEFA, FIFA, World Rugby, the International Tennis Federation and the International Olympic Committee. Venues across the country have cancelled upcoming performances by the Bolshoi and Siberian ballets. Disney and Warner Bros. have pulled their films from Russia. Netflix has stopped its projects. BBC Studios and ITV Studios have stopped trading with Russia too, and Russia has been banned from taking part in the Eurovision Song Contest.

    Putin is now suffering a sporting and cultural Siberia of his own making, and it will be causing the Russian leader real pain. Ask Ukrainian tennis player Sergiy Stakhovsky, who gave a very moving interview on the radio earlier this week. A few weeks ago, he was playing at the Australian Open. Now he is back in Ukraine, preparing to fight for his country’s survival. He said that Putin loves nothing better than watching Russia’s sports teams’ glory on the world stage, his athletes draped in the Russian flag.

    Putin needs the kudos of these global events to cover up his illegitimacy and the hideous acts he is perpetrating in Ukraine. The Russian despot is desperately trying to hide the grim extent of his invasion from his own people. That is why I strongly support, and continue to encourage, the kinds of emotional displays of solidarity we have seen across sporting events in the last week, including the Carabao cup final and the Six Nations. Lights and symbols cannot stop bullets and bombs, but when Russians see their favourite footballers wearing shirts emblazoned with the bright blue and yellow of the Ukrainian flag, it helps to open their eyes to the cold reality of Putin’s actions. Likewise, every time an international organisation or figure publicly stands up against what Putin is doing in Ukraine, they chip away at his wall of lies. I thank and applaud all those who have done so, in this country and internationally, and I continue to push for organisations to exile Putin’s Russia from their ranks.

    That is why I have called on UNESCO to bar Russia from hosting its annual world heritage conference in June. It is absolutely inconceivable that that event could go ahead in Putin’s country as he fires missiles at innocent civilians in neighbouring Ukraine. If it does go ahead, the UK will not be attending. That is also why I urged the International Paralympic Committee urgently to rethink its decision to allow athletes from Russia and Belarus to compete. Such pressure works; the IPC’s decision was the wrong call, and I welcome the fact that overnight it has listened and this morning it has reversed that decision. I wish our athletes the best of luck in Beijing over the coming days. Later today, I will be hosting a summit with countries from all over the globe to discuss how we can continue to use the power of sport to isolate Putin at home and abroad. We have to keep ratcheting up the pressure. Putin must fail.

    In my Department, we have been working tirelessly to use the power of tech and the media against the Russian dictator and to shut down and counter his propaganda and lies, because they are key weapons in his arsenal. The Department’s counter-disinformation unit has been working to identify and remove Russian disinformation online. Alongside the US and others, we have been working closely with platforms to take pre-emptive action against Putin, and to demonstrate the consequences of his brutality in real time to the Russian people. Apple has paused all sales in Russia, Google has added new safeguarding features to Google Maps and Search, and WhatsApp is hosting a helpline for Ukraine’s state emergency service that sends people information and critical news about the local situation.

    While big tech has stepped up in a really positive way, we are also encouraging and supporting platforms to go even further to tackle certain challenges, including disinformation, service disruptions and the humanitarian crisis triggered by the conflict.

    In this digital age, the Ukrainian war is being fought on the ground and online, so we need to use tech wherever we can as a force for good to counter Putin’s aggression, to expose his weaknesses and to bolster the people fighting for their survival in Ukraine.

    From the very moment that Putin began his invasion, I was very clear that he must not be allowed to exploit our open and free media to spread poisonous propaganda into British homes. RT’s own editor-in-chief has called the network an “information weapon” of the Russian state. That is why I wrote to Ofcom last week, urging it to examine any potential breaches of the broadcasting code. Ofcom has since opened 27 investigations into RT and is now reviewing whether to revoke RT’s licence entirely.

    In the meantime, those investigations have been overtaken by events. I was very glad to see yesterday that the channel is now officially off the air on British televisions, after it was shut down on Sky, Freeview and Freesat. I have also written to Meta and TikTok asking them to do everything that they can to prevent access to RT in the UK, as they have done in Europe. I am glad that YouTube has already answered this call and done so.

    We are on the side of free media. That is why it was brilliant to see that the audience for the BBC’s Russian language news website has gone up from 3.1 million to 10.7 million in the past week. Despite his best efforts to censor reporting in Russia, Putin’s own citizens are turning to factual, independent information in their millions.

    At this point, I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks and admiration to all those journalists, working for the BBC, ITV and other news outlets, who are risking their lives to bring us unbiased and accurate news from a live war zone. We will keep ratcheting up the pressure on Putin, and I will use all the levers in my Department to ensure that he is fully ostracised from the international community.

  • Robert Cooke – 1972 Speech on Public Service Broadcasting

    Robert Cooke – 1972 Speech on Public Service Broadcasting

    The speech made by Robert Cooke, the Conservative MP for Bristol West, in the House of Commons on 23 February 1972.

    I beg to move.

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the greater freedom of public service broadcasting; and for purposes connected therewith.
    At present, all broadcasting is just that, and until the spoken and televised word are as freely available as the printed word some element of public service will remain.

    I seek to provide for greater freedom within the existing framework and to modify that framework in such a manner as to pave the way to the ultimate freedom for broadcasting which the Press in Britain now enjoys.

    When the printing press was invented, the church was against it because it helped to disseminate knowledge and spread education beyond the closely guarded confines of church and court life. There are still some clergy today who are against local radio, though their reasons remain obscure. Radio has been a means of mass communication for half a century, yet it retains many of the shackles that it acquired at the outset due to public and parliamentary fear that it would be misused. I suspect that some of the heirs and successors of those timid and suspicious churchmen of centuries ago sit in this House, and I have noted the suspicion or caution with which some hon. Members approach any proposal for the extension of mass communications. They are not confined to one side of the House.

    That is why with the arrival of television, which is the ultimate in powerful and intrusive means of reaching every household, it was regarded as being too dangerous to be let out of the hands of those to whom radio was entrusted 50 years ago. Later we created the I.T.A. and the companies which work within its framework, in the affairs of one of the smallest of which I have some experience and interest. It is not they who are under attack today, but the massive and in some ways rather splendid bureaucracy that, alas, the B.B.C. has become.

    I recognise that the B.B.C. produces a vast quantity of first-rate material, and long may that continue, but the B.B.C. problem undoubtedly exists and must be tackled. One reads in this morning’s newspapers of a massive shake-up in its current affairs department. Resignations are talked of. There is a report of a savage attack by a union on administrative waste at the top. There is a report of a settlement of a libel case involving the B.B.C., and the number of public apologies made by the corporation for its actions have increased greatly in the last 18 months. It has set up a special complaints committee, but with a fanfare of publicity and somewhat narrow terms of reference.

    It is against this background of the B.B.C. problem and the need to reorganise independent television long before 1976, when the new pattern of contracts and, one hopes, two channels instead of one will emerge. It is time to set up a small group to report within a year on the future of broadcasting as a whole.

    My Bill provides for a review of broadcasting by a group of not more than seven nor fewer than three persons, at least one of whom shall be a woman and one of whom shall be under the age of 45, appointed by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, subject to the affirmative Resolution of this House so that the House will have absolute control of its composition. My Bill defines its terms of reference. It would seek to modify the existing framework in such a way as to give a greater number of separate originators of programmes greater freedom to express divergent views, and, broadly, to place broadcasting on the same footing as the national and local Press. The I.T.A. would be known as the Television Authority, with two channels served by separate competing companies preserving regional character, with ample opportunity for clash of view. Indeed, by extending the opportunities for coverage of controversy of a national or local character, public participation would be vastly increased.

    The television authority would continue to exert an influence over the programme companies. The companies would continue to be financed by advertising. The same disciplines over them would apply via the authority as applies at present. I would not preclude in my Bill the possibility of a company which did not comply with the reasonable wishes of the authority finding itself fined for its malpractices, which has not been happening recently but could, I believe, happen if the House would give my Bill the force of law in due course.

    In the case of the B.B.C., to some people even to suggest change is like advocating the demolition of West-minister Abbey. I am asking my review body to consider the possibility of a broadcasting corporation receiving licence fees as at present but augmented by clean sponsorship; that is, not allowing any sponsor to make a personal appearance or to advertise but merely to have the name of an organisation prepared to sponsor a programme attached to it, and only after the programme has been produced, so that there could be no collusion between the sponsor and the programme producers. The corporation would have responsibility for transmission, as the B.B.C. does now, but Channel 1 and Channel 2 Television, should replace B.B.C.1 and B.B.C.2 and they should be completely separate, each with its own policy and views on current affairs and matters of that kind. They could be relied upon then to produce a different but nevertheless balanced clash of views.

    I believe that the present situation gives the B.B.C. far too great an exclusive artistic patronage but that with two channels one could get divergence of view and much wider scope for artistic patronage. So many other benefits flow from having two quite separate channels that I need not detail them here.

    Lastly, I come to the question of overseas services, which would be replaced by a new corporation, Radio-Television Great Britain, which would broadcast into Europe and into the world at large with material drawn from all available sources—B.C.1, B.C.2, T.A.1 and T.A.2; and similarly with radio. I believe that in this way Britain’s voice abroad would be far more representative than it is at present. It is within this framework, and with the knowledge that many more channels of communications will shortly be possible by means of cable to every household, that the review should be conducted. There could be 60 channels via cable to each household, revolutionising the means of communication and taking some of the burden off the far-stretched postal services.

    I do not believe that a better future for broadcasting lies in councils, committees or commissions to control and confine the talents of those who work in radio or television. We talk a good deal in this House of the right of freedom of speech.

    This Bill is designed to help us find a way to confer that freedom upon those who broadcast, in the belief that freedom of speech and clash of view is where the real safeguard of the truth lies.

    Finally, my Bill is a kind of backbencher’s Green Paper, a basis for discussion. I do not imagine for a moment that the House will be unanimous about all its details, but the central theme, about which we must all agree, is that freedom of speech and communication is the greatest possible safeguard of the truth.