Oral evidence: Work of the Department, HC 44
Oral evidence, 23 November 2021.
Witnesses
Rt Hon. Ms Nadine Dorries MP, Sarah Healey and Sarah Connolly.
Chair
This is the DCMS Committee, and this hearing is about the work of the Department. We are joined today by Sarah Healey, the permanent secretary at DCMS, and the right hon. Nadine Dorries, Secretary of State at DCMS. As the Secretary of State settles, I will go around the table to hear about any interests.
Julie Elliott
Relevant to this hearing, I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary Channel 4 group.
Damian Green
I have none.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am a member of the Musicians’ Union.
Chair
I am chair of the Lords and Commons Cricket Club, a former BBC journalist and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on new and advanced technologies.
John Nicolson
I am a former BBC reporter and presenter, a former ITV presenter, and a former member of the National Union of Journalists.
Steve Brine
Long ago, I was a BBC journalist. Because it may come up, Chair, this year I attended the Brit awards.
Simon Jupp
I am a former BBC and ITV journalist and manager.
Clive Efford
I am chair of the Samuel Montagu Youth Club, which is a charity in my constituency.
Kevin Brennan
Relevant to this hearing, I am a member of the Musicians’ Union, from which I received support at the last election. I am also a member of the Ivors Academy and I have some small earnings as a musician.
Chair
Thank you. Our first questions will come from John Nicolson.
John Nicolson
Welcome, Secretary of State. Why has the search for a new Ofcom chair been such a disaster?
Ms Dorries
I don’t believe that it has been. In the Department, we have over 400 appointments and re-appointments. It is fully to be expected that certain appointments attract a lot of attention and are not always as straightforward as we would possibly like them to be, but I don’t think it has been a disaster. It is important to state at this point that the selection of the Ofcom chair has been run fully in accordance with the governance code and under the scrutiny of the commissioner for public appointments.
John Nicolson
Okay, but you launched the competition on 12 February and interviewed in April. It is now November. You were obviously desperate to get Paul Dacre into this job. He is a right-wing zealot, but he just wasn’t up to the job, was he? He failed his interview. You seem to have bent over backwards to make it as easy as possible for this entirely unsuitable man to get this very important post.
Ms Dorries
Well, my predecessor, before I arrived, decided to rerun the competition, quite rightly, for the head of Ofcom. That process ran. There is no way we can exclude anyone from applying, whether they were found unsuitable first time around or not. It was important to ensure that we had as wide and diverse a field of applicants as possible, which is why we recruited a firm of recruitment specialists—head-hunters—to search for applicants to apply for the role. That has taken place and the process is running now. This is a process that is running. This Committee has itself found in the past that it is not helpful to speculate on appointments when a process is ongoing. That is also a finding of the former commissioner for public appointments, so I am not sure—
John Nicolson
Sure, but Mr Dacre cannot stop talking about it, can he? You changed the job description to help him out. You even changed the wording so that he no longer had to display familiarity with the world of regulation. That word was removed from the job description because he had made such a mess of his interview, apparently. Shouldn’t the boss of Ofcom be familiar with regulations?
Ms Dorries
I am not going to discuss an ongoing process, but what I would say—
John Nicolson
Why not?
Ms Dorries
Because it is not appropriate to do so.
John Nicolson
It is appropriate. You are before the DCMS Committee and we have to comment on this application, and a lot of this stuff is in the public domain, not least because Mr Dacre himself has talked about it. He even wrote in The Times about it, so it seems strange for you not to talk about it, given that you are the high heidyin and the boss of this whole affair.
Ms Dorries
As I said a moment ago, the Select Committee itself found that it is not helpful to speculate on a process that is in full swing.
John Nicolson
Not helpful to No. 10, because No. 10 was so desperate to give him the job. Mr Dacre stomped off complaining about his treatment. In a way, that showed his very unsuitability for the job, because he gave a rant about how civil servants run the country, not politicians. Looking back, it was odd, was it not, for you to do so much to try to help him, because he is so unsuitable? The manner of his departure has shown how unsuitable he is—quod erat demonstrandum, perhaps.
Ms Dorries
I did not have the opportunity to finish my last answer before you started the next question. Perhaps you would like me to finish the answer to your previous question and address your implication that the job application was altered. It was actually not altered as such, but it was made more diverse and broader, so that we could attract a broader range of more diverse candidates.
John Nicolson
Of course. If this Committee rejects the chair who is eventually appointed, will you go ahead with the appointment, or will you listen to the Committee?
Ms Dorries
Well, this Committee has no veto over appointments. It never has had and never will do.
John Nicolson
So it is a done deal, and there is not much point in us even talking to the person who is sent before us?
Ms Dorries
It is not the Committee that is legally answerable to Parliament for appointments. That is me. It is not the Committee that is answerable to parliamentarians; it is not me but the office of Secretary of State. Therefore, it is right and proper that the office of Secretary of State—
John Nicolson
That’s just great for parliamentary scrutiny, isn’t it? I will be back later with some other questions. Back to you, Chair.
Chair
Thank you. To pick up on that, the Information Commissioner, when he came in front of us, made a very welcome disclosure when we asked him whether, if we found that he was unsuitable for the role, he would withdraw from the role. He said he would—I think in answer to Kevin Brennan. If we ask the same question of your successful candidate at Ofcom, what do you think the answer should be? Do you applaud what the Information Commissioner said, in terms of trying to ensure that those who take up these roles pass scrutiny by this Committee?
Ms Dorries
I think the Information Commissioner is fully entitled to her opinion. Again, this process is ongoing. So as not to prejudice or influence the process, I think I will leave my answer at that.
Chair
You said, “her opinion”. Do you mean the next Information Commissioner’s predecessor?
Ms Dorries
Yes. They are entitled to their opinion, but I do not feel I should comment on that process.
Chair
You don’t welcome that sort of disclosure and, frankly, their having the guts to say to the Committee that if we do not think they are up to the job, they will not proceed with it?
Ms Dorries
As I have said, this is a live process that is ongoing.
Chair
You also stated to John that you can’t exclude previous candidates. You said “can’t”. In the private sector, it is very common to see a job advert that says, “Previous candidates need not apply.” It is in virtually every private sector advert these days. What advice have you had to say that you cannot exclude people who failed their previous interview?
Ms Dorries
I have not actually been through this process myself. I once again refer you to my substantive answer. I have to say again that this process is ongoing. This process was actually begun before I took up my post. I do not know whether Sarah would like to answer.
Chair
Sarah, can the Secretary of State exclude previous applicants—yes or no?
Sarah Healey
The governance code for public appointments is clear that all appointments should be made in as open and fair a way as possible. Allowing previous applicants to apply is consistent with that.
Chair
So no adverts have gone out for senior roles such as this—this is an incredibly senior role—stating that previous applicants should not apply?
Sarah Healey
The governance code for public appointments is clear that we should try to make all public appointments as open and fair as possible, and that is what we have done in this instance. The commissioner was clear that the rerunning of the competition was in line with the code.
Chair
Okay, but in essence, my question to you is whether, in your time, any previous advert has said that previous applicants need not apply.
Sarah Healey
Not in my time.
Chair
In terms of the timing, obviously there is all the publicity over Mr Dacre, and the feeling to a certain degree is that it may have been a stitch-up—admittedly before your time. Are you now considering whether or not the deadline should be extended from 29 November? It is only a matter of days away. Along with the director of the FCA, this is probably the biggest regulatory job—or one of the two, with the chief executive—in British regulation. Therefore, do you think it is appropriate, with his shadow now taken out of this process, to consider extending the deadline until Christmas time?
Ms Dorries
I will have to reiterate that this is an ongoing process. It is important that we get as broad and wide a field of applicants as possible. I fully concur on the seriousness of this role, not least given the online harms Bill that is coming and the regulatory framework, which Ofcom will have to both administer and work with, but that is not a discussion that I have had yet. It is certainly something I will consider, but I don’t see at this point in time the need to extend. I am hoping that we will get to the deadline date with a wide and diverse field of applicants, so that we can continue. I think it is important to get somebody in place very soon.
Chair
I agree with that. Clive Efford?
Clive Efford
Can I just ask you about the appointment of the chair of the Charity Commission? We were told that the Government had a preferred candidate in October, but they have yet to be announced. When will we have an announcement of who that person is?
Ms Dorries
It will be very soon.
Clive Efford
So do you have a preferred candidate?
Ms Dorries
No, I don’t have a preferred candidate, but the process will allow us to give you an answer as to who will be the new chair of the Charity Commission soon. Again, it is an ongoing process and one that I cannot discuss, I’m afraid.
Clive Efford
But we were told that the process was completed in October and that there was a preferred candidate. Has that candidate withdrawn?
Sarah Healey
I am so sorry, but who were you told that by?
Ms Dorries
Who said that there is a preferred candidate?
Clive Efford
Well—
Ms Dorries
I can reassure the Committee that there is no preferred candidate from where I am sitting, from my perspective and that of my office. Again, it is an ongoing process.
Clive Efford
It has been reported quite widely that there is a preferred candidate. I am sure you are aware of that, but you are saying that there isn’t. There has been no correction of that understanding by the Department in the meantime.
Ms Dorries
With the greatest of respect, I cannot correct every misreporting that comes out about the Department. From my perspective, there is certainly no preferred candidate.
Clive Efford
When it comes to looking for a preferred candidate, then, do you agree with your predecessor that whoever takes up the role should move the focus away from any woke agenda?
Ms Dorries
I have never heard that comment being made. I am not aware of it at all. From my own perspective, as the present Secretary of State, that post is very much under the code of governance, which says that the chair of the Charity Commission is there to carry out the core mission of the commission. I would expect that person to be broadly in step and in line with Government objectives, as all appointments are, but I do not see any particular instructions that the chair of the Charity Commission should be attacking—or whatever word one would apply—a woke agenda. I do not think that is the role of the Charity Commissioner. Again, I should not be getting into this conversation, because it is an ongoing process.
Clive Efford
Okay. Sarah Healey, can I ask you about the Secretary of State’s predecessor? He said, “I have instructed those leading the search to ensure that the new leader of the Commission will restore charities’ focus to their central purpose and empower Trustees to be robust. With interviews beginning next week, candidates will be tested on how they will harness the oversight powers of the Commission to commence this rebalancing.” He also said that he was concerned that the Charity Commission had been “hijacked by a vocal minority seeking to burnish their woke credentials”. Has your Department received any instructions about what sort of candidates they should be seeking for the Charity Commission post?
Sarah Healey
It is consistent with the duties of the Charity Commission to ensure that charities focus on delivering their core charitable purposes. In so far as they undertake campaigning activities, those should be solely in pursuit of their core charitable purposes. I believe that that is what the former Secretary of State was underlining, and that he was keen to see that whoever became the chair of the Charity Commission was committed to making sure that charities follow the legislation in that regard.
Clive Efford
Secretary of State, you use the term “snowflake lefties” quite often—
Ms Dorries
I think I might have used it once.
Clive Efford
What is a snowflake leftie?
Ms Dorries
Probably my kids.
Clive Efford
Really? Are they from Islington? What is an Islington leftie?
Ms Dorries
Again, one of my kids.
Clive Efford
Really? Because these are terms that you use quite a lot. When you were asked about—
Ms Dorries
I think I might have used it once as a general term, but I have certainly never used it as a Secretary of State, which is what I am here as today.
Clive Efford
When you were appointed, the arts sector criticised your appointment. At Tory conference, you accused them of “left-wing snobbishness and elitism”. Is there an obsession with people who disagree with you being lefties?
Ms Dorries
The arts sector is a pretty huge sector; I do not think they all opposed my position. There were certainly a vocal number, mostly—in fact, probably wholly—male, who frequently comment, and continue to do so. Were they all people from the left? Yes, I think there were a number of people who, sadly, used my appointment as a means of political attack. That did happen, yes. Were these people quite obviously on the left? Yes.
Clive Efford
You accuse the BBC of favouring “strident, very left wing, often hypocritical and frequently patronising views that turn people away.” Again, there is the left-wing thing. Is that a bit of an obsession? Do your children work for the BBC?
Ms Dorries
No, they don’t. The BBC has itself accepted that it has a problem with impartiality and has put forward a 10-point plan in response to the Serota review to address issues within the BBC—fundamental issues of impartiality—so I rest my case.
Clive Efford
Did the Serota review refer to anyone being extreme left-wing or having a left-wing bias?
Ms Dorries
Well, the BBC framed it in the context of having a problem with a lack of impartiality.
Clive Efford
But your interpretation of that is that it is left-leaning. To me, the idea that Nick Robinson and people on the “Today” programme are left-wing is quite a step.
Ms Dorries
Isn’t that always the point? It has been an old chestnut for many years between MPs that whichever side of the House you are on, you think that people are not reporting in your favour. For clarity, on the Nick Robinson point, because I think I might be able to anticipate what you are going to say next, I have never criticised Nick Robinson. I did not hear the interview that I was supposed to have criticised, and I never made the comment. I will just put that one out there, in case that was where you were going next.
Clive Efford
There was a comment that was attributed to you, but I will take that—
Ms Dorries
It was attributed to me, but nobody can actually say I said it.
Clive Efford
Okay. One other thing is the appointment of Jess Brammar as the head of news at the BBC, who had expressed views opposing Brexit. Would you have agreed that appointment, given the views that you have expressed?
Ms Dorries
I am not going to get into a hypothetical situation that is historical and not relevant to my role as Secretary of State.
Clive Efford
If someone is in that position, which you would consider an influential and sensitive role, who had expressed anti-Brexit views, do you think that is an appropriate appointment?
Ms Dorries
Again, I am not going to get involved in a hypothetical and historical speculation about somebody who has applied for a job.
Clive Efford
So you won’t be seeking in any way whatsoever to influence future appointments by the BBC, or to Ofcom or the Charity Commission—to check the political credentials of any candidate in any way.
Ms Dorries
I am not part of the recruitment process. I haven’t gone through a process, by the way, in the eight weeks that I have been there; I am about to, but I haven’t been through a process yet. My responsibility is to sign off, once the process and due diligence has been done, and interviews have been carried out by a panel that includes an independent member, in accordance with the governance code for public appointments, which is overseen by the public appointments commissioner. My role is to sign off on a final candidate. I don’t get any involvement in that process along the way, in terms of the due diligence you are speaking about.
Clive Efford
Okay. I will leave it there, Chair.
Chair
Thank you. I want to check something on timings. It is interesting to hear you say that there is no preferred candidate for the Charity Commission. Sarah, we have been holding a date on 9 December for that appointment and we need to have the documents by 2 December—six working days. The Secretary of State has just said that she has not gone through the process yet. Why are your officials getting us to hold a date when, clearly, you are not anywhere near making an appointment?
Sarah Healey
Because interviews have taken place and the process is ongoing. We have given you a date that we anticipate we will be able to meet.
Ms Dorries
Chair, I should clarify that what I have not done yet is gone through the process of signing off a successful candidate who has been through—
Chair
The signing off. Okay, so you have got the candidate. I understand you will not discuss that—that is absolutely correct.
Ms Dorries
I haven’t actually gone through the process of, “Yes, we accept this candidate.” That is not something I have done.
Chair
So we can still expect that date, Sarah.
Sarah Healey
I have no reason to believe that you shouldn’t be anticipating using that date.
Alex Davies-Jones
Thank you, Secretary of State and Ms Healey, for joining us today. Serious concerns have been raised about the impact of any changes to the licence fee settlement, specifically on regional broadcasting. I am obviously worried about Wales and the impact that it will have there, especially as S4C is being included in negotiations for the first ever time this round. What steps are you taking to ensure that regional content is protected, going forward?
Ms Dorries
I do appreciate how important S4C is. I know how popular it is in Wales and I know how much the Welsh MPs love it. I don’t want you to think I don’t. It is a small station, but it is very important in terms of its Welsh-language speaking. I am aware of that. In terms of the licence fee settlement with the BBC, I fully understand your concerns. I am very aware of them. I can’t discuss what are ongoing discussions with the BBC at the moment, but I want to reassure you that I am very aware of your concerns and where you’re coming from.
Alex Davies-Jones
Okay. Thank you. Hopefully when you can discuss them, you will be able to come back and we can question you on the settlement a bit further then. On to Channel 4. Channel 4 contributes £20 million gross value added in Wales and it supported over 200 jobs in 2019. It has made £77 million of investment in Wales over the last 10 years, which goes to support small production companies, such as Chwarel in north Wales, which provides local jobs, and SMEs in Cardiff. Whatever you decide in the consultation, will you require a private owner to maintain the same level of investment in Wales?
Ms Dorries
I can’t speculate on that at the moment, because I haven’t made a decision about whether we are going to go to that position yet. As you said, the consultation is ongoing. I think we had 60,000 responses. That is a huge number of responses, and detailed responses as well. The Department is working hard and fast to get through that consultation process. Once it does so, we will then take that, which is going to be a big body of work, into consideration, but there are a number of issues that I have to consider before I make the decision over the future of Channel 4. Again, I hear your concerns. It is very important that those devolved Administrations— Actually, this is one of my issues, you know—that Channel 4 does not just broadcast to London; it is UK-wide. That is something that I am very aware of in everything that I do in the Department. It is not just about London—it is about 60 million people as well as the 6 million people in London. I just want to reassure you that that is very much the ethos in the Department now. I cannot discuss what is going to happen to Channel 4 in the future because I just have not made my mind up. I am happy to answer questions on why I think it might be needed, why it will not be needed. I am happy to do all that, but I cannot actually discuss a decision that I have not made yet.
Chair
On that point, why do you think it might be needed and why do you think it might not be needed?
Ms Dorries
Again, what is the situation with Channel 4 moving forward? I cannot look at where we are today with Channel 4, which I know is in a very good, sustainable position. We cannot look at where we were yesterday, but what I am interested in is how is Channel 4 going to survive in the future? It is actually both fascinating and interesting how rapidly both the broadcasting and the digital landscape are evolving and changing: firesticks, Amazon Prime, Netflix—all of that landscape is going to move very quickly as we move even further forward. Is Channel 4 sustainable today? Yes. How much of its advertising comes from digital content? I think it is 17% of advertising on its digital platform, its digital content. That is not sustainable for a channel moving forward, so there are a number of issues that I will have to consider, moving forward.
Chair
I hope you have read the report that we did into public service broadcasting on areas such as looking at the digital footprint of Channel 4 and the idea of what we termed a super-BritBox, if you like. Do any of those ideas in relation to Channel 4 and the wider public service broadcasting landscape appeal to you?
Ms Dorries
Yes; actually the report is in the mix. Thank you for the report, because that is in the mix with the considerations. I made a point recently when I gave evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill that my portfolio particularly is very wide and deep—it is huge. And I see the findings of this Committee, and the findings of the Sub-Committee and the Joint Committee, very much as teamwork. Sometimes when I sat on a Select Committee, I felt as though the report just went into the ether, but actually in DCMS it is not the case because some of these issues are incredibly important, and particularly when there are commercial interests like Channel 4. The report that the Committee produced will be in the mix as part of the consideration making, certainly informing me as to what we do. All those ideas are interesting. The recommendations are interesting and will go into the mix of the considerations.
Chair
Just on that point, the Joint Committee is obviously on online harms and online safety, and our Sub-Committee is on effectively the same thing and disinformation. This was the report that we produced.
Ms Dorries
Yes, I was using that as an example of teamwork moving forward on the portfolio in general. Reports on something as important as the future of Channel 4 will play a role in my decision making.
Chair
Was there any particular point, though? You have obviously been very complimentary about the work of the Committee in that regard. Is there any part of that report that you read and thought, “Yes, actually that is a really interesting idea to explore”?
Ms Dorries
I read it eight weeks ago, and it was the summary because I had a lot to catch up on eight weeks ago. One of the issues you highlighted in the report which struck me was the concern about independent commissioning of independent content. So I have asked a few questions in relation to the comments that the Committee made on that. I have been reassured, actually, and I think you will be yourself in terms of, again, how fast this is moving. There are lots of public service broadcasters and other broadcasters who commission independent content. “Downton Abbey” on ITV was independently commissioned. In terms of the jobs market for independent production companies at the moment, there is no shortage of work. In fact, as you know, we are building new film studios. We produced more films here in the last quarter of 2020 than they did in Hollywood. There is no end of work for people working in production and independent production companies at the moment. So the future of those people working in that industry is not something which is concerning me at the moment, and that is one of the issues that I know you raised in the report in relation to Channel 4 that I have asked for further information on and looked at. So that is one bit of the report that I did take away. But the rest of it—in terms of your recommendations and the work you have found to support them—when we come to the point to make the decision on the future of Channel 4, that will be in the decision-making process.
Chair
Just to clarify, you stated that you read the summary of the report eight weeks ago. I understand that you are very busy and have to get your head around so many topics, as you are well aware, but have you read the rest of the report in the past eight weeks?
Ms Dorries
Not all of it, no—I skimmed it. I had all the reports, a history of reports, when I first took up the job. You have done quite a few.
Chair
You have a media Bill coming up, that sort of thing—
Ms Dorries
Yes. The work we will be doing on the media Bill, again. I don’t want you to think that what you are doing is not going to be part of the decision-making process, because it really is. Particularly—to do a bit of a love-in here—on the Online Safety Bill, some of the witnesses you interviewed, the statement you took last week from Azeem Rafiq and all the information gathering that you do definitely feeds into and informs what happens.
Chair
I know you are very busy and I know it is a long report, but I would recommend that you do more than skim-read it.
Ms Dorries
No, no, we will. When it comes to making the decisions on Channel 4, that will be in there as part of my reading.
Damian Green
I want to ask about Channel 4 as well, but just to clear something up, you both said that there is not a preferred candidate for the Charity Commission, and yet I think you then said, basically, that you had to take the final decision and sign off the papers.
Ms Dorries
When I am presented with the shortlisted candidates, at that point—
Damian Green
Do you get presented with a shortlist?
Ms Dorries
I have not gone through that process yet.
Sarah Healey
The process is that the interviews have taken place and then a report is put to the Secretary of State listing the appointable candidates who have been determined by the panel. Then it is for the Secretary of State to make a decision. Once we have that preferred candidate, that is the person whom you would see in this Committee.
Damian Green
Sure. But we are at the stage of a shortlist—that was what was not clear. It felt like a candidate had come through the process, but the Secretary of State had not signed them off yet.
Sarah Healey
We have not been through all the processes yet to be able to announce the preferred candidate.
Damian Green
Thank you. But you expect to do so, so that the timetable—
Sarah Healey
As I say, I anticipate no delay to the timetable that we have agreed with the Committee.
Damian Green
Unless the Secretary of State disagrees with the list.
Chair
Kevin wants to come in with a question.
Kevin Brennan
How many candidates do you expect to put to the Secretary of State? Presumably, it has been judged how many are above the line. How many will you put forward to the Secretary of State?
Sarah Healey
We wouldn’t normally comment on that kind of detail of an appointment process.
Ms Dorries
The process is still ongoing.
Sarah Healey
I wasn’t personally involved in that particular appointment process, so I couldn’t tell you exactly how many candidates will be put forward in this instance.
Kevin Brennan
It is normally more than one, isn’t it?
Sarah Healey
We absolutely try to give Ministers a choice of candidates. That is written into the code—that ideally it would be good for Ministers to have a choice of candidates.
Damian Green
I am genuinely puzzled. Your predecessor Minister—indeed, Ministers, the previous Broadcasting Minister too—took the view, which I will therefore take as a departmental view, that as you set out, Channel 4 is clearly strong and viable today, but the market out there is uncertain and changing fast, so it might not be viable in five or 10 years’ time—something like that. That is a point of view. But Channel 4 is a commercial operation, and Channel 4 itself says, “Yes, we have looked ahead into the future. We know as well as anyone how the digital world is going to change, and we think that we are viable, long term.” Just as a point of principle, therefore, why do politicians and civil servants think that they have a better view of the future commercial market than a commercial operator? For you and I, Secretary of State, that offends against every canon of what we believe—commercial operations know about commerce better than civil servants or politicians, don’t they?
Ms Dorries
Well, that may be your opinion; I couldn’t possibly comment from where I’m sat—but no, they can’t. I think it is right that a public service broadcaster, in the rapidly changing digital environment that we are in at the moment—the future and longevity of that broadcaster—should be brought into question. Particularly when it is in receipt of taxpayers’ money, it is our responsibility to evaluate whether taxpayers are receiving value for money and whether that model is sustainable in the future. I think it is absolutely right and proper that we should do that, and that is the process we are going through. I would not argue that just because Channel 4 has been established as a public service broadcaster, and just because it is in receipt of public money, we should never audit the future of Channel 4, and never evaluate how Channel 4 looks in the future and whether or not it is a sustainable and viable model. It is quite right that the Government should do that.
Damian Green
But Channel 4 is not like the BBC. It is not in receipt of licence fee money. It makes its money from commercial operations.
Ms Dorries
Yes, but—
Sarah Healey
There are a range of views. Channel 4 has taken a particular position on the future.
Ms Dorries
Can I just say that the discussions about what we do with Channel 4 and how we evaluate Channel 4 also happened before I arrived in my post? I was looking to Sarah to clarify what you just said on the funding. I have picked this up as a live issue in the Department. Your question to me was whether I think that Channel 4 should just continue, and that we as politicians and civil servants should not have a say in the future of Channel 4. I think as a public service broadcaster, it is our responsibility to check the viability. We do that in a different way with the BBC—we have the mid-term review, the charter review, the licence fee settlement. So the BBC is under scrutiny almost constantly, and Ofcom. The BBC is heavily regulated and heavily scrutinised. What are we doing in terms of looking at the future of Channel 4? We are kind of doing the same thing—asking is this going to be viable in the long term, as a public service broadcaster? That is all we are doing. I know there is a lot of speculation about the decisions being made—that we are going to privatise Channel 4. But we are not; we are evaluating the future of Channel 4 and whether it is a sustainable model. A decision hasn’t been taken. When we get to the point of possibly taking a decision and when we get to the point of considering all the evidence, we can probably have this discussion then. But at the moment, it is right and proper that we evaluate the future of a public service broadcaster.
Damian Green
I am glad you are so firm that the decision has not been taken, because I have not got any quotes in front of me, but the impression I absolutely got from what your predecessor, and everything he and John Whittingdale said in public, was that it is not a case of whether, but how. And the basis of that—
Ms Dorries
I am not saying that.
Damian Green
Excellent. Thank you
Ms Dorries
I am saying that I want to see all the evidence; I want to read your report; I want to see a full commercial evaluation of Channel 4. And I want to see what the future looks like for public service broadcasters. Then I’ll take a decision.
Damian Green
Good. That is very welcome. But the point about Channel 4, obviously—
Ms Dorries
Could I just say, what is the point of having a consultation that 60,000 people respond to if I had already made my mind up what I was going to do with Channel 4? That would be an abuse, I think, and a waste of money and effort on behalf of a large number of civil servants. I would really like to see what those 60,000 responses say first.
Damian Green
That is completely correct, but I think we have both seen Government consultations in the past where it is perfectly obvious that we know what the result is.
Ms Dorries
You may have been involved in some.
Damian Green
I may have been on the other end of some of them, yes indeed, but moving swiftly on. The point about Channel 4 is that it is a commercial operation that does not receive licensing money and does not get taxpayer money, as it were. It makes its money from advertising.
Ms Dorries
What I meant was public money.
Damian Green
Yes, money from the public rather than public spending. Therefore, it has to be viable to do that. I absolutely get that that is a live debate. The point I was making was that in principle, on the whole, commercial organisations know about commerce better than civil servants and politicians.
Ms Dorries
I take that point.
Damian Green
But also, Channel 4 obviously has different responsibilities. You have heard about some of its regional responsibilities and the fact that it supports many in the small creative sector. I would guess that the vast majority of those 60,000 responses are the creative sector saying, “Hang on—without Channel 4 doing what it has always done, we are in trouble as well.” I hope that would weigh in the balance. If you privatise it, a commercial operator would have obligations to shareholders, which would be perfectly proper. How can you imagine that there will be the same diversity and risk-taking and spread around the country, all of which mitigate against Channel 4’s pure commerciality? How can you write laws that would enable that to take place long term?
Ms Dorries
I hope you don’t mind if I hand over the substance of your question to Sarah. She has been through the evaluation on all of this before I got there. On your first point, about business, and business knows best for business, I understand that. Business nearly always gets it right for business. I would be the last person to say that the Government should interfere. We are not talking solely about a business but a public service broadcaster. That is slightly different; it is not just a commercial organisation, but has a public service broadcasting remit which we as a Government have a responsibility to evaluate and order. I just want to make that clear. I understand Alex’s point, and I understand your concerns about the regions. Within 24 hours of arriving within the Department, I put my stamp on that ethos. The Department is viewed through a London-centric lens. That is not the Department’s fault, but many cultural organisations and their headquarters, as well cultural, arts and creative industries are all based in London. It is very important that the outside perception is that we are equally concerned about the regions as we are about what happens in London. I take Alex’s point about S4C to heart, because I am very aware of it and of what happens regionally. Sarah will give more substance to the answer, because that question may already have been considered as part of the Department’s work on getting ready for the consultation process.
Sarah Healey
I do not actually have very much to add to the Secretary of State’s response on remit. It is clear that this is not about removing the remit of Channel 4 but looking at what it is. That includes regional presence. Were Ministers to make a decision to go ahead with a privatisation option for Channel 4, obviously we would need to work through the process of what obligations would be placed on the channel and whether any changes would be made to its remit in that process. Clearly, we would also have to look very closely at the value to the taxpayer, and obviously I would have particular duties as accounting officer on that in assessing the nature of the remit with which we would privatise Channel 4 and assuring that any sale were value for money for the taxpayer.
Steve Brine
Hello, Secretary of State.
Ms Dorries
You never thought you’d say those words, did you, Steve?
Steve Brine
I just did. There are many words I never thought I would say, such as “Spurs win the league”. I just said them, but I will never say them again. Secretary of State, do you think that the privatisation of Channel 4 is more or less likely in the changeover from the previous incumbent of your position to you?
Ms Dorries
I am not going to answer that question, because I cannot give you an answer, because I have not made a decision. Actually, I do not really know the position or thoughts of previous incumbents on Channel 4; I have got no idea really. I have not discussed it with them.
Steve Brine
Channel 4 produces incredible drama like “It’s a Sin”, which was one of the most downloaded programmes in British history.
Ms Dorries
It was amazing.
Steve Brine
An amazing piece of work. Is there a difference between that Channel 4 and “Channel 4 News”?
Ms Dorries
There is a difference between “Downton Abbey” and “News at Ten”, and a difference between “Strictly” and BBC news. They are two completely different outputs and different content, and different editorial teams.
Steve Brine
You know why I am asking. The criticism of Channel 4 is that “Channel 4 News” is The Guardian on television. When was the last time you appeared on “Channel 4 News”? When was the last time any of the current Cabinet appeared on it? Does “Channel 4 News” cloud the judgment of the whole channel?
Ms Dorries
Interestingly, Cathy Newman has asked me numerous times to appear on “Channel 4 News”; I have just chosen not to. I choose not to appear on news, but that is my personal choice; it is not like I have not been asked. I have.
Steve Brine
What sits behind that personal choice?
Ms Dorries
I don’t do any news, unless I am absolutely forced to.
Steve Brine
More widely on public service broadcasting—it was a weighty piece of work and I would encourage you to look at it if you can—what are your ambitions? On the wider, whole idea of public service broadcasting, my constituents and yours can be sent to prison for not paying a licence fee in a multichannel, multimedia, diverse media and entertainment market where one part of that market is taxed—we are taxed to pay for it. To my children—who are a lot younger than yours—is that the future? What is the future of public service broadcasting, in your mind?
Ms Dorries
You are talking about the BBC licence fee and the whole issue around decriminalisation, which again was a decision which took place before I arrived in post. I think you also caught in that question the U-turn on over-75s on pension credit not paying the licence fee. Just to siphon out the BBC issues from your question, my overarching answer is that public service broadcasting in the future—in the changing digital landscape that we are in at the moment—is up for review. Was I disappointed? Am I hugely disappointed by the decision regarding over-75s on pension credit and the licence fee? Absolutely. I am very disappointed. But decisions on that cannot be made until charter renewal in 2027. Mid-term review discussions will begin, I believe, in the spring of next year—very soon—but of course the mid-term review is about the regulatory framework and other issues which govern the BBC. We do not have an opportunity to look at the future of BBC broadcasting until 2027, when the charter review comes up for renewal, although those discussions will take place before then. I think that between now and 2027, there will be that landscape that we talk about that we cannot see at the moment; we are just working on what is coming down the line at us. We are working on gigabit and other means of people being able to get technology into their homes much faster and with much more ease. Who will use that and what will they use it for in terms of entertainment? These are quite ethereal conversations that we are having at the moment, because it is something that we cannot see but we know that the tech world must be working on it in terms of entertainment. Netflix is just an early example of where that may go. I think it is quite serendipitous that the charter renewal does not come through until 2027, because I think that by then we will be in a place where will have a much clearer view of what the future looks like for public service broadcasting. At the moment, we are kind of in the foothills of how that looks and how it is going to change. I think we could all be accused of being dinosaurs if here and now we said, “It isn’t going to change. Everybody can just carry on doing what they are doing. It’s all going to be fine. Everybody is going to carry on going into their house and switching on ‘News at Six’ on the BBC, or the news at seven”—whatever it is. We know that there are huge changes coming.
Steve Brine
Were you disappointed about the decriminalisation decision that the Government took before—
Ms Dorries
That happened before I arrived in the Department, so I do not have—
Steve Brine
Would you make the same decision?
Sarah Healey
The issue—
Steve Brine
No, that was for the Secretary of State. Would you make the same decision?
Ms Dorries
I would think very seriously about making a decision like that, frankly.
Chair
What is your personal view? We can guess.
Ms Dorries
I would think very seriously before I came to that decision. I am going to ask Sarah to nuance this, because there are very good—I think the Department did not just take that decision lightly. I think there was a huge amount of soul-searching before that decision was taken. I think sometimes it might take a degree of leadership to probe and push a bit further on things to perhaps reach a different outcome. Sarah, I am going to ask you to give the history—
Steve Brine
Sarah can come in in just a second. The reason that I am very rudely cutting Sarah out is to dig into your mind, Secretary of State, about the future of the whole concept of public service broadcasting. There are some who say that it is an anathema now, let alone in six years’ time. There are some who say that we should put our fingers in our ears and leave it alone, which you are saying we cannot do, and I agree with you. In the unlikely event that you are Secretary of State in six years’ time, bearing in mind that you are the 10th in 10 years—there is a churn in this role; that is a matter of fact—where is your mind between those two positions. Anathema or fingers in ears; where would you say you are?
Ms Dorries
I will repeat what I have already said about the foothills of change. I think that gigabit broadband is going to open up, and 5G. Actually, we are already discussing moving on further into super-computing and further up than gigabit. I think that just opens up massive opportunities for what people can have streaming down to their homes. There will be tech entertainment companies and others that will be working right now on how they maximise what is going to be national gigabit broadband coverage, how they are going to maximise that, and how they are going to make money from it in terms of producing content to be streamed into people’s homes. We are at the foothills of that, as I have said. We cannot see what it is going to look like, but we know that we are putting the infrastructure in place, and it is therefore, I would say, 99% likely to happen. I would be very surprised if it did not. Within that context, part of it is, “Right, we need to tread carefully and see what is happening,” but the other part is, “We need to look at public service broadcasting; how is it going to compete, and how it is going to survive in that future environment?”
Steve Brine
Sarah, I did not mean to cut you out. Please do come in.
Sarah Healey
That is fine. All I would say is to underline the fact that we conducted a review on decriminalisation of the licence fee, and it remains open to Ministers to decide to proceed with that. As the Secretary of State set out, the actual fundamental changes to the licence fee are not possible until the point of charter review in 2027.
Steve Brine
While I have the floor—time is tight—I want to ask you about the Brit awards, Secretary of State, which I attended this year and last. They made an announcement yesterday that they are no longer, from next year, going to be doing best male and best female. I wonder if you have a view on that. There is a clear read-across there, to the BAFTAs, to the Oscars, isn’t there? Should there be best actor and best actress awards? What is your view on that decision by the Brit awards?
Ms Dorries
I have to say that this is the first that I am aware of it. I think it sounds quite a sad decision. I would like to see how that would work in terms of fair gender representation.
Steve Brine
The argument that they gave is that it excludes non-binary artists, and therefore, for next year, they will just have the one category; they will combine them.
Ms Dorries
Again, I cannot give an opinion on that, because hearing it from you is the first that I have heard about it. Women have been used to, for a very long time—if you look at who used to win awards for novels and many things in the past—men always dominating, and my concern would be that women were not fairly represented moving forwards. I would just be concerned on the gender balance issue. Although we know that we will get best female artist, best female producer, best female whatever, I would be concerned that in the future, women were not fairly represented in those awards.
Chair
Secretary of State, do you recognise that, as Mr Whittingdale said in his last hearing before us, the decision to row back on the super gigabit broadband target effectively means that the licence fee is here to stay for the long term, because you cannot turn off the licence fee if not everyone is able to receive super gigabit broadband-capable broadcast?
Ms Dorries
I do not know when Mr Whittingdale gave evidence, but as you know, we were on 9% gigabit roll-out two years ago. We passed the 60% mark last Monday. We are moving very fast. We have just procured a whole new challenge—I think it is 5 million homes—to move out the next section now. We are moving very quickly.
Chair
You are not going to be at the target, though: 100% by 2025 is not going to be met. That has been admitted on the Floor of the House.
Ms Dorries
I would not say that. I would not agree with you. There are things happening, including tech‑wise in terms of what is happening in OpenRAN, 5G and lots of areas. On this idea that the tough 15%—people living on a hill farm in the dales somewhere, on a peak in Scotland or Wales, on top of Snowdon or wherever it is—are not going to be able to have it, you are talking about 2025, and, again, I say things are moving very quickly. I was interested to see what happens in Switzerland, where of course the vast majority of homes are remote and on a very undulating geographical landscape, but in Switzerland, again, they have 85% roll‑out. If they can do it—
Chair
Lucky Switzerland, but it is not about the effectiveness—
Ms Dorries
It is how it is delivered, and the technology is changing very rapidly as to how we can deliver. I think it is really important at this point to say—because not a lot of people know this—that in the Peak district today, five individuals in five rooms in one house, as a result of superfast broadband, can download five Netflix movies at once. It is important to talk about where we are and the capability people do have, and we are at 92%.
Sarah Healey
It is 97%.
Ms Dorries
Yes, 97% of the country on superfast broadband. That is quite a lot of capability that people have going into their homes; in fact, people say that they cannot actually use the whole width of their superfast broadband, but of course, what gigabit is important to is the future. It is important to the 5G network; it is important to that landscape we were talking about—what tech companies can do with that capability. Where I live, my village has gigabit capability. There is only one person in the village who is signed up to it, who is a graphic designer. The rest of us are all using superfast broadband—of course, I will be signing up very soon, but everybody else is using superfast broadband, so I think it is important to talk about what we have at the moment and the capability people have in their homes, which is 95% of the country on superfast broadband. It is a pretty dysfunctional family that wants to download five Netflix movies in five different rooms, but that is the ability that people have today.
Chair
Just to row back two minutes, if I may, are you recommitting the Government to the 100% target?
Ms Dorries
What I am saying is that the target is 85% coverage.
Chair
The election target was 100%, and then it was effectively cut to 85%.
Ms Dorries
That is our ambition.
Chair
It is your ambition. You did say that we were wrong, and that actually you thought that 100% by 2025—
Ms Dorries
No, it is our ambition to have gigabit broadband in as many homes as possible as fast as possible. We are, of course, hampered by the number of hands we can get on to shovels and the number of skilled people we can have with telecommunications skills. In fact, I think Minister Lopez recently went to visit a new training school, and I am opening a new training school. Providers are opening training schools as fast as they can to get people in and skill them up on the telecommunications skills, getting people on shovels to actually put the trenches in the ground. It is not that we cannot go fast enough: the workforce to be able to deliver gigabit broadband across the country to 100% of homes is one of the issues, as well as the geographical location of some of the homes. It is not that the Government do not want to get 100% broadband—
Chair
No, but we promised it. It was an election promise. Julie Elliott.
Julie Elliott
Again—I just want to comment on this—please do not forget dark spots in city centres. It is not all just rural uphills where people are not connected. In this building, for instance, we do not have brilliant connectivity.
Ms Dorries
And, actually, in some blocks of flats where a landlord is in the Cayman Islands, and the provider is trying to get in and not getting a response.
Julie Elliott
Blocks of flats, industrial estates, private homes—
Ms Dorries
But we are doing something about that.
Julie Elliott
Please don’t lose sight of it. I want to go back to public service broadcasting and particularly Channel 4—a hugely successful and profitable company. If the decision is made to privatise, is the Department concerned about some of the commitments to public service broadcasting loss-making programming, such as news and current affairs? Is there any concern as to how that will be kept if it is privatised?
Ms Dorries
I haven’t even evaluated that, because I have not made a decision.
Julie Elliott
It is not about making the decision. It is about how you—
Ms Dorries
I am waiting for the evaluation of the consultation, which will be given to me in a report. I am waiting till I have that evidence, and I am waiting till I have taken other evidence, which includes your report, in detail. I am waiting till I have all that information before me. As part of the evaluation, that will be considered, because it will go into the decision-making mix.
Julie Elliott
There are a couple of things. If the decision is to privatise, and Channel 4 is sold or privatised in whatever form, and then, two years down the line, it is sold on again, how will you make sure that commitments to public service broadcasting are kept?
Ms Dorries
Well, I will ask Sarah to answer that question, because I haven’t got to the point of evaluating that.
Sarah Healey
This goes back to the answer that the Secretary of State gave earlier about the remit of Channel 4 and the obligations that we would place on any purchaser. Depending on how you put those obligations on, they also follow on to any future purchaser of Channel 4. The remit of the broadcaster is the issue and, as I said earlier, Ministers have been clear that it is not about removing the remit, but it may be about reviewing it.
Julie Elliott
If you go down that line, will the Government ensure that commitments to public service broadcasting will be maintained, whoever owns it—one sale on, two sales on, or 50 sales on?
Sarah Healey
Ministers have been clear that their intention is that Channel 4 is sold as a public service broadcaster, so that is what the obligations would need to make clear.
Julie Elliott
We have talked a lot about regional programming and programming in Wales, but there are also a lot of jobs being moved to the north of England, particularly around the Leeds area. What commitments will the Government be looking for, if the privatisation happens, to keep those jobs in those areas?
Ms Dorries
Again, that is a hypothetical question for me, because I haven’t got to that point yet.
Julie Elliott
You haven’t got to the point of making the decision, but—
Ms Dorries
I haven’t got to the point of the report from the consultation, looking at the evidence, reading the Select Committee’s report and speaking to the many organisations and people involved. That will be part of the evaluation process, and it will be fully considered. The impact of privatisation will be considered in the context of the move to Leeds and what is happening in Leeds. That is obviously a very important issue, because what is also important to me is the fact that it has moved to Leeds, it is out in the regions and it is not in London. That is an important consideration, but it is not one that—
Julie Elliott
It is still down south, but we will let you off.
Ms Dorries
To you. It is up north to me.
Julie Elliott
So you will consider that at that point.
Ms Dorries
Yes. It will absolutely be evaluated.
Simon Jupp
Good afternoon, Secretary of State, and thank you for joining us. I am really concerned about the state of local journalism. I am a former local journalist myself—I mentioned at the start of this meeting that I worked for the BBC and ITV in a previous life. Nowadays, many local newspapers have closed. Those that are left have a skeletal staff—maybe one person running a newsroom. It is very difficult to keep on top of local stories. One of the things that needs to be protected is BBC local radio and television services. I will use a recent example, from yesterday: BBC Essex, the local radio station for that county, covered the memorial service for David Amess in minute-by-minute coverage. It was impressive and cannot be done by any other broadcaster; a commercial operator simply would not do it. That is the role that these services can provide, if done well. I have Radio Devon and “Spotlight” to hold me to account in my patch, and that is valuable. It is a bit weird being the other side of the microphone nowadays, but it is important. Yet whenever the axe is wielded at the BBC, it is the services closest to those who pay the licence fee that always seem to face the salami slicer first. In your discussions with the BBC about the future of the corporation, how much has local radio and local television featured? What are your thoughts—in any discussions about future policy, the future framework of the BBC—about protecting those services that cannot be provided commercially?
Ms Dorries
I do not know whether you are aware, but I wrote an op-ed recently on the importance of local journalism. You are quite right: local journalism plays an important role. You gave the really sad example of David’s funeral, but there are many people within society who depend on their local newspapers and local TV channels to know what is happening locally and to know what is going on in their community. Those are a really important cohesive element of local communities and, even on a wider basis, in local regions. It is incredibly important. To put this into historical context, just in case you are thinking, “You wrote that op-ed because you came into this job and you thought it was the right thing to do,” a number of years ago when I was a fairly new Back Bencher, the BBC—I cannot remember the exact context in which it was doing this—was doing something that was going to really crowd out local newspapers online because of the dominance of BBC content. I remember lots of local newspapers coming down to Parliament, going to Downing Street and coming to talk to MPs to campaign for local news content not to be crowded out by the bigger giants of public service broadcasting, because it is incredibly important to communities. I think we have done quite a bit. You asked a specific question, and I cannot talk about what we are doing in the discussions or what is being discussed. The best way for me to answer your question is slightly similar to the way I answered Alex’s question. What happens at a regional and local level, and moving things out of London, is really important to me, and it is part of the ethos within the Department. The best way for me to answer your question is to reassure you that regional and local news is certainly very important.
Simon Jupp
You have an opportunity through the discussions you are having with the BBC to say to them that the services closest to those who pay for them, those that are not in London—those based in places like Plymouth, Bristol and Southampton—should be protected, because they are closest and they reflect the communities that pay the licence fee in the first place. Surely that must feature in your discussions with the BBC.
Ms Dorries
It very much features in our ongoing discussions. Obviously I cannot talk to you about what we are discussing at the moment, but that very much features. Local news and local television feature very much as part of the discussion.
Simon Jupp
You mentioned local papers coming to Westminster many years ago, and I would love to know how many of those local newspapers still exist.
Ms Dorries
Actually, that is interesting, because the one I was campaigning for has since gone.
Simon Jupp
Local newspapers in my region have closed in the last couple of years, too.
Ms Dorries
We know. The sustainability of the press and local news is an incredibly important issue. I think we have lost, is it 30% of journalists over the last 10 years? Journalism and news reporting, as a career and as an important function of society, are obviously against what is coming down via online platforms such as Facebook, which are almost competing by carrying news and information. We are in that kind of environment now where local news, news itself, and journalism as a profession, and therefore our democracy, are slightly undermined. What do we depend on as a democracy to inform us and to provide us with the news? It is very much journalism and local news, and I think the sustainability of the press is very much an issue that is going to come on to the horizon in the future.
Simon Jupp
We have discussed, and other colleagues have brought up during the session, potential thoughts about bias when it comes to the BBC. Do you have the same concerns about local BBC services as you do about some of the national services and its national output? Do you think there is a bias there, too?
Ms Dorries
Because we are in discussions at the moment, all I will say is that the BBC accepts that it has a problem with impartiality. Those are the BBC’s words, not mine. It hasn’t said, “We have a problem with impartiality in London.” It has said there is a problem with impartiality in the BBC. Taking that a step further, I would imagine that the answer to your question is yes, but that is based on what the BBC has said, not what I am saying.
Simon Jupp
One of your predecessors in the Department introduced the local democracy reporting service, a fantastic scheme that means that there are still journalists going to council meetings to pick up on those Jackie Weaver moments that we have all found engaging.
Ms Dorries
Thanks, Jackie Weaver!
Simon Jupp
Journalists from local newspapers used to go to these meetings and sit through endless planning consultations and things like that.
Ms Dorries
For hours and hours. Simon Jupp Following the demise of local newspapers, the local democracy reporting service plays a crucial role. Do you think that role will be made stronger? Could it be enhanced?
Ms Dorries
I would say yes; I do not see why it could not or should not be. That was the training ground for journalists, wasn’t it—sitting in those village halls, night after night, and reporting the minutes of those meetings in their local newspaper the next day? Gosh, we are harking back to a time—it makes you feel very old—that doesn’t exist any more. I think the same thing happens to a degree through the citizen journalist, but there is the issue of the monitoring of citizen journalism; the misinformation, disinformation and bias—that whole issue—needs to be questioned. When it comes to local democracy and local reporting, we need a revival. Can we have a revival of journalism? They were the good old days of honest reporting that was not overlaid with or filtered through opinion, which is something we see a lot of now.
Simon Jupp
Finally from me, earlier this year, you told The Daily Telegraph that the BBC needs “a less elitist and a less snobbish approach” to recruitment. I am sitting in front of you in this Committee as a Conservative MP, but I was not educated privately, and I didn’t bother with university; I spent seven years with the BBC and became one of the youngest managers in BBC local radio. Now that you have your feet under the table, are a bit more into the role, and presumably have met more people from the BBC, do you still feel the same way?
Ms Dorries
I think the figures speak for themselves. The proportion of people they employ from professional and managerial backgrounds is at, I think, 70-something per cent. The proportion from working-class backgrounds is, I think, 20-something per cent.—actually, that could be Channel 4. I can get the numbers up while we are talking. The BBC accepts that this is an issue that it has to deal with. That is very much the ethos that I have brought to the Department. If you were to ask, “What changes have you brought to it, as Secretary of State?”, that is very much it for me. It is about ensuring that everybody from every background has access to the arts, whether it is music, theatre or sport, because things are different from how they were. When I grew up in the ’60s, somebody I grew up with on my very deprived council estate in Liverpool went on to be Cher’s music producer, and people went into the theatre. If you wanted to, you could. I remember my drama teacher, Mrs Lyons, getting me an audition at the Elliott-Clarke school of dance and drama and telling me about it on a Saturday morning, but I couldn’t go because I didn’t have the bus fare; but if you had the bus fare, you could move on. Now, kids from where I grew up would never dream of being a journalist. They wouldn’t think there was an opportunity for them. Theatres are not places that they go to—or museums, or any element of the creative industries or the arts. They just don’t think that those opportunities of employment or enjoyment are open to them. That is something that we very much have to change. I would put journalism in there, too. The BBC is doing work on apprentices. Through our discussions, I hope we get to a position where it will do more. What ITV is doing is very interesting; it is considering reopening a training school for apprentices. Getting people from those backgrounds into those sectors is incredibly important. Anything I can do while I am Secretary of State to facilitate that, I will.
Chair
Just to follow up on the question over local democracy reporting, that obviously is a BBC decision, as it is BBC funded. How will you actually see that that is expanded? Is that something you will be discussing with the BBC? Will it be a pre-requisite of the licence fee settlement?
Ms Dorries
I think that is something that is going to be part of the mid-term review and the framework agreement. I don’t think it is coming in as part of discussions on the licence fee. When we start the mid-term review discussions next year, we will be discussing the fee.
Chair
You want to see that included in the mid-term review?
Ms Dorries
It is incredibly important. It is part of regional news. It is part of exactly what I have just spoken to—to getting people in.
Chair
I am conscious of time, so I will move on to John in one second. You have used the term “London-centric” quite often during your evidence. Are you going to lead by example? Are we going to see DCMS following the example of the CMA and its digital markets unit and moving to the Treasury campus? Are we going to see DCMS civil servants moving out of London?
Sarah Healey
Do you want me to answer that?
Chair
No, it was for the Secretary of State.
Ms Dorries
Do I see the civil service moving out of London? That is not my decision. I do not run the civil service. Sarah runs the Department.
Chair
Do you want to see that happen? Would you encourage it?
Ms Dorries
I think it is happening in a huge number of Departments. Moving out of London is a really good thing.
Chair
But DCMS?
Sarah Healey
We have opened an office in Manchester, and we have employed staff there.
Chair
Is that part of the digital markets unit in Manchester?
Sarah Healey
No, this is DCMS staff in an office in Manchester. We are also exploring whether we can open in other locations as well. As a major economic Department, we are clearly interested in becoming part of the Government’s economic campus as well.
Chair
Thank you. John Nicolson.
John Nicolson
Let us stick with the BBC and broadcasting. I think it is worth remembering that the BBC director-general is a former Conservative party candidate, and the BBC chair is a major donor to the Conservative party. I am a journalist, and I am passionate about journalism. You said that you did not know whether the BBC would still be in existence in 10 years’ time. I thought that was an extraordinary thing to say. Do you really not know whether the BBC will still be going in 10 years’ time?
Ms Dorries
I don’t think it is an extraordinary answer. It was an extraordinary question, which was, “Do you think the licence fee will still be here in 10 years?” How can I know?
John Nicolson
I am not talking about the licence fee. I am talking about the BBC.
Ms Dorries
I am telling you what the question was that I answered, and the question was, “Do you think the licence fee will still be here?” My answer was, “How can I possibly know? I don’t have a crystal ball. How do I even know if the BBC is going to be going in 10 years?”
John Nicolson
Actually, the exact quote—I have it in front of me—was: “I can't look into the future. Will the BBC still be here in 10 years? I don't know.” You were not talking just about the licence fee, but about the existence of the corporation.
Ms Dorries
Well, I don’t know, do I? Neither do you. Neither do any of us.
John Nicolson
I think I would stake a significant amount of money on the BBC still being in existence in 10 years’ time. It would be a tragedy were it not. You said that soon after the “Today” presenter Nick Robinson—a former chair of the Young Conservatives, I might add—had clashed with the Prime Minister. You will remember that Mr Johnson tried to give one of his just-a-minute incredibly long answers and Nick Robinson stepped in. The Times reported that you said that Nick Robinson has cost the BBC a lot of money, which sounds threatening. Could you put on record what you meant by that?
Ms Dorries
I didn’t say that.
John Nicolson
So The Times is wrong?
Ms Dorries
I didn’t hear the interview. I didn’t see the interview. I have never commented on what Nick Robinson said.
John Nicolson
That is very clear; so The Times has misreported that.
Ms Dorries
Can I also just say for the purpose of minute-taking on this meeting, I am very sure the BBC will be here in 10 years. My point is—
John Nicolson
Oh, really? That is the fastest U-turn I have ever heard, even by this Government’s standards.
Ms Dorries
My point is that I don’t have a crystal ball, and I don’t know any more than anybody else in this room does.
John Nicolson
None of us has a crystal ball; that is a truism. You called the BBC “left wing”, “hypocritical”, “patronising” and more in keeping with “a Soviet-style country”. Did you ever visit and Soviet-style country and watch the broadcasting there?
Ms Dorries
Yes.
John Nicolson
And you think it is like the BBC?
Ms Dorries
I am not going to answer questions about tweets that I posted 12 years ago, or whenever it was.
John Nicolson
It is hard to keep track of your tweets.
Ms Dorries
Not as hard as it is to keep track of yours.
John Nicolson
It was quoted in the Daily Mail last month. Only the other day, in your capacity as—
Ms Dorries
It might have been quoted in the Daily Mail last month. That does not mean I posted it last month.
John Nicolson
Not a hostile publication, though. Only the other day, in your capacity as Culture Secretary, you tweeted at Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC’s political editor, attacking a tweet she had sent. The word you used was “ridiculous”. Do you regret the fact that you tweeted at her?
Ms Dorries
I did not tweet at her.
John Nicolson
You copied her into the tweet.
Ms Dorries
I quote-tweeted her. My point was not that Laura’s tweet was ridiculous. Laura is one of the best, most professional journalists in the business. She has been here a very long time and is probably the best journalist in the business. I realise that some people do not have the ability to interpret a short number of characters in the way that they are intended, which is actually the reason why I deleted it. What I was saying was that the message she had been sent, which she was quoting, was ridiculous, not that Laura is ridiculous.
John Nicolson
Actually, the wording you used was, “You must realise this is ridiculous.” Regardless of the exact words that you used, in your capacity as Culture Secretary, and given how much trouble you’ve got into over your tweets in the past, you must realise that it is inappropriate for you to tackle the BBC’s political editor about the content of a report or one of her tweets?
Ms Dorries
“Attack” is a word you use a lot. I would not call it an attack at all.
John Nicolson
All right. You called everyone who works at the Daily Mirror—presumably both women and men—“bottom-feeding scum”.
Ms Dorries
How many years ago was that?
John Nicolson
That was 2013. There is a continuity, unless you are saying that everything you have ever written or said previously has to be discounted because there is a statute of limitations? We hear that for very young people. Teenagers, for example, are allowed to say inappropriate things. You were not a teenager when you sent that. You have a history of attacking journalists. I will leave aside your testicle tweet, because we discussed that quite recently. However, you tweeted LBC’s James O’Brien, as we know, calling him a “public school posh boy f*** wit.” That would fall into the category of abuse, would it not, under your own online safety legislation?
Ms Dorries
Chairman, I am not going to answer any of these questions. I find them to be personal attacks.
Chair
I will say one thing. I questioned John very closely on this. The one relevant point about this is the fact that you are Secretary of State, and should the online harms legislation come to pass in the way in which it seems it will, you will have enormous power, particularly on sign-off and secondary legislative power, so I think it is very credible.
Ms Dorries
Okay, I will answer. I think it is important that I perhaps answer— Mr Nicolson is quite right; he asked me about the journalist tweets in the past, and I will answer that for the purpose of this Committee. I sent that tweet when my daughter’s neighbour told me a journalist was outside the house photographing her in the house and had followed her on a dog walk down a path. That was the mother who sent that tweet—
John Nicolson
Yes, but that was nothing to do with James O’Brien.
Ms Dorries
I know you don’t want to hear my answer, but I request the right to give it—
John Nicolson
That was not about James O’Brien. That was a different issue. That was a Mirror journalist, I think.
Chair
Let the Secretary of State answer the question.
Ms Dorries
I will answer that next. It was the mother Nadine Dorries who posted that tweet. My daughter’s neighbour opposite said they were trying to ring my daughter because there was a journalist outside the house photographing her in the house and he had just followed her on the dog walk. I sent that tweet after that. Frankly, I would expect any mother who was distressed to do that. On the James O’Brien tweet—
John Nicolson
I wouldn’t, I don’t think. I think a lot of mothers sitting listening to this will not welcome the implication that, because they are trying to protect their children, they are allowed to send abusive tweets. I know you used that argument in a previous Committee. However, as I said, that is nothing to do with James O’Brien, so let us move on to your various tweets to him.
Ms Dorries
Because we do know that you love your pile-on tweets and what have you. If you search the number of times I have tweeted James O’Brien, I think you might find it is two. If you search the number of times James O’Brien has persistently tweeted me, to the point where 18 months to two years ago my office had to write to Global, complaining that his behaviour was stepping into the realms of harassment—that was the point at which I sent that tweet. If you search James O’Brien’s tweets of me—
John Nicolson
I have searched that.
Ms Dorries
Including the ones that he has deleted?
John Nicolson
At the other Committee you said that you had responded to abuse from him. I have searched that and I cannot find this abuse that you talk about, but I have found you asking for James O’ Brien to get the sack. You also implied that he had mental health problems. You said, “I don’t think he is a well man… He needs removing from his platform of abuse”. In a separate tweet you said, “I…have had to email his employer a number of times.” I do not think it is appropriate for you, as a politician, to be trying to get somebody the sack. But let us move on to another tweet that you sent—
Ms Dorries
Can I answer that?
John Nicolson
Please do.
Ms Dorries
Chairman, what I would say is that, along with a number of female politicians, I am subjected to a small number of men who tweet about me obsessively, aggressively and unpleasantly, and James O’Brien is one of them.
John Nicolson
Well, I can’t find those tweets that you mention. Here is something that you did retweet about him, and I will quote it: “I believe James O’Brien of LBC fame is a Hate preacher, a liar, a misogynist, a UK hater & an apologist for Islamist atrocities.” You are in no position to talk about James O’Brien saying offensive things about you. You tweeted that. Apart from being actionable and defamatory, it is grotesque. [Interruption.] I am glad you agree.
Ms Dorries
I don’t agree with you and I am not here—
John Nicolson
Do you think that is appropriate?
Ms Dorries
I haven’t come here today to answer about tweets that I sent years ago. I do understand the context in my role as a Secretary of State, but, as I said, as a female politician I quite often—
John Nicolson
It is nothing to do with being a female politician.
Ms Dorries
As many females do, I quite often have to respond assertively to numerous aggressive, unpleasant tweets. Looking at your own tweet history, I wouldn’t say that was something to be particularly proud of either.