Sub-committee on Online Harms and Disinformation

Oral evidence, 15 March 2022.

Witnesses

Kevin Bakhurst, Keir Giles, Rebecca Skippage and Vera Tolz.

Chair

This is the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and our hearing on, first, Russian disinformation and, then, governance in football, in relation to the Chelsea situation and wider issues of ownership in football. First, we have Russian disinformation. Our first panel consists of Kevin Bakhurst, group director of broadcasting and online content at Ofcom; Keir Giles, senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, who is joining us virtually due to the traffic around the Oxford area I believe; Rebecca Skippage, disinformation editor, BBC World Service; and Vera Tolz, Sir William Mather Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Manchester. Kevin, Keir, Rebecca and Vera, thank you very much for joining us today. The first question should probably go to Keir Giles, and then I will maybe bring in the other panellists. Keir, what examples of disinformation have we seen coming from the Russian Government before and during the invasion? Do you think this is a centralised operation?

Keir Giles

Yes, absolutely it is a centralised operation, as these always are, but it is also decentralised, in that there is a lot of individual initiative in how narratives are developed and pushed forward. We have seen strategic and operational narratives. We have seen the overall framing of this conflict in a way that is unrecognisable to anybody with a grasp of European history that differs from President Putin’s. Then, operationally, we have seen preparations for multiple false flag operations—for ways in which Russia can justify either the invasion overall or individual actions within it. Those attempts continue, of course—trying to set up the conditions where Russia can blame any of the human rights atrocities that it is undertaking within Ukraine today on anybody else. To a large extent, the discrediting of that disinformation by prebuttals and by intelligence disclosures by the US and the UK has been highly successful. We have not seen those narratives get nearly as much traction as they would have done without those active interventions by the US and the UK, making sure that the media and the general public were prepared for disinformation and false flag narratives. Nevertheless, they do continue and are being spread very actively, not just on social media, but also by individuals—by influencers, agents of influence and the useful idiots that operate on behalf of Russia.

Chair

We know a fair few of them. What does disinformation tell you about the next steps that Russia may take?

Keir Giles

There are a number of ways in which we can learn what Russia is planning from their information preparation of the environment. If we see Russia starting to present narratives that it wants to persuade either foreign publics or foreign politicians are true, then that does give an indication of what the next steps are likely to be. The simplest cases are where Russia actually lays the groundwork for an accusation against another country for something that it is preparing to do itself. But we also have indicators where, again, the useful idiots or the agents of influence promote narratives themselves that are new and apparently appear out of nowhere. Those are good indicators for what the eventual Russian information effort is going to be. We pay close attention to those people who we know repeat Russian disinformation for what they are saying, because that actually provides a canary. It is an indicator of the direction of travel and what is coming next.

Chair

Vera Tolz, when it comes to disinformation, what have you been seeing from Russia before and during the invasion of Ukraine?

Vera Tolz

In addition to what Keir has said, I would say that we can now see retrospectively that since 2013 the Russian state media and particularly television have had an absolutely unprecedented in my lifetime—and I lived in the Soviet Union until 1982—campaign around Ukraine. Actually, because of the intensity of that disinformation campaign from 2013 and the fact that it was basically non-stop, it absolutely dominated Russian state media, to the extent that the fake Opposition in the Russian Parliament, of whom, for instance, the Communist party of Russia are representatives—the head of this Communist party unit or faction in the Parliament complained about it: “Why is there so much about Ukraine?” Clearly, it was not for nothing. There was this preparation for further actions against Ukraine. It started in 2013, when Putin for the first time said Russians and Ukrainians were one people or the same nation—I was very struck by that comment, because it completely contradicted the line that even the communist regime took. Then, from 2014—even more so after the annexation of the Crimea. Another interesting point to add to what Keir has said is about public opinion. I don’t know how much it is prepared, in Russia, for actual war against Ukraine. That is why it is forbidden to say that there is war. Until 24 February, the line on television was that war with Ukraine was impossible—“How can you imagine that we will kill our brothers and sisters in Ukraine?” That is now quite problematic for the Russian propaganda journalists, because they don’t even know what language to use. Sometimes the word “war” slips in and then they take it back. But I would say the most extraordinary of all the false narratives we are hearing now—it is repeated again and again—is about the devastation you see in Ukrainian cities, from Kharkiv to Chernihiv to Sumy. It is that the Ukrainian army is doing that, so the Ukrainians are bombing their own cities. This is, I think, the most extraordinary narrative and it is repeated again and again.

Chair

So they are suggesting that the Ukrainians are blowing up their own cities in order to basically make Russia look bad.

Vera Tolz

Yes.

Chair

Do they take the world for cretins, do you think, in that respect? It is an incredible narrative to actually come out with. That leads me on to another question, Vera. Is this disinformation for internal purposes, external purposes or both? And if it is for both, what sort of percentage is internal and what external?

Vera Tolz

There are three issues here. One is that of course the main focus is now on the internal audience. Even on official state television channels, you see occasionally these main propaganda journalists, like Simonyan, who is editor-in-chief of RT, expressing concern about the fact that on social media, in the digital space, within Russia, the narrative is challenged. You probably saw today there was also an incident. So there is concern about that, and the main thing is of course for internal audiences. As for external audiences, my sense—it might be wrong—is that basically Russian state media have given up on western audiences. I think RT has basically given up the pretence. But we see different narratives, and different interpretations of what is going on, in Latin America, Africa and the middle east. And this is the target. Quick research that my assistants have done shows that the uptake of RT Spanish in Latin America and RT Arabic is up now. The third—I think very important—point is that a lot research and a lot of analysis of what the Kremlin is doing is couched in the language of weaponisation of information. The idea is that Putin himself understands full well, and the people around him understand full well, what the reality is, and then they spin a false narrative. Of course, when Putin opens his mouth, he lies, but I am absolutely sure that he believed in the fiction he created around Ukraine that the majority of Ukrainians, or certainly Russian speakers in Ukraine, would support the Russian army, because the whole military strategy has been designed on the basis of that complete fiction. They were talking on 24 February—they were showing on official television, on state television—about some kind of ukaz, which planned a victory concert in Kiev on the 26th.

Chair

They were advertising a victory concert on the 26th?

Vera Tolz

Yes, and fireworks. Putin has become a hostage of these false narratives. If you look historically, that is what happens with dictators.

Chair

Keir, briefly, before I turn to Rebecca on another issue, follow up on what Vera said there about the disinformation war—the fact that Russia was effectively giving up on the west, and we were worried for many years about Russian disinformation, although it always seemed quite a blunt instrument in the west. It seems to be ever more blunt. On countries such as Israel, and countries in the middle east—Israel in particular is an important strategic ally for the west—and Latin America, should we be overly concerned that Putin’s lies and state-sponsored disinformation are getting their tendrils into those parts of the world?

Keir Giles

We should be concerned, but that is not a new concern, because part of Russia’s push for global influence that we have seen over the last three years involves developing influence in countries that were not previously of particular interest to Russia. Of course, the more support that Russia enjoys globally, the harder it is to counteract Russia here in Europe, but we should qualify and add to what Vera said about the state disinformation tools perhaps being less interested in projecting messages abroad. That, of course, has only limited effect on how much disinformation Russia manages to deliver to our populations in order to undermine the validity of democratic decisions in this country. RT and Sputnik have always been the organs that got the most attention, but they are not the most significant part of how Russia disseminates that information. There are also the people who pass on the messages from the Russian embassy, from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from the influencers, the network propagandists. Coming back to your point about whether they take us for cretins, unfortunately, the problem is there is never going to be a shortage of cretins. There is never going to be a lack of vulnerable or easily exploitable people whom Russia can embrace and whose feelings they can validate by giving them narratives to feed that counteract the main way they see the world around them. Rebecca might be able to talk shortly about how covid deniers have pivoted seamlessly to backing Russian disinformation, because Russia has always been adept at targeting vulnerable people. If you look at the typical profile of a Russian propagandist, they tend to be quite sad and lonely figures whose lives have generally been characterised by failure, and then they have a cause to latch on to. That is a far more pernicious and hard-to-identify problem than the bright, shiny objects of RT and Sputnik.

Chair

Rebecca, do you agree—I certainly do agree—that much of the focus on RT and Sputnik has probably been a bit misplaced and that, actually, it is that below-the-line type of disinformation, which is still disseminating in our society and being shared by vulnerable people with other vulnerable people, to a degree?

Rebecca Skippage

Yes, I think I would agree with what Keir was saying. There are two ways to look at this. As both my colleagues here were saying, there is the view that people are getting within Russia itself, which is completely dominated by state media. It is very difficult for us to understand with our pluralistic media and the sense of public service media in this country what it is like to deal with a media where you are told lies constantly and they can flip from one hour to another depending on what is being said. In reference to what Vera and Keir were talking about, we did a piece which looked at three Ukrainian citizens whose Russian families would not believe that they were being bombed. The woman involved said to her mother, “Can you not hear that I am being shelled? Here are the pictures.” And her mother said, “No, no that wouldn’t be happening.” We perhaps find that kind of state narrative difficult to understand in this country. To your point about the other areas of disinformation: absolutely, where we see it in a most pernicious sense is on social media. Telegram has been a huge area, as far as disinformation is concerned. It is slightly the wild west from the point of view of the lack of moderation that goes on. A lot of the information that has been spread about what has been happening has been there. Twitter has been the other main port of call as far as the spreading of mis and disinformation is concerned. On TikTok, a lot of people have come to this reasonably late and said, “Oh well, TikTok is all about people dancing and doing daft things”. Actually, if you follow it over the last couple of years, it has been instrumental in where young people have shown what has been going on and shared things. It is really easy to share material on there without metadata, so you can put anything on and it is difficult for people to check whether it is mis or disinformation from that. There is a whole ecosystem of people who are sharing things deliberately or not deliberately. We knew, certainly from our experience of what happens after a catastrophe or something like the pandemic, that the key time where disinformation flourishes is at the beginning. I always say disinformation loves a vacuum. When you don’t know what is going on—we saw this with the pandemic—that is when all the conspiracy theories can start to take root. This is why my team and various other teams at the BBC who specialise in this were planning a couple of weeks ahead of the invasion as to how we were going to respond to it. We got our ducks in a row from the point of view of disinformation specialists, language specialists, regional specialists, open source intelligence people, and user-generated content specialists. We got them all together into a group so that, sadly, when the invasion did occur, we were able immediately to jump in and say, “Okay, we can verify this is happening, or show that this is old footage or material that is being used inappropriately.”

Chair

Of course, Telegram you have just cited would not be covered under the current guise of the Online Safety Bill, because it is not a tier 1 organisation. I will not ask you as a BBC employee to comment on that.

Rebecca Skippage

Thank you.

Simon Jupp

If I may, I would like to focus on the BBC World Service for a moment? You have just talked about the level of disinformation and misinformation that you are coming across and that your teams and journalists are seeing, both on the ground in Ukraine and around the region, and also back here in London. How do you verify that information? How do you drill down and discover? There is pressure, isn’t there? Now, in the age of social media, news spreads fast on social media, whether it is real news or not, and when it doesn’t appear on the BBC, audiences start questioning why. How do you verify, and what is the time involved in doing so?

Rebecca Skippage

I can talk you through exactly what we did, if that would be helpful.

Simon Jupp

Yes, absolutely.

Rebecca Skippage

This was an unprecedented challenge that we were looking at. As I said, we had this group of people who we knew were all interested in the subject and had subject expertise to bring to it. We were all very simply on a chat app together. When the invasion happened, my role was simply to harness the expertise that they had. People started dropping into this chat: “Have you seen this?”, “This is starting to trend”, “This is really popular on these telegram channels”—which were being followed by the language experts—and, “Would this sort of tank be in there at this point?” With their levels of expertise, and using tools that, frankly, anybody can use—Google Reverse Image, Yandex, TinEye—but also crucially that local knowledge of, “Hang on a minute, that isn’t the right accent from that particular area,” they jumped on these clips, and we created a really simple grid. I have been a journalist for 25 years. You have to keep things simple when you are trying to turn things around quickly, so we created a grid, which was a dynamic space that everybody could come into. We said that green is, “Yes, we’ve verified that it is true,” red is, “It is not true,” and white is, “We are still working on it”. What worked particularly well was that we said to everybody within the BBC, “You come to that grid. We are not going to send stuff out saying, ‘This has been verified’ or ‘This hasn’t’,” because things were moving so quickly, so everybody was pulled to that. There were tweaks and we improved on it with colleagues at UGC, who have said yes as far as permission to use footage is concerned. Basically, that has been running for the last couple of weeks. It has been the basis, certainly before we were able to get teams in there, of our footage, to tell not only the accurate story of what was happening, but the false narratives and being able to show the inaccurate stuff that was going out.

Simon Jupp

Given the level of resource you have pumped into this—and rightly so, given that it is the BBC World Service—how much do you also interact with other public service broadcasters to ensure that they are not broadcasting stuff that audiences will then expect on the BBC World Service, especially domestically here?

Rebecca Skippage

The one thing about the disinformation community is that it is really collaborative. If you follow one person on Twitter who is part of the disinformation community, you will probably interact with everybody else as well. There was a real collaborative sense of, “We need to be telling people the true story.” People were verifying things out in the public ecosystem, as well as the work we were doing privately. We would rather pause than get something wrong. There is a huge element of doing that, but thanks to the expertise of the people who work for the BBC and the World Service, and to the investment that has been made in disinformation journalism and open-source intelligence journalism, so far we have managed to steer that course correctly.

Simon Jupp

On information flow, this is essentially new sabotage that is being attempted by the Russian authorities and then by people peddling their nonsense. What about physical and technical sabotage? Have your teams and journalists come across any of that sabotage, either in the region or back here?

Rebecca Skippage

My teams are based in the UK. I also run teams based in Nigeria and India, but they have not been as involved in this conflict. As far as technical sabotage is concerned, the cyber-security piece is an issue that has concerned the Russians almost more than us journalists, to a certain extent. For example, they have been so concerned about the interception of what they are doing that they have switched to using telephones and things like that, which are very easy to intercept. Certainly, we have not seen that to a great extent with the work we have been doing.

Simon Jupp

Clearly, because of attempts to interrupt your programming and to ensure that it is not accessible to some people in the region, you have had to launch new shortwave transmitters and things like that in the area. How much of that has gone to actually making sure that those audiences can access your programming? Are you still getting complaints that people cannot access it at the moment?

Rebecca Skippage

I cannot speak to the complaints—that is not something that comes across my desk. This is what the World Service does: we get the truth out to people, and we make it as freely accessible as we possibly can, so if we need to change the ways we do that, that is what we do. What has been really impressive is the way that that has been done at such speed. We have gone from things like creating two different new shortwave frequencies, to saying, “If you want to try to circumvent some of the restrictions that are being put on you, this is how you use a VPN, this is how you use Tor to get on to the dark web.” We have also started up the TikTok channels—so, TikTok in English and TikTok in Russian. Whatever your point of entry into trying to find accurate information, hopefully we have considered that and are able to offer something to the Russian people, who deserve truthful and accurate information more than ever before

Simon Jupp

Fascinating. Thank you.

Clive Efford

Kevin, can I ask you about the role of Ofcom? If anybody else has any observations on these questions, please indicate. We have a flurry of information at this time, and some of it is misinformation and disinformation. What do you make of Ofcom’s role in a fast-moving situation like this?

Kevin Bakhurst

Thank you very much for the question. Ofcom has an important role as part of the ecology and in listening to the academics, and to Rebecca, about the work that is going on across the piece. I think our role is an important part of the overall approach to tackling disinformation and trying to ensure that audiences in the UK can receive news that is trusted, accurate, properly regulated and impartial, as Rebecca has touched on. From our point of view, one of the greatest disinfectants to tackle the scourge of disinformation is to make sure that mass audiences in the UK can rely on the news that they are given, and that news is widely available to them.

Clive Efford

The draft Bill requires Ofcom to set up a committee of experts on disinformation. Does that suggest that Ofcom currently lacks the expertise it needs in a situation like this?

Kevin Bakhurst

I am not sure. The new duties in the online safety Bill, which include that responsibility—although it was certainly in the White Paper—would certainly enhance our work in this area. At the moment, we obviously do not have statutory duties in the online space. We are very active already in this area, and hopefully Members will be aware that, during the covid period, we did a lot of work on disinformation. We used our media literacy powers to understand what people were receiving, how they were receiving it and what efforts were being made to tackle it, and we also took action ourselves during that crucial period for the UK. We already have a media literacy advisory committee that helps feed into our work. This is an important duty that we have, and I know Mr Green is very interested in this area. It is an important area. We have been stepping it up over the last few years, partly in preparation for online safety, and we continue to invest in that.

Clive Efford

Moving on, Russia has passed a new fake news law to criminalise those reporting on the situation in Ukraine. Does that suggest that we cannot trust anything coming out of Russia at all? Is it all disinformation and misinformation now?

Kevin Bakhurst

I would take this opportunity to recognise the incredible work that journalists from UK organisations are doing in Russia in the face of that kind of intimidation.

Clive Efford

I was going to ask you about penetration.

Kevin Bakhurst

In the face of that kind of intimidation and legal action by the Government there, it is not without risk to themselves. It is a really important part of making sure that we are provided with accurate information from Russia. As far as Russian journalists are concerned, undoubtedly those new laws make it nigh on impossible to give a fair and impartial representation of what is happening in Ukraine.

Vera Tolz

Can I chip in here? There are still some very brave Russian journalists from the outlets that have been closed down, such as Ekho Moskvy. Novaya Gazeta can hardly operate, and there is also Dozhd/TV Rain. They are now broadcasting the truth on YouTube. The problem is that very few people watch that, but there are still a handful of incredibly brave people who basically accept that they might be arrested and given up to 15 years.

Clive Efford

You anticipated my question—I was going to come to you and ask exactly about that, and particularly about the news overnight of the journalist on Channel One who made the protest. How much effect do you think that is having within Russia—the protests, the journalists and that protest in particular?

Vera Tolz

I will start by saying that if you want to know the truth, you can access it in Russia. I talk to my friends in Russia—I know it is a very small bubble—and they all absolutely hate Putin and they are all against the war. I ask, “What media are you consuming?” They all have VPNs, as if they were based in Germany or Holland, and they see everything: BBC, Radio Liberty, Voice of America. There are several anti-war channels on Telegram—they also consume those—and on YouTube several journalists from Ekho Moskvy, Dozhd/TV Rain and a new newspaper called Novaya Gazeta try to produce programmes that cover what is really going on. On the numbers of people, we don’t really have reliable figures, but you can say that this is an absolute minority of the population so far. However, I think the situation is very unpredictable in Russia and very unpredictable for Putin, because as we know from literature on popular mobilisations, something can happen very suddenly and the whole mood and people’s actions change. With Ukraine, Putin has a problem. He did similar things in Chechnya and Syria, but Ukraine is not Chechnya or Syria. Eleven million Russian citizens have direct relatives in Ukraine. Some of them do not believe, but in this day and age the secrets cannot be kept forever. Also, the Government did not anticipate major losses among soldiers, and there are major losses. That is a major problem for Putin. If we remember the Afghan war in the Soviet period, by 1984 it became a problem for the Government because people returned from war and also some people lost their lives, and that started creating discontent. It was one of the contributing factors for Gorbachev to start his reforms.

Clive Efford

London has been accused of being the laundromat for dirty money globally, and we have seen through the sanctions a number of Russian oligarchs who are interwoven with cultural issues, sport—Mr Abramovich, Chelsea and so on—and how difficult it is to unravel all that. Do you think we have taken our eye off the ball with regard to that Russian money, where it came from and how it has infiltrated our culture, sport and financial services?

Vera Tolz

The simple answer is yes. I have been thinking that for a while.

Clive Efford

Do you think the Government should have acted sooner? Do you think the warning signs were there?

Vera Tolz

Yes, I do.

Clive Efford

You do not want to elaborate on that.

Vera Tolz

I have been thinking for a while why Britain is regarded as one of the easiest places where people from Russia, but also other parts of the world, feel that they can launder their dirty money.

Keir Giles

There is absolutely no excuse for anybody to be surprised by any of this, because it has been so thoroughly documented, and the only people whose eyes were not on the ball were those who wilfully looked away. After all, you only have to look through the Intelligence and Security Committee report on Russia from July 2020 to see warnings of all the problems we are talking about precisely today, and the inaction since then by Government on tackling any of those serious issues, including some of the gaping holes in legislation for dealing not only with indirect attacks like disinformation, but direct ones like espionage. There is simply no reason whatsoever for anybody to claim that this now comes as a surprise.

Clive Efford

Has the approach that we have taken actually been an encouragement for Putin? He has used soft influence—particularly in sport, by using doping to create athletes’ success across the board—and they have paraded sporting success and other things at home to glorify Russia, for want of a better term. How much has that been allowed to influence and encourage Putin in the actions that he is taking today?

Keir Giles

Well, simply having no countermeasures whatsoever leaves an open playing field and an open goal for malign influence in this country. Going back to the specific point about disinformation, you heard Rebecca and Kevin outline ways in which responsible public service broadcasters can make sure that they are not repeating disinformation. That is all well and good, but it does not tackle the problem at source, and it does not deal with the people who are receiving their information not from responsible public service broadcasters. If you are picking up narratives from social media, the problem remains the same. Without the co-operation of the social media platforms, it is never going to be possible to tackle this. It is trivially easy for those platforms to identify, for example, when a false profile is posting misinformation, pretending to be in Manchester when, in fact, it is in St Petersburg, but if that information is not shared, it is very difficult for researchers and counter-disinformation activists to identify that and eliminate it, because of course the platforms will also not co-operate in shutting them down. I was interested when Simon Jupp asked about the direct interventions against operations for counter-disinformation. I would have thought that the closing down of BBC Monitoring’s outsourced units in Moscow and Kyiv was an indication of how effective that can be. Previous Select Committee reports on BBC Monitoring effectively being eliminated in the last decade as a national security asset highlighted the vulnerability of outsourcing to Russia and therefore being hostage to the good will of the Russian Government. Now that that good will has been withdrawn, I wonder what the impact is on the rump of operations that was allowed to continue for BBC Monitoring in the UK.

Chair

Thank you. Vera, you were nodding your head at the point Keir just made on BBC Monitoring.

Vera Tolz

Yes. Like Keir, I was dismayed by the withdrawal, in a way, of some support for BBC Monitoring, which has been a fantastic service. That is the way to run counter-disinformation operations and to keep tabs on what information or disinformation Governments are disseminating, rather than outsourcing those kinds of activities to third parties, where people are on short-term contracts and are paid on a kind of rolling model depending on how many examples of disinformation they can find, and where, simply, completely untrained people are employed. We should remember that the disinformation coming from Russia now is, as you said Julian, of such grotesque narratives. “Ukrainians are bombing their own cities”—are they taking us for idiots? Normally, disinformation is not like that. If you look at it, most disinformation is not about wrong facts—isolated facts—but works best by taking facts that, self-standing, are correct in a way, and then selectively using that information and producing a narrative where those facts are taken out of context or put in the wrong context, and their very selection is extremely biased. That kind of disinformation constitutes, according to various estimates, 80% of our information ecology—we should remember that we are focusing on Russia now, but Russia is not the only disinformation actor.

Chair

This Committee has found that there are 39 countries—

Vera Tolz

There is a whole disinformation ecology in which 80% of information is hyper-partisan. It is spin, and to tackle that you really need expertise.

Chair

Before I briefly bring Rebecca in, who wants to talk about BBC monitoring, Vera, you mentioned that you left the Soviet Union in 1982. I think Brezhnev had just finished being President at that point.

Vera Tolz

Until ’82 it was Brezhnev, yes.

Chair

Do you think in some ways that Russian disinformation and propaganda is more pernicious now than it was under the Soviets?

Vera Tolz

I think it is more pernicious. In some ways it is more effective. By the late Soviet period, Soviet propaganda was tired. What was shown on television was extremely boring. People switched off. Now, since 2012 in particular, a whole new range of what is called “soft news”—basically talk show programmes—have been introduced in Russia itself. It is non-stop political messaging, and the approach until now has very often been to use selective information, massage the facts, take them out of context and even allow some performance of pluralism, so that everything is structured in the perfect way, whereby people finish watching these programmes with the right sentiment, from the Kremlin’s point of view. These talk shows are theatrical performances. They are extremely absorbing. For my research, I have had to watch some of those programmes—and my friends in Russia pitied me. When you watch hour after hour of that stuff, you start to feel influenced by it emotionally. It is very well done. Of course, RT operated in a very similar way. Initially it started with very poor-quality stuff. It was quite a pathetic operation. With time, it became a similar, quite sleek operation. Yes, it is much more pernicious, but I would also say that what we hear now on television is about a war—an unprecedented war for my lifetime. In a way, it is now even more made up of falsehood than I remember from the late Soviet period.

Chair

Before I come to Steve Brine, I know you wanted to come in, Rebecca.

Rebecca Skippage

I just wanted to talk about monitoring.

Chair

Your right to reply.

Rebecca Skippage

Thank you. The basis for our disinformation team is BBC Monitoring. That is how I started the disinformation team in 2018. I would not want anyone to get the impression that we are freelancing this sort of work out. BBC Monitoring is absolutely at the heart of what we do, as are our colleagues in Russia, Ukraine and our Russian colleagues based in the UK. We are absolutely at the heart of this process.

Chair

We do not want to get too into the weeds of that, but both opinions have a great deal of validity about them. Thank you, Rebecca and Vera. Steve Brine?

Steve Brine

Thanks Chair, and thanks to the panel. I do not think anybody in this country would recognise some of the things you were saying, even a few years ago. Part of me feels weary and thinks, “What a complicated world. What a complicated web we have managed to weave in the age of social media.” Then I remember my history teaching and realise that, actually, none of this is new or different. I just wonder what your reflections would be on how much of this is a brave new world and how much of this is just a weary next chapter of the same world.

Vera Tolz

It depends on what perspective you want to take. I think there are several issues that, if not entirely new, are at a new stage.

Steve Brine

What I am getting at is that when you talk about disinformation, most people would consider that to be the internet age. They would consider that to be social media and push messages that are way outside the borders of the country that creates that disinformation, whereas this is not just a social media age problem, is it?

Vera Tolz

No, obviously. I don’t know where you want me to start, but in the 19th century, even in democracies, it was completely acceptable that the press was highly partisan and you could produce basically spin narratives. The idea of quality news, where reliability of the information is key, starts in the early 20th century. At the same time, you have also state disinformation services also starting in the early 20th century, and this was during the first world war. We hear a lot that disinformation was invented by Stalin or the Soviet Union, but if you look at language national corpora, you will see that in English the word “disinformation” is already used in Parliament in 1903, so MPs and American newspapers accuse each other of disinformation in the late 19th century. What is new now is the speed with which you can transmit false information and how little effort it takes. If we stick with Russia and the Soviet Union and look at the cold war period, to plant an article with a Kremlin-preferred narrative in a foreign newspaper, particularly a western newspaper, is very time-consuming. It is a difficult effort. Now, you can put something in social media in a moment. You have also far more actors involved, because of social media, in spreading questionable information. Because so many actors now can produce their own information, the hold of mainstream media like the BBC on the narrative in western democracies is undermined, and this is a problem.

Steve Brine

Of course, many people listening to this and our constituents who have contacted us in this vein would think that we are rather pious and pompous sitting here and passing judgment on other countries’ disinformation, because we have no experience in this country, of course, of a politically biased press. We do not have a state broadcaster that some people would suggest constantly drip-drips a certain agenda—Brexit. I am being ironic. Rebecca, let me ask you about how journalists go about verifying a false flag one way or another. How do you do that, or are you reliant on Governments’ own intelligence gathering?

Rebecca Skippage

We approach information verification—does it matter where it came from, absolutely, of course—in the same way. It is basic journalism in many ways—fact checking and checking where your sources are. When we talk to schoolchildren through our young reporter scheme or just give bits of information out, which we always try and do whenever we write articles, you look at where it has come from. I always say this to my journalists: who benefits from it? Who benefits from your thinking that, for example, there are more Muslims giving birth in India than there are Hindus? Who benefits from that? Also, if you have an emotional response to something, that is a key indicator that you should pause. If it makes you angry, happy, outraged, really sad or something like that, pause. Where did it come from? There are really simple tools, as we were just saying to your colleague. Look on Google reverse image. Have a look to see whether other news outlets are picking up on this apparently outrageous bit of news that you would assume they would be reporting if it were true. We would deal with it, in many ways, within the news operation in the same way that we would suggest that people do when they receive things on WhatsApp. We verify things using some of those tools, as well as the basic journalism of checking with experts and sources.

Steve Brine

The BBC definitely does not do this, but many news organisations actively seek to stir endlessly, create anger, raise the temperature and pick culture wars—imagine if a Government did that. It is not always the case that every broadcaster or journalistic source is not seeking to stir.

Rebecca Skippage

Due to the work that Kevin’s organisation does, from a broadcast perspective we need to play things with a straight bat. What doesn’t help is the fact that a lot of the social media platforms reward the fact that you have created emotion in people. There is that danger and temptation of putting things there that you know are going to elicit that sort of response, because we know that that is what promotes things in social media feeds. A lot of the work that the BBC is doing through things like the trusted news initiative is working with the platforms to say, “Actually, it shouldn’t be about whether you have an emotional reaction to something; it should be about whether it’s true or whether it’s accurate.” I would also say that it is our duty as journalists to believe in good information, and to make it as interesting as the bad information. We all love fake news. Of course we do. It’s interesting, isn’t it? It creates an emotion in us.

Steve Brine

The National Enquirer made a lot of money out of creating fake news front pages, as did some of the old red tops in our country.

Rebecca Skippage

Completely.

Steve Brine

Finally, I want to ask you an ethical question. If you report on a false flag that never materialises, you then have to address claims that you are part of the conspiracy yourself. If you report false flags that were never going to materialise, then the Russian state in this instance accuses you of pushing anti-Russian propaganda. That merely serves to prop up a view of the world that we are all against them.

Rebecca Skippage

We report on the information that is available. The concept of false flags is something that we would absolutely report on. We would say, “This is an example of something that has happened before.” I cannot see us reporting on something that we think might be about to happen. We do say, “It is possible.” I think Keir was talking about this. You can slightly read the runes—“This is the sort of thing that might happen”—but I do not think that I would expect any of my journalists to talk about things that we were not sure had actually happened as a false flag.

Steve Brine

The Ghost of Kyiv story is a good example of that, isn’t it?

Rebecca Skippage

It’s a really interesting one. People have asked me over the last couple of weeks whether Ukraine is also guilty of putting out disinformation. In no way would I want to draw a false equivalence, but what you have seen from them is a lot of these kind of memes, and a lot of these historic symbols of patriotism. The Ghost of Kyiv is an absolute classic of that—that noble hero who people can rally around.

Steve Brine

Fascinating. I know that we have to move on, Chair. Thank you.

Chair

Just to say, we are going to have a hard stop in 15 minutes or so.

Dr Huq

Out of interest, how long has the disinformation post existed at the BBC?

Rebecca Skippage

I started as disinformation editor in September, but the actual disinformation team started in 2018.

Dr Huq

I think the Labour party has got rid of its rapid rebuttal unit, which used to be so effective under Tony Blair. Anyway, the questions that I have are principally for Professor Tolz, and they build on what the Chair was asking and what Steve Brine started with. I was not in the Soviet Union in 1982, but I did go in 1989. I remember that in all the parks they had a laminated copy of Pravda behind display cases that everyone could read. That seemed nice and democratic, but obviously it was only Pravda you could read. I want to drill down a bit into what has happened with Russian Government domination of domestic media since then, and how pluralist things have become. I guess I went in the glasnost era. When I went on a delegation to China, we were all told, “Don’t take your normal phone; get a burner phone.” There were equivalents of Facebook and all those things—We Chat and things. You mentioned Telegram—I do not even know what that is. I wonder if you could tell us more about what has happened since 1989. You mentioned that there are fake talk shows. Are those alongside real talk shows? How does it operate now?

Vera Tolz

It is, of course, a long period with different stages. In 1989, glasnost was already in full swing. People could consume all sorts of information apart from Pravda then. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and there was a decade under President Yeltsin when there was, simply put, freedom of information and freedom of the press. There were issues around funding and the role of money in creating particular spin, but that was the best and freest era of the media. When Putin came to power in 2000, he started to impose control on the media straight away—firstly on television, because television was the main source of information and news. The situation as Putin continued as President of Russia became worse and worse in terms of media control. To me, a major change was 2012, after the demonstrations against Putin standing for the third term. Clearly, the Kremlin was scared by those demonstrations. At that time, the approach to reporting changed. There started to be less pluralism and even staged pluralism. As I said, the number of talk shows increased dramatically on television, and all the time, organised campaigns around certain issues of sensitivity and relevance to the Kremlin started to be organised. You had different actors co-ordinating their efforts from state television and clandestine troll factories. Until 2010, the Kremlin paid, they think now, insufficient attention to the digital area—the internet and social media, which started to emerge then. Famously Putin said in 2010 that the internet and social media does not matter—it is all porn; it is not politically important. Then, the realisation that this is an important area kicked in, so the troll factory was organised in St Petersburg first and then in other areas. What the Kremlin started doing was flooding the digital space with their own content. But we should remember the difference with China. China created its own internet and its own social media from the start. That is why Twitter and Facebook will not work in China and never did, unless maybe somebody tried to get a VPN. China has a complete firewall around its digital space. Russia started with an open internet, so a completely different model. That is now creating a problem for Russia. They started to introduce laws to create their own sovereign internet, but it is not working very well, because that is not the model that they have. Telegram is a social media channel that was set up by two Russian IT specialists, but it became a global channel. Now both the Durov brothers, the inventors of Telegram, are long abroad—they defected, basically, from Russia, because the state wanted to confiscate their assets and tried to put the channel under its control. After 24 February, the Russian Government blocked Facebook, Twitter and also Instagram yesterday or the day before yesterday. They are attempting to also block YouTube. So far, Telegram is functioning. In 2018—

Chair

I’m really sorry, Vera. You were asked a very open question, but we are going to have to move on.

Vera Tolz

I’m sorry. One can give a whole lecture on the history of Russian media.

Chair

I would be delighted to receive that lecture at another time. Thank you very much. Dr Huq, do you have any other questions?

Dr Huq

I wondered if you had heard that people are nominating Marina Ovsyannikova for the Nobel peace prize. Overnight, there has been news that that was staged by the Russians to detract from the razing to the ground of civilian targets. Is there a comment on that?

Vera Tolz

To be honest, no. I actually do not believe that.

Chair

I think possibly Rebecca Skippage would be a better person to respond—she is on the ground, so to speak.

Rebecca Skippage

I haven’t seen the comment on it being staged. Gosh, I hate giving a definite; I would be really surprised if it was.

Chair

It is one where the red alert comes up with disinformation when you hear that one.

Rebecca Skippage

Yes.

Chair

We are going to have to move on, because the Minister can only stay with us until 12.15. I am going to have to move on to Damian Green, and then we are going to have to end the session.

Damian Green

I have two questions. One is about Ofcom. Because decisions inside the EU took RT and Sputnik off the air, did Ofcom ever come to a decision on the decision that the Government said, probably rightly, was yours, not theirs? Did you ever reach that decision, or did it happen anyway, so you ducked it?

Kevin Bakhurst

We haven’t ducked it. It has happened—you are right—practically, because of the EU actions. We are actively considering now whether RT remains fit and proper to hold a licence.

Damian Green

So you will come to a decision.

Kevin Bakhurst

We will come to a decision.

Damian Green

Because the BBC has already been, as it were, shut down in Russia, that will not make much practical difference to your operations.

Kevin Bakhurst

This is one of the things we have to consider. The BBC has not been totally shut down. It still has a number of journalists operating in Russia. It is not within our statutory remit, as part of the decision, to consider that, but clearly we don’t operate in a vacuum and we have to be aware what the consequences of our decisions are.

Damian Green

The other question is perhaps to Rebecca, Vera and Keir. It is about Russian media literacy, if you like—not so much capacity to interpret, but ability to get. Do we have any idea what percentage of Russians actually have access to independent media so that they can at least make up their mind whether they are receiving propaganda or not?

Rebecca Skippage

I don’t. Keir, is that something that you know?

Keir Giles

There are various estimates, but unfortunately they are all slightly misleading because they give a picture that does not correspond to how Russians are likely to react to information they receive from outside. If you are a Russian who is a viewer of state television, you have been subjected, as Vera described, to 10 years of very consistent propaganda forming a world view that is completely unrecognisable from anything that we understand as a reality. If, on the other hand, you are a Russian who takes an interest in what’s happening in the outside world and wants to find out for themselves, you have found that there have been progressively more and more obstacles placed in your way. You need to not only actively seek out foreign news, but you also need to speak a foreign language, because Russia has put in place a service called InoSMI, which stands for foreign media, a monopoly on news from outside which translates into Russian but selectively, partially and in a way that suits Russian state narratives. Vera talked about the awakening of Russia to the problem of social media. It recognised it as a threat far earlier than we did, because it saw it as a vulnerability, because news and information can come into Russia from the outside world, and this is a country that has always seen that as a problem. After all, from time to time they banned the import and possession of foreign books. As Vera said, there was no great firewall of Russia because it started off with an open system and it has taken retroactive measures to try to wall Russian citizens off. The problem is that you will not be getting any movement between those two audiences—those who are convinced by Russian state media, by the television propaganda channels, and those who do not believe them because they already have access, limited and dwindling, to the outside world through social media. The huge challenge, and one that people come back to again and again, is how to reach that audience that Russia has already successfully cut off. We see some crowdsourcing initiatives, direct phoning into Russia, directly attempting to contact ordinary Russians, in particular the relatives of soldiers who are on the frontline in Ukraine to tell them the truth about what is going on. But as Rebecca has already explained, sometimes they are so inculcated, so deep in the propaganda world that has been created for them, that they simply do not believe what they are hearing.

Damian Green

In terms of the first group, that are successfully getting independent information, do we have any idea of what percentage that is, and what the percentage is for the second group you described—those who would like that information if they could get it? Do we know what percentage of the population that is?

Keir Giles

Internet penetration has been especially high in Russia, particularly in urban areas. It is a very online population but that does not mean that it shares an information space with the rest of the world, particularly because of the measures that have been put in place—not just the Russian equivalents of platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and so on, but the fact that they operate in their own information bubble, in exactly the same way as audiences in the west do. When you see optimistic statistics saying that the vast number of Russians are on social media, that has to be taken with the understanding that that does not necessarily mean that they are interacting with the outside world and with outside audiences.

Damian Green

Vera, do you know any percentages, or is that simply impossible?

Vera Tolz

Percentages of those who regularly consume alternative media—there is also a Russophone, anti-Putin network—are very small. That is very clear. That is why that media were allowed to exist until 24 February, and could be reached, because the numbers did not constitute a problem for the Kremlin. I was trying to find out anything about opinion polls now. There is virtually no information. Do I have a minute?

Chair

Yes, you have a minute.

Vera Tolz

Colleagues of mine who have a big project on surveying opinion in Ukraine and Russia—the project is led by Harvard University—yesterday gave me, with a huge caveat, an optimistic statistic. I do not know whether to believe it or not, but on the second day of war, only 14% of Russians believed that Russia was at fault at all, and two days ago, it was up to 37% who were in doubt. Whether that is true, I cannot say, nor actually, because it is now so difficult to survey the public in Russia, can my Harvard colleagues. But they were saying that even if the figure of 37% is not entirely correct, there is a trajectory towards doubt.

Chair

That is a nice and encouraging note to finish on. I thank our witnesses. We are now going to conclude this session. We will take a short adjournment of about two minutes as we set up our second panel. Thank you again. Examination of witness

Witness

Nigel Huddleston.

Chair

Welcome to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Sub-Committee. On our first panel, we heard about Russian disinformation; now, we have moved on to sports governance and Russia and other nations. We are joined by Nigel Huddleston, the Minister for Sport. Good morning, Nigel. Thank you for joining us.

Nigel Huddleston

Good morning.

Chair

Just before we begin, I wish to declare that I have accepted hospitality from Manchester United football club in the last 12 months.

Damian Green

I have accepted hospitality from the Premier League.

Steve Brine

I have accepted hospitality from Tottenham Hotspur. It was a thoroughly miserable evening.

Chair

Well, it is Spurs. Minister, first of all, I am tempted to ask you what it is like to run a football club—whether or not you’ve got your sheepskin coat—but I just want to know what you thought, having taken on the role that you have, when you saw that the first fixture was between Chelsea, which has the Roman Abramovich and Putin connection, and Newcastle United, with its connections with the Saudis, who have just executed 81 men. What were your thoughts when you saw that fixture popping up?

Nigel Huddleston

First of all, it’s good to see everybody today. I should probably make it very clear where we are with Chelsea at the moment: the Government do not own Chelsea; the assets have been frozen; the club is potentially up for sale. In terms of what you’re alluding to, I think the whole issue of who owns sport has been a hot topic for many years. I recognise that. It was a topic in the fan-led review, which we will be responding to shortly. The point about the owners and directors test, in particular, is important; I am sure that you will also talk to the Premier League about that. We recognise there is need for movement there. A couple of weeks ago, the Secretary of State said in the Chamber of the House of Commons that that will be part of the Government response to the fan-led review. I probably can’t say too much more on that, although you’ll probably prompt me a little more. However, I can’t formally respond to the review.

Chair

I think we do need to be told a little more on that, in particular on the fan-led review. Reading the review, it looks as though it would not have stopped the Saudi takeover; it wouldn’t have stopped Roman Abramovich from taking over. It seems to be based on the fact that if you have enough money, you can buy a football club. Is that really the right way to go, or should there be a stricter outlook in terms of the integrity of the ownership of a football club?

Nigel Huddleston

First of all, any transactions between private sector entities are commercial transactions within the law in the UK, but also in some cases subject to the restrictions, rules and guidance of governing bodies or other entities—in this case, the Premier League. The Government did not make decisions relating to those acquisitions, but those were subject to the Premier League’s own owners and directors test. The Premier League is also assessing that test. What I can say is that we recognise the need for further refinement and for a more robust owners and directors test. The integrity element of that is something that is being pushed. We will be responding pretty soon on that.

Chair

To put pressure on you on that, the fan-led review is about the financing; it is not about the integrity aspect.

Nigel Huddleston

Again, if you will forgive me, I will not respond here today to all the elements of the fan-led review. The team are still working on that. We will make an announcement in due course. The Secretary of State has said, however, that the response to the fan-led review will most likely include elements about the owners and directors test, along with the announcement that we will have an independent regulator. The precise role of the owners and directors test within that, and the elements of it, is something that we will be making further comment on—

Chair

Do you envisage the fan-led review—

Nigel Huddleston

We have heard a lot of comments about the integrity element, and I think there are valid concerns about it.

Chair

Are we to take from that, in effect, that you will beef up Tracey Crouch’s proposals on the ownership of football clubs?

Nigel Huddleston

You will hear the formal response to the fan-led review soon. You will understand, and I know exactly where you are coming from, but I cannot pre-empt those findings. We will be giving them soon. The team have been working very hard—

Chair

It sounds as if the Secretary of State has already pre-empted that to a degree, so are you not willing—

Nigel Huddleston

No, we have been saying for a while that we recognise, and that the Premier League recognises, that the owners and directors test at the moment needs further work. It needs to be more robust. The exact elements of that are something we are working on. Further information will come out along with further information about the role of a regulator in our formal response, which will come shortly. As I say, I know what you are trying to get today, but I cannot say much more than that. I am happy to come back to you once we have released it.

Chair

Minister, what we are trying to get at is the legitimate concerns nationwide about how this situation has been allowed to come about. Kicking it into the long grass—to mix my football metaphors—is probably not the way to go on this occasion. Surely you can at least come out with a little bit to suggest that there should also be an element of integrity when it comes to who owns a football club, not just about the financing and “Can you afford it?”

Nigel Huddleston

As I said, we will be responding formally. The Secretary of State did say that we need the owners and directors test to be more robust. That will be part of our response to the review, but I will not give the details of that today. In fact, we are still working on it, but it is very important. As I say, I hear what fans have said in my role and from Tracey Crouch’s review. The integrity element, I think, is important. I know it is a hot topic in sport. It goes beyond just football but, as it relates to football, we will announce more in due course.

Chair

Simon Jordan, the former Palace owner, suggested that Roman Abramovich had been good for the Chelsea trophy cabinet, but was one of the worst things to happen to English football. Do you agree?

Nigel Huddleston

Again, as I have written to you before, in terms of the particular elements related to sanctions of individuals, I cannot say too much today—

Chair

Minister, forgive me, this is not about sanctions; this is your opinion of whether Roman Abramovich has been good or bad for English football.

Nigel Huddleston

We welcome investment in the UK, but all investment in the UK, in particular as it relates to sports, has to be legal and subject to various tests. That has been the case. We recognise that there is a need for more improvements, but it is important as well that we make sure that we continue to have a robust and very successful football ecosystem in the UK. The Premier League is a major global success story and an outstanding export earner for the UK, and we welcome investment.

Chair

So you have no opinion—

Nigel Huddleston

The point about the fitness of owners is a valid one, which you are making here today. As I said, it is important that we look at—we will be looking at—that as part of the response to the fan-led review.

Chair

So you have no view of whether Roman Abramovich has been good or bad for English football.

Nigel Huddleston

I will not be drawn on individuals today, I am sorry. I know exactly where you are coming from, and the fact is that Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned and has been sanctioned for a reason—because he has links to Vladimir Putin. That is signal itself that, in terms of his fitness to run a club, that is clearly not the case now. In terms of the historical investment, I cannot comment much further, but I can say that the fact that he has been sanctioned at the moment speaks for itself.

Chair

How does the national game rediscover its soul, Nigel?

Nigel Huddleston

I think we are at a turning point in English football. The fan-led review is pivotally important. We recognise that there are failures in the structure and governance of English football. If it were all working perfectly, we would never have needed the fan-led review. It is a manifesto commitment that I stood on and that many of us stood on, and in fact, cross-party, there was recognition of the need for significant changes in football governance in England. I think the fan-led review will be pivotal because it will contain an independent regulator, which is a fundamental change in the structure and ecosystem of English football, and it will include further information and measures around the owners and directors test. That itself says quite a lot.

Chair

Any rumours that No. 10 had thought that perhaps the fan-led review was too much trouble this side of the election and wanted to put it in a future manifesto, that was nonsense; you are going to crack on with this. When are you actually going to get moving in the fan-led review and bring it before Parliament?

Nigel Huddleston

We have launched the fan-led review. It has taken place and Tracey has written her report. We will be responding very soon.

Chair

Yes, but when will the Bill come forward?

Nigel Huddleston

That is a matter that we are having discussions on at the moment in terms of parliamentary schedules and timetables. One of the most important things, as well, to recognise—you as a Committee have said this again and again, and I completely agree—is that many recommendations in the fan-led review do not and will not require legislation. Football itself can sort out quite a lot of the issues that exist today and it should do that. So we should not just wait for legislation. I am hoping and expecting that we will see considerable changes without the need for legislation. We will need legislation to set up a regulator.

Chair

Can you definitely assure this Committee that any legislation that results from the fan-led review will be before the House before the next general election? Can you assure this Committee that that is the case?

Nigel Huddleston

I cannot promise the timescales of legislation, but there is no intent to kick this into the long grass or delay it. It is incredibly complex; you know that, I know that. This is not easy. We are going to be setting up a regulator, and that requires primary legislation. So there will be a need for us to legislate in the House of Commons. The timing of it is something we are discussing at the moment. I would like to see it as soon as possible and, of course, the Secretary of State has said the same, but we have to find time in the legislative timetable.

Chair

Final question from me: on, have you seen the legal assurances from the Premier League or that the Premier League has received concerning the Saudi ownership of Newcastle United? How confident are you that the Premier League will take action if it shows that the Saudi state has considerable involvement in Newcastle United?

Nigel Huddleston

I am not sure what you are referring to, so I cannot comment on this.

Chair

Well, the Premier League has received assurances from the consortium owning Newcastle United that, effectively, the Saudi state will not be involved in the running of the club. Have you seen such assurances, have you asked any questions of the Premier League in that respect and can you inform the Committee in that regard?

Nigel Huddleston

Chair, the integrity in the owners and directors test element is the responsibility of the Premier League, and the acquisition was done legally.

Chair

You are the Minister for Sport. I would have thought that on something as controversial as the Saudi takeover of Newcastle United, you would see any assurances that they had given to the Premier League in terms of keeping the Saudi Government out of the running of Newcastle United.

Nigel Huddleston

Chairman, any acquisition, as I said, needs to be done legally and according to the laws. The owners and directors test was applied by the Premier League. I know that there are questions about the rigorousness of it, but that is a decision for the Premier League. I think one of the problems we have at the moment is the expectation that Government get hugely involved in all things, including all elements of sport. There is a responsibility of sport and sport governing bodies to do the right thing and also to keep their house in order. We recognise the failings and that there is therefore a requirement for further intervention, which is precisely why we had the fan-led review and precisely why we are putting in the governance changes.

Chair

Will you now ask the Premier League for the details of the assurances it says it has received? This was absolutely crucial to the deal that was done in terms of the takeover of Newcastle, and I imagine it is a matter of extreme public interest. There should be oversight by the Government.

Nigel Huddleston

Mr Chairman, you are asking me to give an in-depth response to something that I cannot. What I will say is that I will write to you about that.

Chair

Okay. Will you be writing to the Premier League?

Nigel Huddleston

I will be writing to you once I have got to the details of the underlying question that you are getting at.

Simon Jupp

We have seen a wide raft of sporting sanctions announced over the last couple of weeks. In your conversations with the industry and, I am sure, with bodies elsewhere in Europe and further afield, how long do you think that global sport and sport here will accept such sanctions and support them?

Nigel Huddleston

You are right; sport responded quickly to the situation in Ukraine. I am very proud that it responded so quickly, with real leadership from Great Britain, including from many governing bodies that then put pressure on international bodies. We have worked with Sports Ministers and Governments around the world to encourage that strong response. We had a meeting of 20-something Sports Ministers. More than 30 signed up to a declaration that made it very clear that Russia and Belarus were global pariahs, in both sport and the cultural arena more broadly. Those sanctions will last as long as Russia continues to be a pariah on the world stage. Nobody knows how long that will be. The person who is in control of that is Vladimir Putin. They will last, I think, for some time. They include Russia not being able to bid for major sporting events now that will happen many years in the future. I think it is going to be quite a while before we accept Russia back on to the world sporting stage.

Simon Jupp

I hate to ask this question, but money talks. Is that really a sustainable position long term?

Nigel Huddleston

There is a lot of money in the global sporting environment; it is a major economic contributor, and a lot of jobs and taxes are generated through sport. It is not just fun—it goes way beyond the game. Globally there is a lot of money in sport, and there is a lot of money in football, and I think we can manage perfectly well without Russian investment overall. There are plenty of other investors around the world we can work with.

Simon Jupp

Russia used sport to get on the world stage and be recognised as a developing nation and a reasonable country—up until the last couple of weeks. Do you really think that all the people who have signed up to the sanctions, and signed the declaration you just mentioned, will still be adhering to that in six months’ time?

Nigel Huddleston

That is entirely up to Vladimir Putin.

Simon Jupp

It’s not though, is it? It is up to those countries. If the financial pressure becomes too tight on some clubs and other sporting institutions—perhaps not in this country but elsewhere—will they cave?

Nigel Huddleston

I think there is a very strong global consensus on the measures that we are asking sports to take, including not competing and not giving sporting events to Russia and Belarus. That also extends to sponsorship and investment. There is actually a lot of activity to remove that sponsorship and investment. I really cannot see circumstances for quite a long period of time in which we would welcome that money back—I genuinely can’t. I do not think it would be morally acceptable; in many cases it may not be legally possible, because we will still have considerable sanctions imposed on many entities. I do not think that sports fans around the world, and in particular in this country, would find that acceptable. They have spoken very loudly and clearly; sport has come out incredibly well in its show of support for the people of Ukraine. The idea that the mood is likely to change in the near future is highly unlikely.

Simon Jupp

I am glad to hear you say that. Do you think that the response from the sporting community, here and across the globe, to the events of the last couple of weeks is a wake-up call for global sport to consider how it interacts with nations that have dubious human rights records?

Nigel Huddleston

Most of my job as Sports Minister is spent on governance and related issues and concerns in sport. That occupies the vast majority of this Committee’s time, as well. There are problems, both domestically and internationally, with the governance of sport and sport investment. You are right that there has been a bit of a wake-up call here, particularly as it related to Russian investment. I think the mood is changing and we are at the cusp of quite significant change in sport.

Simon Jupp

How do you see that change evolving? How do you see it actually being put into practice?

Nigel Huddleston

We will be leading the way, in some ways, by setting up an independent regulator. We will be making more information on the precise remit of that regulator available shortly. But I think other countries are also looking at the way they see sponsorship in sport and investments from entities around the world. It is not just the UK implementing sanctions on Russian oligarchs and others who have related activities. This is happening around the world, and it has implications for all industries, including sport, that can be very visible. You are right, actually: the reason the sporting sanctions matter is precisely that Putin loves nothing better than wrapping himself in the flag and putting himself on the world stage. That is precisely why it was absolutely right for the International Paralympic Committee to make sure that the Russians could not do that at the recent games. That was the right decision.

Simon Jupp

Given the good work that has been going on to make sure that countries are united on this, if countries fall away because the money talks too loudly, will we call them out?

Nigel Huddleston

I certainly will.

Steve Brine

Hello, Nigel; thanks for coming along. Can I ask you about the financial impact on British sport of the sanctions that have been imposed? Have the Government considered that impact? Has an impact assessment been done? I know you have not published such a thing but, within your office, has the impact of such sanctions on British sport been assessed?

Nigel Huddleston

I don’t want to sound obtuse here, but sanctions are the decision of another Department—in this case, FCDO. The elements, particularly as they relate to the impact on Chelsea, are driven by the licensing, which is led by the Treasury, but DCMS is obviously involved in the conversations here. It is really important to understand that we are imposing sanctions in response to an illegal invasion of Ukraine—we have to remember the context here—by Vladimir Putin, who is causing chaos, havoc, destruction and the death of innocent people. In response, and quite quickly, the UK and the world put sanctions in place. Those sanctions are to freeze the assets of individuals and entities with links to Putin, but they will inevitably have a consequence for, and an impact on, domestic economies, including in the UK. It should not be a surprise that when Roman Abramovic was sanctioned, it had an impact, because the sanctions mean that you cannot generate additional revenue. That has had an impact on ticket sales, merchandise and so on. Yes, there is an impact. How big that impact is—did we work that out in advance? No, but what we are doing is working with Chelsea, and of course the fans, to see how we can make sure that the measures that we have put in place primarily impact on Roman Abramovic and make sure that he does not benefit, while making sure that, where possible, we can reduce the impact on the fans and make sure that Chelsea can still continue. I think that is the important context here, because this is a response to a global crisis.

Steve Brine

Absolutely, and I think the Government’s response has been swift, robust and all the things that the public expected it to be in respect of sport. Sport has then done its bit in response. We all know the reasons it was done. The fact that it has a negative impact on British sport is not a reason not to do it. In the same way, we could stop our reliance on Russian gas tomorrow if we wanted, but do our constituents want to pay £4,500-a-year energy bills? It is a debate that I guess we need to have with the public, if we are being honest. Would the Government allow a football club to go bust because it gave up sponsorship from a Russian firm? Are football clubs too big to fail?

Nigel Huddleston

Again, we have enough facts to deal with, without going into hypotheticals here. Can the Government allow an entity to fail? Yes, it can—whether it is sport, football or anything else—but what we want to do is make sure that the impact of sanctions hits those who we want to feel the impact. They are not intended to harm other entities or the overall sports ecosystem, which is precisely why—talking specifically about Chelsea—we have the licence, so that the club can continue to operate. Some other entities rely more on sponsorship. Again, many have withdrawn or frozen that sponsorship if there are links with Russia or Russian entities. That is the right thing to do. I don’t believe that, as a direct consequence of that, it is threatening the viability of the entity. They are going to have to look for alternative sources of sponsorship, which I think in many cases will be available. In the case of Chelsea, what you have seen the Government do is recognise that the sanctions will have an impact, yet simultaneously and immediately make sure that there was a licence so the club could survive and indeed, hopefully, still be sold. Then we will be out of some of the difficulties.

Steve Brine

I think that is very clear. The reason I ask is that the Government were very muscular and stepped in to protect the beautiful game. Fans were very grateful. When the European Super League was mooted and that then threatened fans’ access to their clubs, the Prime Minister said we would do whatever it took, including legislation, to stop it. I am just saying that the Government are feeling quite interventionalist in protecting the national sport.

Nigel Huddleston

The fact that we have had the fan-led review and are proposing an independent regulator and looking at elements including owners and directors has shown that we recognise that sport, and football in particular, is vitally important to our local communities and local heritage. There are huge, strong, emotional attachments and therefore it requires intervention in a way that some other things don’t.

Steve Brine

Okay, that makes sense. Which sports do you think are most in danger due to lost funding as a result of sanctions? Wider than football, which sports are on your worry list? What assessment has been made?

Nigel Huddleston

We are looking at this, and actually the sports governing bodies have been very good, not only in terms of the response to international games and events but also in looking at the impact there. We are currently looking at the impact of withdrawal of sponsorship, in particular, across the board. I am not aware of any sport that is truly facing an existential threat, because the ecosystem is actually quite fluid and fragmented in terms of sponsorship and support. But there are individual entities that we have particular concern about, Chelsea being the utmost.

Steve Brine

Moving away from football, would you as Sports Minister be comfortable if the world’s No. 1 men’s tennis player came and played at Wimbledon this year?

Nigel Huddleston

This is a really important point because globally, or at least in many countries around the world, we have agreed that we will not allow representatives from Russia to compete. There are also visa implications here. When it comes to individuals, it gets a bit more complex. We are looking at this, and talking to various sports about this, in terms of what the response and requirements should be. Absolutely, no one flying the flag for Russia should be allowed or enabled. Many sports people have dual or multiple citizenships; many would be willing and able to compete as non-aligned, non-flag bearing entities. However, I think it goes beyond that. We need some potential assurance that they are not supporters of Vladimir Putin, and we are considering what requirements we may need to get some assurances along those lines. In short, would I be comfortable with a Russian athlete flying the Russian flag winning? No, and I don’t think anybody in this Chamber would.

Steve Brine

You are talking to the All England Club about that, are you?

Nigel Huddleston

We are in discussions.

Steve Brine

Okay. So if the then world No. 1 could not play in the Australian Open because he exercised his legitimate right not to have a covid vaccine, then being a supporter of a country that has invaded a sovereign country in a hostile act would be a problem, wouldn’t it?

Nigel Huddleston

I think you have just answered your own question. I don’t think that would be acceptable.

Steve Brine

Finally, do you think there will be more examples like China or other countries deciding not to broadcast British sporting events and, bluntly, are we bothered?

Nigel Huddleston

External rights management, international rights, are hugely important to sport. It is a major export earner for the UK economy. As I said earlier on, the Premier League is a particular case in point here. Sport should bring people together, and it does bring people together. It unites us. It is a truly global language. I would like to see the power of sport do exactly that around the world. Also, the soft power elements of flying our flag internationally are very strong. So, where possible, I will always be an advocate for international rights and sales, unless that is inappropriate, as is the case currently in Russia, where the withdrawal of Premier League rights, for example, was the right thing to do. I think that, where appropriate, we should be exploiting the intellectual property of our sports entities around the world.

Steve Brine

That is very clear. Thank you.

Julie Elliott

Good morning, Nigel. Why did the Government not act on Abramovich’s ownership of Chelsea when the 2019 Home Office report came out? This discussed, among other things, “his links to the Russian state and his public association with corrupt activity and practices.”

Nigel Huddleston

Again, I’m afraid—you will be aware that the sanctions are led by FCDO. As I wrote to the Committee, with respect, I cannot comment in detail about the sanctions and the particular details of the sanctions decisions.

Julie Elliott

But this is not about sanctions; this is actually about why the Government did not act on something that was known before.

Nigel Huddleston

Well, you are asking me why we did not sanction him earlier, and that is actually a decision for another Government Department, which I do not control. So, as I say, with respect, I cannot really comment on that. In terms of what has changed—well, to state the obvious, the invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally changed things, which is why the world is responding and reacting by adding lots more people to the sanctions regime—

Julie Elliott

It hasn’t changed the way—

Nigel Huddleston

And effort and energy are being put into investigating individuals that were perhaps not on the radar previously.

Julie Elliott

To say that Abramovich would not have been on the radar is perhaps not quite—

Nigel Huddleston

No, I didn’t say he wasn’t on—

Julie Elliott

Well, my question was about Abramovich.

Nigel Huddleston

Ms Elliott, as I said, I did write to the Committee, with respect, saying that I could not go into detail on this. You are also asking me a question that is relevant to another Minister. With respect, I suggest you ask another Minister.

Julie Elliott

Are you aware of any similar reports on other Premier League owners?

Nigel Huddleston

Again, because the sanctions are decided by FCDO, I literally cannot comment further on this.

Julie Elliott

Are you aware of any other similar reports?

Nigel Huddleston

Again, Ms Elliott, I cannot comment on—

Julie Elliott

But this is not about what the FCDO has done. This is about: are you aware, as a Minister in this Government, of any other, similar reports on Premier League owners or are you not aware? That is a very straightforward question.

Nigel Huddleston

Ms Elliott, I did, with respect, write to the Committee, laying out that I cannot answer questions relating to particular sanctions.

Julie Elliott

But I don’t think the questions I am asking are what your letter was about.

Nigel Huddleston

The letter was quite straightforward. It said that I am not responsible for sanctions, and therefore asking me questions about sanctions, which are the responsibility of another Government Minister—

Julie Elliott

But I have never mentioned sanctions.

Nigel Huddleston

I am aware, of course, of there being questions, as we discussed earlier on this, about ownership of sporting entities that have been raised: they have been around for quite a while. In response to that, hopefully I gave you some assurance that we are aware of those concerns and therefore take them seriously and will be looking at elements of that in response to the fan-led review as it relates to the owners’ and directors’ test. I am afraid I cannot really be drawn much more on this. Sorry to be unco-operative in this area.

Julie Elliott

Has DCMS made any assessment about Abramovich’s influence on Britain through Chelsea football club?

Nigel Huddleston

Again, you are asking me a question that relates to the sanctions regime. I cannot really—

Julie Elliott

I have not mentioned sanctions! You keep mentioning sanctions; I have not mentioned sanctions. I asked this question: has a Department you are a Minister in made any assessment of Abramovich’s influence on Britain through his ownership of Chelsea football club? That has nothing to do with sanctions.

Nigel Huddleston

Well, it depends on what you mean by “influence on Britain”. As an owner of a major Premier League club, he clearly has had some influence both directly on Chelsea and more broadly. I think it is self-evident that he has had some impact. In terms of what that assessment is, what I can say is that given the context of the despicable invasion of Ukraine and the links that Abramovich has to the regime that—in response to that, we have sanctioned him and his assets are frozen. That speaks for itself. That shows that that level of investment and engagement is unacceptable, and we have therefore sanctioned him. I don’t think I can say much more.

Julie Elliott

Can I ask you finally about someone else—Alisher Usmanov? Have you any concerns about the previous involvement of that gentleman in English football?

Nigel Huddleston

Sorry, I missed that.

Julie Elliott

Alisher Usmanov—have you any concerns about that gentleman’s involvement in English football?

Nigel Huddleston

Again, if it relates to—

Chair

Minister, with respect, I completely get why you wish to not discuss specific sanctions. I think what Julie and other members of the Committee are trying to get at is basically this. Have the Government been asleep on the watch while the Premier League has been used for the purposes of sportswashing and potential money laundering? That is the question we are asking.

Nigel Huddleston

As it relates to Usmanov, I understand that Everton and the sponsorship relationships have been discontinued, as a response. He has been sanctioned. I understand that Everton has suspended if not completely broken the sponsorship relationship there. In terms of the appropriateness of them doing that, they have obviously done the right thing.

Julie Elliott

Did you have concerns about the gentleman?

Nigel Huddleston

Again, I—

Julie Elliott

I am not asking you about sanctions. Honestly, were there any alarm bells ringing?

Nigel Huddleston

When I was on this Committee, these issues came up again and again—you are absolutely right. Investment, and who owns our sport, is something that we did need to look at. That is one of the purposes of the fan-led review. One of the elements is who owns our sporting entities and how they are assessed, and the owners and directors element of that. Partly why we have had the review is to look at these issues of governance. They are long standing. We are going to be responding shortly to it. I completely understand the concerns. I think it is perfectly fine and reasonable to question who owns what, including on behalf of constituents and sports fans. Sports fans across the country tend to be quite vocal about who owns their clubs. I get it, from an ethical point of view as well. People do express and have expressed concerns.

Clive Efford

Yesterday, there was an urgent question in the House on the 81 murders that took place in Saudi Arabia over the weekend. In answer to a question on whether the Saudi Arabian investment fund was a “right, proper and fit-for-purpose owner of Newcastle United”, the Minister, Amanda Milling, said, “We”—meaning the Government. She read this statement; it wasn’t just something she answered, she was reading—"welcome the purchase of Newcastle United”. Do you welcome the purchase of Newcastle United by the Saudi Arabian investment fund?

Nigel Huddleston

Saudi Arabia is an important partner of the UK, across multiple areas, including investment, intelligence, culture and other elements. That purchase was a commercial decision that the Government did not take part in. It was a commercial decision that was within the law and that was within the restrictions of the owners and directors test for the Premier League. There was no need for the Government to get involved in that. The owners and directors test was applied. Whether that test should be reviewed and assessed in the future—I get that we are having that debate today, and it will be ongoing, but Amanda stated the Government’s position.

Clive Efford

So you welcome the Saudi Arabian investment fund purchasing Newcastle United. You said in your answers earlier that the fan-led review is pivotal and you think this is a major point of change. If we are going to continue to have investment from individuals such as Roman Abramovich and others in the future—similar to them, but not them specifically—do we not have to have a fit and proper person test that goes beyond what is in the fan-led review?

Nigel Huddleston

Again, I am sure the Committee will contribute to the ongoing debate about the fan-led review and the elements, scope and responsibilities of a regulator, and the revisions to the owners and directors test. I think you are making a fair point, which I have some sympathy for, but I cannot announce the details of the fan-led review here today. I understand the point you are making and it is a fair point.

Clive Efford

Excellent. We can assume from that answer that you are in discussions with other Departments about taking the owners and directors assessment beyond what is in the fan-led review.

Nigel Huddleston

I cannot predict what you are assuming, Mr Efford. All I can say is that we are looking at things and I understand the point you are making.

Clive Efford

You know whether you are in discussion with those Departments or not. You can save me from assuming—

Nigel Huddleston

There are multiple areas of the fan-led review that have implications for other Government Departments, and we are in conversations with other Government Departments about—

Clive Efford

And that includes?

Nigel Huddleston

I cannot say much more than I have said already, I am afraid, but we will be responding shortly to the fan-led review.

Clive Efford

I am just going to push you once more—and I may push you again if the answer is not good. I am not asking you to tell me what you are thinking about; I am just asking you to confirm what has been exposed over the last few weeks—and for a number of years, as Julie Elliott’s questions clearly showed. Abramovich, in a legal action, admitted that he got much of his wealth through corruption—it is there in representations made before the court—yet the Government did not act on that. There is a need for the fit and proper person test to move to a level that will prevent people from using their ill-gotten gains to buy influence through football clubs and other things. I just want to know that the Government are aware of that and looking at it.

Nigel Huddleston

I am aware of the points you are making. As I said, the fit and proper person test—the owners and directors test, as it is often now called—is really important. It is not currently operating as I think we would all like it to operate, and therefore it needs change. It needs to be more robust. I completely understand the point about there being an integrity element of that, and we will be responding very shortly. I am afraid I cannot say any more than that. You are tempting me to announce some elements of the response to the fan-led review. This came up in the fan-led review, we have debated it in the Commons, and we have debated it multiple times here; I understand the points you are making.

Clive Efford

Okay. One of the other things that we are concerned about is football finance, going down the football pyramid. We have heard about the sanctions. I know you cannot talk about the details of sanctions, but they have financial implications for the game in the Premier League and the English football league, and for the FA. How do we protect vulnerable lower-level clubs from being affected by the money being cut off at the top? We have seen the greed of the Premier League and the way it looks after itself. What are we doing to make sure that the football pyramid is protected in these times?

Nigel Huddleston

Again, the fan-led review went into a fair degree of detail, and the whole distribution and the financial flows in football were a hot topic for the fans I spoke to up and down the country as well. There are no easy answers there, because it is very difficult to get consensus. It will be commented on in the response to the fan-led review, but that is an area in particular where I hope and expect the sporting bodies to sort this out themselves, because that is really important—or they have the opportunity to do that. As I say, we will be saying more in the response to the fan-led review, but this is something that, in an ideal world, the sporting entities would have sorted out themselves some while ago.

Clive Efford

Yes, but if they were capable of doing that, we wouldn’t have this, would we?

Nigel Huddleston

I think if they were capable of doing a lot of things we wouldn’t have had the fan-led review. I am afraid that I share your exasperation with football’s inability to solve some problems that really ought to be sitting with football to sort out itself.

Clive Efford

But it is now sitting with you, because there is a fan-led review.

Nigel Huddleston

It is, and we will be responding to the fan-led review shortly.

Clive Efford

We cannot expect football to do it, because it is here in black and white in the fan-led review, which we need to implement.

Nigel Huddleston

No, we should and do expect football to recognise where the problems exist and, where possible, sort them out themselves without the Government having to come in and babysit and legislate on the nth degree of detail. Fans expect and require that as well, and I still expect football to take its share of responsibility. If it doesn’t act, then we will legislate.

Clive Efford

Let me point out to you one area where that is just not possible. I believe that the FA and the Premier League are lobbying you to say that the FA should be the independent regulator for English football.

Nigel Huddleston

I get lobbied on all sorts of things all the time.

Clive Efford

Will you state here and now that that is not on the table? That is the system we have now.

Nigel Huddleston

I cannot say to you—as I said, I know this must be frustrating. I suspect I will be called back once we have launched the response to the fan-led review, and I would be happy to come back, but I cannot say more now, other than that there will be a regulator and we will be looking at the owners and directors test. We have said those things. There will be a regulator.

Clive Efford

That is not the FA?

Nigel Huddleston

The scope and the responsibilities of the regulator are important, and the owners and directors test will be an element of that. I really cannot say any more than that at the moment; otherwise, I am going to start, element by element, unpicking the response to the review, which we will be doing shortly.

Clive Efford

This is my last point. If you have read this, you cannot possibly be considering making the Football Association the independent regulator for English football, because the failures at the FA are right through this.

Nigel Huddleston

Again, with the greatest of respect, I am going to have to ask you to be patient for the review response.

Clive Efford

Okay.

Damian Green

Good afternoon. I want to explore more the distinction between countries and individuals. We talked about it a bit with Steve Brine in terms of athletes, but in terms of owners, you say that Russia and Belarus are now pariah states, and therefore even individual athletes are being treated differently. Does that apply to owners as well? Is any Russian or Belarusian owner of a football club now unacceptable in this country?

Nigel Huddleston

Some individuals have obviously been sanctioned, and other countries are also sanctioning individuals. There is a lot of overlap, but it is not complete. For example, we sanctioned Roman Abramovich before the EU did yesterday, but there is some consensus on individuals and, of course, some entities. It is where there is proximity to the Russian state that we obviously have problems, as opposed to every single entity that exists in Russia. It is the close proximity to the Russian state that is particularly problematic, and we also have problems where there is representation of the Russian state in some form, which not only includes standing as a “Russian” athlete, but even those trying to go under some other flag that we all know is still Russia. As I say, that is going to last for a while.

Damian Green

Are you asking them, as it were, to denounce the war, or they will not be able to compete? Similarly with owners, would they have to deliberately—

Nigel Huddleston

It is precisely because of the “How could this work? What would be the mechanics?” issues that you’re figuring out in your head now that we are also trying to work this out, working with sports and, indeed, other countries. It would be better if we could decide some broad global consensus on this and get agreement across multiple countries, but we are looking at the very issue of what we do with individuals, as Steve said earlier, and we are thinking about the implications. I don’t think people would accept people very clearly flying the Russian flag, particularly if there is any element of support or recognition of Putin and his regime. I don’t think that would be acceptable. We are looking at the mechanics of how we could work on that for individuals, but we do not have a solution at this moment in time. We are having those conversations, and I have had those conversations with other Sports Ministers in other countries, who are struggling with exactly the same issue.

Damian Green

Almost more difficult, I think, is if you move down the hierarchy of undesirability to people who are not pariah states but are hugely controversial, like Saudi Arabia—we had a session in the House yesterday. I would also observe, in parenthesis, that that was based on the Saudi use of the death penalty. The USA uses the death penalty, and I suspect that all of us in this room would all disapprove of that, but I don’t observe any great demands that Americans should not be allowed to own Premier League football clubs.

Steve Brine

Hear, hear.

Damian Green

I think there should be some collective view about where we strike moral stances in this country. More generally, with controversial countries, if the owner is closely associated with the Government there, are you going to look at those as well?

Nigel Huddleston

On an ongoing basis, we do have rules about who can invest in the UK. For anybody investing here, there are legal parameters and, on top of that, there are often additional investigations and requirements of governing bodies and so on, particularly as it relates to sport. This is an ongoing point, but in terms of how it relates specifically to the moment that we are facing in Ukraine, it is pretty clear cut, and there is a global consensus that we want to make sure that Russia and Belarus are global pariahs. The broader issue of who should invest goes back to the point I made earlier. We recognise that, hence the need for a more robust owners and directors test in football.

Damian Green

You make the very good point that there are legal constraints on who can invest in this country, but the Government accept and, more broadly, society accepts that, for all sorts of emotional and community-importance reasons, actually investing in professional sports clubs requires a different and, in some ways, more exclusive test than simply investing in a widget factory or an IT firm, or something like that. Do you accept that?

Nigel Huddleston

I do, but I also accept that some people would look on some individuals with a different view from the person standing next to them. It does get very complex. It needs that specific individual assessment, hence things like owners and directors’ tests are important, and questions about integrity are fair ones to raise—

Damian Green

Sorry to interrupt, but I am not talking about individual integrity here; I am very specifically saying: are you going to try to devise a system where it is not just your own individual integrity, but whether you happen to come from a country that we turn against?

Nigel Huddleston

I think I understand where you are coming from there. I think you will also understand that who we allow investments from around the world if you are talking more about Government or related entities is a higher, macro decision about all investments and is, therefore, about entities that go beyond sport and are more an issue for the FCDO, Treasury and BEIS, rather than me directly. Within sport, wherever and whenever we can, we raise issues about whether these people are appropriate individuals to invest in things that we have a strong emotional attachment and that are particularly important to our constituents.

Damian Green

I am asking about precisely the point you just made. We can say that we want the Saudis, the Chinese and, in previous times, the Russians and that we don’t mind them investing in our industry, but actually we want to put some rules on sport. Is that discussion still alive?

Nigel Huddleston

I can’t speak for other Departments, but we make assessments about global investment and international investment. Where it relates to sport, and football in particular, we are making moves there. It is also important to note that not every international investor is a bad person. We welcome international investment.

Damian Green

This is the point I am making. Are you being forced to be more moral than people in other industries?

Nigel Huddleston

In some ways, I would say that on a point of principle we should not be. However, we all recognise, as we are all constituency MPs, how important sport is to our local communities because of that emotional attachment and the history of the clubs. Whether there is a financial investment by a local community into a club or not, it does not matter. There is a strong emotional investment in the way that there is not in other parts of the economy. It is different, and I think, therefore, that questions about integrity are fair ones to raise.

Chair

We have to move on to our next question.

Dr Huq

Do the Government support further cultural boycotts in Russia?

Nigel Huddleston

We have gone beyond sport. The Secretary of State, Nadine Dorries, made a statement in the Commons last week, I think, relating to museums, arts and so on. We are also encouraging boycotts there, and there have been boycotts, in fact. Again, similar to sport, the arts and culture entities have, often of their own volition, made decisions to stop or restrict activities with Russia. We applaud them for doing so. They acted quite quickly.

Dr Huq

Yes, Eurovision, Netflix and all that lot have done so. Where would you draw the line with genuine people—people like academics? Where should the line be drawn about restricting access to Russian-related culture and sport? Do you ban Tchaikovsky?

Nigel Huddleston

There are several processes. There are obviously visa issues and so on. Again, the questions of who is coming in, for what purpose and what their background is are considerations. But you are right. Some things have been pushed a little bit too far—for example, not playing certain music because it is from a Russian composer. That is perhaps a bit too far. We cannot wipe out a history, culture and heritage that is not necessarily the fault of previous generations just because the current leadership is distasteful. I think there is a line to be drawn. In terms of how it is done, the judgment of the cultural sector so far has generally been pretty good, because, of their own volition, they have often made the right decisions, saying, “We are not going to have this performance here,” and, “We are not going to allow these people to come in.” I think, broadly, those have been the right decisions. Depending on how long the sanctions last and how long the war in Ukraine continues, we will obviously always be considering further action, but so far, without the need for overt legislation, the cultural sector is broadly doing what we expect and require of them.

Dr Huq

Okay, so it would be on the individual in how far they went on the sanctions list?

Nigel Huddleston

You are raising a really important point. There is a personal individual responsibility here. There is a company responsibility, and there are also the entities themselves: the governing bodies and the cultural institutions. Broadly, I would say they deserve praise for recognising that they need to take a stand and have taken a stand, again, usually with the support of their customers or fan base, and done the right thing, which everybody can understand. I praise the sector for the work and the response.

Dr Huq

On the question of RT, as far as I understand, the satellite was switched off, so it was those pesky Europeans. It wasn’t a unilateral decision of this country. If they found another way to broadcast in the UK—I guess people could get it now with VPNs, if they tried—would you explicitly want Russia Today banned?

Nigel Huddleston

The Secretary of State has written to those other platforms where there could potentially be routes in. You are right, though I wouldn’t call our European friends pesky. They genuinely are my friends, at least. It was good, on an international basis, that the response to Russia Today has been fairly robust, and rightly so. The Secretary of State did then right to other platforms, including a lot of the online operators, requesting that they also do everything they can to take down Russia Today. They have done so and, again, have broadly been proactive. YouTube and others have taken down content. Again, I think they have moved in the right direction. The Secretary of State has written to other operators requesting that they do exactly as you asked.

Dr Huq

Finally, do we think there will be Russian retaliation for all this? I think at an earlier stage, Liz Truss said something like, “If you do this, they’ll take down the BBC, which is the voice of truth.” Do we anticipate that there will be Russian retaliation?

Nigel Huddleston

Of course, we are trying to ensure that the BBC can still operate in as broad a range of places as possible, including in Russia. It is slightly outside my portfolio area, so I can’t say too much, but on a point of principle, we want the voice of the BBC, and all independent journalism and honest reporting, to be out there and widely seen. This is an opportunity to praise the journalist who yesterday very bravely made a stance in Russia. It sounds like she has been arrested and is probably going to be thrown into prison for taking such a stance. There are people, including journalists, who are acting in an incredibly brave manner. Unfortunately, we have heard that some journalists have been killed or injured already in this conflict. They play a vital role and are literally putting their lives at risk for doing so. We probably take for granted our independent media here. Events like that show that we never should.

Dr Huq

She has apparently been nominated for the Nobel peace prize.

Kevin Brennan

I will be very brief because I know your time is short, Minister. You confirmed to Clive Efford earlier that your position and that of the Government is to welcome the Saudi purchase of Newcastle United football club. Leaving aside the issue of executions, that effectively means the purchase of one of our football clubs by a fund controlled by an individual whom our closest ally, the United States, has assessed as the person who ordered the murder and dismemberment of a brave journalist—such as you just talked about—Jamal Khashoggi, in one of its diplomatic posts in Turkey. Earlier you talked about what is morally defensible. How on earth can you morally defend welcoming—not just being indifferent to or saying nothing about—that investment?

Nigel Huddleston

As I’ve said before, and you’ve heard me say this, the decision on that was a decision for football.

Kevin Brennan

But you welcomed it, on the Floor of the House yesterday and—

Nigel Huddleston

Saudi investment and the bilateral relationship we have with Saudi is really important. There are many jobs in the UK dependent on that. Our relationship with Saudi is really important. I don’t want to step on the toes of Foreign Office Ministers by stepping into overall foreign relations.

Kevin Brennan

Would you understand why some people might find your earlier words about brave journalists ring hollow, when just a few months earlier you welcomed the investment, which is controlled by the very individual who was responsible for the murder and dismemberment of a brave journalist?

Nigel Huddleston

I hope people wouldn’t do that, because I hope they realise that I talk with sincerity on things like that. As I said, the relationship with Saudi is an important one. We also take the opportunity, because of the nature of our relationship, to talk frankly and openly with Saudi, at many levels, including ministerial. We are able to do so because of the nature of the relationship. Cutting off that relationship completely would mean that we can’t express our views and opinions. When they are moving in the right direction we need to welcome and support them. That does not stop us from having very frank exchanges with Saudi.

Kevin Brennan

Can I finally ask you—this is one of my bugbears—when did the doctrine of ministerial collective responsibility get ditched in this Government? You have come before us today. You have even taken the trouble to write a letter to say you are not prepared to discuss the decisions taken by Government Ministers, by which you, under the ministerial code, are required to follow collective responsibility. Why on earth do you think it is acceptable for Ministers to come in front of a parliamentary Select Committee and say, “I can’t talk about something because it’s nothing to do with me, guv? It’s some other Government Department that is responsible for that decision.”

Nigel Huddleston

With respect, you have completely misinterpreted the letter. Of course we in government stand for collective ministerial responsibility. We have a debate, there is a Government line, and that is the decision. I therefore support all Government policy. As I have said, the sanctions, as implemented, I completely support.

Kevin Brennan

But you are not prepared to answer my question.

Nigel Huddleston

I can’t answer the details about the mechanics of, for example, what evidence there was to support X, Y and Z for a decision that I was not involved in.

Kevin Brennan

No one asked you that. You were asked quite general questions around sanctions, and you chose not to even explore those answers.

Nigel Huddleston

I think I have answered quite a few questions relating to sanctions today. As I said, I completely support the sanctions that have been imposed, but I do not know, and neither should I know, the details of the rationale behind why individual A may or may not have been sanctioned. Today we were starting to go down that route.

Kevin Brennan

I will leave it there, Chair.

Chair

Finally, to follow up on Kevin—I know you have to go—the question that many people really want answered is: are you prepared to see Chelsea go under as a result of this regime? Is it a price worth paying in order to keep a sanctions regime and aspects of it that means no away fans, staff potentially not being paid, and no merchandise? Are you willing to see Chelsea go under as a result?

Nigel Huddleston

Chairman, the actions we have taken and the licence we have given is precisely to stop that happening. We have enabled Chelsea to continue to operate and continue to play. Staff will continue to be paid and ticket sales will be honoured. It is important also to be clear that we are in discussions with Chelsea and the fans to look at ways we could enable further ticket sales, because we want to make sure the sanctions hit those we intend to hit and not others. That is the absolute opposite of what was implied.

Chair

So it is an entirely moveable feast. We could expect away fans and merchandise. You think those are possibilities.

Nigel Huddleston

We are looking at options, but it is also really important to understand that there will be consequences of sanctions. Roman Abramovich has links to Vladimir Putin, and let us not forget that this is in the context of an invasion of a sovereign territory where people are dying, and therefore there will be some inconvenience in the UK. We want to make sure the sanctions hit those we intend to be hit and to try and protect those we should not do harm to. I recognise there will be some inconvenience, but we are doing everything we can to make sure that Chelsea can operate. As I have said, we would welcome the sale, we would look at changing the licence to enable that sale, and that would be a very important and significant move for Chelsea.

Chair

Thank you for your time today, Minister. That concludes our second session. We will take a short adjournment before our third session. Examination of witnesses

Witnesses

Mark Bullingham and Helen MacNamara.

Chair

This is our third and final panel today. The first dealt with Russian disinformation, and the final two panels are dealing, effectively with Russian influence in sport—in fact, the influence of other countries as well, in terms of our national sport, football. We are joined in this panel by Mark Bullingham, the chief executive of the Football Association, and Helen MacNamara, the chief policy and corporate affairs officer of the Premier League. I will just say, at the outset, that there has been some comment as to why it is that Mr Masters is not attending today. We have been in long discussions with Mr Masters. He has given a very reasonable and understandable excuse for not being here today. We appreciate you stepping in, Helen, but it is no reflection on Mr Masters at all, and we are very grateful for your attendance. I will come to you first, Helen. Could you outline for us, please, from the Premier League’s perspective, what would happen to the league if Chelsea was unable to find a buyer and could potentially be wound up?

Helen MacNamara

Obviously, this is an extraordinary, complex and unprecedented situation. First, it is pretty new to all of us. We have never been here before, and I am sure, in this session, we will go on to talk about why we do not want to be here again, either. At the moment, as you know, the Government have issued an operating licence, which allows the club to function effectively until the end of the season on 31 May. We are working with the Government and Chelsea football club to try to ensure that that licence allows the club to continue as much as it can. The licence allows for the fixtures to go ahead. You have already talked this morning about away fans, and we are very keen, if we can, to resolve the situation, so that fans can continue to go and watch their club, whether that is Chelsea or away. We are working with Chelsea, so that we— It is an exceptional thing to be able to do, if someone’s assets are frozen, but the Premier League is able to fund Chelsea the money that we owe it, so it can carry on paying people through this season. We are really confident that a buyer can be found for Chelsea. We obviously need to work through the complexities, and the Government need to issue an operating licence so that the club can be sold. The club was already up for sale, so thankfully that process is quite mature. We are hopeful that a sale can be transacted and go through before that 31 May deadline. It is absolutely true to say that, were that not to be the case—we are not confident—it is for the Government to decide whether they want issue a licence for the club to operate beyond 31 May. You can completely see that while there were grounds to allow that licence for this period time, it cannot be a thing infinitely while the club remains in Roman Abramovich’s ownership. That situation has to be resolved. We have not really worked through the consequences should the club not be sold by 31 May and what that will mean. We are confident that, within the season, the club can operate within the licence that the Government have provided. We are also confident that we are all working off the same objective, which is to try to make sure that Chelsea fans and other football fans in this country can carry on watching their game and are not too impacted by what has happened, but we recognise that this is an extraordinary situation. It is an extraordinary thing for the Government to have done, to provide for this licence. You will also have seen this morning that the implications of EU sanctions and other sanctioning regimes may yet still cause further complications. We are trying to work through all that as it happens.

Chair

But you are saying that you have not yet worked through the consequences of Chelsea not finding a buyer and therefore, in effect, going bust. At the moment it is running at quite a substantial loss on a day-to-day basis. You have not yet thought beyond 31 May and what happens at the end of the season.

Helen MacNamara

As I am sure you will appreciate, what we are trying to do at the moment is put one foot in front of the other and try to manage the issues as they come across our desks. The first thing that matters is whether Chelsea is in a position to complete the season. The answer to that is categorically yes, under the licence that the Government have provided. That is our first objective. There is so much complexity in how the club will be sold, but we are confident that a buyer can be found for Chelsea. We want that to happen as soon as possible, to give certainty to everybody, and so we can go back to a slightly more normal arrangement, particularly for the Chelsea fans.