Articles:
My Ofcom story
21.11.16
MY OFCOM STORY — A TALE OF MISMANAGEMENT AND INCOMPETENCE BY THOSE TO WHOM WE ARE ENTRUSTING REGULATION OF THE BBC.
The Rt Hon Karen Bradley MP
Secretary of State
Department of Culture, Media and Sport
September 30th 2016
Dear Secretary of State,
I am writing in response to your letter dated
September 19th 2016 and to the request contained therein for me to provide my
opinion concerning the serious and defamatory allegations you make of
misbehaviour by me during my sadly short period on the main board and Content
Board of Ofcom. This is therefore also a response to your declared intention,
if such misconduct can be proved beyond doubt, to follow up Ofcom’s removal of
me on July 5th from both my roles at that organization by seeking to
justify, post the event, the termination of my contract without compensation
and thereby reject the settlement I agreed with Ofcom on August 5th.
In response to a direct communication by the
DCMS Director of Media Policy, Mr Hugh Harris, on September 20th offering a
“no-blame” settlement should I agree to forgo compensation, I
requested that the DCMS should provide details of the evidence of misconduct
referred to in your letter and his, so that I could at least know to what it is
I am being asked to respond. That evidence was supplied on September 25th. This
document will therefore first lay out my account of what has happened and will
then address the evidence presented in the light of that account.
1. Summary
1.1 The clear conclusion from the analysis below is that I am not guilty
of misbehaviour or misconduct, but rather am an innocent victim of a flawed
recruitment process. Based on the opinions conveyed to me to by the Chief
Executive, Sharon White (SW), it is clear that she decided during May 2016 that
I should not have been recruited to the post in the first place – not because
of my conduct, which she never questioned, but because in her view the Chair of
the Content Board should not and could not be an active professional writer on
matters of public policy. She clearly appreciated that I was one of the most
senior, successful and world-renowned British editors and am an acknowledged
expert on public policy, but simply decided that this was not the profile that
Ofcom needs for the role. She had not been involved in the recruitment process.
1.2 The Chairman, Patricia Hodgson (PH), who was closely involved in my
recruitment, sought to explain this by saying there had been “a
misapprehension” about the nature and extent of my external work, and acknowledged
to me that this was not my fault. If so, then this points to a severe failure
of due diligence, since all my professional activities are conducted in plain
sight and are detectable through my website or a Google search.
1.3 Nothing that I have done since joining the Board of Ofcom on January
1st 2016 has been capable of calling into question Ofcom´s impartiality, when
measured by any reasonable test, nor of otherwise breaching the Code of
Conduct. The evidence presented by DCMS officials does not provide any proof of
breach of the Code, especially given my public recusal from any discussions or
decision-making procedures on referendum issues.
1.4 In the manner in which my recruitment and removal have been handled
I have been the victim of gross mismanagement by the Ofcom leadership and of their
failure to respect the formal practices required by law.
2. My
Recruitment
2.1 I was approached by the recruitment firm Egon Zehnder in August 2015
to ask whether I would be interested in becoming a candidate to join the main
board of Ofcom and to chair the Content Board. I expressed reluctance, based on
my existing commitments and my lack of broadcasting experience. I was however
told, both by Egon Zehnder and subsequently in private meetings by PH, that
Ofcom was deliberately searching for people with senior editorial experience in
print journalism rather than broadcasting because of the need for the next
Chair of the Content Board to be seen to be independent from the BBC. PH
pressed me hard to apply, stating that it would be in the public interest for
such a distinguished and well-reputed editorial figure to take the role, and
that she thought as an economist I would be highly suitable as a contributor
both on Content Board issues and on Ofcom’s telecommunications regulation.
2.2 With both PH and Egon Zehnder, discussions were held concerning the
compatibility of my other commitments with the roles at Ofcom. It was agreed
that I would have to step back from any public role in my educational charity,
The Wake Up Foundation, because of its association with support for the
European Union, and because of its use of the documentary The Great European
Disaster Movie of which I had been executive producer, which clearly associated
me with a pro-EU position. I would have to avoid any campaigning role during
the expected referendum on British membership and would have to be publicly recused
from any Ofcom decision-making concerning the referendum.
2.3 Beyond that, I was told that there should be no problem with my
other external commitments as I was not a regular columnist in the UK media. I
was told there were precedents of Ofcom board members continuing to write
professionally, such as Professor Ian Hargreaves. And I was told that as long
as I refrained from writing directly about British politics my journalism and
lecturing would be acceptable. An example was cited during my private
discussions with PH: it would clearly not be appropriate, we agreed, for me to
write a series of articles for the Financial Times in 2019/20 assessing David
Cameron´s prime ministership since this would be unavoidably political, but
articles about broader public policy issues would not cause a problem. No other
limits were proposed or considered necessary.
2.4 In these discussions it was fully disclosed that I conducted the
following professional activities: I wrote regularly for La Stampa in Italy,
Nikkei Business in Japan and Project Syndicate worldwide; that I wrote
occasionally for the Financial Times; that I was a visiting professor at a
Japanese university; that I was writing a book on the potential for revival of
Western economies and societies. These were also apparent to any visitor to my
website. No concern was raised about any of these commitments, nor any request
made that they should be relinquished.
2.5 This approach was reflected both in the panel interview on November
10th 2015, on which Mr Harris represented DCMS, and in my interview
by the then Secretary of State, John Whittingdale, on December 3rd, at which Mr
Harris was also present. I was asked at the panel interview whether I would
abide by the Ofcom Code of Conduct for Board Members, and I said that I would.
I was asked by John Whittingdale not about that but about whether I would be
willing to stand up robustly under criticism by the UK media (he cited the
Daily Mail), so I pointed to my record in standing up to legal cases brought by
the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi and to what I considered to be my
reputation for integrity and independence. No concerns were expressed about my
general writing or journalism activities.
2.6 As a consequence of these discussions, which took place over the
course of several months, I was persuaded to accept the roles at Ofcom when
they were offered to me on December 22nd 2016, and then to make the
considerable time commitment required both to learn the roles and to be able to
perform them at a high level. I found the roles demanding but extremely
interesting and enjoyable, as well as being of considerable public importance.
3. Recusal
on Referendum issues
3.1 Immediately that my appointment was announced, the agreement made
during the recruitment process was put in place and made public. It was
declared and disclosed that I would not participate in any discussions at Ofcom
or any decision-making concerning the forthcoming referendum on UK membership
of the EU.
3.2 PH took control of the appointment of any Election Committee that
might have to adjudicate on any referendum complaints, for that appointment had
previously been the responsibility of the Chair of the Content Board. An
initial flurry of media criticism of my appointment as Chair of the Content
Board, in which I had been described as “a fanatical Europhile”,
quickly subsided.
3.3 To my knowledge, there has been no subsequent media criticism or
comment on my presence at Ofcom nor on any of my professional activities in the
UK or international media or social media. Nothing I have said or written has
provoked any public questioning of Ofcom´s impartiality on these (or any other)
issues. The Recusal procedure has been followed absolutely strictly, with me
taking no part in any discussions on the referendum either at the Board or the
Content Board.
4. Guidance
from Ofcom at induction
4.1 On January 13th and 15th 2016, meetings took place
with senior Ofcom executives to provide an induction into the two roles,
including meetings with PH, SW, the Director of Communications Chris Wynn and
the Ofcom Legal Counsel, Polly Weitzman, and to provide guidance on Ofcom’s
procedures
4.2 I was told by PH that I must be careful about tweeting as they had
had a previous problem with another board member, the deputy chair, Baroness
Noakes, though no details were supplied of what the problem had been nor of how
it had been resolved. For other matters concerning my professional activities,
I was told I should consult Chris Wynn and read the Code of Conduct. No
concerns were raised by either SW or Polly Weitzman about my known professional
activities outside Ofcom.
4.3 Chris Wynn´s guidance was that I needed to exercise care about
anything that was capable of suggesting political bias in Ofcom
decision-making. I needed to exercise my own judgement on such matters, he
said, as the issue was not always clear-cut. If in doubt, I should ask him and
his communications department colleagues. I did not, I was told, have to ask
permission for every article I wrote as this would be impractical, but I should
check with the comms department about any high profile or potentially
controversial speaking engagements or media interviews. I followed this advice
throughout my period at Ofcom.
5. The Ofcom Code of Conduct for Board Members
5.1
As indicated at my induction meeting with Mr Wynn, the relevant sections of the
Code of Conduct concerning my professional
activities are as follows:
20. Appearances on television or radio, the production of television
or radio programmes and the writing of newspaper columns/blogs or contributions
to social media (eg Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Google etc) (together the
‘permitted activities’) by Members is not prohibited; however they should be
undertaken with caution. For example comments which might have an adverse
impact on Ofcom’s reputation (noting that all comments or posts on social media
should be considered to be in the public domain) and comments on Ofcom policy
should be avoided. Any proposed appearance on, or production of television or
radio programming should be referred to the Secretary to the Corporation who
will discuss with the Member whether such engagement is acceptable.
Public Speaking and
Journalists
31 Particular care should be taken about any invitation to speak
publicly, including speaking to journalists, in the capacity as a Member of
Ofcom. Care must also be taken in the publication of any articles or use of
social media. In any such instance, Members should consult the Chairman or in
his/her absence the Chief Executive and in all cases should not express views
at variance from agreed Ofcom policy or give rise to the perception of
political bias, partisanship or decision making. Members should avoid publicly
stating personal opinions on matters where Ofcom policy has not been
determined, but is pending or where Ofcom’s reputation may be harmed.
Otherwise, personal views may be expressed (subject to consultation with the
Chairman or Chief Executive as above) so long as it is made clear that the
Member is speaking or writing in a purely personal capacity and stating his or
her own private opinion. In general,
Members are not restricted from access to the media in their personal non-Ofcom
capacity, or in pursuit of a professional interest, for example as performers,
experts, critics or commentators. [My emphasis]
5.2
The essential issue under the Code concerning my professional activities is therefore
one of what can reasonably be considered to be my “personal non-Ofcom capacity”
and my “pursuit of a professional interest”, and how that capacity and that
pursuit can and should be reconciled with the requirement to avoid giving “rise
to the perception of political bias, partisanship or decision making” and the
need to exercise due care.
5.3
The discussions with PH and others during the recruitment process, and then the
induction meetings in January 2016, had established clearly that it was
acceptable to Ofcom for me to continue to have a “personal non-Ofcom capacity”
as a writer on public policy issues, and to continue to pursue my professional
interest as an “expert, critic or commentator”.
5.4
On the issue of British membership of the European Union, my appointment as a
person with well-known opinions on this matter, which as Ofcom’s leadership
were fully aware had been the subject of considerable publicity during 2015
when our documentary The Great European Disaster Movie was aired, meant that a
special measure had to be implemented in order to protect Ofcom’s vitally
important reputation for impartiality. This was the public declaration of my
recusal from all decision-making on referendum issues, outlined in paragraph 3.
5.5
As a result of that declaration, no connection could reasonably be made between
my role as Chair of the Content Board and any decision-making by Ofcom on these
matters. Although it was still appropriate for me to exercise care on these
issues, and not to take any active part in campaigning, this recusal means that
Ofcom’s reputation was robustly protected from comments by me or about me on EU
issues that might potentially have occurred.
6.
Communication from Chris Wynn, February
24th 2016
6.1
On only one occasion between
joining Ofcom on January 1st 2016 and being asked to leave on July 5th 2016 did
I receive any criticism from the head of Communications for my professional
activities. This was on February 24th, in response to a tweet I had made
analysing the potential consequences of Boris Johnson´s entry to the referendum
campaign on the Leave side and the prospects for Jeremy Corbyn to become prime
minister. Here is Mr Wynn´s email in full:
Hi Bill,
I hope you’re well. I was
going to drop you a line today. I was a bit uneasy about some of your recent
tweets on Boris and Corbyn. I think the topic crosses the line and strayed into
what could be perceived as political bias or partisanship. I know it can be a
difficult judgement but we are under the spotlight more than most during such a
sensitive and divisive political climate.
As you know, we had a
major issue with a Board colleague tweeting and I really don’t want to risk a
repeat. I spoke to Patricia this morning and she’s be very happy to have a
discuss the issue with you. I’m also around to speak. Do you have more details
of the lecture?
Best,
Chris
6.2 In response, I wrote, keeping PH in cc:
Dear Chris
Thanks. I take your point
about the tweet: an interesting test case of whether a known political/economic
journalist on the Ofcom board is able to publish analysis of the political
landscape (which after all is always going to be more interesting at sensitive
and divisive times). I will cease and desist.
On the UK-Swiss Chamber
event there are no more details to share at this stage. It is the AGM of this
association of Swiss and British companies. It is not a media event.
Switzerland, as a non-EU member with its own tricky negotiation issues with the
EU and internally has a lot of fellow feeling with Britain — and will have
even more if we vote to leave. So they are very interested in the post-vote
scenarios. It is thus political, but not in any sense an election issue as the
vote will have happened. I would not of course talk about anything touching on
Ofcom and media regulation (or telecoms competition issues) in the event we
vote to leave — since both will be huge and sensitive matters if we do get
Brexit.
Let me know your thoughts
All best
Bill
6.3 The lecture/event referred to in this email exchange
was an invitation to me to speak in Zurich at a meeting on June 29th
held by the UK-Swiss Chamber of Commerce about the aftermath of the referendum.
I had told the organisers that I could not take part in any such event before
June 23rd, but that I was prepared to ask Ofcom’s view on whether I
could take part in an event after the vote. Mr Wynn granted permission, and I
gave the speech.
7.
Request for discussion of Ofcom policy
on NEDs and social media, March 15th
7.1
At the March 15th 2016 board meeting, another Board member, Ben Verwaayen,
proposed to the Chair that at a future board there should be a discussion of
what NEDs could and could not do on social media, as he had concerns (he said)
that the current policy was unnecessarily restrictive. I spoke up in support of
this proposal. However no such discussion was put on the agenda of any of the
subsequent board meetings that took place before my exclusion in July.
8.
First oral criticism by Patricia
Hodgson, May 16th 2016
8.1
I was invited to meet the Chair for tea at the Corinthia Hotel on the above
date, the purpose of which I took to be to discuss PH´s presentation to the
Content Board which was scheduled for the next day. Instead, she suddenly told
me that I needed to think hard about whether I wanted to remain on the Ofcom
board. Why, I asked? She said “you have embarrassed us”, citing two
tweets I had made of other people´s articles.
8.2
One turned out to be a tweet of an article concerning the use of immigration by
the Leave campaign (see DCMS evidence below, paragraph 16). The other was a
Guardian article about “post-truth politics”, on both sides of the
Atlantic (not included in the DCMS evidence list). She also said that she
gathered I had apparently made some comments to Italian media, though she cited
no details of these. I pressed for more information as to why these activities
were a problem, so that I could understand how I was causing concern and hence
adjust accordingly. She said “talk to Sharon”, emphasising that the
main source of concern was coming from the chief executive. As I was departing
for Italy the next day, I arranged that Sharon White would telephone me on May
18th, and a face-to-face meeting was also set up for May 23rd in London.
9. Conversations with Sharon White, May 18th and 23rd.
9.1
In the telephone call and in the face to face meeting, SW was perfectly clear
and consistent. She was not concerned, she said, about tweets. She was
concerned, she said, about “articles”. Which articles, I asked?
“Any articles”, she said, on public policy, domestically or
internationally. Asked why, SW answered that such articles “could be
compromising” in the event of any editorial standards cases arising
subsequently that touched upon the topics about which I might have written.
Seeking to explore what was really the scope of such a concern, I cited
articles about China´s economy or the politics of the South China Sea dispute.
Would this be compromising, I asked? Yes, it could be, she said.
9.2
The only conclusion that can be drawn from these comments by the Chief
Executive is that she believed that I should not have been recruited in the
first place. Her belief that any article on any issue of public policy
represented a potential conflict of interest could only mean that in her view
no Chair of the Content Board could be granted “access to the media…in pursuit
of a professional interest as experts, critics or commentators”, as per
paragraph 31 of the Code of Conduct, because any use of that expertise “could
be compromising” for Ofcom. In my view, this represented a change in the
interpretation and application of the Code, and a breach of the terms under
which I had been recruited only five months earlier. I stated to SW that should
I be asked to resign for those reasons, I would consider it a breach of
contract.
10. Agreement to defer further discussion until after
June 23rd
10.1
Following these indications that PH and SW wanted me to leave, I consulted
another main board director, Ben Verwaayen, as to what I should do. His
judgment, with which I tended to agree, was that this apparent change of
position might well reflect the current political atmosphere surrounding the
referendum campaign. Therefore we agreed that I should tell both PH and SW that
I would be more than happy to have a full and formal discussion of how to
proceed in future, including the “dos and don´ts” for me on the Board
and Content Board, but should ask that this conversation should take place later
in the summer, after the referendum campaign was over. This I did.
10.2
SW agreed on May 23rd to this proposal. In a face to face meeting with PH on
May 24th, the chairman also expressed her approval of the idea of deferring
discussion of the issue till later in the summer. I added that I was upset and
concerned by what had happened and about how I was being treated, and concerned
about the implications of what SW had said to me. PH said she was sorry for
what had happened. She further said that the problem was that there had been
“a misapprehension” about the extent of my writing and speaking
activities, “which was nobody´s fault”.
10.3
This was a clear indication that I was not being accused of misconduct. It
suggested instead a need for an open discussion about what could and could not
be considered an acceptable “pursuit of professional interests”. Such a
discussion was never allowed to take place.
11. Process of my removal: June 30th and July 5th
11.1
Rather than waiting until later in the summer, SW´s office invited me to a
meeting with SW at her St Barnabas club in Soho, to be held on June 30th. She
opened the conversation by saying that her thinking about the incompatibility
between my professional activities and my roles at Ofcom had not changed: she
felt there would always be a potential for conflicts of interest in editorial
standards cases. She did not cite any articles of mine or other external
communication as having been problematic. She did not wish to discuss any ways
in which my professional activities could be made compatible with the role.
11.2
I said that I disagreed: I did not think that proven expertise in analysis of
issues of public policy should be a disqualification from chairing the Content
Board or being on the main Board. She responded that she believed otherwise. I
asked whether she had considered these points when I was being recruited to the
Board the previous autumn: she said she had not been involved in that
recruitment.
11.3
PH´s office then brought forward a meeting originally planned for late July to
July 5th. At the meeting, in her Ofcom office, she told me she wanted me to
leave. She said I could do this in various ways: I could resign, giving six
months notice and immediately being freed from any Code of Conduct restraints;
or I could leave the Content Board and Board and do some unspecified
“consultancy” reports in countries I was interested in, while being
paid by Ofcom, for an unspecified period. Whatever I chose to do, she said she was
removing me as Chair of the Content Board with immediate effect. No proposals
were made in writing or otherwise formalised. I replied that I saw no grounds
for resignation and that I disagreed strongly with the view she and SW were
taking. I said I felt that this was the wrong approach for Ofcom to be taking
especially given its future role in regulating the BBC.
11.4
PH responded by saying that she had “taken legal advice”. This
advice, she said, was an opinion from the Ofcom Legal Counsel, Polly Weitzman,
about the potential for conflicts of interest if the Chair of the Content Board
were to engage in writing about issues of public policy. She suggested that I
speak to Polly Weitzman, which I agreed to do. I told PH that I would revert to
her concerning my intentions after that consultation (see paragraph 12) and
after taking my own legal advice.
11.5
I reverted to PH by telephone on July 11th. In that call, I informed
PH that I would step down as requested but would consider this to be a
termination of my contract without cause. I was therefore appointing a lawyer
to represent me, and would be seeking appropriate agreement on a public
statement on my departure and on compensation. PH proposed that we therefore
put this “in the hands of the professionals”, by which she meant the Secretary
of the Corporation, Steve Gettings.
12. Legal
opinion from Polly Weitzman, Ofcom Legal Counsel.
12.1
As agreed I spoke to Polly on July 8th about the advice she had
given PH. She explained her concern about how alleged conflicts of interest
could potentially affect standards cases that end up in court. She illustrated
the dangers by citing a recent Competition Appeals Tribunal case in which the
deputy chair of the CAT had been severely criticised by the judge for not
managing the appeals procedures properly. During our telephone conversation, I
asked Polly whether she had been consulted about this conflict of interest
issue during the recruitment process for the Chair of the Content Board during
the autumn of 2015, and she said she had not been. She followed up by providing
a written summary of her legal opinion, which she also sent to PH and SW.
12.2
No mention was made by Polly Weitzman of any alleged infractions by me of the
Board Members´ Code of Conduct. Everything she said and wrote was presented as
highlighting problems in principle rather than being anything specific about me
or my actions.
13. Lack of formal communication concerning any
misconduct and concerning my removal
13.1
As was indicated in paragraph 6, on only one occasion did a member of Ofcom´s
senior executive team raise any concerns in writing about my activities on
social media or in conventional media. No written warnings or written expressions
of concern were provided by either PH or SW during my time at Ofcom. Nor,
following the decisive meeting on July 5th with PH, did I receive any written
communication either confirming what was happening or any offer of terms, or any
explanation in writing of the reasons for my removal.
14. Exclusion from main Board, July 18/19
14.1
Prior to my removal I had been due to attend a board dinner and full meeting of
the main Board on July 18th and 19th. However I was not sent any papers for the
main Board meeting. PH had also, at our July 5th meeting, informed me that she
had told the other main Board directors about my removal. This indicated
clearly that I should not attend on July 18/19 and that I was no longer
considered to be a board Member.
14.2
Nevertheless, as I had been due to give an oral report to the July 19th
board meeting about the previous meeting of the Content Board, which I had
chaired, I submitted a report in writing to every member of the main board.
This report was not acknowledged by the Chair or the Secretary of the
Corporation, or anyone else.
14.3
I was therefore somewhat surprised when in early September the Secretary of the
Corporation emailed to ask me whether I wanted to receive papers for the
September Board meeting. This appeared to indicate an attempted change of
position concerning whether or not I was still officially on the Board. I
responded by reminding him that I had been excluded from the July meeting and
had not been sent papers for it. I added that it did not seem to me appropriate
to send confidential papers to someone that the Board itself considered to have
been removed.
15. Negotiation
with Ofcom, July 11th to August 5th.
15.1
Following PH’s placing of matters in the hands of the Secretary of the
Corporation, negotiations commenced between Ofcom’s lawyers, at Denton’s, and
mine at Wedlake Bell. Those negotiations concerned an agreed public statement
about my departure and compensation for early termination of contract without
cause.
15.2
The negotiation was conducted in good faith on both sides. On August 2nd,
Ofcom’s lawyers proposed a financial settlement of £XXXXX. On August 5th
the two sides agreed on both the wording of a public statement and a sum in
compensation of £XXXXX plus legal costs. Ofcom stated that the settlement
required approval from the DCMS but that following consultations with officials
they expected such approval “within days”.
16. DCMS list of “evidence” of my misbehaviour
16.1
On September 26th, I received from Hugh Harris the requested details
of the evidence that DCMS officials consider justifies the termination of my
contract on grounds of misconduct. I will therefore now respond to each of
these items in turn:
16.211/1/16
Tweet ´‘Pro-Europeans need to up their game and stop being so negative”
reproduction of Telegraph Tweet
I was publicly recused from any future
involvement in referendum decision-making at Ofcom, so this tweet of somebody
else’s article could not be capable of giving rise to perceptions of political
bias beyond the mere fact of my appointment. This tweet drew no comment from
Ofcom’s Communications Department.
16.311/2/16 Article in Italian on Italian website
Linkiesta, “Outside Europe the UK dies” – Interview with Bill Emmott
I was publicly recused from any future
involvement in referendum decision-making at Ofcom, so this interview could not
be capable of giving rise to perceptions of political bias beyond the mere fact
of my appointment. The interview drew no comment from Ofcom’s Communications
Department.
16.424/2/16 Tweet ”Prediction: Jeremy Corbyn will be Britain´s
PM by 2020. Boris´s legacy”
See
paragraph 6 above. Although this tweet can be argued to consist of political
analysis rather than any form of partisanship or comment, it nevertheless
caused concern in the Ofcom Communications Department who confirmed that “it
can be a difficult judgement” about which topics cross the line, pointing out
that Ofcom was currently under the spotlight more than usual – which underlined
how subjective and variable these judgements have to be. I agreed to cease and
desist from such tweets, namely from offering such analysis of British
politics.
16.525/4/16 Tweet ”Gove scaremongers on migration free-for-all”
I was
publicly recused from any future involvement in referendum decision-making at
Ofcom, so this tweet of somebody else’s article could not be capable of giving
rise to perceptions of political bias beyond the mere fact of my appointment.
16.618/5/16 Article in Project Syndicate: “Preparing for
President Trump”
This
article for Project Syndicate, which had been distributed to Project
Syndicate’s clients some days earlier than May 18th, was a piece of
political analysis. Its subject was how countries all around the world might
consider preparing for the possible election of Donald Trump as President of
the United States in November 2016, given statements he had just made about
existing trade agreements and about existing defence alliances. Its analysis
indicated that countries, including Japan, Mexico, Canada and many European
countries including Britain, could mainly prepare by working to strengthen
their alliances and institutional arrangements with each other, so as to be
able to face a potentially hostile US administration from positions of greater
strength. It said that the logic of that position suggested, for those who
agreed with it, a vote to stay in the EU. This is analysis, and of course
readers would be perfectly entitled to disagree and even to welcome the
prospect of President Trump. Moreover, as I was publicly recused from any
involvement in referendum decision-making at Ofcom, this article could not be
capable of giving rise to perceptions of political bias beyond the mere fact of
my appointment. It drew no comment from Ofcom’s Communications Department.
16.715/9/16 Article in La Stampa: Bill Emmott accuses the BBC:
“BBC has given up its role of protector/controller”
I had been removed as Chair of
the Content Board as of July 5th 2016, and by what clearly amounts
to constructive dismissal had been excluded from the main board too. An
interview two months after being removed from both the Content Board and the
main Board cannot be considered eligible as a justification for the termination
of my contract, a termination which Ofcom agreed on August 2nd had
already taken place. This publication also took place well after I had been
notified by Mr Harris that DCMS was reviewing my case.
17. Conclusions
As was made clear in paragraph 1,
my conclusion is that I was not guilty of misconduct or misbehaviour during my
time at Ofcom. I took up the role in good faith, made considerable efforts to
learn all that was required to do the job well, and made sacrifices of other
professional opportunities while performing the role. When the announcement of
my departure was made, other Content Board members voiced considerable anger
and concern at what had happened and at what the implications could be for
their own professional activities. I left with gratifyingly strong support from
Content Board members.
I still, several months later,
find it genuinely hard to understand why Sharon White and Patricia Hodgson
decided that I must go. At a meeting on April 4th 2016, Sharon had
kindly said to me “Ofcom is lucky to have you”. This is hard to square with the
view she subsequently took that my activities as a professional writer on
public policy were incompatible with my role as Chair of the Content Board.
In my opinion, this view revealed
by Sharon White in May 2016, and supported by the legal opinion presented by
Ofcom’s Legal Counsel, Polly Weitzman, can only mean that I was recruited on a
false basis. Had the Ofcom executive team and Chairman done a proper
professional job in defining what was required of a Content Board chair in the
light of what they already knew to be Ofcom’s changing circumstances, and had
exercised simple due diligence in investigating my normal professional
activities, I would not have been approached, let alone recruited. When this
realization dawned upon them as Ofcom’s role in BBC regulation was being
confirmed, I should have been given formal, written notice of what was required
and of the concerns that were being raised, as well as being given the
opportunity to address those concerns.
My removal on July 5th
by the Chairman, Patricia Hodgson, was conducted in an improper manner, with no
formal reasons given, nor any witnesses present, and with no proposed terms
provided in writing.
For all these reasons and in all
these ways, I have been subject to an unlawful breach of contract, for which appropriate
compensation is due, and my reputation has been seriously damaged. That damage needs
to be mitigated by an agreed public statement making it clear that I have left
as a result of no fault of my own.
You will divine from the above
that I have no choice but to defend myself strongly against any allegation of
misconduct, and will continue to do so. Nevertheless I agree with your
statement in your letter that this situation needs to be resolved swiftly,
especially as the process has now dragged on for several months. As a next
step, the right approach would be either to commence direct talks between me
and your officials about an appropriate resolution; or to ask the lawyers again
to reach an agreement. Even better, in my view, would be for me to come to your
office for a direct discussion of these matters between us.
The issues raised are large and
of great public importance. The sort of treatment and sort of unprofessional
behaviour by the leadership of a public agency to which I have been subjected
bring the very idea of public service into disrepute. It also makes it much
less likely that senior, experienced figures from the private sector like
myself will contemplate accepting such non-executive public-service roles in
the future. Even more important than that is the question of whether the
approach being taken by the leadership of Ofcom to broadcasting regulation is
really the approach that this country and its voters deserve, which I seriously
doubt.
Yours sincerely
Bill Emmott