Hunt’s “cop out” deprives industry of a proper and thorough consultation process

Jim Marshall says that the government’s decision not to encourage consultation on fresh communications legislation is failing to take into account the changing nature of the UK industry, or how most of it is funded…

Jeremy Hunt, secretary of state for culture, media and sport (as well as the Olympics, and the business of BSkyB…) has recently eschewed convention by announcing that he has shelved plans for a green paper on the new communications bill.

Instead he has set up five seminars, which will discuss a number of issues prior to the publication of a white paper in the spring next year. Why has Hunt done this?

His argument is that the UK communications industry doesn’t need a “root and branch” revision to its structure and regulations.

Ed Vaizey, minister for culture, communications and creative industries didn’t disagree with his boss (now there’s a surprise!) and said: “Through these seminars, we will look in detail at how best to drive investment and competition.”

However, more cynical commentators have suggested that the potential green paper came at a difficult time for Mr Hunt: He was answering criticism for his handling of the News Corp bid for BSkyB, and specifically having to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry – possibly a case of him concentrating on his own future as opposed to the future of the communications industry. (Perhaps Jim Naughtie’s slip in the pronunciation of his name on BBC Radio 4 was less to do with Dr Spooner and more to do with Dr Freud?)

Personally I feel this approach is a cop out. The communications industry in the UK is undergoing radical changes and developments on a number of fronts and, even if new rules and regulations aren’t necessary, to suggest that this should be a foregone conclusion is lazy and/or naive and/or pure arrogance.

So what could (or arguably should) a green paper on communications address?

1) The future role of the BBC must be a priority. In spite of some financial cutbacks, the BBC continues to be one of the richest media owners in the UK, and arguably the most powerful.

A review and potential revamp of its public service remit, its accountability and its role alongside the commercial broadcasters (and the overall commercial sector) is long overdue.

2) Cross media ownership rules need to be reviewed and more clearly defined. In the last Communications Bill, the digital media sector was in its infancy and it was unclear how the relationship between offline and online ownership could work most effectively in terms of maintaining competition, plurality and quality.

3) Revision to press regulations and, within this, an independent body to review complaints and apply judgements, sanctions, etc. Currently, this is being reviewed by the Leveson inquiry (at what seems to be a snail’s pace), but there should certainly be the provision for a wholesale change to the code and its application in the next communications bill, unless of course the current system through the Press Complaints Commission remains unchanged.

This is about as justifiable and likely as MPs regulating their own expenses (something that Jeremy Hunt knows a bit about).

4) Next I would suggest that there needs to be a comprehensive appraisal of the structure and role of commercial radio, its digitalisation and where it sits within the overall broadcast environment, in terms of ownership, spectrum and versus the BBC (see point one).

5) Finally and arguably most challenging, is the need for a review of regulations for internet content, and how this should fit into the press and broadcast regulatory frameworks.

That would be my starter for five and none of these considerations can be viewed as being in any way surprising or contentious. They are, however, all fundamental to the maintenance of both the health and quality of British media.

Also, importantly, for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to rather blandly state that that the future should be about “investment, growth, competition and deregulation”, without addressing these issues, is an abdication of its responsibilities.

There should have been a green paper which would have stimulated a proper and thorough consultation process.

One final point: it is worth looking at the five seminars that the DCMS is running in place of the green paper. They are all taking place at the DCMS offices and agendas have been set.

In no instance is there any advertiser or agency involvement as part of the agenda or in the panel sessions. (Admittedly the radio seminar is planned for September and the agenda is still at the draft stage, so there could be still a chance for advertisers on this one – but I won’t hold my breath).

Given that one of the big conundrums for the future growth (or otherwise) of the various strands of UK media is how advertising revenues are going to develop, I would have thought that an advertiser or agency perspective may have been helpful (or even critical).

Clearly the DCMS feels otherwise. This should maybe come as no surprise because Mr Hunt is the man who has advocated Community TV, funded by advertising, when any TV buyer (with more than three weeks experience) could tell him that the commercial viability of such a proposal is exactly nil.

Your Comments