Appendix 1
MEMORANDUM BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. This memorandum has been prepared in response
to the recommendation of the Liaison Committee in its First Report
of Session 1999-2000 that all appropriate select committees should
assess progress on "live" recommendations and criticisms
and report before the rise of the House for the Christmas 2000
recess.[7]
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has considered and approved
the contents of this memorandum.
2. This document begins with some general reflections
upon the Committee's work in scrutinising the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport, including an assessment of the impact of the
Committee's two Reports which considered the Department's own
role. The Committee's remaining Reports are then reviewed in four
thematic sectionson culture and heritage, on media, on
sport and on the Millennium. The paper concludes with some overall
remarks about Government responses and responsiveness.
3. The Committee has requested and received several
memoranda from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport up-dating
us on developments relating to "live" recommendations.
We have also obtained memoranda from the Heritage Lottery Fund,
the Arts Council of England and Sport England. All of these memoranda
are being published at the same time as this document.
II.
SCRUTINISING THE DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
Approach to scrutiny
4. The Committee's approach to its work since its
establishment in July 1997 has to some extent reflected the nature
of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is one of the
smallest Departments of State, but it sponsors more non-departmental
public bodies than other Ministries. About 95 per cent of the
Department's programme expenditure is spent by quangos.[8]
The Department has a great range and diversity of policy responsibilities.
The Committee's scrutiny has reflected the Department's range
of policy responsibilities, the importance of its quangos and
the limited expenditure and administrative responsibilities of
the Department itself.
Objectives and Performance of the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport
5. The Committee's Fifth Report of Session 1997-98
on Objectives and Performance of the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport provided an opportunity to assess the Department's
work taken as a whole nearly a year after the Committee's appointment.
The Report highlighted five main concerns about the Department's
work to that point:
- the apparent insufficient priority which was
given to tourism in the Department's approach;
- the need to tackle under-funding of many sectors
within the Department's responsibility;
- the importance of closer co-operation with the
Department for Education and Employment on sporting matters;
- the need for unification of Ministerial responsibility
for broadcasting and film and for a more coherent approach to
communications issues across Government; and
- the overwhelming case against the valuation of
non-operational heritage assets for the purposes of Resource Accounting
and Budgeting.[9]
6. Since then, there have been some signs of progress
with regard to each of these concerns. The Government's response
in July 1998 disputed the Committee's contention about the priority
given to tourism; a new tourism strategy was subsequently published
in February 1999; the Department's new memorandum summarises efforts
to ensure implementation of the new strategy.[10]
The Government's response argued that the Committee's concerns
about underfunding were responded to as part of the subsequent
Comprehensive Spending Review.[11]
The Department's new memorandum states that relations between
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department
for Education and Employment on sporting issues "have improved
enormously" in recent times, a welcome vindication of the
Committee's earlier recommendation on this point.[12]
Ministerial responsibility for film and broadcasting was brought
together following the Committee's Report.[13]
7. The Government's reply to this Report was one
of the better responses which the Committee received. A number
of the Committee's original concerns have been the subject of
subsequent action, although it is not clear whether or not in
direct response to the Report. On the final issue of the valuation
of non-operational heritage assets, the Government's response
was non-committal.[14]
The new memorandum indicates that the Committee's recommendation
has been implemented, with relevant non-operational heritage assets
exempt from valuation as part of Resource Accounting.[15]
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and
its Quangos
8. In the Summer of 1999 the Committee renewed its
examination of the Department's role in a Report on The Department
for Culture, Media and Sport and its Quangos. The Report made
recommendations on the following issues:
- the role of Funding Agreements and the need for
greater transparency of relationships between the Department and
its quangos;
- the role of the Department's new Quality, Efficiency
and Standards Team (Quest);
- the speed and method of appointments to quangos;
- the role and funding of the English Tourism Council
and the British Tourist Authority;
- the need for a more strategic approach to the
heritage through means of a Heritage Forum; and
- the case for a National Cultural Consortium as
a national counterpart to the Department's new regional structures.[16]
9. There have been positive responses to some of
these recommendations: efforts have been
made to speed up appointments to quangos; Funding
Agreements for the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist
Authority have been revised in line with our recommendations;
a National Forum has been created to bring together
the Department's quangos.[17]
10. However, in other respects, the Government's
response to our Report has been less positive. The Committee made
the case for a new heritage strategy.[18]
The Government reply made no specific mention of this recommendation
in its response to the Report which was received by the Committee
on 19 October 1999. On 18 November 1999, even before the Committee
had published that response, the Government announced in a non-parliamentary
forum that it would undertake a review of policies relating to
the historic environment. No attempt was made to inform the Committee
of this announcement or to relate it to the Committee's recommendation
on the very same matter. After I wrote about this matter to the
Minister for the Arts, communication from the Department on this
subject has somewhat improved.
11. As for other recommendations in this Report,
we recommended that, where Funding Agreements between the Department
and its quangos were revised, this be announced by way of parliamentary
answers which explained the changes and the reasons for them.[19]
The Government accepted this recommendation.[20]
We viewed this as a "live" recommendation and asked
for an update from the Department accordingly. The Government's
new memorandum is silent on the matter. Similarly, we recommended
that all reports from Quest be published without amendment by
Ministers or officials of the Department.[21]
The Government responded as follows:
"The presumption is
the reports will be published as presented to the Secretary of
State. However, the reviews carried out by Quest will cover a
wide range of issues and there may be occasions when reports will
contain material which is commercially sensitive or should not
be published for other reasons."
We asked the Department "whether reports from
Quest have so far been published as sent to the Secretary of State".
Again, the Department's memorandum makes no reference to this
request. The Government has also failed to explain the role played
by the monitoring of the performance of quangos against interim
targets in Funding Agreements in the outcome of this year's Comprehensive
Spending Review despite our specific request that it do so.[22]
III.
CULTURE AND HERITAGE
The Royal Opera House
12. The Committee's first inquiry of the Parliament
was into the Royal Opera House. Our Report published in early
December 1997 described fundamental failings in the management
of the Royal Opera House and in the supervision of grants of public
funds to it by the Arts Council of England exposed during the
temporary closure of the Royal Opera House's Covent Garden home
for re-development. We recommended that the then Board should
dissolve itself and that the then Chief Executive should resign.
We also made recommendations relating to access, ticket pricing
and educational work.[23]
Although the Chairman of the Board resigned following our Report,
the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did not assume
the direct responsibility for the crisis management of the Royal
Opera House which we had advocated. Accordingly, we invited him
to give evidence to us on 21 January 1998. The Government's response
was received the day before that hearing, outlining efforts to
reconstitute the Board and reform its corporate structure. We
published the response and the further oral evidence received
from the Secretary of State without comment.[24]
13. The Committee further considered developments
when it examined Sir Richard Eyre on the outcome of his review
of the future of lyric theatre in London. Sir Richard Eyre's analysis
of the Royal Opera House's flaws meshed with our own and we published
a Report in July 1998 which supported the approach of the Eyre
Review and stated that "action in five areas which we have
identifieda culture of accessibility not exclusivity, a
commitment to education, a mind-set in management attuned to the
realities of the national subsidised arts companies of this country,
management accounts which attract a sense of ownership and, above
all, a business plan for the re-opened Covent Garden which reflects
all of these themesmust precede any commitment to increased
subsidy".[25]
The Government in its response agreed "that any guarantee
of increased subsidy must be contingent on these elements".[26]
14. The Arts Council of England has now submitted
a memorandum which describes developments since our Reports. The
Arts Council claims that progress has been made in improving access
to the Royal Opera House, that enhanced importance has been attached
to educational initiatives and that financial control has been
improved.[27]
The Heritage Lottery Fund
15. In February 1999 the Committee published a Report
on the Heritage Lottery Fund, the quango which distributes funds
for one of the five original National Lottery Good Causes. The
Report concluded that the Fund had already had a considerable,
positive impact. We made recommendations on the following themes:
- the need for sustained investment in heritage
bodies funded by the taxpayer, including the National Heritage
Memorial Fund;
- the need for greater emphasis on social and economic
benefits and support for deprived areas in assessment of applications
by the Heritage Lottery Fund;
- the need for greater transparency and clarity
in the procedures of the Heritage Lottery Fund; and
- the need for future appointments to make the
Trustees more representative of the United Kingdom as a whole.[28]
16. This Report received one of the most positive
responses to any Report from the Committee, most of the recommendations
having been made to the Heritage Lottery Fund itself rather than
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Almost all our conclusions
and recommendations were accepted in principle and the Heritage
Lottery Fund produced a timetable for introducing the new procedures
required to give effect to our recommendations.[29]
The new memorandum submitted by the Heritage Lottery Fund indicates
that significant progress has been made in implementing a number
of the Committee's recommendations and that the Fund remains alert
to the Committee's original views and concerns.[30]
HMS Cavalier and the preservation
of historic ships
17. The Committee's decision to examine the work
of the Heritage Lottery Fund arose in part from our earlier consideration
of the case of HMS Cavalier, Britain's last surviving World
War Two destroyer. We were deeply concerned that Cavalier's
future was in jeopardy and convinced that she could and should
be saved. In a Report in February 1998 we recommended early action
by the Government and funding bodies to ensure her survival.[31]
The Government's response in early May 1998 acknowledged the central
importance of finding a permanent home for HMS Cavalier.[32]
Following our Report, a Trust was formed to acquire HMS Cavalier
and ensure her long-term conservation at Chatham Historic Dockyard.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund subsequently agreed a grant
to make her purchase and preservation possible. We examined these
developments in a further Report published in February 1999.[33]
We have subsequently maintained our interest in this project,
visiting HMS Cavalier in her new and permanent home at
Chatham on 8 February 2000. Both the Government and those closely
involved with the ship's preservation have referred to the pivotal
role of the Committee's original Report in ensuring Cavalier's
survival.[34]
18. Our examination of this case highlighted the
urgent need for a national policy to ensure that funding for ship
preservation was effectively targeted.[35]
The Government initially undertook in May 1998 to "give consideration
to establishing a definitive policy on historic ships".[36]
In our Report of February 1999 we regretted the Government's wish
to devolve such policy responsibility to the Heritage Lottery
Fund.[37]
The Government's response on this issue was inconclusive.[38]
We have now sought and received a further memorandum from the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport which states that it expects
to receive a final list of historic vessels of pre-eminent significance
shortly and that this will inform its policy position. The Government
undertakes to keep us informed of progress.[39]
The Performing Right Society
19. In the Summer of 1999 the Committee conducted
a short inquiry into the proposal of the Performing Right Society
to abolish its Classical Music Subsidy. We did so in response
to requests for such an inquiry from the Shadow Secretary of State
for Culture, Media and Sport and a former Minister for the Arts.
While the evidence we received highlighted the strong case and
need for public subsidy of classical music, the Committee accepted
the rationale for the abolition of the Classical Music Subsidy
and did not make any recommendations for Government.[40]
Accordingly, no Government response has been sought or received.
Public Libraries
20. Earlier this year the Committee held its first
inquiry into Public Libraries. The Report published in May supported
the Government's efforts to put flesh on the bones of the requirement
of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to provide a "comprehensive
and efficient" library service by means of new library standards.
The Committee made a number of recommendations about what should
be included in the final library standards, including the following:
- clearer guidance for local authorities on library
opening hours;
- more effective assessment of issues relating
to library location and closures;
- more specific guidance on the promotion of social
inclusion; and
- new standards relating to charging and fine income.
In addition, the Committee recommended that a specific
National Lottery Fund should have responsibility for libraries.[41]
The Government's response in July 2000 was positive in tone, but
provisional in nature. It was supportive of many of the Committee's
conclusions and recommendations and indicated that these would
be taken fully into account in finalising library standards. The
final version of these standards was to be published "later
this year".[42]
We have now been informed by the Department that publication of
the final public library standards document "is not now likely
until the end of the year".[43]
The Committee will examine that document to assess the impact
of our Report.
Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade
21. Our most recent Report on cultural issues examined
museum and public policy towards the illicit trade in cultural
property and claims for return in certain other circumstances.
Among the recommendations of the Report were the following:
- the Government ought to establish a national
database of stolen and illegally exported cultural property under
national police control;
- a criminal offence relating to trading in cultural
property illegally exported or stolen abroad ought to be created;
- the United Kingdom ought to accede to the 1995
UNIDROIT Convention; and
- the Government ought to consult on the terms
of legislation to permit national museums and galleries to return
human remains and cultural property wrongfully taken during the
period 1933 to 1945 and not subsequently returned.
22. The Government has now sent us an encouraging
initial response which accepts this last recommendation.[44]
We expect a further response shortly and will examine that document
with great interest.
IV.
MEDIA
The Multi-Media Revolution
23. One of the most important Reports by the Committee
examined the impact on broadcasting and electronic media of new
technology and the regulatory implications of that impact. The
Committee argued that digital technology, the Internet and broadband
communications would require a transformation in public policy.
We recommended:
- the announcement of an early target date for
analogue switch-off;
- the creation of a separate Department of Communications;
- the introduction of early legislation to create
a new regulatory framework; and
- the establishment of a new Communications Regulation
Commission with oversight of all broadcasters, including the BBC.[45]
24. In the initial Government response submitted
to us, it was not possible to identify a single substantive recommendation
which was accepted by the Government. For this reason, we declined
to publish the reply, which was subsequently issued by the Government
in a slightly modified form.[46]
The Government's Communications White Paper published on 12 December
proposes the establishment of a new unified regulator (OFCOM).[47]
We will conduct an inquiry into aspects of the White Paper in
the New Year.
Scrutiny of the BBC and its funding
25. We have devoted much time to the scrutiny of
the BBC, whose annual income from the licence fee is more than
twice the total budget of the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport. The BBC had itself proposed that we examine its annual
report and accounts as a means of improving its accountability.
We have produced two Reports on these documents for 1997-98 and
for 1999-2000.[48]
In the Autumn of 1999 we conducted a more extensive inquiry into
The Funding of the BBC.[49]
The main themes emerging from these inquiries on which we have
made recommendations have been as follows:
- the BBC has to become more transparent in the
manner in which it presents financial and other information to
the public;
- the BBC should be more ambitious in its targets
for future commercial income;
- the BBC has yet to establish a successful track
record in the development of new digital channels and accordingly
has failed to make the case for significant increased funding;
- the BBC needs to maintain or enhance the investment
in and standard of its core television and radio services; and
- the current arrangements for the accountability
and regulation of the BBC are not sustainable until 2006 and,
accordingly, the BBC's future independent regulation should be
tackled in the forthcoming Communications White Paper.
26. These Reports have received responses from both
the BBC and the Government.[50]
The Government's responses have generally been limited in nature,
in some measure because of the BBC's independence. The Government
accepted our recommendations against the privatisation of BBC
Resources and the part-privatisation of BBC Worldwide. It also
rejected the proposed digital licence supplement which the Committee
firmly opposed.[51]
While the Government continues to reject a Committee recommendation
that the £5 premium payable on the Quarterly Budget Scheme
for paying the television licence fee be abolished, it has acknowledged
that its defence of the scheme in an earlier reply contained misleading
information.[52]
It is likely that the Committee will renew its consideration of
some of these issues in the New Year in the context of our inquiry
into aspects of the Communications White Paper.
The ITC and the regulation of news scheduling
on ITV
27. In the Autumn of 1998 the Committee conducted
a short inquiry into ITV's proposals to abolish News at Ten.
We recommended that the Independent Television Commission reject
ITV's application to change its news schedules and that the Government
should review all statutory requirements relating to scheduling
in the light of the changing broadcasting environment.[53]
The Government response indicated that it intended to review the
regulation of scheduling before amending the current Broadcasting
Acts.[54]
The Committee has subsequently reviewed the consequences of the
ITC's decision to permit the abolition of News at Ten,
found that the news audience on ITV has fallen dramatically and
recommended that the ITC require ITV to reinstate News at Ten.[55]
The more recent Report did not require a Government response.
7 First Report from the Liaison Committee, Shifting
the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive, HC (1999-2000)
300, para 52. Back
8 Sixth
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Department
for Culture, Media and Sport and its Quangos, HC (1998-99)
506-I, para 3. Back
9 Fifth
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Objectives
and Performance of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
HC (1997-98) 742, paras 8, 17, 44, 13, 11, 17, 28-29, 47. Back
10 Fourth
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Objectives
and Performance of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport:
Government Response to the Fifth Report from the Culture, Media
and Sport Committee, Session 1997-98, HC (1997-98) 1079, p
iv; Appendix 2, Part III. Back
11 HC
(1997-98) 1079, pp i, v, viii. Back
12 Appendix
2, Part III. Back
13 HC
(1997-98) 1079, p iv. Back
14 Ibid,
p viii. Back
15 Appendix
2, Part III. Back
16 HC
(1998-99) 506-I, paras 15, 16, 23, 30-31, 20, 27, 40, 42, 50-51,
68. Back
17 Sixth
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The
Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its Quangos: Government
Response to the Sixth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport
Committee, HC (1998-99) 888; Appendix 2, Part IV. Back
18 HC
(1998-99) 506-I, para 50. Back
19 Ibid,
para 15. Back
20 HC
(1998-99) 888, p iv. Back
21 HC
(1998-99) 506-I, para 20. Back
22 Ibid,
para 23; HC (1998-99) 888, p v; Appendix 6. Back
23 First
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Royal
Opera House, HC (1997-98) 199-I. Back
24 Second
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The
Royal Opera House: Responses by the Government and the Arts Council
of England to the First Report from the Culture, Media and Sport
Committee, Session 1997-98, HC (1997-98) 493. Back
25 Seventh
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Eyre
Review and the Royal Opera House, HC (1997-98) 994, para 18. Back
26 Second
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The
Eyre Review and The Royal Opera House: Government Response to
the Seventh Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
Session 1997-98, HC (1998-99) 201, p iv. Back
27 Appendix
3. Back
28 First
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Heritage
Lottery Fund, HC (1998-99) 195-I. Back
29 Fourth
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The
Heritage Lottery Fund: Responses by the Government and the Heritage
Lottery Fund to the First Report from the Culture, Media and Sport
Committee, Session 1998-99, HC (1998-99) 386. Back
30 Appendix
4. Back
31 Third
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Preservation
of Historic Ships: The Case of HMS Cavalier, HC (1997-98)
561. Back
32 Third
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Preservation
of Historic Ships: The Case of HMS Cavalier: Government Response
to the Third Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
HC (1997-98) 727. Back
33 Second
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Preservation
of HMS Cavalier, HC (1998-99) 196. Back
34 Ibid,
para 9. Back
35 HC
(1997-98) 561, paras 37-39. Back
36 HC
(1997-98) 727, p v. Back
37 HC
(1998-99) 196, para 10. Back
38 Fifth
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The
Preservation of HMS Cavalier: Government Response to the Second
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 1998-99,
HC (1998-99) 387. Back
39 Appendix
2, Part I. Back
40 Fifth
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Performing
Right Society and the Abolition of the Classical Music Subsidy,
HC (1998-99) 468-I. Back
41 Sixth
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Public
Libraries, HC (1999-2000) 241. Back
42 Third
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Public
Libraries: Government Response to the Sixth Report from the Culture,
Media and Sport Committee, Session 1999-2000, HC (1999-2000)
867. Back
43 Appendix
2, Part I. Back
44 Fourth
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Cultural
Property: Return and Illicit Trade: Initial Government Response
to the Seventh Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
Session 1999-2000, HC (1999-2000) 944. Back
45 Fourth
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Multi-Media
Revolution, HC (1997-98) 520-I. Back
46 Government
Response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Report
on The Multi-Media Revolution, Cm 4020, July 1998. Back
47 A
New Future for Communications,
December 2000, Cm 5010. Back
48 Eighth
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Report
and Accounts of the BBC for 1997-98, HC (1997-98) 1090; Ninth
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Report
and Accounts of the BBC for 1999-2000, HC (1999-2000) 719. Back
49 Third
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Funding
of the BBC, HC (1999-2000) 25-I. Back
50 Memorandum
by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport: Eighth Report
of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Reports and Accounts
of the BBC for 1997/98, Cm
4258, February 1999; Third Special Report from the Culture, Media
and Sport Committee, Report and Accounts of the BBC for 1997-98:
The BBC's Response to the Eighth Report from the Culture, Media
and Sport Committee, Session 1997-98, HC (1998-99) 245; The
Funding of the BBC: Government Response to the Third Report from
the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 1999-2000,
Cm 4674, March 2000; Fifth Special Report from the Culture, Media
and Sport Committee, Report and Accounts of the BBC for 1999-2000:
Responses from the Government and the BBC to the Ninth Report
from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 1999-2000,
HC (1999-2000) 945. Back
51 Cm
4674, paras 11-14; HC (1999-2000) 25-I, para 83. Back
52 HC
(1999-2000) 719, paras 38-40; HC (1999-2000) 945, p iv. Back
53 Ninth
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Future
of News at Ten, HC (1997-98) 1110, paras 33-34. Back
54 First
Special Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The
Future of News at Ten: Government Response to the Ninth Report
from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 1997-98,
HC (1998-99) 200. Back
55 Fifth
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Whatever
Happened to News at Ten?, HC (1999-2000) 289. Back
|