Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
THURSDAY 27 OCTOBER 2005
MR HOWELL
JAMES CBE
Q60 David Heyes: As regards that
element of the Phillis recommendation, there is no action anywhere
to bring about that change. It is a hope that the media might
just change; if government behaves more openly then the media
will respond appropriately. That is really the extent of it, is
it not?
Mr James: What did you have in
mind that the Government should do to the media? This is where
I always stumble, I have to say. Like many of us who do this job
we are occasionally very frustrated by what appears in the media
and one always seeks to explain as clearly as possible what the
Government is doing or what the departments are up to. One does
not always succeed in persuading journalists or broadcasters to
represent that view entirely clearly or in the views of some ministers
or departments fairly, but that is part of the debate between
the fourth estate and Government, is it not?
Q61 David Heyes: My starting point
is that the key task for you would be to bring the Phillis recommendations
to life, to make them happen. That seems to me to be essential.
One of their recommendations is that the media needs to change
if we are to deal with this issue about public trust in government
communication. You said, as I understand it, that you see yourself
as somewhat separate from the day to day contact with the media,
about the unfolding news stories, but you described yourself as
the managing editor, a much more strategic role.
Mr James: On the Government side.
Q62 David Heyes: How does that part
of your strategic role get enacted? What contact do you have with
the media—with the movers and shakers in the media—to
cause them to understand that they have a problem and they need
to do something about it, and therefore to help you to carry out
your task which is to enact the Phillis recommendations?
Mr James: My task is to ensure
that government itself looks at how it behaves and how it has
dealt with the media in the past and to look to how we can deal
more effectively in the future. I think it was Alan Rusbridger
in The Guardian who wrote a very good piece about the sort
of tit-for-tat mindset that has developed; about how the media
respond to how government behaves and government responds to how
parts of the media behave. That way we end up in a sort of stalemate
position. I hope what government has done in accepting the Phillis
recommendations in bringing in this post, in accepting the debate
and the discussion that we are having across government about
how we communicate more effectively, that that opens up on the
government side a response to this Committee's injunction to play
it straight.
Q63 David Heyes: I think the answer
is that not a lot is being done tangibly to bring about an influence
on the media, but what you did say was that you were looking at
ways—to put it crudely—to try to cut out the media,
to use different means of communicating with the public, using
the Net or different approaches. Is it not feasible that by taking
that approach you are cutting out the media and you will make
the problem worse?
Mr James: I do not actually see
it as part of my job to cut the media out at all. It would be
impossible in the political climate that we know and understand
not to recognise the very powerful part that the media plays.
We have to have good and effective media.
Q64 David Heyes: You did talk about
shifting the emphasis and going direct to the public.
Mr James: Yes, I think that the
way I would express it is to say that previously there has been
a great deal of focus on media handling in the government machine
but now what we need to do is bring all of the other more direct
unmediated mechanisms for communicating with the public up to
the same level of investment and focus. I am not in any way suggesting
that we can ignore the media and the way in which they cover the
political environment, the way in which they cover what government
is up to. That is a proper service that we offer to ministers
and to departments and it is an essential part of getting some
of the communication out there. Equally I do not think that the
public necessarily consume what you might call political journalism
in the same degree that people in the Whitehall/Westminster environment
do. We have to recognise that if you want to explain changes of
policy—issues that impact on their lives, how they can apply
for different kinds of services the Government offers them—we
have to go to them and we have to offer them that information
more directly. All I am seeking is that we re-calibrate the sort
of levels of investment and the focus of the work that happens
within a department. It would be a rash man who thought that there
was not the necessity to have an effective media handling capability
in any department.
Q65 David Heyes: As one of the Phillis
people, what made you think that the media would want to help
you to restore public trust in government communication?
Mr James: I think there are journalists
who are opening debate about an informed democracy, about the
need for full and perhaps less tribal communications in some of
the print media. That is the place for that debate to take place.
It is a debate for journalism to have with itself; it is a debate
for newspapers to have and for broadcasters to have. Government's
side of that bargain is to try to improve the way that it communicates
and puts information in front of the public which is what I hope
I am trying to drive government to do.
Q66 Chairman: You pick up The
Mail or The Express any morning and the sub-text is
that everything is a scandal, governments are liars and the media's
job is to expose them. That is what you are up against all the
time. It must make your heart sink. Have you been out there, talking
to these people who run these organs of opinion saying, "Look,
we've cleaned up our act; how about cleaning up yours?".
Mr James: I do, of course, bump
into all these people. You will be aware because you have taken
evidence directly from them when I was not here last year. I read
your session with one of the editors in chief and clearly they
take a very particular view. I do not expect there to be a gear
change immediately but I do hope they will start to see and I
am certainly very happy to go out and advocate what it is we are
trying to do to improve our communications table.
Q67 Jenny Willott: I just wanted
to ask a couple of questions about the propriety guidelines; you
mentioned them in your memo. Going back to the subject of leaks,
obviously you had the leaks about the meeting at Sunningdale,
there was the one about the smoking policy and earlier this week
there was the one about the reorganisation of schools. They increasingly
seem to be coming from the cabinet as well. Is the issue of leaks
and behind the scenes briefing covered in the propriety guidelines?
Whose remit does it fall under and what gets done about it?
Mr James: In terms of the Civil
Service it is clear in their guidelines that civil servants are
not meant to use any information they gather in the course of
their professional lives but that does not immediately recourse
to the Permanent Secretary, Government Communications. Those are
guidelines about Civil Service behaviours which are the responsibility
of the cabinet secretary. It often falls to the communications
function to pick up the consequences of leaks which is that things
appear in the newspapers and the Communications people have to
do their best to explain the background to that.
Q68 Jenny Willott: Are you not actually
involved in trying to work out who leaked it or any of those issues.
Mr James: If a leak came out of
a specific department it would be for the permanent secretary
of that department to look to where that leak might have come
from or how it might have got into the public domain. It is not
directly the responsibility of the government communications function.
Q69 Jenny Willott: Can I also ask
about diaries and memoirs and so on. When Gus O'Donnell was here
the other week he answered some questions about that. In terms
of your communications role and the external focus, do you have
any say in the okaying of books that have been written, or the
vetoing of some of the information that is in there?
Mr James: No.
Q70 Jenny Willott: You have no say
at all.
Mr James: No. The guidelines that
civil servants are subject to about clearing books is to go to
either the permanent secretary in their department or to the cabinet
secretary. Gus himself has a unit which looks at that and I think
that is what prompted him to say what he said when he was here.
Q71 Jenny Willott: He also said that
he thought it was inappropriate for people to write books—for
example we might be having an Alastair Campbell book coming out
which might be quite interesting to a lot of people—and
he was looking at what could be done from his perspective to try
to limit that. What are your views?
Mr James: I agree with Gus.
Q72 Jenny Willott: What would you
like to see done to stop it from happening?
Mr James: I think Gus is taking
a very realistic view of what can be done and I think the ideas
that he posited to you last week seemed very sensible to me.
Q73 Kelvin Hopkins: My impression
is that there has been quite a cultural change since you have
been appointed but it may be to do with the personalities involved—David
Hill is clearly not Alastair Campbell—and things have calmed
down in the sense that the Government received a lot of stick
over its spin approach. Do you think that is fair, that things
have changed?
Mr James: I would hope so. I believe
they have and my ambition is to continue a programme to debate
the role of an effective and communications function within government
that will consolidate that change.
Q74 Kelvin Hopkins: You are a public
relations person and you are concerned about how messages are
received as well as what is given out. One of the problems in
the past was the kind of language that was used. I just wondered
if you still use that kind of language, language which obscures
rather than explains. I know you place a great emphasis on explaining
rather than just telling.
Mr James: When we were meeting
at Sunningdale last year—indeed we met only recently again
this year—the directors of communications were keen to move
from what you might call an announcement culture to more of an
engagement culture. I am trying to drive people to think about
how we reach people these days, where they are, what are their
real media habits, their real listening, their real reading; websites,
new ways of communication and, most importantly, internal and
third party communications. We know most of the large companies
who are expert at trying to get their messages out are very, very
keen to make sure that their own staff communications are properly
aligned and they think through who of their suppliers, their peer
groups, the other people they deal with on a professional basis
will understand what their organisation is doing. I think often
government departments and government as a whole have been slightly
poor at that. We have tended to look to the announcement culture—press
notices, speeches—and we do not think enough about where
are the people at the moment, what do they think about what we
are doing, how can we play in on a greater understanding of what
their expectations are of government or a particular service?
I hope all of that is driving entirely in the direction you highlight,
yes.
Q75 Kelvin Hopkins: Being specific
about the kind of language that is used, whenever I see a notice
which has words like "reform", "modernisation",
"liberalisation", "flexibility" I switch off
immediately; I usually throw it in the bin. I do not think my
constituents understand what they mean; I suspect I know what
they mean but I do not know. If you say, "Well, we are going
to sell the fire service to an American safety corporation"
I understand that; if you say, "We are going to modernise
the fire service" I do not understand that. Are you trying
to be more prosaic rather than using these almost obscure words?
Mr James: I would always encourage
those who are involved in drafting announcements of any kind to
use plain language which genuinely communicates with people. I
think there are any number of buzz words that government falls
into; I am as guilty as anyone sometimes. When I read things like
"build a capability" I wonder whether I would have understood
that a year ago. The point you make is absolutely right; we have
to constantly second guess ourselves about some of the internal
management speak that we use.
Q76 Kelvin Hopkins: Your appointment
and the division of roles between David Hill and yourself now
seems to be moving back towards—I hope it is—a world
where the Civil Service is more independent, no longer part of
the political machinery of Downing Street but is actually an independent
Civil Service which gives advice or help to the Government but
is not actually involved in spinning or selling political ideology.
Mr James: I could not have put
it better myself.
Q77 Kelvin Hopkins: I hope that is
the direction we are going in.
Mr James: That is the direction
and I like to think we are making some progress towards it.
Q78 Chairman: Is it right you would
like government to send people text messages?
Mr James: I think only where it
is pertinent. I am open to any use of relevant media. It is the
next stop on from websites, but we have to be cautious.
Q79 Chairman: What are the kinds
of messages you might send to people?
Mr James: I think these would
be around specific campaigns, particularly where you are trying
to communicate to the young. I have mentioned FRANK already but
I think FRANK may well look at ways in which it could go out and
talk to the young more directly, communicating a FRANK sponsored
event that might be happening at a youth event, a youth musical
event; that much more downstream kind of communication. I am not
planning on sending texts out from the Cabinet Office to the public
en masse.
| 
