Channel 4 Annual Report 2011

House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Channel 4 Annual Report 2011

Oral and written evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, Chairman, David Abraham, Chief Executive, and Anne Bulford, Chief Operating Officer, Channel 4

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 16 October 2012

HC 610-i Published on 22 April 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £8.50

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies.

Current membership Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon) (Chair) Mr Ben Bradshaw MP (Labour, Exeter) Angie Bray MP (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Conor Burns MP (Conservative, Bournemouth West) Tracey Crouch MP (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford) Philip Davies MP (Conservative, Shipley) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Mr John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington) Steve Rotheram MP (Labour, Liverpool, Walton) Jim Sheridan MP (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North) Mr Gerry Sutcliffe MP (Labour, Bradford South)

The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament. David Cairns MP (Labour, Inverclyde) Dr Thérèse Coffey MP (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal) Damian Collins MP (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe) Alan Keen MP (Labour Co-operative, Feltham and Heston) Louise Mensch MP (Conservative, Corby) Mr Adrian Sanders MP (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Mr Tom Watson MP (Labour, West Bromwich East)

Powers

The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/cmscom.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Elizabeth Flood (Clerk), Grahame Danby (Second Clerk), Kevin Candy (Inquiry Manager), Victoria Butt (Senior Committee Assistant), Keely Bishop (Committee Assistant) and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6188; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

List of witnesses

Tuesday 16 October 2012 Page

Lord Burns GCB, Chairman, David Abraham, Chief Executive, and Anne Bulford, Chief Operating Officer, Channel 4 Ev 1

List of written evidence

1 Channel 4 Ev 19 2 Howe & Co Ev 26: 28 3 Children’s Media Foundation Ev 31: 32 4 Christine Cawley Ev 33

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday 16 October 2012

Members present: Mr John Whittingdale (Chair)

Mr Ben Bradshaw Steve Rotheram Damian Collins Mr Adrian Sanders Philip Davies Jim Sheridan Paul Farrelly Mr Gerry Sutcliffe ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Lord Burns GCB, Chairman, David Abraham, Chief Executive, and Anne Bulford, Chief Operating Officer, Channel 4, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Good morning. This is the Committee’s We did submit the advertising to the Committee of annual session at which we take evidence on the Advertising Practice before we published and they did Channel 4 annual report. I would like to welcome this approve it. Subsequent to complaints, it was morning the Chairman of Channel 4 Lord Burns, the resubmitted and they re-approved it. It was only in the Chief Executive David Abraham, and the Chief more recent and detailed challenge that, out of four Operating Officer Anne Bulford. There is one quick executions in the campaign, complaints on two have small question that I hope we can clear up very been upheld. We would absolutely distinguish rapidly. Channel 4 has never at any time employed between the ill-advised writings of a relatively junior Jimmy Savile? member of staff and the overall approach of both the David Abraham: No. programme and the campaign. If I may add to that, it Chair: Good. In which case, I think what we will do is significant that the photography for the campaign is start off with one or two of the more controversial was conducted by a respected photographer whose issues of recent weeks and then move into the detail approach was entirely to observe the community of the report. I would like to welcome on board Ben rather than to construct situations. It is the case that Bradshaw, the latest recruit to the Select Committee, three out of the four posters were photographed in and invite him to begin. advance of that email being sent. So although we agree that the email is unacceptable, it did not inform Q2 Mr Bradshaw: It has become apparent in the overall approach that we feel was in keeping with correspondence to this Committee, but also through the approach of the programme. the media, that Channel 4’s behaviour over the Big Fat Gypsy Weddings programme has caused immense Q3 Mr Bradshaw: Is it not the case that the distress and upset in the Gypsy and Traveller photographer herself has expressed unhappiness with community, who quite clearly feel that so far Channel the way you have handled it? You refer to this 4 has not expressed a strong enough and categorical employee as a relatively junior employee, but did you enough apology. Would you like to take the not issue a press release when he was appointed, and opportunity to do that now? what, if any, action has been taken against him? David Abraham: Certainly. I think you are referring David Abraham: He has been formally reprimanded. to an email that a member of staff wrote in connection He has been put on to a training programme. He to the preparation of some photography and it happened to be a member of staff who had joined very absolutely and categorically did not reflect the recently. He reviewed the original set of photographs, approach of Channel 4. The individual has apologised. three out of four, as I said, that were used in the final We have formally apologised as well in terms of the campaign. He took a personal view to express to the reaction of members of the community to the photographer to take a more sensational approach, campaign, but it did not, as I say, reflect our approach which was not what the original brief to the to the programme. The research that we have done photographer was. She quite rightly challenged the in the programme absolutely reflects the fact that in individual. We have an email trail that demonstrates pursuing our remit and shining a light on marginal that challenge. We would say that the final outcome communities we have succeeded in informing the was in keeping with our overall approach, and that is public about this community and informing in new why we believe that the campaign was approved in its ways. In actual fact, the research suggests that three first outing with the ASA. times more people have a positive understanding of the community than they did before they saw the Q4 Damian Collins: I would like to continue with programme. The community itself, as we know, is some questions on that. Firstly, it is true to say that represented by many different groups and those Channel 4 has stated that they used a reputable people who participated in the programme and in the photographic journalist who has experience working advertising campaign were very comfortable with it. with Gypsy and Traveller communities. That is clear. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Ev 2 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford

It is also clear from her statement she did not know and took those photographs and put them next to a how the work was going to be used, she did not know headline that said “Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier.”, a what the headline was, she did not know about the standalone of two young girls, one of whom was 15 use of the word “Gypsier”, and she was very unhappy when the photograph was taken, wearing low-cut tops. about that. From my experience in advertising, it is I think that is irresponsible. I would hope that you very unusual for photographers not to know what their would think that was irresponsible too. work is going to be used for when they are given David Abraham: Despite the pre-publication the brief. checking that we did do, we accept the final outcome David Abraham: I would entirely agree with you. I and of course we will take on board the learning of think there is a certain amount of evolution in the this in terms of how advertising works out of context. story here, because we believe we were very clear Our audiences have come to expect our advertising to about the approach and the headline. About the be highly branded, to have a certain visual impact. We headline itself, obviously it is a play on a comedy have used photography for some years in our posters. movie that was used in the programme, and then it It is a shorthand for how we differentiate our brand in was adapted for the campaign. It was always intended a very cluttered marketplace. We are also tasked with to simply state that this was the second series and it pushing creative boundaries and taking risks. We did was more playful and bigger and more interesting than the same with our Paralympics campaign, which took the first. We did not withhold the information about creative risks. There were very detailed debates about the headline from the photographer, but we do aspects of that campaign and whether or not that understand that her view about the campaign evolved creative risk was acceptable. It comes with the as a result of the reaction. The posters are still on her territory. Of course, this is a dynamic area and we will website. We understand as someone who works learn from the findings. closely with the community that the debate about the reaction from parts of the community to the campaign Q7 Damian Collins: The advertising code is clear has to be heard—and she has heard them and we have that children should not be portrayed in a sexualised heard them. way. That girl was a child when the photograph was As to the point about the apology, we have taken. Even putting to one side the debate about how categorically apologised if we have offended sections old she was when the advert ran and whether or not of the community, but the fact remains that we are there was parental consent, in other areas of proud of the programme for its ability to shed a light advertising where age is an issue, great care is taken on the community overall. As we have said, our to make sure that someone is clearly not within the research demonstrates that it has enlightened the age group where they might be perceived to be a public about a community that they may have known minor. As you know, with gambling and alcohol very little about and may have had prejudices about. advertising someone has to be over 25 in the advert If it included aspects that were not singularly positive, so they don’t look like they might— that is really in the pursuit of balanced journalism and David Abraham: It is a subjective area, isn’t it? A balanced programme making, but there were many photograph of two girls going to a New Year’s Eve positive things in the programme and we are very party you are describing categorically as depiction in proud of it. a sexualised way and I think we have to be aware these are marginal calls. The picture was of two girls Q5 Damian Collins: I must admit, my greater at a party, dressed to go to a New Year’s Eve party. I concern from the Advertising Standards Authority’s would like to challenge the presumption that we chose ruling on the adverts was their statement, “That the photographs because they depicted a sexualised Channel 4 has acted irresponsibly by depicting a child message. We absolutely did not do that. in a sexualised way”. This refers to the poster of the two girls wearing low-cut tops, one of whom was 15 Q8 Damian Collins: The issue is how people when the photograph was taken. I think that is a clear interpret them, taken out of context, with the headline breach of the advertising code. The fact that she was that was put against them. The two girls were wearing 16 when the advert ran and the fact there was parental effectively what you might call, if it was a swimming consent for it is neither here nor there. I think that was costume, bikini-type tops, the bra of one of the girls very irresponsible. I would like to know who within is visually showing from underneath it, and they are Channel 4 was aware of the age of the girl when the very heavily made up. That may have been in the approval was given to run that advert? context of a party, but taken out of context and as it David Abraham: We took great care in getting both was portrayed, and given one of those two young the permissions from the individuals and from their ladies was only 15 at the time—the other was 18—I families. We absolutely were of the view that the child think that was wrong. The ASA’s finding that Channel was 16 when the advertising ran. Let’s remember that 4 behaved irresponsibly by depicting a child in a those photographs were taken at a New Year’s Eve sexualised way is a serious matter. party. Taken out of context, they could be described David Abraham: If the ASA had said that to us when in the way that you have just described them, but we we went to pre-vetting we would have reviewed the felt that they captured, because of the style of advertising. It cannot have been so categorically clear photography, the social activities of the community. on two rounds of review at the ASA that this was an overtly sexualised image. They are now describing it Q6 Damian Collins: With respect, Channel 4 was the thus because of the final finding, but you have to see organisation that took the photographs out of context it from our side as well. It was a marginal call. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 3

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford

Q9 Damian Collins: My concern is that this was not marketplace with a lot of competition and we want to flagged up in the organisation. Channel 4 has a history support producers to make the public aware of all the of very creative and impactful poster advertising and new shows that we have, but of course we must do so I think everyone in the advertising industry has always responsibly. We take that very seriously and these are applauded Channel 4 for that. I think that is what you very fine calls. I would like to say and I would like to should do, but in this case my concern is your internal think that in the majority of cases in the last 12 procedures did not raise the question of, “These girls months we have got it absolutely right. look quite young. How old are they? Regardless of whether we think we can do this, is this is a Q14 Mr Bradshaw: You said earlier “if” you had responsible thing for an organisation like Channel 4 offended sections of the community, you were sorry to do?” I don’t think it was responsible, and I think about that. That seems to imply that you don’t think the ASA was right in the ruling it gave. What is the you have offended the community. internal process for pre-approval for adverts? How David Abraham: Only because we do know that the high up in the organisation does the final clearance for sections of the community who have collaborated both advertising go? in the making of the programme and in the making of David Abraham: Obviously there is a compliance the advertising are very comfortable with the work process. If there are no compliance issues that are that we have done, but of course we recognise there being raised in the execution then it probably would are other sections of the community who have raised not be referred up. It would be approved by the senior these issues. We have absolutely sought to engage person responsible for marketing. It is only if there with them and our doors remain open for them to are legal or compliance issues would it be referred at engage with us. We have said that the series, for an executive level, otherwise we would not have a creative reasons, is not likely to carry on for ever. workable creative system. There may be some more episodes that will run next year. If we can learn from this experience from this Q10 Damian Collins: Are you shown adverts before part of the community we intend to do that. they run? Lord Burns: Could I add that at board level we keep David Abraham: I am shown the sort of spirit of the these things under review after the event? In the last campaign. In this instance I was aware of the overall two years we have reviewed the titles of some of the approach but not all the detail. programmes to see whether or not the titles depict accurately what is going to be on a programme. We Q11 Damian Collins: Were you shown the have also looked at promotions that we put on to see executions before they were— to what extent the promotion accurately reflects it, and David Abraham: Not the entire campaign in all its at some stage we will keep this under review as well. detail. I was shown the principal idea of the line and the idea of doing reportage photography. Remember That all takes place after the event, of course, but we this is very much coming from a programme that has are interested in learning from the past because, as been watched by up to 9 million people, that was an David has suggested, in many of these things—and it observational documentary about the mores, lifestyles, applies as well to titles and promos—you are coming practices and traditions of aspects of this community. quite close to the position with several of them where It was a programme that we felt did many positive there are some people whose initial reaction may not things and our intent was to celebrate, in an accurate necessarily be positive. We had the promo for the way, the community in its different aspects. It was Paralympics that in the end turned out to be an entirely done in an observational way. We will enormous hit that was played over and over again. absolutely learn from the findings in terms of how There were some people at the beginning who were things can be taken out of context. uncomfortable with some aspects of that promo. The executives take a judgment as to whether we should Q12 Damian Collins: Were you shown the advert run with it. After the event, when we have a few of that included the 15-year-old girl before it ran? things to look at, we try to assess whether or not we David Abraham: I can’t recall whether I saw the are on the right lines, whether we are getting too close specific advert. I definitely saw the advert with the to the line and whether the overall impact of them is gentleman with the horse and the one with the boy. what we want to see.

Q13 Damian Collins: When I worked in the Q15 Mr Sutcliffe: It is right that you do that and it advertising industry it was usually taken as a pretty is a positive step, but clearly when the ASA are as serious thing if your advertisement was pulled or it strong as they are in terms of their condemnation and was censured after it had run. Are you instigating any using the word “irresponsible”—I take David’s point kind of review process with 4 Creative as an about the fact that you are trying to show a minority organisation? You mentioned earlier an individual community in a positive light, and I accept that some who was responsible for briefing the photographer, but of that happened. I don’t know if you have seen the he was not the only person involved in this campaign. report from Brian Foster, the educational officer, in What conversations has Channel 4 had with 4 relation to the Traveller and Gypsy liaison officer, Creative about this work? who says there has been racist abuse, there has been David Abraham: Clearly we learn from all of these bullying at schools as a result of this campaign. Aren’t events but at the same time, as I said earlier, we must there still lessons to learn? Isn’t there still an create appropriate impact. We are in a very crowded opportunity to have discussions with the community cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Ev 4 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford about their concerns about the aftermath of this review things like titles and promotions. It is very programme? important that titles of programmes as they are being Lord Burns: It is important in all of these discussions advertised and the promotions do accurately reflect the that one distinguishes between the programme itself, nature and content and approach to the programme. the title of the programme and the advertising issue. We do like to keep that under review. At the same The only thing that is in question here—in terms of time, as David has pointed out, we have a very regulatory involvement—has been in relation to the crowded marketplace. Channel 4 has worked for some posters not in relation to the programme or the title of time to be able to establish a particular style of posters the programme. that identify it as being a Channel 4 programme that is being promoted. I might get myself into trouble Q16 Mr Sutcliffe: Mr Foster’s report to the ASA here, but I looked at a poster recently for our talks about the advertising campaign as being programme Hotel GB and I said to myself, “My responsible for some of the things that have goodness, I wonder if the people in the photograph happened subsequently. really like having their faces six inches from the Lord Burns: Yes, and that is why we have accepted camera,” but nevertheless it was quite clear that it was the findings of the standards board in relation to— a Channel 4 poster and one of the points of it is to David Abraham: We were just handed that research identify it as such. This one went too far. We have on our way here and we will obviously review it very had a finding about it, which we accept and are not carefully. We ourselves have not found direct evidence disputing. of those cases as a result of the advertising but we absolutely want to engage with the community in Q20 Chair: Do you feel in any way let down by the terms of how we move forward. ASA, given that you did go and seek their initial approval? Q17 Mr Sutcliffe: I think that is the point I am trying David Abraham: All of these decisions are subjective to make. You said at the outset you want to show and the public’s reaction, or sections of the public’s the positive aspects of the community to the wider reaction, is a relevant issue. We would have hoped audience, which is great, but if there is a problem that that, having had it both pre-cleared and post-cleared, clearly the community sees as being a problem, I think we would not have found ourselves in breach, and its incumbent upon you to continue to have those let’s remember we were not in breach on all counts. discussions. We were in breach on half of the counts, which is David Abraham: Absolutely, accepting, of course, significant. I would also like the Committee to always that in any balanced programme making not bear in mind that we keep our remit front and centre everything in these programmes will be perceived to of all of our decision-making and if the remit asks us be positive by everyone in the community. What is to speak and shed a light on marginal communities we important is that it is balanced. We are very confident should push ourselves to do that and do it in a way that the programme is balanced, and that is why if that is original and fresh. We do absolutely regret that there were to be any challenges about the programme, parts of the community have not reacted in the way we will defend it vigorously. that we intended but our intention has always been clear. To be found irresponsible by the ASA is, from Q18 Mr Sutcliffe: I understand and accept that, but our point of view, very regrettable, because our I think you said earlier in response to Mr Bradshaw intention was to deliver on our remit. that if you have caused upset to the community, you would issue an apology and, really, we are looking for Q21 Chair: Do you think the ASA ought to look at a public apology for the advertising campaign. its procedures, given that they told you that the David Abraham: We have publicly apologised to this complaints were unlikely to be upheld and then the group within the community who clearly have been finding was pretty severe in upholding those offended by the campaign, and we are happy to complaints? apologise today as well. David Abraham: I think that is a matter for them, and also we should respect the democratic process for all Q19 Chair: Isn’t part of the problem, that you rightly pressure groups to find a voice and say what they draw attention to the achievement of the programme think. Channel 4 supports all groups being heard, and in perhaps conveying a more positive image, but the we have no issue with that. posters will have been seen by probably four times Lord Burns: The appeals process is a natural part of the number of people who watch the programme and all kinds of things, including the law courts, and I therefore any beneficial effect of the programme is think one has to live with the fact that decisions can going to be far outweighed by the negative impact of be subject to appeal. I have no complaint about that those advertisements? at all. David Abraham: I am not entirely sure for a programme that is seen by up to 9 million people Q22 Damian Collins: Would Channel 4 be able to whether that is necessarily the case. The posters only send the Committee a copy of the evidence that was ran for two or so weeks; it was a relatively short given as pre-clearance for the adverts, the evidence campaign. The overall reach of the programme over that was submitted in advance? I imagine that the two series will be much more significant. document would have been sent in as a fairly routine Lord Burns: The point I was making earlier relates to thing. Following on from the Chairman’s point, it that very issue as to why we have to keep under would be interesting to know whether at pre-clearance cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 5

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford they were aware of the age of the girl in the advert in So we were extremely pleased about the reaction, particular and also whether they were told that all of given the fact that for the majority of the population the photographs were simply reportage-style they had spent very little time with the Paralympics photographs, where clearly some of them were before. The BBC had done a good job covering it in contrived to portray a meaning that Channel 4 was prior years, but if truth be told the reach and the seeking from the camera. impact of the event up until now was modest and so David Abraham: No, that is not true. Only one of the many multiples more of people saw this event. It was four photographs was taken after the ill-advised email. absolutely helped by the wave of energy through Three out of the four posters that ran were taken London 2012 and the momentum. I think many people before that email was written. The original brief to the feared that perhaps there might have been fatigue photographer was to do observational photographs, going into the Paralympics and that absolutely was not photographs done in the style of the email. not the case. We are very pleased also that our campaign helped to fill the stadiums and create a lot Q23 Damian Collins: But one of the adverts that was of positive energy. submitted for pre-clearance came after the email was sent. Q26 Philip Davies: How did the viewing figures David Abraham: But the complaint was not upheld meet your objectives? on that poster. David Abraham: They were at the absolute top end Lord Burns: It was not contrived either, because the of our scenario planning. We could never have been photographer makes quite clear in her response that absolutely sure because it was a first, but we had a she does not do contrived photographs. range of scenarios and it absolutely hit the top end. It David Abraham: She did absolutely the right thing reached over 80% of the population during the course and she referred back to the original brief she had of the event, and we had our greatest ratings for nearly discussed with the more senior person. 10 years for the opening event, which peaked at nearly 11 million and peaked at around 7 million for the Q24 Damian Collins: But I would be interested to closing ceremony. We had a wonderful evening of know whether they were aware of the age of the girl. sport on the Thursday night when Jonnie Peacock won They find that is a very clear breach of the code, the 100 metres and beat Pistorius. These were regardless of the rest of the style of the campaign, and highlights that in a way matched the highlights of the I think, following on the Chairman’s point, it would Olympic Games. be interesting to see what information they had in advance of the adverts running. Q27 Philip Davies: Did the coverage realise a profit David Abraham: Yes, we will happily provide that for Channel 4 or did you run it at a loss? evidence. David Abraham: All of the work we did prior to the event—the commitment that we made to run Q25 Philip Davies: Can I ask you about the documentaries and magazine programmes like the Paralympic Games, which I think we can all agree Paralympic Show that we produced in Wales—was was a great success? Did Channel 4 succeed in all it effectively produced at a loss in the sense that it hoped to with its coverage of the Paralympics? required a subsidy from the rest of the business. The David Abraham: We did. This was obviously a event itself we had to invest probably slightly more hugely ambitious and in many ways unknown than we expected in terms of ensuring, once we had endeavour. No broadcaster in the world had ever seen the Olympics, that all of the camera coverage attempted to broadcast the Paralympics in full; nearly was good and that we could produce a quality 500 hours in total across all of the streams. It stretched experience for the viewer. So the cost went up and the us to the absolute limit. It required us to make the good news is because the ratings were up we managed public aware of the event for two years in the run- to broadly break even on the event itself. up and then do what proved to be a very successful marketing campaign to make them aware so that the Q28 Philip Davies: It was obviously a massive Olympics did not drown out and soak up all of the event. Is there anything that you would do differently attention. It challenged us because we made a if you were to do it next time? commitment to bring in a new generation of young David Abraham: One of the very interesting presenters on to the presentation team and disabled conversations we are now involved in with the presenters who also had detailed knowledge of International Paralympic Committee, because of Paralympic sport. When you take all of those course they are about to make a decision about Rio, challenges together and you put that into an 11-day is what is the effect of having more broadcasters from event, we feel it was one of our greatest achievements around the world covering the event. My and something that we are extremely proud of, but understanding was that the broadcast centre down at more importantly the public’s reaction to the Stratford had nearly 15,000 people in it during the Paralympics has been quite remarkable. In terms of Olympics from nearly 200 countries. When the the research results that we have recently got back, Paralympics began there were a small handful of over 75% of the people who watched the Paralympics countries that were there in force. One of the great had never seen any Paralympic sport at all. Over 80% things is that we now have a benchmark for a country of the people felt that the quality of what was done in covering it as deeply as the Olympics and that will the Paralympics was equal to what the BBC did with enable the broadcast service provider of the feed to the Olympics. cover all of the events. There were some events, such cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Ev 6 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford as those at Brands Hatch with the cycling and the road has introduced new entertainment talent from the race on the last day, where the camera coverage was disabled community. We are very committed across not what we would have liked it to be. That was no the genres and the Paralympic Show, the magazine fault of OBS. It was simply that the economics of show, will also come back as well, so you should being at every event with as many cameras as the expect to see more from us in this area over the next Olympics is not quite where the Paralympic few years. movement is yet. We believe that with the momentum that is now coming we can assist in the process of Q32 Paul Farrelly: Can I congratulate you on the encouraging other countries to do deeper coverage. Paralympics? It was absolutely compulsive viewing. It was no doubt enhanced by the fact that you couldn’t Q29 Philip Davies: Have you done any research or get a ticket or a day pass for love nor money so, will you do any research into the impact that the “What is this that we can’t get into?” It was absolutely Paralympics and your coverage of it has had on fantastic. I was addicted in particular to wheelchair people’s attitudes towards disability more generally? basketball by the end, so I would encourage you to David Abraham: Yes, indeed. In fact, we do have show more of that. I have a curiosity question. When some initial findings on that very topic and they are I first turned it on I thought, “That’s the lady from the extremely positive. The combination of sporting BBC.” How did you get Clare Balding? Did the BBC achievement and very compelling life stories of the loan her to you as a national treasure, much like you individual competitors has absolutely encouraged a might apply to the National Gallery for the loan of a new and fresh view of that part of our society and that painting? How did you land Clare? has to be a good thing for the future. David Abraham: Clare has been really committed to Paralympic sport for many years, she is deeply Q30 Philip Davies: Many people found the whole knowledgeable about it, and it was a no-brainer. She event inspirational, and I think particularly the focus wanted to be part of what we were doing. on what people can do rather than what people can’t Lord Burns: She is not under exclusive contract at do is the key thing from it. I wondered what Channel the BBC. 4’s plans were now more widely in its programming David Abraham: She is not under exclusive contract. to build on what it has done with the Paralympics to do other things that focus on disability, and perhaps Q33 Paul Farrelly: We are used to anchors, aren’t build on the theme of what people with disabilities we, on the programmes? can do rather than what they can’t do. David Abraham: Yes. Interestingly, she was the David Abraham: Absolutely, yes. We have a great anchor of our primetime show. Her role as we saw it tradition of programming in this area and in fact this at the BBC was quite different to that. It was a more year we have had a great success with a show about specialised role. We had a lot of fun and it was great disabled dating, called The Undateables, that has had to see the pairings of the more familiar presenters a very positive impact and a very good, wide through the day working with the new presenters, and audience. The critical thing we have focused on since that was a big creative risk. Nothing like this has ever the Paralympics is the team of presenters, the young been attempted before where presenters who have had presenters that we trained up ready for the event. We almost no onscreen experience worked for hours at a have announced recently that there is a fund that has time on a big national event. The dynamics between been provided to them of £250,000 that will ensure Clare and Ade and all of the other pairings worked in that they will get work, both with us and in the a very special way, and we are looking forward to industry, presenting not just in Paralympic sports working with them all in the future. programmes but in news programmes. We have the horse racing coverage coming. Diana Man, for Q34 Paul Farrelly: I will just congratulate you example, who did the equestrian events, will be again. The presentation was refreshing, it was hopefully working with us on that coverage. informative and it was funny. It was fantastic. Absolutely to your point, allowing these presenters to Lord Burns: I went to a number of events, including appear across our programming and across other the wheelchair rugby and some cycling, as well as genres is part of our plan. being fortunate enough to be there on that Thursday night. I was doing the presentation on two occasions Q31 Philip Davies: Beyond the presenters, which I and I was also at the Thursday night with the sprint appreciate, in terms of the portrayal of people with final. As many people know, I am quite an addicted disabilities more widely, you mentioned The sports spectator, and the thing that came over to me Undateables. Do you have any plans for other most of all is that great sport is great sport. When you programmes, just for argument’s sake, that will show combine that kind of competition with an audience people with disabilities getting into employment, to that is hugely enthusiastic and you are told about it show again what they can do rather than what they and you understand it and it is also very competitive, can’t do? Is that type of thing on your agenda? regardless of whether it is the Paralympics or the David Abraham: Absolutely, and those types of Olympics, it has a very similar effect, certainly upon programmes are constantly in development. We also me, and I think many of the people who were have entertainment and comedy programmes that are watching it. I don’t think there was any difference working in that space. One of the greatest delights for between that Thursday night and super Saturday. I was us was the Adam Hills show, The Last Leg, that ran in the stadium on both occasions and I thought that as a wrap-up show at the end of every evening. That the experience was very similar. One of the striking cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 7

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford things to me was the way in which sport itself was the budget in Film4, what we are continuing to achieve in thing that came out so strongly from those events. news and current affairs. If you take shows like Educating Essex, 24 Hours in A&E, Hugh’s Fish Fight Q35 Mr Sutcliffe: What you said there is exactly and Sri Lanka from this report, or from this year right: sport was the winner. Also as the chair of the shows like The Undateables, which we have All Party Group on Disability Sports I think there is a mentioned, Make Bradford British and Homeland, great opportunity for Channel 4 now to speak to the these are shows that we believe have quality and value sporting organisations like UK Sport, Sport England in providing viewer choice but are not necessarily and the Youth Sport Trust about how we develop captured by the strict measures. But the metrics are disability sport in this country. I think the expertise entirely going in a positive direction. I think you that you get and the information that the programme pushed me last time and said would we spend more. I showed prior to the Paralympics is a great source that said I hoped to, and indeed we have. This is a report should work within sport as perhaps a bit of an income that demonstrates that Channel 4, in very challenging generator to talk to those bodies about how they can circumstances, is continuing to deliver to its remit help you help them to understand disability sport. very strongly, way beyond the minimum requirements David Abraham: Absolutely. One of the other of the remit, and it has done so in a way that has innovations, of course, was the Lexi Decoder that enabled us also to increase our cash reserves over this explained all the classification systems in all the period. When taken as a whole, we would say that the different events, not a straightforward thing to convey. public service delivery of Channel 4 has continued to Again, it was a creative challenge that I think was met evolve over the last two years. in a very original way. Q38 Chair: Certainly it appears that while there has Q36 Jim Sheridan: You will be aware that people with disabilities live with their disability for more than been a significant increase, and that is something we three weeks, they live with them for a lifetime. I am would welcome, it has focused on particular genres delighted that you have had some positive research, in like comedy and entertainment. I think we would response to Philip Davies’ request, that some positive remain concerned about some of the others. research had come out of the Paralympics. I wondered Lord Burns: Drama in series and singles is also a if you could share that with the Government to category that increases sharply. counterbalance the negative stuff we get from the David Abraham: There are some anomalies in the tabloids that the people on disability benefits, for presentation because Big Brother was coded as a instance, are all scroungers, and other words that are factual programme, and so once you take that out it used. would appear that some of those metrics have gone David Abraham: We will share that with all interested down. parties, yes. Q39 Chair: I wanted to ask you about that. The Q37 Chair: Can we now look in a little more detail report says that the number of hours of factual at some of the findings in the annual report? We, in programming has gone down from over 2,000 to this Committee, have pressed you in the past to give 1,000. I assume that is entirely due to Big Brother? greater detail, particularly about your investment in David Abraham: Exactly. original content. One of the breakdowns that we did suggest was that you should give more detail about Q40 Chair: What have you, therefore, filled that investment in each of the genres and distinguish gap with? between acquisition and originated content. That is David Abraham: That money has gone into many something you have not yet felt able to do. other genres, as I said last time. It has gone into drama David Abraham: We have shared some of that detail and comedy and more documentaries, and we think it in the last session confidentially. We did explain that has helped to diversify the schedule and make it much there are certain pricing metrics that we do believe are more varied. One of the great bits of news to report commercially sensitive. Be that as it may, the good news is that in this report you will see that using the from this year is that two-thirds of the highest rating Ofcom traditional measurements of public service programmes on Channel 4 this year are new investment there has been quite a marked increase programmes. I think if you go back two or three years from £145 million to £187 million, which we believe and the debate around whether the schedule had is very encouraging. But of course we would want to become too dominated by Big Brother, we have gone also stand back and remind the Committee that so through quite an extensive shift in the balance of the much of what we do elsewhere in our schedule we schedule and we believe that the Channel 4 schedule would describe as public service. Indeed, using the continues to become more diverse as time goes on. Ofcom measures, ironically the Paralympics would We rely less than some of our commercial competitors not be included, which of course is clearly not a on individual big titles that have been around for comprehensive view of the impact of what we are many years. Part of our remit is to innovate and do doing. new things and that is a testing and challenging The Statement of Media Content Policy is really the process for the commissioning team but it is one we overall metric that we have used since the last Bill to are very committed to. measure our impact and we are very proud of what Chair: Can we look at various specific areas, starting we have been able to achieve through the increased with Ben Bradshaw? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Ev 8 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford

Q41 Mr Bradshaw: Can you outline to us what you of choice. If you look at it on a long-term basis, are doing to fulfil your obligation under the Digital Channel 4 has held up reasonably well versus its Economy Act and your own stated ambition to terrestrial competitors. On a short-term basis, it is a improve the content for older children? challenge but it is one that I believe we are meeting David Abraham: Certainly. In terms of programming well. Why do I say that? The level of decline on that appeals to that age group we focus on what we Channel 4 is actually reducing. The level of decline do in our core schedule and what we do in the digital in 2011 we could attribute almost wholly to the end space. We have had great success with a new show of Big Brother and this year we brought in a new called Fresh Meat, which deals with the transition innovation on Channel 4. It is called 4seven, and from school to university. That has now been extended 4seven is designed to give an extra window to new into an online proposition. The issues that that show shows on Channel 4 that are creating a lot of deals with we say are generally part of what we conversation from that week. We are using digital deliver to that group. We are in production at the media to allow viewers to talk about the programmes moment with a series for teenagers called My Fat Mad and reshow them in hours and days following their Teenage Diary, based on a very popular book. It is first transmission. In its first few months 4seven has about teenage obesity and self-image. That is going to already clawed back some of the share loss that come on to the E4 schedules in a few months time. Channel 4 experienced in the first half of this year. We continue to have great success with our citizenship Of course all terrestrial channels have had a really programme for young people called Battlefront, which competitive year with the Jubilee, with great tennis has won several Digital Emmys and continues to be and the great Olympics. Those are non-commercial strong online and has also been manifested in a TV audiences, obviously, and it is the case that Channel programme. So that is for the older children. 4, while it has faced a very competitive year, has done Obviously E4 is the strongest digital channel for somewhat better than ITV1 and BBC Two, for 16–34s in this country and it gives us a great platform example, facing that competition. to showcase original content and original voices for young people, albeit that it is a digital channel and it Q44 Chair: Would you accept, however, that the vast has a different kind of repeat schedule to Channel 4. majority of your public service genre content is on the main Channel 4 channel and therefore, if that is Q42 Mr Bradshaw: So you would contest the slowly continuing to decline, then the number of suggestion from the Children’s Media Foundation that people who are seeing your public service content is you have not really done much so far? They could by definition falling? only detect one new programme called Nightmare David Abraham: Due to those forces that we have High, which was an interactive Grange Hill type of just talked about, proliferation of choice, both online story-based programme. and in digital linear platforms, inevitably there is David Abraham: The question you originally put to pressure on reach but the reach over the period of me was about older teenagers, so that is how I a week is still extremely strong. We still have very answered that. We have a whole slate of projects for significant impact. It is the case that we run our younger children. The most prominent of those is portfolio as a portfolio, so we do repeat the about to come at Christmas because we have remade programmes across the different digital channels and the original Snowman movie, which will come in the make the best use we can of them. What we are run-up to Christmas, which we are very excited about. increasingly seeing is that many of our programmes We have three projects, Cover Girl, Nightmare High can double their overall share if you consolidate the and a game on Facebook called Beauty Town. All of ratings over a period of days and weeks and include these deal with issues of self-image, transition all of the different catch-up services. So I think this is between junior school and senior school, and are very as much a reflection of changing habits as it is innovative projects for which we have won awards. anything specific to do with Channel 4. This is one So we have made some good progress. Do we remain reason why—and I talked about this last time as a committed to doing more? Yes, we do. I would strategy but we have now executed on it—we have highlight to the Committee that obviously so much of set about a much more direct relationship with our our primetime schedule we would say is educative in viewers than any other broadcaster is attempting. In its nature and creates massive conversation among the period of the first 18 months we have invited and young people. If you take a show like The recruited over 5 million of our viewers, at a rate of Undateables, there is an unbelievably young profile almost 10,000 a day, to register with Channel 4 in for the show and very positive discussions among order to access content on 4oD and to enter young people about issues that probably they are not competitions and get involved with us. This week, for getting from other channels. example, we are running our first very big fundraising event, Stand Up To Cancer, which we are doing in Q43 Chair: Can I look at audience share? You have concert with Cancer Research UK. maintained, indeed slightly improved, your overall These events are a great way of having direct contact share of viewing, but it is the case that the share of with viewers, and part of our future is more regularly the main channel has continued to fall. Is that being in direct contact with our viewers. That will something that is causing you concern? inform a different measurement system that will David Abraham: Like all terrestrial channels over the evolve in the years to come, which will combine all last 10 years, with digital switchover there has been of the accumulated viewings of a piece of content erosion due to the fragmentation and the proliferation together with its broader impact and a level of cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 9

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford connection directly with the audience. Channel 4 is comedy and entertainment as well as drama after 6 very strong in that engagement with the audience. It pm. Does that mean Channel 4 reaches more 16 to has always been very competitive. Our programming 34-year-olds in absolute numbers than the other public is distinctive and advertisers do engage with us service broadcasters? through sponsorships and deployment of our airtime David Abraham: Most of the time that is correct. because of that. Obviously when there are big shows on other channels they will have a higher volume but the profile of Q45 Chair: This would apply not just to you but to Channel 4’s primetime audience is absolutely superior other broadcasters, but do you therefore see the to our competitors. That is important because it is traditional measures of number of viewers and reach back to the Channel 4 brand and what the audience and so on as essentially becoming outmoded because expects to find on Channel 4 and the kind of topics of the different ways people access the material? they would expect to see explored. But in both David Abraham: I wouldn’t say they are becoming commercial terms and in public value terms that is outmoded. I think we are going to move to a more correct. sophisticated series of measures to get to the heart of both commercial value and public value, and those Q47 Mr Sanders: Your own figures show that the will evolve over time. Our own annual report shows proportion of your viewers aged 16 to 34 is greater that we have evolved those accountability structures than, for example, the BBC. Is it not likely that over time. Channel 4 reaches significantly fewer 16 to 34-year- Lord Burns: We share the ambition, and what you are olds than either ITV or the BBC in terms of actual saying is that clearly it is in our interests to keep the numbers? viewing figures for the main channel as stable as David Abraham: Well, if you are talking to an possible. As David said, it has been a tough time in advertiser, they want to buy efficiently, so if they are recent years as more and more choice has become trying to talk to young people, they will only want to available to more and more families. It is not buy young people. The proportion of young people surprising that viewing has fragmented as people have and efficiency of the audience is the critical measure. made their choices about what it is that they want to If you are talking about public value, there are watch. But the main channel is very important to us. probably many parts of the schedule where we do It is where we put most of our new commissioned deliver a higher volume. Of course, against very big programming and, as you say, it is where we do have shows and other channels, the volume will be less. the largest amount of intensive public-service This is to do with targeting and profile as opposed to television. All of the broadcasters have faced similar absolute volume at different times of the day. pressure and what they are all doing is much the same as Channel 4, which is to have a portfolio of channels Q48 Mr Sanders: I think the news programmes where you then try to manage your whole portfolio of broadcast— programming, including repeats, in order to engage as David Abraham: E4 is the biggest single channel for wide an audience as possible. young people both in terms of profile and in terms David Abraham: We would also contend that those of volume, so it has more young viewers even than channels are capable of delivering public value. Last Channel 5. night on More4 we had a wonderful documentary with Richard Dawkins talking about religion and science. Q49 Chair: I understand your argument that perhaps We have had a very strong series about art and about advertisers may want to target and, therefore, do not film on More4 in the last year or so. These have been want a programme for which 75% of the viewers are well-reviewed, high-quality pieces of content. not in the demographic they are targeting. But the Remember we are spending between £30 million and actual point that in terms of absolute numbers it is £40 million on original content on our digital likely that more 16 to 34-year-olds are going to be channels. So, while we agree with the premise that it reached by the BBC or ITV; do you accept that? is Channel 4 where we deliver the majority of public David Abraham: It depends on what time of day you value, it is not the case that we deliver no public are talking about because if you are talking about who value elsewhere. is—where are the young people in the middle of the Lord Burns: Digital switchover is now complete. The day, they are probably watching E4. pattern of the decline has been very much affected by the penetration of digital television into different Q50 Mr Sanders: Yes; well, the figures were for regions, so as the different regions get it and as people after 6 pm in your report, so they were not about take on the digital service then that fragmentation daytime viewing figures. becomes apparent. We are now at the end of that David Abraham: We could certainly provide you with journey. I think we will probably see some greater a whole series of measures of both volume and profile stability of the numbers as a result. and you can get those proportions to compare. Lord Burns: Yes. Q46 Mr Sanders: Statistics can be really David Abraham: The fact is that, yes, a big show like complicated. I am trying to get my head around some X Factor will deliver a higher volume but a lower of the statistics in the 2011 report, and comparing profile. them with other broadcasters is not easy. The 2011 Lord Burns: I have not got them to hand, but I suspect report shows that Channel 4 has a higher proportion in terms of the absolute number that the BBC and ITV of 16 to 34-year-old viewers for genres such as numbers are higher than the Channel 4 numbers but cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Ev 10 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford the difference between them will be much smaller own behaviour you will find that you watch fewer than it is for the total. We do better amongst that group standard half-hour or one-hour news programmes than in absolute numbers than we would do for other you did a few years ago. groups. David Abraham: I think the thing we look at is how Q53 Mr Sanders: I think we are fairly atypical— many parts of primetime are we delivering both the Lord Burns: No, no, but I find myself that I get my highest profile and the highest volume. There are news from all kinds of other sources—not only do you many occasions where we are doing that. have 24-hour news services, but you have news on the Lord Burns: We are doing both. Internet and news by a whole series of ways in which David Abraham: We are doing both, but we can news summaries get pushed to us. This is affecting certainly provide you with more detail. behaviour and we have to work very hard. It means that we are facing a bit of a head wind when it comes Q51 Mr Sanders: The news programmes broadcast to keeping people for an hour to watch a news on the main Channel 4 channel experienced a programme when they can obtain their news in so reduction of viewers between the ages of 16 and 34 many different ways—and comment as well. and only a small increase in black and minority ethnic viewers. Now, are you concerned by these figures and to what do you attribute them? Q54 Chair: Both you and the BBC produce 15- David Abraham: Certainly it is something we are minute brief figures, but the BBC is a weekly figure, focusing on. The viewing to news programmes is whereas you use a monthly figure that arguably is not changing for all broadcasters and this is not an issue quite as challenging. that is very specific to Channel 4. Behaviours are David Abraham: Yes. changing. People are finding their news online, 24- hour news channels are much more established now, Q55 Chair: Why don’t you use a weekly figure? but what we focus on is the absolute distinctiveness David Abraham: The data is available and if you want of the Channel 4 news proposition. An hour of in- to have it, we will provide it to you. depth news analysis in early primetime is still, we think, an unbelievably important public service Q56 Chair: I think we would appreciate that. The attribute. We have refreshed the programme in the last other thing I just want to quickly touch upon, you year. We have a bigger presenting team. Michael have a number of licence obligations which are targets Crick and Matt Frei have joined us. We are very proud that you are set to achieve and actually in most cases of the programme and the fact that it won a BAFTA you exceed them by quite a significant way. Do you this year. It does more international coverage than our think, therefore, they should be made a bit tougher? competitors and it is regarded by viewers as the most David Abraham: Which aspects? independent broadcast news programme in the UK that we think is very important. What we are doing is Q57 Chair: There are a whole series of targets for focusing on investing in the programme. In fact, you will see we are spending more on news and current things like independent production and number of affairs in 2011 and we remain committed to our hours for schools and subtitling. Actually, you are way investment. It is a creative challenge that we remain ahead of most of those, are you not? very focused on. David Abraham: We regard these metrics as absolute minimum requirements of what it is we are actually Q52 Mr Sanders: Despite the revamping, despite the seeking to do. The Statement of Media Content policy recent Twitter and social media which I have seen has and the Programme Quality Standards that the board become part of the overall package that the news sets, the executive, are the stretching targets that we programme offers, you have seen this reduction in this work to. I think if we can comfortably meet those key age group. What is it attributed to? minimum requirements, then we should focus on the David Abraham: Well, a slight clarification. When the added value aspects of what it is that we are also riots happened in 2011, we had a very large spike in trying to do. young viewers coming to the channel, and some of A lot of effort has gone in to engaging with nations what you are seeing is the prolonged euro crisis, the and regions in terms of the production base since Jay nature of some of the news stories themselves, but Hunt arrived. Both of us have personally been several there are certainly occasions where we do see that we times to engage with producers and we have an Alpha are the first port of call for young audiences when big Fund that has been in play for some time now that is events occur. The brand is still very strong, and I think succeeding in creating a conveyor of new companies this is something we keep working at. But we are very, that are beginning to work with Channel 4. This takes very proud of the show and the fact that it does what time, but that has been the big leap forward in terms it does so distinctively. of what we discussed last time in terms of engaging Lord Burns: This is another striking case to me of with producers from around the country because, of where the whole issue of fragmentation is affecting course, our view is it entirely underpins the diversity the viewing figures. In this case it is not just of our schedule. fragmentation across the number of channels, but it is Lord Burns: That said, in monitoring this, I pay more also other ways of people receiving news. We, as attention to how we are doing one year compared to David said, try very hard. We are putting a lot of another on these measures than I do by comparison investment into it. But I suspect if you look at your with the minimum requirement. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 11

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford

Chair: We are going to come on to nations and There is an accounting deficit that is drawing down regions very shortly, but, just before we do, Paul on the surplus that you will see in the 2012 numbers Farrelly. and you will see them over the next two to three years. What we then see is a stabilisation in the outer years Q58 Paul Farrelly: I am tasked with turning to your of our plan because we see the online video and other finances, but in October 2012 asking about your 2011 connected TV markets opening up because they will annual report is rather like asking about the Beijing compete much more effectively with direct marketing Olympics, quite frankly. You have both, or all of you expenditure that marketeers are currently deploying really, have had the great fortune, unlike Michael out of print and into online. This is the key thing. Grade at ITV, of being in post when TV advertising We increasingly look at the advertising market in its has been buoyant and not in the doldrums. As you are totality, not necessarily the segment that was reliant on TV advertising in great amount, can you traditional TV because if more and more of our just say how it is now, and how you see the next content is available through connected devices— couple of years? which it is—then that opens up many more David Abraham: Yes, yes. I would not describe the opportunities to do things in new segments of the last two or three years as buoyant. overall market. Paul Farrelly: Relatively buoyant. Lord Burns: Yes. Q60 Paul Farrelly: When I looked at your balance David Abraham: What happened is that there was a sheet with nearly £250 million cash last year, and I calamitous experience in 2008. There was a deep speculated it would otherwise be nearly £300 million depression in TV advertising revenues which from this year, the temptation is to ask you whether to use 2010 was mostly recovered. In actual fact, 2011 ended Terry’s experience at the bank, quite frankly. But you just around flat. This year will probably end, we hoped are saying that— flat, slightly down and sentiment is not necessarily David Abraham: We did do a show called Bank of looking at all buoyant for the TV market going into Dave, which was a great show on that topic. But no, the early months of next year because, of course, we you should not expect that figure to remain over the do not have any of these exciting events to engage next two or three years. We are drawing it down in a with advertisers. controlled way, as you will see in these accounts in the Things do remain very challenging, but what we focus next couple of years. We have gone from a position on is the way in which the traditional segment of TV of Channel 4, as it were, within the overall accounts, advertising is evolving. We have very considerable delivering a surplus to fund for development of our momentum in online video where 4oD is the market digital activities. You are now seeing surpluses in the leader and we have, as you have seen in our results, digital activities funding the public service delivery of growing revenues in that area to complement the Channel 4 which, we would say, is very much as it revenues we already have in our digital channels. The should be. It is a transparent model. I think there was diversification of the Channel 4 model is starting to some concern in previous years in this Committee that occur, and we have successful commercial somehow Channel 4 was funding commercial partnerships as well that are starting to bear fruit. activities. The opposite is really the case. Whilst it is the case that we still are in general terms an ad-funded business, the traditional 30-second spot is definitely something that is only part, not the whole, Q61 Paul Farrelly: Just without revealing any of the revenue model. From a financial point of view, commercial secrets, do you have any intentions to in those two prior years, we were able to store up launch additional revenue streams with the problems reserves additional to what we feel is the comfortable that you are—new channels, new— threshold of £200 million, you see a figure of north of David Abraham: We don’t have any—well we have £290 million in these results. I think that is why the obviously launched 4seven this year. We are in the stability of Channel 4 is more sure at this stage of the second year of a very fruitful partnership with UKTV cycle than perhaps it was coming out of 2008. representing their advertising sales. We have What we have also said, when we delivered these obviously had great success with the Inbetweeners results publicly earlier in the year, is that because of movie and the sale of those DVDs, all of which have that stability we intend to use some of those reserves contributed to the revenues beyond the traditional to deliver the public service on Channel 4 over the television area. But do we have plans to launch a radio next two to three years. Effectively we are taking station or buy a magazine? No, we don’t. this accounting— Lord Burns: Could I make a point? As David says, the reserves that we had at the end of last year are Q59 Paul Farrelly: In which way? higher than we think are necessary for the ongoing David Abraham: Taking the surplus above £200 health of the company and it is our intention to bring million and distributing it and smoothing it into the them down. In part it is to finance some of the next two or three years. When we come to see you additional expenditure of using new methods of next year, you should expect to see a reasonable transmission and new methods of reaching our proportion of that £90 odd million being allocated into viewers. We are also putting a lot of emphasis upon the public service delivery of Channel 4 and using it to be able to afford the content that we think particularly obviously in 2012 when, as we said, we that we should be putting on. It is that, rather than the had many of the extra investments around the idea of investing it in some grand scheme of things Paralympics. that we are concentrating on. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Ev 12 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford

Q62 Paul Farrelly: A possible future demand on comes out of Cardiff. We have done 4thought.TV that your finances might be paying for spectrum that you comes out of Northern Ireland and there have been would probably get for free. What sort of impact a series of great one-off documentaries coming from would that have? Northern Ireland as well. The combination of nations David Abraham: It would be very concerning to us and regions and also new companies, helping new were spectrum pricing to be imposed because companies to get going, we are making a lot of effectively it would mean that we would have to pull progress. I was extremely pleased and proud that in money out of delivering public service content. the Broadcast Survey, Channel 4 was voted by Money would go from producers to Ofcom. So we producers in the UK as the best broadcaster to work absolutely would discourage that line of thinking. with for the first time in six years. We are making progress, not complacent and we want to see many Q63 Paul Farrelly: How much might that potentially more shows coming from the nations in the future. cost you if you— We are quietly confident that that will happen. David Abraham: It is tens of millions potentially, so Lord Burns: We are putting a lot of effort into it. we are very concerned about it. David Abraham: And there is a lot of effort. Jay does workshops very regularly up there. Our Q64 Paul Farrelly: That would presumably have an commissioners are tasked with ensuring that the Alpha impact on— Fund projects, which start small, end up being David Abraham: Yes, it would come straight of the primetime shows. There are a growing number of programme budget. examples of shows like The Queen’s Cousins that are made by companies that have never done a primetime Q65 Chair: Would you accept the argument that show for Channel 4 and they got the first show to spectrum pricing actually will lead to a more efficient work for us. use of spectrum? Obviously, your having to pay for it is going to come out of your bottom line, so if Ofcom Q69 Jim Sheridan: I can understand the shows you were to, for reasons of efficiency, introduce spectrum have identified but the BBC, warts and all, does try to pricing, would you hope to receive some kind of reflect the aspirations, the desires and the life of public support to take the place of the free spectrum people in various communities. support you get at present? David Abraham: And so, and so— David Abraham: As Lord Burns said, we are already spending a high proportion of our income on Q70 Jim Sheridan: What is Channel 4 doing? distribution costs than ever before. We are continuing David Abraham: Representation is something that we to pay EPG fees to pay platforms. Although they are work incredibly hard on. If you look at the casting of reducing, we are still paying them. So if we were to any of our shows, our regular shows like Come Dine deliver to our remit, we would be very concerned of with Me, Million Pound Drop Live, Hollyoaks, you an additional cost. It is not obviously for us to instruct will see it is important for us to make sure the casting regulatory solutions; we are just simply highlighting and representation of our shows is as balanced as it the concern we have about our ability to continue to possibly can be. I think we have a very good record remain competitive in a technological sense with the both in terms of regionality and gender and additional challenge that this would represent. communities there.

Q66 Chair: You are having that discussion with Q71 Jim Sheridan: Hopefully this time next year we Ofcom, are you? will see an increase in production outside of London? David Abraham: Yes. David Abraham: You will see that. Lord Burns: Yes. Lord Burns: Yes.

Q67 Jim Sheridan: Thank you, Chair. David, Q72 Jim Sheridan: Another question, you will notwithstanding your previous comments on regional probably guess, coming from somebody who is from diversity, it does seem that the production, the Scotland, in the unlikely event that the UK breaks up, proportion of production in the rest of the UK has what impact, if any, would that have on Channel 4 fallen compared to 2010 and it worries some of us, and the rest of the UK? particularly north of the Watford Gap. What Lord Burns: I was proposing to face this hurdle when investment is being done? we reach it. We are a national broadcaster. We have David Abraham: There were some phasing issues on one output that goes to all regions of the United some shows that ended up not succeeding and timing Kingdom. We do not have different programmes in issues but I am confident that when you look at our different regional areas. 2012 numbers you will see positive momentum on all of these measures. There has been some great success Q73 Jim Sheridan: No, as a perfectly serious with shows that have been made in Scotland that we question. People need to understand the implications want to re-commission as well as in Wales and and consequences of the break-up of the UK. Part of Northern Ireland as well. that is broadcasting and if people are going to lose, potentially lose programmes or jobs or productions, Q68 Jim Sheridan: What are these shows? I think it is incumbent on people like yourselves to David Abraham: Well, Bank of Dave is one of them. say that. That is coming out of Glasgow. The Paralympic Show David Abraham: We are obviously a national— cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 13

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford

Lord Burns: Of all the issues that I feel like getting Q76 Mr Sutcliffe: The trend, from what you are involved in with Channel 4, this, at this moment, does saying, is that when people are replaced, the trend will not qualify. be downwards rather than upwards? David Abraham: What I would say is that we are a Lord Burns: Yes. I think for the time being that is the national broadcaster that delivers meaningful amounts case. I do not know how long that will go on. There of content in all of the nations. I think the model was a period back in 2005 to 2009 when the media would be seriously challenged were it to be broken up market was very strong and as people moved from job in any way. What we want to do is engage, as we do to job the basic rates did rise quite considerably. I with Scottish producers, on programmes that could be think we have now been in a process of some of that made for the whole country and we are continuing to coming back. Although when I look around the commercial world of commercial television, and of do that. the independent producers, which we do have to keep an eye on because those are areas where within the Q74 Mr Sutcliffe: Thank you. Can we move on to company we are often competing, their rates remain what perhaps sometimes is a sensitive subject, but quite some way ahead of our own. remuneration packages and issues around that? Lord Burns: Oh, no! Q77 Mr Sutcliffe: I think it is a problem, but obviously there is public concern. Q75 Mr Sutcliffe: You will be aware that the public Lord Burns: It is something we are very conscious of and Parliament are concerned in terms of the packages and we spend a lot of time on this trying to get the that are around. In the report, as all of us are, it is balance right. In this past year, when the contract that public knowledge about what the salaries are, what we had with David was that he would have a 50% the packages are and you can see from the report that bonus potential, he decided this year that he wanted to reduce that to 30%, the same as the other senior you three, in particular, have salaries above those of directors, because there was a lot of attention being the BBC at a time when the BBC are reducing their paid to the issue of bonuses—or variable pay as we salaries. The new Director General of the BBC’s prefer to call it. That was done very much of being salary is to be—has been—reduced. It is always a conscious about not only our public service thorny issue about how do you manage the situation obligations but our obligations as a publicly-owned in terms of acting responsibly as a publicly-owned company. We have to try to drive that line between body and how you motivate staff. The question to you, that status and the fact that, like it or not, we are in a Terry, is how do you achieve that? What do you take marketplace competing for talent. into consideration and how do you support the figures that are there? Q78 Mr Sutcliffe: I think that is the link in how you Lord Burns: We are very aware of the fact that develop the public service content and reward that but Channel 4 is publicly owned. It is commercially also look at the commercial side. From what you were funded. We try to balance having competitive pay both saying earlier about the changing nature of the rates whilst also exercising, as you say, restraint that sector, you are going to keep that under review all the is consistent with our public sector status. We give a way through. But it is an interesting question given lot of weight to this. Obviously the main criterion is the height of the public concern there is about salaries. about how to attract, motivate and retain the people Lord Burns: I am highly conscious of this, and I that we want to retain. spend a good deal of my time in the banking sector Since I have been Chairman, it has coincided with the where, of course, it is has been an even bigger issue. time where we have been seeking to reduce the rates I may say the numbers that I see here, of course, do of pay of the senior executives. Obviously we cannot not quite compare with those in the banking sector. change the pay arrangements of those people that we But everywhere in my life I go, people are very are already contracted to. But as we have come to conscious of this issue of senior executive replace people, we have generally recruited them on remuneration and the extent of which we have to keep lower rates than their predecessors. It has certainly this balance. happened with David. It has happened with Jay Hunt. The problem is it is never possible for one company on its own to really make an enormous difference It has happened with our Head of Ad Sales. The BBC because you have to keep an eye on the competition are also now following a similar route. For the which is one of the reasons why these things adjust moment, as far as the Chief Executive is concerned, relatively gradually. they have moved ahead. At the time we recruited David, the salary that he was recruited on and the Q79 Philip Davies: Can I move to my favourite arrangement that he was recruited on was substantially subject of all, which is diversity, on which I tend to below that of his predecessor. That is the set of lock horns with Channel 4 on a regular basis, although arrangements that we now live with. not just Channel 4. This has to be one of the most What we have done in remuneration of course is try politically correct documents that has ever been to be much clearer about the basis upon which the produced, I have to say. We simply do not have time variable pay is awarded. We set out the criteria, we to go through it all, Chairman. I just want to pick out set out the ranges that we were comparing with and a few highlights from it just to tease out exactly where the reasons for the variable pay awards that were Channel 4 stands on these things because it is unclear. made. We just have randomly in page 16 of the report it says, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Ev 14 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford

“We also continued to champion Black and Minority David Abraham: There are two types of programmes. Ethnic talent, successfully growing our relationships There is a programme that may be on a topic relating with BAME-led indies”. On page 27, “Film4’s slate to those communities and then there are programmes featured an impressive string of films from female that are, perhaps, on broader topics that happen to directors including”—a long list. The bit I am trying have those communities behind them, and they are to get at is, I would have hoped that Channel 4 would two distinctive things. But it is absolutely not the case want to champion all talent, irrespective of the race of that we are operating in a way that disadvantages any the people concerned and irrespective of the gender of community because it is part of our remit to ensure— people concerned. Is that true, or if what I have just if you read our remit, it is part of our remit to ensure said is true, why does it not say that in your annual that we represent all aspects of the community. report? If it is not true, why is it not true? Philip Davies: I just need a simple yes or no, really. Lord Burns: If I can make a general point about this. Those programmes that are listed in the schedule there I think we are conscious that there are certain areas with the string of female directors, the ethnic minority where people—partly on race grounds but it can be companies and producers: would Channel 4 have shown those programmes if exactly the same on other grounds, it probably also applies to programme had been produced and directed by a disability—are under-represented in companies. They white male? are particularly under-represented at senior levels in David Abraham: Yes. companies. One of the reasons they are under- Philip Davies: They would? represented at senior levels is because people often do David Abraham: Yes. not get the same start coming from those areas. As we said earlier, we do feel that as a public body, as a Q81 Philip Davies: So in which case, can I urge you publicly-owned body, we have a commitment to try to in your future reports to say that you promote, make sure that there are people who are not being champion talent irrespective of race, irrespective— locked out of this world and out of the media world rather than focusing on something— simply because of either where they live or what their David Abraham: We say that as well. background is or what advantages or disadvantages they had at an earlier age. I think it is right that we Q82 Philip Davies: Not in here, you don’t. should be seeking, where we find this under- David Abraham: We do say that. It is in the remit and representation of particular areas, that we should be we do talk about developing all kinds of talent; young seeking to put an extra bit of effort into that. We want talent, so we provide a lot of investment, a skill set to make sure that we are doing all that we can, not to where we are investing directly in young people match that, not doing something unfair in terms of coming into the industry as well as people from giving people huge positive discrimination but we different communities. It is not done to the exclusion should be aware of where these things are and see if of the mainstream at all. there is anything that we can do to make sure that people are not being locked out for reasons that can Q83 Philip Davies: Lord Burns, you mentioned be overcome. about fair representation, equal representation; under- representation I think was the word you mentioned. In Q80 Philip Davies: These things that you are your report on page 132, it says, “The representation highlighting here, the question it leads to is: were of ethnic minorities amongst permanent staff in 2011 these programmes only commissioned because they was 14%, which was up from 13% in 2010 and 12 % were promoting black and minority ethnic talent or in 2009”. Is that increase a deliberate strategy on the female directors? If these programmes had been part of Channel 4 or has that just happened by produced by white males, would Channel 4 have accident and coincidence? shown then? David Abraham: We are not achieving any set targets to ourselves on this matter. What we are trying to do David Abraham: You are trying to prove a point that is to ensure that we provide opportunities in the way those projects were commissioned in such a way that that the Chairman has set out. Are we trying to beat they disadvantaged opportunities— some target? No, we are not. Philip Davies: I am going to ask—I am not, I am asking you. Q84 Philip Davies: I did not ask if you were trying David Abraham: You are pretty much saying that and to hit a target. I was asking if you had made a we are saying absolutely not. conscious effort to increase the number of ethnic Philip Davies: So these programmes would have minority people in your organisation. been— Lord Burns: This particular paragraph in this place David Abraham: Because the balance of our schedule I think should simply be seen as reporting what the reflects the country in all of its diversity and we position is. believe, categorically, that all parts of the community are well represented. Q85 Philip Davies: No, no I understand that, but I Philip Davies: So these programmes would have been am now asking you, after you have reported what the commissioned if they had have been produced by position is—it is a simple question—have you made white males in just the same say as they were a specific effort to increase the number of ethnic commissioned because they were produced by— minority people working at Channel 4, or has that cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 15

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford happened by coincidence? It is a perfectly simple levels of our industry tend to come from less diverse question to answer. backgrounds and that is something as an industry we Lord Burns: It is neither of those, really. We try to are committed to addressing. conduct our approach, we try to advertise in places and we try recruitment processes that will give Q89 Philip Davies: You have a big thing here about everybody an equal chance. By that process, we sex education. Lots of people would argue that sex would expect that the numbers of people that we education has made absolutely no difference to levels would employ would more closely reflect the of teenage pregnancy and unwanted pregnancies in community that we serve. For example, women this country or maybe even point to the fact that these continue to form the majority of staff of 57%. That figures are now worse than when we started having sex education. I am not entirely sure how many does not mean that we are now going to set up a organisations do the same thing for 35 years, find it policy of trying to balance that to 50%. But if we have does not work, and then keep on promoting it and an area where people are clearly under-represented, doing it. Does Channel 4, which makes a big song and what you do is you look at your policies and say, “Is dance about sex education or how marvellous it is there something about the way that we are recruiting doing on that, actually give equal weight to pursuing people that is a disadvantage in this particular group?” the arguments that people have made that actually it and you then try to identify the reasons for it and try is not a desirable thing, it has not actually made any to then correct it. That is what it is about. This is difference, and actually— about reporting. David Abraham: If you were to actually watch those programmes, you would see that they are not Q86 Philip Davies: Sure, I understand that. You are a encouraging behaviours that are unsafe or ill-advised. national broadcaster. You said so in an earlier answer. They are entirely providing information in a supportive way that is as supportive to certain Lord Burns: Yes. behaviours as it would be to help to avoid behaviours Philip Davies: The proportion of people in the that might be harmful. These are, in our view, not country who are from an ethnic minority is, I think, programmes that are encouraging a behaviour that you 8% at the last count. You employ, according to your would be concerned about. annual report, 14% of ethnic minorities in your organisation. Would you, as a national broadcaster, Q90 Philip Davies: But it has not worked, has it? So therefore conclude that white people are under- my point is has Channel 4— represented within Channel 4, and if not, why not? Lord Burns: Well you don’t know that, do you—you Lord Burns: Well, from the point of view of many of don’t know that? these jobs, I think you would have to look at what the Philip Davies: We have been trying it for 35 years. position is in London. Given that you have indicated— Lord Burns: You don’t know what the base case Q87 Philip Davies: But you just said you are a would be. national broadcaster. Q91 Philip Davies: The point I am making is will Lord Burns: We are a national broadcaster, but it is Channel 4 give equal weight to explore the other side inevitable that a large number of the people that we of the argument— employ in many of our jobs are going to be recruited David Abraham: Well, if you watch the from London because we are based in London. programmes— Philip Davies:—that sex education may not—and Q88 Philip Davies: What you are trying to do is perhaps focus on what countries like Italy and Holland reflect the country as it is in London, not the country do to reduce sex education that basically concentrate as it is in the rest of the UK even though you claim on having much tougher benefit systems for single to be, in earlier answers, I think to Jim Sheridan, a mothers than in this country? Is Channel 4 going to national broadcaster? explore the alternative rather than— Lord Burns: That is where we commission David Abraham: From a journalistic point of view we programmes from. We try to commission programmes would certainly give platform to people who wanted that reflect the country as a whole. But if you take the to express those views. But we express many different people that we employ in Channel 4, to a large extent views much of the time that would be supportive of that. If you watched 4thought.TV, for example, you those jobs are going to be filled by people who happen will see people expressing those views regularly in to live in London. primetime. We are a platform for all of these views David Abraham: The production companies are also but we do feel that this programming is done in a very under-represented with people from these different responsible way and the online support material that communities, and we have the role, obviously, as a goes with it is used in a way that is positive and broadcaster but we also have the role within our helpful. industry. It is the case, and I am a proud supporter of the Creative Diversity Network that is putting in place Q92 Philip Davies: One final question, Chairman, measures to improve, from an industry point of view, which is on a slightly different note. Can I first of all because obviously people move between broadcasters, commend Channel 4, and this is a subject close to and it is absolutely the case that people at very senior Gerry’s heart as well, for its commitment to horse cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Ev 16 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford racing? To be perfectly honest, I for one, I am David Abraham: For your information, we have also probably in a minority, but I am delighted that you been reassured that IMG will be basing the bulk of have taken on all of the horse racing coverage because their team in Manchester, and they are a qualifying I think you have given it the respect over many years indie because they are not linked to any broadcasting that it deserves, the full coverage. The BBC have gone organisation at all. It happens to be the case that most to races right at the start and they have cleared off to of the operations at Highflyer were actually occurring something else the moment the race is finished where in west London. We are confident this is a good you actually give it proper full coverage, and I think opportunity for jobs in this sector and we want to take it has become part of the Channel 4 brand, and I horse racing in this country from strength to strength certainly commend you for that. I just wanted to know and that is what we want to get on with doing. This why Highflyer, who have done so much to make is an unwelcome distraction. We do commend Channel 4 Racing the brand that it is, a good Highflyer for all the work that they have done, but it Yorkshire production company, have been elbowed is very unhelpful for the industry and for horse racing out of the way for another company that you seem to for this to drag on any further. have very close commercial links to. David Abraham: Thank you for your comments about Q93 Mr Bradshaw: You said in answer to the the horse racing. We are very, very excited about the Chairman right at the beginning that you had the good coverage that we are now planning for next year. I fortune or good judgment never to employ Jimmy would agree that Highflyer have done a spectacular Savile, but I assume you are checking your child job for us for many years. protection policies are fit for purpose? Channel 4, of course, is not obliged to tender every David Abraham: creative decision that it makes but this was quite a Yes, indeed. I think insofar as we sizeable one and so we invited, as we have done in have had time to reflect on this topic, central to our previous occasions, five companies to respond to a thinking is a robust and clear whistle-blowing policy. very detailed and specific brief as to how they would I am pleased to report that we have had one in place do something different with the horse racing. We had for some time and that includes contractors as well as these rights because we have a creative vision for how full-time staff. We work hard on a culture that allows we want to engage with the public more broadly now referral up of difficult issues to parts of the that all of the horse racing is in one place for the first organisation when line managers may be causing time in a very long time. This is an exciting moment issues. But of course we are looking at our files and a good moment to do what we have done extremely carefully. I think this is going to be an issue periodically with this contract which is to put it out for all organisations, media and non-media included. to tender. It is a very sad set of revelations that we are all Highflyer, on several previous occasions, have been reflecting on. successful in that. On this occasion, we came to a tough but we think strong decision to appoint IMG. Q94 Jim Sheridan: Comrade Davies has articulated IMG happen to be the partners that we have worked and established a view that many of us hold, that with on the Paralympic Games. We are very organisations like Channel 4 have far too much looked impressed with what they have been capable of through the view of London Eye in terms of the rest demonstrating there. They have a very strong pedigree of the UK, but just in terms of race and gender— across the sports arena in football, golf and many perhaps I should know this—what is the make-up of other areas. Their creative solution, this was a creative the senior board at Channel 4 in terms of race and presentation, convinced us and the team that they put gender? together that incidentally involves some people who Lord Burns: In terms of gender, I would say the have been involved in broadcasting things like the balance is very good by comparison with most Grand National at the BBC, their senior team has company boards. come together and impressed us and they have won this contract. Q95 Jim Sheridan: What is it—95% white male? It is unfortunate that Highflyer have decided to Lord Burns: But, as I say—gender, I said. No, no. question that decision. We contest absolutely the David Abraham: Executive is 60:40 female. The claims that they have made which, if necessary, we board is 60:40 male. So our board is far more gender will do so legally. balanced than the average board of the British Lord Burns: It is always a difficult thing in life when institution on gender. one goes through these tender processes and the Lord Burns: Exactly. But in terms of race, it is people who have been successful in the past are not successful in the future. Both Anne and I, who were entirely white. not involved at all in making the original decision, have looked at all of the paperwork and the trail of Q96 Chair: Can I just ask you quickly—YouView, how the decision came to be made. I am personally of which you are a partner, has finally arrived. How content with what I saw there. There was no prejudice much have you spent on YouView? against Highflyer. The whole thing was conducted in Anne Bulford: We spent a number of millions over a a systematic and rigorous way. In the end, the people period of years. In terms of these accounts, I think making the decision had to make a choice and that there is £4.8 million included. But there are different choice was made on creative grounds. sorts of expenditure because there is contribution to cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 17

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford

YouView itself, and then there is our own work Lord Burns: We will only really see how this works internally which is about building our portal going when the broadband suppliers begin to offer the into the YouView box for when you go to Channel 4 service in numbers, and that partly depends upon box material. In terms of these accounts, it is the availability and just how rapidly that can be got into contribution to YouView in the year which you see. people’s homes.

Q100 Paul Farrelly: This is a tangential question but Q97 Chair: You don’t have a figure for the amount? interesting, I hope, none the less. When Lord Justice Anne Bulford: I don’t have a figure for the total Leveson reports, hopefully sometime this side of investment over the full period. Christmas, we are going to start grappling within here and in the country with the thorny question of media Q98 Chair: It would be useful to know. Do you think self-regulation. You are members of a board and one there is any chance you are ever going to get a return of your remits is to uphold standards and codes of to match your investment? conduct across Channel 4. You produce a report Anne Bulford: YouView is a tremendously important saying how, in part, you have done that and exercised investment for us, both in terms of our public service your role. You are accountable for that report to remit and commercially, because our view is it is various bodies including coming to talk to us. I have essential to moving on the DTT platform and just two questions. Would you in any way stylise that accountability as being tantamount to government providing the service of free to air television across censorship in any way? the UK, that is the environment in which we, as a Lord Burns: No, no. My belief is that the commercial broadcaster do best, but in terms of our broadcasting system works very effectively. It is remit we think it is essential for people to be able to something that we take very seriously—the see our content free at the point of use. requirements that we have, in terms of accuracy, in Lord Burns: But also, Chair, it is always very difficult terms of context, in terms of treating people correctly. to do an evaluation of investments which are If there is a problem, people refer it to Ofcom and we defensive investments where you are doing it in order get a judgment. It is something that we take to maintain your position. Freeview, if just left to enormously seriously. It is not politically motivated in itself, would become rapidly overtaken by the other any way. technologies and the other offerings that are in place. Of course, it is tangential but the key thing of course We believe it is in not only our interests but actually is we have a licence and we have a licence to it is in the interests of the whole community that the broadcast and that is a licence that gives Ofcom the DTT platform should prosper and should be available power to regulate us. Underneath it, although we and it should offer the kinds of services that would be choose to take very seriously what they say, the reality available through other platforms. is that we have no choice in the end but to take notice of what they say if we want to continue in business David Abraham: As broadband penetration just as a broadcaster. Of course, that is where the move to continues to reach its conclusion, it is an important the regulation of other forms of media becomes more moment for free to air public service broadcasting to difficult. Ofcom does not require a licence for them to re-evaluate the way in which it links to the broadband undertake their trade and so whatever body you set network. In this partnership with BT and TalkTalk and up, the question arises as to what do you do if they Arqiva and others, we have found a way that is do not take their obligations as seriously as we take simple, compelling and I hope the Committee has seen our obligations under the Broadcasting Code. the platform in operation. It is a box that works very smoothly and is now being offered by BT and Q101 Paul Farrelly: I have a second and final TalkTalk and recently we have started the marketing tangential question. Most of the time you get it right. campaign. I think there was concern last time as to Sometimes you might it wrong. whether it would launch in time for the Olympics. Lord Burns: Yes. Indeed, it was available at that time and now you are Paul Farrelly: For example, with Big Fat Gypsy seeing all of the platforms offer propositions that join Weddings. broadband and television channels into packages. So Lord Burns: That was a different regulator, but we do it is important for us to not allow the Freeview occasionally get it wrong with Ofcom as well with platforms, as has been said, to become weakened by regards to the content of our programmes. that. Q102 Paul Farrelly: Would you stylise those people here who have asked you difficult questions about the Q99 Chair: You say it was available by the Gypsy Weddings, have had the temerity to ask you Olympics. Theoretically it was available by the questions about that programme, as, in any way, Olympics, but the number of houses that actually had enemies of free speech? it would probably run into double figures. Lord Burns: I regard it as part of the necessary David Abraham: Yes but we were asked, “Would the accountability of a broadcaster like Channel 4 that we box actually be—”. It was presented to the press and should be accountable to the public and we should be reviewed very well and I think it surprised everyone accountable—in fact, we are required to be—we are with its simplicity and its clarity of proposition despite effectively required to be accountable to Parliament the inevitable competitive reaction. because we are set up under a remit from Parliament. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_o001_th_121016 Channel 4 Annual Report corrected.xml

Ev 18 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

16 October 2012 Lord Burns GCB, David Abraham and Anne Bulford

But in all the activities I have been involved with, I who are working in any of these types of areas, we do regard being accountable to Parliamentary Select regard accountability through the mechanism of Committees as a very important part of my life. Parliament, whether we are publicly owned or not, as Chair: Good. a very important part of our democratic accountability.

Q103 Paul Farrelly: So that would be a no, then? Q104 Chair: I think if you did not feel Lord Burns: Would I sometimes rather not do it? The uncomfortable having to do that, we would not be answer is yes, particularly when I am spending my doing our job properly. weekend looking back through the papers. Is this a bit Lord Burns: Exactly. of an inconvenience? There are moments when I Chair: Can I thank all three of you very much for might wrongly get that feeling. But no, for most of us coming? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 19

Written evidence

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Channel 4 First-Run Originations 1. Please supply: — Figures setting out your investment in 2011 in first-run origination by genre to complement the volume figures set out by genre in the chart on page 10 of your Annual Report. Channel 4’s total investment in first-run originations across the portfolio in 2011 was £406 million. In terms of programme genres, investment in first-run originations across the genres reported in volume terms on page 10 of the Statement of Media Content Policy (SMCP) is set out in Table 1 below.1 As in previous years, Channel 4 is keen to be as transparent as possible with the Committee, and is willing to share this level of information privately. However, Channel 4 does not publish this level of detail in the SMCP as it is commercially sensitive both to Channel 4 and its independent production suppliers, as disclosure would enable competitors to calculate the cost per hour of Channel 4 commissions. Suppliers may also be able to use publicly available cost per hour data to their advantage in future commercial negotiations with Channel 4. Channel 4 is committed to appropriate levels of transparency, but not to the extent that it publicly discloses information that could be detrimental to Channel 4 or its supply base. In addition, it is worth noting that page 199 of the Financial Report and Statements outlines a detailed breakdown of total expenditure by genre on the main channel—in line with Channel 4’s licence reporting requirements, and in accordance with reporting genres as defined by Ofcom. The data presented in the SMCP (and Table 1 above) are structured around genres reflecting Channel 4’s internal commissioning and budgeting structure across the Channel 4 portfolio, and as such differ from figures calculated according to Ofcom definitions. For example, the Ofcom definition of “Education” includes all programmes of an educational nature across the genres. In the SMCP (and Table 1 above), “Education and Older Children” relates to educational content specifically aimed at older children (10–14 year olds) and young adults (14–19 year olds). — Volume and investment figures for the religion and arts genres in 2011. The volume and investment figures for first-run originated religion and arts programmes are set out in Table 2 below,2 and for the reasons set out above are provided to the Committee in confidence. In Table 1 above, the Arts and Religion genres are counted as part of the “Factual” genre. Channel 4 recognises that these genres are an important aspect of its public service delivery. In 2011, Channel 4 offered viewers a wide range of Arts content, with Street Summer, a series of arts programmes exploring contemporary urban culture, broadcast just as the 2011 riots occurred and showcased a positive side of street arts. Random Acts, the short-form arts strand, also provided new talent with an artistic space and creative medium on Channel 4 every weeknight. In addition, Channel 4 continued its support for the Turner Prize. This commitment to arts content continued in 2012, with leading artist Grayson Perry fronting the critically-acclaimed new series, In the Best Possible Taste, while a series of innovative new programmes such as House Party provided a new angle for music programming. In relation to Religion, 4thought.tv, the daily religion and ethics strand, continued to provide an eclectic range of views on key spiritual and moral issues in 2011, while Living with the Amish examined the workings and beliefs of the Amish community. In addition, Channel 4 recently broadcast a new thought-provoking series presented by Richard Dawkins, which asked if science can provide answers to the big questions often entrusted to religion. — Figures detailing the number of hours and spend on first-run originations for each of E4, More 4 and Film 4 in 2011, and comparative figures for 2010. The volume and investment figures for first-run originations for E4, More4 and Film4 for 2011 and 2010 are provided in Table 3 below,3 and for the reasons set out above are provided to the Committee in confidence. E4 and More4 both benefited from an increase in volume of first-run originations in 2011. E4 enhanced its reputation for distinctive and edgy teen drama series, with hit shows such as Misfits and Skins being refreshed with new cast members, helping the channel to grow its share for its key 16–34 year old audience by 8% in 2011. More4 also saw its viewing share of digital channels grow to 1.2% following the increase in first- run originations. For Film4, by its nature as a film channel, nearly all films broadcast on Film4 are counted as either acquisitions or repeats, even if Channel 4 has invested in the production of the title. Channel 4 therefore believes that hours of, or spend on, first-run originations on Film4 are not meaningful measures for assessing Film4’s public impact or contribution to showcasing British film. In Channel 4’s view other measures are more relevant, such as the percentage of output on Film4 from the UK—which amounted to 25% in 2011. 1 Not printed. 2 Not printed. 3 Not printed. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Ev 20 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Audience Share and Reach 2. Please supply: — Figures for the share and average 15-minute weekly audience reach across the Channel 4 portfolio for each of the genres set out in the chart on page 10 of your Annual Report, in line with similar information provided to the Committee in the follow-up last year. — Figures for the share and average 15-minute weekly audience reach for first-run originations across the portfolio and for each of the key public service broadcasting genres detailed in your response to the above question, in line with similar information provided to the Committee in follow-up last year.

Weekly Reach Share and average 15-minute weekly reach figures for the genres set out in the “Investment in programming by genre” chart on page 10 of the SMCP are set out in Table 4 below. As discussed in response to Question 1, the data presented here are structured around genres reflecting Channel 4’s internal budgeting and commissioning structure. Therefore, the genre here marked “Education and Older Children” relates to educational content specifically aimed at older children (10–14 year olds) and young adults (14–19 year olds) Broader educational content will generally be captured as part of the “Factual” genre. Table 4 SHARE AND AVERAGE 15-MINUTE WEEKLY REACH TO ANNUAL REPORT GENRES, 2011 Annual Report genre Share Reach % Reach 000s (portfolio) (portfolio) (portfolio) Drama 2.97 16.3 9,327 Film 2.34 28.2 16,191 Entertainment 3.9 26.1 15,007 Comedy 2.23 14.3 8,186 Factual 3.25 43.1 24,758 News 3.64 6.8 3,918 Current Affairs 4.05 2.6 1,462 Sport 5.17 3.0 1,706 Education and Older Children 1.43 0.3 172 Other 0.35 3.6 2,063

In 2009, Channel 4 included a measure in its Public Impact Report (the predecessor to the SMCP) which outlined total expenditure on first-run originated programming shown on the main channel in a number of “key PSB genres”: Channel 4 defined these genres as News; Current Affairs; Education (covering broad appeal programmes with educational intent as well as specific teen-focused educational/schools material); Comedy; single dramas, drama series and Film 4 Productions; Religion; and Arts. While Channel 4 sought to keep the range of measures used in the SMCP as similar as possible to measures used in previous reports to enable year on year comparison, the evolution to create the SMCP led to a decision to drop the expenditure on first-run originations in “key PSB genres” on a genre-by-genre basis and instead focus on the broader delivery and impact of Channel 4’s content investment. Share and average 15-minute weekly reach figures for these “key PSB genres” are set out in Table 5 below. Channel 4 notes that analysis of these “key PSB genres” is based on a slightly different dataset to the genres outlined on page 10 of the SMCP (and in Table 4 above)—as it is only possible to calculate reach data according to BARB datasets. In order to calculate the reach of the “key PSB genres” Channel 4 has mapped programmes to BARB datasets, which has required Channel 4 to make a number of assumptions. Table 5 SHARE AND AVERAGE 15-MINUTE WEEKLY REACH TO “KEY PSB GENRES” “Key PSB genres” Share Reach % Reach 000s (portfolio) (portfolio) (portfolio) News 3.64 6.8 3,918 Current Affairs 4.06 2.6 1,463 Arts 1.23 0.2 86 Religion 7.16 0.1 75 Comedy 2.87 1.7 958 Drama 7.2 3.5 1,996 Education 3.21 33.1 19,016 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 21

Monthly Reach For comparative purposes, Channel 4 has also outlined below share and audience reach figures on a monthly basis. Channel 4 is not a “mass market” broadcaster that expects to attract large audiences to its programmes all of the time—rather, Channel 4 has been historically, and remains, a “something for everyone, some of the time” broadcaster. In a number of genres, programming is not broadcast regularly throughout the year, which pulls the weekly reach figures down. In other genres, audiences do not necessarily watch week in, week out— so monthly reach gives a truer picture of the reach that such strands have over a period of time. Share and average 15-minute monthly reach figures for the genres set out in the “Investment in programming by genre” chart on page 10 of the SMCP are set out in Table 6 below. Table 6 SHARE AND AVERAGE 15-MINUTE MONTHLY REACH TO ANNUAL REPORT GENRES Annual Report genre Share Reach % Reach 000s (portfolio) (portfolio) (portfolio) Drama 2.97 33.3 19,093 Film 2.34 57.6 33,065 Entertainment 3.9 50.3 28,866 Comedy 2.23 31.3 17,951 Factual 3.25 71.7 41,123 News 3.64 18.4 10,537 Current Affairs 4.05 8.2 4,705 Sport 5.17 8.4 4,809 Education and Older Children 1.43 1.0 566 Other 0.35 9.9 5,684

Share and average 15-minute monthly reach figures for the “key PSB genres” is outlined in Table 7 below. Table 7 SHARE AND AVERAGE 15-MINUTE MONTHLY REACH TO “KEY PSB GENRES” “Key PSB genres” Share Reach % Reach 000s (portfolio) (portfolio) (portfolio) News 3.64 18.4 10,537 Current Affairs 4.06 8.2 4,705 Arts 1.23 0.4 216 Religion 7.16 0.3 172 Comedy 2.87 5.9 3,393 Drama 7.2 9.8 5,617 Education 3.21 61.1 35,041 — The average 15-minute weekly audience reach figures for the Channel 4 portfolio, broken down by channel, in line with similar information provided to the Committee in follow-up last year. 15-minute weekly reach figures for the Channel 4 portfolio, broken down by channel, are set out in Table 8 below. The 15-minute monthly reach figures published in the SMCP are also included for ease of comparison. Table 8 SHARE AND AVERAGE 15-MINUTE WEEKLY AND MONTHLY REACH TO C4 PORTFOLIO Share Ave weekly Ave weekly Ave monthly Ave monthly reach: % reach: 000s reach: % reach: 000s C4 6.8 56.8 32,627 82.9 47,564 E4 1.82 19.3 11,091 39.0 22,388 More4 1.22 17.1 9,834 38.6 22,086 Film4 1.4 15.1 8,654 33.7 19,317 4Music 0.34 4.2 2,400 10.8 6,179 C4 portfolio 11.6 67.3 38,618 88.8 50,976 — The chart on page 28 of the Annual Report shows that the percentage of viewing to originated drama programmes on Channel 4 between 6pm and midnight is substantially higher than the corresponding proportions for the other main PSB channels. How do the corresponding reach figures compare? Channel 4 understands this question to refer to specifically the reach of 16–34 year old viewers to originated drama programmes, in line with the 16–34 year old focus in the chart on page 28 of the SMCP. The 15-minute weekly reach of Channel 4’s originated drama programmes amongst 16–34s in 2011, as compared with BBC cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Ev 22 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

1, BBC2 and ITV, is set out in Table 9 below. The 15-minute monthly reach figures are also included for ease of comparison. Channel 5 is omitted from the table as it did not broadcast any originated drama in 2011.

Table 9

AVERAGE 15-MINUTE WEEKLY AND MONTHLY REACH TO ORIGINATED DRAMA PROGRAMMES BETWEEN 6PM AND MIDNIGHT, 16–34 YEAR OLDS, BY MAIN PSB CHANNEL, IN 2011 Ave weekly reach: Ave monthly reach: Ave weekly reach: Ave monthly reach: 000s 000s % % Channel 4 1,693 3,760 11.6 25.7 BBC One 5,493 8,761 37.5 59.8 BBC Two 199 689 1.4 4.7 ITV 3,497 6,164 23.9 42.0

3. How many hours of first-run originations in strands dedicated to new talent were there in 2011?

The number of hours of first-run originations in strands dedicated to new talent across Channel 4’s portfolio in 2011 was 28—a 35% increase on 2010. A breakdown of the various programmes that contributed to this total is set out in the “New talent strands on Channel 4” chart on page 21 of the SMCP. Channel 4 is committed to providing opportunities for new and emerging talent, and recognises the wider importance of supporting the development of people with creative talent for the industry as a whole.

Channel 4 provides a number of different platforms allowing new talent to prove themselves in front of a national audience. Now in its seventh year, First Cut continued to broadcast films by up-and-coming directors in 2011, providing them with the freedom to produce ambitious work and showcase their storytelling and film- making skills. Coming Up, the only UK initiative offering aspiring talent the opportunity to make an authored drama with a guaranteed network broadcast, also provided openings for new writers and directors, and in 2012 saw emerging off-screen talent work with established on-screen talent to create seven original new dramas on Channel 4. In addition, Random Acts—as mentioned above—showcased a wide range of specially commissioned three-minute films chosen for their bold and original expressions of creativity, many of which are produced by new artistic talent.

Channel 4 also has a strong track-record of celebrating new comedy talent and, as the chart on page 21 of the SMCP shows, several of the new talent strands in 2011 related to such content. In particular, Comedy Lab provides a platform for new talent in this area and has helped to launch the careers of several top performers including Ricky Gervais and Jimmy Carr. Building on this success, Channel 4 also recently introduced Comedy Blaps, which provides further opportunities for piloting new comedy online.

4. Channel 4’s increased investment in network originations in 2011 did not appear to result in any increase in total viewing share for that content. Why was that?

Original commissions continue to drive viewing to the Channel 4 portfolio, with network originations accounting for 65% of total viewing to Channel 4, E4 and More4 in 2011. Channel 4 operates in a highly competitive market, with the progress of digital switchover providing all viewers across the UK with content from a wide range of channels, and our terrestrial performance for 2011 was on a par with other terrestrials. While share for the main channel fell slightly from 7.0% in 2010 to 6.8% in 2011, a substantial portion of the fall related to acquisitions and repeats, with share of network originations on the main channel falling by just 0.1% point. In addition, the percentage of TV viewing accounted for by network originations on Channel 4’s digital channels held steady at 1.5%.

Channel 4 remains firmly committed to its investment in Creative Renewal—its long term approach to refreshing its content, investing in new, innovative and risk-taking programmes that make the schedule feel genuinely distinctive and different. The early signs are that Creative Renewal is delivering a wide range of award-winning, high performing content. Many of the network originations broadcast in 2011 have subsequently been recognised at industry awards ceremonies, with programmes such as Top Boy, Fresh Meat, Hugh’s Fish Fight, and Mummifying Alan all receiving prizes at the RTS Programme Awards last March in a range of categories.

2012 demonstrated further significant progress of Channel 4’s Creative Renewal strategy, with a number of new, original programmes proving popular with audiences, including the Paralympic Games, Make Bradford British, The Undateables and The Plane Crash. New programmes dominated Channel 4’s list of most watched shows on 2012, with 74% of the top 50 programmes broadcast on the main channel being network originations. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 23

5. At the session in October, you undertook to provide further information on viewership in relation to 16–34 year olds. How does weekly reach of Channel 4 among 16–34 year olds compare to the BBC and ITV? The 15-minute weekly reach amongst 16–34 year olds for the Channel 4 portfolio, as compared with the BBC and ITV’s portfolios, is set out in Table 10 below. The 15-minute monthly reach figures are also included for ease of comparison. Table 10 AVERAGE 15-MINUTE WEEKLY AND MONTHLY REACH, 16–34 YEAR OLDS, BY PORTFOLIO IN 2011 Ave weekly reach: Ave weekly reach: Ave monthly reach: Ave monthly reach: % 000s % 000s C4 Portfolio 67 9778 88 12901 BBC Portfolio 78 11472 94 13723 ITV Portfolio 66 9706 88 12951

Channel 4 continues to be the only public service broadcaster whose channels are viewed more by 16–34 year olds than by the general population—with average daily viewing to Channel 4 by this demographic 10% higher than average for all age groups. As Table 10 shows, the average weekly reach of 16–34 year olds for Channel 4’s portfolio was slightly higher than that for ITV’s portfolio in 2011 and, in the context of digital switchover and subsequent proliferation of channels, Channel 4 also stemmed the decline of this reach at a faster rate than ITV year-on-year. Taken over a five year period, Channel 4 has grown its portfolio share amongst 16–34 year olds by 2%, while ITV has remained static and the BBC has experienced a loss of 4%. E4 remains a vitally important channel for young viewers, growing its share amongst this demographic to 4.7% in 2011, overtaking BBC Two in the process to become the fourth most popular of any channel.

Nations and Regions 6. The Committee has previously proposed that Channel 4 should set a medium target of 15% for network spend on originated programming from the nations, in line with their total population share. Does Channel 4 support this objective, and if so over what period is this achievable? Channel 4 remains firmly committed to supporting production in the devolved nations, and has an ambitious plan to increase its spend outside of England, building on the successful model it has used to support new independent and digital production companies outside London. The commissioning team has been proactively engaging with production companies in the nations in order to drive this development forward. Additionally, Channel 4’s Creative Diversity team based in Scotland has continued to commission the most creative ideas from the diverse supply base in the devolved nations, with the Alpha Fund providing vital development funding to many grassroots television and digital companies with innovative content ideas outside of England. Channel 4 welcomes the direction of travel with regards to greater production from the nations, and recognises the role that the many talented and high quality creative companies in the devolved nations can play in strengthening and diversifying its content output. Channel 4 is itself currently in active discussions with Ofcom about its own quota for commissions in the devolved nations as part of its licence renewal process, and looks forward to discussing its proposed strategy with the Committee in due course.

YouView 7. Anne Bulford told the Committee that Channel 4’s contribution to YouView in 2011 was £4.8 million. How much in total has Channel 4 contributed to YouView since it acquired its stake in the joint venture? 8. How many homes had a YouView set-top box during the Olympics and Paralympics, and what proportion were test homes versus commercial consumer purchases? Channel 4’s total spend on YouView for 2010 and 2011, including shareholder spend and internal development costs, is set out in Table 11 below.4 Figures for 2012 have yet to be published and are therefore omitted from the table. Channel 4 is keen to be as transparent as possible with the Committee, and is willing to share the information in the table below privately. However, Channel 4 does not publish its spend on internal YouView development costs given commercial sensitivities, and therefore provides the figures below in confidence. YouView set-top boxes were made available to members of the public on Thursday 26 July, a day before the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic Games. Prior to this retail launch, there were 2,550 YouView set-top boxes in test homes. Based on the limited time for retail sales prior to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it is likely that the majority of YouView boxes during the Games were in test homes. 4 Not printed. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Ev 24 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Remuneration and Public Service Impact 9. To what extent should the rewards granted by Channel 4 for performance—in terms of executive remuneration—take into account the consumption and impact of public service content, in addition to measures of commercial success?

Channel 4 takes seriously its responsibility for awarding performance related pay, and takes active steps to be transparent about how much is awarded. Extensive information about the remuneration policy is outlined in the Annual Report and Financial Statements, and in 2011 Channel 4 provided further details including the key quantitative targets for performance related pay. The remuneration policy is clearly linked to a series of key performance indicators, and balances the need to pay competitive rates with exercising pay restraint consistent with Channel 4’s public status.

Channel 4’s remuneration committee meets at the end of each year to set targets for executives and staff for the following financial year. The committee meets again once results are available to decide on performance related pay. The remuneration policy allows Channel 4 to attract, motivate and retain high calibre staff and executive team members by rewarding them with both fixed and variable pay.

Performance related pay is based on a number of key quantitative targets. The targets set for the 2011 financial year are set out in Table 12. Table 12

KEY QUANTITATIVE TARGETS FOR PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY, 2011 Objective Target range Final result Licence requirements Meet All met or exceeded Financial performance As budget Exceeded Main channel share 6.8%—7.1% 6.8% Portfolio share 11.3%—11.6% 11.6% VoD views (all platforms) 450m—530m 429m Share of net advertising revenue— 27.5%—28.6% 27.8% sales house (including UKTV and Box)

Channel 4 believes that the above targets allow the remuneration committee to reward consumption and impact of public service content as well as commercial success. In particular, measurements of share—both on the main channel and as a portfolio—provide significant insight into the extent to which Channel 4’s public service content is being consumed by viewers. In addition to the quantitative measures shown above, the remuneration committee also use their discretion and judgement to allocate an amount to recognise the more qualitative elements of programme quality and individual performance, with impact of public service content remaining an important consideration in this process. Moreover, achievement of agreed financial performance is a gateway to the performance related pay scheme for all staff including executives, and achievement of licence obligations is an additional gateway for executive team members and other senior managers. As such, performance related pay is only available once these key public service targets are met.

Channel 4 also notes that commercially-focused targets and public service targets are not mutually exclusive and, in many cases, performance related pay targets can encompass both aims. For example, achieving a set number of registered Channel 4 users—a target for the 2012 financial year—has a clear commercial aim while also allowing Channel 4 to engage registered users more closely with its public service content.

Andy Duncan Remuneration

10. Was the £731,000 paid to Mr Duncan something that could have been avoided by requiring him to work out his notice period? If so, why didn’t Channel 4 take this route?

After five years as Chief Executive, Mr Duncan agreed to resign having mutually agreed with the Channel 4 board that it was an appropriate time to introduce new leadership. In order to put an end to distracting public speculation at that time about the future of Channel 4’s leadership, the Board took the view that it made commercial sense for the Corporation to install a new CEO as quickly as possible and that the decision taken to terminate Mr Duncan’s employment in short order under a compromise agreement was reasonable and correct.

11. Why did Channel 4 fear an unfair dismissal claim if it did not agree to the payments and terms of the compromise agreement, including confidentiality restrictions on the existence of the agreement itself?

Given the circumstances explained in our answer to question 10, the legal advice that Channel 4’s then Chairman received was that Mr Duncan’s departure would amount to unfair dismissal. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 25

12. Was the payment to Mr Duncan in effect “hush money” to prevent him bringing to light information that Channel 4 did not wish to be made public? The payment represented the contractual entitlement due to Mr Duncan on termination of his employment as well as his statutory rights arising therefrom.

13. Channel 4 claims that it “paid considerably less by agreeing the position in the Compromise Agreement than if it had to engage in legal proceedings with Mr Duncan”. What is the evidence for this? We maintain that the compromise agreement represented a sound commercial result for Channel 4. In entering into legal proceedings to contest any claim for unfair dismissal, the Channel has been advised that it could have been liable for legal costs of up to £160,000. In addition, Mr Duncan had taken a voluntary salary sacrifice some time prior to the termination of his employment, on the basis that should his employment be terminated within 12 months, any payments in lieu of notice he might be entitled to receive would be calculated on the basis of his previous, higher salary. During the course of negotiations regarding Mr Duncan’s severance package, it was agreed that notice payments would use a base sum which represented a compromise between the higher salary and his then current salary, and this resulted in savings for Channel 4 in the order of £50,000.

14. Even if legal proceedings might have cost more than the amounts paid under the Compromise Agreement, why did Channel 4 not consider that the public interest in its transparency and accountability as a publicly owned, public service broadcaster outweighed this? Please see our answer to question 10 in relation to the decision to take steps avoid legal proceedings by Mr Duncan.

15. Lord Burns told the Committee that he was not at Channel 4 at the time that the decisions about Andy Duncan’s departure and payoff were taken, and therefore was not in a position to explain it, but that he “sought assurance that this was considered to be something to which he was contractually entitled and the answer was yes”. — Does Lord Burns feel he was fully and appropriately informed of the relevant information about Mr Duncan’s departure and payoff at the time he gave evidence to the Committee in 2010? Lord Burns sought and received assurance that the circumstances in which Mr Duncan left meant that he had a contractual entitlement to the payment that he received on termination of his employment as well as a statutory entitlement arising there from. — In light of the information subsequently released by Channel 4 to the Information Rights Tribunal, does Lord Burns believe that the payments made to Mr Duncan were an appropriate and unavoidable contractual entitlement? These events occurred before Lord Burns’ tenure as Chairman of Channel 4. Any attempt to answer the question as posed would require Lord Burns to place himself in the position of his predecessor. Lord Burns notes that it was clearly felt by those involved in the discussions at the time that the nature of Mr Duncan’s departure warranted the payments made to him as a result of his contractual entitlement on termination of his employment and his statutory rights arising therefrom.

16. Analysis of the breakdown of the amount paid to Mr Duncan suggests that the components that would have been part of his employment contract (salary, car allowance, health & life assurance, holiday pay and pension) totalled £641,000 rather £731,000, with two additional payments under the Compromise Agreement making up the balance: (a) a confidential payment to charity on Mr Duncan’s behalf for information about his planned departure being leaked to the public before the announcement date that had been agreed, and (b) a confidential payment “in respect of Mr Duncan’s prospective claim for unfair dismissal”. — Did Andy Duncan’s contract of employment (not Compromise Agreement) with Channel 4 contain any provision entitling him to payments if he were ever to forego a claim for unfair dismissal, or in the event that information about his future departure from Channel 4 was leaked ahead of any agreed announcement date? By law, employment contracts cannot exclude an employee’s right to make a claim for unfair dismissal. In relation to the payment made on Mr Duncan’s behalf to charity, this was made in settlement of a claim Mr Duncan potentially had for Channel 4’s breach of duty of care and confidentiality in respect of the leak of information about his departure ahead of the agreed announcement date. — If not, why did Channel 4 describe the sum of £731,000 paid to Mr Duncan as in respect of legal obligations arising “from his contract of employment”? The amounts paid under the Compromise Agreement were in settlement of all amounts potentially due in relation to Mr Duncan’s contract of employment. By virtue of his employment, Mr Duncan had both rights under his specific contract, and rights available under statute, namely to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Ev 26 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— Why did Channel 4 agree a further payment of £69,125 in settlement of a potential claim for unfair dismissal? Wouldn’t an unfair dismissal claim only have followed a potential claim by Mr Duncan if Channel 4 decided not to pay him salary and benefits in lieu of notice? An unfair dismissal claim does not only arise in the circumstances described in the question, ie a failure to receive salary and benefits in lieu of notice. Given the manner in which it was agreed that Mr Duncan would stand down, the then Chairman received legal advice that without entering into a Compromise Agreement there would be a basis for a claim for unfair dismissal.

17. Does Channel 4 maintain that “there was no question” of the payment to Mr Duncan “being in any sense improper”, and that it has been duly transparent in relation to the Committee’s enquiries regarding the circumstances and terms of departure of its former Chief Executive? As set out above, the Channel 4 board concluded that a Compromise Agreement should be entered into with Mr Duncan. One of the provisions agreed was that the existence of the Compromise Agreement would not be disclosed. As to its terms, Channel 4 voluntarily opted to disclose in its accounts the global sum paid to Mr Duncan, including the payment to charity, at the first opportunity. At a later date, and with Mr Duncan’s agreement, Channel 4 made public further details of the breakdown of and justification for that payment. 7 February 2013

Written evidence submitted by Howe & Co We represent the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain and individuals who made complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) regarding Channel 4’s national “Bigger Fatter Gypsier” advertising campaign during the early part of this year. The campaign promoted the broadcaster’s “Big Fat Gypsy Weddings” television series. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is to hear evidence from Lord Burns GCB (Chairman of Channel 4) and from David Abraham (Chief Executive Channel 4) on 16 October 2012. We ask the Committee to consider the serious findings of the ASA regarding Channel 4’s “Bigger Fatter Gypsier” advertising campaign, in which the ASA held variously that Channel 4 had been: irresponsible; caused serious offence; endorsed negative prejudicial views; that its advertisements were harmful to children and the campaign depicted a child in a sexualised way. We ask the Committee to seek a full explanation from Channel 4 as to their actions in promoting such a high profile advertising campaign that has done such harm to vulnerable children. We ask the Committee to hear evidence from our client (who is a nationally and internationally recognised charity representing the Irish Traveller community) so that they may provide the Committee with expert evidence gathered from Mr Arthur Ivatts OBE (the former HM Inspector of Schools with national responsibility for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Education) and from Mr Brian Foster (Head of Traveller Education Services in London) concerning the affect that the ad campaign and subsequent series had and continues to have upon Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. We submit that it is vital that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee scrutinise Channel 4, as a public broadcaster, especially where the independent ASA have decided their actions have caused offence including distress and mental harm to children. 3 October 2012

Further written evidence submitted by Howe & Co We write further to our letter of 3 October 2012. We would be grateful for confirmation of receipt of that letter. We have been advised that Channel 4 (whose Chairman and Chief Executive will be appearing before you shortly) has issued a statement regarding the above ASA report, maintaining: “It was not Channel 4’s intention for these adverts to cause offence but we are sorry this was the case among some members of the Gypsy and Traveller community. “All responsible action was taken pre-publication: the posters were voluntarily submitted to the industry’s independent CAP copy advice team who advised that they believed they complied with the advertising code; consent was obtained from contributors; and the posters were shared with those featured, who had no objections.” It appears that this statement is not an accurate representation of Channel 4’s pre publication actions in regard of these now banned advertisements. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 27

We have been provided with an email exchange between Channel 4’s Creative Director and Channel 4’s advertisement campaign photographer, which raise even more serious concerns. It appears that far from it not being “Channel 4’s intention for these adverts to cause offence” and “All responsible action [being] taken pre publication”; in fact Channel 4, at the most senior level, was seeking to manufacture images of Travellers and Gypsies which Channel 4 must have known would be of the most offensive and harmful nature. We ask the Committee to study today’s ASA report closely and also to study the email from Channel 4’s Creative Director. We believe that the Committee will share our clients’ deep concerns in regard of Channel 4’s conduct as a public service broadcaster. We would ask the Committee to hold Channel 4 to account for the harm and offence caused. We also ask that the Committee challenge Channel 4 robustly in regard of their actions and treatment of the vulnerable Traveller and Gypsy Communities. We would ask that the Committee confirm that it has received our letters and advise us as to whether the important issues raised by the ASA, which have the clearest bearing upon Channel 4’s public service remit, will be raised with Channel 4 at your forthcoming meeting. Enclosed: Copy of email exchange between Channel 4’s Creative Director and photographer.5 4 October 2012

APPENDIX 1 From: Pablo de la Penya Subject: Gypsies Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:10:26 To: Elisabeth Blanchet Hi Elisabeth! Nice to talk to you. As we spoke, we love the work we have and now want to give a little bump to it. Exuberant is now the word. Now we need more faces looking at the camera, the tackiest dresses they have in the wardrobe, the guys proudly showing us their caravan... So that’s it: Dresses, caravans and faces. All what it takes to have gypsier results:) We thought some situations to check the spirit of what we want to get, no to make them literally (If you can make someone literally, that would be great): A dirty kiss between a couple, with tongue. A toilet, ideally an outdoor one. We can see the tail of a wedding dress coming out from it, like a bride has just used. A very young girl pretending to be a bride, or even trying a normal size dress (that is enormous for her) Two guys screaming at the camera with a bottle of champagne in their hands. Thanks Elisabeth. Good luck with them!!!

From: Elisabeth Blanchet To: Pablo de la Penya Date: 12/01/2012 Dear Pablo and Ed, Thanks a lot for your message and suggestions Pablo. As I told you on the phone, there is a huge funeral tomorrow so it’s difficult to have people tomorrow. I talked to the Queenferry girls (to ask them more pictures but they don’t seem keen on it). Same with Santana. I think it’s going to be difficult to have some exuberant ones. 5 Printed as Appendix 1 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Ev 28 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Also, about your suggestions. I know you said they only were suggestions but I can’t see myself ask such things to a girl (the toilet one and the kiss). It’s not the way I work. And I don’t think any Gypsies will accept to do that and then to have it on a poster. It’s really a different brief from I got at the beginning. I am still trying to get hold of the girls and will do my best but if I get something, it won’t be before Monday. Best wishes Elisabeth

Further written evidence submitted by Howe & Co We write further to our letters of the 3 and 4 October 2012. Our Mr Enright spoke with one of your very helpful colleagues earlier today, who advised that our correspondence had been passed to you. We would be grateful if you could advise us as to whether the Committee will be raising the serious issues, highlighted by the ASA in their recent report, with Channel 4’s Chairman and Chief Executive when they appear before the Committee on 16 October 2012. We previously referred to the expert evidence of Mr Arthur Ivatts OBE (the former HM Inspector of Schools with national responsibility for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Education) and from Mr Brian Foster (Head of Traveller Education Services in London) concerning the affect that the ad campaign and subsequent series had and continues to have upon Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. The expert evidence also sets out the harm caused to non Traveller children caused by these advertisements and programmes. These reports were before the ASA during their investigation. We enclose copies of those expert reports to assist the Committee in understanding the serious and widespread harm that has been caused to children across the United Kingdom. Given the importance of this ASA report, the Channel 4 emails previously submitted to the Committee and the content of the attached6 expert reports; we trust that the Committee will share our clients’ concerns in regard of child harm caused by these advertisements and the proliferation of Channel 4’s “Gypsy” programming. 9 October 2012

Further written evidence submitted by Howe & Co We would like to thank the Committee for taking the time to examine the findings of the Advertising Authority and for pressing Channel 4 to apologise and explain their actions to the Committee in the light of the ASA report and the expert evidence, which highlighted the widespread bullying and physical assaults that had been caused and exacerbated by Channel 4’s advertising campaign and Channel 4’s various “Gypsy” series. The Committee heard from Channel 4’s Chief Executive at some length. Unfortunately, the evidence given to the Committee by Mr Abraham was significantly inaccurate in a number of important aspects. We felt that it was right, particularly as Mr Damian Collins has called for further evidence to be submitted to the Committee by Channel 4, to provide the Committee with information correcting Channel 4’s statements to the Committee.

Participants in the Advertisements Were All Happy With Them Channel 4’s Chief Executive maintained to the Committee that all of the participants in the advertisements were happy with them. This is not true. One of the adverts considered by the ASA was a poster depicting three very young Traveller girls dressed, apparently, in extravagant clothes, posing before a small dilapidated caravan. I attach to this email, witness statements7 from the mother and guardian of two of the girls, who were 10 and 12 at the time the pictures were taken. You will note that the children’s parents/guardians were angered, shocked and deeply distressed by the use of their children’s images in these massive billboard posters. The parents had either never given their consent for the use of the images, or in one case, only did so after publication having been pressurised to do so and without being advised that the child’s image would be covered by the offensive strap line “Bigger Fatter Gypsier”. The children had been required by Channel 4 to dress up in their First Holy Communion dresses for the photos. The children had undertaken their First Communion some months prior to the photograph being taken. The poster was devoid of this important context or information and presented Traveller children as dressing extravagantly as a matter of course. The Committee may well be aware that Catholic girls of all ethnicities wear these types of dresses for their First holy Communion ceremony, as it represents a form of marriage to the Church. You will note also from the statements, that although the children are presented in a concrete yard before a dilapidated caravan (suggesting that they and most Travellers and Gypsies live in such caravans) these children 6 Not printed 7 Printed as Appendices 1 and 2 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 29

have never lived in a caravan in their lives; and in fact live in very well appointed detached houses on a much sought after street in St Albans. The attached statements were submitted to the ASA on 8 June 2012 and were communicated to Channel 4 shortly thereafter. Therefore, on the 16 October, having had these very clear statements for some four months, the Chief Executive of Channel 4 should not have advised the Committee that all of the participants in the posters were happy with them. They were not.

The Email From Channel 4’s Creative Director The committee took a good deal of time to examine and question Channel 4 in regard of the deeply offensive email instruction sent by Channel 4’s Creative Director to the campaign photographer, urging her to manufacture even more offensive and harmful images for the ad campaign. Channel 4’s Chief Executive advised the Committee that the email was drafted and sent by a “relatively junior” member of staff and that this offensive email did not represent the way Channel 4 operated. He advised the Committee that their Creative Director had been reprimanded and put on training. In fact the offensive email exchange was copied in to a Mr Ed Webster, who is Channel 4’s Director of photography. Clearly therefore another Channel 4 Director was involved and aware of this offensive direction to create harmful images. We do not know how many other Directors of Channel 4 were aware or involved in this email exchange. Channel 4’s Chief Executive should have advised the Committee of the involvement of their Director of Photography in this offensive email exchange and as to what, if any, action had been taken in regard of him.

The Campaign Photographer Although Channel 4’s Chief Executive praised the ad campaign photographer for resisting the pressure from Channel 4’s Directors to create offensive images; he also went on to state the photographer was aware of how her pictures had been used and the addition of offensive strap line “Bigger Fatter Gypsier”. This is not true. The photographer was a Ms Elisabeth Blanchet, a highly regarding French photo journalist. On her website and in the press, she has repeatedly stated that she was not aware as to how her photographs were to be used or the inclusion of offensive strap line “Bigger Fatter Gypsier”. Indeed, in the most recent issue of Time Out Magazine, copy attached, she states that the images (particularly that of the 15 year old girl) were cropped and reversed and made a bigger thing out of the child’s breasts.

Conclusion The Committee has called upon Channel 4 to produce and submit the proofs and other papers that Channel 4 maintain that they put before the ASA Copy Advice Team prior to publication. Mr Collins was particularly keen to examine what, if any, steps Channel 4 took in regard of checking the ages of children whom they were photographing for ad campaigns. We await with interest Channel 4’s submission of that evidence. The Committee were clearly deeply concerned by Channel 4’s actions and the report of the ASA. Ofcom have been considering a detailed compliant in regard of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings and Thelma’s Gypsy Girls since 1 August 2012. We await Ofcom’s report. We wish to thank the Committee, on behalf of the Traveller, Gypsy and Roma communities for their attention to this important matter. The experts who submitted evidence to the Committee regarding the widespread harm to children caused by Channel 4, and the Irish Traveller Movement of Britain, remain willing to give evidence to the Committee should this be deemed appropriate. 18 October 2012

APPENDIX 1 Witness Statement of Ann Connors I, Ann Connors, of XXX XXX XXX would make the following true statement. I am the aunt of XXX XXX. I am her guardian, as her mother died. She is the girl in the centre of the picture of the three girls in their First Holy Communion dresses. She is 12 years old. When the picture was taken of my child the photographer did not get my consent to use this picture. In fact, my child’s picture was used in a poster that went up all over the country, in magazines and on the internet long before my consent was ever sought. I started getting phone calls from people saying that XXXXX’s picture was up on giant posters in London. I was shocked. I never knew that my child’s picture was going to be put on posters. I had been told that a beautiful picture of our girls was going to be put in “OK” magazine. I thought it would be a nice picture with a nice story about my child’s First Holy Communion. I could not believe that my child’s picture would be used on a giant poster around the country. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Ev 30 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

I telephoned Kate at Channel 4. I told her how angry I was. I told her that I had not consented to have Rosemary’s picture used. I asked her why Rosemary was in the picture on the poster when I had not consented to this. I said the photo was ugly. I said I was very angry and I did not consent or agree to Rosemary being used in a poster. Kate apologised. She said that her manager apologised also. I said that I could sue her for using the picture without my consent.

I rang Channel 4 a number of times, I was so angry. I was crying on the phone when I spoke to Channel 4.

I was so angry that they had used such an ugly photo of my child, in front of a caravan, without my permission or consent.

I was so upset and crying. People were ringing me saying the poster was up everywhere.

I had not given my permission for this picture to be used by Channel 4.

Some days after I called and complained to Channel 4, the photographer, Elisabeth Blanchet, came to my home.

I asked her to explain what had happened. I told her I did not give her or Channel 4 permission to use this picture in their poster.

I told her that I could sue her. The photographer said that she was sorry. She said she had been under a lot of stress. She said her mother had just died. I was afraid the photographer would lose her job. Despite my anger and upset I felt pity for her. I did not want her to get in trouble or lose her job.

She asked me to sign a piece of paper giving her permission to use the picture. This was weeks after the poster had gone up in London. I was so angry about the use of the picture. However, out of pity for the photographer I signed the piece of paper. I did not understand what the piece of paper was. I cannot read. She did not read the piece of paper to me or explain it to me.

I only signed the piece of paper because of what the photographer said to me about how stressed she was and about how her mother had just died and also because I was afraid she would lose her job.

As I have said, I do not read. I had not seen the poster myself when I signed the paper.

I did not know what the words, “Bigger Fatter Gypsier” meant, and had not seen these words when I signed.

I want to be clear. I would not have agreed to this picture being used if I knew what these words meant.

I am very angry about how the picture of my child was used in a poster before my consent was obtained. I would have not have consented retrospectively except because of how the photographer begged me and made me feel sorry for her. If I had known what the words on the poster said, I would never have signed the piece of paper the photographer asked me to sign, weeks after the poster went up everywhere.

My child does not live in a caravan. This picture makes it look like Rosemary lives in a caravan. She does not and has never lived in a caravan.

My child is a Catholic like me. The dress she is wearing is a normal Holy Communion dress that any Catholic girl would wear for her First Holy Communion.

This picture makes it look like my child dresses up like this all the time, rather than explaining that this is a normal dress for any Catholic girl on her communion day.

I am very angry and hurt about the way my child’s picture has been used. It is not a true picture. My consent was not obtained before the picture was used in this poster and magazine campaign. I only signed the piece of paper weeks after the poster went up. I only signed it out of pity for the photographer.

If I could read and could have understood the words, “Bigger Fatter Gypsier” on the poster I would not have signed the piece of paper the photographer put in front of me.

This picture and poster has caused so much upset and hurt in my family and my community.

This poster has hurt us, it has hurt my child and has hurt our community.

I feel that we have been used and abused.

This statement is true and has been read to me. Ann Connors 8 June 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 31

APPENDIX 2 Witness Statement of Margret Doran. I, Margret Doran of XXX XXX XXX make the following statement. I am the mother of Margret Doran, who is the 10-year-old girl pictured on the right hand side of the poster of the 3 girls in communion dresses. I am the aunt of the other two girls featured in the poster who are, XXX XXX (12) who is in the centre of the picture; and XXX XXX (9) who is pictured at the right of the poster. I am very angry and upset at the way the picture of my child and nieces was taken and used. I did not give my consent for the use of my child’s picture in this poster. My child is Catholic, like me. She had her First Holy Communion in September 2011. The photographer who took this picture came to my home about 3 months after the First Holy Communion. She asked the girls to dress up in their First Holy Communion dresses. She took a number of pictures of them dressed up. The photographer did not get my consent for the use of this picture in this poster. The photographer did not show me or read me any consent form. I later discovered that the photographer had got my daughter, XXX XXX, to sign the consent form. My daughter does not read properly. The consent form was not read to her. It was simply put in front of her and she was asked to sign it. My daughter is only 10 and does not have the authority to consent to the use of my child’s picture. At no time was I told or had it explained to me how this picture would be used. My consent was not sought and I did not give my consent for the use of my child’s photograph. When I saw the poster I was shocked. I was disgusted that the slogan “Bigger, Fatter, Gypsier” was put across my child’s face. My child is only 10 years old. She is not Bigger or Fatter or Gypsier. The picture shows my child standing in front of a caravan. It suggests that my child lives in a caravan. She does not and has never lived in a caravan. We live in a lovely house on XXX XXX. We do not travel the roads. This picture misrepresented my child. It made people believe that she and her cousins live in a caravan. This is not true. Also, my daughter is pictured wearing her First Holy Communion dress. She did her First Holy Communion months before this picture was taken. The photographer asked the girls to dress up in their Communion dresses, as if they were wearing these dresses all the time. We are Catholics and we take our religion seriously. The dresses worn by my daughter and her cousins are normal First Holy Communion dresses that would be worn by any Catholic girl on the day of their Communion. This picture makes it look like my daughter dresses up like this all the time. This is not true. This picture completely misrepresented my child and how she lives. I did not consent to this picture being used. I was not told that this disgusting slogan would be put on my child’s face. I am very angry and upset about how this picture was taken and used without my consent. I would not have consented to this picture being used in this poster. I believe that the way this picture had been used has damaged how my child, our family and our community are seen by the world. This statement is true and has been read to me. Margret Doran 8 June 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Children’s Media Foundation Some of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee members will know the Children’s Media Foundation. Beginning life as the Save Kids’ TV Campaign, the Children’s Media Foundation is a not-for- profit organisation dedicated to ensuring that UK children have a wide choice of the highest quality media. The Foundation was therefore pleased when Section 22 of the Digital Economy Act 2012 inserted a new section 198A into the Communications Act 2003 requiring Channel 4 to “participate in...the making of relevant media content that appeals to the tastes and interests of older children and young adults.” The Foundation was also pleased when, in the light of this remit, C4 stated its ambitions were to: — Broaden the reach and impact of commissions to 14 to 19 year olds. — Develop bespoke projects for older children. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Ev 32 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— Cover issues beyond the curriculum that will resonate with a teenage audience.

C4’s annual report states that in 2011 it “began to develop content for older children.” As far as we can see, the only evidence of anything explicitly aimed at 10+ children was “Nightmare High”, an interactive Grange Hill type story-based web game.

Given the apparently slow start on C4’s requirement to provide content for “older children”, could the Select Committee please ask the following questions: — How many new projects for this audience are currently in production and how many in development? In particular how many projects are aimed at the lower end of the age group (10–14 years)? — What percentage of the overall budget of the Education Department is being devoted to “issues beyond the curriculum that will resonate with a teenage audience”? Does C4 believe that this was really the intention of the new remit? — What is C4’s definition of an “older child”?

There has been talk of the one off special “Snowman 2” but while it might appeal to 10–14 year olds, it is aimed at a much wider audience and will not address the specific needs of older children. The Children’s Media Foundation is concerned that Channel 4 is neither committing expertise nor budget to this audience that it promised to serve. If one online interactive drama is the only offering, it would seem that C4 lacks the appetite to do so.

Despite articles 17 and 31 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, stating that children should have appropriate mass media and cultural activities, here in the UK the dearth of content specifically aimed at young teenagers continues.

Thank you for holding C4 to account. October 2012

Further written evidence submitted by the Children’s Media Foundation

The Children’s Media Foundation thanks Ben Bradshaw MP for questioning David Abraham about Channel 4’s performance regarding programming for “older children” in 2011. Given its commitment under section 198A the Communications Act 2003 (inserted by Section 22 of the Digital Economy Act 2010), C4 is now required to “participate in ... the making of relevant media content that appeals to the tastes and interests of older children and young adults”.

The Children’s Media Foundation read Mr Abraham’s responses with interest and sadly, disappointment. With regard to Mr Bradshaw’s question 42, “So you would contest the suggestion from the Children’s Media Foundation that you have not really done much so far? They could only detect one new programme called Nightmare High, which was an interactive Grange Hill type of story-based programme.”—Mr Abraham mentioned Cover Girl, Nightmare High and a game on Facebook called Beauty Town. In our opinion, if this is a ‘slate’ then it is a pretty small one.

Furthermore, given that the minimum age for Facebook users is 13 and we are talking about 10–13 year olds, a show on Facebook is really inappropriate!

Mr Abraham also mentioned The Snowman 2. But this is a one off family film for Christmas. Yes it will appeal to 10 year olds no doubt but it is not specifically for them. So it doesn’t rally go far to fill the gap identified by Ofcom for age 10+ children.

It is also worth noting that no new budget has been assigned. The monies for these new programmes (apart from The Snowman 2) come from C4’s education budget. Understandably the tone of these shows is very educative but Education was not the primary concern in Ofcom’s report. In terms of culture and entertainment, this part of the audience remains underserved. It feels as if C4 are paying lip service and nothing more.

The Children’s Media Foundation hopes that the Select Committee will pursue this matter further. If C4 are not called to account before their next review, another generation of age 10+ children will be another year older; a year they will never have again. November 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-04-2013 09:35] Job: 024197 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024197/024197_w008_steve_Christine Cawley (CH4 006).xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 33

Written evidence submitted by Christine Cawley I am writing to you about Channel 4’s Annual report which you are looking at in the Committee on Tuesday 16 October. It is Big Fat Gypsy Weddings that I am writing about and especially the Billboards for the programmes. I am an Irish Traveller and a Trustee of charity the London Gypsy and Traveller Unit. In the Report all that Channel 4 says is that the programmes had a “high buzz score” and that viewers said they “learnt something new” from the films . Actually they say this twice in one paragraph. For most of the Gypsy and Traveller community, series one in 2011 did a lot of damage and brought embarrassment and shame by the way it was made and the things that were said. Then they did another series. The “Buzz score” they got was from people laughing at us and having a joke, not from any attempt by Channel 4 to understand us. The Adverts went up a few weeks before the films it started again. I want please to ask the committee to see the effect these had on us. Whether we live on sites or in flats—because there aren’t enough sites—most of us try hard to get on with our neighbours but at the same time we have to hide who we are because of bigotry. Like any parents we are fiercely protective of our children. Like the Advertising Standards Authority has now said, the adverts “irresponsibly...sexualised” young girls and agreed that the poster of the boy seeming to be aggressive “could cause mental/moral harm” to children. Like many other families I know, I had to take my children out of school for what they were put through as a result of these adverts. But all Channel 4 can say is that “it was not their intention to cause offence and we are sorry this was the case among some members of the Gypsy and Traveller community”. Not just offence was caused but damage and fear. I read now in the newspaper that a Channel 4 advert man asked the photographer to take very intrusive and rude photos and even pretend people were actually doing these things. Now they are saying he was only a junior. But in their press release about him they say he is Senior and “at the top of his game”. It is time for Channel 4 to come clean and to make a proper serious apology for everything they have done. The apology should not be just to “some members of the Gypsy and Traveller community” but to all their viewers for misleading them, for stereotyping and causing such harm. Thank you for reading this letter. I will be pleased talk to the committee if it helps. October 2012

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 04/2013 024197 19585

Distributed by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Online www.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701

The Houses of Parliament Shop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders: 020 7219 3890/General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.shop.parliament.uk TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 PEFC/16-33-622 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/