Reference: 1269453

Julia Snape Information Rights [email protected] 30 July 2021

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Thank you for your request for information held by Ofcom about correspondence with Paul Dacre.

We received this request on 27 May 2021 and have considered it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOI Act’). We wrote to you on 25 June 2021 to say we needed more time to consider your request because the information requested was being considered under one of the FOI Act exemptions to which a public interest test applies. We have now concluded our consideration.

Your request You asked:

1. Could you please send me all emails that were sent / received from Paul Dacre or emails in your system that mention any of these terms. 2. Records of meetings, notes or minutes of those meetings and documents prepared for meetings with Paul Dacre, phone logs of calls with Paul Dacre.

The time period for these three requests is July 1st 2019 to the date this request was received. For this request I would ask that you limit it to these people: Dame Melanie Dawes, chief exec and her predecessor Bob Kerslake, former Ofcom Chairman Terence Burns, Martin Ballantyne, Ofcom's General Counsel and Legal Group Director, Tony Close, former director of content standards, and the current holder of the post, Alison Marsden. Background By way of background, it is worth clarifying that the appointment of the Ofcom Chair is run independently of Ofcom by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The role of Ofcom Chair was officially announced on the HM Government Appointments website on 12 February 2021 and the process is regulated by the Commissioner of Public Appointments. It was reported in May 2021 that the appointment process would be relaunched. Prior to this, it was reported that Paul Dacre was a candidate for the role. You may be interested in our response to a previous freedom of information request on this subject published on our website:1 [chairman-role.pdf (ofcom.org.uk)].

1 We have not regarded administrative correspondence organising previous FOI responses as falling within the scope of the current request.

Page 1 of 9

Given the media coverage in relation to this matter, we have assumed that the focus of your request is the process for the appointment of the next Ofcom Board Chair. Given that the Chair appointment process does not relate to an Ofcom project, we considered that the most effective approach to information gathering would be to conduct a search of the email inboxes of the individuals identified in your request for any email that mentions Paul Dacre. However, we have not limited our information gathering or response to information relating to the Chair appointment process specifically.

Before responding to your request, it may be helpful to clarify some relevant information about the individuals listed in your request:

• Ofcom’s Chief Executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, joined Ofcom on 2 March 2020. Jonathan Oxley was interim CEO from the end of November 2019 until Dame Melanie joined Ofcom. Prior to that, Ofcom’s Chief Executive was Dame Sharon White (rather than Bob Kerslake, to whom you referred in your request).

• Lord Terry Burns was Chair of Ofcom until December 2020. We have searched his email inbox until that date.

• Tony Close left Ofcom in April 2020. We were unable to conduct a search of his email inbox as, for the purposes of data protection and good records management, we have a policy to permanently delete all Outlook accounts 6 months after any colleagues leave Ofcom2. We note it is possible that information falling within the scope of the request may be saved elsewhere in a project-specific location but we would require a more targeted request in order to conduct this search efficiently and within the appropriate limit set for compliance with a request stipulated by section 12 of the FOI Act (which, for Ofcom, is 18 hours). In relation to item 2) of your request, I confirm that we do not record phone calls apart from those received into our Contact Centre. We therefore have not referred to this aspect of your request below.

Our response Subject to our above clarifications, we have conducted searches of the email inboxes of the relevant individuals for information that Ofcom holds within the scope of your request and have set out our response below.

By way of general response to item 1) of your request, we note that:

• We do not hold any emails sent to/from Paul Dacre and any of the relevant individuals.

• We hold a number of internal media alert emails in which Paul Dacre is referenced in the context of news articles about the process for the appointment of the Ofcom Chair. This includes the following set of news articles: Paul Dacre is just who Ofcom needs to challenge BBC’s liberal left bias (), The Tories must mobilise soon in the culture wars, or they

2 With the exception of Ofcom’s Chief Executive and Chair.

Page 2 of 9

may find themselves outflanked (Sunday Times), There is a drive on to destroy the BBC (Guardian), Former ITN boss Carver lined up as interim Ofcom chair (Sky News).

• We hold internal emails between our Communications team and members of the Senior Management Team, including Dame Melanie Dawes and Martin Ballantyne, which include the Communications team’s summary and analysis of relevant media and external discussion of the Ofcom Chair appointment, and discussions about the development of appropriate internal and external communications responses. These reports are part of that team’s usual function in keeping the Senior Management Team up to date on external commentary connected with Ofcom. All of the media content referred to in the messages is already in the public domain and a selection has been provided above. However, we are unable to disclose the other content of these emails, which includes the team’s commentary, as we consider this information is exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(b) of the FOI Act. Section 36 is a qualified exemption, which means that Ofcom is required to consider whether or not the public interest in disclosing the information you have requested outweighs the public interest in withholding the information. In this case, we consider that the public interest favours withholding the information for the reasons set out in Annex B to this letter. In Annex A of this letter, the qualified person for Ofcom – the Corporation Secretary – has confirmed that this exemption applies.

In relation to Alison Marsden, we confirm that Ofcom does not hold any information within the scope of items 1) or 2) of your request.

In relation to Martin Ballantyne, with the exception of the emails referring to Paul Dacre in the context of news reports outlined above, we confirm that Ofcom does not hold any information within the scope of items 1) or 2) of your request. In relation to Lord Terry Burns, with the exception of the emails referring to Paul Dacre in the context of news reports outlined above, we confirm that Ofcom does not hold any further information within the scope of items 1) or 2) of your request.

In relation to Dame Melanie Dawes, we do hold some further information that falls within scope of items 1) and 2) of your request. These emails fall into the following categories:

• We hold a small number of emails concerning the administration of the recruitment process. We consider that this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the FOI Act, which provides that personal information about persons other than the requester is exempt where its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles in the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Section 40 is an absolute exemption under the Act and does not require a public interest test.

• We hold an email from members of Ofcom’s Public Policy team to Dame Melanie, which provides a summary of an Oral Question about the Ofcom Chair appointment process in the House of Lords. The full transcript of the House of Lords debate can be found in Hansard here and we have disclosed the email in Annex C.

Page 3 of 9

Some of the emails captured by the request also contain personal information about a number of Ofcom colleagues and third parties. We consider that this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the FOI Act, which provides that personal information about persons other than the requester is exempt where its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles in the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Section 40 is an absolute exemption under the Act and does not require a public interest test.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further queries, then please send them to [email protected] quoting the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely,

Julia Snape

Page 4 of 9

Annex A

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Section 36 exemption

Some of the information you requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

I am a "qualified person" as referred to section 36(2) of the Act and duly authorised by a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of that section. In my reasonable opinion, disclosure of the information requested would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

In applying this exemption, I have had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information.

I have set out in Annex B the exemption in full, as well as the factors I considered when deciding where the public interest lay in relation to the information concerned. If you have any queries about this letter, please contact [email protected].

Signed

Date: 30 July 2021

Corporation Secretary

Page 5 of 9

Annex B

Section 36: Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs

Section 36 exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, have any of the following effects:

• inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, • inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, or • otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

Key points:

• Section 36 can only be used if, in the reasonable view of a "qualified person", disclosure of the requested information would have one of the specified effects. • In this case it is considered that disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. • The application of section 36 is subject to a public interest balance.

Factors for disclosure Factors for withholding

• The general desirability that Ofcom’s • In order to run the organisation effectively, activities as the UK’s communications Ofcom’s Chief Executive and wider regulator are transparent. management team need to be able to be • Transparency of Ofcom’s engagement informed of and internally discuss any issues with and views in relation to issues relevant to Ofcom and its governance, concerning its governance, such as including media announcements regarding discussion of the process for appointing the Government’s appointment of a new the new Ofcom Chair, may lead to greater Ofcom Chair and the wider discussion of the awareness of, and trust in, how Ofcom process and candidates. The operates as a regulator and how it correspondence with Ofcom’s performs its duties. Communications team ensures that Ofcom’s Chief Executive and the Senior Management Team is appropriately supported, prepared for, and kept abreast of these issues. The information concerned also relates to Ofcom’s formulation of its communications both externally and internally to Ofcom staff regarding the appointment of the new Ofcom Chair.

• The threat of disclosure of this internal correspondence would substantively inhibit the Chief Executive and wider

Page 6 of 9

Senior Management Team’s ability to perform their role effectively in future.

Reasons why public interest favours withholding information

• We consider that there is limited public interest in disclosure of internal sharing of news reports on the process for appointing a new Ofcom Chair, particularly in circumstances where this information is already in the public domain and Ofcom’s Chief Executive and Senior Management Team would reasonably be kept informed of the process and Ofcom’s communications approach. Any public interest in this information is outweighed by the need for Ofcom’s Chief Executive and Senior Management Team to be supported and kept informed of these issues. Disclosure would likely inhibit the ability of the Chief Executive and Senior Management Team to run Ofcom effectively. • We also consider that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the need for Ofcom to share information internally that assists in the effective conduct of Ofcom’s communications strategy and internal management in relation to the appointment of the Ofcom Chair.

Annex C From: [Ofcom colleague] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 12:32:53 PM To: [Ofcom colleagues/Teams - Public Policy, Media & Corporate Relations] Subject: Lords Oral Question on the appointment of the new Ofcom Chair

Classification: CONFIDENTIAL

Dear all, Lord Foster of Bath asked an oral question on the appointment of a new permanent Ofcom Chair. A number of Peers asked questions around the process, including the suitability of speculated candidates (Paul Dacre) and ensuring that the new chair had the appropriate skills and qualifications to undertake the role. Peers also raised questions around the Online Safety Bill, including whether Ofcom had the appropriate resourcing in place to deliver the new regime. A full summary of the session is provided below. Thanks,

[Ofcom colleague] Ofcom Chair • DCMS Minister Baroness Barran outlined that the process to appoint a new permanent Ofcom Chair was underway and the process would be fair, open and robust. She confirmed that it would be conducted in line with the governance code and regulated by the

Page 7 of 9

Commissioner for Public Appointments. She noted that the preferred candidate would also appear before the DCMS Select Committee. • Lord Foster of Bath (Lib Dem) asked if it would be unacceptable for the new Ofcom Chair to be someone who has a history of political partisanship in their role as a newspaper editor given Ofcom’s role in ensuring the political impartiality of the broadcast media. In response, Baroness Barran stressed that she would not speculate on any potential candidate for the role and that Ofcom would remain an impartial, independent and evidence-based regulator. • Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab) asked if the new permanent chair would have the appropriate skills and qualifications in the communications sector to undertake the role. Responding to Lord Foulkes, Baroness Barran stated that the role profile was perfectly clear to potential applicants. • Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) asked how the new Ofcom Chair could enhance Ofcom’s role in tackling online abuse. In response, Baroness Barran stressed that the role of the Ofcom Chair was to lead board as opposed to the day-to-day running of the regulator. Online Safety Bill and the Digital Markets Unit • Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) asked what progress was being made in bringing forward both the Online Safety Bill and legislation to give the Digital Markets Unit the statutory powers it needed to fulfil its functions. In response, Baroness Barran recognised the importance of Ofcom coordinating its activities with other digital regulators including the Digital Markets Unit. She also confirmed that the Government was working on the Online Safety Bill with the aim of having it ready to be presented to Parliament later this year. • Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) highlighted that Ofcom’s remit was expanding as a result of new responsibilities, including around online harms. He asked what discussions had the Minister had with Ofcom’s Chief Executive around the regulator’s current and future resourcing to ensure that it could cope with its expanding remit. In response, Baroness Barran stated that work was underway within Ofcom to recruit individuals with the appropriate skills and expertise to deliver the online harms regime, including Ofcom’s Director of Emerging Technologies who was recruited from Google. • Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (Crossbench) argued that there was a need for social media regulation and also asked whether media literacy should be transferred from Ofsted to Ofcom. Baroness Barran responded by saying that Ofcom was the Government’s preferred regulator for the online harms regime and confirmed that the Government would be announcing its media literacy strategy later this year. PSB • Lord Dubs (Lab) asked whether the Government recognised the importance of PSB given the alternative was partisan commercial networks like Fox News. Responding to Lord Dubs, Baroness Barran stated that the Government was supportive of a modern system of PSB and that Ofcom had a crucial part to play in delivering this due to its regulatory role. [Ofcom colleague] Public Policy Associate Public Policy Team Corporate Group :: Ofcom 125 Princes Street Edinburgh EH2 4AD www.ofcom.org.uk

Page 8 of 9

If you are unhappy with the response you have received in relation to your request for information and/or consider that your request was refused without a reason valid under the law you may ask for an internal review. If you ask us for an internal review of our decision, it will be subject to an independent review within Ofcom.

The following outcomes are possible: • the original decision is upheld; or • the original decision is reversed or modified.

Timing If you wish to exercise your right to an internal review you should contact us within two months of the date of this letter. There is no statutory deadline for responding to internal reviews and it will depend upon the complexity of the case. However, we aim to conclude all such reviews within 20 working days, and up to 40 working days in exceptional cases. We will keep you informed of the progress of any such review. If you wish to request an internal review, you should contact [email protected].

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF

Page 9 of 9