Tuesday, September 21, 2010
S4C and the spending cuts
This morning's Western Mail reports that Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt was informed in writing twice by S4C that it would be unlawful to force the broadcaster to take a cut of £2m in its funding this year. Despite this his department continue to insist that the cut was agreed by the S4C Authority:
Mr Thomas, a former Heritage Minister, said: “These letters were not released by the DCMS voluntarily. We had to threaten to take the department to the Information Commissioner before they reluctantly passed them to us.
“The letters show that on two occasions S4C’s chairman made it clear to the Secretary of State that it would be unlawful for the S4C Authority to agree to a voluntary cut in the funding of the channel. Despite that, Jeremy Hunt seems determined to press on with cuts, regardless of the law. What subsequently happened was that members of the authority decided for their own reasons to create an internal crisis by forcing out Iona Jones, the chief executive. This seriously weakened S4C and put it in a position where it is extremely difficult for it to defend itself against cuts that are being imposed by the DCMS.
“In these circumstances, it has been necessary for people external to S4C to take the lead in defending the channel from cuts that would devastate its ability to provide programming in line with its obligations.
“The legal advice is clear, and Jeremy Hunt needs to be aware that he is likely to face a legal challenge if he pursues these cuts.”
Whatever was said or not said in various meetings and letters it seems that a legal position has now been established that if further cuts are to be made to S4C's budget then a change in the law will be required. However, we do need to keep our perspective on this issue.
Personally, I think S4C do an invaluable job though I have reservations about their accountability and the transparency of their corporate arrangements. It is important that this TV service is protected as much as possible.
However, if I were asked to choose whether we should cut £2 million from S4C or the health service, then I believe I would choose to protect the health budget as a priority. I suspect that is also the view of the vast majority of people in this country.
Mr Thomas, a former Heritage Minister, said: “These letters were not released by the DCMS voluntarily. We had to threaten to take the department to the Information Commissioner before they reluctantly passed them to us.
“The letters show that on two occasions S4C’s chairman made it clear to the Secretary of State that it would be unlawful for the S4C Authority to agree to a voluntary cut in the funding of the channel. Despite that, Jeremy Hunt seems determined to press on with cuts, regardless of the law. What subsequently happened was that members of the authority decided for their own reasons to create an internal crisis by forcing out Iona Jones, the chief executive. This seriously weakened S4C and put it in a position where it is extremely difficult for it to defend itself against cuts that are being imposed by the DCMS.
“In these circumstances, it has been necessary for people external to S4C to take the lead in defending the channel from cuts that would devastate its ability to provide programming in line with its obligations.
“The legal advice is clear, and Jeremy Hunt needs to be aware that he is likely to face a legal challenge if he pursues these cuts.”
Whatever was said or not said in various meetings and letters it seems that a legal position has now been established that if further cuts are to be made to S4C's budget then a change in the law will be required. However, we do need to keep our perspective on this issue.
Personally, I think S4C do an invaluable job though I have reservations about their accountability and the transparency of their corporate arrangements. It is important that this TV service is protected as much as possible.
However, if I were asked to choose whether we should cut £2 million from S4C or the health service, then I believe I would choose to protect the health budget as a priority. I suspect that is also the view of the vast majority of people in this country.
Comments:
<< Home
It's important to read the material carefuly.
The S4C Authority repeatedly says that it understands the current economic climate and that it isn't arguing that the channel should be immune from cuts.
What they are saying is that they can not lawfuly surrender the money they are legaly entitled to.
They are acting in exactly the way that responsible trustees of a charity or directors of a company should, by insuring their actions are lawful.
It's the DCMS that are in the frame here for attempting to pressurise the authority into actions that could be unlawful and leave authority members personaly culpable since they would be ignoring clear legal advice.
Maybe if there had been a Lib Dem in the department a wiser path would have been taken.
The S4C Authority repeatedly says that it understands the current economic climate and that it isn't arguing that the channel should be immune from cuts.
What they are saying is that they can not lawfuly surrender the money they are legaly entitled to.
They are acting in exactly the way that responsible trustees of a charity or directors of a company should, by insuring their actions are lawful.
It's the DCMS that are in the frame here for attempting to pressurise the authority into actions that could be unlawful and leave authority members personaly culpable since they would be ignoring clear legal advice.
Maybe if there had been a Lib Dem in the department a wiser path would have been taken.
# posted by 
: 9:27 PM
: 9:27 PM
"However, if I were asked to choose whether we should cut £2 million from S4C or the health service, then I believe I would choose to protect the health budget as a priority. I suspect that is also the view of the vast majority of people in this country."
False dichotomy. The coalition is not asking that question of voters. It is not a choice at all of "cut S4C or we'll take £2m off health".
S4C's defenders are arguing that it should be treated as a special case, and I for one think the unique linguistic situation in Wales justifies that treatment.
Post a Comment
False dichotomy. The coalition is not asking that question of voters. It is not a choice at all of "cut S4C or we'll take £2m off health".
S4C's defenders are arguing that it should be treated as a special case, and I for one think the unique linguistic situation in Wales justifies that treatment.
<< Home
