Memorandum by Sky News

1. Introduction

1.1.            Sky welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry into Broadcast General Election Debates. We have not answered all of the questions raised by the Committee but have focused on our areas of expertise and experience. We also refer the Committee to our recent response to the Review of Ofcom’s list of major political parties for elections taking place on 22 May 2014 in appendix 1.

1.2.            Sky News has done much to transform news in the UK. In 1989 Sky introduced the UK’s first 24 hour rolling news channel, and now provides news online via skynews.com, on the radio, on mobile phones and tablets, on desktops and on out-of-home screens, in addition to its broadcast television channel available on all major platforms. Sky News reaches more than 107 million homes across 117 countries around the world.

1.3.            Sky has invested more that £1 billion in news provision over the last twenty years and is proud of its reputation for delivering high-quality, award-winning news coverage to millions of people. Sky News is valued for its for fairness, balance and objectivity by viewers and regulators.  We have earned our reputation for reporting live news – first.

1.4.            Our 2009 General Election debate campaign is one of Sky News’ proudest achievements. We remain convinced of the value of these debates in re-engaging voters and especially young people.

2. Sky’s role in the 2010 leaders’ debates

2.1.            Previous bids to bring the party leaders together on TV had come to nothing, usually because one or other of the potential participants felt they had little to gain.  On September 2 2009, Head of Sky News, John Ryley, wrote to the three main party leaders inviting them to take part in a live debate, arguing that the democratic process needed reinvigoration. This was accompanied by a Times article[1], threatening to “empty chair” unwilling participants.

2.2.            On launching the campaign we set-up a dedicated leaders’ debate section on our website: 43,000 people visited it in the first few days and we also received a hand-written letter from Frank Green, a then 76-year-old viewer who lived in Barnoldswick, Lancashire and didn’t own a computer. He wanted the party leaders to explain why his pension is taxed.

3. Organisation of debates

3.1.            During the organisation of the debates in 2010 and reflection upon their success it has been debated whether there is an appropriate role for the establishment of an “independent” body to oversee the debates. 

3.2.            In 2009 there were suggestions from both Labour and the Conservatives that they favoured the appointment of a neutral group or chair, separate from both politicians and broadcasters, to oversee the negotiations. The idea was clearly drawn from America, where the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has sponsored debates since 1988.

3.3.            From the very start, we felt that calls for a neutral party in negotiation did not reflect the very different broadcasting environment in the UK and risked adding an extra layer of complexity to an already convoluted process. The US’ particular structure is a response to a specific legal restriction on the way broadcasters cover presidential elections and operates as a way of distancing them from the organisation of the debates.  No comparative constraint exists in the UK.

3.4.            Rather, broadcasters in the UK are bound by an extensive network of regulation designed to guarantee political impartiality.  Furthermore, Sky News is proud of our unmatched reputation for journalistic integrity and history of editorial independence.  Sky News, the BBC and ITV recognise our responsibilities to both our audience and our respective regulators.

3.5.            Furthermore, as a result of a number of challenges to the debates made by parties whose leaders were not one of the three featured leaders, there is now a body of guidance and decisions covering the application of broadcast regulation to the debates.[2]  These precedents provide a firm foundation for the regulation of future debates, giving certainty to broadcasters and parties alike, in the public interest.

3.6.            The confidential nature of discussions prior to agreement was a factor in their success.  Privacy allowed for a critical level of trust to develop between all parties and enabled those involved to ignore speculative stories in the press and avoid discussions becoming derailed by party politics.

4. Format for 2010 debates

4.1.            In autumn 2009 all the major broadcasters in the UK convened a meeting to discuss the debates. Channel 4 and Five were both present at the meeting. Both broadcasters, however, decided to end their participation in discussions of their own accord.

4.2.            Subsequently, in October 2009, Sky News, BBC and ITV wrote to the leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties with a joint proposal for three live televised debates during the general election campaign.

4.3.            The broadcasters elected to invite to talks only representatives of the three parties competing to form the next Westminster government; all of whom already held significant representation in Parliament.  Independently, Sky News decided to explore the possibility of holding separate debates in the devolved nations.

4.4.            On December 21 2009 all three parties agreed to the basic format put forward by the broadcasters. By 1 March 2010 the 12 negotiators agreed a 76 point programme plan, which stipulated how the studio audience should be selected, the structure of the programme, role of the moderator and audience cutaways.

4.5.            While some detractors expressed concern that the “76 rules” setting out the terms of the debates would stifle spontaneity in debate, they did provide a valuable framework for the process.

4.6.            The key elements of the format included: three 90-minute debates, to be broadcast by ITV, Sky and the BBC on consecutive Thursdays during the campaign, focusing on domestic, international and economic affairs respectively.  The order of debate and their theme was decided by each broadcaster drawing lots.

4.7.            Half of each debate centred on the chosen theme, with the second half reverting to more general lines of questioning.

4.8.            A demographically and politically balanced audience submitted questions in advance to each broadcaster, from which a range were approved for audience members to ask of the leaders, with an opportunity for viewers to email in questions of their own.

4.9.            Opening and closing statements were rotated over the course of all three debates allowing each participant to go first and last once.  The three leaders had a minute to answer each question and a further minute to rebut their opponents’ answers.  There followed four minutes of free debate time.  The moderator’s role was effectively restricted to ensuring equal treatment of all participants, and seeking factual clarifications.

5. Sky’s leaders’ debate

5.1.            Sky’s debate was held at Bristol’s Arnolfini Centre for Contemporary Arts on 22 April 2010. Sky News Political Editor, Adam Boulton chaired the 90 minute debate on international affairs. 

5.2.            ICM was appointed as an external recruitment agency for the audience and the methods of recruitment were based on their advice. In broad terms, the audience of 150 was recruited within a 30 mile radius of the host city, according to gender, age, ethnicity and social class to best reflect the broader voting-age population. Guests also included a number of Sky News viewers who had submitted their own questions for the party leaders via the website: www.skynews.com/debatequestion.

5.3.            It was agreed by all parties that the debates should be geographically spread around the UK.  Sky News chose Bristol to host the debate as a key battleground for the forthcoming General Election: all three parties held local constituencies in 2010.

5.4.            From the launch of our campaign, Sky News always considered the leaders’ debates an opportunity to enhance engagement in the political process and as such made full use of all our platforms – rolling TV news-channel, online and mobile – to maximise coverage around the debate itself.

5.5.            Once the debate had been agreed Sky News established a dedicated production team who spent the months prior to the event in extensive rehearsal.  This included the construction of a replica set and rehearsals with debate moderator, Adam Boulton. This represented a significant and unique investment of time and talent in preparation for the night itself.

5.6.            For the two days around the actual event the whole rolling news channel decamped to Bristol from where Sky News’ programming was dedicated to the debate. There was complementary coverage on all our other platforms. The debate itself attracted Sky News’ biggest ever audience and a cumulative audience of 4.1 million.

5.7.            Sky was the only commercial broadcaster to make its debate available to carry live to all other broadcasters and news organisations, on any platform, anywhere in the world without charge. The BBC carried the debate live on its news channel and later rebroadcast it in full on BBC 2. It was also aired live on LBC 97.3FM and was carried internationally by British Forces Broadcasting Service, Al-Jazeera English and C-Span in the USA.

5.8.            Engagement of young people was a Sky News priority. We worked with the Debate Mate charity, hosting three student debates at schools across the UK, mirroring the TV leaders debates themselves. The debates took place in some of the country’s most deprived areas and focused on developing the students’ communication and leadership skills, empowering them to engage with issues that affect them and their world. The highlights of these debates were carried on Sky News and www.skynews.com in the run up to the Sky News debate.

5.9.            Sky News was encouraged that its debate coverage – along with the ITV and BBC debates – appeared to contribute to greater political engagement. According to Professor Michael Thrasher of Plymouth University’s Election Centre, the debates helped boost turnout by around 5 per cent, whilst Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism[3] found the debates successfully attracted first-time voters and those previously uninterested in politics. Research by the consultancy firm Deloitte[4] found that among those who said the debate had an impact on the way they chose to vote, 12 per cent said they had changed their vote as a result, and 7 per cent decided to vote when previously they had planned to abstain.

6. Sky News’ devolved debates

6.1.            Sky News hosted The Scotland Debate between representatives of the major political parties in Scotland in April 2010. The 90-minute event was screened live from The Hub in Edinburgh and was moderated by Sky News Political Editor Adam Boulton.

6.2.            First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond; Jim Murphy, Secretary of State for Scotland; David Mundell, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Alistair Carmichael, Liberal Democrat Spokesman on Scotland, debated questions posed by Sky News viewers and Skynews.com readers.

6.3.            The format gave each participant the opportunity to respond to individual questions, followed by a session of open debate. There was a 'quick-fire' round of questions, and each politician made a 90-second closing statement.

6.4.            Questions were submitted via the Sky News website and those people whose questions had been chosen were invited to join the audience and pose their question directly to the politicians.

6.5.            The invited audience of 160 people consisted of 80 Scottish residents reflecting the demographics of the country, and 20 supporters from each of the four political parties.

6.6.            Sky News Political Editor Adam Boulton also hosted the Wales Debate ahead of the second contest between the national leaders. The contributors included: Ieuan Wyn Jones, the leader of Plaid Cymru and Deputy First Minister of Wales; Peter Hain, the Welsh Secretary, for Labour; Kirsty Williams, Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats; and Cheryl Gillan, the Conservative Shadow Welsh Secretary.

6.7.            Sky News Presenter Dermot Murnaghan presented a debate programme from Belfast on the final weekend of the election campaign with representatives of the main parties: Shaun Woodward, the Northern Ireland Secretary, Gerry Kelly, Sinn Fein, Peter Weir, DUP, Ian Parsley, UCUNF, and Margaret Richie, SDLP.

7. Debates in 2015

7.1.            While there is disagreement between parties on the details of debates in 2015, Sky News received explicit commitments from all three major party leaders live on air that they would participate in a series of televised debates during the next election campaign.

7.2.            We remain convinced that participants in a 2015 debate should be limited to the three UK political parties that have significant representation in Parliament and will be competing to form the next UK government. Though, of course, should the electoral landscape shift appreciably in the future we would expect participation to change accordingly.

7.3.            Thanks to new legislation fixing the timing of the general election, there should be little problem organising the debates to allow ample time for more traditional campaigning. Unlike last time, we know that the 2015 polling day will be May 7 with Parliament dissolved six weeks earlier — on March 30.

7.4.            At Sky News we have proposed holding the three debates at two-week intervals starting on Thursday, April 2. This should give politicians enough time to launch their campaigns effectively, and prevent the debates from overshadowing other important pre-election activities. This timetable also gives the parties another clear seven-day run-in to polling day itself, with the debates behind them and the electorate fully engaged.

7.5.            It has been suggested that a more adventurous format for the debates can be agreed upon for 2015.

7.6.            The 76 rules worked well last time and represent an effective starting point for all parties to return to discussions in advance of the forthcoming election.

7.7.            We support the consensus that in some cases the rigid format defined in the rules discouraged an element of spontaneity.  We are ready to discuss how we might be able to use the opportunity afforded by the certainty of fixed-term parliaments to innovate this time round.  

7.8.            It should be recognised that a balance will need to be struck between attempts at innovation and the introduction of complicating factors. A key principal of the negotiation process was equality of all broadcasters and the 3 participating political parties.  Having a range of formats would certainly be less simple, raising the risk of disagreement – but it would not be impossible to organise, given political will and existing relationship between broadcasters.

20 January 2014

APPENDIX 1: Sky News’ response to the Review of Ofcom list of major political parties for elections taking place on 22 May 2014

30 January 2014

By Email and Post

Graham Howell

Ofcom

Riverside House

2a Southwark Bridge Road

London   SE1 9HA

Dear Graham,

Review of Ofcom list of major political parties

Ofcom is consulting on proposals relating to the list of major parties for the 2014 European Parliamentary elections in England, Wales and Scotland (‘the European Elections’).  Ofcom has put forward two different methodologies for analysing evidence of past and current electoral support, and a further method combining both.

The outcome of all three methodologies is that the UK Independence Party (‘UKIP’) is added to the list of major parties in respect of the European Elections, albeit excluding Scotland under one methodology.

As a commercial news broadcaster, Sky News makes no comment on which methodology ought to be used or the outcome in respect of the European Elections.   The key issue for Sky News as a broadcaster, is adequate certainty as to its coverage of the May 2014 elections, and in relation the General Election in 2015.  It is essential that the list is settled well in advance of the official ‘election period’.  Ofcom’s current review is therefore timely, however, it is as important to have certainty in planning future coverage. 

Ofcom ought to state now whether and when it expects to review the list prior to the 2015 elections.  It should also acknowledge in its statement that the timing of any further changes may impact on the manner in which broadcasters’ give ‘due weight’ to any additional ‘major party’. 

Should Ofcom’s preliminary view regarding the list of major parties change from that set out in the consultation, Sky News would expect there to be a further opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,

John Ryley

Head of Sky News

British Sky Broadcasting

6