THE UK Government moving to install a favourite of Boris Johnson as head of broadcasting regulator Ofcom may be unlawful, Good Law Project has warned.
Paul Dacre, a former editor of the Daily Mail who has been an outspoken critic of the BBC, was reportedly “wooed” by Johnson over drinks in Downing Street early last year.
Dacre previously said that the BBC was “in every corpuscle” against conservatism, accusing it of exercising “a kind of ‘cultural Marxism’ in which it tries to undermine ... conservative society”.
READ MORE: SNP condemn 'chumocracy' as Tories try to 'parachute ally into top Ofcom role'
As the head of Ofcom, it would be within Dacre’s remit to regulate the national broadcaster, as well as being the arbiter of everything from social media regulation to broadband and the postal service.
However, an interview panel deemed him “not appointable” in May, which led the Government to restart the entire hiring process.
Ahead of the rebooted interview process, the job description was rewritten.
Good Law Project, which has spearheaded legal campaigns against the Government including having Michael Gove (above) found guilty of unlawful conduct, said it “appears that the requirements of the role have been adjusted so that Mr Dacre is better positioned to be judged appointable in the second competition”.
Its director, Jo Maugham, said the Tories are trying to "rip up the rules and start again" just as they did with the Owen Paterson scandal.
The Guardian reported that there have been issues finding anyone else to apply for the Ofcom job as the interview process is widely regarded as a formality before coronating Dacre.
That is despite the Conservative chair of the culture select committee, Julian Knight MP, writing to the Government to demand Dacre and others “deemed to be unappointable for a post … be ruled out of re-applying”.
READ MORE: Nadine Dorries flounders when confronted with her own abusive tweets
Lawyers acting for Good Law Project have written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Nadine Dorries, who will have the final say on the next Ofcom boss’s appointment.
They write: “This second competition raises very serious concerns, in particular as to whether it has been held, and designed, in order to favour Mr Dacre’s candidacy.”
It also raises concerns about members of the new interview panel, two of which the lawyers claim have “potential conflicts of interest” that may affect their decision making.
One is Michael Simmonds, the brother-in-law of BBC board member and staunch Brexiteer Robbie Gibb, while the other is Michael Prescott, a director of a PR firm which represents media organisations overseen by Ofcom.
Good Law Project’s letter asks the UK Government to explain why the competition for Ofcom chair is being rerun and why Dacre is being allowed to reapply.
A spokesperson said: “If their explanation is unsatisfactory, Good Law Project will issue legal proceedings.”
Maugham (above), the director of Good Law Project, said: “From ignoring the first interview panel, to re-writing the job description, to reportedly giving Dacre tips on how to pass the interview, this Government seems determined to re-run the appointment process until they get what they want: Paul Dacre installed in the top job at Ofcom.
“There’s a wider pattern here. When Boris Johnson doesn’t like the outcome of an official process, he tries to rip up the rules and start again. We saw it with the Owen Paterson scandal and we’re seeing it again now with this rigged appointment process.
“We want proper answers from the Government. If we don’t get them, we expect to take legal action.”
Dacre stepped down as chair and editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail’s parent company Associated Newspapers, at the start of November, according to the Guardian. Before this, he was the editor of the Daily Mail from 1992 to 2018.
A UK Government spokesperson from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: "We will not not be drawn into speculation on an ongoing appointments process. This process is being run in line with the Governance Code for Public Appointments and we will not prejudge the outcome."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel