Channel 4 is no stranger to privatisation talk – but this feels different
Almost since Channel 4 launched 38 years ago, with the first episode of Countdown, there has been speculation that it is facing privatisation.
In January 1983, just two months after the channel launched, Kevin Goldstein-Jackson – the executive who helped launch hits like Tales of the Unexpected and who later headed the ITV franchise operator Television South West – was calling for it to be privatised.
As Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation revolution rolled on through the 1980s, the calls kept coming, often from surprising directions.
In 1987, Michael Grade, who was then managing director of BBC television and who later went on to be dubbed Britain’s ‘pornographer in chief’ when he became Channel 4’s chief executive, said “it would be a very good thing indeed for British broadcasting if that were to happen”.
The FT reported that John Whittingdale, a firm supporter of a privatisation historically, is to lead a consultation
Somehow, though, Channel 4 managed to remain state-owned. The last serious calls for the broadcaster to be privatised came after David Cameron’s 2015 general election victory, when John Whittingdale, the then Culture Secretary and Matt Hancock, the then Cabinet Office Minister, were said to be pushing for it.
A key aspect to their proposal was that it would raise up to £1bn for the government.
Now, however, privatisation talk is again in the air.
The Financial Times reported on Friday that Channel 4 will be “steered towards privatisation” by the UK government as soon as next year. It said ministers were set to launch a formal consultation within weeks on the future of the broadcaster.
This could, according to the FT, even see an outright sale of Channel 4.
Ominously for Channel 4, which has always opposed being privatised, the FT said the consultation would be run by Mr Whittingdale himself.
There are a number of reasons why the idea has resurfaced now. The first is that, in the eyes of some in government, Channel 4’s business model is under pressure. As a free-to-air broadcaster that has few programme rights to exploit, it is unusually exposed to the vagaries of the advertising market, as has been shown during the last year.
The broadcaster reported a pre-tax loss of £26m in 2019 – Channel 4 itself has put this down to the cost of opening its new site in Leeds – but then suffered a collapse in advertising revenues when the COVID-19 pandemic erupted in March last year.
Channel 4’s historic headquarters in London (pictured) has been watered down through a new site in Leeds. Pic: AP
For its part, Channel 4 itself has said that it expects to report a surplus for the year, with advertising having bounced back strongly in the second half of the year.
The broadcaster also shored up its finances with aggressive cuts to its budget during the pandemic and by taking out loans. One indication of its recovery to financial health was that it repaid furlough money to the Treasury as long ago as last autumn.
It is also argued that the rise of streaming platforms like Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Netflix and the continued strength of multi-channel television broadcasters like Sky, the owner of Sky News, makes Channel 4 vulnerable to a loss of viewers that would eventually hit its advertising revenues.
Channel 4 has responded by arguing that, in 2020, it actually raised its share of television viewing, not only in terms of linear television, but also via digital platforms. It said at the end of last year that digital viewing now accounted for one in every eight hours of Channel 4 viewing.
Despite all this ministers fear that, as a business, Channel 4 is unusually vulnerable.
Earlier this year, Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, vetoed the reappointment of two of Channel 4’s directors, Uzma Hasan and Fru Hazlitt, even though both Channel 4 itself and Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, were supportive.
It was reported at the time that Mr Dowden wanted the two women, both of whom come from a production background, replaced with new directors boasting more financial experience.
The FT reported that John Whittingdale, a firm supporter of a privatisation historically, is to lead a consultation
Another reason why privatisation may be back on the agenda is the public finances.
Some in Whitehall believe that a significant sum of money could still be made from a sale of Channel 4 – although most analysts who have run the numbers believe any sale proceeds would fall well short of the £1bn mooted six years ago.
It is also argued that a new owner for Channel 4, with deep pockets, might help ensure the quality of its output. The problem is that there are few obvious buyers out there for the channel.
Most of the big US buyers who might be interested are focused on other things while Channel 4’s relative lack of intellectual property rights – a big contrast with, for example, ITV – means there would be few gains to be made by a big media buyer.
Viacom-CBS, the owner of Channel 5, is seen as the likeliest buyer but it, too, is more focused currently on building its streaming service, Paramount+, as well as trying to shore up confidence among its investors after a calamitous drop in its share price earlier this year related to the collapse of the hedge fund Archegos Capital.
Investors also suspect Viacom-CBS will be looking to conserve capital to invest more in content as it battles it out with rivals like Netflix and Disney, whose Disney+ streaming service has strongly outperformed Wall Street’s expectations, rather than use it buying an asset like Channel 4.
Channel 4 has prided itself on alternative, original programming throughout its history. Pic: AP
Moreover, if any of the big US broadcasters were interested in acquiring a UK free-to-air broadcaster, they are far more likely to alight on ITV which, unlike Channel 4, has its own production arm in ITV Studios and far more intellectual property assets to exploit.
That might make a flotation on the stock market, which would provide Channel 4 with more access to capital, as a likelier outcome – although it has been speculated in some quarters that ITV itself might be a buyer.
Expect Channel 4 to strongly resist any attempt to privatise it.
In the past the broadcaster has been able to muster a substantial lobbying campaign, relying on members of the arts establishment, to argue that its remit to produce distinctive programming would be jeopardised by a change of ownership.
It is also likely to point to the fact that it is a major investor in British content and spends heavily with independent production companies.
That, however, is a harder argument to make when the likes of Sky and Netflix are investing record sums in British programming, when the BBC’s drama output is still scoring hits and when ITV’s production arm is in such fine fettle.
In short, a lot of the arguments Channel 4 has used to resist privatisation in the past may not be as pertinent as was once the case.
This may represent Mr Whittingdale’s best opportunity yet to push for a policy he has sought for 25 years.
A household energy supplier has failed, weeks after it attracted attention from regulators.
Rebel Energy, which has around 80,000 domestic customers and 10,000 others, had been the subject of a provisional order last month related to compliance with rules around renewable energy obligations.
The company’s website said it was “ceasing to trade” but gave no reason.
Money latest: The many household bills rising today
Industry watchdog Ofgem said on Tuesday that those affected by Rebel’s demise did not need to take any action and would be “protected”.
Customers, Ofgem said, would soon be appointed a new provider under its supplier of last resort (SoLR) mechanism.
This was deployed widely in 2021 when dozens of energy suppliers collapsed while failing to get to grips with a spike in wholesale energy costs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why is the energy price cap rising?
The last supplier to go under was in July 2022.
Ofgem said new rules governing supplier business practices since then had bolstered resilience.
These include minimum capital requirements and the ringfencing of customer credit balances.
The exit from the market by Bedford-based Rebel was announced on the same day that the energy price cap rose again to take account of soaring wholesale costs between December and January.
Try the Sky News cost of living calculator
Tim Jarvis, director general for markets at Ofgem, said: “Rebel Energy customers do not need to worry, and I want to reassure them that they will not see any disruption to their energy supply, and any credit they may have on their accounts remains protected under Ofgem’s rules.
“We are working quickly to appoint new suppliers for all impacted customers. We’d advise customers not to try to switch supplier in the meantime, and a new supplier will be in touch in the coming weeks with further information.
“We have worked hard to improve the financial resilience of suppliers in recent years, implementing a series of rules to make sure they can weather unexpected shocks. But like any competitive market, some companies will still fail from time to time, and our priority is making sure consumers are protected if that happens.”
Harrods is urging lawyers acting for the largest group of survivors of abuse perpetrated by its former owner to reconsider plans to swallow a significant chunk of claimants’ compensation payouts in fees.
Sky News has learnt that KP Law, which is acting for hundreds of potential clients under the banner Justice for Harrods, is proposing to take up to 25% of compensation awards in exchange for handling their cases.
In many cases, that is likely to mean survivors foregoing sums worth of tens of thousands of pounds to KP Law, which says it is working for hundreds of people who suffered abuse committed by Mohamed al Fayed.
Mohamed al Fayed. File pic: PA
Money latest: Boost for holidaymakers amid ‘awful April’ bill hikes
Under a redress scheme outlined by the London-based department store on Monday, which confirmed earlier reports by Sky News, claimants will be eligible for general damages awards of up to £200,000, depending upon whether they agree to a psychiatric assessment arranged by Harrods.
In addition, other payments could take the maximum award to an individual under the scheme to £385,000.
A document published online names several law firms which have agreed to represent Mr al Fayed’s victims without absorbing any of their compensation payments.
KP Law is not among those firms.
Theoretically, if Justice for Harrods members are awarded compensation in excess of the sums proposed by the company, KP Law could stand to earn many millions of pounds from its share of the payouts.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Many more’ likely abused by Fayed
A Harrods spokesperson told Sky News on Tuesday: “The purpose of the Harrods Redress Scheme is to offer financial and psychological support to those who choose to enter the scheme, rather than as a route to criminal justice.
“With a survivor-first approach, it has been designed by personal injury experts with the input of several legal firms currently representing survivors.
“Although Harrods tabled the scheme, control of the claim is in the hands of the survivors who can determine at any point to continue, challenge, opt out or seek alternative routes such as mediation or litigation.
“Our hope is that everyone receives 100% of the compensation awarded to them but we understand there is one exception among these law firms currently representing survivors who is proposing to take up to 25% of survivors’ compensation.
“We hope they will reconsider given we have already committed to paying reasonable legal costs.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Further claims against al Fayed
Responding to the publication of the scheme on Monday, KP Law criticised it as inadequate, saying it “does not go far enough to deliver the justice and accountability demanded by our clients”.
“This is not solely a question of compensation but about justice and exposing the systematic abuse and the many people who helped to operate it for the benefit of Mohamed al Fayed and others.”
Seeking to rebut the questions raised by Harrods about its fee structure, KP Law told Sky News: “KP Law is committed to supporting our clients through the litigation process to obtain justice first and foremost as well as recovering the maximum possible damages for them.
“This will cover all potential outcomes for the case.
“Despite the Harrods scheme seeking to narrow the potential issues, we believe that there are numerous potential defendants in a number of jurisdictions that are liable for what our clients went through, and we are committed to securing justice for our client group.
“KP Law is confident that it will recover more for its clients than what could be achieved through the redress scheme established by Harrods, which in our view is inadequate and does not go far enough to compensate victims of Mr al Fayed.”
The verbal battle between Harrods and KP Law underlines the fact that the battle for compensation and wider justice for survivors of Mr al Fayed remains far from complete.
The billionaire, who died in 2023, is thought to have sexually abused hundreds of women during a 25-year reign of terror at Harrods.
He also owned Fulham Football Club and Paris’s Ritz Hotel.
Harrods is now owned by a Qatari sovereign wealth fund controlled by the Gulf state’s ruling family.
The redress scheme commissioned by the department store is being coordinated by MPL Legal, an Essex-based law firm.
Last October, lawyers acting for victims of Mr al Fayed said they had received more than 420 enquiries about potential claims, although it is unclear how many more have come forward in the six months since.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway