2013-05-23T03:47:21-04:00 Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=damian-collins Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Damian Collins Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3305031 2013-05-20T05:01:01-04:00 2013-05-20T05:57:00-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
I believe in the freedom of expression and religious belief. People should be free to believe that marriage in The Church should only be available to couples of the opposite sex, who accept the religious significance and meaning of the sacrament they are asking to receive. I believe that priests and church leaders should be free to decide who should marry in their church. There never has been, for example, a human right to marry in the Catholic Church, and The Church may already exclude divorcees, non-Catholics and people who, at the discretion of the priest, it does not believe are ready for marriage.

The Same Sex Marriage Bill currently before parliament delivers against all of the beliefs I have set out, which is why I have supported it. Some people have questioned the safeguards that have been put in place to protect peoples freedom of expression, and the amendments to the bill being debated in parliament today and tomorrow are largely focused on strengthening these. These are arguments that need to be taken seriously and they do not undermine the primary purpose of the legislation.

The question I would put to people who are generally opposed to same sex marriage, is that given the freedom of the churches to decide who they marry is protected, why are you against equalising civil marriage ceremonies, conducted in registry offices, so that they are also available to couples of the same sex. Which when you boil down the Bill is what it amounts to. What is the moral or religious argument for not allowing this in our civil law?

Some may say that allowing same sex marriage is a further step down the path of our society becoming more secular and marginalising the position of The Church and its teaching. In response to this, the proverb, "Physician, heal thyself" comes to mind. If the social and moral authority of The Church has been undermined, it has not been by parliament, but more by the actions of men like Cardinal Keith O'Brien.

I personally think we should have this debate, and where is there a more appropriate place to hold it than in the House of Commons. The argument that some have put forward that parliament has become obsessed with the issue and that it has taken up too much valuable time is nonsense. This Bill will have been debated for just three days in the chamber of the House of Commons, in the three years since the last election. In that time, considerably more attention has been given to the welfare of animals and insects, than moral and ethical questions related to the lives of human beings.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3037118 2013-04-08T10:16:11-04:00 2013-04-08T10:40:38-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
The simplicity and purpose of her mission were contained in the opening line of her foreword to the 1979 Conservative Party manifesto where she wrote that "For me the heart of politics is not political theory, it is people and how they want to live their lives". The policies that she introduced were focused on empowering people and giving them more control over their lives.

Mrs Thatcher's governments gave workers a say over whether or not they went on strike, or even whether they were members of a union at all. The popular privatisation of companies like British Telecom not only gave many people the chance to invest in shares for the first time, but laid the foundations for the UK's position today as one of the world's leading centres for digital communications. Hundreds of thousands of families, including my grandparents, took advantage of the opportunity to own a home of their own for the first time, through purchasing their council house. The people of the Falkland Islands know that many leaders would have buckled under the enormous weight of responsibility and the great obstacles that lay in the way of their rescue.

The purpose of the reforms she introduced in her 11 years in Downing Street were focused on turning around the fortunes of the whole country, and ending what seemed to be Britain's almost terminal decline. Before President Obama got there with the catch phrase, she used her first public speech as prime minister to say to the country, "Yes, we can do better". She helped people believe in themselves and believe in their future, and for those who were touched by this spirit, that will be her enduring legacy.

Her message remains relevant to the challenging times in which we live today, with its focus on aspiration, responsibility and the importance of the country, like any home or small business, living within its means. As a champion for freedom around the world, 'the Iron Lady' helped to defeat communism in Europe, and supported the forces that led to the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Soviet Union. Whatever views people held of Margaret Thatcher throughout her career, she was not someone who could be ignored.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2916029 2013-03-20T11:57:30-04:00 2013-05-20T05:12:02-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
The new 'Help to Buy' scheme announced today will make owning a new home a possibility for the many people who are currently unable to move or buy a place of their own because the deposit required is too large for them to afford. High house prices mean that people currently have to try to save tens of thousands of pounds to put down a deposit of 25% of the value of the property. Under George Osborne's new scheme the government will be able to offer a deposit of 20% of the value of a new build property, with the home buyer typically just having to find the remaining 5%. This deposit loan from the government is only repayable when the property is eventually sold. This scheme will be open to anyone, regardless of their income, and for any new property worth up to £600,000. In addition to this, the government is offering to act as a guarantor for mortgages for people looking to borrow to buy any type of property, new or old, which will again help people who might not be able to afford to put down a large deposit.

This initiative will give lenders the confidence to offer higher loans against the value of the property. The 'Help to Buy' scheme will unleash the aspiration of the many people who want to move or buy their first home, and in so doing provide a massive boost to the whole housing market. House builders will have more confidence to build, knowing that there are more buyers in the market. People now able to move up the housing ladder, will be making more properties available for others to buy or rent.

This budget was focused on the need for a serious plan for Britain to start to pay its own way, rather than looking to borrow even more than we have done already. The national annual deficit is now down by a third and as a result of this we have record low interest rates.

Economic recovery is coming from the government supporting people's aspirations to own their home, work and start and run their own business. We have more private businesses in the economy now than ever before. Private businesses have created 1.25million jobs since 2010, and will create a further 600,000 this year. To help that growth in jobs, small firms will now benefit from cuts in employers national insurance contributions, and the overall level of company tax is being set to 20%, down from 28% in 2010; this means British firms will be paying the lowest levels of tax of any major economy in the world. We need to get behind the aspirations of the people and this budget was designed to do that.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2616725 2013-02-04T19:00:00-05:00 2013-04-06T05:12:01-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
Saint Thomas More, Henry VIII's Lord Chancellor and a former speaker of the House of Commons is famous for the moral stand he took against his King, even though it cost him his life. It was learning about his example at school which prompted me to choose him as my Confirmation Saint. Thomas More is particularly remembered because he could not in conscience swear an oath recognising the Succession to the Crown Act 1533 which had the effect of annulling one of Henry VIII's marriages and therefore changing the royal succession. He could not swear the oath because, although he would abide by the Act's content, he could not in conscience say that he agreed with it. Parliament, he said, had the right to decide matters of marriage, and had the right to require all subjects, including Catholics, to abide by its laws, but it could not have the right to require Catholics in conscience to agree with them. As a result he was imprisoned in the Tower of London and then executed.

Last month press reports of a letter signed by a large number of Catholic clergy who opposed the Same Sex Marriage Bill asserted that if it passed that this could be seen as a return to the persecution that Catholics experienced during the English Reformation, because they would be required to acknowledge equal rights to marriage, against the teaching of the Church. I'm not sure that Thomas More would agree with this, and nor for that matter do I.

The Same Sex Marriage Bill is not seeking to tell the different churches and religions what they should believe, or to restrict them practicing their beliefs as the do now. Churches will not be required to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies if they do not want to. The Catholic Church will remain free to teach that marriage is a sacrament of the Church, it is between a man and a woman, that its purpose is for the procreation of children, and that it is for life. Of course, sadly, many people who are married by the Church are not able to have children, and a great many marriages end in divorce. The law of the State in allowing divorced people to remarry is already against the teaching of the Church, and a form of marriage that the Church would not recognise or perform. So we already have a system of marriage by the churches and the state which are sometimes compatible, and other times not.

The Bill is an attempt to strengthen equality in our society, without compromising religious freedom. I believe that Thomas More would have understood this distinction, and regardless of how he would have voted (I would not seek to presume on a matter of conscience like this) I think he would have agreed that this was something that Parliament had the right to do.

Other countries around the world have already introduced equal marriage rights. What is particularly notable to me, is that about half of those countries - Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, Spain and Uruguay - have overwhelmingly Catholic populations. They have been able to introduce this measure without affecting the rights and practises of the Church. In these countries, where an overwhelming proportion of the population are of the Catholic faith, there is a recognition that the state is not a theocracy, that the practises of different faiths must be respected, and that those who do not follow a faith have the same rights in law as those people who do.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2244305 2012-12-05T09:58:55-05:00 2013-02-04T05:12:01-05:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
The big debate now remains over the government's strategy to reduce the budget deficit and the overall levels of debt. Britain has a credible plan in the eyes of the world's financial markets (the people we are required to borrow money from) to reduce our debts. That's why they are prepared to lend to us at the lowest rates we have seen in over 80 years. But, getting rid of the annual budget deficit is hard work; largely according to the independent Office of Budget Responsibility because of the low rates of economic growth in Europe, our major market for exports. The deficit is down by 25% now as a result of the government's strategy, and will have more than halved by 2015. Labour can remind us that this is taking longer than planned, but does anyone really believe that we can accelerate this process by borrowing more at higher rates and putting taxes up further, which would be the consequence of their proposals, such as they are.

George Osborne was also pretty clear whose side he is on; "in everything we do, we're helping those who want to work hard and get on." By this he means targeting support in tough economic times to the people who get up early in the morning to go out and work. Despite the need for spending reductions to get down the national debt, a full time worker earning the national minimum wage has seen the amount of income tax they pay halve under this government.

Unemployment is falling and job creation in the manufacturing sector is rising at record levels. Petrol is 10p a litre cheaper than it would have been under the plans left by the Labour Party and the proposed 3p increase in fuel duty for January has been scrapped altogether; this is important for the many families who currently spend as much on fuel each week as they do on food.

Retired people have just seen the largest ever cash increase in the state pension and the benefits cap means that in the future a working family will no longer be worse off that one next door claiming full out of work benefits. Yes, the top rate of income tax has been cut from 50p in the pound to 45p, but the result of this is that tax avoidance rates are falling and wealthy people are actually paying more tax than they were under Labour.

There was also good news for businesses and investment. The corporation tax rate will be cut again to 21%, compared to 28% under Labour, 29% in Germany, 33% in France and 40% in the USA. Britain is already one of the leading recipients of global business investment, and his measure is an advert to the world to come and create new jobs here.

Where, you might ask is Labour on any of the above? You could hear the sound of pennies dropping amongst the glum faces on the Labour benches as the Chancellor's announcements made clear that there is no credible alterative to the government's strategy to get rid of Britain's budget deficit, and hard though the road may be, the country is on the right track.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2211404 2012-11-29T10:06:10-05:00 2013-01-29T05:12:02-05:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
The Leveson Report exposes that self regulation of the press has been a myth. Not only did the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) fail to protect the victims of phone hacking or of the press intrusion that trashed the life of an innocent man like Chris Jeffries, but it didn't give them sufficient redress. The main reason for this is that it does not have the power. The PCC has not been a regulator, rather just the handler of complaints. It has no powers to investigate, discipline or fine members for breaches of its code. It is not even required that all of the national newspapers are signed up to it. These things have to change, and that change can be made without the requirement of statutory regulation of the media. It is now up to the media owners to show they are willing to take up the challenge of creating this new self regulatory model.

It is vital that a new self regulatory model has independence of operation from the media owners and the powers to launch its own investigations. The phone hacking scandal exposed the real weaknesses of the current model of regulation because there were plenty of warnings about the scale of the problem.

Over 300 journalists had, according to the Information Commissioners report in 2006, been involved with the illegal trade in confidential personal information, but no rigorous industry wide investigation was launched by the Press Complaints Commission or other industry body because none existed with the power to act in this way. At News Corporation, all of the documents that suggesting knowledge of the use of practices like phone hacking extended beyond a single rogue journalist existed within that company. The Culture, Media and Sport House of Commons Select Committee inquiry that I was part of uncovered these documents, but in future they should be within the reach of a new industry regulator.

Lord Leveson has also reported that the former Media Secretary, Jeremy Hunt handled the bid by News Corporation to buy the remaining shares in BSkyB with "fairness, impartiality and transparency". This flies in the face of Ed Milliband's assertion that Jeremy Hunt had been a "backchannel" for the Murdochs.

The Leveson Report addresses how people might seek redress if they are unfairly treated by the newspapers, but this does not extend to what people might say about each other in parliament. Mr Milliband should apologise for this remark, but perhaps this is another example of why politicians shouldn't be the ultimate arbiters of what newspapers should and shouldn't be able to write.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1902082 2012-09-20T19:50:06-04:00 2012-11-20T05:12:01-05:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
Channel 4 had organised the debate to discuss the problems young people have been experiencing finding work, and also whether this is the most difficult job market ever for them. The truth is of course that youth unemployment has been a problem for more than a decade. Even in the boom years before 2007, and under Labour, youth unemployment continued to rise steadily from around the year 2000, until numbers recently started to fall.

A number of members of the audience for this debate wanted to work in the media; an industry that has always been attractive for young people, and very competitive to get into. To illustrate this point I mentioned the former creative director of my old advertising agency, M&C Saatchi, who a good few years ago now had been so determined to get his break into the industry that he busked to raise money for train fares to get to interviews and meetings with potential employers.

Now some people might say that this story of a young man struggling to get his big break and then rising to be one of the most awarded and respected ad men in the country was on the whole positive, rather than something that reflected badly on society. I made it quite clear in my remarks that I did not see this as an example for others to follow, but it just showed that it has always been difficult getting into competitive industries, and that some people go to extraordinary lengths to do so.

But some people claimed that this meant I thought young people should busk to work, which is completely wrong, and something I have never, and would never say. In their eyes, it would seem that if you praise someone for being motivated, you are somehow implicitly saying that other people lack motivation, which is again completely wrong.

Times have changed, and instead of busking, young people can rightly get paid internships and also short term work placements at advertising agencies in London where their travel costs and expenses are met by their employer. I also wanted to do something to help young people in my constituency who want to work in the industry and with M&C Saatchi this summer we set up a pop-up agency in Folkestone where we recruited 12 young local people who were able to get a flavour of the experience of working in a London agency, but in their home town. I discussed this several times during the Channel 4 debate, but this somehow didn't make it into the newspaper report. Similarly, I also praised my own local council, Shepway, which has a scheme to support apprentices, including contributing towards their travel costs to work. Again, this was something that wasn't included in the newspaper report of the Channel 4 debate.

The allegation that I think young people should leave school at 16 and work for less than the minimum wage is completely untrue. What I discussed was a conversation with a businessman who ran a training salon in the hair and beauty sector. He said that a young person who wanted to work in that industry may be better off becoming an apprentice at 16 and training on the job, rather than doing a course at college in the same subject. His view was that someone who had been an apprentice was more likely at 19 to be earning at or above the national minimum wage, than someone who wanted to start work in the same business after leaving college at 18.

This was a highly specific example related to a single sector and not a general view on the value of higher or further education. It is clear that most students benefit from staying in education, but what I said to the young people in the audience was that this example showed that it was very important if they have a clear idea of what they want to do, that they get good advice about what is the best way to achieve this. In this case, to get advice about whether or not you are better placed staying at college than becoming an apprentice. The reaction to these comments by some people just shows how far we have to go to make sure that apprentices get the recognition they deserve.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1542729 2012-05-24T11:43:22-04:00 2012-07-24T05:12:07-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
'The Growth Factory' report which we published on Thursday (www.thegrowthfactory.co.uk) brings together new thinking on how we can rebalance the economy to provide the growth the UK needs in the 21st century. At the heart of this is a modern industrial strategy which defines the relationship between government and business and focuses on different sectors which we believe will be vital to the UK's success in the coming decades.

The UK can compete with the best of the world in many sectors of the 'making it' economy, where your wealth is based on your ability to make products you can sell, and not just the services around them. The UK has just become a net car exporter for the first time since 1976, and in the creative and digital sector Tech City in London is now the world's third largest digital hub.

The industrial strategy of the 1970s saw governments give direct financial aid to failing industries in order to protect jobs. Here people were in effect being paid to build cars that customers didn't want to buy. That approach was unsustainable and it was in time new ownership, leadership, design, innovation and the commitment of the workforce that ultimately saved businesses like Jaguar and Land Rover from the state run motor industry. 21st century industrial strategy is not just about identifying where direct financial assistance can help accelerate the development of a business or economic region, as we are seeing in the government's strategy for enterprise zones and the regional growth fund.

This has also been important in the development of new economic clusters, like Tech City, where government support has acted as a catalyst for private enterprises to bring in much greater levels of investment. In addition to this we have to ensure that our tax and regulatory environment helps UK firms that are competing in a global economy to thrive. This is why, for example, the tax credits announced in the last budget for the production of high end television series, animation and video games were so important. Despite the UK having some of the best practitioners in the world, we were losing business to other countries that could undercut us on price significantly because they offered tax incentives to investors.

Given the turbulence in the world economy it would be easy to say that the idea of laissez-faire economics, where the government simply looks to create the best possible conditions for growth and leaves the rest to the market, is dead. With high levels of unemployment in Europe in particular, people require more of their leaders and to see evidence that they are straining every sinew to help create competitive advantage in their economies. In truth, laissez-faire never existed. Governments have always looked to support business innovation and growth through offers of matched funding, inducements for overseas investors and changes to the business tax regime. The challenge is to get the right policies for the right time.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1470046 2012-05-02T06:12:58-04:00 2012-07-02T05:12:13-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/ Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's report on News International and Phone-Hacking I can't help thinking of a famous man of Australian birth, well known in the UK media and a former favourite of Margaret Thatcher. Yes, Rolf Harris would often ask viewers of his art programmes, when halfway through a painting, "can you tell what it is yet?"

The opportunity to give people a clear view of the committee's work and findings in our long inquiry into phone hacking has been lost. The chance for a group of 11 politicians drawn from across the House of Commons to unite in a series of powerful and evidence based conclusions has been missed. Rupert Murdoch will be the person most pleased with this result as he can claim that our report is split and politically motivated. This will also give comfort to the senior executives from News Corporation that the committee decided unanimously had misled parliament. The attention given to the report has not focused on our key findings, but instead how MPs voted on the insertion of a single sentence into the report, "We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company."

Rupert and James Murdoch gave evidence to our committee in July 2011, and we did not debate the inclusion of this line until 30 April 2012. The inquiry we had launched was to determine whether or not people at News Corporation had misled parliament on what they knew about the extent of phone hacking within that company's newspapers, and particularly at the News of the World. We never set out to investigate whether or not Rupert Murdoch is a 'fit person' just whether he and his executives had misled parliament. If they had it would be a matter for the UK media regulator Ofcom, to determine whether or not News Corporation was fit to hold a broadcasting licence in this country, and for the shareholders of the company to decide whether he is fit to stay in his post.

As it was we found that Rupert Murdoch's former right hand man, Les Hinton, the former editor of the News of the World, Colin Myler and the News of the World Legal Manager Tom Crone had all misled the committee. The evidence presented to the committee did not support making this charge against the Murdoch's and no member pressed for this claim to be made. That did not mean that the Murdoch's would escape criticism. We stated that the company, in our opinion 'exhibited wilful blindness', that it was 'simply astonishing' that the Murdochs didn't realise until late 2010 that phone hacking extended beyond the single rogue reporter, and we question the 'competence' of James Murdoch in his handling of the settlement of the Gordon Taylor case. On all of these important points the Committee could have come to unanimous agreement in finalising the report; a much stronger position for us to be in, and one that would have made it harder for people to dismiss the charges.

Instead of this, we divided over a single line about Rupert Murdoch being a 'fit person' which was outside of the inquiry and a matter for the independent regulator Ofcom to separately investigate; which it is doing. In the end, the committee decided to play the man rather than the ball, and as a result missed the open goal.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1369999 2012-03-21T11:56:12-04:00 2012-05-21T05:12:01-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
The Budget presented further good news that the film industry's tax credit, which has helped to generate over £1 billion of film production investment for Britain, will be extended with similar schemes to support video games, animation and high-end TV production industries. This is a move that I and many people across the industry have been calling for and will be a great boost for the UK's creative economy.

This change will hopefully mean that more high end British TV dramas like Birdsong and Julian Fellowes' new series Titanic will be filmed here rather than abroad. It may also mean that our video games industry no longer loses jobs and businesses to other countries that have tax incentives to attract investment and talent.

But George Osborne is also sending out a strong message that in the 21st century Britain needs an industrial strategy, but one that is very different from the model we associate with the economic failure of the 1970s. Then, industrial policy was not about innovation but protection.

It was designed to keep people in work, rather than removing artificial barriers to growth. Industrial strategy in the 21st century should be bold enough to look at fast growing sectors of the economy, where we already have dynamic businesses and a highly skilled workforce, and help them to go further. This is particularly important with industries that are highly international, and were opportunities can easily move to the most accommodating market.

In the case of the creative sector, we already have the talent, facilities and technology to compete with the best in the world, but we were losing business because we weren't operating on a level playing field in terms of tax incentives. The tax breaks offered now for production work in the UK remove that barrier to investment and we should see the benefit from that.

21st century industrial strategy also recognises that there is a considerable advantage to having recongnised centres of excellence in a global economy and government support can help to establish these centres and send a signal to the market to invest.

We should have an ambition for a Silicon Valley in Britain based around and extending out of Tech City. The support of the government for this has helped to persuade companies like Google to invest in creative and digital infrastructure in the UK, rather than in other European countries.

A combination of public/private partnership is also behind the establishment of successful new creative hubs like Media City and the Sharp Project in Manchester, and the Custard Factory and Fazeley Studios in Birmingham. Even in the USA, it was work form the navy, NASA and the support of Stanford University that helped create the research centres that led to modern Silicon Valley. Out of this companies like Hewlett Packard and Xerox were born; followed by the next generation of Microsoft and Apple.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1362596 2012-03-19T19:00:00-04:00 2012-05-19T05:12:01-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
Funds for new initiatives are going to be limited and that's why the Chancellor should look to sectors were an adjustment to the tax or regulatory system could yield big returns.

Developing an industrial strategy for the 21st century economy should not be about picking winners or investing in trying to create or sustain markets that can't compete, but instead removing artificial barriers that are holding back growth and innovation. This is particularly important in areas of the economy where international competition is strong, and business can easily move to another country.

This creative thinking can make a big impact in the creative sector in particular. The creative industries are of growing importance to our economy as a whole and creating jobs at twice the rate of the national average. They are also an important part of the economic regeneration of many cities like Manchester and Birmingham, and in emerging creative centres like Folkestone in my constituency.

If I could make two recommendations for George Osborne to support growth in the creative sector it would be to introduce tax credits for video games and high end TV production in the UK, similar to those that have been enjoyed by the film industry for the last 20 years.

A study produced by the Film Council in 2010 reported that the core UK film industry contributes £4.5 billion to the economy and over £1.2 billion in tax revenues. Without the Film Tax Relief against investment in production in the UK, it is estimated that film production would be 75% smaller, at a cost of around £1.4 billion to the economy and about £400 million in lower tax revenues.

This investment is not only good news for the major studios like Pinewood and Shepperton, but also post production and sounds production facilities across the country. But it can't be right that a film written by say, Julian Fellowes, like Gosford Park, qualifies for the production tax relief but a TV series written by him, like Downton Abbey does not.

In fact his new TV series Titanic was filmed in Budapest, where it benefited from production tax breaks offered by the Hungarian government. This location was chosen despite the fact there is now a film studio in the Belfast docks where the original ship was built. The American broadcaster of high quality drama HBO, and maker of series like John Adams and The Wire, also now invests 85% of its production spend in locations where tax incentives are offered.

The industry estimates that introducing a net 20% tax incentive targeted for high end TV production would generate at least £350m per year in revenues. Based on this level of production spend and using the film industry multiplier calculated by Oxford Economics in their 2010 study: The Economic Impact of the UK Film Industry, the benefit of a new incentive would be £13 to the UK economy for every £1 of tax relief given. In other words, based on these numbers, this would mean a total return of approximately £1 billion per year.

This tax relief should also be extended to the video games industry, which is another important sector in our creative economy. Games series like Grand Theft Auto, made by Rockstar North in Edinburgh, have sold over 100 million copies around the world.

The UK has some of the industry's most talented games producers and developers. It is estimated that a 'games tax relief' would generate and safeguard over 4,660 jobs and lead to £188 million in investment expenditure by studios.

This would increase the games development sector's contribution to the UK economy by £283 million and generate £172 million in new and protected tax receipts to Treasury. In other words this tax relief would more than pay for itself and would enable UK developers to compete on a more even playing field against government backed developers in other countries like Canada, France, Singapore and the USA.

It should be noted that employment in the French video games development sector has grown by 500 since 2008 but declined by over 1,000 the same period in the UK. Games production in Canada has also increased by a third since it introduced a games tax relief.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1345354 2012-03-14T19:00:00-04:00 2012-05-14T05:12:01-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
We have seen too many high profile clubs, like Leeds United, Glasgow Rangers and Portsmouth run into the ground by bad financial management. The consequences of this are not just damage to the reputation of the game and heartache to fans, but millions of pounds of taxpayers money lost in unpaid taxes and local businesses who work with the club facing big loses from unpaid bills.

Two key reforms should be a priority. First to get rid of the Football Creditors rule which means that when a club goes into administration, it has to pay its football debts in full while other people it owes money to get just pence in the pound. All debts should be paid equally; this would mean that a club would want to make sure that another club it is selling a player to really has the money to pay. It would also make players question whether a club could really meet their high salary demands, and would give the football authorities an extra incentive to ensure that clubs have the resources they need to complete the playing season.

The other key area of reform is to give the newly proposed Football Association Regulatory Authority some real teeth by creating an obligation for all investors in football clubs to have to declare their interest in the club itself and any of its major assets or liabilities. I am proposing that the football authorities should have the power to take this up with a club's bankers and if they are not satisfied with the response refer the matter to the tax and financial regulatory authorities.

This will mean that we avoid the old situation with Leeds United, and the current situation with Coventry City where people simply don't know who the owners are. It will also help us address a more concerning aspect of the opaque nature of football finance. A report published in 2009 by the Financial Action Task Force, based on research taken across 25 countries, including England, indentified over 20 cases of money launderings through the football sector, ranging from simple case of smuggling large amounts of cash that seem to be derived from illegal transactions, to complex international money laundering cases.

In particular the report noted that "football clubs are indeed seen by criminals as the perfect vehicles for laundering money". It went on to say that "the targets are frequently clubs in financial trouble looking for lifesaving" sponsors", and that "the lack of regulation or control over legal structures and the ownership or control of football clubs means that they are easy to acquire."

Further to this there is already an established practice of player ownership funds buying the controlling interest in a player at a club in say South America, and moving them onto a European club, with a view to a further transfer to a top club at a time of the choosing of the player fund. Even if third party ownership is banned in the final destination country, this financial interest could be hidden by agreements to pay agents, or for payback clauses to the selling club. In a recent survey conducted amongst players in Eastern Europe and the former USSR by FIFPro, they found 40% of footballers said that their salaries were not paid by the club they played for. That is why my bill also calls for a register to be available to the football authorities for any financial ties third party's have to players at a club.

It is also at the heart of one of the big problems in football, that money is made by some people from the margin they take on simply buying and selling players and other services. Often they can set an entirely arbitrary price as there is little way of determining their real value. For these people this is how they take money from the game, and often the ownership of a club is not about the fame and glory, but simply a means of accessing and influencing this lucrative market. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1223076 2012-01-23T07:27:22-05:00 2012-03-24T05:12:01-04:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/ News Of The World". We haven't had to wait a year and the evidence from the Surrey Police published today by our House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee lays bare the scandal of phone hacking at the paper during the Milly Dowler case.

This chilling document details that the News Of The World hacked Milly's phone by getting her "mobile phone number and PIN from school children" and that the police received complaints from potential witnesses that News Of The World reporters were 'harassing' them.

The Surrey Police also clarify that the News Of The World ran a story including messages hacked from Milly Dowler's phone without their consent and only changed the content when they were asked to do so. Given these events took place in 2002, it is yet more evidence to suggest that phone hacking was widespread at the paper and involved more than a single rogue journalist.

Of all of the documents and evidence that have been produced by our phone hacking inquiry, this is the most sickening and exposes the black hearts of those involved in perpetrating and covering up this scandal.

When Rebekah Brooks gave evidence to our committee in July 2011 I asked her whether she was aware that the News Of The World had passed messages hacked from Milly Dowler's phone to the Surrey Police. She said that she had only become aware of the allegation that Milly's phone had been hacked two weeks previously, and had no knowledge of information having passed on to the Surrey Police in 2002.

As I said to Rebekah Brooks at the time, I think it is incredible that that could have happened without the knowledge of senior people on the paper. It is one thing for someone to obtain illegally sourced information for a story and conceal that fact from the editor, but surely another to decide to pass that information to the police without telling anyone. It is also clear that there was a dialogue between the police and the News Of The World on the night of Saturday 13 April 2002 about changing the story that first ran, which led to them removing quotations of messages hacked from Milly's phone from the later editions of the paper.

When the former News International Head of Legal Affairs, Tom Crone gave evidence to the committee in September 2011, he suggested that the quotations from Milly Dowler's voice mails that appeared in an article in the News Of The World in 2002, could have been supplied by the police; we know now that they were hacked by the newspaper and used without the consent of the police. Tom Crone also confirmed when I asked whether, if illegally obtained messages hacked from someone's phone had been obtained by the paper, rather than from the police, they would routinely have been run past the in house legal team before publication. He confirmed that: "that would be right. That is why I assume that it came from the police."

In both these cases the evidence published from the Surrey Police today poses serious questions about who knew what at the News Of The World; and whilst the names of individuals involved have not been disclosed to us that will form part of the ongoing police investigation. I hope that sooner rather than later, justice will be done.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1175059 2011-12-29T19:00:00-05:00 2012-02-28T05:12:02-05:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
Former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner has now alleged that in 1998 through a Mexican Company called OTI, he was sold the FIFA World Cup rights for Trinidad and Tobago for $1, following his support for Sepp Blatter to win the FIFA Presidency.

Mr Warner states that he used the sale of those rights "primarily to assist in the development of football in Trinidad and Tobago". He also alleges that in 2002 he was personally sold the World Cup TV Rights for 2002 and 2006, and that he later acquired the rights for the 2010 and 2014 championships.

These are serious allegations that must surely go to the very top of FIFA and need to be fully and independently investigated.

If true, how could deals like this be done without the knowledge of the most senior people in the organisation? This is a question that has to be answered by Sepp Blatter and it also demonstrates why there has to be a committee of investigation and inquiry which can act independently of the President and FIFA's Executive Committee.

Whilst these charges from Jack Warner are new and shocking, they cannot be regarded as a total surprise.

In front of our Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in May 2011, former England Football Association Chairman, Lord Triesman alleged that Jack Warner had asked England to pay for the broadcast rights for the World Cup 2010 to be shown "on large screens throughout Haiti."

It turned out, according to the Dingemans report presented to FIFA by the FA, that the pay TV World Cup rights in the Caribbean at that time were owned by a company, SportsMax, whose holding company JD International "acts on behalf of the Caribbean Football Union [then President, one Jack Warner] in selling TV rights for the region".

This means, as the FA stated in an email to FIFA on 11 May 2011, that Lord Triesman was alleging that Jack Warner was asking for payment for TV rights that he "in fact owned."

FIFA was asked by the FA to consider investigating this further, along with a number of other allegations made by Lord Triesman, and refused to do so.

These new allegations from Jack Warner also follow the order on 27 December 2011, from a Swiss court for FIFA to produce papers relating to the collapse of its former marketing partner ISL.

The ISL case was settled in the Swiss courts ten years ago with FIFA paying £3.5m, and the organisation then challenged a prosecutor's decision to make public the names of those who allegedly took bribes from ISL.

Sepp Blatter said in October 2011 that FIFA would at last drop its objections to these papers being produced, but as yet nothing has happened. The International Olympics Committee's recent investigation into this affair prompted the resignation of former FIFA President João Havelange from the IOC, a week before its ethics committee was due to report.

In the last year 11 of the 24 members of FIFA's ruling executive committee have faced allegations of corruption; no real progress towards reform has been made within FIFA, and there has never been an independent investigation into all of the bribery allegations made against them.

One man is ultimately responsible for this; Sepp Blatter.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1123725 2011-12-01T19:00:00-05:00 2012-01-31T05:12:02-05:00

Damian Collins http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damian-collins/
It is clear that Greece should never have been allowed to join and that the stability and convergence criteria for membership of the euro agreed in the Maastricht treaty, have been adapted to allow as many countries to stay in as possible.

The big eurozone has worked well for Germany. It has given the country an artificially low value for its currency which has allowed its exports to prosper. The reverse is of course true for countries like Italy and Spain. With this in mind, regardless of your views on the value of the project of European integration, you can see why German politicians want to keep the eurozone together. But this will surely not be at any price.

Speaking on Thursday in the European Parliament, the head of the ECB, Mario Draghi, suggested that the price for countries to stay within the eurozone will be a loss of national control on Government tax and spend, alongside measures of assistance. He said regarding the question of the ECB buying up national debts that "Other elements might follow...but the sequencing matters". He added that "a new fiscal compact would be the most important signal from euro-area governments for embarking on a path of comprehensive deepening of economic integration". This also echoes Angela Merkel's call on Wednesday for "political courage to bring the euro zone closer together."

This 'compact' would allow Germany to lock countries into an agreed programme for reform in return for staying under the safety of the protection that might be given under the eurozone umbrella. Perhaps the idea of 'eurobonds' might even return, but only for those countries that sign up. A simple message would be given with such a scheme to the eurozone members when they gather for next week's European Council, that they must adapt or leave the euro; or to follow one of the slogans of the American revolution 'unite or die'.

But will everyone be willing to take this step, and even if ministers agree, can they sell to their people this once in a lifetime transfer of power to the EU, of some of the most fundamental powers of government.

This must surely create problems in Italy where not a single elected politician sits the cabinet of their government. Some politicians in Europe are prepared to concede that this will be too much for Greece and that they will most probably leave the euro at Christmas, and if the other countries are prepared to sign up to this 'compact' that may buy some more time.

A eurozone break up may then not be in a big bang, but more like a dance of the seven veils, with countries peeling off one at a time to leave a core eurozone of Germany, Holland, Austria, a few of the other smaller economies, and you would have to imagine at almost any price France as well.
]]>