|
|
THOUGHTS OF CHAIRMAN |
|
10 January
2014 On the 2nd January 2014, my
company Amshold Trading Ltd sold its investment in Viglen Ltd to Westcoast Holdings, who own XMA
Limited. Viglen will now be merged with XMA to form
one of the largest IT companies in the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Broadcast Media 28 November
2013 Today I spoke in the House of Lords in the Broadcast Media
& Economy Debate. Here’s my speech… |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Lords, British broadcasting, film making and media has
a lot to offer the culture of this country as well as our economy.
Advancement in technology and innovation should not stop. We must ensure
British broadcasting remains the main game changer for the next big thing in
television. In order to talk about the future of
broadcasting, I wish to visit what occurred in the past 30 years. In May 1987 I took a call from Rupert Murdoch.
That phone call resulted in the biggest shake up ever in the history of
British TV broadcasting. In February 1988 between my then company and News
Corporation, SKY Satellite TV service was launched. Prior to that, my company was invited to join
a satellite consortium known as BSB, I decided against that as I personally
felt their technical solution on the Squaerial was doomed. After the millions injected by its
shareholders, BSB had to concede defeat. They reluctantly amalgamated with
SKY winning only one concession: that the new company going forward was named
BSkyB. From then on, decisions by Murdoch and me continued
to upset the industry apple cart by not conforming to established business
models - matters quite alien to what appeared then to be the cosy status of
the 3 main broadcasters. Not to mention the purchase of the Premier League
rights in 1992, another matter where I played a significant role as the
catalyst to BSkyB’s successful bid. Since those days we have witnessed the
transition of terrestrial broadcasting to digital. We have also seen the
failure of On Digital, an initiative of ITV. We have seen the introduction of
digital video reorders, another BSkyB and Amstrad initiative which allowed
consumers to effectively make up their own TV channels and view programmes
when they want to. I apologise to noble lords if my speech is
starting to sound like a potted history of my past involvement in the TV
industry, but knowing the background will help noble lords understand why in
2010 the then director general of the BBC contacted me to draw down on my
experience to salvage the renamed project Canvas - YouView a system to
deliver live TV by the internet. This company is made up of 7 shareholders:
the BBC, ITV, Ch4, Ch5, BT, TalkTalk and Arqiva. To make a long story short this very important
and futuristic venture was a rudderless ship both technically and
commercially. After banging a few heads together and managing the
expectations of the high profile shareholders YouView was launched in May
2012. The point being - had commercial rational and
realistic technical thought not been applied to YouView, it would have joined
the scrap heap of BSB and On Digital and other failed initiatives. My Lords I am sure you are all aware that I
host a programme for the BBC, not that I understand why but I guess it best
that I declare an interest before continuing in this debate, as the rest of
my speech will focus on the concerns I have about the BBC. The BBC of course has the technical capability
to keep up with technology, but I fear it is unable to compete with the
ruthlessness of the commercial market and its competitors, particularly those
in the general pay TV market. They seem hamstrung by external critics
constantly referring to the licence fee payers’ funds being spent correctly
so consumers get fair value for money. The management and the BBC trust are
fixated with cost cutting to try to appease the critics. In adopting this
posture they will fall behind by taking their eye of the ball and forgetting
what their remit is: to provide (high quality) innovative content and
entertainment for the British public. They need to be there at the forefront
competing for content instead of being complacent in accepting that their
hands are financially tied. BT a newcomer to the TV market just demonstrated
what consumers need by outbidding ITV and BSkyB for Champions League
football. The BBC didn’t even bother; they just stood there like an envious
kid in the sweet shop watching the big boys buy the sweets. We currently all pay approximately £12 per
month for our TV licence. (It will be news to the Deputy Prime Minister that
I too pay for a TV licence.) Compare that to up £55 per month you can pay
BSkyB or Virgin for a TV subscription, or the £25 per month for a mobile
phone and £20 per month for an internet service. Look what we get: 4
brilliant channels of TV, quality news coverage all over the country, the
brilliant iPlayer service, a magnificent array of radio stations and what I
considerer a best-in-class informative web site. Exceptional value for money. Interestingly enough Mr Murdoch once
complained during his wooing of the coalition government that the BBC website
was, can you believe, “too good” and how it was unfairly affecting his
business using public funds. In other words the BBC was doing a much better
job than his organisation. This resulted in the Rt
Honourable Jeremy Hunt, who was the then secretary of state for Culture Media
and Sport, foolishly making noises that the BBC must consider making its
website less informative, and not spending too much licence fee payers’ money
on it. This is one example of the oppression coming
from outside influences that has created an organisation of management that
is constantly looking over its shoulder and defending in some cases
ridiculous criticisms, for example from the Daily Mail, that licence fee
payers paid towards a bottle of champagne or a cake to celebrate Sir Bruce
Forsyth’s 80th birthday. Having worked with the BBC for 10 years in my
capacity as host of one of their shows, I have seen another side of them
apart from the aforementioned technical side. They are without a doubt the
best broadcaster in the world and very well respected, and we should be proud
of them. But I say this very respectfully - they are heavily over-staffed.
There are too many jobsworths and the organisation is not run in a manner that
a commercial organisation would be. The BBC Trust in my opinion is a complete
and utter waste of time and should be disbanded. There is need for a more commercial approach
with an experienced board of directors who are ready to stand up and be counted,
of course with some independent non-executives. And yes senior management
should get bonuses if they perform, or they should get fired if they don’t.
More importantly government must not be allowed to interfere or try to
influence the management. Layers of jobsworths need removing and the
money saved must be thrown into R&D and programming, allowing production
of new programmes and the ability to bid in a competitive market for
entertainment content and talent. Not reducing the annual fee – that, as I
already said, is great value. All viewing devices in homes are digital. It
is now possible for the BBC to encrypt pay per view programmes so that
consumers can choose to buy for example football or latest movies. Consider
the basic cost of £12. There would lot of consumers prepared to pay for extra
stuff as demonstrated by the commercial pay broadcasters. My Lords you hear how passionate or frustrated
I am about this great institution of ours. My dream mission in life would be
to sort them out. One thing I would promise: there would not be an army of
personnel whose sole purpose in life is to appease the BBC Trust, the Daily
Mail or the government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EastEnders on Children In Need 19 November
2012 I was in Albert Square last week filming a special
‘EastEnders does the Apprentice’ for this year’s Children In Need. Here I am
on the set with Masood Ahmed, Alfie
Moon, Ian Beale and Billy Mitchell. To watch the
video, click
here |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curbing the
media 26 October
2012 Yesterday I spoke in the House of Lords about licensing the
media in order to curb its worst excesses. Here’s my speech… |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My lords, There is a great need to crank up the
regulations controlling the media. They have, for far too long, run wild with
very little control. A few weeks ago we discussed the Defamation Bill, and
this debate today touches on some of the same ground. Regrettably, in the case of defamation, your
lordships are considering easing up and, some may argue, actually making life
easier for the media to continue to run wild. But moving from
that point, what we have seen over recent years is a complete decay in
decency and morals in the media. It doesn’t seem to exist at all in the
printed media, and sometimes, I regret to say, in television. The desperation to get a story has led editors
to stray from honesty and truthfulness to using unfair means; finding or
creating devious angles on a story, or even tricking the subject of the story by illegal means. This, of
course your lordships are fully aware of in the light of the recent enquiry
carried out by Lord Leveson. My lords, it is my opinion that journalists
should be licensed. Moreover, editors should be made responsible for what is
printed in their newspapers or broadcast on their TV channels, and they too
should be licensed. There should be an authority which dishes out,
for want of a better word, yellow cards and ultimately red cards for those
that continually abuse the system. To use our American cousins’ terminology,
“three strikes and you’re out.” In other words, “Your newspaper, your
television channel, has been guilty of publishing lies or indulging in
irresponsible journalism under your watch, and therefore you are banned from
operating as a newspaper or television editor” – the same way that company
directors are disqualified from running companies when they act irresponsibly
or illegally. The Press Complaints Commission, I regret to
say, is weak. Quite frankly it is considered to be a joke in the industry. I
don’t care what anyone might say to argue with that statement, I can assure
you that there are very few forms of media that take the PCC
seriously. There was a day when great newspapers such as The Sunday Times would spend
months working on a story, breaking news of some revelation. The journalism
was carried out very diligently and carefully so that the content of the
finished article was accurate. These stories would take weeks if not months
to develop, and were kept under wraps until they broke, bringing massive
revelations. These days, however, newspaper editors are demanding a story a
day. They are forcing their staff to fabricate stories, to make up stories to
provide compelling headlines for their front pages. It is this pressure which is inducing the
staff to act illegally in the manner which the Leveson
Enquiry has covered in full. It is impossible for journalism to be treated
in the same way as a production line. You can not fabricate stories in
matters of public interest simply because events are not occurring as
regularly as newspapers would like them to. And because of this, my lords, you get this
low-class journalism where journalists are trained to trick the contributors
of their articles or programmes; where the content is edited in such a manner
that is misleading; where headlines are created from a throwaway remark or
taken completely out of context, or where a camera and sound crew assist the
journalists by leaving the subject’s microphone switched on. This of course happened to former prime
minister Gordon Brown. It was quite natural that he may have had some
comments to make privately in the car, but unbeknown to him his microphone
was still on. This is not proper
journalism, and is the sort of thing that needs to be controlled. I do hope that the Leveson
Enquiry not only concludes that things have to be done, but also results in
some practical recommendations on regulating the media with provisions which
can result in prosecution for people who act illegally and, more to the
point, the suspension of high-profile editorial staff; if necessary banning
them from practising their profession in the same way a lawyer or doctor
would be struck off if they had acted improperly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defamation 9 October
2012 Today I spoke in the House of Lords on the Defamation
Bill. Here’s my speech… |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
My lords, I have some concern that the changes being
made in the defamation laws are too lenient, to the advantage of the printed
media – the national press. I speak as a past claimant, who has taken the
media to court on numerous occasions. While I will not go into detail at this
moment, what I can say is that
being a details-person myself, I became deeply involved in the legal
procedures and feel that I am somewhat of an expert, albeit not a lawyer, on
the laws of defamation and, more to the point, on the tricks of the trade
played by the media in interpreting and using the law to their benefit. At this juncture, may I remind your lordships
that there is one thing, and one thing alone that is of prime importance to
the media, and that is money – how much it will affect their pocket. The days
of the Elton John million‑pound awards have long gone. Nowadays judges
advise juries on libel damages by making comparison with damages receivable
for say a broken ankle, a broken leg, or the loss of sight in one eye. This
is flawed – those comparable damages are most probably the result of an
accident, whereas there is no
accident in printing lies. We now see the top end of the damages people
receive for libel being in the region of £100‑150,000. I understand the
current proposal is that damages for personal injuries actions (and therefore
libel damages) are to be increased by 10%. I will go on to explain why that
is still inadequate. Most
people – particularly some minor celebrities, or more to the point
politicians – cannot afford to fund a fully-fledged defamation case. Up until recently it has been possible for
lawyers to take on those cases completely free of charge to the claimant. And
if they succeed, the lawyer is entitled to charge the claimant up to double his normal fee – and the
claimant would then be able to claim this double-fee from the defendant,
together with the cost of procuring an insurance policy to cover the case in
the event the claimant lost. I am advised this is being discarded and will
no longer be possible. Instead, from 2013 we will have a situation whereby
lawyers will able to take on cases on a contingency basis. My lords, I think
you have to look at the ramifications of this. Why would a lawyer take a case
on a contingency basis when the ultimate goal might be no more than £150,000?
The lawyer’s share of that would not make up
for the fact that the lawyers were doing the case on a contingency and
therefore risking not being paid at all if their client lost. So this, my
lords, is a non-starter. From the claimant’s perspective any damages they do
receive would be eaten up by the contingency fee and the shortfall in cost
between what the actual costs were and what they could recover from the
defendant newspaper. What we have arrived at is a situation whereby only the
rich, such as I, can afford to take on the media, while others just have to
be beaten up and can do nothing about it. I would also like to advise your lordships of
another commercial aspect of the media printing untrue stories: if a newspaper
decides to deliberately print a pack of lies on its front page to attract
more readers at the point-of-sale, your lordships should understand that this
is a much cheaper way of boosting a paper’s circulation than by engaging in
an expensive television advertising campaign. And why is it much cheaper? Because the media
can immediately agree in communication that what they wrote was wrong, as
well of making a part 36 offer of say, £50,000 – thus throwing the
gauntlet down to the claimant as to whether they wish to risk going to court.
A very cheap way of dealing with things, I’m sure you'll agree, with little
or no apology required. Apologies in any case, as my lordships know, are
usually postage-stamp-sized and not on the same page as the offending article.
In most cases they are buried towards the middle of the newspaper without so
much as a picture of the offended claimant. This apology matter has to be addressed. I
think newspapers must be forced by the courts to print a retraction or
apology on the same page the
offending item appeared and with the same prominence. This together with
higher damages will make them wake up and act far more responsibly. On the technical front, whereas in the past
the claim of fair comment in an article had
to be supported by facts within
that article, I am advised that this has changed and that this change is to
be embodied in the Bill so that facts supporting allegations made in an
article don't have to appear in the article itself but just have to be facts
that existed at the time the article was written. The writer doesn't even
have to show that the readers of the article in question would have had to
know of those facts. As an extreme example, a journalist might write an
article saying that in his opinion a particular person was a thief and a
thoroughly untrustworthy individual without referring to any fact to support
this in the article. If challenged in court, he might say that the
person he wrote about, say a middle-aged man, once stole a Mars bar from a
sweet shop when he was 7 years old and that was why he held that view.
The statement doesn't have to be a reasonable one or even one that a
reasonable man could have held – it just has to be that person's
honestly-held opinion, however bigoted. I am further advised that the Responsible
Journalism defence, also known as the Reynolds
defence, is now also being modified. These days, when a journalist phones me up
with an allegation of some wrongdoing, I say, ‘You are wrong, and I am not prepared
to comment any further.’ I don’t see why I should become the editor of some
article they wish to produce. Why should the onus be on the claimant to go
into detail as to why an article should not be published or why the article
is inaccurate; presenting all the facts to the journalist in order to be able
to rely upon that statement at a later stage should the matter ever go to
court? But as I understand it, if I don't
do that I am risk of the journalist subsequently relying on the responsible
journalism defence saying, ’I did
seek his comments but he didn't tell me why what I was writing was wrong and
what the true position was.’ I don’t think that is fair, my lords. I think
that my method is very fair: ‘I’m
not your editor; I have told you that what you’re about to print is wrong, so
it is at your risk that you go
ahead and publish it. In the meantime I reserve my rights.’ That’s how it
should be. I would conclude, however, that it is not all
doom and gloom. I do applaud the fact that cases may be heard without a jury.
I would support this completely because in the past, I’m afraid to say that
claimants who are not used to being in a witness box have been badgered by
smart lawyers to make them look stupid or to make them look like liars in
front of a jury. |
|
||
|
|
Another important aspect is that jurors often
cannot follow the finer legal points being raised by both parties, and can
sometimes come to verdicts based upon their opinions of the individual who is
bringing the action. In other words, their personal thoughts on whether they
like the claimant as a person or what they stand for in public life. That
clearly is not fair, and I welcome the fact that a judge, who can see through
the badgering of a witness, will ultimately decide on the verdict on the
facts and the law.
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
A bike ride
with Mark Cavendish 31st May
2012 I took a ride around the He’s a very nice fellow
who cycled at our pace. We had a long chat about the bikes and how the
cycling teams work. Afterwards, I took him up for a flight in my Cirrus. He
took the controls and was exceptionally good – in fact he took to it like a
duck to water. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 April
2012 My advice to voters for
this Thursday’s
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m at a total loss as to why the
Labour Party has decided to back Ken Livingstone in the mayoral election.
He’s made some undesirable statements before now that surely make him an
ineligible candidate to be taken seriously by most Londoners. In my opinion
he is a driven, power-crazed egomaniac who will do anything to regain the
power he once had. It seems myself and my noble friend Lord Winston (who last
week branded him a ‘tricky customer with extremely unhealthy views’) are the
only ones with the guts to say what many others may be thinking. One cannot ignore his litany
of unfortunate comments about Jews. One has to ask why he is so consistently
vociferous on this subject. Whilst he denies being an anti-Semite, it would
be reasonable for anyone to assume he has an issue with Jews by the number of
comments he’s made. He compared a Jewish Evening
Standard journalist to a Nazi concentration camp guard. He called If one takes all those nasty
comments and puts them together, one could be forgiven, despite people
thinking I’m just a ranting over-sensitive Jew, that Mr Livingstone has big
hang-ups with Jewish things and Jewish people. This strange man also seems to
have a fixation with Hitler and the Jews. When leader of the GLC, you’ll remember how he cosied up to the leaders of
the Irish nationalist party Sinn Féin. Back then,
Livingstone said Well, perhaps he’s not an
anti-Semite; maybe his fixation with Jews is a cunning agenda. Personally, I
believe he is simply playing the
Muslim community. I’m quite concerned for Look at ex-Labour MP George Galloway.
Does he care about his communities? He represented Putting all this aside, one
has to focus on what the mayor will actually do for Londoners; focus on the policies and reasons why you would
vote for any candidate. Imagine if we went back 50 years to when parts of My view, as outlined above, is
that he’s playing a dangerous game. More to the point, his general policies,
which suggest he is there ‘for the people’ imply: ‘Look at me – I’m a humble
man just like you. I’m going to look after the financial interests of the
poor population of Contrary to what he might try
to say, he is not an ordinary
Londoner – trust me. No ordinary Londoner has a company that had past
billings of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Fair enough, he might want to
funnel his income through a company in order to pay the least amount of tax
possible – lot of business people do that. But please don’t sign on to this
squeaky-clean person who wants to play Robin Hood, take from the rich and
give to the poor, because by most Londoners’ standards he’s rich and he likes
money! My advice to Londoners is to
think carefully about where you put your cross on Thursday. I encourage
people not to vote for Ken Livingstone but a candidate who cares about the
community and will work in the interests of all Londoners and not just their
own. Copyright © |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Economy
22 March
2012 Following yesterday’s budget, I took part in today’s House of Lords debate on the Economy. Here’s my
speech… |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
My Lords, It’s common knowledge that governments across
the world tend to spend far more money than they collect by way of taxes, and
hence create great piles of debt. And every so often there’s a wake-up call where
certain initiatives are put in place to try to reduce that debt. We are no
different in this country. I understand that from 2014 we will receive
itemised tax bills which amongst other things will show how much each of us
is paying by way of debt interest. Indeed one might ask the question whether
the current spending budgets of the government are forecast to exceed income.
One thing is for sure, the debt is going to rise as we are borrowing £150bn
more than was planned. The fact is, the economy of the country is
supported by business, and if one were to run a company in that manner –
continually spending more than one’s income – we all know that that company
would go bankrupt. If one of my
companies did this and I started printing money to ease the situation, no
doubt I’d be put in prison for counterfeiting! We won’t get this deficit down
unless we have a plan for jobs and growth to get the economy moving. To do
that, we need to encourage business small and large to invest and be daring,
to kick-start the economy and employ lots of people. It amazes me that the government’s Business
Secretary announces a lot of hollow initiatives under the guise of helping
small business, yet he is someone who has never been in business; never been
on the coal face; never run a business or understood the needs of a small
business. I’m sure that if the noble Lord Sassoon had a
pain in his groin, he wouldn’t want me to remove his appendix, especially
since I’m not a surgeon! A stupid analogy perhaps, but I’m sure I make my
point. Yesterday’s budget contained the usual lip
service to how government is going to help small business. They have
continually made On the subject of lip service, I am concerned,
my Lords, about politicians deflecting the real issues and placing blame
elsewhere by, for example, jumping on the bandwagon of bank bashing and
singing the same old songs about the lack of money being lent to
small-to-medium-sized enterprises, or bonuses being paid to bank executives.
All of this does nothing other than depress the business environment. It is
not encouraging in any way, shape or form. It’s sheer political capital. I
would urge all politicians to change the record and start to instil some
confidence in the marketplace instead of depressing it. You never hear outrage expressed at the
bonuses payable to, say, Sir Terry Leahy or Sir Stuart Rose or Sir John Rose
in their capacities as chief executives of Tesco’s, Marks & Spencer and
Rolls-Royce. I say, ‘quite rightly so’, because that’s business, where you employ experienced top executives and set
them targets to get things done – in other words, incentivising people. Yet when banks (some of whom have a large
public shareholding) employ top executives whose sole purpose is to take
over, clean up the mess and improve the financial position (and in turn the
public’s investment), those executives are chastised for accepting bonuses. Well the reality is, my Lords, carry on doing
that and There is the alleged issue of banks not
lending to small-to-medium-sized enterprises. Well, my Lords, I’ve had
first-hand experience of this from when I was the government adviser a couple
of years ago. I investigated this particular issue and discovered what I
still believe to be the position today. And that is, there are many companies
out there that are depressed by the doom and gloom messages over the current
economic situation. They are not investing, don’t wish to invest, and in fact
are tightening their belts. They don’t want
any money and are not asking for
any money because they are nervous due the lack of confidence in the
marketplace, much of which is created by politicians jockeying for position
or applause on BBC Question Time,
as well as a very mischievous media. Then there are some companies that do want to borrow money. However, I
regret to inform my Lords that in the case of some of My Lords, I’ve always stated that the last
thing any businessperson wants is government interference. All that
businesses require is an environment where enterprise can prosper, and that
of course means allowing people to trade freely on a level playing field,
work in an environment where taxation is reasonable and where there are no
onerous regulations or obstacles. |
|
||
|
|
That, my Lords, is the
sole job of the government to provide. It also needs to create more of a
positive feeling in the marketplace, to encourage small-to-medium-sized enterprises
and indeed give people the confidence to start up their own businesses,
become self sufficient and go on to employ other people. The budget should have had some meaningful
offerings to encourage investment and instil confidence, such as a reduction
in VAT, a one-year National Insurance holiday for small businesses taking on
extra workers, a reduction in business rates and a reduction in duty on
diesel. These are just a few things that would have an immediate impact and
provide genuine help for small business, rather than the hollow promises we
continually hear. |
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Last year’s
Apprentice winner launches his new product 16 March
2012 |
|
|||
|
Yesterday, Apprentice |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
To buy your stylfile, click
here |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
At the same
time, |
||||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
You can follow |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Value for
Money in Government Spending 24 November
2011 Today I hosted a debate in the House of Lords on Government
Procurement Policy. Here’s my opening speech… |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
My Lords, I’m delighted to see so many of your Lordships
joining this debate. Government procurement is an important issue. After all,
it is we the taxpayers’ money that is being spent every day, and I think we
have the right to ensure we are getting good value. Before I move on, I would like to state that
pursuant to the code of conduct, I have registered with the Table Office any
relevant interests that may arise from those listed in my name in the House
register of interest. Government expenditure was in the region of
£238bn on procurement. I believe this was spent on a whole range of items and
services from, say, paperclips to guided missiles. By referring to getting ‘good value for
money’, I would like to break this down into three categories, the first and
most obvious being that best prices should be obtained for any product or
service required by government; the second is value for the country, and the
third is value for SMEs. Starting with real value for money, your Lordships
will agree with me that the world has moved on a lot as far as internet
connectivity is concerned, and for that reason I believe there is simply no
longer the need for local purchasing, and centralised purchasing should be
implemented immediately. I regret to say, from my experience in running
so many businesses, that when you place the task of procurement in the hands
of unqualified people, it’s similar in some cases to letting kids run riot in
a sweet shop. The main issue is, of course, it that it’s not their money, and it’s amazing how
irresponsible some people can be when spending other people’s money as
opposed to their own. In August 2010, Sir Philip Green was asked by
the Prime Minister to carry out an efficiency review and he published his findings
in October 2010. The report spoke of the inefficiency and waste in Government
spending. One of the observations was that it was
impossible for the civil service to operate efficiently with the current
processes in place. It highlighted that basic commodities were bought at
significantly different prices across government departments. Multiple
contracts were signed with some major suppliers by different departments at
different prices! Expensive IT contracts are contracted for too
long with no flexibility. There was no motivation to save money or to treat
cash as your own. There was no process for setting and challenging detailed
departmental budgets, and, most importantly, there are inconsistent
commercial skills across departments. The report went on to give some factual
examples where there were variations of up to 80% across central departments
on prices paid for the same product. For a commercial person like me, I am, of course, putting to one side the fact
that maybe a lot of the stuff should never have been ordered in the first
place, but that’s another story. It is here that a controversial issue arises,
I say there is a need to recruit professionals from private industry and not
only offer them an exciting challenge, but most importantly, pay them what
they could earn in the commercial world, as well as bonus targets. These
people in turn would have to employ others who would also earn private-industry
salaries and bonuses. This new group should then be responsible for training
existing public-sector staff to deal with business effectively to get the
best possible value for money for the public purse. Hypothetically, if this
group of procurement experts I refer to costs, say, £50m per annum, that
would pale into insignificance against a saving of around £38bn, as given in
my example. The reason I say it’s controversial is down to
the question: would the government have the guts to do this or would they be
frightened off by headlines about the head-honcho in charge of procurement
earning £Xm
a year? One can see the Daily Mail article now: ‘Fred Smith earns £Xm per year of taxpayers’ money
while Joe Bloggs in the northeast of Moving on to my second point about value for
the country, so many government contracts are awarded to foreign companies or
companies that pay little or no tax in this country. Now I know we are all
fully aware of the requirements under EU rules and regulations on
procurement, but I am sure your Lordships won’t be surprised when I cite our
cousins in There are examples of ECJ
rulings which have allowed for European countries to widen the criteria for
what they see as the ‘Most Economically Advantageous Tender’ (or MEAT) to be
more than just about price. Both This is where I think this government could
learn some serious lessons from our European counterparts. Sorry, but if I
were in charge of procurement, I would have fought tooth and nail to keep
that Bombardier deal in the I declared a conflict of interests at the
start of this debate – simply because it is much easier for me to convey my
frustration by using an example of which I’ve had first-hand experience. When
it comes to government procurement of information-technology products, many
of us will have noticed – in the government offices, hospitals and other
government-run establishments – that the desks are littered, in many cases,
with computer equipment made by a Japanese and German partnership. There is a funny story here, which is, as some
of your Lordships may recall, that a British computer company we all remember
– ICL (which was I apologise for raising the conflict of
interest issue again, but I do so merely to demonstrate what is going on. I
personally have one of the few companies that still produces computers in
this country, and we do supply certain government-run organisations: schools
and councils, and we employ about 200 people. I am not touting for business here, but to
show the scale of what I am talking about: if we were awarded a tenth of the computer and IT systems
and services that are purchased by government throughout the course of a
year, I would have to employ another 350 ‑ 400 people to provide them.
I have made this point clear to those involved in procurement but it seems
the penny still has not dropped. My example is most probably not unique, I am
sure the same could be expressed by people in other industries. I am certainly not advocating that the
government should pay more for
British-assembled products and services. The process of winning government
contracts still has very strict criteria on price, quality and delivery – but
the priorities are wrong. If you took my example of employing another
350 ‑ 400 people – and thus removing the government burden of having to
look after some of Let me share with your Lordships the fact that
my IT company is inundated with enquiries from young school leavers
requesting work experience wanting to get into the IT field. We simply can’t
take them on; we have no work for them. Even if there are Apprenticeship schemes and/or allowances, there simply comes
a point where the company has to face harsh commercial reality. The government must support British companies
and find a way to make the procurement process work for the country like the
French and other European countries do. The most economically advantageous
deal may not always be about the cheapest price; there are wider social
impacts to consider. This is about what government should be doing to support
jobs and our UK-based businesses. The third element of value for money really
relates to SMEs, the small-to-medium-sized enterprises of whom I heard the
government say, when they were elected, ‘We are going to ensure that at least
25% of contracts are awarded to SMEs.’ To date, I understand that figure is about 7%,
but there seems to be another 25% rule and that is: an SME can’t bid for a
contract if its value is more than 25% of its turnover. This seems crazy to
me as the SME maybe the market leader, yet the contract has to be placed with
larger company that does not have the same expertise. The government says that it is angry with the
banks for not lending to small-to-medium-sized enterprises. Well, they can
encourage such lending by making sure that orders are given to small-to-medium-sized enterprises so as to
impress the banks into lending them money. When government contracts are
handed out to large organisations, there should be clauses in that contract
which clearly state that they must give a certain percentage of the contract
out to British SME subcontractors. I am sure the minister will advise your
Lordships’ House that many of my points are already under control and that I
should not despair. Indeed I am aware that quite coincidently, to the date of
this debate, the Right Honourable Minister for the Cabinet Office held an
event on 21 November titled ‘A new way forward’. The agenda showed that the
government had acknowledged many of the things I have raised today,
particularly in respect to IT. As an example, it says, ‘For businesses to
understand the government’s intention to move away from large projects that
are slow to implement or pose a greater risk of failure and to end the
oligopoly of large suppliers that monopolise its service provision.’ Well, that is fighting talk and exactly what
we want to hear. I have had the good fortune to meet some senior civil
servants from the Cabinet Office who have politely debated |
|
||
|
|
This government needs to engage serious professionals, centralise its
procurement processes and get a genuinely better deal for SMEs in the My Lords, I have opened up a whole host of
topics upon which I’m sure your Lordships participating in this debate will
add to, and I await with interest the comments of the speakers following. I
beg to move. You can see a video of the speech here. |
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
More Than
100 Per Cent! 14 November
2011 Whenever I ask The Apprentice candidates why I should take them on,
they almost always promise they’ll give me ‘more than 100 per cent’. What
does that mean? |
|
|
Well, here's a little mathematical
formula that might help answer this question… If: A B C D
E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z is
represented as: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K is 8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98% and:
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E is 11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96% However:
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E is 1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100% But:
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T is 2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103% And look
how far arse kissing will take you: A-R-S-E-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
is 1+18+19+5+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 131% So, one can
conclude with mathematical certainty, that while HARD WORK and KNOWLEDGE will
get you close, and ATTITUDE will get you there, it’s the BULLSHIT and ARSE
KISSING that will put you over the top. Now you know
why some people are where they are! |
|
|
|
|
Strictly
Not For Me! 11 November
2011 Here’s an email I
received via my PR company. Can you believe those plonkers at the BBC thought that I might be up
for Strictly Come Dancing?! |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From:
nnnnnnnnnnn@bbc.co.uk Sent:
08
November 2011 16:38 To:
David
Fraser Subject:
Lord Alan
Sugar Dear
David, I'm
writing to enquire about Lord Alan Sugar for Strictly Come Dancing's
Christmas Special - a shorter commitment than the main show yet all of the
fun for a Christmas day show? Filming
on 28th November, to be aired on Christmas Day, the show will see five brand
new names taking to the dance floor. We
would only need our new cast to undertake a minimum of 12 hours of training
before 27th November for their 90 second dance. Fitting
rehearsals in around their current diaries, training can be undertaken
whenever and for however long suits (an hour a day or two days of 6 hours
training…etc). As
with the main show, our professional dancers are on call for their new
partner and would relocate during this time to make sure that they can be on
hand to rehearse as and when our they were needed. Outside
of training, Our
Christmas show is a great opportunity for those great personalities who are
Strictly... fans but would not normally be available to take on the whole
series. The Special allows them to take on the challenge, learn a skill and
dip their toe into the whole Strictly... world for a one off Christmas Day
show (which was the highest rating Christmas Day show on the BBC in 2010). There
is a favoured nations fee on an all rights basis of £nnnnn I
look forward to hearing your thoughts Best
wishes nnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnn, Celebrity Producer, Strictly Come
Dancing, BBC One BBC
Television Centre, (020
nnnn
nnnn
nnnnnnnnnnn@bbc.co.uk) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prison
Population Reaches Record High 4 November
2011 Ministry of Justice: The prison
population in I wonder if the prisoners
are treated any better than OAPs? Here’s an extract from my book ‘The Way I
See It’, which contains a funny letter to the Prime Minister. Many a true
word is spoken in jest… |
|
|
Dear Prime Minister, Let’s put the seniors
in jail and the criminals in a nursing home. This way, the seniors would have
access to showers, hobbies and walks. They’d receive unlimited free
prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheelchairs, etc., and they’d
receive money instead of paying it out. They would have constant video
monitoring, so they could be helped instantly if they fell or needed
assistance. Bedding would be
washed twice a week, and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them. A
guard would check on them every twenty minutes and bring their meals and
snacks to their cell. They would have family
visits in a suite built for that purpose. They would have access to a
library, weight room, a pool, spiritual counselling and education. Simple
clothing, shoes, slippers, PJs and legal aid would
be free, on request. Private (secure!) rooms for all, with an outdoor
exercise yard and gardens. Each senior could have
a PC, a TV, radio and daily phone calls. There would be a board of directors
to hear complaints, and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be
strictly adhered to. The ‘criminals’ would
get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised. Lights off at 8 p.m., and
showers once a week. They would live in a tiny room and pay £800 per week,
with no hope of ever getting out. Justice for all, I
say. |
|
|
|
Daily Mail
‘Apologies’ 28 October
2011 I had to laugh when I happened to look in the Daily Mail this week.
They’ve started to feature a column on page 2 called ‘Clarifications & Corrections’.
Have a look at Wednesday’s edition, below. This is the Mail’s miserable excuse for correcting the lies they tell.
Yes, of course it is possible to make some typos in a document which has 80k
words, for sure, but the one about Carole Caplin is
not a question of typos – it’s a pack of lies! To bundle this with What are the sneaky
scum up to? Is this a cheap way of getting out of all the lies they tell, so
they can simply reply to the solicitors of any offended party: ‘oh sorry, we
will slip in a correction on our page 2 Clarifications & Corrections
section’? Or, are they trying
to avoid problems when arguing with solicitors over where the apology is to
be placed, by saying ‘we have a specific place for corrections and that is
it’? Or, is there an even
deeper, devious plot for use in the courts or indeed in any new government
enquiries into the conduct of the media, just so they can say that they have
such a section in their paper now? TRUST ME, THERE IS A
SCAM HERE – I JUST HAVEN’T WORKED IT OUT YET. |
|
Clarifications & Corrections The average issue of the
Daily Mail contains around 80,000 words - the equivalent of a paperback book
– most of which are written on the day under tremendous pressure of
deadlines. Huge efforts are made
to ensure our journalism meets the highest possible standards of accuracy but
it is inevitable that mistakes do occur. This new column
provides an opportunity to correct those errors quickly and prominently. An article about
Carole Caplin on 18 September 2010 ‘Carole’s £1m
question: Will she tell all about Blairs’ sex secrets?’
suggested that Ms Caplin might reveal intimate
details about Tony and Cherie Blair in a book for a substantial sum, which
might lift the lid on their marriage and finish the Blairs.
We accept that Ms Caplin would not disclose such
matters and that there was nothing improper about massages she gave Mr Blair.
We apologise to Ms Caplin. ************************ The ************************ If you wish to report
an inaccuracy, please write to the Readers’ Editor, Daily Mail, Northcliffe House, |
|
Mind you,
the Daily Mail does occasionally get things right…
|
|
|
Go to my
Twitter page www.twitter.com/Lord_Sugar |
|
|