Author: pixel2coding

Puttnam Scholars Screening

From left to right: Lucy Creedon, Ben O’Callaghan, Oisín O’Driscoll, Andrew Killian, Lord David Puttnam, Eanna Hardwicke, Liam Fleming, Issey Fenton, Eli Dolliver

The inaugural Puttnam Scholars hosted a private screening of their short film Glossolalia for Lord David Puttnam in Hayfield Manor. Based on an original storyline by Lucy Creedon and directed by Oisín O’Driscoll and Ben O’Callaghan, the cinematography and editing were undertaken by Eli Dolliver. Sound design was by Andrew Killian, who also composed the film’s score while Liam Fleming worked on set design and casting. The film stars Linda Flaherty in her first film and Eanna Hardwicke, who is currently working on Vivarium (Lorcan Finnegan) and Netflix’s adaptation of Sally Rooney’s novel Normal People (Lenny Abrahamson and Hettie Macdonald). It also features Eoin Burke, a regular in Cork short films and Issey Fenton, from the Gaiety School of Acting who is also a UCC graduate of Theatre and English.

Activities Recent Activities

Lord Puttnam receives TK Whitaker Award for Outstanding Contribution to Public Life at the 2019 Business and Finance Irish Business Awards

Lord Puttnam receives TK Whitaker Award for Outstanding Contribution to Public Life at the 2019 Business and Finance Irish Business Awards.

On Thursday 12th December, Lord David Puttnam CBE received the TK Whitaker Award for Outstanding Contribution to Public Life at the 2019 Business and Finance Irish Business Awards, held at Dublin’s Convention Centre.

During his response to receiving the award, Lord Puttnam announced that he and his wife Patsy were in the process of finalising their application for Irish citizenship, having lived in west Cork for the past thirty years.

Speaking after the ceremony about their decision, Lord Puttnam made it clear that having fought the madness of Brexit to a standstill, the time had come for he and his wife to confirm their commitment as Europeans, and to the nation that had welcomed and adopted them.

Lord Puttnam also took the opportunity in his speech to discuss his recent role as Chair of the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee and how this has further alerted him to the inconsistencies between existing global democratic systems and the new digital world: “[it] is a conundrum being faced by free societies everywhere – at present it seems to me we are long on questions but somewhat short on answers.”

On the day that Britons went to the polls, he also raised concerns about the increased lack of trust between voters and their political representatives: “the recent actions of politicians in the UK and the US seem designed to promote the notion that ‘truth and trust’ are unnecessary and outdated concepts – forms of currency that can be seized upon, exploited and tossed aside to justify a cheap headline or a useful distraction.”

He encouraged politicians in Ireland to “actively encourage and incentivise young people into public service” and to recognise the importance of RTÉ, as the nation’s public service broadcaster, in ensuring that information is kept impartial and accurate.

Lord Puttnam is the first international honouree of the Whitaker Award, with Mary McAleese, Enda Kenny and President Michael D. Higgins all having received the award, now in its fourth year.

Lord Puttnam served as Ireland’s Digital Champion from 2012 – 2017 and has been involved in various aspects of Irish life since he first came to the country in the late 1980s, including the establishment of many new education initiatives during his tenure on the board of the National Forum for Enhancement of Teaching and Learning from 2013 to 2016. He was made a fellow of the Royal Irish Academy in 2015 and an honorary fellow of the RDS in 2017.

In his local Skibbereen community, he was a founding member of the Ludgate Digital Hub in 2015 and he runs his education company – Atticus Education – from his home there.

Mario Draghi, former President of the ECB, received The Sutherland Leadership Award at the same event.

Activities Film

Lord Puttnam speaks at Annapurna International School of Film and Media

On Thursday 21st November, Lord Puttnam spoke to students at the Annapurna Film School about the Indian film industry and the changing landscape of the screen industries.

Activities Media

Lord Puttnam contributes article to The Times

Source: The Times

With a general election now firmly on the horizon, you’d imagine a similarly animated conversation would develop regarding how prepared the country is to hold a free and fair ballot. In recent years it’s become increasingly clear that our election laws have failed to keep pace with technological change.

Far too often political messages can be placed online with no information as to who paid for them, which candidate they support, and why. It has become increasingly easy for campaigns to use micro-targeted messages to fan the prejudices of small groups, safe in the knowledge that the wider electorate won’t be aware of them.

The government has promised it will introduce proposals for “imprints” on all online political advertising, as is the case offline. However, progress has been achingly slow. The government launched a consultation in July last year but, with an election looming, has yet to put forward any proposals. Earlier this year it also committed to hold a consultation on measures to protect electoral integrity, including increasing transparency in political advertising. However, this also is yet to appear. When the democracy and digital technologies committee, which I chair, questioned civil servants on when this consultation would take place we were told the decision was still “sitting with ministers”.

This sense of a lack of government action is extremely worrying. The Electoral Commission put forward perfectly sensible recommendations for updating electoral law almost a year and a half ago, and the government has yet to respond to them. The written submissions that our committee has received are all but unanimous in agreeing with the commission’s suggestions that all political advertising should come with an imprint, and should be recorded in real time on publicly available databases, so that the electorate can see the claims that are being targeted at different audiences.

This failure to act risks undermining voters’ faith in democracy as a whole. There is a real danger that following the next general election, the losing side can plausibly claim the result to be illegitimate due to dark messaging having subverted the democratic process. This in turn would undermine the legitimacy of our government; precisely the goal of every malign foreign actor wishing to influence the outcome of our elections. The objective of dictators across the world is to spread the idea that democracy is a chaotic process that fails to lead to stable government. Government inaction in western democracies like our own can only help them achieve this aim.

There are enormous and unresolved questions over how digital technology should be regulated to ensure that, over time it can support rather than undermine our form of representative democracy. This is where our select committee will be focusing its inquiry over the next six months. However, the immediate changes that need to be made are obvious, and have been for some time. For too long the government has failed to act, to a point which there are legitimate questions to be asked and answered. We cannot go into the election without the degree of transparency the public needs if it is to maintain trust in our democratic system.

Activities Future Skills

Lord Puttnam makes intervention in Early Parliamentary General Election Bill Debate

Source: Hansard

My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I think that the most important issue in front of us is the restoration of trust between us and the electorate. I first declare an interest as chair of this House’s Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee. As such, with the date of the general election seemingly in place, it seems only right to ask the Minister how prepared he feels the country really is to hold a free and fair ballot. Surely this House will agree that nothing could be worse than a contested election result.

For a number of years, it has been clear that our election laws have failed to keep pace with technological change. As we are all aware as a result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal—and it was a scandal—messages can be placed online with no information about who paid for them, which candidate they support and why. It has become increasingly easy for campaigns to use microtargeted messages to fan the prejudices of individuals, safe in the knowledge that the wider electorate will not be aware of them.

The Government have promised that they will introduce proposals for imprints on all online political advertising, as is the case offline. The Government launched a consultation in July 2018, but have as yet failed to put forward any proposals. Earlier this year, they also committed to hold a consultation on measures to protect electoral integrity, including measures to increase transparency in political advertising. However, that also is yet to appear.

When the Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee questioned civil servants on when this consultation would take place, we were told that the decision was still sitting with Ministers. The sense of government inaction is incredibly worrying. The Electoral Commission put forward perfectly sensible recommendations for updating electoral law almost a year and a half ago, and the Government have yet to respond to them. The written submissions to our committee are all but unanimous in agreeing with the Electoral Commission’s suggestions that all political advertising should, first, come with an imprint, and secondly, be recorded in real time on publicly available databases so that the electorate can see the nature of claims being targeted at different audiences. There must be greater transparency. This failure to act risks undermining voters’ faith in democracy as a whole.

There is a real danger that, following the coming election, the losing side could plausibly claim the result to be illegitimate due to dark messaging having been used to subvert the democratic process. That in turn would undermine the legitimacy of whoever was elected—precisely the goal of every malign foreign actor wishing to influence the outcome of our elections.

The objective of dictators across the world is to spread the idea that democracy is a chaotic process that fails to lead to stable government. Government inaction in allowing this election to go ahead without the minimum recommendations of the Electoral Commission being in place can only help those foreign actors achieve their aims. There are enormous and unresolved questions over how digital technology should be regulated to ensure that, over time, it can support rather than undermine our form of representative democracy.

The immediate changes that need to be made are obvious, and have been for a good while. For too long the Government have failed to act, to a point at which there are entirely legitimate questions to be asked—and indeed answered. We cannot go into this election without the degree of transparency that the public deserve if we are to maintain trust in our democratic system. In “getting Brexit done”, we could all too easily inadvertently destroy long-term trust in British democracy itself.

Activities Recent Activities

Lord Puttnam makes intervention in Brexit Debate

Source: Hansard

My Lords, for the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to just two of the recurring fantasies that we are currently forced to listen to. The first is that the country will somehow find itself united under a Government led by Boris Johnson. As even his friends concede, Mr Johnson is an almost uniquely divisive and untrusted figure. While I would argue that remainers tend to be less viscerally unforgiving than their opponents, the idea that the division that has riven this country for over three years is going to be magically healed is surely the one nonsense we can all agree upon—and certainly will when the full impact of unrestrained market forces begins to devastate the lives of those least able to withstand it. Should the Prime Minister succeed this evening, the only winners will be not the people of this country, but Mr Putin, Mr Trump, Mr Bolsonaro and others whose route to success is based on the flagrant exploitation of ignorance and fear. I was taught by my parents that we can be most easily judged by the friends we make.

The second deliberate falsehood that has been peddled is that a confirmatory referendum will inevitably lead to a likely third, fourth or even fifth one. Clearly, this is put about by people who struggle with the English language. Check out the word “confirmatory” in the dictionary, and you will find that it means,

“serving to make an arrangement or agreement definite or valid”.

It is bolstered by words such as “verifying”, “substantiating”, “validating” and “closure”.

I live in the Republic of Ireland, a country that has recovered from a painful birth. Noble Lords will remember that the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty in 2009 but, having secured an enhanced role for small states, then voted to agree the ratification by an overwhelming majority of 67%. Were they right the first time or the second time? The most recent poll, in May 2018, indicated that over 90% of Irish citizens now wish to remain in the EU, and when it comes to people too young to have voted in those earlier referenda, the figure is closer to 99%. That is what I would describe as closure. I have never heard it suggested that having a second and better-informed view can be a bad thing. In fact, it could reasonably be said to be the primary function of your Lordships’ House.

Find me one adult in this country who on 23 June 2016 knew what they were voting for, knew they were voting for the deal being laid before Parliament today. It is quite possible that it will be embraced as the very least worst option. If so, why are those proposing it so afraid of referring it to the people? Are they concerned that misdirected lightning will fail to strike twice? You are damned right they are.

I would simply make one additional point. Should the Prime Minister impose his deal on the country, the momentum could easily encourage him towards a further victory at a general election. In my view, a Boris Johnson Government would be a disaster not just for this country but for every single Member of this House. In that respect, I am perfectly happy to be judged by history. That being the case, I ask any waverers in my own party who later today might be thinking of voting with the Government, and against a confirmatory referendum, to recall a speech made by my noble friend Lord Kinnock in Bridgend on 7 June 1983. It was a speech which led me and many other disillusioned Labour supporters to rejoin the party. To paraphrase my noble friend, if Boris Johnson wins this evening then, under his Government, I warn you not to be vulnerable. I warn you not to be young, not to fall ill and not to grow old. Most of all, I warn you not in any way to need the help of the state, as it is very likely not to be forthcoming.

Activities Education

Social networks and democracy – House Magazine article by Lord Puttnam

The new Lords Democracy & Digital Technology Committee will seek to answer the crucial questions such as how our representative democracy can be supported, rather than undermined, in a digital world, writes Lord Puttnam.

Source: House Magazine

Social networks have brought many benefits. In the political sphere, they have enabled millions of people across the UK to engage in political discussion, sharing their opinions on issues of the day, and debating with others. But we’ve also found ourselves in a perilous situation whereby much of the political content tailored and served to each of us online is created, presented, and shared with few of the protections which have for many years, and with good reason, applied to print and broadcast media.

Serious concerns have emerged around the running and financing of our political campaigns. The corrosive effect of disinformation and manipulation has played a part in distorting both the facts and context of political discourse. The nature of public debate online can sometimes be vicious, abusive and all-too-often unacceptable. We need to consider whether this deters active participation, and what effect increasing levels of polarisation and radicalisation are having on our democracy.

Not all the answers to these questions can come from Parliament, although part of our response must be the development of far more effective forms of digital literacy.

The truth is few understand the algorithmic mechanisms of the tech giants, or how they enable the warping of our digital responses at a time when transparency could hardly be more important.

We need to look honestly and collaboratively at how best to address the magnitude of this challenge. Representative democracy is the cumulative effort of centuries, and it now falls to our collective stewardship to ensure that in seeking improvements, it is treated with all the care and attention it deserves.

We must at the same time recognise the immense benefits of the digital world.

For many people, digital technologies of all kinds have provided a means to more fully engage with the political process: to feel in closer contact with their representatives and the causes with which they most closely identify. Through these technologies, Government and Parliament can become more accountable to those they represent, and when responsibly deployed they have the potential to contribute to a healthy, well-informed democratic culture.

Facebook would appear to have acknowledged some of those responsibilities and signalled a desire to engage more formally with the political sphere, looking to lawmakers for a regulatory framework within which it might constructively channel its reformist impulses.

The task now falls to Parliament to engage with other social networks in a manner which effectively holds them to account for failings in their civic responsibilities whilst encouraging their potential to widen and enrich our democratic processes and interactions.

The crucial question we must both ask and answer is how representative democracy can be supported, rather than undermined, in a digital world.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies has set out to address this challenge. Our call for evidence remains open until Friday 20th September, and I’d encourage anyone with a serious interest in the future of plural, representative democracy to enter a submission. Our inquiry can only be as good as the quality of the evidence we receive.

The support and expertise of parliamentarians will be essential if our committee is to set out a vision to the Government of the type of fair and inclusive democracy the UK deserves in the digital era.

Lord Puttnam is a Labour peer and chair of the Lords Committee on Democracy and Digital Technology

Activities Film

David Puttnam exits ‘Arctic 30’ production role to chair UK democracy committee

Source: Screen Daily

David Puttnam has stepped down from his role of producer on Arctic 30, a drama about controversial oil exploration in Arctic waters, to chair a House of Lords special committee on ‘Democracy and Digital Technology’.

The committee will research opportunities offered and threats posed to democracy by the digital sector.

Iain Smith will take over from Puttnam as lead producer on Arctic 30 with production scheduled for February or March 2020 in Iceland, following the country’s winter. Icelandic director Baltasar Kormakur is confirmed to direct the feature, shooting at his RVK Studios in Reykjavik.

Further location work will take place in Poland and London.

Hani Farsi is also producing Arctic 30 for his Corniche Pictures, and has been funding pre-production.

The majority of financing for a budget in the $25-30m range is in place, with the remainder to come by the start of next year, according to Smith.

The film is based on Ben Stewart’s non-fiction book Don’t Trust, Don’t Fear, Don’t Beg: The Extraordinary Story Of The Arctic Thirty, about the attempt by 30 Greenpeace activists to protest Russian oil exploration in Arctic waters in 2013.

A first screenplay was written by Emma Thompson; it has subsequently been through several new versions, with a final draft in the works.

The production is searching for its key cast, which will have an international spread; it is an ensemble piece, with a number of women as key protagonists.

Speaking to Screen, Smith described it as “a great feminist story… about commitment and personal journey in the face of great odds.”

“Because the story is so closely linked to Greenpeace, we have always had to work with their sensitivities in telling the story.”

Puttnam will retain a producer credit on the film. Smith said he “will still be there as a presence on the movie”, keeping in touch throughout the process.

Project history

Smith was a location manager on Puttnam’s 1981 Oscar-winning title Chariots Of Fire, and has associate producer credits alongside Puttnam as producer on films including 1983’s Local Hero and 1984’s The Killing Fields. He has produced features including 1997’s Seven Years In Tibet and 2006’s Children Of Men.

First announced in 2015, Arctic 30 was to be Puttnam’s return to film production following a lengthy hiatus. His last producer credit was on Hugh Hudson’s post-World War I comedy drama My Life So Far in 1999.

Puttnam described the advance of digital technology as “the most immediate threat facing western democracy”, saying that he has been writing about and pursuing it in Parliament for 20 years.

Activities Education

Should democracies embrace or fear digital technologies? – new committee seeks your views

Source: Democracy & Digital Technologies Select Committee website

The Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies has today launched its call for evidence to seek the public's views on both the benefits and negative impact of digital technologies on democracy.

The Committee is seeking evidence on the impact of digital technologies on political campaigning, the electoral process, our understanding of the truth and public's wider engagement with politics and political debate.

The Committee is seeking written evidence to be received by Friday 20 September.

Call for evidence ( [PDF] PDF 173 KB) [Opens in a new window]
Send written submission
Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee

Commenting Lord Puttnam, Chairman of the Committee, said:

"Digital technologies are changing everything around us – how we work, shop and communicate have, and will, change profoundly. Democracy and politics are no exceptions. How we understand democracy, our role as citizens in relation to the state and what we understand as the ‘truth’ will continue to alter as the impact of the digital world develops further.

"We have already seen high profile controversies in recent elections with allegations of foreign state influence in both the US presidential election and our own Brexit referendum. We also know political parties now spend more on online advertising than they do on newspaper ads or billboards. What will be the impact when political advertising can be tailored to each individual citizen, with nobody knowing what parties are saying to other voters?

"There may also be benefits to democracy from digital technology, how can we ensure we harness the exciting potential for greater engagement and public involvement in central and local government for the benefit of everyone?

"We are seeking written evidence by 20 September and I would encourage anyone with an interest in this area to get in touch with us as we will rely on your contributions to ensure we deliver a really significant report."

Questions the Committee are inviting evidence on include:

How has the design of algorithms used by social media platforms shaped democratic debate? Should there be more accountability for the design of algorithms?
What role should education play in helping create a healthy, active and digitally literate democracy?
Should there be more transparency in online spending and political campaigning by political parties and other groups? What is the effect of targeted online advertising?
Does the increasing use of encrypted messaging and private groups on social media platforms present a challenge to democracy? What are the positive and negative effects of anonymity on online political debate?
Are people or organisations deliberately using social media to undermine trust in democracy? How can this be combatted?
What steps can be taken to reduce the impact of misinformation online?
How can politicians and political institutions use technology to engage the public with national and local decision making and enhance democracy?

Activities Future Skills

Lord Puttnam to chair new committee exploring impact of digital technologies on democracy

Source: www.parliament.uk/

The House of Lords has today agreed to appoint a new special inquiry committee to investigate the impact of digital technologies on democracy.

The Committee, which will be Chaired by Lord Puttnam, will look at how the growth in digital technology has changed the way politics functions and what this means for the future of plural, representative democracy, as political parties, campaigners and government increasingly focus on online and social media to communicate with the public.

Commenting, Lord Puttnam said:

“Digital technologies are changing every aspect of our lives, and they are clearly having a significant impact on democracy and the way in which we carry out politics in this country.

“We need to understand how best to respond to this challenge; whether we have the right models in place to regulate online political communications and the best means of ensuring the public develop faith in what they see and hear online. Representative democracy is vulnerable, and will only be preserved if we understand how precious it is, and treat it with the care and attention it deserves.

“We will shortly be publishing a call for evidence in which we’ll set out the kind of evidence we’ll be seeking. Our inquiry can only be as good as the quality of the evidence we receive, so I’d encourage anyone with an interest in our work to respond with views and suggestions on this increasingly vital issue.”

The members of the House of Lords who have been appointed to the Committee are:

Lord Puttnam (Chair)
Lord Black of Brentwood
Lord Dobbs
Lord German
Lord Harris of Haringey
Lord Holmes of Richmond
Baroness Kidron
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lucas
Lord Mitchell
Baroness Morris of Yardley
Lord Scriven

Subscribe to our Newsletter