Education and Culture Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Official Report 651KB pdf

---

Broadcasting

Item 2 is an oral evidence session on broadcasting with BBC Scotland. This follows a round-table session that took place last January, following which the committee took evidence last May from Mark Thompson, the former director general of the BBC. The committee invited the next director general, George Entwistle, to give further evidence last autumn, but the BBC declined that invitation. Subsequently, the committee took evidence from the National Union of Journalists and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union. Following that session, the committee asked the BBC to appear before it again to discuss the various concerns that the unions had raised with the committee. The BBC declined that invitation to give oral evidence but provided the committee with written evidence that discussed the unions’ submission to the committee.

As the committee is aware, I then wrote to Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC trust, offering the BBC the opportunity to attend the committee to discuss the substantive issue of programming capacity at major events and other matters. Lord Patten agreed that BBC Scotland senior management would attend the committee.

I therefore welcome to the committee this morning from BBC Scotland Ken MacQuarrie, director; John Boothman, head of news and current affairs; and Bruce Malcolm, head of Commonwealth games 2014. Good morning, gentlemen. I invite Mr MacQuarrie to make some opening remarks.

Thank you, convener. Before we come to questions, I thought that it might be useful to take stock of what BBC Scotland has achieved in the past few months. Since we appeared here last May with the director general, we have reported our most successful ever business year. That is despite the well-documented challenges that we have had from the licence fee settlement and, of course, the very serious issues surrounding Jimmy Savile.

The Deloitte economic impact survey, which some of you may have read last week, revealed that, for every £1 of licence fee, the BBC delivers over £2 of value back into the economy, equating in Scotland to around £410 million for the financial year 2011-12. We now produce 9 per cent of the BBC’s network television spend in Scotland, contributing £80 million-worth of business for the Scottish creative economy. That resulted in our network television rising to a record 882 hours, which is a rise of 52 per cent in just two years. Last week, the First Minister acknowledged the success of that achievement.

That has been achieved through programmes such as “Mrs Brown’s Boys”, which is produced at Pacific Quay and has become one of the most popular BBC sitcoms in recent times. It was also helped by the move of “Waterloo Road” to Greenock, which brought a further £20 million investment over two years as well as 200 jobs. I am pleased to say that 10 per cent of those jobs are based in the Greenock area and 90 per cent are based elsewhere in Scotland.

On 14 January, we launched BBC 1 Scotland HD. We have also collected a significant number of industry awards, including a Foreign Press Association award and a Scottish BAFTA for Mark Daly—one of seven Scottish BAFTAs that we won—and three United Kingdom Grierson awards and an international Emmy for our Terry Pratchett documentary.

We are aware that the committee was previously concerned about changes to our radio news schedules, but all the indications so far are that those changes, which have increased the amount of news that we offer, have been welcomed by our audiences. They include changes to our weekend offering, which includes a new two-hour “Good Morning Scotland”.

I would like to address the issue of the appearance of BBC Scotland before this committee. It was suggested in the autumn that we were being disrespectful to the committee. That was not our intention. As you know, we provided detailed evidence to the committee in January last year, and again in May. In October 2011, we gave evidence to the Scotland Bill Committee on the impact on BBC Scotland of the licence fee settlement.

You are aware that the freeze has resulted in a budget reduction of £16 million over the period to 2017, resulting in a required reduction in post numbers of between 100 and 120 from a workforce of around 1,250. A number of those posts have already been closed: 39 were closed last year, and another 35 will be closed by March 2013. In the case of a number of those post closures, appeals have been lodged. Those are currently in train. However, we envisage no more post closures in news and current affairs under the delivering quality first process.

When we wrote to the committee in October, we said that we felt that we had already provided substantial information—as much as we could at the time—on the impact on BBC Scotland of the licence fee settlement and our response through DQF. However, we noted that we were happy to return at a future date to update on developments and, in the light of the matters that we have in hand, I am delighted to be here today. We also said that it would not be appropriate to enter into discussion on industrial relations matters in a public forum. That is why I refer to the on-going appeals process and the importance of that point.

In your letter to the chairman of the BBC trust, convener, you indicated that the committee is now considering a report on the ability of BBC Scotland to manage major events. As the chairman outlined in his response, we are happy to attend and to answer any questions that the committee may have in that respect. I hope that we can do so in a spirit of co-operation and in the knowledge that we are all endeavouring to produce the best possible output for audiences here in Scotland.

Major events are very much at the front of our minds, following on from our coverage of the Olympics, which received considerable praise. Our fervent desire is to use the expertise that we gained in the Olympics as we prepare for next year. In 2014, we will cover not only the Commonwealth games and the independence referendum but world war one commemorations and a host of other events. Our planning for those major events is already well in hand.

I am confident that we are well placed to manage the challenges that we face and those that we will face going forward. Last year, 2012, was one of our most successful years to date and I have no reason to think that we will not continue on that path this year, next year and beyond.

Thank you, Mr MacQuarrie. I am sure that the committee recognises the difficulties that BBC Scotland faces in the current financial climate. However, we wish to address a number of matters that were raised with us in the autumn.

I start off with a letter that you sent to us on 30 October in response to the trade unions’ evidence to the committee earlier that month. At point 3 in that letter, you referred to Mr Murray saying that, in his view, there has been a staff cut of 60 per cent in radio news and current affairs. You said:

“This is simply not true.”

There is clearly a divergence of opinion between you and Mr Murray, who is representing one of the trade unions. Will you explain why, in your view, his statement is incorrect?

For the detail of the figures in relation to the staff cuts, I turn to Mr Boothman.

I was quite disappointed by Mr Murray’s evidence. I was quite surprised to see that he was here. I know that he has a capacity as a member of the NUJ executive, but Mr Murray left the BBC under voluntary redundancy some 18 months ago and has taken no part in any management and union meetings in the past year. I say that not out of disrespect for Mr Murray but to put it on the record.

That is now on the record, Mr Boothman, but clearly it is a matter for the unions to decide who they send as their representatives, in the same way as it is a matter for the BBC to decide who it sends.

That is right. As I said, however, he has taken no part in any management and union meetings in the past 18 months. That is an important point for us to put on the record.

There have been staff cuts in news and current affairs at Radio Scotland, just as there have been staff cuts across the departments. We recognise that. I came here nearly a year ago and outlined what those were. However, no programme in news and current affairs has had a staff cut of 60 per cent.

Over what time period are you talking?

We came here a year ago and discussed these matters. The timeframe that we have been talking about is the five-year timeframe from the last year of continuous improvement through the whole of DQF to 2017. No programme has had a staff cut of 60 per cent, or anything like it.

Okay. You have made your position clear. Let me go over the figures that I have been given, and let us see whether we can shed some light on the disagreement.

I am talking about a timeframe between 2006 and 2012—that is, the past six years. GMS staffing went from, in 2006, one editor, two senior broadcast journalists, three broadcast journalists and one content assistant, to no editor, one senior broadcast journalist, two and a half broadcast journalists and no content assistant. That represents a cut of 50 per cent in the number of posts. It is not 60 per cent, but it is not 15 or 20 per cent, which I think is the figure that you gave.

I could go through all the figures, but I will give a particular example. Between 2006 and 2012, there was a cut to daytime staffing of 69 per cent, with a cut to weekend staffing of 25 per cent, and that cut will increase. There was a cut to news desk staffing of 43 per cent, with a cut to weekend staffing of 60 per cent. Are those figures incorrect?

Yes.

What are the figures, then, between 2006 and 2012?

I do not generally recognise the figures that you have just presented to me, but let me talk about daytime programming, for example. Since 2006, an entire new programme has been added to the schedule—the John Beattie programme at lunch time—which has staffing round about it. It is the case that some of the staff who work on that programme also work on the evening news programme, but to me that represents value for money. It means that we can have staff working across programmes, which we believe is a good thing. In the same way, staff on “Reporting Scotland” work on a lunch-time programme and a tea-time programme. Those things are worth while.

Off the top of my head, I note that, for example, you have not mentioned people such as Huw Williams, who is the dedicated news correspondent to “Good Morning Scotland”. He is not included in your numbers. We are satisfied with the numbers that we have round about “Good Morning Scotland”. It is our flagship news programme and we have added extra output to the programme on a Saturday.

There is no effect on our audience in terms of any of the things that Peter Murray or anybody else has alleged to the committee. I cannot give you those figures off the top of my head, but I am happy that we have a satisfactory number of staff round about the programmes. I outlined a year ago that we would go through a period when staff would be working across our output, but what is happening in radio in relation to that has been happening in television and other areas for a long time.

I am quite surprised by your response. The figures that I have been given are fairly detailed about the dedicated posts that the BBC used to have on GMS or other parts of your service but which no longer exist. I am surprised that you seem to suggest that the figures are incorrect.

Can I move on to—

Convener, if you wish to present me with those figures, I will be happy to have a look at them. They are new to me. They have never been presented in the form that you have presented them to us by the trade unions in BBC Scotland.

I am sure that you can read the Official Report and those figures will be available to you there, but I am happy to provide them to you.

I am happy to do that, but let me tell you that, in the form that you are suggesting, those figures have never been presented to us in any management and union meetings at BBC Scotland.

09:30

Let us take some specifics. Does GMS currently have a dedicated editor, on day shift?

No.

Did it used to?

Yes.

Right, so the figure that I read out is correct.

Yes, but what is the implication of what you are saying? Are you saying that you do not think that there is proper editorial control over GMS?

No. You said that the figures that I read out are incorrect, so I am going through them one by one. You have said that that one is correct.

Okay. On you go.

There used to be two senior broadcast journalists on GMS on day shift; there is now one. Is that correct?

No, it is not correct.

What is the situation?

What do we have? We certainly have a senior broadcast journalist who works overnight, and there will be another senior broadcast journalist on day shift. We are not exclusively talking about work during the day. Obviously, GMS has staff who are planning the programme the night before, as well as staff on the morning of the programme.

Are you talking about the early shift staff?

No, there is an overnight staff.

Let us look at other programmes. Until fairly recently, “Newsnight Scotland” had two correspondents with two days’ work on a story. I understand that the current plan is to remove those posts. Is that correct?

No. “Newsnight Scotland” still has that level of staffing.

And the plan is not to remove them?

We have not talked in detail to the staff about what the plan will be.

Is there a plan to change the current number of staff on “Newsnight Scotland”?

Yes, there is.

Is a reduction planned?

We will discuss that with the unions and the staff.

Does that mean that you are not able to say what the reduction will be?

It would not be appropriate to discuss details of staffing on a programme such as “Newsnight Scotland” without first discussing the matter with the unions and staff.

What you say is entirely appropriate, but I am slightly surprised. This is the end of January and you said that all the posts would be going by March, but you say that you have not yet discussed the matter with the unions.

The posts that we are talking about in the context of our DQF process will be going by the end of March.

Given that it is the end of January, I am slightly surprised that you have not yet discussed that with the unions.

I have not discussed individual details. We have a directors liaison meeting with the unions tomorrow or the day after and local-level negotiating meetings are coming up, but none of the changes that you are talking about has been suggested to the staff.

Okay.

Given the exchanges that we have seen, including your letter of response to the trade unions, how are industrial relations and morale at the BBC?

Two days ago, we had a directors liaison meeting with the joint unions, which Paul Holleran attended. It was a very full meeting and we were discussing the totality of our business across BBC Scotland—such meetings between me, as director, and the joint unions regularly take place. The tone and atmosphere of the meeting two days ago were positive and convivial. Paul Holleran paid tribute to the good work that is being done in the context of attempts to redeploy the staff in BBC Scotland who were under threat of redundancy. I cannot characterise the meeting as anything other than positive. That is the most recent evidence that I have of an exchange with the unions.

The festive period has made people feel a bit better, because that is certainly not the impression that the committee got prior to the festive period. Has a staff survey been done recently at the BBC? If so, can we have a look at it? What was the response?

There has been a recent staff survey and we have a plan to deal with all the departments and address the issues that were raised in it. The survey was of staff in the BBC as a whole; it was not particular to BBC Scotland. BBC Scotland is part of the overall BBC staff survey.

Can we see an analysis of the impact on staff in Scotland and how people feel about the organisation and the changes that are being made?

The staff survey goes into a certain level of detail department by department. We note your request for that information and will respond in writing with what we think is appropriate within our overall policy region by region and area by area in the BBC.

In the spirit of the thawing industrial relations that you referred to, could we have a joint communication from you and the trade unions to ensure that there is agreement about what is said?

With regard to sharing our plans and responding to the staff survey, we are always happy to take input from and consult the unions on the matter. Indeed, we have a series of regular meetings in which such issues are covered. However, the communication will not be a joint one as it is the management’s responsibility to address any positive or negative matters that are raised in the staff survey.

Convener, when the committee receives that communication from the BBC, can we ask the trade unions to comment on it?

We can do that. I am sure that we will come back to these issues in the course of the session.

You will be aware of an article in this morning’s Scotsman suggesting that the likelihood of a strike among news journalists in the BBC is quite high—

I am sorry—I missed a couple of words in your question.

You will be aware of an article in this morning’s Scotsman suggesting that relations have reached such a point that a strike among news staff might happen in the very near future. Have the staff been given a public opportunity to discuss these issues with you? If so, can that meeting also be described as “positive and convivial”?

Staff have had a number of opportunities with the direct leadership of the area that they are in. Are you referring in particular to the staff survey or to industrial relations, as it were?

Have the staff been able to raise concerns? It has been suggested in today’s Scotsman that tensions are very high. Has there been a public meeting—well, not a public meeting but a meeting with you at which staff have had a chance to air these views?

I recently had a session that was open to all staff and at which we had a very full discussion about a number of different issues, ranging from the impact of Savile to the impact of DQF. How would I characterise the meeting? It was open and honest on both sides. Let me put it this way: the staff who attended the session, many of whom were from the newsroom, came up to me afterwards and said that they felt that the exchange had been very positive and that they were very happy with it. I should also point out that these staff are without fear or favour, by which I mean that they had no reason to tell me that. Of course, I do not want to imply that the exchange of views was not robust—it was.

Mr MacQuarrie, can I just ask about the quality judgments—

I am sorry, Liz, but I want to stick with the staff survey for a moment. Is your question related to that?

It is, but I will come back to it if other members want to go first.

Given that Mr Findlay has raised the issue, I want to ask a specific question about the staff survey and morale. Let me quote two statistics from a staff survey that I believe was conducted in 2010. The percentage of BBC staff agreeing with the statement

“I believe that my manager means what s/he says”

was 67 per cent, while the figure for staff in the BBC Scotland news department was 41 per cent. The percentage of BBC staff agreeing with the statement

“Senior leaders in my division behave in a way that is consistent with the BBC Values”

was 45 per cent, while the figure for BBC Scotland news staff was 17 per cent. Are you not shocked by that figure? Given that only 17 per cent felt that their senior leaders behave in a way that is consistent with BBC values, how have you responded to that survey and how have you dealt with what I think is an appallingly low figure?

We obviously take seriously any staff survey and any data that we have about how our staff are feeling. We have a clear action plan that involves dialogue and working with staff to ensure that there are various fora for their concerns and that there is absolute clarity on the information that is available to them. We respond, as any organisation would, with a positive plan to address the issues raised. That, in sum, is how we approach it.

Again, I am slightly puzzled by that response. A reasonable number of people have spoken to me in advance of the meeting, and the one thing that they all said, which was consistent across every communication that I have had, was that there is a complete lack of communication by BBC Scotland management: staff are not being told things, issues are not being addressed, dealt with or responded to, they are not being informed about what is going on, and morale is at rock bottom. In the survey, which was nearly three years ago, only 17 per cent agreed with that statement about senior leaders behaving consistently with BBC values. How can you respond in the way that you have just done, given that figure and the responses that I and, I am sure, other members have had?

I think that you are referring to a particular department. Is that correct?

Yes. I am referring to BBC Scotland news.

We respond by looking at morale across the whole of BBC Scotland; news is only part of the operation. We look at our figures in relation to other nations and other parts of the BBC.

In the recent staff survey, the new set-up at Salford was the highest scoring area. We are broadly in line across the rest of the BBC. I do not, for a moment, minimise the importance of looking at the statistics, taking cognisance of them and addressing them. We do that in an absolutely open fashion with staff.

Although you indicate that there is a lack of communication, we have communicated the staff results clearly. Staff are regularly communicated with. As is the case with any organisation, we have a regular system of internal communications and we work, all the time, to get the optimum internal communications by responding to staff needs and being accessible and available at any point to staff who want to raise an issue.

I would like clarification on a point that you raised a moment ago. When will the departmental breakdown of the most recent staff survey be published?

I will come back to you with a figure on that, but we are looking to give individual heads the figures for their own areas and departments, which are to be used as the basis for their team briefings.

Does that mean that the figures will be published soon?

They will certainly be published soon, but I will not give an exact date until we have completed the work internally.

I understand that.

Quality is obviously the most important thing for programme standards, particularly in light of the Savile report’s serious concerns. Will you tell us a little bit about the criteria that you use to make judgments about the quality of the programmes that are delivered?

We carry out a variety of quality surveys, one of which is called the appreciation index, which provides a qualitative score for programmes. Typically, we measure reach, share and the quality of the programme. We also have various bespoke surveys that look at whether the programme was regarded as innovative. Parallel work is undertaken by the BBC trust in that regard, on what is referred to as “fresh” and “new”. The areas that we measure include originality, impact and the extent to which the audience enjoyed the programme. We often measure online whether people would recommend the programme to a friend.

We have different systems for radio and TV—it depends on the platform—to try to get the best available data. It is something that we do with the utmost seriousness and we probably have more qualitative data on our programming than any other organisation in the UK.

09:45

Are you satisfied with the results of the analyses of the quality? Are there any concerns about the quality of programmes among either management or staff?

We continually aspire to hold and improve the quality. As the director general said when we were here in May, we can see a rising graph on the qualitative scores for output.

Is that on all the scores?

Yes, as far as output is concerned. There is no doubt that the issues around Savile affected trust in the organisation as a corporate body. We measured that as well. However, the audience distinguishes between the BBC corporately and its content. For magnificent programmes such as “Africa” and “Mrs Brown’s Boys”, as was mentioned, we have had record content scores for audience enjoyment and comedy.

For each programme, we analyse the qualitative scores, look across a range of different criteria and look at the extent to which the audience is using the iPlayer to view a programme again. We take all that data and rigorously test it. In no sense are we ever complacent on quality; the quality of our programmes is what we live to deliver.

Given the earlier discussions, am I correct that the real concern is not about the quality of the programmes and that it is much more about employment and morale in the sector? Am I correct that the quality of programmes is not at stake or causing concern among staff?

For the benefit of the licence payer the licence fee has been frozen since 2010. We will be able to offer the exact same payment until March 2017. In concert with that, the BBC has taken on responsibilities regarding the World Service, S4C, BBC monitoring, local television and so on. More than £700 million will be taken out of the budget over that period. As I said the last time that I was here, that level of change is not easy; it is difficult and it causes uncertainty among staff.

Allied to that, we are also in perhaps the most competitive industry in the UK, with regard to the number of our competitors, and in the fastest changing industry in the UK, due to audience behaviour and the way in which they use technology.

Is it all right to move on to another subject?

I would like to stay on this one for the moment. Does Joan McAlpine want to ask about this subject or a different one?

I want to ask about benchmarking between Radio Scotland and Radio 4.

We will come back to that. Clare Adamson has a question on the same area.

You mentioned benchmarking against other areas in the BBC. I have in front of me figures from the BBC trust’s national radio review. I suppose that the ultimate judge of quality for radio is the listening figures. Between 2007 and 2012, the Radio Scotland budget for content delivery was cut from £29.5 million to £23.2 million, which is a cut of almost 20 per cent. Worryingly, at the same time the listening figures dropped by 11,000. In comparison, Radio 4’s listening figures increased during that time.

Given that there has already been quite a substantial cut to content in the area, can you assure us that there is the capacity to continue to deliver quality programming?

Are you talking specifically about radio?

Yes.

It is a constant discussion for us, first, to ensure that we innovate, refresh the schedules and have new programming in. Over the past couple of years, we have been able to bring in more than 50 new dramas since we brought drama back into the schedules for Radio Scotland. We also had Billy Kay’s programme “The Cause: A History of Scottish Nationalism”, which I know was well received by some members of the committee. We are constantly looking not only at innovative documentary but at our specialist news and religious programming, which has won awards. Our sports output over that period has also received awards.

The holy grail, if you like, for Radio Scotland is to continue to drive the quality up and to offer, as we do, programming to the UK networks, including classical music for Radio 3. We are delighted with the success of our orchestra. We were able to protect it to a large extent throughout the DQF process. We are delighted with the range of programming that we offer in particular to Radio 4, which has a trusted and strong relationship with BBC Scotland staff. In all of that, we have opportunities to develop and refresh staff and to produce a range of new programming across each and every genre.

We are also proud of what we are delivering this week for Celtic Connections, which reflects its 20th anniversary. We will continue to deliver that programming and to offer the specialist music expertise that comes on Radio Scotland in the evenings. As a consequence of the service licence review, we are ensuring that we have much more of a speech-based offering during the daytime.

I have a supplementary question. You mentioned the World Service. Obviously, part of the reason why we are where we are is the fact that the World Service is now fully funded by the licence fee. As we move forward to the big events in 2014, how has BBC Scotland’s relationship with the World Service changed? What opportunity is there for BBC Scotland to work with the World Service and ensure that it is broadcasting what is happening in Scotland?

You also mentioned technology, so I will switch from the issue of radio to a comment on the iPlayer, which still has a distinct lack of Scottish content. For example, we cannot watch “Politics Scotland” on the iPlayer. Obviously, there is quite a bit of international interest in what is happening in Scotland at the moment. I have found no valid explanation as to why there is not more Scottish content on the iPlayer.

I will start by talking about both the World Service and the big things that have been happening in BBC World television, and the relationship that BBC Scotland has with both of those in relation to news.

As some members of the committee might be aware, one of my colleagues, Glenn Campbell, has been working in London with the World Service over the past three months, cementing the very good relationship that we now have with it.

By way of an illustration, one of the most successful programmes in news and current affairs in recent months was a documentary called “Martha, Meals and Malawi” that we made with Martha Payne from Argyll, in which our reporter Laura Bicker went with Martha and her family to Malawi. That programme achieved an audience of 350,000 on BBC Scotland.

In the past, such a programme would probably have got only one showing on BBC Scotland. However, we recut the programme and put out a different version at Christmas. Partly as a result of our relationship with BBC World, I think that the programme received 12 TV showings on that channel, going out in America and China, for example. I do not know whether anyone saw the programme but it showed people in different parts of the world who had followed Martha’s example. It also had the same number of showings on the BBC News Channel. It was shown in October when it first went out and the recut version was shown in December. That is all part of the new and developing relationship that we are trying to achieve with the BBC World Service and in television with BBC World.

We have also developed the relationship with regard to a number of BBC Scotland investigative programmes. For example, the whisky programme that I heard Ms McAlpine commend on television at the weekend was, I think, shown seven times on the BBC News Channel a couple of weeks ago. Programmes that tell Scotland’s story to the world are new—they have been around for only a couple of years. For the past couple of months, one of my colleagues, Marcus Ryder, who is the editor of our investigations team, has been talking to people in the World Service, in television, in radio and at the BBC News Channel to further cement that relationship and ensure that all the investigations that BBC Scotland makes purely for a domestic audience find a much wider place. Martha Payne’s story also featured significantly on World Service radio, which broadcast a series of items on school meals around the world.

At the end of the day, a story that began as a simple news report in Argyll has travelled the world. Given the way we used to operate a couple of years ago, it would have been confined to Scotland.

What about the iPlayer?

BBC Scotland already has a huge amount of content on the iPlayer, but we will increase it to ensure that absolutely everything that we have is on it or is available to view again. The BBC’s overall mission is, with maximum convenience and at the maximum quality, to give all audiences the chance to view programmes within the seven-day window.

Among the political and media classes, there is a view that “Good Morning Scotland”, in particular, is creaking at the seams. Do you compare the quality of that programme against the quality of programmes on Radio 5 and Radio 4?

There are two ways of comparing quality. First of all, there is clearly an element of subjectivity in pronouncements that are made by individuals on, say, “Good Morning Scotland”, but we try to measure the data that we have on the behaviour of the audience for that programme, and its audience is holding steady. We want to continually refresh the diet of programming to show that we are listening to the audience and to ensure that we are offering what they need from the programme and the information that they believe to be essential. I believe that the programme and its staff and presenters do all of that excellently. Nevertheless, the essential way to assess quality is to measure audience response to the programme.

When I last gave evidence to the committee almost a year ago, one of the big issues that members wanted to discuss was the change in our weekend schedules, of which politicians and the media alike had made much criticism. The change only happened in the autumn, but I believe that we have a much stronger offering at the weekend than we ever had before. For a start, we created a new two-hour “Good Morning Scotland” on Saturday with Derek Bateman and Isabel Fraser. I do not know whether the committee has any views on the programme or the individuals concerned, but I think that it is a terrific offering and is much better than what we had before.

10:00

“Good Morning Scotland” provides an incredible service—it reports what is happening not just in Scotland but throughout the UK and internationally. As we have said here before, it has access to the BBC’s expertise all around the world. Journalists from the BBC’s coterie of correspondents around the world appear regularly on the programme. We broke some incredible stuff on “Good Morning Scotland” last week. My colleague Glenn Campbell was in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We had an interview about independence and what it meant in Czechoslovakia with the Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia, followed the next day by an interview with the Czech foreign minister. That is just one example of what has already been broadcast and what we can expect in the next few months from “Good Morning Scotland”. It is a first-class programme and, as Kenny MacQuarrie says, the audience is holding up. In that respect, we are very proud of it.

Some of what I am saying is anecdotal. One issue is that people may tune in for a short period—they listen to 15 minutes or whatever and then tune in to Radio 5 Live or Radio 4. Can you track whether that is really happening or whether people are sticking with the programme for longer?

I am unashamedly in favour of that behaviour, in so far as it means that the BBC is offering audiences in Scotland a choice. There is nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, if people tune in to “Good Morning Scotland” to hear what is happening locally or throughout Scotland and then choose to tune in to Radio 4 or Radio 5 Live for something else, that is fine.

I listened to “Good Morning Scotland” from 6 o’clock this morning and I thought that it was absolutely terrific. There were two first-class reports from local correspondents about the weather situation. The first was about what was happening to schools, roads and so on in Grampian, and then another correspondent did the same for the Borders. I then had a dose of what was happening in the international situation. Sometimes I dip into 5 Live and the “Today” programme. That is the choice that the BBC provides and we are very proud of it.

I want to talk a bit more about benchmarking, particularly between Radio Scotland and Radio 4. When Iain Macwhirter came before the committee in January last year, we asked him whether, to the best of his knowledge, any proper benchmarking exercise had ever been undertaken. He said:

“I once raised the issue with a senior BBC executive, who told me that Scotland has a tenth of the population so it gets only a tenth of the budget and programmes are made at a tenth of the cost.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 24 January 2012; c 653-4.]

Is that accurate?

We talked about this the last time we were here. No, it is not accurate—it is far from accurate. As Mark Thompson said the last time he was here, Radio 4’s budget is about three times the size of Radio Scotland’s budget, although Radio 4’s audience is about 16 times the size of Radio Scotland’s.

How do you benchmark between the different programmes?

As we said last time, we do it with numbers and with meetings. Radio people meet—for example, Jeff Zycinski sits in a radio network controllers group—and share information about how things are staffed and run; we also try to share best practice.

We have been given figures for “World at One” and “PM” staffing compared with staffing on John Beattie’s show and “Newsdrive”. “World at One” and “PM” have two editors, six broadcast journalists and one assistant. They are on air for an hour and three quarters; Johnny Beattie’s show and “Newsdrive” are on air for double that and yet have half the staff.

If you give us those figures, we will be happy to respond later with a detailed analysis of them.

If you are asking whether there is a difference between the staffing on, for example, the “Today” programme and the staffing on “Good Morning Scotland”, as the director general said, yes there is. The programmes’ remits are subtly different and we have been clear about that. I did not recognise the figure of one 10th of the budget that you said that Iain Macwhirter had from a senior executive.

Will you give us a breakdown of the staffing of John Beattie’s show and “Newsdrive”, compared with staffing on “World at One” and “PM”? Will you write to the committee with those figures?

What I want to do is see the figures and then look to assist the committee as best we can, while not revealing information that it would be reasonable for us to withhold from commercial competitors.

Right.

Clare Adamson mentioned the BBC trust’s review. There was a BBC trust service review of network radio and a separate survey of nations radio in 2011. It is difficult to get away from funding. As Clare Adamson said, the funding for Radio Scotland was cut from £29.5 million in 2007-08 to £23.8 million in 2010-11. Over the same period, Radio 4’s budget grew from £81 million to £86 million.

As we have been told, in the context of delivering quality first the budget for Radio 4 will be preserved, because it is the jewel in the crown of broadcasting. You are head of BBC Scotland. Does it strike you as a little unfair that your jewel in the crown, Radio Scotland, has had a severe cut to its budget and will have more cuts, while its equivalent, Radio 4, is being protected?

We talked about Radio 4 the last time that we discussed the matter with the committee. The facts are that the average BBC saving is 20 per cent and BBC Scotland’s is 16 per cent. Radio Scotland has a saving of about 13 or 14 per cent over the period and Radio 4 has a saving of 11 per cent. There is a small difference of 3 or 4 per cent in the savings targets for Radio 4 and Radio Scotland.

With all due respect, that is not what the figures in delivering quality first say. They show a cut for Radio Scotland but no cut for Radio 4.

Where did you get those figures from?

From the BBC trust.

I think that they are historic figures and not the figures to 2017. I do not recognise the figures; as far as—

We know from the service reviews that Radio Scotland’s budget has been cut in cash terms and Radio 4’s budget has grown in cash terms. You cannot dispute that.

I think that I would like to see what is included in the figures on Radio 4. We need to do a like-for-like comparison, to see whether, for example, Radio 4 Extra, the new Radio 4 service, is included.

As part of the service reviews, audience research was done. Listeners were generally positive about Radio 4, but according to the service review report, Radio 4 is

“perceived as a very metropolitan and London centric station”,

with a penetration of just 12 per cent in Scotland, compared with 20.8 per cent in England, where penetration tends to be biased towards the south of England. Radio Scotland’s penetration was found to be higher in Scotland than Radio 4’s is in England.

Given that profile of the station, is it not wrong that Radio 4’s budget is being protected and has risen during the period in which Radio Scotland’s budget has been cut?

The cuts or efficiency savings that Bruce Malcolm talked about are comparable—13 or 14 per cent versus 11 per cent. They are in the same territory. In relation to Radio 4, successive controllers have been aware of the bias towards the south-east that you mentioned, which is something that Radio 4 is working to address.

On Radio Scotland’s penetration, Radio Scotland is the national radio service and we are proud of its audience figures. Radio Scotland gets around 1 million listeners per week and is second only to Radio 2, which is a very popular music station, of course.

Remaining watchful on Radio Scotland’s performance in relation to the audience and the issue of quality is what concerns me most. In an organisation on the scale of the BBC, we can get into relative comparisons and minute analysis of one service versus another. What is important to me is that we have the ability and the funding to deliver Radio Scotland—

With all due respect, that is a wee bit waffly. The figures speak for themselves. Radio Scotland’s budget has been cut from £29 million to £23 million over the same period in which Radio 4’s budget has risen, and, lo and behold, Radio Scotland’s audience figures have fallen while Radio 4’s have increased in the same period. Surely money must matter.

Our audience figures have held constant over that period, as far as our data is concerned, in terms of the reach of Radio Scotland. The—

Sorry. If I can just come back in—

Please be very brief. Other people are waiting to come in.

Okay. The Radio Joint Audience Research figures for September 1999 to September 2012 show that Radio Scotland’s average weekly reach dropped by 11,000.

We need to consider the numbers that we are talking about. In any survey such as those carried out by RAJAR, there is an element of confidence. In relation to the variable of confidence within the data concerned, 11,000 out of a reach of 1 million is not statistically significant.

When Mark Thompson gave evidence to the committee last year, he told us that BBC Alba would be exempt from cuts but BBC Scotland would not. Will you remind the committee why that is the case?

Not only was BBC Alba exempt from cuts but, as I said earlier, we wanted to ensure that there were the minimum cuts in the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra and our locally based services in areas such as Shetland and Orkney. We took the view that the new service, BBC Alba, which was launched in the context of a realisation of the sort of economy that we would be working in, was delivering as effectively as it was reasonable to expect. We did make some efficiencies with Radio nan Gàidheal, which is the Gaelic language radio service.

It was a matter of looking at the budgets, at the way in which we were working, at the output, at the service licence and at what we had to deliver, and making an operational judgment call. That is what we do day in, day out, week in, week out and year in, year out.

The referendum that will happen next year is a major event. Will you tell us a bit more about what you mean by quality programming on the referendum? Will it involve high-profile journalists from the rest of the UK, with people such as Eddie Mair and Gavin Esler, who are Scottish, coming up to do programmes here?

When we were last here, the director general noted that, as I have said publicly, the referendum will be the most important constitutional event in these islands in 300 years. We note its absolute significance as a major story not only in Scotland but in the UK and globally. Our aspiration and determination is to cover the referendum with quality, range, depth and analysis, and to place in an independent and impartial manner the best possible information and journalism before each and every sector of the audiences that I mentioned. I am absolutely confident that we will do that. We have a complete and total determination to do so.

10:15

Let me put it this way, Mr Bibby: BBC Scotland will go anywhere at any time to any place to ensure that this referendum is covered properly. I have been very satisfied with BBC Scotland’s news and current affairs coverage so far; indeed, I am sure that many of you are familiar with some of those programmes on radio and television and online.

Only last week, we announced the introduction of a new fortnightly webcast, the first of which took place on Friday and featured Blair Jenkins, the leader of the yes Scotland campaign. He will be followed in a fortnight by Blair McDougall, the chief executive of the better together campaign. As Ken MacQuarrie has said, we hope to provide through those webcasts a range of voices on a range of issues to try to explain to people not only in Scotland but across the UK, and anyone else who cares to look, the issues that people in Scotland will be voting on.

Moreover, next Monday, “Newsnight Scotland” will begin a series of innovative debates that will air at 10.30 pm and which will take Newsnight UK off the air once a month. We will hear, for example, what Scotland’s ethnic minorities—the Asian, the Chinese, the Polish and the Lithuanian communities—think of the independence issue. I mentioned that Glenn Campbell has been in the Czech Republic and Slovakia; I am sure that it is no secret that later this week the Deputy First Minister will visit Dublin, and my colleague Raymond Buchanan will be there when she speaks to the British Irish Chamber of Commerce.

We are also looking forward to providing proper coverage of the visit of the Quebec Prime Minister in the next couple of weeks. Indeed, as you will know—and this is another good example of how BBC Scotland can tell the story of the Scottish referendum to the world—my colleague Glenn Campbell went to Quebec a year ago and, when he returned, we ran on “Good Morning Scotland” and “Newsnight Scotland” his interview with Michael Ignatieff, the former Liberal leader. The next day, we were surprised to find that the interview was the lead story in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s 6 o’clock news and that it generated more than 1,500 articles centrally and across the provinces in Canada.

In line with some of the things that we have been doing, many of you will know that my Gaelic colleague Niall O’Gallagher has visited Catalonia twice to cover what is happening in relation to the referendum not just for BBC Scotland but for BBC Alba as part of the increasing co-operation between BBC Scotland’s two arms. Bearing in mind value for money, of course, we plan such forays very carefully and do them in a very efficient way.

At this point in time, we are gently racking up our coverage of the referendum within our existing output—and indeed are doing a wee bit more than that. As I am sure the committee will be aware, some landmark things are happening. For example, in the next couple of months, the Electoral Commission should deliver its version of the question to the Parliament and, at the beginning of March, the referendum bill and the bill enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds will be published. Around those occasions and as part of our attempt to get to and have debates in other parts of the country, we will have at least one big outside broadcast debate somewhere outwith Pacific Quay. It will be a bit like our debate in the Motherwell theatre in November, which involved 16 and 17-year-olds and featured Professor Tom Devine.

We are looking forward to the referendum; we have big plans for it. We can do lots of things in our existing output and with our existing capacity—and we are doing them.

Joan McAlpine has a very brief question.

We understand from your previous written evidence on covering the referendum that you will apply for fixed-term funding. When will you apply for that?

A steering group for the referendum funding has been extant now for some 18 months. The group involves every division of the BBC: it ensures that each division understands the importance of the referendum and that it has plans in place for the event in its extant output. In addition, as with every other part of the BBC, we will ask for extra investment specifically for the referendum. That process, which will take place for every division and every single part of the BBC, is on-going.

We will bid imminently for that extra money.

Can you tell us when you will do that?

We are working on the bid just now, so it will be over the next couple of months.

Right. When will the extra funding kick in?

Some of the funding has already kicked in—we are applying for funding for the referendum and the Commonwealth games. We have already bid for incremental funding to set up teams and so on. For instance, teams that are funded from the centre are already in place for the Commonwealth games.

You are saying that you have already got some of the extra funding for the referendum.

No, it is for the Commonwealth games, as in the example that I gave.

Right. When will the extra funding for the referendum come?

I will come in on that. There was a little confusion in the evidence that the trade unions gave when they were here in November. I expect that any funding that we get in for a referendum project will come towards the latter half of this year.

Can I just clarify this point with you?

Sure.

You are right that there is some confusion around the issue. I refer to point 7 in your written submission in November, which referred to the evidence that the trade unions gave in October. In the last sentence of your response to Mr Murray’s comments on the referendum and it being business as usual and so on, you said:

“What we did say, categorically, was that the money for both the Referendum and the Commonwealth Games would not be available now to offset the post closures that are currently required.”

That was your evidence then, but you seem to be saying something slightly different now. You have said that the referendum money is not available but that the Commonwealth games money is available.

Just to be clear, what I said is that we have money to set up a project team for the Commonwealth games. It is a limited number of posts to help with the planning, which has been in place for a few months.

Where did that money come from?

That came from the centre.

Sorry, but what is the centre?

It is BBC London. It is from the finance committee and is corporate funding to finance a project team to set up the Commonwealth games project.

Just for clarification, that is for your post, Mr Malcolm.

And two or three others.

And the three posts have been filled, as I understand it, by you, Sharon Mair and Kevin McCormick. All those posts have been backfilled, so the money has been used to set up the three of you—I do not know whether there are others—as the Commonwealth games team.

We have been set up as the first team to allow us to prepare the finance case and submit it over the next couple of months for the full funding bid for the Commonwealth games. The point about the funding that we will bid for is that we will get it over the next month or two, but that does not mean that the funding kicks in and is all available from then. We will plan that funding, which will ramp up over the next period. Obviously, we will need a lot more staff for the 11 days of the Commonwealth games than we do a year beforehand. We are submitting a phased plan, which is the basis of our investment and which will form the funding. Obviously, that will ramp up both for the referendum and the Commonwealth games over the period.

But I would imagine that in excess of £200,000 a year for the current posts is available now. Is that not right? Your written evidence said that it was not available.

A limited number of posts are being funded from now.

Therefore, some money was available to set up those posts, which was Commonwealth games money but not referendum money. However, you said in your written evidence that no money that was available for the referendum or the Commonwealth games could have been used to smooth out the job losses.

The reason that I am asking about that is that your previous written evidence was that you could not or would not smooth out the job losses over a period of time and that they had to be up front. I am trying to understand why you could not have smoothed out the job losses over several years and used natural wastage and so on as the way to do that.

As I have said, probably three or four posts have been funded. They have been advertised and filled by people whose posts will be backfilled, so there is an opportunity for staff—particular types of staff. The roles are financial, so we are looking for people with finance qualifications. Those opportunities are available but, given the nature of the posts, I very much doubt whether they will help with any of our proposed redundancies that are in the news.

So money was available to create and fill those new posts, but it was not available to smooth out the redundancy situation.

All that I can say is that we need to plan for the Commonwealth games effectively, which I think is what you are asking us to do. We need a team to do that, which is what we have put in place.

I am glad that you said that. Do you not need a team to plan effectively for the biggest blah blah blah in 300 years, as Mr MacQuarrie said? This is the most important news and current affairs story in 300 years, but you do not have money available for the referendum yet.

John Boothman will answer that, but let me just point out that we have a news team. The Commonwealth games is a one-off thing that BBC Scotland does not usually cover, and it is not unreasonable to assume that we need some staffing resource to set up our coverage. We have existing news infrastructure and staffing, with a head of news, editors and so on, who are planning for the referendum.

Let me try to add a bit of clarity. There are four different points. In my last answer I illustrated what was meant by business as usual. Just so that there is not any confusion, let me say that business as usual is doing the kinds of things that we announced last week and the other things for which we have money and resources available to organise, such as debates, a new website and various excursions to different countries where we can cover anything relevant to the referendum on a short-term basis. That is the business-as-usual part.

Regarding project money in the referendum period, as I said in a much earlier answer, we have a plan involving where we are now and what coverage we think is appropriate. We think that we have done pretty well so far, and as I suggested we are ratcheting up our coverage a bit.

I went on to say that there are some landmark things happening. I suspect that the next part of our coverage, in which coverage will perhaps start to increase—on top of the business-as-usual approach that we have adopted so far—will probably be when the Parliament meets after the October recess. At that point we will get a Government white paper and we will probably be a year from the referendum, so you can expect that the BBC will start to cover the referendum in more depth and detail. I suspect that when the Parliament meets again in January we will really start to cover the referendum at a higher level.

We have also had discussions with the Electoral Commission on what may happen, but everything is hypothetical as we do not yet have a date for the referendum. We do not know whether it will take place on a Thursday or a Saturday. We need that kind of information to inform our planning, but, broadly, that is where we are and where we are going. [Interruption.] Bear with me, convener. Those are the kinds of timetables that we are talking about regarding business as usual and projects.

The other thing that is important to understand is directly relevant to the convener’s question about project teams being in place. Bruce Malcolm made the point that the Commonwealth games are different. He can say more about where we are on the games but I know that we are looking at new infrastructure to provide maybe 15 live streams—as we had live streams during the Olympics—across 14 locations and all the planning that that needs. We are talking about developing relationships and working out arrangements for how we cover things with staff in London for network coverage and with staff in Salford with regard to some sports coverage and what all the English regions might want as well as what BBC Scotland might do itself. Technical and project teams need to be in place to do those things.

10:30

The Commonwealth games is a very different beast from the referendum. There is the question of how much to pay for rights, which has been dealt with. There are also questions about the relationship not only with other parts of the BBC to make the event work in the same Olympic mode but with the host broadcaster. That is not the BBC, which is the domestic rights holder.

We are clear where we want to go with our referendum coverage. As I said a year ago, there will be rich and more in-depth online coverage, debates and documentaries. We are in the phase of working out what that will be, and I am not at liberty to say any more. We are talking to all our colleagues not only in the network but in all the nations. The Commonwealth games and the referendum are two different things that require two different solutions.

Thank you very much for that comprehensive answer. I apologise to members, because there is an awful lot of stuff that we have not covered but I want to finish with a couple more questions. I will be quick, and I hope that we will get quick answers before we move on to the next agenda items.

I want to understand the position with local TV. There are 21 pilots across the UK, two of which are in Scotland—in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Material will be bought from the local projects or local pilot TV stations through a £5 million fund that is top-sliced from the licence fee, £300,000 of which is allocated to Scotland. My understanding is that STV has said this week that it does not wish to use that because it wants to run the project as a commercial operation from day 1. What is happening with the £300,000 earmarked for the purchase of local TV in Scotland?

There are two tranches of local TV. The first tranche involves the Edinburgh and Glasgow franchises, which are being delivered; the second tranche involves the four other local franchises in Scotland. STV has stated, on the back of the successful award of the franchises, that it does not wish to participate in that funding mechanism. We will meet STV to clarify its position. Indeed, we have a series of meetings with STV because we have an agreement and formal partnership with it in which we co-operate across our news gathering, and local TV will be part of the on-going discussions. Once we have had that meeting and the position is absolutely clear, we will discuss within the BBC where that funding is allocated.

Thank you for that. Will the £300,000 be available to BBC Scotland to use?

No. I said that we would have a discussion about where that money is allocated.

I want to clarify that so that we are clear. Will the £300,000 that was allocated to purchase local TV in Scotland but which will not be used for that be available to BBC Scotland to use for other productions in Scotland or whatever else you want to use it for? Is that the case, or when you refer to the BBC are you referring to the corporate BBC?

We have not yet had the discussion with the BBC corporate about the allocation of that funding; the first step will be to have full discussions with STV.

I understand that. I am trying to figure out where the money is going.

If you are asking for an assurance that the money that STV would have received will come through BBC Scotland, I cannot give you that assurance at this point.

That worries me. The £300,000 is an allocation for spend in Scotland, but you are now saying that you cannot guarantee that it will be used by Scotland. Some £5 million comes out of the licence fee, which Scottish licence fee payers contribute to, but the £300,000 that was coming back to Scotland is now not coming back.

I did not say that the money is not coming back; I said that I cannot give you an assurance. First, STV has made its position clear but, because that happened only recently, we have not had a formal meeting with it. Once we do so, we will have a formal meeting in the BBC to examine the particular circumstances that arise. I am not saying that the money will not come to Scotland, nor am I giving you—to be straightforward—an assurance that it will.

When the meetings have taken place, will you tell the committee where the £300,000 went?

The BBC will make a statement in relation to the overall funding of local TV, which will include the arrangements for Scotland.

Thank you. I have a couple more quick questions. Has spending on freelancers also been cut by 16 per cent over the period in which core staff have been cut by 16 per cent?

Sixteen per cent is the totality. In delivering the 16 per cent savings, there will be an impact on the freelance effort that we employ.

Do you expect your spend on freelancers and your spend on core staff to go down by equivalent amounts?

We cannot say that. There are different plans in each area—whether we are talking about drama, factual, news or radio programmes—and the proportion of freelancers differs significantly in each area.

Will spend go down?

It will go down, but not necessarily proportionally.

As I said, of course, 200 extra jobs will come in on “Waterloo Road” during the same period. The economy is changing. The Deloitte survey recognised that the fastest area of growth in the UK in terms of the contribution to the network economy is in BBC Scotland. I am proud of what we have achieved in value added and of what the BBC is delivering to Scotland.

The figures have a huge impact on the freelance community in total, but if you are asking whether there will be an impact on freelancers on local programmes for BBC Scotland, the answer is yes.

It is laudable that you are getting extra spend for network. However, you seem not to be giving priority to covering things that matter to people in Scotland, such as the work of the Parliament. Although education is fully devolved to this Parliament, I understand that you will no longer have a dedicated education correspondent for Scotland. If we consider UK-wide coverage of education—which is education in England—you have Angela Harrison, Sean Coughlan, Katherine Sellgren, Judith Burns, Reeta Chakrabarti and Hannah Richardson, who all cover education.

Education is a big issue in Scotland. There is debate not only about the curriculum for excellence but about early years, tuition fees and so on. The committee will consider the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill later in the meeting.

No one likes doing any of the things that we are having to do in relation to staffing. We mentioned that appeals are going on in relation to what is happening with staff.

We took a decision that I think was logical, which was to merge the education and local government roles. In future, it will still be possible to use our parliamentary staff to cover anything that happens in the Parliament in relation to education, as sometimes happens already, while at the same time covering packages and stories in localities through our local government and education correspondent. Our not having a dedicated education correspondent will not mean that we stop covering education stories; it means that we will cover them in a different way.

I make the plea for local government that Joan McAlpine made for education. The Government cuts are having a massive impact on local government, but the local government correspondent’s role is being diminished because they must also dabble in energy, business and all the rest of it. I worry that the diminution of the role will have an impact on what is reported. Local government services are the services that most affect people.

Just to follow that up, I think that we all share a desire to have a robust, sound and financially stable but proactive rather than reactive BBC. To sum up the concerns, they are that, in effect, the cuts will lead to a situation in which we have packages from the network and reactive rather than proactive journalism. Do you recognise that fear?

Of course we are concerned about those things. None of the decisions has been easy, but they are a result of the financial situation that we find ourselves in. However, an important point for me to end on is that we have had some great journalism in BBC Scotland in the past year that exceeded some of the things that went before. We have won awards for programmes and investigations such as the Rangers documentary, which for the first time ever won a Foreign Press Association award for Mark Daly, who was the reporter on the story. We also won a BAFTA award for that programme. We are currently engaged in what I am sure will be a very good programme, which will go out next week, about disability and the Government’s proposed changes to employment and welfare.

We do 10 investigations on Radio Scotland every year. A notable highlight from the past year was Elizabeth Quigley’s programme about pregnancy and degenerative disease. We are doing award-winning journalism at BBC Scotland, and some of the weightiest and most authoritative journalists work for us, such as our political editor Brian Taylor and our business editor Douglas Fraser. I mentioned Mark Daly, but we also have people such as Colin Blane, Glenn Campbell, Raymond Buchanan and Pauline McLean, who produces fantastic stories on the arts. In the past few days, Eleanor Bradford has been doing interesting things on the health service. I am very proud of the news and current affairs department.

For me, the picture that the unions presented at the most recent meeting was not a true picture of what is happening. I prefer to look at things through the other end of the telescope. I am optimistic about our ability to cover the Commonwealth games, the referendum and all the other things that will happen in 2014, whether that is the 50th anniversary of the Forth road bridge, the anniversaries of the first and second world wars or the Edinburgh festivals, which we cover well every year.

We are optimistic. Although we are not without our challenges and difficulties—we are where we are on them—we think that we will produce not just a first-class service for audiences in Scotland but something that we can be proud of across the UK and that tells those important stories to the rest of the world.

We welcome the challenge and scrutiny from the committee. We have discussed time periods and compared budgets year on year and over a five or six-year period, but I ask the committee also to note BBC Scotland’s considerable achievements across the platforms, whether that be “Waterloo Road”, the start of BBC Alba, the technology investments that we have made at Pacific Quay, the resource that we have put into each service and platform or the development of our online services. Whether we are talking about drama, children’s, factual, investigations or a world-class orchestra under the leadership of Donald Runnicles, Scotland can be absolutely proud of the service.

I assure the committee that we will deliver output in 2013 and 2014 that will thrill the audience for the events that we have mentioned and that will also meet with the approval of everybody who has a stake in the success, and the successful coverage, of those events. We have a complete and total determination to do that.

Thank you very much for that. I think that we all share those ambitions: BBC Scotland has a proud record, but we want to ensure that the quality and the record are not lost. That is our ambition as much as it is yours. I thank you for coming.

10:44 Meeting suspended.

10:48 On resuming—