Broadcasting Reviews
The next agenda item concerns our first stab at our paper containing our thoughts on the BBC. We would like to get a steer from the committee as to whether the paper that you have before you is along the right lines, particularly with regard to the boxed areas.
I realise that we are tight for time, but it would be useful to have a brief discussion about the paper so that we can bring a final draft to the next meeting.
Susan, you have taken a primary interest in this issue. Have you had a chance to read the paper?
No, I have not. I was not quite sure why it came to me first.
I know that it is a subject that you have been particularly interested in.
I have two comments on the out-of-Glasgow policy that is mentioned on page 7. I failed to be convinced by Ken MacQuarrie's suggestion that having all the management structures located in Glasgow, rather than continuing to have them dotted round the country, would be effective in developing a successful regional structure. I do not know whether other members remain to be persuaded on that issue but, certainly, what we heard from the BBC did not reassure me entirely.
One of Ken MacQuarrie's answers seemed to suggest that it would be beneficial if the out-of-Glasgow strategy could encourage more local and independent companies to become involved in programme production. I do not dispute that point, but I think that an important balance must be struck between doing that and encouraging regional in-house production, which has reached an extremely high standard. If too much is sourced from independents, those in-house skills and the associated production capability will be put at risk.
Those are the main two concerns that were not wholly resolved by what I heard from Ken MacQuarrie, but I also think that it would be useful to hear exactly what the representation will be on the out-of-Glasgow strategy group from each of the regions. Obviously, regional managers would have sat on that group, but there are no regional managers any more. We should find out who will sit on it.
The first question in the paper deals with guarantees of the quality of the programming. From the evidence, it is clear that there are two distinct views on that. One is that quality will decline markedly and the other, which is held by the managers, is that that will not happen. I suppose that the question depends on your definition of quality. The evidence of the BBC managers did not persuade me that it is possible to make such cuts in departments such as news and current affairs and expect the existing quality to be maintained.
Given that the first group of jobs that is targeted is in the news and current affairs section and that the cuts are going to take place anyway, I would have thought that the scope for a pilot of the use of personal digital production cameras is fairly limited. What is the purpose of the pilot? Is it to decide whether to use PDP technology in the first place? What is the point in having a pilot when it appears that even if the pilot shows that quality is poor—evidence from down south and other production companies that have used it suggests that it is—the BBC will go ahead with cuts that will result in the greater use of PDP technology anyway?
Regarding the potential impact on Scottish culture and the creative industries in Scotland, I note in the additional submission that we received from Ken MacQuarrie of BBC Scotland that 40-odd independent production companies in Scotland were used by BBC Scotland. However, the Scottish Parliament information centre can identify only three production companies that make it into the top 150 independent production companies in the UK. Given the changes that the BBC plans to implement, substantial amounts of money will be competed for not just in Scotland but in the UK as a whole. I wonder whether those smaller production companies in Scotland have the critical mass to be able to bid for bigger pieces of work, which appear to be the type of work that is being commissioned by the BBC at the moment.
Given the way in which the BBC is making changes, I am not persuaded that sufficient protection is in place to help to develop and promote the creative industries in Scotland. The changes will largely involve bigger-scale productions, for which Scotland will be competing with the other regions and nations, and I am not persuaded that the small independent production companies are of a size that will allow them to compete for those larger contracts with the big production companies in London.
I came to the meeting prepared to hear BBC management explain how something really difficult was to be managed. However, what I heard was a dog's breakfast of unclear thinking, an inability to express the vision coherently, and management and workforce representatives with views that were so polarised that I could get no sense of the good of the organisation and the common interest.
The evidence was not convincing. I do not think that it is credible to say, "We are going to make all these people redundant and then in four years, lo and behold, we will take on even more staff. Yet we will save money and everything will be reinvested." That was not particularly credible and there was no sense of what the BBC will look like in 20 years' time when technology has changed so much. We heard an awful lot about news and current affairs, but we heard nothing about how technical skills would be developed and what the relationships would be with the training providers, the colleges and so forth. That is what I would have expected to hear from a management that knew what it was about and why it was making such changes.
The questions in the paper are reasonable, but I do not think that the BBC's proposals will benefit the creative industries in Scotland in the way that it foresees.
The other thing that strikes me is the way in which BBC management has gone about the proposed changes—there was a total lack of negotiation with the staff. The first question that I asked Ken MacQuarrie was about the point that he made in his introduction that the BBC was in negotiation with staff. When he was questioned further, it was clear that the BBC was not in negotiation, that the changes were a fait accompli and that there had been no serious attempt to consult properly. In this day and age, it is reprehensible that an organisation such as the BBC treats its workers like that.
We will get the results of the strike ballot tomorrow. If anything will make people bloody-minded, it is a take-it-or-leave-it management attitude. There was no offer of negotiation on the table.
It is patently obvious that the BBC has got to make changes to prepare itself for the digital age and the creative industries scenario of the next 20 years.
Absolutely. I do not think that any of us disagrees. The BBC has not argued the case for the particular changes that it proposes.
Incidentally, I record my interest in that my partner is employed by BBC Scotland. Notwithstanding that—or perhaps owing to it; who knows?—I will raise my frequently expressed concern about where we want the committee to go and what we see as our role. It feels to me as if we are dotting between important issues that are specifically to do with the BBC and somewhat broader issues to do with broadcasting and I am genuinely struggling to know where we are jumping. Personally, I would play a different role in discussions, depending on the direction in which we jump.
On the BBC-specific issue, in procedural terms, we have been here before, when we had the debate about the Scottish Rugby Union, which was another issue in which I took an interest. The present issue may feel different but, with the SRU, we decided to bring divided views and contentious processes within an organisation into the public domain. However, in that inquiry, the committee consciously drew a line in relation to how much we commented on the internal processes, albeit that many of us had strong views about their handling. I do not want to express my opinion on the issue; I simply pose the question about how far the committee should go. We have given the issue an airing, provided a public forum and asked searching questions. My genuine question before we go any further is whether we feel that it is the committee's role to comment further on the matter. I will leave that as the question on the BBC-specific issue.
I have a separate but related comment on the wider issue. Whatever the answer to my question, the committee ought to consider deliberating the wider issue of the future of Scottish broadcasting, in accordance with our legitimate areas of interest, as set out in paragraph 2 on page 3 of the paper that has been circulated.
On that latter point, we agreed at our previous meeting to produce a paper on the evidence that we heard and the issues raised in relation to the proposed reorganisation and cuts at the BBC—that is the paper that we are discussing. We also agreed to seek a meeting with the Office of Communications, which we have not yet had. Once we have had that meeting, we will discuss how to proceed with our general concern about the future of broadcasting, not just public sector broadcasting. However, we agreed at the previous meeting that we would produce a specific paper on the BBC.
There is no direct parallel between the SRU and the BBC, because the SRU is an independent organisation that is not in the public sector, although it receives funding from the public sector, whereas the BBC is a public corporation. The BBC is a reserved matter but, because it is a public corporation, we are nevertheless entitled to make comments on its internal machinations, even though we would go over the boundaries if we made such comments about an independent organisation such as the SRU.
I am not saying that there is a direct parallel; I was just asking for us to pause and think about the committee's role before we reach our conclusions.
At the previous meeting, we discussed our role and agreed that it was legitimate for us to comment on the issue, given the evidence. We agreed to present the paper, with a view to finalising it in two weeks. That in no way precludes us from considering the wider issues, which we are keen to do, particularly in the light of the Ofcom review.
My comments were couched carefully in terms of the vision for the future of broadcasting and I would like our report to be couched in those terms, too. It is entirely legitimate to be critical of the specific proposals that were made, the way in which they were made and the way in which discussions were held with the staff, but the issue is the vision for the future and getting the Scottish element of the corporation ready for its place in that vision.
From the comments that have been made so far, I sense that that is the committee's general view. I agree with the points that Richard Baker, Christine May and Michael Matheson made. Do members agree that we should prepare a final draft along those lines for final consideration at the next meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
Like Christine May, I think that it is perfectly legitimate to be critical of the BBC.