Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 01 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 1, 2000

Official Report 283KB pdf

---

Grampian Television

Thank you for that quick changeover. As you can see, we are—as ever—pressed for time, so I ask committee members to keep their questions short. I welcome members of Scottish Media Group to the committee. Mr Cruickshank, will you introduce your team? Afterwards, I will open up the meeting for questions.

I will introduce my team and, if I may, take a minute to put television in the context of SMG. I will then be happy to take questions. On my left is Andrew Flanagan, the chief executive of SMG. On his left is Donald Emslie, the managing director of television across Scotland and the UK.

On my right is Derrick Thomson, the controller of Grampian TV. It would be helpful to explain his role with regard to accountability. He has ultimate legal responsibility for the fulfilment of our licence conditions in Grampian. That means that he takes decisions on schedules, allocates the budget and, crucially, takes editorial decisions. In the event that there is a dispute on those matters, he has access to the board of Grampian Television, which is chaired by Dr Calum McLeod, and is resident in Aberdeen.

We welcome this opportunity to meet you. We want to support your efforts in future, although the scope of your investigations might be extended to communications, and not just broadcasting.

Scottish Television and Grampian Television comprise more than half of the group's business, so it is vital to us that they are healthy. Scottish serves about 3.7 million people and Grampian 1.1 million. The dividing line is approximately Perth-Dundee. We operate under a licence. The Independent Television Commission is our regulator and supervises our compliance with our licence conditions and our behaviour generally. The scrutiny is intense and public. The ITC reports annually. The report for 1999 will be available in May, which means that there should be an opportunity for the committee to have the ITC sit here, commenting on our performance, and not just have me do it.

Our commitment to local broadcasting in Scotland is substantial, amounting to about 830 hours on Scottish and 390 hours on Grampian. We are the only broadcaster—unlike the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky and so on—that has regional obligations in different parts of Scotland, and values them. That is relevant to a broadcasting discussion because, taken as a whole, Scottish and Grampian have 38 per cent of the peak-time audience. The BBC and the other terrestrial networks have about 50 per cent; Sky, ONdigital and the like have about 12 per cent.

Interestingly, our share goes down to 30 per cent in multichannel homes. The other networks—BBC1, BBC2, Channel 4 and Channel 5—together take 20 per cent, leaving the balance with the multichannel services. If we widen the scope of the marketplace to include information entertainment and add in the time that young people, in particular, spend on the internet, our share goes down even further.

We therefore value the regional focus, which enables us to sustain an audience. Programme diversity between the north, the north-east and the central belt is crucial to us. We have a crucial interest in the way in which we align with people's views of what they want to see.

I want to finish by commenting on the situation at Grampian Television, where our strategies and plans have been challenged a bit of late. To summarise, since 1997, when the two companies merged, the number of programme makers at Grampian Television—those with the creative skills to which we referred earlier—has gone up from 60 to 70. The number of programme hours has gone up from about 390 to 540. That includes programmes made for Scottish Television and Scotland. We also spent £3 million bringing the studios up to scratch.

The fact is that Grampian Television in its present incarnation is competitive and sustainable, perhaps for the first time in its history. The staffing proposals, which have been the subject of much discussion, merely bring us into line with the rest of the industry, including the BBC in Glasgow. We believe that the proposals are reasonable and they will be pursued.

Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to make that introduction. I am happy to take questions.

Thank you. You were here when we listened to the BBC's evidence. The BBC is proud of the fact that it covers the whole of Scotland. In your opening statement, you referred to the fact that there are three regional television divisions within the Scottish region. Can you add to that? Why do you think that that is the way forward?

Border Television is the third division, although it covers mainly the north of England. I went through the market shares, which is a bit dull, frankly. We have different forms of accountability. We are accountable to shareholders and to the state, through the ITC and the need to fulfil our licence conditions. We can deliver neither of those if we are not accountable to our viewers.

We know that viewers anywhere in the world, not just in Scotland, appreciate certain genres of local programming—things that appear and feel interesting and local to them, particularly news. We consider our capacity to serve audiences and, incidentally, advertisers locally to be crucial to our success given the trends that I described.

Typically, Scottish Television and Grampian Television have done more than the minimum required to fulfil their licences. That is on public record in the ITC's records. I suspect that that will continue to be the case due to the need to satisfy shareholders, audiences and advertisers simultaneously.

I thank the committee for having me along this morning. My concerns relate to Grampian Television. As the committee will be aware, there is enormous concern in the north and north-east of Scotland about the direction that Grampian Television is taking under the control of Scottish Media Group. The unions are now balloting members on industrial action at Grampian Television and STV due to proposals to cut pay levels and shed jobs.

The unions' concerns go wider than that, however. They are concerned about the quality of programming, the lack of regional programming and the implications for regional broadcasting. At the time of the takeover of Grampian, the agreement between SMG and the ITC stated that the services of persons employed by Grampian for the purpose of programme production within the region would be similar to those employed in 1996. Given that two out of three programme makers at Grampian are to be sacked, do the representatives of Scottish Media Group still believe that they have not broken any of the commitments made under the franchise?

Absolutely. Richard Lochhead will be able to pose that question to the ITC in May. We have no qualms at all about it. In my introduction, I pointed out that the creative skills that we employ—in Aberdeen in particular—have increased even after the redundancies to which Richard Lochhead refers. It should come as no surprise to anyone that, over time, the skill mix required to produce the range of programmes that we need changes. We all experience that in the industries in which we work. As I said, the number of programme hours produced in Aberdeen has gone up from about 390 to about 540 a year.

Notwithstanding that and the £3 million investment, the issue is that working practices and, to some extent, salary levels are not competitive with the rest of the industry. The same applies at Scottish Television. The proposals come after two years of discussion. As one would expect, they are creating some heat between the union representatives and us. However, the assertions about what are being presented as the peripheral issues in the dispute—about our lack of commitment to programming, programme makers and the like—are just not true.

Is it not the case that three producer-directors are currently employed at Grampian, two of whom are to be sacked, which will leave only one producer-director at Grampian Television?

Derrick will comment in detail on that point. You pick out a particular title—producer-director—which has no particular significance in the business of programme making. However, I will pass the detail of the question to Derrick.

Incredible.

Might I just say that since the numbers involved in the dispute are so small, we are very close to discussing the terms of employment of individuals. We will not take the discussion further than the level that is has reached.

The committee would be careful about discussing individuals on any occasion, particularly in a chamber as open as this one. Your point has been taken.

We were looking for seven redundancies across the group. Five people will go from Scottish Television and two from Grampian Television. You have the facts wrong. After the restructuring of our programme division, the same number of people will be in position. I will run through the figures.

In 1996, Grampian Television had 17 journalistic staff in Aberdeen, including the head of news and current affairs. In 2000, there will be 22 journalists in that department, including the head of news and current affairs. That is an increase of five personnel in four years. There used to be a head, an assistant head and two editor-producers. In 2000, we will have five key posts: a head, two editor-producers and another two news editor-producers. In 1996, we had four key posts in the news department and four producers. We are now putting more programming into news. In 2000, five people will look after programming and there will still be three producers. The total of eight remains the same.

I want to follow that up. The issue that has caused great concern in the Grampian transmission area has less to do with the news side and more to do with wider programming. As has just been indicated, the loss of a producer-director is on the programming side. Derrick, does the fact that—as far as I understand it—Grampian has carried the majority of the compulsory redundancies indicate that professional programme production staff at Grampian are being treated less well by SMG than those at Scottish Television?

Absolutely not.

It would be helpful if Andrew Flanagan said something about the post-merger redundancies.

I know that Mr Flanagan signed the agreement, to which Richard Lochhead referred, on behalf of SMG. What is the status of that agreement? Is it a legally binding agreement with the ITC to maintain staff numbers at a level comparable with that of 1996?

It is a legally binding agreement. As I explained in my introduction, Derrick is legally responsible for fulfilling that agreement. He has an equivalent at Scottish Television. There is no question of SMG breaking a legal agreement, even in the letter. Given what I said about the importance of Grampian Television and regional broadcasting to our business and our audience, the spirit of that agreement will never be broken either. I hope that we can move on to issues that concern viewers, rather than the relatively small number of our present staff.

We are addressing issues that concern viewers. It is obvious that staff are affected, but the committee is concerned with whether you are achieving your objective of maintaining appropriate levels of regional broadcasting and programme making. Programme making is causing many people concern.

Another part of the agreement signed two years ago was that Grampian would broadcast seven hours and 41 minutes of new regional programming every week, of which no more than 50 minutes would be co-productions or co-commissions. What do you understand by the terms co-production and co-commission? Are you satisfied that you are producing six hours and 50 minutes of exclusively Grampian-produced or commissioned programming?

I have said that we are absolutely convinced—and I have assured the committee—that we will meet not just the letter, but the spirit of our obligations to Grampian people. You are asking the same questions the ITC is asking us with a view to publishing its performance review in May. I wonder whether we might return to this issue when that report is available and you can take evidence from the ITC.

I think that we have already agreed to meet you after the publication of the ITC report. Are you happy with those answers, Lewis?

I would like to explore co-production a little further. Many of the points that have been brought to my attention concern programmes that are made in Glasgow or are made in Aberdeen by Glasgow-based staff and appear with Grampian Television captions. Can you confirm or deny that that happens? How do you define a programme that is not co-produced or co-commissioned but which is a Grampian Television product?

I do not define it. It is for the ITC to define. It is defined in the licence. I repeat that we are complying with the letter and the spirit of the agreement. Whether that is true will be in the public domain very soon through the ITC. If you want to use committee time to discuss what the ITC means by co-production, which productions fall under that heading and where they are made, we can do so.

It would be helpful to understand your position. You say that it is a matter for the ITC. Of course it is for the ITC to judge whether you are achieving your objectives, but you must have your own working definitions of what constitutes a Grampian Television production.

We appreciate that the ITC will not report until later in the year and that there may be points on which you do not want to comment now, but it would be helpful if you could answer the questions that are being asked.

We would be content to do that. Donald Emslie will deal with the definitions.

I shall address the committee's concerns by referring to our licence commitment. Mr Macdonald has questioned whether we are meeting our target of seven hours and 41 minutes. Grampian's licence, applied for in 1991, stipulated seven hours and 29 minutes a week, which equates to 389 hours a year.

The section 78 agreement, which committed Scottish Television, as it was then—it is now Scottish Media Group—to the levels of production in 1996, was for a target of seven hours and 41 minutes. That equates to 399 hours a year.

In 1998, we exceeded the minimum commitment. As the ITC analysis of 1999 has not yet been laid before Parliament, I should not give precise details, but I can assure you that we have more than exceeded the seven hours and 41 minutes of original Grampian-produced programming. That will become matter of public record when the ITC lays its report before Parliament. I suspect that this committee will also receive a copy of that report.

Mr Macdonald also said that the section 78 agreement limits the number of co-productions that we can make. We have not exceeded that number. The essence of the ITC's definition of co-production is to combine regional programme budgets to help increase the quality of regional programmes so that they are relevant to both regions. There should be an element of co-financing, for obvious reasons, and an element of co-production by an executive producer.

As I said, we have not exceeded the stipulated number of co-productions. The co-productions change. As controller of the Grampian Television licence, Derrick Thomson decides what he wants in his schedule and will agree what co-productions are best for the Grampian viewers, putting high-quality programmes into the peak segment.

I appreciate that you have achieved your target of seven hours and 41 minutes a week. The key issue is whether those programmes were genuinely regional programmes and where they were produced. The crux of the matter is how you define what a regional programme is. You have not addressed that point. I am told that "High Road" is badged as an STV-Grampian production. What is the Grampian input to that production? I am told that "The Week in Politics" is badged as a Grampian production but is produced entirely in Glasgow. How do you define a regional programme to achieve your targets?

I shall ask the person who has to take that decision, Derrick Thomson, to answer that.

"High Road" is a co-production. It is a high-quality drama that has significant relevance to the north of Scotland. That is where I have decided to put this year's entertainment money and I do not think that you can argue with that.

So, it is a regional programme because you have helped to pay for it.

It is a co-production.

But it is not made by Grampian.

It is a co-production. Co-productions can be made in either of the contributing regions.

Ever since we got our first telly when I was seven, I and my father watched Grampian. It is marbled throughout our lives in the Highlands. The crux of the issue is that morale among Grampian staff is at rock bottom, whatever you may say about numbers meeting objectives. Do you accept that that collapse in morale could undermine the delivery of the service? Do you accept that moves should be made to address that problem? Do you accept that it might also undermine all the good efforts that have been made by Grampian on the Gaelic front? I would like to probe you to get some assurance that regional programming will continue and increase in future.

I disagree with your suggestion that morale is at rock bottom. For the people to whom I talk—the majority of staff—that is not the case. Let us consider the facts. Grampian has been heavily invested in over the past two years, with £3 million being sunk into the business to make television programmes. Not only do we make our own licence commitment, we are taking up programming from our colleagues at Scottish Television, which was part of the agreement. Last year, we took up more than 130 hours and made them in the Grampian television area.

In my opinion, we still produce extremely strong regional programming. If members wish to look back at titles from last year, I would be more than happy to do that. We will continue to produce strong regional programmes because we are totally committed to making programmes that affect people in the region.

We should consider how we have revamped our news programming, which is more than half our output, this year and last, and the introduction of a new programme on Sunday afternoons, "Grampian Weekend", which reflects everything going on in the region. It covers entertainment, current affairs, social action and education. I can honestly say that we are going from strength to strength.

We are commissioning regional documentaries this year. There is "The Big Beat", a six-part series on the Highland police force. "National Trust" covers related issues in the north of Scotland. I totally disagree that we are failing.

You have attracted the biggest audience that I have seen so far of non-committee MSPs. If you put an anonymous questionnaire around your staff, you might, I might suggest, get a surprise. You have given me nothing whatsoever on the Gaelic front.

Sorry, could you give me your question on Gaelic again please?

What are you going to do for Gaelic in the future? Can you assure me that the position of Gaelic is absolutely safe with Grampian, and that it will be built upon?

I ask Donald Emslie to respond to that question, which applies across Scotland—Gaelic is not just a Grampian TV issue.

Two main issues concern Gaelic at the moment. First, we are absolutely committed to a regional output of Gaelic television. Scottish Television makes 26 hours of Gaelic a year; Grampian Television makes 46 hours. One of the benefits of the merger of Scottish and Grampian is that we now share entirely the 72 hours that both stations make. I think that that is a real step forward for the Gaelic community. We are absolutely committed to that. Gaelic will not diminish; it is a licence commitment and will stay as part of the licence.

Secondly, you referred to what we will do with the CCG—Comataidh Craolaidh Gàidhlig. As a business, we are keen to continue winning commissions from the CCG, and we are discussing several programme proposals for which we hope to win the funding, and which we hope will go into production.

The news service "Telefios" is not a licence commitment. It is a commission from the CCG. We hold the contract for it until the end of this year as part of a three-year agreement we entered into in 1997. We are discussing with the CCG its future thinking for Gaelic news in a broadcasting environment that is changing for it as well as for everyone else.

Like the BBC, we have submitted evidence to the Milne committee. We will strongly support the development of a Gaelic channel if that is the way the CCG and the Government wish to go.

I am slightly puzzled. You are giving us a range of answers which, as I think Derrick Thomson said, say that everything is going superbly well, yet you are sitting here in front of this committee hearing criticism after criticism from local MSPs; you are in a serious dispute with the trade unions; the morale in your company is extremely low, as we know from the letters that we receive; and we get letters from people who view your programmes and are immensely concerned. Why do you think that is? Is there some sort of conspiracy against you? Why do you think there is that trouble, if you are doing so well?

I can respond in part to something Mr Stone said. The corresponding meetings of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons attract a turnout similar to that at this meeting, particularly when the future of the BBC—and issues concerning commercial television—are being discussed. As you will learn as we—I hope—appear before you again, these issues matter intensely to people. They therefore matter to their representatives. You, as representatives, have a particular interest in the media because of your need to communicate to those very same people.

The issues that we are discussing are of intense interest, so it does not surprise me that industrial relations such as those currently involving Grampian Television generate other second-order, third-order and fifth-order issues. It is our task to resolve that industrial dispute and to use the investment we have made in Grampian Television. The skills of a creative community in Aberdeen that is larger than it was in 1997, when we took over, exist to serve viewers in the north-east. None of that is surprising, to my mind.

That does not really answer the question, does it? I will put it again. You are involved in a very serious industrial dispute. There has been a great deal of criticism. The Independent Television Commission is now examining seriously whether you have honoured your commitments. There are documents from the trade unions and from other parties, which you have seen, that make serious allegations about your failing to honour your commitments.

The only answer that you have been able to give is that people are interested in broadcasting. They are interested—but we did not have this discussion with the BBC; we talked about programming and substantive issues. With you, we are talking about how you run your company. I want to know whether you think that it is being managed well and adequately, or whether you accept that there are some problems with the way you are running your company, which need to be addressed.

Having an industrial dispute is not a success—it is unfortunate. I acknowledge that. We have to work our way through that with our staff.

As to whether what is on the screen—which is of interest to viewers and to your good selves—is better or worse, that is a matter for the ITC. Our view is clear: that it is better and that the licence commitments are certainly being honoured and will continue to be honoured.

As I observed earlier, whether that statement is confirmed is a matter for an independent regulator to report publicly in due course.

I wish to recall something Robert Smith said in his evidence. You were here and heard it. I reminded him of it, too. He said the more that goes into production, the more we can build a creative Scotland.

The evidence that we have before us is that you are putting less into a creative Scotland. Let me put an alternative scenario—

Sorry, can I just dispute that?

I think that the evidence exists.

That is a presumption to your question. I will not accept it.

Let me put a different scenario to you, Mr Cruickshank. This is a difficult year for your company, and later this year you will have to negotiate a price for your franchise again. All the market evidence shows that you will have to pay perhaps £4.5 million to £5 million, as opposed to the £2,000 that Scottish Television paid some years ago. Is there not a case for arguing that what you are trying to do—which may be legitimate—is to get that money together, and that one of the ways in which you are getting it together is by reducing your staffing costs in a way that is at least unusual: by trying to draw an industry average and saying that everybody has to conform to that average?

We have more creative staff. We propose that the terms and conditions should be approximately the industry average which, incidentally, would leave staff better paid than staff at the BBC in Glasgow would typically be paid—just to give some context. We believe that we can build a team, have built a team and can continue to build a team to serve the population of Grampian very well indeed.

Are you applying the industry average to your executive staff in SMG in terms of salaries and share options? If so, will you publish those figures?

They are published, and, if you wish, we—

Are you applying the average?

Yes—

Can I suggest that that is not—

I think it is a germane point.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not think that that is a question for this—

Please: may I answer the questions posed to me?

Sorry, but I do not think—

Am I not allowed to answer that question?

No. I do not think that it is a question for this committee, although I am sure Mike Russell can ask it in another arena.

For the record, I wish to say that I was not allowed to answer that question.

You certainly may say that.

May I conclude my questioning—if I am not going to be allowed to ask that question?

Very quickly, Mike, because absolutely everybody wants to get in.

I know. I just wanted to conclude my questioning by saying this: there is an argument that the broadcasting structure in this country is faulty in terms of how it goes about allocating franchises.

I ask you again: is the key issue for you in the coming year—this is not a criticism—the amount you will have to pay to retain your franchise and the fact that you have to agree that by the end of this year? Is that not a major factor for you?

It is one of the issues facing us. Do you want to cover the precise details, Andrew?

I think that your question misunderstands the process of licence renewal by the ITC, Mr Russell. It is not a negotiation. The ITC takes submissions, makes a decision and then communicates that to us. We have the choice of accepting those terms or not.

The ITC's calculation takes existing costs into account, so a smaller amount would be paid in licence fee if the production cost was increased. As Don Cruickshank said, we have been investing in our programmes—that will result in a reduced licence fee. It would be counter-productive for us to cut costs, if it was not necessary, in advance of licence renewal.

Why is it necessary?

I said that that was your last supplementary. A number of members want to speak.

What programmes have been commissioned by Grampian and by Scottish in the past two years? That will give us an indication of the types of programmes you commission. I want to know about the programmes individually commissioned by Grampian and by Scottish—not co-commissioned ones.

I will go through Grampian's programming for last year.

We continue to produce our news, deaf news and weather.

In terms of sport, I took in rallying for the first time, commissioned a document on golf at St Andrews and we continue to cover Highland league football.

In entertainment programming, we had a replacement programme for "Top Club" called "Snap". We also had a programme called "Chartburn", which is a look at the top 10 books, videos and films.

We continue to do party conferences, "Crossfire" and a new programme called "Summer Discovery", which was an outside broadcast going around the region filling the summer slot while Richard and Judy were on holiday.

We covered the parliamentary elections last year. Another new series was "Grow for It", a gardening programme. We had "Parliamentarian of the Year" and "The Buck Stops Here", which was one-to-one interviews with key figures in the community in the north. Our social action programme, "Community Calls", continued as normal. We had two one-hour specials on the Highlands called "Highland Debate". We commissioned "Upfront", which was our children's genre last year. We also had 36 hours of Gaelic.

In 2000, we have commissioned "‘Hooked' with Paul Young" and a new programme called "The Back Page", which is a sports discussion show. We will cover the Highland league final. "Grampian Weekend" was the new Sunday afternoon magazine show, dealing with current affairs, arts, entertainment and historical issues. "Scotland's Larder" is on, a Grampian favourite. "The Big Beat" is a six part series looking at the Highland constabulary. There is a new raft of religious programmes and Gaelic programmes.

Part of the issue is that we continue to support a large part of the independent sector in the north, in the Grampian region, Fife and Aberdeenshire.

In all of those programmes that you commissioned, were the staff employed by Grampian Television? If they were not employed by Grampian Television, when were those programmes shown? Were they late night programmes, weekend programmes or minority viewing programmes? That is very important in terms of the Grampian regional identity.

Last year, "Grow for It" and "Scotland's Larder" were shown in peak viewing time. We are part of the ITV network, so there are issues about slots, but should members consider that, of the vast majority of Grampian programmes, the ones that are not on at peak time play very close to either the inside or the outside of the ITC defined peak viewing times. Sport plays at 10.30 pm, as does politics. Entertainment last year played in a 5.30 pm slot. The key documentaries played in 7.30 pm slots, as they will do this year.

Will you respond to Karen Gillon's question about staffing?

I can give you documentary evidence that Grampian personnel worked on all bar two of the Grampian-produced programmes. A producer and two researchers from outside the organisation worked on "The Back Page" because producer-directors were working on other programmes. "'Hooked' with Paul Young", one of the independent commissions this year, is produced by Fairline. It is the only one that is being produced outwith the region.

Could we perhaps get a copy of that information in written form?

So many members want to ask questions that it would be unfair to bring anyone else in as we have run over our time. I know that that is partly because we were a little late starting with the witnesses.

Convener, you indicated to me that I could ask questions after Michael Russell.

Sorry, Mr Quinan, I will wind this up and then come back to you.

I thank the witnesses for attending the committee this morning. As you mentioned, we are awaiting the ITC report. The committee may invite you back then to discuss these issues further. Several members still have questions they want to ask. Thank you for your attendance this morning.

Thank you.

Convener, you indicated that you would allow me to ask a question.

My apologies, I have to bring in a range of questions.

You have failed. You have failed the inquiry into this evidence by not allowing the question session to be extended.

On a point of order. It is immensely regrettable that members—who are not members of this committee—should give notice of their intention to attend the meeting, attend the meeting, and then find that they are unable to ask questions.

That is an extremely unfortunate precedent to set.

Especially when it had been indicated that they were to be allowed to ask a question.

I am not saying that members cannot ask questions; I am saying that all the other members also wanted to speak.

In that case, we should have continued.

We are short of time and we have other, equally pressing, issues to discuss. It will be possible to come back to this issue in the future.

Mr Quinan, who is not a member of this committee, has had to spend time here and has been unable to ask a question.

We will have a two-minute break.

Meeting adjourned.

On resuming—

Time is pushing on, so let us begin.

Convener, I would like to object to the comments that were made by Mr Quinan before the suspension. His remarks were intemperate and uncalled for. Several members of the committee had been waiting since the start of the meeting to make contributions. We had caught your eye and you had acknowledged that you knew that we wanted to speak. We were not able to, and one of the reasons for that was that our colleagues Lewis Macdonald and Michael Russell dominated the questioning. That is the way that things can happen in the committee. Mr Quinan should watch his behaviour from now on. Our committee should think about issuing a warning to him or perhaps reporting his remarks to the Parliamentary Bureau.

I assure the committee that, regardless of whether Mr Quinan was a member of this committee or not, I had hoped to bring him in. However, because of the time constraints that we always knew that we would face with the witnesses, that was not possible. I regret that, and I hope that he will understand.