Official Report 307KB pdf
We move to agenda item 4, which is to take evidence on the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. I am pleased to welcome Blair Jenkins to the committee. As members know, Mr Jenkins chairs the commission. Thank you for joining us. Would you like to make a brief introductory statement before we move to questions?
Thank you, convener—I will try to keep my statement brief.
There is an interest in this subject not only in wider civic Scotland, but here in the committee and in Parliament more widely. We have been joined this morning by Ted Brocklebank and Malcolm Chisholm; neither of them are members of the committee, but they have an interest in this area.
My understanding is that that part of the remit refers to the economic development function in relation to television and the broadcasting sector, which is, as I understand it, already a devolved responsibility. The Scottish Government already funds various public bodies in Scotland to help develop the screen industries—most notably, Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Screen. I think that Scottish Government funding also goes to the industry training body, Skillset. We will look primarily at those in relation to economic development issues.
Will you confine yourselves to those areas, or will you make additional recommendations that might not fall within Parliament's remit?
We are likely to talk about the broadcast services that are provided for audiences in Scotland. Broadcasting, in that sense, is currently a reserved issue. Another part of our remit asks us to
What methods will you use to engage stakeholders? I note the general call for evidence on the website and so on, but do you have any particular plans to get to different parts of the country?
We will do that. We might get some interesting suggestions from members of the public in the first phase, when we will consider economic development, but it is likely that their views will come more strongly into play when we move into the cultural and democratic phases of our work. In the first period, engagement is much more likely to be with the key industry stakeholders.
What interest is there in the focus that you might get from people if meetings were to be held in the area that I represent, which is the Highlands and Islands? Also, will you undertake structured opinion surveys of people across the country?
Rob Gibson is right to ask that important question—Scotland is not only the central belt. Coming as I do from Elgin, I am deeply aware of that. Much as I love this part of the country, people who live in Glasgow can at times be as focused on that city as people who live in London are on their city.
I wanted to make the point and for you to take it on board. I hope that news gathering and current affairs teams will gather information from further and wider. The tendency has been for them not to be as responsive to things that happen at a distance from Glasgow. One example is the major flooding that we saw between Inverness and Orkney in October 2006—the level of coverage was low because the flooding happened far away from the central belt. If it had happened between Glasgow and Edinburgh, we would have had wall-to-wall coverage, given the effect that it would have had on the central belt. Will the commission consider resources being given in that direction?
Rob Gibson is absolutely right. I am aware that the BBC plans to expand the number of journalists and camera crews that it has based around Scotland—you will probably be aware of that—for precisely the reason that you gave. If broadcasters have crews only in the urban centres, it is sometimes difficult to get them out to other parts of Scotland. You are right that it is important that news and current affairs do not have a Glasgow-centric or Edinburgh-centric view of Scotland.
Thank you.
Good morning. In your opening remarks, you said that this health check—I will call it that—of Scottish broadcasting is long overdue. You also mentioned network decline. It would be interesting, and good, for the committee to hear how you characterise the current state of Scottish broadcasting, if you can do that in this short session.
There is a lot of talent around. I do not want to prejudge some of our work. Indeed, I am not sure that we fully understand as yet exactly why things have gone wrong. We need to get behind the data to do that. The industry regulator, Ofcom, is hard-working and produces masses of data—almost more than anyone can cope with. Sometimes, we have to get behind the numbers to understand what is going on and the underlying reasons for what is going on.
You say that there is a plethora of information. SPICe has helpfully given us information from Ofcom's research, which tells us that total commissioning from ITV1 and BBC nations and regions has fallen overall throughout the United Kingdom, but has fallen more slowly in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than in England. The rates of decline are 2.8 per cent and 4.6 per cent per year respectively. When we interrogate the fall in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we find that commissioning in Scotland in the five years to 2006 fell by only 0.6 per cent.
The data on network production can be confusing and are often open to interpretation. It is beyond dispute that there was a substantial falling off in network programme production out of Scotland across the networks in the period that you are talking about. The steepest decline seemed to be with the BBC, but there was also a decline in commissioning in ITV and in Channel 4 at a fairly low level—Channel 5 does not carry much of an obligation in any case.
Absolutely. The Ofcom figures show that news investment fell by 27 per cent but non-news investment went up by 22 per cent. That is the context.
I would not suggest that those figures explain the situation entirely. Comedy is done to a high standard in Scotland and it is an expensive item. The same is true for documentaries. One of the interesting things about the decline in news and current affairs investment here is that it was unique in the UK. It was completely out of step with what happened in Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, which did not experience corresponding falls of anything like that scale.
Will the commission make recommendations as to what the correct spending level should be?
We would certainly like to see movement in the right direction, if I may put it that way. I imagine that the commission will not want to micromanage on anyone's behalf the exact spending levels that would be appropriate in particular television genres, but it will be important to look for broad trends to understand what is happening.
Will the commission consider, and make recommendations on, how the sector in Scotland is financed?
I am sure that we will consider that as people are bound to provide evidence on it. We have already identified the need to ask questions about the emerging view in the United Kingdom that ITV will not be a provider of public service broadcasting post digital switchover. That case has certainly been argued by ITV at network level and, to some extent, by the various regional parts of ITV. Clearly, it would be a matter of concern if Scotland was left in a position in which the BBC was the only supplier of public service broadcasting. Ofcom has identified Channel 4 as an alternative provider of public service broadcasting at UK level, but Channel 4 has no remit to supply programming to Scotland only or to Northern Ireland or Wales—it has no regional or national remit of that kind, so there is a debate to be had on that.
In what year is digital switchover expected to take place and will that be when all areas in the United Kingdom have switched?
2012 is the UK date. I think I am right in saying that 2011 is when switchover will conclude in Scotland. Switchover will begin before 2010 in the Borders region, but it will start in 2010 or 2011 in central and north Scotland.
In my constituency, it will begin next year.
There was never any doubt that the future of Border Television would come into the commission's discussions—it was always going to be an issue. Whether the current model and the current geographical arrangements for Border Television are appropriate now and in the future was always going to be part of the debate. In the light of ITV's proposals for changes to the map as it affects ITV's output in the rest of the UK, it is even more likely that we will receive many representations about the future of Border Television.
I asked because it looks as if Ofcom might well have made decisions by the time your anticipated report is produced, so I do not know how you will be able to feed in your findings. As I understand it, you have no formal locus in the process, so I am curious as to why the First Minister would ask me to write to you, to ask you to write to Ofcom. What else are you going to do?
I thought that you said that it was Michael Grade who had asked you to write to us.
No, it was the First Minister. I have already written to Michael Grade.
As you know, ours is an advisory commission. In due course, we will come up with recommendations and offer advice to ministers. Part of the work of the commission is clearly to be engaged on an on-going basis with key bodies such as Ofcom. We have already had substantial dialogue with Ofcom and we shall take evidence from Ofcom representatives. They are of the view that we will have a continuous dialogue and that we will feed into their process. Ofcom is now heavily focused on some of the issues that are emerging in Scotland.
When will I, as a parliamentarian, get an indication of what you are saying to Ofcom on behalf of my constituents?
I am not sure that that would be our role. I do not know exactly what the timetable is for approval or refusal of ITV's proposal for changes to the licences that it controls, but I do not think that that decision is imminent and I believe that it is still subject to extensive review by Ofcom. During that process, there should be substantial opportunities for you, your constituents and, I hope, the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, to feed into that process. I certainly see it as part of the role of the commission, having taken a lot of evidence, to advise ministers and Parliament on the views that they might wish to take on the future of that licence.
I turn to other matters that are slightly more urgent. I acknowledge the work that Ofcom will be doing leading up to the next franchise discussions—I have no doubt that you will consider how those franchises are configured in Scotland. Part of that consideration will concern cross-border provision and cross-border relationships. I see that your remit is Scottish, but my constituents get cross-border broadcasting. I am not entirely sure how your commission fits into that.
You will be more aware than I am that there has always been a bit of a debate in the different parts of the Border Television area about whether the current arrangement is right and whether it best suits audiences on both sides of the border to have the Border Television licence exist as it does currently. Although I do not expect to have any say in, or influence on, what happens to the part of the Border Television region that is south of the border, there is clearly a Scottish interest in the service that is provided to people living on the Scottish side of the border within the Border Television transmission area.
Part of your consideration will focus on the economic affairs that you are discussing at the moment. What relationship will you have with Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, in the light of the impact that the forthcoming culture bill could have on their role? It seems that there are to be two parallel processes: we are to be presented with a bill that will have an impact on Scottish Screen and on the role of Scottish Enterprise's creative offices, and the Government made an announcement about the enterprise network and the reform or abolition of the local enterprise companies; and Parliament will also continue to consider that process of reform, although you will also be taking evidence on it, so when you make your recommendations, it will be post legislation.
On creative Scotland?
On creative Scotland and on any changes to the structure of the enterprise network.
I take the point. Jeremy Purvis is right to say that some structural decisions about support agencies seem, if not to have been taken, to be in the offing, if I can put it like that. As you know, we have been asked to define a strategy for the industry. In some ways, getting the creative sector's vision and strategy right is more important than structural issues. Of course, in that context we are talking about public funding mechanisms. There are opportunities to learn from other parts of the UK and other countries about how we design public funding mechanisms to make them of most assistance to development of the sector.
My point is that you will take evidence at the same time as we do: there will be two parallel processes, which seems to be extremely odd, because we might reach different conclusions. You might take a strategic view just after Parliament has legislated. The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee will consider the forthcoming culture bill—key components of which will be the creative sector, the electronics sector and broadcasting—in the absence of your vision of the strategic direction for the future in Scotland. It seems to be odd that we will take evidence from a minister who will subsequently receive recommendations from the ministerial advisory committee that has been set up.
Some of what you are saying might be more appropriately put to ministers than to me, in all honesty. I am clear about the brief that we have been given, the questions that we will ask and the outcome that we will try to deliver. We will be in dialogue with all relevant bodies, including the component parts of what will become creative Scotland and various public bodies. The best answer that I can give is that we will take account of those people's views and try to learn from their experience—they have about 10 years' experience of fairly substantial public investment in the screen industries in Scotland—so that we can find the most intelligent design for measures to take us forward. We will do that through dialogue and communication.
We can get advice on that, but I think that publication of your interim findings will come neatly after the enterprise networks have resolved all their internal machinations. The initial task of directing the enterprise networks will be done by the end of November; local enterprise companies will be wound up and the new regional advisory boards put in place around the time when you publish your interim findings. Publication of the interim findings of the commission's cultural phase might fit perfectly with the conclusion of Parliament's consideration of the forthcoming culture bill—so your findings on the economic and cultural phases will miss both reform of the enterprise networks and parliamentary consideration of the bill.
It would be good if processes could be properly aligned. You mentioned the proposed changes at Scottish Enterprise. We are at an early stage of taking evidence—we are still lining up evidence and planning when we will take it—but I understand that it is proposed that the business development function in relation to the creative industries will move to creative Scotland.
That is my point, Mr Jenkins. The Parliament will decide that.
Yes. I do not see the commission having any role in instructing that process. That seems to be a decision for the Parliament. The process is already in train.
What will happen if you come back and say that, on the basis of the evidence that you have taken, that might not be a great idea—or will you not be making a recommendation? We will probably find out what happens. I think that I have made my point.
I am not sure that it would be good for me to try to interpret exactly what the First Minister meant by that expression, but I will say what I understand by the phrase. Broadcasting and television production in general are two-way processes. I am talking about conventional broadcasting, although we ought to move on to discuss the new and emerging platforms, which are interesting. Clearly, television has been one of the primary means by which people in Scotland have learned about other parts of the world. It is a window in that it provides people with the opportunity to see what is happening in other parts of the world. Conversely, it provides an opportunity to get the best Scottish content to other countries and overseas markets. That is the sense in which television is a window and a two-way process. I think that that is what the First Minister meant.
Before I ask the question that I was going to ask, I want to ask a question that follows on from Jeremy Purvis's questions. If the committee and the commission find themselves taking evidence in parallel, with the committee taking evidence on the culture bill and the commission taking evidence on broadcasting, what are the advantages of having the commission? What will the commission do that the committee could not?
The commission will focus entirely on Scottish broadcasting and television production. The landscape is fast changing and complex. A great many things are happening and it has become hard for people inside the industry, let alone outside it, to keep up with the pace of development.
My question is, in the nicest possible way, about the commission's reason for being, should it transpire that your view on broadcasting differs from that which the committee comes up with when it takes evidence on the culture bill.
We are focusing particularly on television and broadcasting, whereas the committee will have a wider focus. To return to what I said at the outset, given that, more than 50 years into the television age, we have not had a proper and thorough review of television and broadcasting in Scotland, it is overdue that we should afford ourselves the luxury—or necessity, I would say—of examining the issue properly. It is important to know what people in Scotland want, whether they want something different from what they now have and whether they are happy with the services that they get.
I will get back to my assigned question. Will the commission seek evidence from outside the United Kingdom?
Yes. It would be a waste of the opportunity to learn properly and define a forward vision for broadcasting and television in Scotland if we did not hear from other people or understand other countries' experiences. You will be relieved to know that that will not involve the commission travelling to other countries, given that a television studio in Toronto looks pretty much like one in Glasgow—there will be no passport requirement for anyone on the commission. However, we intend to invite people from other countries that have relevant experience or that have succeeded in developing their creative content sector. Almost every economy that I can think of is trying to do that and to learn from others. There are obvious examples of success and of where things have not worked quite so well. However, it is generally agreed that it is important to get the matter right. It is important for Scotland that we get it right. As the Parliament has demonstrated in many other fields, it is good to learn from what has happened in other countries.
If a commission on broadcasting cannot set up discussions across the miles without physical travel, we are in difficulty.
I am open-minded on that and I hope to hear people's suggestions on it during the evidence stage. When the First Minister announced the setting up of the commission, I think that he mentioned Canada. There are interesting parallels with Canada, which has taken interesting initiatives to protect indigenous production. Canada is adjacent to the most powerful television-producing country in the world, so it faces particular challenges. Lessons can be learned from Canada, but I am aware of interesting developments in European countries, such as Germany and Spain, and Australia is also interesting. I do not want to limit the list at this point. Many people in Scotland, particularly in the academic community, have the connections and expertise to point us to countries from which we can learn.
We have been talking about different countries from which you might gather evidence. There might also be areas within countries that have distinctive needs and requirements. Catalonia, for example, might be using different ways of developing broadcasting. Will you consider countries such as Catalonia, which are a bit more similar to Scotland, as well as nation states?
Spain and the various nations within it are interesting. Countries with federal systems of government have had to examine closely how broadcasting is managed. Different countries have come up with different solutions. That has been an issue in a great number of countries that I am sure you and I could both think of. Australia, for instance, has a model of broadcasting that is very different from the UK's, although its public service broadcasting was initially based on the BBC. Canada is different again. We can learn from how other countries have dealt with the need to balance national broadcasting—on a UK level, in our terms—with broadcasting that satisfies the component parts of the nation state.
I recently visited some of the digital media organisations that are based at Pacific Quay. Yesterday, we visited Cumbernauld College, which showed us its courses and some of the equipment that it is using to deal with the new broadcasting technology. As a consequence of the changes that have taken place and the impact of broadband, multimedia and the launch of the new digital channels, will the commission consider the role of the creative industries as key to fostering a successful broadcasting sector in that context?
Definitely. There are undoubtedly great opportunities with the new digital platforms and from what is happening in the multimedia world. Interestingly, the new digital platforms enable us to bypass many of the traditional gatekeepers in broadcasting. Although networks such as BBC, ITV and Channel 4 will remain key primary funders of creative content production, it is now technically and editorially possible for producers to put their programming out there and access global markets without going through a gatekeeper. The trick is how to make a business out of that, which is what everyone is trying to resolve at the moment. Many of the big companies and the smart minds are trying to figure out how to make money from putting content out in that way. The emerging model appears to be advertising funded. That seems to be what is working and what will probably be taken forward.
I was heartened to see the development at Film City Glasgow in the old Govan town hall, with editing and sound recording facilities like those for the big movies that are out now. It was good to see that coming out of Govan town hall. There is a lot of potential for that business, as it is in a growth industry.
I think so, and you raised a good point that we have not touched on so far. Higher education in Scotland will have a key role in providing the training and skills base that we will need if we are to generate the successful creative industries that we want in the future.
On that point, will the commission make an assessment of current public sector approaches to fostering the creative industries, for example in Scottish Enterprise, and how they compare to practice across the United Kingdom and internationally?
I know that Scottish Enterprise is conducting a similar exercise at the moment, but you are right that we will consider that in order to fulfil the part of our remit that is to investigate the current condition of the sector. To understand how we got here, we need to examine what has been achieved hitherto from the substantial public investment that has already been made, not with a view to asking why particular things have not happened but with a view to getting it right in the future. That is an important part of our work.
I am speaking personally, but I am sure that I am not alone in wishing you well in generating ideas to boost broadcasting and production and the creative industries in Scotland generally. We would all welcome that. However, I have some anxiety about other issues to do with the control of broadcasting and, in particular, the Scottish Government's policy. What is your understanding of the Scottish Government's policy on broadcasting?
In all honesty, I could not say any more than what I think was in the manifesto. For example, I know that the present Government supports devolved broadcasting. However, it is not part of the commission's role to implement Government policy on broadcasting. It has been set up as an independent commission, and its membership reflects that status.
I am encouraged by those remarks. As part of your remit, will you consider legislative control over broadcasting?
I have been asked about that, and my view and the commission's view is that the correct approach will be to consider the three areas that we have outlined: the economic, the cultural and the democratic. That is a good way of analysing the key issues, challenges and opportunities facing Scottish broadcasting. We have to define a vision and a strategy for going forward in each of those areas, and then consider the extent to which that can be delivered under the existing framework. It is appropriate to examine the framework and the structure at the end of the process. We could argue for a change in the existing framework—whether that is the political, legislative or regulatory framework—only based on the evidence that has been collected in the other phases of the work, and on the perceived difficulties, if there are any, in implementing that vision for Scottish television and Scottish broadcasting. Vision and strategy should be examined first, and then structure at the end of the process.
You have already answered my next question about the regulatory framework. At this stage, without prejudging the evidence that you will hear—because you are just starting work on it—can you think of ways in which the shifting of legislative or regulatory control from the current framework would by itself generate commissions, particularly network commissions, or increased production in Scotland? I am not sure how it would do that.
Speaking personally, I cannot see a direct connection between the issue of whether broadcasting should be a reserved or a devolved matter and network commissions. I think that UK networks pay attention to the political dimension in Scotland and to the interest that is being taken by politicians in what happens in broadcasting in Scotland, so the political process in Scotland may have an indirect influence on the views and behaviour of UK networks, but I cannot see any connection between network commissions and a change to the existing arrangements.
I am sure that there is no link between Mark Thompson's announcement that 9 per cent is the floor for productions and the creation of the commission. It is good that you are gingering up the scene, but the public debate often revolves around issues such as the so-called Scottish Six. Do you intend to reopen that sort of debate, which is more about editorial content and control than about boosting the creative industries in Scotland?
I think that you understand that there is no avoiding the issue of how network news is delivered in Scotland, because it has been an issue for a long time. There are strong views on it—I have said elsewhere that the Scottish Six label is no longer helpful, because it has become a totemic label on which people took quite entrenched positions that they are probably unlikely to budge from. It is important that we stay open-minded about this. There is no doubt that there are challenges nowadays in producing UK television news bulletins that are appropriate, accurate and relevant for the whole of the UK. That is an editorial challenge, and I have many friends and former colleagues in senior positions in the BBC who will concede that it is becoming ever more of a challenge.
I draw members' attention to the "Register of Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament", in which I confirm that I am a shareholder—albeit these days an embattled and impecunious one—of the Scottish Media Group.
I know that Ted Brocklebank has expressed a view on the issue elsewhere and has suggested the creation of a Scottish digital channel. There is no doubt that one of the opportunities that the switch to digital affords is that technically and editorially it will be possible to create dedicated Scottish channels that would be available to almost everyone—if not absolutely everyone, depending on take-up and the platforms for which people eventually opt in their homes. I am sure that we will get a lot of evidence on the subject, because people have felt for some time that a Scottish digital channel would be appropriate. However, I do not want to rush to judgment on the issue.
Good. Earlier you said that there is a lot of talent around. On the surface, that appears to be a slightly odd statement; it is certainly at odds with what Michael Grade and Mark Thompson were quoted as saying at a recent Ofcom conference. Basically, they claimed that money follows the talent and that the talent is now somewhere else—I do not want to put words into their mouths—and not here in Scotland. How did you react to that claim?
I thought that Michael Grade and Mark Thompson were wrong. I should elaborate on that statement. They probably feel that they were reported in a slightly harsh way. I was at the event in Cardiff, where Michael Grade made the point almost as starkly as has been reported. Mark Thompson did not say that there are no ideas in Scotland, but that he has been disappointed by the quality of those that have come through recently.
The report in The Herald stated that even Ken MacQuarrie, the BBC's Scottish boss, accepted that there had been a lack of strong network ideas from BBC Scotland.
That is right. Earlier I said that there were issues relating to the supply from Scotland, as well as to the attitudes of commissioning editors and channel controllers in London. However, I do not think that it is true that there is no talent in Scotland. Broadcasting and commissioning of programmes has been a highly centralised activity in the UK. In the broadcasting industry there has been an incredible concentration of money, jobs and power in London. There is no doubt that, if nothing else, it is more convenient to commission from the guy in the corner than from the guy in Aberdeen. That is one of the issues that we face going forward. A proper degree of scepticism must be applied to the question whether such issues will be addressed on a voluntary basis. The industry has waited a long time for behavioural change. While commissioning from Scotland is seen as optional and as subject to individuals' whims, it will be an uphill struggle.
As a supplementary to that, would you agree that the Scottish independent sector has been particularly badly served? There are probably more independents in this part of the United Kingdom than there are in comparable areas south of the border, but it seems that far less of their output appears on the screen. Is that because, with the brave exception of Channel 4, there are no network commissioners here in Scotland?
The absence of network commissioners in Scotland might be an aspect of the problem, but I am not sure that simply having network commissioners in Scotland would fix it.
Thank you for allowing me to participate, convener.
That is a good question. We must take at face value what Mark Thompson said, which, to me, seems to be a pretty watertight commitment. I think that he is an honourable man, who would not have said what he did lightly or without considering it first. It appears that he gave a pretty unbreakable commitment that we will move from a position in which about 3.5 per cent of BBC network commissions come from Scotland—that is the 2006 figure—to one in which the figure will be closer to 9 per cent, which he said would be a floor, not a ceiling. To me, that looked like a guaranteed minimum.
You were asked about seeking evidence from outside the UK. It is also interesting to look at evidence from within the UK, and the situation in Wales seems to me to be the closest parallel to what is happening in Scotland. Cardiff has been regarded as a beacon of success within the BBC, so are there lessons to be learned from what has happened in Wales to inform the debate?
Definitely. The arrival of "Doctor Who" and its various spin-off programmes has transformed the Welsh sector. That was driven by an intervention; there was a decision to base "Doctor Who" in Cardiff and to develop the drama facility outside the city there, and that has been a great boost to the creative sector in Wales.
I had better not push my luck, as I am a visitor to the committee, so I shall ask only one final question. Your answer has led us into the territory that I was going to ask about. Drama is central, and in that sense, film, theatre, radio and television are all closely connected, so to what extent will you look beyond TV and radio? That is linked to Jeremy Purvis's question about the extent to which, if you are looking at the creative industries more generally, you will be in the territory of creative Scotland and the content of the culture bill.
We will not be investigating the broader creative industries. That is not part of our remit and it would be inappropriate for us to do that. I am an optimist by nature, but I think that the work plan that we have set ourselves, focusing on television and broadcasting, will be challenging enough in its complexity and depth, and I do not want our inquiry to range too widely. One of the challenges for any commission is to set the parameters of manageability; you do not want to go too narrow or too wide. Our focus should be on the development of the television and broadcasting sector in Scotland, in the knowledge that it will inevitably have a beneficial effect on the broader creative sector and the creative industries.
I probably ought to know the answer to this procedural question, but will your evidence sessions be held in public?
No. They will be on the record and we will record them and quote from them, but we do not propose that the sessions will be public in the same way in which this committee is now meeting in public. We discussed that at the first meeting of the commission, and the view was that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. Meetings take on a different hue and tone, and can become less productive, if they are conducted in that way. However, the meetings will certainly be on the record and we will record them and make reference to them.
I am quite surprised by that answer. Holding meetings in public allows them to be transparent, without there necessarily having to be public involvement. It is one of the principles of this Parliament that our deliberations are held in public. Given the significance of your work as an independent investigative commission, established to conduct an inquiry and to make subsequent recommendations to ministers and to Parliament, I am taken aback to hear that the evidence sessions will not be held in public. As this committee will be considering similar issues, it would be helpful for us to know what is said at the commission's evidence sessions.
The commission has taken the view that the meetings should certainly be on-the-record meetings. You will know that other commissions have not taken evidence in public in the way that you describe.
The Holyrood inquiry did.
To be honest, I do not think that the Scottish Broadcasting Commission is anything like the Holyrood inquiry. I certainly hope not. That is not the remit that we have been given. We are not an inquiry of that kind; we are an advisory commission. You know that a large part of my background is in broadcast journalism, and although I can see the theatrical appeal of meetings that might or might not become adversarial, it does not necessarily help the work of the commission to hold those meetings in public.
We have a difference of opinion.
That concludes the committee's questions to you, Mr Jenkins. Thank you for attending. We look forward to engaging with you in future.
You may wish me to come back to update you at various stages of the commission's work, and I will be happy to do that. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come here today.
That concludes the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:32.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation