Broadcasting in Scotland
Good morning. I open the eighth meeting in 2011 of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee with a reminder that mobile phones and other electronic devices should be switched off for the duration of this morning’s meeting. We have received apologies from Elizabeth Smith, who regrets that she is unable to join us for the start of the meeting but hopes to be able to join us later.
Agenda item 1 is an evidence-taking session on broadcasting in Scotland with the Minister for Culture and External Affairs to conclude a series of such sessions that the committee has held throughout this parliamentary session. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting the minister, Fiona Hyslop, who is accompanied by Richard Wilkins, head of broadcasting policy at the Scottish Government.
I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.
The Minister for Culture and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)
I welcome this opportunity to give evidence in the last of the committee’s evidence sessions on broadcasting. The committee and the Parliament as a whole have played a major role in furthering discussions on broadcasting over the past four years and I believe that the increased attention and greater focus on the subject have brought real benefits to Scotland.
Since September 2008, the Scottish Government’s key priority has been to try to ensure the implementation of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission’s recommendations, and we have been helped in that respect by the strong consensus and support in Holyrood for the commission’s proposals. In taking forward the commission’s report, we have focused on three major issues, the first of which is commissioning from the United Kingdom networks. Much has been achieved in that regard; indeed, of particular note is the increase in BBC commissioning. In 2007, only 3.3 per cent of the BBC’s UK network programming was commissioned from Scotland whereas, in 2010, the figure was more than 7 per cent. That increase alone, which represents an additional £25 million a year for Scotland’s creative economy, justifies the commission’s work.
However, there is still much to do. The BBC aims to commission 8.6 per cent of its content from Scotland and, although Channel 4 commissioned only 2.5 per cent of its programming from Scotland in 2009, significant progress is still being made. As I believe that the commission’s public scrutiny played a major part in encouraging the UK networks to change their commissioning practices, it is vital that that scrutiny is maintained.
The second area that I want to highlight is the work undertaken by the Scottish Government and our public sector agencies. Scottish Enterprise now account manages 18 television production companies while, on the skills side, Skills Development Scotland has invested £250,000 in a drama training programme that has been launched in conjunction with the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union and BBC Scotland. That programme, which is worth more than £540,000 when contributions from the Scottish Trades Union Congress and BBC Scotland are taken into account, focuses on developing high-level skills in drama series production. Creative Scotland has agreed partnerships with four broadcasters: the BBC, Channel 4, STV and Sky Arts.
Finally, on the commission’s chief recommendation of the establishment of a Scottish digital network to provide secure and sustainable competition to the BBC for public service broadcasting, although the idea of a Scottish digital network was explicitly welcomed in the Parliament’s unanimous endorsement of the commission’s final report in October 2008, no progress has been made on it primarily because it has been impossible to agree how such a network might be funded. For that reason, I established last September the independent Scottish digital network panel and charged it with coming up with proposals for establishing and funding a Scottish digital network. Today, the Scottish Government will publish its formal response to the panel’s report, although I have to say that its contents will not be a major surprise. We believe that the report is clear, insightful and thorough. The panel reached the firm conclusion that a fairer redistribution of television licence fee income is the most appropriate method of funding a new network and the Scottish Government agrees with that view.
Since September, when I established the panel, the UK Government has agreed with the BBC that, in future, the licence fee will provide £95 million of funding support for the Welsh language channel, S4C, and provide a significant initial subsidy for local TV services. The UK Government’s action make it clear that the licence fee is no longer almost exclusively a means of funding the BBC but is, instead, the preferred method of funding non-commercial public service broadcasting in the UK. Just 2 per cent of TV licence fee revenue, which now amounts to more than £3.5 billion a year, would fully fund a Scottish network.
The panel’s report also makes it clear that, if it were impossible to reopen the licence fee settlement, which is meant to run until 2017, an alternative funding mechanism might be possible. That would involve allocating Scotland a share of revenues from the sale of spectrum, which is expected to take place once the digital TV switchover has been concluded. As I believe that the UK Government should act to ensure that the additional network is established, I have responded to its consultation on local TV by proposing a Scottish digital network as the best possible core network for local TV services in Scotland. I believe that that proposal represents the best possible way of meeting the UK Government’s aspiration for more local television while simultaneously satisfying the consensus that exists in Scotland on the establishment of a digital network.
The digital network panel’s report pointed out that, in many respects, it is bizarre that Scotland, as a modern western European nation, does not already have its own television network. I firmly believe that the momentum behind the proposal for an additional network is such that a network will be established. The key questions around the establishment of a network relate to when, rather than if.
BBC Alba has been one of the undoubted success stories of the past four years, and I am delighted that it will soon be available on Freeview. It is worth noting that, when the BBC trust decided in December that it would finally make the channel available on Freeview, it specifically cited
“the strong views expressed by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament”
as one of the factors that it took into account in making its decision. The strong consensus of support in the Parliament had a significant and positive impact on that decision.
I hope that the digital network panel’s report can form the basis of a similar consensus around the funding of the network. The Parliament’s role has already been significant in delivering improvements in broadcasting during the past four years. I firmly welcome the committee’s current inquiry into broadcasting, and I hope that it can play a similar role in helping to make the case for an additional network in the future.
Thank you. You will be aware that the committee has been taking evidence on the issue during the current parliamentary session. We have already had two evidence-taking sessions on broadcasting this year, both of which were pretty upbeat and positive about the future for broadcasting in Scotland.
What is your view, and the Scottish Government’s view, of the state of broadcasting in Scotland? How positively do you view the future?
I am positive about the current situation and the future. As I indicated, significant progress has been made in the interests of Scotland and viewers over the period. Undoubtedly, there are challenges, as we realise, but there is a resilience in the broadcasting sector. There is also an appetite for collective responsibility in advancing the skills base to ensure that we have the quality that we need to go forward.
In particular, I am struck by the work that major broadcasters are doing with different agencies. Rather than just concentrating on their competitive edge, which will always exist with regard to quality, production, the number of viewers and so on, they are recognising that broadcasting is a major industry. The creative industries have a role to play in shaping the future.
There are great opportunities. On a whole variety of measures, we are in a far more successful position than we were in four years ago. My comments about BBC Alba prove that influence and control by the broadcasting organisations themselves are important in doing more. The fact that so many independent productions come from BBC Alba, for example, proves that commissioning can be very important in enhancing quality and skills capability into the future.
The future is positive. There are major challenges, and we have to wait to see what will happen, particularly with regard to the UK Government’s plans. I wrote to the committee just yesterday to indicate how I am engaging with the UK Government on its plans for the future. A major broadcasting act is due, and there are proposals on local television.
We can see the current situation as a glass half empty or as a glass half full; I very much view it as a glass-half-full opportunity for us. Collectively, we have a job of work to do to persuade the UK Government of what is in Scotland’s best interests, and we have to grab that opportunity.
I hope that the table that I have produced for the committee, which outlines what is likely to happen over the next period, will inform the committee when it is considering its legacy paper and help it to identify some of the broadcasting issues that a future committee of the Parliament might want to examine.
As a staging post, my report to the committee is that we are in a positive position. There are opportunities, but they will be positive for us only if we grab them. That means that all of us must get involved, whether that is the public sector or, in particular, the broadcasters themselves.
09:30
You touched on the challenges to do with securing additional commissioning and greater production of programmes in Scotland and ensuring that Scotland has sufficient people with the right skills to undertake such work. During the past few years, there has been considerable upheaval in the creative industries. Creative Scotland has been established and there have been changes at Skills Development Scotland. How is the Government ensuring that there is good interaction and exchange of information between Creative Scotland and SDS, to ensure that we have the best-qualified workforce to support the creative industries and to try to ensure, if possible, that there continues to be a positive upward trend in additional commissioning and television production in Scotland?
I had responsibility for skills in my previous ministerial position and I have been a keen champion of the creative industries in my current post. Some of the developments around drama were part of my thinking in my previous post about ensuring that we work positively, through the skills agencies, with the broadcasters.
It is highly significant that one of the first things that Creative Scotland did when it was constituted last summer was to announce work with broadcasters. I think that it was at the television festival that Creative Scotland made its first announcement about its agreement—I think that it was with Channel 4 at the time, but Creative Scotland is now working on partnerships with Channel 4, the BBC, STV and Sky Arts. Skills Development Scotland’s investment of £250,000 in television drama training, which I was involved in initiating in my previous post, is significant, and what is happening with STV and BBC Scotland and with skills agencies and unions, including BECTU, represents a significant change from where we were several years ago.
The example of the industry coming together, articulating its demands on skills and training and helping to commission and implement the type of training that we need is a positive example for other industries. If you asked me to describe a significant change that has taken place, that is the one that I would identify. I think that we will see progress and success in that regard. Creative Scotland, in particular, is very much engaged with the broadcasters. There is a lot of interest in working creatively with Channel 4, for example. There is also interest in working differently with other creative industries, such as the video games industry, and in forging relationships. On the issue that you asked about, there has been a step change from where we were a few years ago.
Much of the evidence that we heard about a Scottish digital network centred on the democratic aspect of the issue. You said that it is bizarre that Scotland does not have a digital network. Mr Jenkins told us that on the whole he is
“disappointed with how broadcasting has responded to devolution.”—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 9 February 2011; c 4668.]
Will you comment on that?
First, let me emphasise that we are calling for a Scottish digital network, of which broadcasting will be only one aspect. The opportunity for the additional network to be used for other public service delivery purposes should not be underestimated. However, I am aware that broadcasting is the focus of the committee’s inquiry.
On broadcasting since devolution, some of us can remember the amount of political coverage that there was before devolution. I remember Scottish Television’s “The Scottish 500” and “Scottish Women”—I am not sure whether members took part in those programmes. There was quite a large range of popular, accessible coverage of political issues and debates. Blair Jenkins was perhaps correct in identifying an issue in relation to people’s expectations in 1999 of the type and range of coverage of public issues that there would be.
One change at STV, which is a challenge for us, is that the amount of public service broadcasting that it must deliver was scaled back. For example, the amount of current affairs was scaled back to an hour and responsibility for Gaelic broadcasting was limited. For news coverage, the public service broadcasting requirement is down to four hours. The time that is dedicated to such broadcasting is limited in comparison with where we were in 1999.
I suspect that a quality issue is involved. Going into an election, it is always dangerous for a politician or a minister to cast doubt on the range and quality of broadcasting, but people should probably be disappointed that the coverage of devolution has been more limited than we might have expected. News coverage is provided—we see coverage of topical political events and of what is happening in Parliament—but one of the most interesting aspects of devolution arises from the status of committees. Committees do not meet at the same time as the whole Parliament, because their work should be given the same status as that of work in the chamber.
There is more limited coverage and more limited in-depth analysis and discussion of pertinent issues that committees look into in inquiries, for example, and which engage the public. As important as the Public Records (Scotland) Bill that we discussed last year and on which we will vote in the chamber next week is, it will not generally be talked about in the street. However, issues in which the Health and Sport Committee or other committees are involved could be broadcast. Viewers would have an appetite to engage in those matters. Coverage probably fixates on “he said, she said,” on political personalities and on political parties’ positioning, whereas the strength of devolution was always meant to be that it would place a spotlight on issues that matter to people.
Perhaps an opportunity has been missed. One challenge is how to engage on such coverage, if viewers want it. We as politicians must be careful about dictating content. Issues are always relevant to people. When people say that they are not interested in politics, that tends to mean that they are not engaged by political parties, although they are interested in political issues, as members all well know. All members of the committee will have a view on that and might want to reflect on that in their deliberations.
More positively, Blair Jenkins said that a digital network would be “a game changer” for Scottish broadcasting, not just in what the public receive but in the potential that it would create for the broadcasting industry. Is it fair to say that the mere existence of such a network would make a dramatic change?
Yes. Such a network would commission work and deliver activity. Blair Jenkins’s proposal would involve about four hours of new material a day. If STV has four hours of dedicated public service broadcasting a week, the proposal would mean a step change in the volume of activity. The challenge is to ensure that the material is of the quality that we need.
The industry’s reception for the proposed digital network has been positive. We held a conference in Glasgow, at which Greg Dyke kindly agreed to be the keynote speaker, where one interesting aspect was that the people who are involved in production said that they would have an opportunity to showcase our best work and to help new talent to come through.
We have fantastic productions. In many regards, the quality of our cultural output is world leading, but accessing it can be challenging. Giving some of our top performances wider coverage on the digital channel would be fantastic. Performances at the Edinburgh international festival and elsewhere would benefit from wider showcasing, such as those of the National Theatre of Scotland, which has just celebrated its fifth anniversary and has fantastic productions; those of our other national companies; and quality productions from elsewhere. Showcasing such performances on a digital network would also help with audience development by encouraging people to see live events. On top of that, opportunities would exist for new productions and new television shows.
The challenge from the commission was that we were light on drama. If we want sustainable skills development and income generation for production companies, sustainable drama series—not just one-offs—can make a big difference and a step change. There are obviously more opportunities for that on a digital channel. Blair Jenkins talked about the platform that it would provide for greater range and quality.
The commission indicated that the likely cost of a Scottish digital network would be £75 million. Where do we go from here with the debate given the apparent resistance of the BBC to further top-slicing of the licence fee? How do we progress the debate about the funding of the channel?
The Government established the panel that looked at the finance, which had a very esteemed membership. I publicly thank them again for their input. Within the membership of that panel, we included people with a range of experience not only in different media and newspapers but in investment.
The issue is to keep challenging the UK Government on its responsibilities to provide funding. It was disappointing that the negotiations on the BBC licence fee were concluded rapidly over a weekend with very little input from anybody outside the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC. The UK Government currently takes the firm view that that is it—that the licence fee money is all accounted for. I know that there are arguments for sustaining the funding of the BBC, but we hear a number of criticisms from our constituents that the BBC could make better use of its public funding. Mr Allan has had personal experience in the Parliament of some of the highly paid broadcasters from the BBC. I know that there are challenges there and that people expect better value for money from the BBC. The point is that policy decisions have already been made that the licence fee should be used not just for the BBC and the issue is how Scotland gets its fair share of that money.
Some of the licence fee is to be top-sliced for local television broadcasters. We must ensure that we get value for money from that and that we have an opportunity to showcase what we have got and to set up the Scottish digital network. There are two opportunities, the first of which is in the policy change about the use of the BBC licence fee. Scottish licence fee payers have paid their licence fee and, under the UK Government’s new provision, are now subsidising Welsh television. I am a big supporter of S4C, but we are now seeing top-slicing from which Welsh viewers are benefiting but from which there is, as yet, no benefit for Scotland. What is the benefit to Scotland? What will be our share of the local television funding? I do not know whether you will come on to this, but it is about what we can do and what the different options are for local television in Scotland. It is not just about the additional network, although we think that that is the best core and spine for the use of funding.
If the Government says no on the licence fee, the panel has also identified an opportunity in the spectrum sell-off and there might be, until the next negotiation on the BBC network in 2017, an opportunity for bridge funding to get the network up and running with a view that that spectrum could be used. A lot of the spectrum sell-off is happening because of the switchover and, once we have had the final switchover, there will be profits to be made from the spectrum that is left over. Either all that money will go to the Treasury and never be seen again or we can say that Scotland is entitled to its share of that. Those are all avenues and possibilities.
It is important for the debate that we keep talking about what is happening and scrutinising it, not just in the Government but in the committee. The debate is not going to go away—it is not finished. There must be democratic scrutiny of how these public funds are used. Scottish taxpayers and Scottish licence fee payers are contributing to a pot, and the issue is whether we are getting a sufficient share of that pot through what is coming back to Scotland.
We want to make sure that there is more investment in the BBC and BBC Scotland and that that is sustained but, given the decisions that have recently been taken, there is a question as to whether Scotland is getting its fair share within the UK settlement. A digital network would be a very positive way forward in many different ways. Keeping the debate running is not just the responsibility of Government; it is the responsibility of the Parliament and the committee, too.
09:45
You mentioned the success of BBC Alba. In the event of the Scottish digital network becoming established, do you envisage BBC Alba being a separate entity or being combined with the new network?
It was right for the digital network panel to address the issue of the relationship with BBC Alba. When I received the report from the panel, I immediately wrote to Bòrd na Gàidhlig and MG Alba to seek their views on the issue. There will need to be a relationship of some kind, not least because we would expect a digital network to have Gaelic broadcasting as part of what it was doing.
I concur with the views of Blair Jenkins, chair of the digital network panel. Any relationship would have to be by invitation, not by instruction. There might be opportunities to showcase more of our Gaelic production, not least by commissioning from MG Alba and getting some of its programmes shown on the network.
It would have been wrong for the network to ignore the fact that we have the Gaelic channel just now. I have been told that, if the relationship undermined Gaelic in any way, it would not be welcome. I agree with that position. We should support the success of BBC Alba. We have the time and opportunity to think about what the relationship between the separate entity of BBC Alba and the digital network might be. My reading of the responses is that everyone is willing to engage in that kind of discussion. I do not see any difficulty or threat to BBC Alba whatever.
On a separate issue, I note that the UK Government has provided £10 million to improve broadband connectivity in north Wales. What role does the Scottish Government see for the Government in Scotland in improving connectivity in Scotland?
I recently met Ed Vaizey, the UK minister with responsibilities in these areas. This comes back to Alasdair Allan’s point about the fact that the licence fee is being top-sliced and used for broadband. Again, it is a case of what Scotland can receive as a result of that. We have been successful in the first tranche of funding for the pilot to improve connectivity in the Highlands and Islands. We are actively working with many different Government agencies to look at what we can do for the south of Scotland in particular. Our digital strategy was published last week. We see the big challenges for connectivity not necessarily in the central belt, where the market will by and large be able to get connectivity and roll it out, but in rural areas.
We have been successful in having money top-sliced from the licence fee used to fund the Highlands and Islands pilot. We are currently supporting the strong bid from the south of Scotland to ensure that it can get funding from that, but that is not enough. On broadcasting and the opportunity for local television, the real test is in the south of Scotland. We can get the connections and the funding support—we hope to get it for the south of Scotland from the next tranche of the top slicing. I have tried to keep the committee informed about the proposals for local television put forward in the report by Nicholas Shott, whom I met. There is a danger that the only viable, sustainable area for local television would be Glasgow and the west of Scotland, which is probably the best served in terms of connectivity, broadband and the availability of localised news, whether from STV or other areas.
The real test of the success of the venture will be what the people of the south of Scotland get as a result of it. Although that is quite an extensive answer, it touches on areas that the committee might want to go into.
Good morning, minister. A strong recent trend has been the devolution of production throughout the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. Indeed, Channel 4’s nations and regions directorate is based in Glasgow, with a licence to source 30 per cent of original productions from companies outside the M25, which, in any case, is where the overwhelming majority of the population live.
The witnesses from STV told the committee that the ITV network
“has become more metropolitan in its outlook.”—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 23 February 2011; c 4712.]
STV argued that it wants to consolidate and develop the Scottish creative industries, partly because of its recent decision to opt out of the ITV schedule at peak times. Given that STV, as a commercial broadcaster, can make its own commercial decisions, do you have any views on the issues facing channel 3 in Scotland, particularly in relation to news broadcasting and the wider development of the creative industries in Scotland?
I am pleased about the positive early results for 2010 that STV has posted. In STV’s evidence to the committee, it outlined what it saw as its position.
The challenge, which I referred to earlier, is the decision by the Office of Communications to reduce the public service broadcasting obligation, which has limited the amount of public service broadcasting, news and current affairs, compared to where we were some time ago. The UK Government has made it clear—Ofcom has confirmed this—that it expects STV to realise its responsibility for news coverage until 2014.
There is a real challenge to STV’s ability to support the creative industries. We acknowledge that STV does a great deal already, but we will always push all broadcasters—the BBC, STV or Channel 4—to do more. However, if you talk to independent producers, the question tends to be whether there is sufficient commissioning by STV for new content from small, Scotland-based independent producers, or a tendency for centralisation. I think that it was referred to as the brass-plaque syndrome—people might have an office in Scotland, but all the production is being done elsewhere.
There is an issue about interrogating more thoroughly Ofcom’s statistics. I have heard the criticism from Channel 4, too, that more might be being done than people think. It is important to get clarity on that. STV recently produced an important report. Unfortunately, it was after the UK Government’s consultation on independent producer status for STV. We need to give more consideration to how we can have major broadcasters that can thrive and be competitive while still supporting the activities of independent producers. The recent report seemed to indicate that independent production in Scotland is being supported more than people had anticipated and that there is not necessarily a conflict between independent producer status for the STV and centralisation. As part of the debate, we need to ensure that parts of the industry talk to each other.
In February last year, one of the first things that I did as minister was to hold a broadcasting conference in Glasgow at which I got everyone round the table. STV and the independent producers were there to try to work out their criticisms of each other and how we can work together more collectively. On my first point to the convener, the thing that is quite different now from where we were a few years ago is that the Government has helped to facilitate that discussion.
Richard Wilkins (Scottish Government Directorate for Culture and Digital)
There is one point that I want to go back to—the brass-plaque syndrome. It is worth highlighting one of the first changes that happened back in 2007 or 2008. The BBC, in setting its targets for commissioning from Scotland, moved from its previous definitions of what constituted a Scottish commission. That led to some high-profile examples of programmes that were not really made in Scotland being badged as Scottish. It has moved from its own definitions to accepting Ofcom’s definitions, which are significantly more rigorous in establishing how much expenditure has to take place or what level of management or commissioning has to take place from Scotland.
Then, in about 2009, Ofcom tightened up its definitions a bit further, so it is more difficult for a pure brass-plaque production to count towards Scottish commissioning statistics than it was four or five years ago in broadcasters’ self-reporting.
Different productions have different levels of economic benefit to Scotland, depending on where the crew come from and so on, but in general it is now far less likely that productions that count as Scottish productions in commissioning statistics and which come from producers with offices in Scotland would be just brass-plaque productions. As a result of definitional changes over the past three years or so, it is normal that a significant amount of economic activity would take place in Scotland.
On definitions, I am supportive of Channel 4’s argument that it does a great deal of work with the digital gaming companies, and that a lot of its commissioning—not only in broadcasting, but to do with the benefits that are associated with engagement on digital gaming—should count towards Scottish output, as opposed to that output being based purely on broadcasting of traditional programming. That does not get Channel 4 off the hook—we would still like it to do more on Scottish productions, but it moves the debate on and recognises the broadcaster’s work with the Scottish creative industries. That is the point that Kenny Gibson was arguing. What is contribution to the creative industries? Creative industries around broadcasting include not only the traditional forms of television shows and dramas; more happens in wider broadcasting activity that can be counted as output, production and benefit to the viewers.
It is important that the industry in Scotland remains competitive on quality and on output that other countries will pick up. For example, we heard about how “Born Fighting” is likely to be exported to other countries, which would be an exciting development.
You touched on collaboration. How significant will collaboration among broadcasters in Scotland be in ensuring that we retain competitiveness in the industry? It almost seems like a contradiction that we look for collaboration among broadcasters in order to maintain the competitiveness of the creative industries, but it is not. In fact, it might create a more sustainable future. What is your view on that?
I am very open to that. The broadcasters are independent organisations that must determine and decide on collaboration themselves. However, there are models. Let us take a policy area with which the committee is familiar—universities. When the collaborative model of research pooling was introduced, it was quite unusual—I think that it is still unique among European models—but it allows institutions to be competitive and to gain added advantage. We need to consider such models for the broadcasting industry. The Government or its agencies can help to facilitate that, but at the end of the day such matters are commercial decisions and have to be made very toughly in STV and, in terms of value for public money, the BBC. Opportunities exist and there are already examples of collaboration on skills and training. That will be interesting in commercial models for the future.
The output of the Scottish digital network could consist of a core spine with more localised material. We examined the different bids for the independent news consortium that was established under the previous Labour UK Government. The combinations of different media outlets working together in those were interesting. It is not necessarily about the broadcasting companies collaborating among just themselves: one of the big issues, as we heard at our broadcasting conference, is what happens with the traditional print media—which can do news gathering of fantastic quality, particularly locally—and their relationships with broadcasters. How can we maintain the quality of journalism not only in broadcast news but in print and local journalism? The success story of STV’s web-based digital local news service shows that there is a real appetite for that kind of output, but we need to ensure that we support the creative industries in print as well as in broadcasting. The creative industries should be built on new and creative ways of doing things, not least in that area, so Kenneth Gibson is right to identify collaboration as an opportunity for the future. When it comes to the terms and scope of that activity, a number of rules and regulations apply, and there is the work of Ofcom and so on. We have to be careful about monopolies and all the rest of it, but there are opportunities.
10:00
I apologise for the fact that I was running a bit late this morning.
You will remember that one of the Calman commission’s recommendations was that the Scottish member of the BBC trust should be appointed by Scottish ministers rather than by the UK Government. Clause 17 of the Scotland Bill requires that a minister of the Crown must not exercise appointment functions in relation to that post
“without the agreement of the Scottish Ministers”.
Will you give us your thoughts on that? Is it an absolute necessity that the Scottish member of the BBC trust be appointed by the Scottish ministers?
That was one of the Calman commission’s recommendations. It makes absolute sense that the Scottish member of the trust be appointed by the Scottish Government. I am meeting later today the new member for Scotland of the BBC trust. I very much welcome his appointment, on which I was consulted, and I look forward to working with him.
As far as the institutional arrangements are concerned, the idea that the UK Government can ask us about a proposed appointment and we can have a veto is not good enough. We should make the appointment, as the Scotland Bill Committee acknowledged.
In addition, it is not appropriate that the board and the chair of MG Alba be appointed at UK level, so I am pleased by the support that the Scotland Bill Committee has given us in that regard. It was interesting that the Scottish digital network panel report said that the Scottish Parliament should have a role in that process. There is always a sensitivity in broadcasting, in particular, to do with the importance of Government standing to one side. The appointment process cannot be seen as being a political process. There are pros and cons to a parliamentary committee being involved in it. If the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, for example, were given the responsibility, it could be said that that would be useful because it would depoliticise the process, but it is arguable whether giving the decision to more politicians would make it less political. That is a fairly open debate, on which I would be interested to hear the committee’s views. I think that accountability should rest in Scotland, whether with the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament.
That concludes our questions to you. Thank you very much for your attendance today and for your general engagement with the committee over the parliamentary session.
I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the minister to leave and the next minister to arrive.
10:03
Meeting suspended.
10:09
On resuming—