Scottish Broadcasting Commission (Interim Reports)
Item 2 is consideration of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's three interim reports. I am delighted to welcome Blair Jenkins, the commission's chair and I invite him to make opening remarks.
Blair Jenkins (Scottish Broadcasting Commission):
I will not speak for long, because I am sure that members have many questions. First, I pay tribute to Ray Michie, who was a member of the commission and who, very sadly, passed away last month. I know that Ray was widely liked and respected not just by members of the committee but more widely in the Scottish Parliament. She was fully engaged with the commission in its early phase but, sadly, her health declined from the beginning of the year. I have worked in broadcasting for quite a while, so I will say what has not been said elsewhere, which is that among Ray's many qualities hers was one of the great and marvellous voices in Scottish politics—a marvellous voice. For all sorts of reasons, she will be widely missed.
Members have copies of the three interim reports that the commission has produced. The function of the reports has been to identify the issues that we think are out there. Nothing in the reports should be read as anything resembling a conclusion or even a tentative outcome on our part; what we have done is identify from the soundings and evidence that we have taken a shopping list of items that we need to discuss. I hope that members will treat the reports in that way.
I sat in on the previous item and was interested to hear the people from Ofcom highlight matters about which I want to talk and about which I hope that you will ask me. I group three big issues for members' consideration. First, there is a group of issues around increasing network production from Scotland, which I know is a matter of considerable concern to the committee and more widely. I will happily talk in more detail about the recent pronouncements by broadcasters in that regard. The BBC trust gave evidence to us yesterday and, as Stewart Purvis said, Ofcom and Channel 4 gave evidence to us on Monday afternoon, so I am happy to update you on the issues.
Secondly, and more crucially, serious challenges are emerging to do with public service broadcasting competition in Scotland, which the committee will need to consider. I expect that during the previous item you had a more frank discussion about those challenges than has taken place hitherto.
Thirdly, a group of issues about the level of ambition and aspiration in Scottish broadcasting and television production is emerging from the cultural phase of our work and to some extent from the democratic phase. We are focusing on such issues.
Because our formal evidence session with the BBC trust was scheduled for yesterday, the trust gave us prior sight of the King review, which was published only today. Although we did not have much advance warning that we would have sight of the review, the trust's courtesy enabled us to ask it about the review's findings. Members will probably not have had time to consider the findings—indeed, I think that the review was published during this meeting, which will have rather inhibited members' chances of considering it.
There is not much more to say. If I express what sounds like a firm opinion on anything, it will be my personal opinion and not that of the commission.
Thank you for those opening remarks. The committee appreciates what you said about Ray Michie. I think that the whole committee agrees that she will be missed in Scottish politics.
What key findings emerged from the three interim reports on the economic, cultural and democratic phases?
Again, what I have to say harks back to some of the evidence that you took and the questions that you put earlier. The core of the work in the economic phase related to the UK television networks increasing the volume of production from Scotland. We have made considerable progress with the BBC and some progress with Channel 4 on that. I have to concede that we have made only limited progress with ITV. We see substantial benefits for the Scottish creative economy from some of the new commitments that the BBC, in particular, and Channel 4 have entered into.
We have some concerns about the BBC commitment. The committee may be aware of a recent statement from the BBC trust, which followed on from our work, in which the trust clarified its position on the target of 9 per cent of production coming from Scotland. The announcement had two components. First, it said that the BBC will align its definition of what validly counts as a Scottish production with the Ofcom definition, which is the wider industry standard. We very much welcome that. However, the more disappointing aspect of the announcement was that the BBC trust went on to say—effectively on behalf of BBC management—that that change means that it will take until 2016 for the target to be met. In speaking to the trust on Monday, we expressed our disappointment that it has taken eight months for it to tell us that that work will take eight years. We registered our view that the timetable looks a little glacial. A key aspect of the economic phase is that push to get more network production in Scotland. I am happy to talk more about that.
On the cultural phase, the committee may wish to ask about important issues to do with the Gaelic channel. The main theme, to which I alluded in my opening remarks, is that we identified in much of the evidence from individuals, organisations and stakeholders and in our sizeable public attitudes survey a demand and an aspiration for a wider range of programming and for more ambition in programme production in Scotland. That is probably the key finding.
In our democratic phase report, we identified audience demand for more depth and explanation in broadcast journalism. The report also highlighted a number of concerns about how the rest of the UK is reported to Scotland, and how Scotland is reported to the rest of the UK. Interestingly, in some of what we said in the report, we anticipated quite a lot of what Professor Tony King said in his review that was published today.
Thank you for that summary, which was helpful not only for the committee but for those who have an interest in the area and are either here today or watching proceedings on the internet.
My colleagues will put specific points on the key findings. My question is on the emerging themes from the cultural phase report. In our evidence taking from witnesses from Ofcom, the committee gave considerable consideration to the need for distinctive public service broadcasting that meets the requirements of Scotland. In your opening remarks, you spoke about issues to do with the range, volume, ambition and scheduling of programmes of that type. Would you expand on the challenges that you face in meeting the aspirations that people in Scotland have identified and expressed and on how you plan to develop that work?
There are two aspects to that. One is the issue of PSB competition and how we secure PSB going forward. I agree with quite a lot of what Ofcom said about the realities of the ITV position going forward. A delicate set of negotiations will have to take place between Ofcom and ITV about whether ITV stays within the public service broadcasting family. I would not want to predict how that will turn out. As you heard Ofcom say frankly, it is a live possibility that ITV will cease to be a public service broadcaster, which has major implications for the services in Scotland. I am happy to talk about some of those if members wish to ask about them.
The aspiration for more ambitious programming and a wider range of programming came through strongly in all our work. In a way, because of the economics of STV's business at the moment, there is a limited opportunity to insist on STV making more programmes than it does currently. I think that STV would take the view that anything else that it does would have to be at its own discretion and at its own commercial risk and that it would have to find a commercial rationale for doing it.
That turns the spotlight rather forcibly on the BBC and what the BBC does in Scotland. The questions for the BBC arising out of the cultural and other work that we have done relate to the extent to which it needs to review its level of programming and service provision—especially in the television environment, which remains the most important platform, as others have said this morning.
That is, broadly, where I think that we are.
Do you think that the BBC is up for having that debate? Is it prepared to meet the challenges that it faces as a result of the commission's findings?
I think that the BBC is very uncomfortable about the prospect of being the only show in town. I can understand that. As you have discussed this morning, if one of the outcomes of the current uncertainties is that the level of provision on channel 3 in Scotland by STV and Border TV is under threat, there will be a need to look at other sources of competition for the BBC in Scotland.
News and current affairs broadcasting is of paramount importance. However, even more broadly than that, in other programme genres, it would not be in anyone's interest—least of all the BBC's—for the BBC to become a monopoly supplier. Therefore, one of the challenges with which we are wrestling—and with which, I suspect, at some point fairly soon, you will be wrestling—is how we secure PSB competition. I always try to avoid the word "plurality", as I usually stumble over it when I say it, but I think that securing PSB competition on a sustainable basis in Scotland going forward is a big issue not just for the Parliament but for the country.
That leads on to some of my committee colleagues' questions.
Good morning—just. Within the broadcasting sector, where should the public sector be positioned?
Do you mean public service broadcasting?
In your report, there is a suggestion that there may be a role for public agencies to step in. Where do you see that happening?
I think that you are identifying an issue that we raised in the economic phase of our work. Roles already exist for the two obvious agencies—there are other, more minor players—Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Screen, which is perhaps about to become creative Scotland. If I can assume that creative Scotland is going to happen, that will make the conversation easier. There are roles for both those agencies in the development of the creative economy in Scotland, including broadcasting, which is the bit that we are focused on.
I should say—I think that I said this to the committee the last time that I was here—that we are using a broad definition of "broadcasting". It is a shorthand term that we use nowadays to mean audiovisual content, however and on whatever platform it is distributed. It is very much a fast-changing area. Without prejudging our conclusions, we obviously think that broadcasting is an important part of the Scottish economy. A thriving broadcasting industry and, in particular, a thriving television production sector are essential for the economic, cultural and democratic health of the nation.
It is important that there is clarity within the public agency landscape and that people know which door to go to, depending on what they are trying to achieve. I will not go much further into the issue, but I will say that we have a final session with Scottish Enterprise on Friday—we had a session with it back in December or January—in which we will focus on what its role is in this crucial sector.
What is the right balance between those two agencies?
The most obvious point is that inward investment of scale clearly seems to be a Scottish Enterprise function, so there would be little point in trying to replicate that role in any other agency. I think that issues to do with what are clearly cultural projects and cultural ambitions sit within the remit of creative Scotland. Once we get beyond that, I would be keen—like you, I suspect—to establish clarity about which door people should go to.
My colleague will come on to creative Scotland.
If it is okay with the convener, I will ask question 5 now as well, because it is about examples of where you think such a relationship has developed and worked well. The SBC's interim report on the economic phase states that witnesses gave the example of the Northwest Vision model. I have to confess that I am not totally au fait with that model, so I am not sure what it was about it that was found attractive.
We mentioned Northwest Vision because people had mentioned it to us, but agencies in other parts of the country have also been successful. It is possible to identify some of the criteria to be successful; I have already implied what some of them have are. This is a fast-moving sector so people need clarity, they need to know who to go to and decisions must be made quickly. People also need to know that there is institutional buy-in to the growth of the sector. There are different combinations of screen agencies and regional development agencies around the UK. The approach works well in some parts of the UK and not so well in others. We are keen to learn from the best. I should also say that the SBC has under way, as part of our work, an international comparison study that is looking at such initiatives that have worked in North America, elsewhere in Europe and beyond. As you would expect, we are trying to learn from what other people have tried and have found to work. We hope to build that into any suggestions that we make in September.
Could you share with the committee at this stage anything in particular about Northwest Vision that you thought worked well?
Northwest Vision's great windfall was the BBC's decision to hugely expand its operation at Salford Quays, which will transform the economy of that part of England. It seems to have brought a particularly strategic, co-ordinated and focused approach to how it would develop the sector. We can learn lessons from its approach, but I also keep stressing to people that we have some strong historical and current competitive edges in the area, which gives us every reason to hope that Scotland can be very successful in this sector.
My question is along the same lines. Mr Jenkins might recall that when he was previously at the committee there was a discussion about the timing of the SBC's work and the legislative programme that the committee is scrutinising. We are mid-process on the Creative Scotland Bill. In the context of there being a lead development body for broadcasting and the creative industries, the SBC's interim report on the economic phase of its investigation states:
"There were no strong views on a single preferred agency, but what was clear was the demand for clarity and definitive identification of one agency to hold responsibility for taking the lead role."
We are going to debate the Creative Scotland Bill soon; indeed, it looks like it will complete its passage through the Parliament before the commission publishes its final report. The commission is still taking evidence on the bill and has identified it as something for further consideration. What does the commission want to do? Does it want to outline what it expects a lead body's responsibilities to be, regardless of whether that body is Scottish Enterprise or creative Scotland, or will it simply state that there should be one lead body and that which body it is should be clear? I am not entirely sure how the commission intends to progress matters.
I must avoid trying to anticipate the views of my colleagues—I run the risk of doing so. I will oversimplify. It could be argued that what we have done until now in our work is identify all the problems that exist. As members of the committee know, the more challenging part of the process—identifying solutions—follows. I do not want it to seem that we have arrived at any solutions, primarily because we have not yet done so; rather, we are in the process of doing so.
My view is that our final report should specify what we should expect from the lead agencies and that we should not micromanage or be overdetailed. That specification should include saying where the main strategic decision-making functions are located and where the main funding decisions are taken. I think that when we had a similar conversation earlier, I said that the overriding priority is that we know who makes decisions, that they are capable of making the right decisions, and that they feel confident and empowered to make those decisions fairly quickly. That probably remains my view. Those are key issues. The speed of decision making and having the right individuals making decisions are still more important to me than the institution within which those individuals sit. I think that I used almost the same form of words previously. However, we will make our views clear in our final report.
Is it fair to say that the commission is not in a position at this stage to comment on the Creative Scotland Bill, which is in front of the Parliament?
Yes. That is fair comment.
What is the timeframe within which the commission will make its proposals?
I think that you are inviting me to stray into the territory of saying when we shall make firm recommendations. It is proper that we do so in the final report in September.
The commission's "Interim Report on Economic Phase" mentions the brain drain and broadcasters seeing Scotland as a starting point before they spread their wings and go to other places. Are broadcasters not just seeing Scotland as being on the high road to London or the outskirts of London—wherever the programmes are made—but seeing things on a European and world scale? Are people being fledglings in Scotland before they go out into an increasingly global broadcasting world?
It is true and entirely proper that that is happening. There are two aspects to the matter. Talented Scots in television and broadcasting and in every other creative field will always migrate to big, creative cities such as London, New York and Los Angeles. That will always happen, and we would not wish or try to stop people doing that. That is absolutely right and proper. However, my view is that it should not be impossible to live and work in Scotland and have a successful career in broadcasting and television production. Because of the way in which global networks now operate, with new technologies and new forms of distribution, I think that creative content companies in Scotland will be globally successful. Some already are—members are probably aware of one or two of them—and I think that there will be more of them.
What can you say to us about the possibility of reversing the brain drain?
The issue connects, in a way, to the debate about quotas that you were having earlier. The strong magnetic pull of London—which arises from the fact that all the channels, decision makers and buyers are based there—inevitably means that all the money will be sucked to London. If, as an aspect of public policy, there is a genuine desire for production to be distributed on a more fair and equitable basis around the UK—and I know that there is, both in this Parliament and in Westminster—public policy levers will have to be used to achieve that because the market will not do it of its own volition.
That raises the question of which levers are appropriate. For understandable reasons, people shy away from the word "quota", as Vicki Nash said earlier. However, all you have to do is use a different phrase, such as "mandatory target" and people are much more comfortable. "Quota" is a word that people are inclined to dissociate themselves from. However, people understand that, without some form of forcing mechanism—which can be an internal mechanism, such as the binding commitment that the BBC trust and the BBC's executive are formalising at the moment—the aim will not be reached. In many ways, having such a mechanism is an ideal solution. The point is that, in order to overcome the underlying problems with the way in which the market has operated in the UK, levers of public policy must be used. If we do that and can get production in Scotland to the level that it ought to be—I am talking about a floor, not a ceiling—many people in London would come back to Scotland to live and work. I know many people personally who want to return for various reasons and would do so, if they thought that their business would be as successful here.
A good—but not perfect—example of the reversal of the brain drain is the fact that Shed Media, which was set up by some talented Scots in London some years ago, is opening a substantial branch in Scotland with a view to producing network drama from Scotland. There are many ways in which the brain drain reversal will happen, and we have to encourage that as much as we can.
The interim report on the democratic phase says:
"The BBC is looking for cumulative savings of 20% in its broadcast journalism over the next five years, with any new investment likely to be targeted at strengthening its online services."
Do you agree that that kind of move sends exactly the opposite signal to the one that we want to send about the capacity that Scotland has, and is not helpful with regard to keeping quality people in that element of Scottish broadcasting?
It is a challenging savings target. It is important to note that it is uniform across the UK, which means that, unlike a few years ago, Scotland is not being asked to meet a higher savings target than elsewhere. I welcome that aspect.
It will be a stretch to deliver savings of 20 per cent. Obviously, the BBC is trying to identify ways in which it can reduce its cost base, and there are some technological developments that will undoubtedly help in that regard. However, as you would expect to happen in any complex and fast-moving environment, there is traffic in both directions. Some things that are happening within the broader creative content sector will create jobs in Scotland and other things could result in jobs in Scotland being lost. Over the next several years, the net effect—if we get the approach right—will be a substantial net benefit. I hope that the report that we produce in September will have some influence on the approach that is taken. If we get it right, the creative industries in Scotland will have a dynamic and exciting future.
Can you tell us what some of the net benefits might be?
The benefits of the increased investment that has already been promised by the BBC and Channel 4 are substantial. I do not want to focus solely on the BBC, so I will highlight a Channel 4 initiative called 4IP—I do not know whether it has been brought to the attention of the committee. It is a new fund that will invest in new digital companies and digital media, with a view to developing digital content, such as games and social websites. A substantial part of that fund will be aimed at and located in Scotland. It is one of several things that allow us to predict substantial growth in the Scottish creative sector.
As you know, all the creative industries are converging. In Dundee, for example, there is an incredibly successful video game company that does not have the recognition in Scotland that it deserves, given what it contributes to overall gross domestic product.
I was impressed with the emerging findings of the reports, including the idea of supporting investment in skills and identifying a lead agency to develop the skills base in Scotland.
Why are big production companies not based in Scotland? What are the barriers to their developing once they get to a certain size?
We touched on that in the first "Interim Report on Economic Phase". There are several factors. One is the historic problem of London being a magnet for talent and money. The concentration of the industry in the capital has had a detrimental effect not only on Scotland but on other parts of the UK, in terms of the ability to grow companies.
In recent years, the opportunities for independent production companies have become greater as a result of their ability to own their own rights, which has led to the development of a number of "superindies"—companies that, because they are allowed to retain the rights to their own creative content, can sell it to other markets and exploit it in various ways. However, from the Scottish point of view, the timing of that move in the industry was unfortunate, because it happened when the sector was at its lowest ebb, following several years of decline in network commissioning from Scotland. For example, under the Ofcom definition—the only valid definition—BBC network production from Scotland, which was at something like 6.7 per cent of the UK total in 2004, reduced to 5.7 per cent in 2005 and 3.5 per cent in 2006 before reaching 3.3 per cent last year, which means that over four years the figure halved. Forgive me if the figures are not exactly right; we can correct them later if they are a little out.
For a company such as Channel 4, which is a significant investor in production companies in the nations and regions, the consequence of the BBC's not spending money with companies in Scotland is that Channel 4 has difficulty doing business with Scottish companies because fewer of them exist. That creates a negative multiplier effect, as it were.
At the point when it would have been good for well-run Scottish companies to expand and acquire other companies, the reverse happened, and our two biggest production companies—the Comedy Unit and IWC Media—were acquired by big companies in the south. If things had lined up slightly differently, those two companies could have become big acquiring companies in other parts of the UK.
I am not sure that I have answered the question, but that is the mix of factors that have got us to where we are.
I do not think that there is one answer—you have identified a range of elements.
Despite what you have told us today about the rather disappointing eight-year timescale that the BBC has now imposed on its voluntary agreement, its response to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission and to the concerns that were flagged up at that time has been very positive. The BBC is the main player: you have identified the commercial pressures on others with regard to the independent network. Ofcom also touched on the difficulties of imposing quotas or increased targets—public service obligations—on companies that wanted fewer. Are you now in favour of moving towards mandatory targets or voluntary targets?
I will give my personal opinion, because the issue is quite an important part of the commission's findings, so I do not want to go too far down that road. The BBC has made what appear to be fairly binding commitments, and we can take comfort from that. I echo what you have said: the BBC—both the executive and the trust—has fully engaged with the work of the commission, and we welcome the commitments that have been made. The disappointment with the timetable should not obscure the fact that we have made significant progress.
Channel 4 remains a source of interest. We are currently talking with its representatives to work out exactly what commitment it is making to Scotland. It is a commitment that expands across not just the core Channel 4 service, but potentially—as Channel 4 views it—across its entire portfolio of channels and its online platforms. We are still in dialogue, and there is clearly willingness and commitment to do more in Scotland. I do not want to anticipate whether we will recommend that any kind of voluntary undertakings from Channel 4 are enough, or whether we require something more.
For the reasons that Ofcom announced earlier, it will be difficult to put on ITV a realistic production quota for Scotland. I am not suggesting that we have given up on the idea—we are examining it—but the reality is as has been described.
That is disappointing. Despite your feelings, strong concerns or signals—as you and Ofcom have identified—are coming from SMG and others. I still have doubts about whether we should impose one set of obligations, as it were, on the BBC, while not imposing them on others. In order to achieve critical mass, it is important that everybody plays their part.
Just to clarify the point, if ITV remains within the PSB environment, the question of targets for Scotland becomes an entirely legitimate discussion. The issue is whether ITV remains within the PSB environment. Outwith that environment, there is clearly no policy lever. However, if we can get the BBC and Channel 4 spending in Scotland at appropriate levels, one of the benefits—again, this is why it is so important—is that it will create the kind of commercially attractive companies that will get business not just from ITV, but from a host of other channels and possible customers, purely on commercial terms.
That is a welcome clarification, which echoes my own thinking, assuming that the channels bid for those licenses. I picked up on your earlier comment that we would not wish the BBC to be the only show in town. That would be a worrying scenario—it could become a lonely public service outpost, akin perhaps to the situation in America, which is not a model that I wish to follow. In that respect, Ofcom this morning outlined a range of potential ways forward to develop broadcasting and public service broadcasting in Britain, which included four different options. Are you or the commission going to express your view about those four options?
We would certainly respond to the models that Ofcom has outlined. I cannot remember whether Ofcom said this earlier, but those models are not necessarily fixed—they are not the only four possibilities. It would be possible to mix and match a bit between the options. They are out there to provoke the kind of debate and discussion that we are having today.
If we put that into the Scottish context, it is clear that, in the worst-case scenario that you mentioned earlier, we would have to consider an alternative form of PSB in Scotland, whether that was through the television fund that you spent some time discussing, or through a new Scottish channel. We heard the latter suggestion from a number of people.
I am happy to outline the range of options and give some thoughts on them. The option of a television fund has been tried in other countries. Canada is an obvious example, but it has been tried elsewhere. With the Gaelic television fund, we in Scotland have some experience of the operation of a production fund that was not tied to one broadcaster but could place programming on appropriate channels. The Gaelic Media Service, as it now is, has some experience of the benefits and disadvantages of that model.
We can also consider the Scottish digital channel environment as a way forward. As you began to discuss this morning, there is an option that could be fully publicly funded and an option that could be partly publicly funded and partly attract advertising revenue. I am not listing the options in any particular order, and this is not an exclusive list—they are just things that the committee can think about. A possible option is to invite Channel 4 to create a Channel 4 Scotland and to broadcast a service that is available only in this part of the country.
It would also be worth while to explore a fourth option. Given that the new Gaelic digital service, which we expect to be launched in the autumn, will occupy only seven hours a day at launch, it could take on an additional broader function of providing English language programming. We would have to reflect on the many issues that surround that, but it is worth saying that there are at least those four potential models for a digital channel.
The commission's "Interim Report on Cultural Phase" is fairly blunt in describing a lack of vision at SMG and even a "lack of seriousness" at Radio Scotland. Have funding issues or other factors led to those problems?
I stress the important point—which we made at the time—that we were reflecting what people told us. We had not taken a view on whether there was a huge problem of lack of ambition and vision in Scottish broadcasting, but that view was expressed fairly strongly to us.
Scotland is not short of newspaper columnists and other people who express views, but when we published the interim reports, to the best of my knowledge not a single columnist suggested that what we reported was off the mark. I did not receive any contact by e-mail, letter or anything else to suggest that. Other than from broadcasters, no contrary view has been expressed. It is clear that there is something in the view that there is a mismatch between what is delivered and what is desired. I will not go into that in too much detail, but it presents a challenge that broadcasters have to identify and address.
If you accept that, what do you suggest we do about it? If the public's concern that the networks lack ambition is not just a funding issue, what should we do about it?
Funding is at the heart of everything. We need to consider how things are funded and whether there is scope to do more. As I said, we should not look to the BBC alone as the answer, but there is scope for it to rethink what it does in Scotland. In our "Interim Report on Cultural Phase", we identify that the two channels on which the BBC does Scottish programming are BBC 1 and BBC 2. There are no opt-outs on BBC 3 or BBC 4. Scottish programming constitutes just under 5 per cent of the schedules of BBC 1 and BBC 2. It is reasonably valid to ask whether that is sufficient in modern Scotland. Our public attitudes survey identified a strong desire on the part of audiences in Scotland for more Scottish content, particularly in serious programmes, such as documentaries and history and heritage programmes. We want to link those concerns and opportunities to the wider debate about the future of PSB, digital channels and television funds, and to develop an imaginative approach to achieving a better overall broadcasting ecology in Scotland.
Is that a leadership issue, rather than just a question of finding funding and resources to make serious programmes, for example in Gaelic, or documentaries and outdoor pursuits series? Do we have to be more ambitious?
Yes, I think we do. We must start with leadership, vision and ambition. Collectively, we need greater expectation and ambition. That remark is in no way aimed at the BBC. We are talking about a much broader issue that is a challenge for all of us; it is not a political issue. There is no reason why we cannot aspire to a much richer and better mix of programming that uses all the new technology that is available and the creative strengths and talent that we undoubtedly have. I am absolutely sure that five years from now, we will be in a much better place.
I have a brief question about coverage of sporting events, which I suppose is quite timely, given that Euro 2008 is going on—albeit that the Scotland football team is not there. I guess that if we had qualified, we would want more coverage of our games. According to some reports, that is an issue on which a fairly sizeable majority of respondents commented. Can you say a bit more about the difficulty of reconciling the desire to get Scotland games on the screen with the cost implications of doing so?
Given that the issue came to public attention in quite a big way during the commission's lifespan with last autumn's football matches involving the Scotland team, we felt that it was right and proper to discover where public opinion lay and to reflect that in the report.
It is clear that public opinion is hugely in favour of Scotland's international football qualifying matches being shown on free-to-air television. I am sure that members noticed the interesting fact that even the half of the population who have absolutely no interest in watching such matches understand their cultural and national significance. From memory, I think that 70 per cent of the people who said that they would not watch such matches felt that it was important that they should be on free-to-air television. That is an extremely interesting and unusual finding.
Although we identified the unsurprising fact that people think that such major sporting events should be on free-to-air television, we have not taken the issue much further because it extends beyond our remit. When one considers the securing of major sporting events for free-to-air television, one quickly gets into the territory of compensatory mechanisms for the rights holders—the sporting organisations concerned—who it is clear would be significantly affected by any such policy decision. That goes beyond the remit that we have as a broadcasting commission. Important issues are at stake, which it is important to resolve, but it does not lie fully within our remit to do so.
I can inform the committee that it is my understanding that the DCMS intends to review the current list of protected events next year. There is a European dimension, as the committee is probably aware. I am sure that there will be a vigorous debate on the subject in Scotland. Parliament ought to exert influence on what the appropriate list of protected sporting events in Scotland should be. I am sure that the issue will not go away.
I will give you the opportunity to reply to a question that I put to the Ofcom witnesses, who helpfully suggested that I put it to you.
They did that more than once.
Why do you think plurality is more important to viewers in Scotland? Does the commission have a view on that?
I can offer only a personal and partly historic view. Stewart Purvis began to go into the matter. My view is that the three ITV licences in Scotland have historically been very popular with viewers. Border Television's and Grampian Television's early-evening news programmes had among the highest ratings of the ITV early-evening news programmes in the UK. "Scotland Today" on STV has also done very well historically. I think that because such a large part of the audience has historically got its news from broadcasters other than the BBC, people understand the benefits of competition. That is my main explanation, although I also think that there is a strong recognition in Scotland that people would not want the BBC, marvellous as it is, to be the only supplier of news.
Absolutely. Earlier, I asked why, if the BBC is so London-oriented, the same concern that exists in Scotland is not seen in other places. I am not sure whether such concerns are being recognised or whether there is concern elsewhere about London provision or about anything other than Scotland provision.
There are two issues. There is certainly a wish, which has come through quite strongly, to have competition in provision of Scottish news in Scotland. People also want competition at UK level. It is clear that there are issues in Scotland relating to how network news works with Scottish audiences. In that context, I recommend Professor King's substantial report, which the BBC trust published today and which repays close study. One interesting thing that it says is that the overly London-centric nature of network news is felt not only in Scotland, but is felt strongly in Wales, Northern Ireland and parts of England. The report throws up real editorial challenges for the BBC in particular—it focuses on the BBC—but also for other broadcasters.
I have studied Tony King's report only broadly. However, it is interesting that many of his findings seem to tie in with the evidence that I gave to the commission. Great minds think alike. That said, perhaps that is not surprising, as I also gave evidence to Tony King.
I want to ask about the "Scottish Six", which is a vexed question. The thought has been expressed elsewhere that the way to overcome the perceived London or urban bias—whatever one wants to call it—is to set up a separate programme at 6 o'clock in Scotland to look at the world through Scottish eyes. As you know, I do not favour that solution—I gave evidence to the commission on that. However, I note from your most recent findings that 53 per cent—I think—of those who had been in touch with the commission favoured the "Scottish Six" solution, which I have always referred to as a partially analogue solution as opposed to a solution for the digital age. How did you reach the figure of 53 per cent? Did the commission elicit that finding or did people simply write to the commission to give their views on the matter?
No. The process was much more robust than that. The figure was one of the findings from a survey that Taylor Nelson Sofres—formerly System 3—carried out. It surveyed more than 1,000 adults throughout Scotland. The net was deliberately cast very wide geographically and the sample was properly weighted, so the finding was valid.
On the reason for asking the question, it would have been somewhat disingenuous of a broadcasting commission that was consulting the public on a wide range of issues not to have asked about the issue that seems to have dominated much of the debate on Scottish broadcasting for the past 10 years. Finding out where public opinion was on the issue was useful. For that reason, we asked exactly the same question that the BBC asked five years ago. In response to the question that was asked then, a narrow majority of people preferred the status quo; we found that the majority had shifted. The issue remains divisive, and a large percentage of people do not favour a switch, as Ted Brocklebank said. However, we thought that it was important to try to reflect in our work where public opinion seems to be on the issue.
I know that members will not interpret the finding as suggesting that we will recommend the "Scottish Six" solution—there should not be such an interpretation—or that we asked the question because we favour such a solution. As you and I know, there are a number of complex questions, and indeed answers, around network news delivery. We need as constructive, honest and depoliticised a debate as possible about the editorial challenges of delivering news for audiences throughout the UK. Professor King's report, which was published today, is a useful introduction to the issues and will repay close study, because he goes into many of the editorial challenges that broadcasters face.
My submission to the commission stated that we should consider the possibility of a Scottish digital channel. You touched on that, and I was delighted to hear from Ofcom that there appear to be no legal barriers to the proposal. Have you taken any evidence on the possibility of city or regional television slotting into such a channel? We could start to recapture some of the former regionality of ITV by having, for example, Edinburgh TV, Glasgow TV, Aberdeen TV, Dundee TV and so on. Their news programmes would be slotted into the new channel and they would go back to the main network when they did not wish to show local programmes. Did you consider that solution?
That model is part of the range of possibilities. Ted Brocklebank is right: within the framework of a national digital channel, we could create opportunities for local programming using the transmitter network in Scotland. Like me, he has a history in the broadcasting industry and will know that almost everything to do with transmission turns out to be much more complicated than one thought. However, it seems to be technically feasible to have a network of local services.
There are issues of funding and prioritisation and, given that it will be a challenge to fund everything that we wish for in public service broadcasting, there will have to be prioritisation. The other interesting aspect of the suggestion is about how local we would go. Would we try to replicate what exists at present or go even more local? That is an interesting question.
Another point that I made to you previously is reproduced in Jeremy Hunt's report, which is the Conservative national report on what should happen with city TV and regional TV. The town of Bangor in New Hampshire in the United States has 40,000 people and three local television stations. Detroit, which is not dissimilar to Glasgow in size, has eight or nine local TV stations. If local TV can work in those places, why on Earth are we not pushing the idea more in this country?
I agree. It is interesting that relatively small populations in the States can maintain several local news stations, and can do so on a viable commercial basis. Television advertising works differently in America, but the differences are not so profound that it would be impossible to find a way of making local television work in the UK. Ted Brocklebank is right that we should, in conjunction with considering other digital options, consider local services throughout Scotland. Thank you for raising that.
I have a point of information in relation to a question that two members asked earlier about the fact that not everyone will get the same number of programme services on DTT. We raised that issue with Ofcom on Monday. A solution has been suggested by the Scottish Consumer Council and others. Because there will be a substantial benefit to Government from the auction of spectrum that will be associated with digital switchover, there is at least a debate to be had about whether some of the money that comes in should be used to upgrade the transmitters and ensure that everyone in the UK gets the full DTT service. Ofcom believes that that is somewhat outside its remit.
So far, the argument has tended to focus on the producer end of the supply chain. The view is that commercial operators should pay for the upgrade of the transmitters. However, from the consumer's point of view, equality of access to services is important. There is at least a discussion to be had about using some of the windfall money to ensure equal access.
As somebody who gets very poor reception at the edge of Glasgow, I am whole-heartedly behind you on that. I did not mention the "Scottish Six" earlier, but I am glad that it has been raised. As an argument or discussion it stands out as being slightly dated now—there are a set of presumptions about the way that we watch the news at 6 o'clock as a country, but we are beginning to move on from that. You have explained why you asked the question—it was because the BBC asked it a few years back.
If you are to do more work on this, will you explore other options? The most obvious option, if you go down that way of thinking, would be to explore with the BBC whether it could produce the national 6 o'clock news from Scotland. It would not be the "Scottish Six", but a UK 6 o'clock news based in Scotland. That would address all the production issues and give us a top-quality programme and access to the BBC's correspondents when we want, rather than being second to the rest of the UK's version, which is inbuilt in the "Scottish Six" idea.
That is an interesting idea that I have raised in the past, although not in my current role, that would be worthy of consideration. Tony King explores in the report that was published today the notion getting round London centricity by locating some BBC programmes outside the capital. I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth, but the idea initially met with a less than enthusiastic reception, if I can put it that way, from the BBC executive.
There is a proper debate to be had about all that. It would be in all our interests to have less heat and more light. A number of options could be considered. Wherever you are coming from, I am not sure that you would step into the debate right now with a proposal for an hour-long programme between 6 and 7 o'clock, although that was the model that was tested in the past. In terms of trying to judge public opinion, it was valid—it would possibly have been negligent not to do so—to find out public opinion on the same question that was asked in the past. That by no means indicates that a particular course of action is desirable or necessary, but that it needs to be weighed up along with other things.
Much of the debate inevitably focuses on the BBC, because an equivalent change in the ITV system, for instance, is very difficult to make for all sorts of legal and other reasons. It is simpler for the BBC to make that change if it so wishes. In those matters, the BBC trust is sovereign. The BBC, for all sorts of proper reasons, is set up to be independent of any form of external influence, whether it is Governments, broadcasting commissions or anyone else. It can listen, but in the end the BBC trust has the responsibility to fulfil the public purposes of the BBC. Although we can advise, it will be up to the BBC trust and the BBC to reach conclusions on such matters. The report that was published today seems to indicate that it is now taking them seriously. We have to await developments.
That concludes the committee's questions. Thank you very much for your attendance.
The meeting will be suspended briefly to allow Mr Jenkins to leave.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—