Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Education, Culture and Sport Committee,

Meeting date: Monday, May 15, 2000


Contents


Committee Business

There is a long list of items that I want to raise, but I shall try to accommodate contributions from all members who have something to say.

Lewis Macdonald:

I draw the committee's attention to the latest developments relating to the Scottish Media Group and Grampian Television. Members may be aware that a report published last week was highly critical of Scottish Media Group's stewardship of Grampian Television. That followed on from our discussions about the regional content of programming on Grampian and from the evidence that we took from SMG's management on 1 March.

The Independent Television Commission report said that there were indeed grounds for concern and criticism. It echoed many of the things that were said in this committee. It said that, over the past two years, there has been a substantial and unacceptable reduction in the regional content of programming on Grampian Television.

Scottish Media Group accepted the weight of much of the criticism and set out how it intends to address it. The overall picture is that SMG has received its final written warning about the stewardship of Grampian Television and has been given six months to put its house in order. The ITC has indicated that it will maintain a high profile in the north of Scotland and will expect Grampian Television and Scottish Media Group to fulfil the promises that they made to the ITC in the agreement that was reached last week.

When we last discussed this issue, we said that we would await the annual performance review before taking the matter any further. That review is due in a couple of weeks, but last week's report and the responses to it move the agenda on. Over the six-month period when it will be keeping a watching brief on Grampian Television, the ITC intends to commission a survey of viewers' responses from a representative sample of viewers in the Grampian Television area. That will be fed into its consideration, which will monitor the whole of Grampian's output rather than just a proportion of it, as is normally the case.

The role that this committee played in holding SMG to account for its stewardship of the regional content of programming has been valuable. It has assisted the work of Westminster parliamentarians and of the ITC acting on their mandate. We should consider what else we need to do as the story unfolds over the next few months.

Michael Russell:

One of the most positive things that came out of last week's events was the action of the ITC. There had been a great deal of speculation as to whether the ITC would be prepared to act in such circumstances, but it showed in no uncertain terms that it would.

I know that the ITC had discussed the matter privately with SMG some time before publishing the report. SMG was keen to implement as much as of that report as possible, even without the notification, but it accepted the notification without reservation when it was published.

This is an opportunity for SMG to make a fresh start in its stewardship of Grampian. The industrial dispute, which caused us a lot of concern when we questioned SMG representatives, has now been settled, so I hope that this will be the start of a new period of activity and that SMG can reap the benefits of what has been a difficult period. It has genuinely tried to invest in the companies, although the way in which it has done so and the actions of the management have not been as sympathetic as they might have been.

We should consider this matter over the next six months and resolve at some stage whether we want to revisit the issue of commercial licences in Scotland. However, it would be fair to give SMG the opportunity to work on some of the solutions, now that it has agreed what the problems are.

Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab):

I agree with Mike Russell and Lewis Macdonald. It might be worth writing to the ITC to thank it for responding positively. As Mike said, we should keep a watchful eye on developments and inform SMG, the National Union of Journalists and the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union of our requests. We need to keep up to date. I am pleased with our progress so far, but we must not lose touch.

The Convener:

At the previous meeting, we discussed returning to the issue and inviting back representatives. It would be a good idea to do as Mike suggests and leave the matter for six months; that will enable us to see what is happening before deciding whether we want to follow things up. Is that agreeable to members?

Members indicated agreement.

I echo Mike Russell's points about SMG's positive response to last week's report. That should be recognised.

That concludes our discussion on Grampian.

Mr Stone:

I wanted to talk about my report on rural schools. I was rather disconcerted to receive a telephone call from a journalist last week, saying that it is alleged in certain quarters that I am dragging my feet on the report in view of the so-called Argyll situation. I want to emphasise that my report is complete bar the evidence from Moray Council. Hitherto, there have been difficulties—perhaps that is too strong a word—that I am sure you can confirm we are in the process of resolving, convener. Once we have the Moray Council stuff, we can complete the report. I am anxious to get it finished. It has been dragging on and you know how frustrated I have been about the situation. Nine tenths of the report is ready.

If the committee is minded to send me to Argyll, it must take that decision. However, as far as I am concerned, there can be one final council visit, after which the matter must come first to this committee, rather than to the press or to anyone else. I want to go on the record as saying that, although it may be inadvertent, I object to being used as something of a political football while I am writing a report on behalf of the committee, whatever a council may be trying to do. I say that to clear the air and to get my view into the Official Report as hard copy so that people can be clear about where I am coming from.

I am conducting an investigation into the issues that affect rural councils and that can bring about rural school closures and my report is a report to this committee. I hope that you can confirm, convener, that I shall be meeting people from Moray Council. If that meeting has been cleared, I hope to present the report to the committee in a week to 10 days.

The Convener:

I can confirm that the clerks have received a letter agreeing that you should visit Moray Council. I hope that that visit can be arranged as quickly as possible and that you will be able to present your report to the committee shortly afterwards. We always recognised that, while you were reporting on rural school closures, the committee might want at some stage to take the issue further, based on your report.

Michael Russell:

I understand that the committee will receive a petition next week on the closure of a primary school in Argyll. Because I have had sight of the correspondence, I know that it will also raise more interesting issues on school capacity, which Ian Jenkins spoke about today, and on the use of information and statistics by local education authorities to pressure parents into making decisions. Without prejudging that petition, I am sure that the committee will want to treat it seriously, as it comes well founded and from good sources, and to determine how it integrates into Jamie Stone's report.

Our options are to ask Jamie to extend his report to include that petition or to hold a separate inquiry with the specific remit of investigating the petition. One way or another, the issue will not go away. While Jamie's report will, no doubt, inform our discussions, the issue is likely to become live again, given that that petition has been submitted.

I am entirely in the hands of the committee—I shall do whatever committee members deem best.

I am aware that that petition is coming; the Public Petitions Committee has already discussed it.

Yes, it has.

The Convener:

At this stage, I want Jamie to complete his report, which may well inform our discussion of the petition. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this is the last time that a local authority will have to consider the possibility of school closures. I had hoped that Jamie's report would be able inform us about the procedures that were being followed and how closely communities felt that they were involved. That would have given us some information in order to be able to consider the matter in a bit more detail at a later stage.

I am afraid that, if we yet again delay the report so that we can wait for the petition, we are likely to get something from someone else in the meantime and we will never reach a conclusion. I am not saying that we should ignore the petition when we receive it, but we should use the information that we will get from Jamie's report to deal with it. If additional information is needed, we will take that on board at that time. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Michael Russell:

I ask members to note further developments in the continuing saga of Scottish Opera. The Sunday papers yesterday contained some fairly incredible reports—which I understand to be substantially true and to which the BBC will make further contributions tonight—that it is now admitted that the merger will apply only to the boards of the companies and to nothing else. That story is germane to this committee's remit in a number of ways.

I will give no secrets away, but members will remember that, in private session, we agonised over whether we should support the merger. The key factor, which I think all members will accept, was that we believed that the situation had gone so far and so much money had been spent on it that it was foolish to go back on the merger. If we now discover that the merger is no longer happening, which appears to be true, and that the only merger will be between the boards of the companies, large questions arise on the amount of money spent on the merger, the philosophy behind it and Scottish Opera's means of operating. That is one of the key issues: we had hoped that, at the end of our inquiry, Scottish Opera would adopt an open and accountable means of management. However, if this story is true, the merger has been shelved without anyone, including the Scottish Arts Council and the Executive, being told. Quite simply, Scottish Opera has been found out—it seems that the company is acting in the bad old ways.

I suggest that, in the light of those reports, on which I will certainly lodge questions, we should revisit this issue in a week or two to see what the truth of the matter is. We might also want to ask individuals from Scottish Opera to come back to the committee for a supplementary discussion, to determine whether they have learned any lessons at all from what happened over the past year.

Cathy Peattie:

I was not surprised when I read the papers yesterday. Many of us were convinced that the merger would never work—that it was not working—and that people were just paying lip service to the idea. The news is not at all comforting and, despite the time that we spent on our inquiry, I am not satisfied that we have sufficient information to hand. If we have time, I would like to revisit our inquiry in order to consider what is happening now. We were told, "Okay—we've moved along. The merger's going to happen and that will make it so much easier." My sources in the trade unions indicated that the merger was not working, but that they wanted to give it a chance. As far as we can see, there has been no real merger of the companies.

The Convener:

As an initial move, I suggest that I write, as convener, to Duncan McGhie, the chairman of Scottish Opera, about the concerns that have been raised by the media. That would give him an opportunity to put the record straight and outline how he sees the situation. Following that, we may want to call witnesses, but I think that we should get his response first, so that we can determine the accuracy of the reports that we have read.

Michael Russell:

Duncan McGhie was unresponsive about workers' representatives on the board. That issue should also be raised with him, because months have gone by, yet nothing has happened. It would be nice to have information on Scottish Opera from someone else, too. We might ask the trade unions that gave evidence to us before to give us their view of what has happened in writing, so that we are not relying on a single source.

I support that.

Are we happy to do that? Fine.

Mr Monteith:

I suggest that, as well as seeking Duncan McGhie's opinion, we seek the views of Scottish Ballet and the Scottish Arts Council. We would want to hear the ballet's opinions for obvious reasons—it is the other party—but we want the SAC's views because part of our discussion was about the extent to which it was aware of what Scottish Opera was doing and what decisions it was taking. It would be interesting to find out the extent of its involvement in any aspect of the outcome, and to find out its view.

The Convener:

I am not unhappy about that. My original suggestion was based on the fact that Duncan McGhie was to be the chair of the joint Scottish Ballet-Scottish Opera board, and was representing both. I am more than happy to contact the Arts Council as well.

If there are no other remarks on that, I will turn to the special educational needs inquiry. I would like to confirm that we will be cancelling the meeting on 7 June in order to give us a week to try to fit in the visits for the inquiry. That will be arranged with Ian Cowan, the clerk. I ask members to make an effort to attend when they say they are going to. People get geared up to accept us and it is disappointing if we cannot make it. I know that members do not do that deliberately, but I ask them to bear that in mind.

On a point of information, convener, I presume that the stage 2 meetings that have not been used are also cancelled.

No, Mike. We gave out a list of additional meetings last week. We were going to start taking evidence on special educational needs.

I did not see that—I was not at one of the meetings.

We will cancel the meeting on 7 June and will draw up a fresh list—you will get a copy of it.

Thank you.

The Convener:

That will mean that we will not have all-day sittings, but we will probably have a meeting a week.

The Parliamentary Bureau has decided to continue with the monthly meetings in Glasgow and Stirling. We are looking for a suitable date to take this committee to either city. We will let members know about the date as soon as possible.

The bureau has decided to do what?

It has decided that committees should meet once a month either in Glasgow or Stirling.

Each committee—

Michael Russell:

No. A Monday afternoon slot in Glasgow and Stirling is now booked permanently. We are asking committees to make use of that slot if they can. We are encouraging committees to do so because the facilities are there—and it helps with the facilities here in Edinburgh.

The Convener:

We are seeking a date when we could take that up. It might be useful to take evidence outside Edinburgh.

Last Thursday, I attended on behalf of the committee a launch of a learning disabilities report at Murrayfield stadium. Although the detail of the report is excellent, it is lengthy, and not everybody will want to read it all the way through. A video has also been produced. It is no longer than 10 minutes and is valuable in allowing children and adults to put forward their needs and views. I suggest that, at some stage, we try to timetable that in. Although it is not strictly related to our special educational needs inquiry, there are some overlaps, and it would provide us with useful additional information for the inquiry. Would the committee be happy to see that video?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

Finally, I inform the committee that the Executive has now produced a response on the children's commissioner. Members will recall that we had asked the Executive for a memorandum. I hope to put that on the agenda for next week's meeting.

Do members wish to raise anything else?

I was wondering whether Mike Russell had any more news on the film inquiry.

A press statement has been issued and a letter has been drafted. I have to agree to the list of people to whom the letter is to be sent, and then everything is hunky-dory.

Thank you. As I indicated, we will take the next item in private.

Meeting continued in private until 15:39.