Official Report 398KB pdf
We continue taking evidence for our Gaelic broadcasting inquiry. We have six sets of witnesses this afternoon. I begin by thanking our interpreters, Joan MacLeod and Johan Graham, for helping us.
Tapadh leibhse, a neach-gairm agus tha sinn toilichte a bhith an seo. Taing dhuibhse mar chomataidh na Pàrlamaid airson a' chuiridh agus a' chothruim a thug sibh dhuinn tighinn a bhruidhinn air an fheasgar a tha seo. Tha sinn uabhasach fhèin toilichte gu bheil a' chomataidh a' toirt sùil air suidheachadh craoladh Gàidhlig agus tha sinn an dòchas gun soirbhich gu math leibh leis an sgrùdadh agaibh.
We are delighted to be here and we thank the committee for the invitation and the opportunity to be here today. We are happy that the committee is examining Gaelic broadcasting, and we hope that the committee succeeds in its research.
Thank you very much. I shall kick off the questioning. When we were in Stornoway last week, one of the big issues that arose was the location of any future Gaelic channel. Where do you think would be the most appropriate location for a Gaelic channel?
Tha sinne ag ràdh anns an tagradh a chuir sinn a-staigh gu bheil sinn a' faicinn gu bheil buannachd ann ann a bhith a' togail air na goireasan a th' againn mar-thà, goireasan a th' againn ann an Steòrnabhagh, goireasan a th' anns an Eilean Sgitheanach a thaobh trèanaidh. Chan eil sinn idir a' faicinn gum bu chòir seirbheis craolaidh Gàidhlig ann an telebhisean a bhith stèidhichte dìreach ann an aon àite. Tha sinn a' faicinn an t-suidheachaidh mar gum biodh cridhe an leasachaidh a bhith ann an aon àite, mar eisimpleir, stèidhichte anns na studios a th' againn an-dràsta ann an Steòrnabhagh agus an uair sin gum biodh spògan a' tighinn a-mach às an sin agus a' dol gun Eilean Sgitheanach agus gu na h-eileanan eile far a bheil coimhearsnachdan Gàidhlig agus coimhearsnachdan Gàidhlig air tìr-mòr agus gun teagamh cuideachd ann an ceann a deas Alba ann an Glaschu agus ann an Dùn Èideann. Chan e rud a th' ann a tha sinne a' faicinn a tha dìreach stèidhichte ann an aon àite idir ach tha sinn a' faicinn gu bheil buannachd ann gum bu chòir cridhe na seirbheis a bhith gu math faisg air coimhearsnachd na Gàidhlig far a bheil a' Ghàidhlig beò agus i ga bruidhinn gach latha.
In the paper that we submitted to the committee, we acknowledge the benefits of capitalising on the resources for training that we currently have in Stornoway and on Skye. We do not think that a television broadcasting service should be set up in only one place. The heart of the development should be in one place—perhaps in the studios in Stornoway—but there should be other developments on Skye and in other Gaelic communities in the islands and on the mainland and also in southern Scotland in Glasgow and Edinburgh. The service should not be based only in one place, but we acknowledge the benefit of having its heart in the Gaelic heartland, where the language is spoken every day.
Good afternoon. I am sorry that I did not make it to the meeting of the committee in Stornoway. You suggest that it is probably best to have a base in Stornoway, but to work in the other islands as well and to have outreach centres in the rest of Scotland. What would be the advantages of that for young people who want to get involved in Gaelic broadcasting?
Tha sinne a' faicinn gu bheil ùidh aig ar n-òigridh ann a bhith a' faighinn trèanaidh airson gnìomhachais telebhisein agus tha sinn fortanach gu bheil cùrsaichean, a tha gu math soirbheachail, aig Sabhal Mòr Ostaig anns an Eilean Sgitheanach. Tha an òigridh às na h-eileanan agus à àiteachan eile air feadh Alba a' frithealadh nan cùrsaichean sin anns an Eilean Sgitheanach. Tha e na bhuannachd dhaibh, an dèidh dhaibh na cùrsaichean sin a chrìochnachadh—an fheadhainn a tha airson fuireach anns na h-eileanan, anns na coimhearsnachdan aca fhèin—tha e na bhuannachd dhaibh gu bheil cothroman aca a dhol air ais agus obair fhaighinn anns na studios a tha againn an-dràsta. Chan ann a-mhàin ann an Steòrnabhagh tha studiothan; tha studio anns an Eilean Sgitheanach cuideachd, far a bheil leasachaidhean craolaidh a' dol air adhart.
We can see our young people being trained in the television industry and we are fortunate in having successful courses at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig on Skye. Young people from the islands and throughout Scotland attend those courses. When they have completed the courses, those who want to live in their own communities in the islands are able to do so, because opportunities exist to attract them to jobs in the studios that we have just now. We have studios not only in Stornoway, but on Skye, where broadcasting developments are taking place.
Do you have statistics to back up the claim that young people are taking that opportunity? If they are taking the opportunity, how many are doing so? If they are not, how can you encourage young people to take up professions in broadcasting?
Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil dearbhadh ann air sgàth 's gu bheil na cùrsaichean a tha iad a' ruith aig Sabhal Mòr Ostaig an-còmhnaidh gan lìonadh. Chan eil beàrn sam bith ann aig àm sam bith agus. Mar eisimpleir, aig an ìre seo, tha faisg air 80 duine air a dhol tron a' chùrsa làn-thìde—79 daoine—agus tha a' chuid-mhòr dhiubh sin air cothroman cosnaidh fhaighinn ann an gnìomhachas craolaidh. A bharrachd air an sin, tha cùrsaichean goirid air a bhith air an cur air chois cuideachd. Tha faisg air 180 duine air a dhol tro na cùrsaichean sin. Mar sin, tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil an dearbhadh ann. Tha na cùrsaichean ann airson feumalachdan na h-òigridh—an fheadhainn a tha airson an dòigh-beatha a dhèanamh sa ghnìomhachas—tha sin ann.
Many statistics back up what I have said. The broadcasting courses at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig have always been filled to capacity—there are never any free spaces. At the moment, about 80 people—79 to be exact—have gone through the full-time courses. Most have taken employment opportunities in the broadcasting industry. In addition, there are short-term courses that have been attended by about 180 people. There is conclusive proof that the courses are successful and that they meet the demands and needs of the young people who want to be involved in the industry.
Before I start, I repeat the declaration of interest that I made at our previous meeting, details of which have been given to the clerks. It might be useful to record that this is the third time that the committee has taken evidence in Gaelic; I hope that other committees are watching our example.
Tapadh leibh, tha mi a' smaoineachadh gun iarr mi air Raibeart Barrach a tha na neach-cathrach air buidheann-obrach inbhe thèarainte freagairt a thoirt dha na ceistean sin.
I will ask Raibeart Barrach, the chairperson of the working group on secure status, to answer those questions.
Tapadh leibh uile airson a' chuiridh thighinn ann an-diugh. Tha mi a' smaointinn gu bheil craoladh cudthromach, ach chan ann leis fhèin, oir feumaidh sinn cuimhneachadh gu bheil obraichean eile a dhìth. Ma tha sinn gu bhith a' bruidhinn air ath-leasachadh a' chànain, feumaidh sinn a bhith a' coimhead air raointean eile—mar eisimpleir, foghlam, an roinn phrìobhaidich, seirbheisean poblach agus mar sin air adhart. Agus ma tha sinn gu bhith a' togail craoladh, feumaidh sinn a bhith a' cuimhneachadh gu bheil feumalachdan eile ann agus tha a h-uile sian a' dol le chèile. Sin an rud as cudthromaiche. Feumaidh sinn a ràdh agus aideachadh nach dèan e feum a bhith a' gluasad air adhart ann an aon raon gun a bhith a' gluasad air adhart ann an raointean eile.
I thank you all for the opportunity to be here today. Broadcasting is important, but it should not be considered in isolation. Other jobs are necessary and, if we want to develop the Gaelic language, we must consider other areas such as education, the private sector, public services and so on. We should not focus only on broadcasting; we must remember that other needs must be met. Everything works together and we must acknowledge that interdependency. There is no point in developing and advancing in one area without doing the same in others.
Do you mean no legal status?
Chanainn-s' gu bheil sin bunaiteach. Ann an dùthaich sam bith air feadh na Roinn Eòrpa far a bheil Riaghaltasan a' gabhail cùraim agus a' toirt taic do mhion-chànanan ann an dòigh a tha ciallach agus bunaiteach, 's ann stèidhichte air lagh a tha sin. Tha sin fìor ann an dùthaich nam Bascach, ann an Catalonia, anns a' Chuimrigh, mar a tha fios againn, agus caochladh àiteachan eile. Mar sin, tha laghan bunaiteach gun teagamh sam bith agus tha sin cho fìor mu chraoladh 's a tha e mu fhoghlam agus rud sam bith eile a tha a' buntainn ris a' Ghàidhlig.
Yes—that is fundamental. Other countries in the European Union all support minority languages. They have realised that that is fundamentally important to minority cultures. As we know, that is true in the Basque country, in Catalonia, in Wales and in other places. Laws are fundamental—for broadcasting, education and anything else to do with Gaelic.
You talked about—forgive me if the words are not quite exact—building a good broadcasting service. What must still be done to build a good broadcasting service? Some of the present arrangements have worked, but in what ways do they fall short?
Tha mi a' smaoineachadh, mas urrainn dhuinn, feumaidh seirbheis choilionta a bhith ann. Cha bhi seirbheis choilionta ann gus am bi fios aig daoine càit agus cuin a gheibh iad na prògraman. Chan e seirbheis choilionta a th' againn an-dràsta ma dh'fheumas tu sùil a thoirt gach latha anns na pàipearan agus faicinn cuin a tha prògraman a' dol a-mach. Bhiodh e na b' fheàrr nam biodh prògraman a' dol a-mach aig amannan far a bheil trì uairean a thìde no ceithir uairean a thìde sa latha a' dol a-mach agus fhios aig daoine càite am faic iad sin. Sin tha mi a' smaoineachadh an rud a tha sinn a' ciallachadh le seirbheis choilionta. 'S e an rud a tha a dhìth air an t-seirbheis a th' againn an-dràsta nach eil prògraman a' dol a-mach aig amannan a tha freagarrach do dhaoine. Chan eil mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil e uabhasach freagarrach prògraman Gàidhlig a bhith a' dol a-mach aig leth-uair an dèidh aon uair deug air an oidhche suas gu leth-uair sa mhadainn mar a tha a' tachairt.
If we can, we must achieve a good, comprehensive service. We will not achieve that unless people know where and when they will get programmes. At the moment, we do not have a comprehensive service—people must look in the papers every day to find out when programmes will be broadcast. It would be much better if three or four hours of programmes could be broadcast each day, because people would then know when they could watch programmes. That is what we mean when we talk about a comprehensive service. It is not appropriate to broadcast programmes between half-past 11 at night and half-past 1 in the morning, as happens now.
I will come back to a question that I asked in Stornoway. The Milne report proposed a dedicated Gaelic channel, which would cost £44 million a year. Is that realistic and is that the way in which £44 million could best be spent? You spoke about Gaelic-medium education. If money is to be invested in Gaeldom and in the promotion of Gaelic, is a dedicated television channel the best way to do that?
Tha mi a' smaoineachadh, mar a chaidh ainmeachadh roimhe seo, nach eil ann an craoladh ach aon rud de dh'iomadach rud eile a tha feumail agus a dh'fheumar a bhrosnachadh airson an cànan a chumail beò. Tha foghlam tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig ann agus tha na h-ealainean ann agus leasachaidhean coimhearsnachd an sin, agus chan eil teagamh sam bith nach canadh daoine gu bheil dòighean eile ann air am bu chòir an t-airgead a chosg. Tha feum aig foghlam air airgead cuideachd, ach chan eil sinne a' faicinn gum bu chòir co-fharpais a bhith eadar an t-airgead a thathar a' comharrachadh airson craoladh agus foghlam. Tha sinn feumach air airgead airson an dà sheirbheis a choilionadh agus, ma tha sinn mar rìoghachd a' smaoineachadh gu bheil an cànan agus an cultar mar phàirt phrìseil de dhualchas Alba, chan eil mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil an t-airgead cho mòr ri sin. Chan ann a-mhàin leis na Gaidheil no le luchd na Gàidhlig a tha an cànan; tha i le Alba air fad.
As has been mentioned, broadcasting is only one aspect of the multifaceted arena that must be developed and encouraged in order to keep the language alive. There is Gaelic-medium education, and there are the arts and community development. There is no doubt that people say that there are other ways to spend the money and that education also needs money. There should not be competition for money between broadcasting and education; we need money for both services. If we, as a country, think that language and culture are integral and important parts of Scottish heritage, £44 million is not a large sum of money. Gaelic does not belong only to the Gaels or Gaelic people; it belongs to everybody in Scotland.
Tha mi a' dol leis na thuirt Dòmhnall Màrtainn gun teagamh. Tha sinn buailteach a bhith a' coimhead air a' Ghàidhlig mar chuspair leis fhèin agus tha mi a' smaointinn gu bheil sin cunnartach. Feumaidh sinn a bhith ag amas air suidheachadh slàn a bhith ann, anns a h-uile raon fa leth, an àite a bhith a' goid bho chraoladh gus togail a thoirt air foghlam. Feumaidh sinn a bhith a' smaointinn air gu dè tha riatanach agus gu dè tha deatamach airson gach raon agus gach rud. Cuideachd, tha mi a' smaointinn gu bheil sporanan eadar-dhealaichte ann—rud a tha Milne a' moladh. 'S e cnap-airgid fa leth a bhith ann a gheibhear bho àite eile 's mar sin, tha mi a' smaointinn, an-dràsta gu bheil Riaghaltas na h-Alba a' pàigheadh an airgid a tha an CCG a' faighinn agus tha mi a' smaointinn gu bheil e a' bruidhinn air rudeigin fa leth nach bualadh air gu dè tha a' tachairt taobh a-staigh Alba agus taobh a-staigh Riaghaltas na h-Alba anns an aon dòigh, 's mar sin feumaidh sinn cuimhneachadh seo. Tha e cudthromach a bhith a' coimhead air gu dè tha dhìth anns a h-uile raon fa leth agus a' dèanamh na tha iomchaidh agus deatamach.
I agree. Gaels might be inclined to consider Gaelic as something that belongs only to us, but that would be dangerous. We must consider the larger picture, rather than take money from broadcasting to develop education. We must consider what is essential for each sector, but we are talking about different budgets. The Milne report mentions money that we could get from other purses. The Scottish Executive is currently paying money to the CCG, but the Milne report talks about something different, which will affect what will happen in Scotland. It is important that we consider what is necessary in each sector and that we act in accordance with that.
The witnesses should not assume anything about my opinions just because I asked that question, which I asked in order to air a point rather than to criticise the suggestion. Others will ask that question. I recognise that the pots of money are not the same pots, but that question is in the air, so it should be asked.
One of the questions that was raised consistently last week was why—if money is available and whether it comes from broadcasting at a UK level or wherever—is it best to centralise most of that spend in Stornoway?
Tha sinne dhen bheachd gu bheil feum ann togail air na goireasan a th' againn an-dràsta. Tha goireasan ann an Steòrnabhagh agus tha iad air a bhith ann bho chionn ceithir no còig bliadhnaichean a-niste agus aonan dhiubh cus nas fhaide. Chan e a-mhàin gu bheil na goireasan ann ach 's ann an sin cuideachd a tha luchd na Gàidhlig, no a' chuid mhòr aca co-dhiù. Far a bheil an òigridh ag èirigh an-àird, tha iad a' dol tro sgoiltean tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig agus tha iad an uair sin—an fheadhainn a tha airson leantainn ann an gnìomhachas craolaidh—a' dol air cùrsaichean trèanaidh taobh a-staigh nan eilean, anns an Eilean Sgitheanach, mar eisimpleir. Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil e cudthromach gum bu chòir dhaibh an cothrom fhaighinn fuireach anns na coimhearsnachdan aca fhèin far am biodh cothroman aca obair fhaighinn anns a' ghnìomhachas.
We must build on the resources that we currently have. There are resources in Stornoway, which have been there for four or five years. One resource has been there for a lot longer. Not only are the resources and structures there, but many Gaelic speakers live there and young people go through Gaelic-medium education there. Those who want to carry on in the broadcasting industry go on training courses within the islands; on Skye, for instance. It is important that people should have the opportunity to live in their own communities and to work in the broadcasting industry.
Thank you for your evidence and your time. We will come back to you if we want to raise any other issues.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I reconvene the committee. I welcome the witnesses from the BBC, who are going to give evidence. I ask Mark Leishman to introduce his colleagues and to make some introductory comments. We have received your written evidence.
Thank you for inviting us to the committee. My colleagues are Donalda Mackinnon and Ken McQuarrie. They will pick up the discussion shortly.
Tapadh leat, Mark Leishman. Feasgar math. Tha e math a bhith an seo.
Good afternoon. It is good to be here. Mark Leishman mentioned the commitment of the BBC over many years. I contend that the success of Gaelic broadcasting has been based on much of the service that the BBC had established and continues to establish. The BBC's role in pioneering, collaborating on and executing many of the broadcast-related developments of recent and less recent years cannot be underestimated, particularly in the areas of education, youth, news and current affairs, comedy, arts and training, to mention but a few.
We are moving into the third age of Gaelic broadcasting. As Mark Leishman said, the first age was when the BBC was almost exclusively responsible for the provision of Gaelic broadcasting. The second was the partnership with the CCG and other bodies, which largely centred on the delivery of television programming. The third age will provide the opportunity of connecting with the audience in more ways that are available now.
The committee will appreciate your analysis—which was one of the more profound analyses that we have heard—and Donalda Mackinnon's passion for the ticking clock in particular. The fact that time is short for getting this right also came out in evidence last week.
Tha e air leth cudthromach gum bi ro-innleachd againn airson seirbheis ùr craolaidh. A dh'aindeoin 's dè a tha an eachdraidh ag innse dhuinn—agus tha an eachdraidh ag innse tòrr dhuinn—tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil e neo-chruthachail a bhith a' coimhead ro dhlùth air an eachdraidh ach tha còir againn coimhead air adhart agus ionnsachadh. Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil e riatanach gum bi ro-innleachd againn a dhealbhas seirbheis a bu chòir, nam bheachd-sa, a bhith iomadh-meadhanach agus aig a bheil an luchd-èisteachd agus an luchd-amharc aig cridhe gnothaich. Dh'ainmich mi sin anns an rud a thuirt mi na bu thràithe. Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gur e rud a th' ann cuideachd air am faod iomadach neach, a tha an-dràsta an sàs ann an craobh-sgaoileadh, cur ris. Tha e cudthromach gum faigh a h-uile duine cothrom an guth fhèin a thogail agus na beachdan aca a chur air beulaibh dhaoine gus ro-innleachd ceart a chruthachadh. Nì sin cinnteach gum bi an t-seirbheis seo freagarrach ann an saoghal far a bheil roghainn ann an seirbheisean craobh-sgaolaidh a' fàs cha mhòr le gach latha. Tha e tur riatanach gum bi an t-seirbheis againne cho math ri, no nas fheàrr na, iomadach seirbheis eile, agus tha seo gu math fìor a thaobh òigridh ar dùthcha a tha às gach ceàrnaidh dhen dùthaich seo.
It is important that we have a strategy for a new Gaelic broadcasting service. While history tells us a lot, it is not beneficial to examine history in minute detail; rather, we should look ahead and learn. A strategy that can create a multimedia service that puts viewers at the centre of discussions is essential. Many who are involved in broadcasting can add to that. It is important that everyone has the chance to air their view, so that we have a proper strategy. That would reassure us that the service would be comprehensive and ensure that the service that we offered was as good, if not better, than many other services. That is true especially for the youth all over our country.
Unless we approach the future strategically, we will be unable to maximise the opportunities that we have. I referred to quality content, which does not happen accidentally. It depends on the quality of ideas, talent, investment in training and an analysis that considers how to exploit the rights available to maximum effect for all audiences. For that reason, and unless we approach Gaelic broadcasting with a firm strategy, the opportunity will not be maximised.
You may exploit the rights, but not necessarily the programme makers, because there has been a dispute about rights.
Page 2 of your submission says:
Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gur e aonan de na rudan a tha ceàrr na h-uireasbhaidhean air an t-siostam mar a tha e againn aig an ìre seo. Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil cuid de bhuidhnean—sinn fhèin nam measg, tha mi a' creidsinn, neo co-dhiù 's dòcha gun cuir daoine às ar leth gu bheil—ag obair ann an dìomhaireachd gu ìre air choreigin. Chan eil e air a bhith furasta tighinn còmhla a dheasbad dè na seòrsaichean prògraman a tha còir a dhol a-mach air gach seirbheis. Ri linn sin, agus air sgàth 's gu bheil—
Our system is lacking in that many organisations—ours possibly among them, or accused of being among them—work in secret. It has not been easy to come together and debate the programmes that should be broadcast on every service. Because of that—
With whom has it not been easy to come together? Are you speaking about your organisation and the CCG, or are you talking about a wider group? Progress needs to be made in that relationship.
Tha mi a' bruidhinn air craoladairean eile cuideachd agus luchd-dèanamh nam prògraman.
I am talking about other broadcasters and programme makers too.
It has not been easy for you as a programme-making organisation to define clearly the strategy that is being applied by the CCG when you debate the programmes that you would like to make and that the audience might want. Is that what you are saying? I am sorry; I am not trying to be difficult, but we must be clear about what you are saying.
Tha ro-innleachd againne taobh a-staigh a' BhBC airson na seirbheis againn fhèin thar nan trì meadhanan. Tha sinn a' feuchainn, gu ìre, co-obrachadh leis an CCG a thaobh an ro-innleachd sin a choilionadh. Chan eil e furasta dhuinne. Chan eil fios againn, mar eisimpleir, dè na prògraman a tha a' dol a-mach air sianalan eile. Leis an sin, tha mi a' smaoineachadh gum biodh e air a bhith feumail nam biodh buidheann air a bhith ann a bha a' coinneachadh gu cunbhalach, a bhruidhinn air an t-seòrsa prògraman a bha còir againn a bhith a' dèanamh, ri linn 's nach eil, agus nach robh, na goireasan a thaobh maoin is airgead pailt.
The BBC has a strategy for its multimedia service, but we are trying to co-operate with the CCG on implementing the strategy. That is not easy. For example, we do not know what programmes will be broadcast on other channels. It would have been useful if an organisation had met regularly to talk about programming and the programmes that we should make, because we do not have sufficient financial resources.
It is ironic that that situation existed before the CCG was created. Programme makers had that debate, and the Gaelic service was more unified. You say that a unified service no longer exists. A diverse service now exists in which independent contractors negotiate independently without any idea of a clear strategy.
Gu ìre, tha sin fìor.
That is true to an extent.
Donalda Mackinnon spoke about building on an audience focus. How do you do that? How do you measure how the delivery of the service impacts on young children and young people?
Tha na h-uibhir de rannsachadh air a dhèanamh chun na h-ìre seo le buidhnean mar Lèirsinn, rannsachadh a tha sinne, air a chur air dòigh leotha. Tha e follaiseach dhuinn gu bheil na prògraman a tha sinn a' cruthachadh, anns an fharsaingeachd, a' còrdadh ri cloinn agus ri daoine òga. Mar eisimpleir, tha sinn a' dèanamh nam prògraman foghlaim a tha a' dol a-mach ann an Alba. Tha sinn ann an co-luadar leis na sgoiltean a tha a' gabhail nam prògraman sin, agus tha e follaiseach dhuinn gu bheil fèill mhòr ga chur air na prògraman sin. Bu mhath leam a ràdh gur ann le co-mhaoin an CCG a tha sinn a' dèanamh nam prògraman foghlaim telebhisein san fharsaingeachd.
We conduct some research. Groups such as Lèirsinn, which is based in Skye, research programmes that we have set up with them. In general, kids like the programmes that we produce. For example, those of us who are involved in education programmes in Scotland are much involved. We are in discussion with schools that receive those programmes. Those schools appreciate those programmes and the children thoroughly enjoy them. Generally, CCG funding allows us to produce those educational programmes.
It appears from your submission that you play a key role in Gaelic education. Do you agree?
Tha e bunaiteach a thaobh cor a' chànain san fharsaingeachd. Tha e tur riatanach gum bi craobh-sgaoileadh, ann an co-bhonn ri sgoiltean agus ionadan foghlaim eile, gum bi sinn a' feuchainn ri—a-rithist a' dol air ais chun an fhacail seo—ro-innleachd a dhealbh a tha a' seirbheiseadh feumalachdan na cloinne agus duine sam bith a tha airson Gàidhlig ionnsachadh.
Education is fundamental to language development. It is essential for broadcasting to work with schools and other educational establishments. I return to the word "strategy". We must prepare a strategy so that we serve the needs of children and anyone who wants to learn the language.
I will also return to the idea of strategy. As I am from central Scotland, it seems important to me that people work together. What are the barriers to that?
Tha mi a' smaoineachadh, gu ìre, gu bheil sinn ag obair còmhla. 'S dòcha nach eil sinn ag obair còmhla cho math 's a tha còir againn a bhith a' dèanamh agus tha amharas agam gum b' urrainnear piseach a thoirt air an t-suidheachadh sin. Tha sibh air a ràdh gur ann à meadhan na h-Alba a tha sibh. Tha e cudthromach a ràdh gur ann leis an dùthaich seo air fad a tha an cànan seo agus tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil còir aig a h-uile bhuidheann a th' ann, deas is tuath, a bhith a' dèanamh barrachd còmhla, 's math dh'fhaoidte na tha sinn an-dràsta. Chan eil mi ag ràdh gu bheil sinne neo-chiontach nas motha. Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil barrachd ri dhèanamh.
We are working together, but perhaps not to the extent that we would like. We could work on that and improve the situation. You said that you are from central Scotland. It is important that the whole country has access to the language and that it belongs to them. We should all work together for the language. We are not innocent in preserving the language either.
How do all the organisations work together and make progress? I do not feel that people have the same vision. They know what they want to do, but the ways in which they achieve their aims are different.
Tha mi a' smaoineachadh, aon uair 's gu bheil seirbheis choilionta ann an suidheachadh craobh-sgaoilidh, tha mi a' smaoineachadh ann an raointean eile gum feum iad dèiligeadh leotha fhèin ann an seagh leis na feumalachdan aca fhèin. Ann an seagh craobh-sgaoilidh, tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil e comasach dhuinn—mas e 's gu bheil sinn ag amas air aon sheirbheis an àite 's dòcha trì no ceithir diofar sheirbheisean—saoilidh mi gu bheil e nas fhasa, gu bheil cothrom ann a-niste seo fhaighinn ceart agus barrachd co-obrachaidh a bhith eadarainn. Chan eil sin ri ràdh nach robh sinn a' co-obrachadh idir idir. Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu robh, ach 's dòcha gum faodar barrachd co-obrachaidh a bhith ann.
Other areas must deal with their own needs. If we aim to have one comprehensive broadcasting service instead of three or four services, it will be much easier to co-operate. We have opportunities to get that right, which means more co-operation. That is not to say that we were not co-operating, but we can build on the position and maximise it.
You mention in your paper that various organisations have commissioned quite a lot of research. Helpfully, you say that more effective use could be made of the research in which various people have participated. How can that be done? Do we need an organisation, or does the present culture need to be changed to allow that information sharing to take place?
'S dòcha gu bheil feum air an dualchas agus air a' chultar atharrachadh gu ìre ach, a-rithist, tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil e nar comas fhèin, mas e 's gu bheil dòigh gu bhith ann air barrachd còmhraidh a bhith ann a thaobh phrògraman agus ro-innleachdan phrògraman, 's ann taobh a-staigh sin, an lùib sin, a thachradh e. Bhiodh e riatanach, bhiodh e deatamach an uair sin, bruidhinn air rannsachadh luchd-èisteachd agus luchd-amhairc.
Perhaps we need to change the heritage and culture to an extent, but we can do something about that. If there is a way of having more discussion about programme strategies and programmes, it will be essential to consider researching the needs of the viewers in that arena.
What is your view on the funding arrangements—the way in which money would be drawn together—that the Milne report proposes? If the channel that you describe went ahead, what would be the position of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee?
You ask about the funding arrangements that the Milne report proposes. Given what the Milne report suggested as an ambition for the service, the report sets a realistic figure against the funding required. It is for bodies such as this committee to comment on whether the mechanism that was set out in the Milne report is attainable. The Gaelic Broadcasting Committee is a sub-committee of the Broadcasting Council for Scotland. We envisage the committee having an increased role under our systems of accountability.
Can you clarify what committee you are referring to? Do you mean the CCG or the Gaelic advisory committee?
I am asking about the CCG. It complains about not being able to commission programmes and so on. How would it fit in with your plans for a multimedia channel? What part would the BBC play in that? What relationships would emerge if that came to pass?
We need a new structure for this third age of broadcasting. The CCG has served the second age well, but if we are to maximise our opportunities in future we need a new structure. In this multimedia world there will be a consolidation. That consolidation will involve a split between commercial providers, which will be driven purely by commercial motives and will create walled gardens of content that operate on an entirely commercial basis, and public service providers. If the Gaelic service is to flourish, the BBC, with its critical mass, will need to be a key player.
What representations has the BBC made to Westminster about the provisions that need to be made in the legislation that is about to be considered there? We do not want something that happens at Westminster to make it difficult for the channel that you envisage to come into existence.
These are early days. We are waiting to see what progress the communications bill makes. In the white paper there is a reference to the Milne report. It is not for the BBC to advise or to take a view on the system of accountability or on the legislation that may eventually emerge. We are having talks in our own areas about the impact that such legislation may have, but at this stage it is difficult for us to take a view on it.
I find the idea of a television programme called "The Blue Planet" highly appealing.
That is because you are on another planet.
I want to pick up on the question that Ian Jenkins asked about the £44 million suggested by the Milne report and on your response to it. In your paper you state:
“If a dedicated digital Gaelic channel emerges, it will be essential that:
The figures that Milne suggests are benchmarked against those of other, similar broadcasters. If the ambition of the service is to be multi-genre and to cater for the range of audiences that we have talked about today, I do not think that it could be provided for much less than £44 million.
Page 2 of your paper, under the section headed "Challenges", includes an interesting teaser paragraph. It states:
On page 4 of the submission you say:
Tha e a' tighinn air ais dhan fhacal a bha sinn a' cleachdadh nas tràithe: ro-innleachd. Ma mholas a' chomataidh seo gum bi ro-innleachd ceart ann a thaobh craobh-sgaoilidh na Gàidhlig anns na bliadhnaichean a tha ri teachd, tha mi a' smaoineachadh gun leasaich sin tòrr de na puingean a thog sinn. 'S e ro-innleachd a tha a' gabhail a-steach gach buidheann a tha an sàs ann an craobh-sgaoileadh agus a tha cunbhalach gu ìre a' coimhead air seirbheis a tha gu bhith tur freagarrach ann an ceann trì, ceithir no còig bliadhnaichean às an seo. Tha e cudthromach gun smaoinich sinn air sin. Tha an gnìomhachas seo ag atharrachadh bho latha gu latha 's mathaid nas luaithe na cus de gnìomhachasan eile. Ri linn sin, tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil e deatamach a-niste gun coimhead sinn air an seo agus dà-rìreabh gun dèan sinn cinnteach gum bi seo soirbheachail dha na daoine a tha ga h-iarraidh aig a' cheann thall.
This comes back to the word that we used earlier: strategy. If this committee recommends that we should have a proper strategy for Gaelic broadcasting in the future, that will be a positive development. It would build on many of the points that have already been made. The strategy should include every organisation that is involved in broadcasting and should constantly have in view a service that will be suitable and appropriate in three or four years' time. It is very important that we reflect on that. This industry is changing faster than other industries. Because of that, it is important that we ensure that the service we offer is successful and meets the demands of those who want it. Does that answer your question?
Not really. Earlier, Ken McQuarrie stated that the bulk of the spend should go on the airwaves. Can you tell me, naive city boy that I am, what else the money could be spent on?
The money should be spent on programming rather than on duplicating the infrastructure that already exists. We should use our extant resources—in the widest sense. Instead of creating things anew, we should use what we have to get the maximum revenue into the content of programming. It is important that the economic benefits of investment in digital Gaelic programming should be dispersed across Scotland. The real economic benefit will come if Gaelic programming is successful and of high quality. It will come in train of that, rather than in parallel.
Are you saying that if there is to be a channel, it should not be located in the Western Isles? Should it be located in Glasgow or Edinburgh? You have a vested interest in one or two of the options, as others have in other options.
We live in an age in which it is easy to disperse the provision of content for all the platforms that we have discussed. I am not in favour of centralising content provision in one place. It is as difficult to get to Stornoway from Islay as it is to get to Glasgow from Islay. There are difficulties in choosing one location. That does not mean that there cannot be a critical mass, but I am against centralisation per se.
I am not clear what you are suggesting. The channel must be based somewhere. You cannot just say, "This will happen here and that will happen there." Somebody somewhere must co-ordinate the channel.
I will give you a practical example. The newsroom for Radio nan Gaidheal—the BBC Gaelic radio service—is in Inverness and is fully equipped. It covers the Highlands and Islands and the rest of Scotland. If a newsroom were reinvented in another location, the spend could be diverted elsewhere.
I understand that, but I am talking about the co-ordination centre, rather than outposts of a channel.
Gabhaibh mo leisgeul. An e a thaobh coimiseanadh? Chan eil mise buileach soilleir dè tha sibh a' ciallachadh le co-òrdanachadh.
Are you talking about commissioning? I am not clear what you mean by co-ordinating.
BBC Scotland has headquarters in Glasgow and Edinburgh. If there were a Gaelic channel, where should it be based? Its headquarters should be somewhere. Last week, a very strong play was made for having the headquarters in the Gaelic heartlands. There was a counter suggestion that there are as many—if not more—Gaelic speakers in Scotland's central belt and so the headquarters should be located there. I am interested in the headquarters rather than in where news programmes are made. In a multimedia world, programmes can be made anywhere and sent along a wire. They have to go to London and come back anyway.
Leis a h-uile urram, ann an saoghal craobh-sgaoilidh a tha ri teachd, tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil e caran sean-fhasanta a bhith a' smaoineachadh air ionad anns am feum craobh-sgaoileadh a bhith a' tighinn. Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gun do mhìnich Coinneach McQuarrie—agus is urrainn dha a dhèanamh nas fheàrr na mise—a thaobh sgaoileadh phrògraman is eile. Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gur e càit am biodh na co-dhùnaidhean gan gabhail agus tha mi a' smaoineachadh gum b' urrainn dha na co-dhùnaidhean sin a bhith air an gabhail ann an diofar àiteachan, chan ann a-mhàin ann an aon àite. Anns an roinn sa bheil mise, tha dàrna leth an luchd-obrach—agus tha còrr is ceud san roinn agam—ag obair air a' Ghaidhealtachd agus anns na h-eileanan, 's tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil sin cudthromach.
With respect, in the future broadcasting world, it will be old-fashioned to think of a base from which broadcasting must come. Kenneth McQuarrie outlined that better than I can when he described broadcasting and dissemination of programmes. The question is more where conclusions are arrived at. Conclusions can be arrived at in different places—not just in one place. Around half the people in the department in which I work work in the Highlands and Islands.
I accept that. We can commission services throughout Scotland and react to the needs of the Gaelic community.
I am not avoiding the issue, but there is a practical element. If there were a Gaelic digital channel and the BBC took on a lot of commissioning and production work, for example, a decision would be made very quickly after a scout around the places where the effort currently is—in the main, that is in Stornoway, Inverness and Glasgow. With luck, we will be on course to have our new headquarters built at Pacific Quay in around two years' time. A decision could be taken then on where best to house the effort. Where is production best developed and where can local talent best be drawn from? If I read the situation correctly, at the root of the question is where to draw on the best talent and how to retain that talent. Assuming that such talent can be attracted in the first place, are there facilities to give people work?
I would distinguish between headquarters, where editorial control rests, and the technical play-out centre. The capital costs of providing a play-out centre with a degree of resilience—in other words, with server capacity and back-up—so that the service is able to stay on air, are significant, particularly given the information and data streams that are carried in a digital world. There are various types of data—for example, the triggers for personal video recorders. Logic leads us to the conclusion that if play-out centres are based where another set of channels goes on air, considerable savings can be made. As I said, with changes in technology it may well be possible to have a stand-alone transmission centre in Stornoway, Barra, Uist or Skye, but most analysis indicates that a critical mass at the play-out centre gives cost savings across the piece. I would separate the editorial and play-out activities.
It is refreshing, if ironic, to have a lesson in decentralisation from the BBC. It is even more ironic that I agree 100 per cent with what Kenny McQuarrie said. Understanding the issue is important. I want Kenny to respond to what I say. The brass plate on the wall—where the headquarters is—is moderately important symbolically. Editorial control inside the head office is even more important. There would be a real problem if the brass plate became a magnet that drew all the paraphernalia of the old thinking about what broadcasting is and which attracted all the play-out centres, studios, media companies and petitioners—the whole lot grouped round one place. Last week, we saw some of the things that are being done in Stornoway, particularly in digital broadcasting. They are quite legitimate and work there is encouraging, but one monolithic organisation established in the old, monolithic way would help nobody and would ultimately decrease rather than increase the number of jobs.
That is correct. If we take into account the geography of Scotland and the dispersal of the Gaelic-speaking community, it is important that there is genuine diversity and equality of opportunity for all and that young Gaelic speakers have the opportunity to be educated through the medium of Gaelic in the central belt.
Could Donalda Mackinnon, as a Gael who lives in Glasgow and whose youngsters are in Gaelic-medium education, say what is wrong with Gaelic broadcasting? The people from whom we heard in Stornoway said that there was an awful lot wrong with it, including scheduling and content. If there is not a dedicated channel and we just want to improve Gaelic broadcasting, what changes would she like to see?
Tha mi a' creidsinn nam biodh na mìltean de mhilleanan de notaichean againn mar Ghaidheil ann an Alba, bhithinn-sa lùigeachdainn gum faicinn seirbheis thar iomadh meadhan a tha a' toirt dhòmhsa na tha mi a' faighinn de roghainn ann an seirbheis craobh-sgaoilidh sam bith eile. Dha mo chuid-chloinne, tha mi air leth mothachail cho cudthromach 's a tha rudan mar coimpiutaran agus telebhisean nam beatha agus cho mòr 's a tha iad a' taobhadh ri prògraman Beurla ri linn 's gu bheil a leithid dhiubh ann. Lùiginn-sa barrachd a bhith ann aig àrd ìre a tha gu bhith a' còrdadh riutha-san agus anns am faic iad sgàthan air am beatha fhèin agus anns am faic iad cuideam sònraichte ga chur air ar cuid chànain agus gum bi iad moiteil aiste aig a' cheann thall.
If I had thousands of millions of pounds for us Gaels in Scotland, I would create a multimedia service that would give me everything I get from any other broadcasting service.
Is that possible?
Tha rud sam bith comasach ma tha rùn ann.
Anything is possible with the desire and the will to do it.
Thank you very much. The committee has no further questions. I thank you for your time. If you want to feed anything else into the inquiry, please feel free to do so.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting. I welcome Donald Emslie and Rhoda Macdonald from SMG Television and Derrick Thomson from Grampian Television.
Thank you for the invitation to give evidence to the inquiry. I will make a few introductory comments before we take questions.
That is the oddest declaration of interests I have ever heard.
Michael Russell has already declared his interest, so we should do likewise.
Your written and oral evidence throw up a range of questions that add to last week's debate in Stornoway and to today's debate. I will try to draw some strands together from your comments. Your written evidence in particular indicates that the relationship between you and the CCG has been difficult. One takes from that that the relationship was productive, but is no longer. There are indications that you feel you were treated unfairly, particularly given what you claim was the CCG's strategy to encourage independent production. If that was the strategy, it does not appear to have succeeded.
I suspect that it is probably bits of each of those. It is not surprising that there has been tension between the CCG and us. You say that the relationship was unproductive—I would not go as far as that. We have a body that has a fund and can commission programmes, but has no real ability to schedule, and broadcasters who have permission to take the programmes and then are free to schedule them when they like. Our ambition as a commercial broadcaster is slightly different from what the CCG is trying to achieve. I think that our commitment—half an hour at peak time on Sunday night; Saturday afternoon for children's programmes; and Tuesday evening from 23:30 for other Gaelic broadcasting—suits everybody.
Except the viewer, probably.
We have fewer viewer complaints than we used to.
That is probably because nobody watches television at the times you mentioned.
The answer is that increasingly ITV is a network, so there is less opportunity for us to opt out in favour of our regional programmes. The vast majority of our regional programmes—whether or not they are Gaelic—go out at 23:30 and late in the schedule. We have about 81 peak slots each year for all our regional output. Gaelic now gets 52 peak slots, which means that 64 per cent of our regional peak output goes to Gaelic, which is a considerable investment on our part.
I did not intend any criticism. You did not pick up on my comment that you made an enormous contribution, especially in the early years—you did more; you showed more; and you made more.
At the moment, we have obligations to take Gaelic programming and we will continue to do that. We are not advocating a move away from our obligations under the current legislation. Our licence has just been renewed for 10 years; our obligations to Gaelic have been renewed as part of that. In Derrick Thomson's case, the obligation is for 46 hours a year; for Scottish Television, it is 26 hours a year. We will continue to meet those obligations and will continue to show our regional programming and the programming that comes from the CCG. We would like the commercial pressures that we face to be understood. Gaelic is only one of a number of genres of programming that we have to schedule within our regional slots.
That is a useful and clear definition of where SMG Television wants to go. It contrasts with the BBC definition: the BBC seems to be indicating that its involvement will increase. Although the BBC feels that the strategy that is being pursued is not adequate, it has a vision of what the strategy might be. Are you saying that your involvement will decrease and that—without any hard feelings, as you have a different job to do—it is inevitable that your company's role in the Gaelic sector will come to an end?
Our involvement does not need to come to an end, although it might do so when we reach completely digital broadcasting. At that time, capacity will not be constrained and whatever is set up and funded could lead to a Gaelic channel. We have a lot of skill and experience in our production base that could easily be utilised to make Gaelic programmes. We would continue to pitch to the CCG—
So, SMG Television will become a contractor to make programmes like any other contractor. Do you see SMG Television being the main transmitter, or even the co-ordinator, of that activity?
We have the capacity to do so if—
That is not what I asked. Do you see SMG Television doing that?
We could easily do that. We have a well-equipped automated transmission system that supports three channels and which could easily support more. If, at such a time, we were able to enter into an agreement with the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee, we would do so. However, our relationship would not need to come to an end because we were not producing and broadcasting regional Gaelic programmes, because we also see ourselves as just producing programmes. We make programmes for Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky and for the ITV network.
Is that commercial suicide?
Is what commercial suicide?
Is it commercial suicide to broadcast Gaelic programmes? In the letter that covers the SMG Television submission, there is a lovely invitation to the committee. The letter says that you have not gone into detail about your
I am probably not best placed to comment on the CCG. It exists under legislation as a body that has a Gaelic broadcasting fund to administer. We all operate within legislation. It is not commercial suicide to broadcast Gaelic programming.
I might agree with you about that; I was simply asking whether that was the case.
We are committed to being a public service broadcaster and that means that we have to cover all the interests of a variety of groups. That goes for the Gaelic viewer as well as those who want to watch religious programmes or children who want to watch programmes that are made for children. We are committed to our role as a broadcaster in Scotland, so we will continue to make a contribution as far as that is concerned.
Point 4.07 of your written submission mentions the £44 million that we talked about in our earlier discussion of the Milne report. It says that that figure
The Milne report talked a lot about setting up a channel. That point has already been discussed with the BBC. It is not necessary to recreate an entire broadcasting business. One can hire in many of the services, such as a play-out centre or transmission facilities. Those can be based anywhere and do not have to be recreated wherever a Gaelic channel is based.
In point 4.10 of your submission, you mention
That is part of the licence that is paid to the ITC. Each broadcaster must now pay a fixed cash sum and a levy, which is placed on their advertising revenue. We have recently gone through a licence renewal; every ITV broadcaster has had its licence renewed. In total, the licence payments from ITV to the ITC and the Government are just more than £300 million. That has come down from £400 million through this licence regime.
Does any of that funding go towards the costs of S4C in Wales?
It did previously. S4C is now funded directly by the Government. Prior to 1990, a significant part of the levy that we paid to the Government went to S4C, but that has changed.
When the committee was in Stornoway, I asked about the idea of a media village in Stornoway. I have also asked other witnesses today about that. What is your opinion?
Derrick Thomson can probably say more about that. Grampian Television was in Stornoway for some nine years, and created and financed the studios there in conjunction with Western Isles Council and the CCG. I do not know whether you visited the building in Stornoway when you were there last week, but there are two or three tenants there. The idea had been to encourage media occupation of those premises to create a media village. By and large, we would support that.
Media nan Eilean and Lews Castle College were in that building and we also took people from Sabhal Mòr Ostaig into that environment at every opportunity. I see no difficulty with the growth of a media village in Stornoway; in fact, I would positively encourage it. There are key issues surrounding where the transmission systems should lie, but there are no issues concerning the centre—or the brass plaque, as Mike Russell described it—being based in Stornoway.
There are a lot of commercial pressures on you. Setting aside transmission issues, would it be better for you to be shorn of your obligation to broadcast Gaelic programmes, and to take your position as a willing contractor competing with programmes that you want to show?
Is not that what we do currently?
Would you be happier if you were shorn of the obligation?
What we have failed to discuss is the relationship between Scottish Television's enterprises as a producer of programmes—as a contractor competing with independent producers on a level playing field—and the fact that our broadcasting division occasionally made decisions that impacted on us as a producer and which were sometimes unpalatable to us—I see Mike Russell looking at me sceptically, but it is true. We were competing on a level playing field and we want to continue to compete on that level playing field. There is massive production experience that could be of great use if the ambition to produce three hours of programming a day is to be achieved.
I am reluctant to disagree with somebody who was once my executive producer, but I must say that the level playing field did not appear very level to most other people, who were playing up the pitch. That said, I return to my central question. Would you rather be shorn of your obligation to broadcast? I do not think that it would be shameful to say yes. Indeed, it would be quite helpful for Scottish broadcasting if you were to say that you would rather be shorn of that obligation, because the present obligation is unfair on you and on others.
We might not have put it as bluntly as saying, "We want to be shorn of our obligation." That is not our current position. We have only one channel at the moment, but we have always believed that, if capacity is unrestrained, a digital channel for Gaelic broadcasting can be created. At such a point in time we would like to see our obligations under the Broadcasting Act 1990 moved towards that new channel. However, we would still continue to pitch for programmes from a commercial perspective, and to win commissions.
That is fully understood.
We treat the CCG's fund in a similar way to any other commissioning editor. We must pitch ideas, win the ideas and win the money to make programmes. Programmes are then made in the network production business, which is an entirely different part of the business to Scottish Television and Grampian Television.
That is fully understood, but you said a qualified yes to being shorn of your obligation, which I think is helpful.
Thank you. We shall adjourn briefly to allow the next witnesses to take their seats.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I welcome Kris Jones and Margaret Scott from the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, Scotland. I will give you the opportunity to make an opening statement, after which committee members will ask questions.
Good afternoon. I thank the committee for inviting PACT Scotland to give evidence. I am the head of public affairs for the organisation and Margaret Scott used to head up our office in Scotland. She is now the head of nations and regions. PACT is the largest trade association in the television industry, and represents about 1,000 companies nationwide and 98 production companies in Scotland. I understand that six of our members are directly engaged in making Gaelic programmes, two of them on an occasional basis and four of them full time. The number of production companies that make Gaelic programmes has fallen in recent years. I understand that a few years ago, as many as 16 production companies that belonged to PACT made Gaelic programmes.
Section 183(4) of the 1990 act says:
I open up the meeting to questions.
In a moment I will return to the issues that you raised about the operation of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Yes. We have found it difficult to arrange meetings for the past year or year and a half. When we took over responsibility for representing Gaelic independent producers in 1998—prior to that Gaelic independents had their own trade association, and although they got their services from us we did not lobby for them politically—we came to an arrangement with the CCG, had good relations with it, and negotiated SMG contracts.
Further on in your submission you state:
The CCG sends out tenders and press releases regularly, so people are relatively well-informed when tenders go out. When talking about the media village and other strategies in future, what are its proposals? We would possibly be setting out a different position in this inquiry if we had had meetings with the CCG and we knew exactly where it wanted to go. However, we have not had such meetings.
At the bottom of page 4 of your submission, you draw attention to the particular case of the drama series. You state:
It is unusual if a producer is not already attached to a series or an individual programme. Whether for half-hour, one-off shows by independents or for a series, the production company normally would be up-front. However, we are in a situation in which the ideas seem to have come first, after which somebody was attached to those ideas. That is an unusual situation when commissioning from independent companies.
What your submission says is more serious than that. It appears that somebody who represented one side of the process suddenly became the representative of other side, and that there is no clear understanding of how that happened. Do you know how that happened?
We do not. There was definitely a tendering process, and independents applied. After that, we were told that the ideas were, for whatever reasons, not good enough. There was then an application process for writers, which was looked at differently. During that time, an individual was hired, although I am not sure about that—you would need to get clarification from the CCG. There was a glass wall between the processes, but it is strange to have the same individuals brought back in.
Finally, to return to your point about section 183 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, if the CCG was operating ultra vires, what would be the remedies and who could apply them?
My understanding of the purpose of the inquiry is to examine how the issues can be developed in future, which might include the operational practices of the CCG. Whatever decisions the committee reaches and whatever recommendations it comes up with, we want protection for the independent sector. At the moment, the definition of an independent production company provides protection for companies in broadcasting terms, but the CCG falls through a loophole. When we say, "Here is the definition, why are you doing this?" the CCG says, "We are not a broadcaster, so we can." Why? The same level of protection must be awarded to Gaelic independents as is awarded to any other independent in the UK.
The argument that we heard last week when I raised that specific point was that special arrangements are required for Gaelic because it is a fragile and small market in which fewer people operate, therefore it must operate differently. Have you heard that argument before? How would you respond to it?
I know about that argument because I downloaded the Official Report. It is hard to accept that argument. If a thriving independent sector is to develop, it must be able to compete. There are other ways in which studios can operate in commercial terms. Some companies might have offered to operate studios in the past and might do so in future, so it is not necessarily for the CCG to do that. However, if it is able to do that and to act as a commissioner, provision and support for the independent sector must be written in, in order to protect the independents. The CCG seems to be in a situation in which it can benefit from the best of both worlds, which is not acceptable as far as the independent sector is concerned.
The Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 excluded broadcasters from specifying that particular facilities must be used in order to promote competition. The CCG is not a broadcaster, but as Donald Emslie said, the CCG commissions programmes and programmes come from it. The CCG apparently commissions programmes, but is not covered by the provisions in the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991.
Do not the Independent Television Commission, the Competition Commission and a variety of others have an obligation to ensure competitive practices? How can you ensure and enforce competitive practice in the broadcasting industry in this case?
It is very difficult in this case. The ITC has a general duty to ensure that there is fair and effective competition, but its only remedy is the way in which it operates licences. It can fine licensees, shorten licences and, in the worst cases, it can revoke licences, but it does not have general powers to police competition across the board.
It can, however, give instructions to a sub-committee and the CCG is a committee of the ITC. Surely it would be competent for the ITC to give an instruction to one of its committees.
If that is the case. I had not understood that that was exactly the structure. We have drawn the issue to the attention of the ITC, but I am not sure that we have found it terribly helpful, have we?
No. We have had a response from the ITC which accepts the CCG's position that it was acting on the grounds of programming and cost-effectiveness, but at the expense of companies.
Representatives of the ITC are here today, so I am sure that they will take note of that.
There is no evidence that the CCG's approach promotes cost-effectiveness. Taking on a lease may not be the most cost-effective way of delivering programmes. It comes down to the fact that there should be a grant-making body.
In your submission, you use the words "aggressive" and "defensive" on several occasions. Can you expand on what you mean by the CCG being "aggressive" and "defensive"?
As a trade association, we are used to dealing with a range of broadcasters, including Channel 4, the BBC and ITV. We have regular meetings at which we must raise difficult issues, on which we have different points of view. We argue the issues out and lobby on behalf of our members for things to change on access and all sorts of matters. When we recently met the CCG, we found that there was complete aggression, to the point where it was difficult to discuss and debate the position that we were trying to take. The approach was, "This is why it is happening—end of story." It was difficult to take the debate further.
Could that not be firm and decisive?
Yes. It could be, but this is my interpretation of the CCG's approach.
Could that be artistic sensitivity?
It could be.
I was being as gentle as possible, in case you were upset.
The other question that I want to ask is about a point that you make in page 6 of your submission. In the first paragraph, it states:
I was at an interesting CCG conference in Inverness at the beginning of the year. A wide discussion was held among the community there and there was a big argument about where the centre of Gaelic is. People from Inverness were arguing with people from elsewhere. I sat back and listened.
One of the threads that has come through the discussion with most of the witnesses is whether there is a vehicle in which you can bring together all the different elements involved in this, such as producers, broadcasters and the range of different power players. Will there ever be Gaelic harmony on this?
I doubt that there will ever be complete harmony. When you are pitching to the network in London it is clear that there are companies across Scotland. The issue is not about where independent companies are based, but where studios and resources are based. It is useful to have different models that are financially viable in their own right. We must consider where best value is. If we are successful in creating a channel—which I sincerely hope that we are—resources will be limited. The effort must be put into making the best use of those resources for the consumer. The consumer of the programmes must be the winner.
On page 6 of your submission, you state:
There must be a partnership that contains the various elements of broadcasting and education, so that we can develop the best strategy and the best programming strategy. We should lean on people who have a great deal of experience. The broadcasters should play a part in this, but we would like it to be a much more diverse group. We want the independents to play an active role. There are 97 independent production companies in Scotland, which would be more than willing to get involved in helping to develop new programme ideas for any future channel.
Thank you very much. We will adjourn for a few minutes to give the next witnesses a chance to take their places.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
We will start again. I welcome Neil Fraser. We do not have a written submission as such from you, but if you want to make some comments, please do so. Members will then have the opportunity to ask you questions.
Tha e glè mhath a bhith an seo, ach tha mi a' dol a bhruidhinn ann am Beurla air sgàth 's gu bheil an ùine air ruith oirnn.
It is good to be here. I am going to speak in English because time has run out on us.
Time is of the essence, so I will try to be more brisk than I would be in my native language.
Considering our relationship over the years, you may be greatly surprised to hear that I agree with every single word—
Relationship?
Over the past few years. I would not like to imply that it has been anything other than good; but you and I know the truth of it. I agree with every single word that you have said so far.
I want to probe one issue that you touched on latterly. The question is this: how do we get from here to there? Creating a digital channel will not happen in a big bang. We will not suddenly be able to say, "There it is—we can do it today." I am sure that you will agree that we will have to build a range of production skills, a range of genres, and a critical mass in terms of being able to serve the production demands of the channel. We will have to overcome what some might see as a decline in those things in recent years. That decline may have been precipitated by a decline in money, although there may have been other reasons.
The end is less difficult than the process of getting there. The transitional period, between now and the establishment of a full Gaelic digital channel, will be the hard bit. I cannot comment on where such a service should be based, and neither was it the job of the Milne task force to make such a recommendation. If a new organisation is set up, it must be free to make its own decisions on many issues, including location.
Why has that not happened? Some time ago, as Mr Fraser knows better than I do because he was working at the BBC at the time, it was not uncommon for people to be able to talk to other companies and individuals about what the service should be, without tying themselves down. The companies are now so competitive that there is no co-ordination, although we heard earlier that there are questions about competition. If co-ordination is desirable, how should it be achieved and how quickly can it be achieved?
I am not sure that I can answer that question fully. Back in 1982, I recall that I attended a meeting with my BBC Scotland controller and Bill Brown, who was then managing director of STV, and David Johnston, the controller of programmes at STV. We had a pleasant evening discussing ways forward in co-operation on Gaelic broadcasting, but the discussion foundered when neither organisation proved willing to cede editorial control. The situation has not changed all that much since then. I made the recommendations in my report, and I have no idea why such a body was not set up. The problem is that someone would have had to do that, but no one seemed to have the authority to say that it had to be done. That remains the case today.
When you were a member of the CCG, were you arguing for that to be done?
Indeed I was. As I recall, I asked for a conference to be held between the broadcasters and the CCG. I cannot put a date on it, but the conference was held in the ITC offices in Glasgow and was attended by senior staff from STV, the BBC and the CCG. On that day, we discussed many possibilities for co-operation but nothing came of that initiative. I served on the CCG for only a short period—for about a year.
Earlier submissions included the notional figure of £44 million. If I picked up correctly what Mr Fraser said, that figure was modest, relatively speaking, when compared to the overall cost. The oral contribution from the BBC—or was it from SMG?—was that with even half of that amount much more could be done. The convener has told me that that was said by SMG. Will Mr Fraser help me out on that point?
I will indeed. For its £20 million of regional output, STV is required to make a limited range of genres or types of programme. The Milne task force recommended that a broad range of programmes, including dramas and documentaries, be made. Those are much more expensive than are political programmes and political discussion programmes, although committee members might wish otherwise. The cost goes up as the range of programming is increased. However, the cost per hour envisaged for Gaelic is way below that which is sustained by BBC1, BBC2 or even ITV as a whole.
Most of the other submissions make the point that the world of broadcasting has changed dramatically since the idea first evolved and that there continue to be technical and financial challenges. What does Mr Fraser think of the debate that compares the need for the Gaelic broadcasting location to be in Stornoway in the Western Isles with the need for fluidity that would allow other parts of Gaelic-speaking Scotland, as well as other parts of Scotland, to be utilised? New technology would facilitate the utilisation of development and production facilities in those other parts of Scotland.
As I said earlier, I have no view on where a headquarters should be based. That is a matter for a new authority or committee or whatever you want to call it. To reflect in a healthy way the nature of the dispersed Gaelic communities in Scotland, I hope fervently that production will come from a lot of areas. For example, at present, insufficient attention is paid to the southern mainland and the southern isles. Of course, Gaelic is much weaker in those areas than it is in the north, but if attention is not paid to them, I suspect that it will get weaker still. Production is not the prerogative of a particular location—healthy production happens where the best ideas come from.
Mr Fraser, at the beginning of your oral evidence you mentioned the fact that Alasdair Milne had not met the new First Minister following the production of the task force report. As you were an assessor for that report, could you explain what follow-up has taken place? Have there been meetings with other culture ministers or deliberations with the Executive, or are the only deliberations those of the committee, which is beginning to consider Gaelic broadcasting?
Discussions have taken place with officials from the Scottish Executive, the Scotland Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Most of those discussions took place prior to the publication of the report last September. I suppose that the sad events that took place in the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament caused people to lose sight of Gaelic broadcasting, which may not be at the top of the Parliament's agenda. However, I hope that, before too long, that issue will be addressed and the task force chairman will be invited to hold discussions with senior ministers.
I am interested in the element of gradualism in what you said, as I am worried that the Milne report does not talk about that transitional period. What stages do you think there might be? It is clear that there must be some air space for the television channel. How much would you fill the first year? Would you go for a complete evening of Gaelic television? I worry about trying to do too much with insufficient funds, as we would end up with poor quality programming, which would not do Gaelic broadcasting a service. Moving too quickly is a danger.
That was not spelled out in the Milne report, but the report implied that we could not spend that kind of money straight away, given the human and technical resources that are available and the fact that we must train new producers and directors. Above all else, a new organisation that embraces the current interest in Gaelic broadcasting should come together, plan effectively and devise a strategy—that word is used frequently in Gaelic broadcasting—for the development of programme output. That is fundamental.
As there are no further questions, I thank Mr Fraser for attending.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I welcome Allan MacDonald from Media nan Eilean Television. I will give you an opportunity to speak for a few minutes, after which I will invite members to ask questions.
I feel isolated on my own after all the groups of people that have appeared before the committee this afternoon. Being so lean and mean is quite an interesting metaphor for the independent sector. However, my colleagues have advised me against stretching the metaphor too far by using the word "lean".
This is the last time that I will do this. I want to question you about three particular aspects of your paper, Allan. First, there is the
Absolutely. It was a monumental financial and programming boost to the system. The BBC and ITV—ITV in particular—were persuaded by the legislation to increase their contribution to Gaelic broadcasting. The fund has produced, and continues to produce, some excellent programming, but the infrastructure that underpins that is crumbling as every year goes by. That is partly due to pressure because of the lack of inflation proofing of the system, but it is also because the role and definition of the CCG is unclear—it is unclear to the CCG itself.
Mr McAveety and I picked up the word "strategy" in the BBC submission. That is part of the problem. There are inbuilt flaws, but there is also, in your view, a lack of coherent strategy.
If there is a coherent strategy, it is not being conveyed to me. There is a lack of a coherent strategy among all bodies in the industry. It is discomfiting to find one section of those bodies forging ahead on such a crucial question without engaging in debate and discussion with other organisations that have a valid and equal part to play in taking the system forward.
Are you referring to the CCG?
Yes.
Let me build on that point, as the next point in your submission that I want to pick up on deals with the decision in relation to Seaforth House. We heard the evidence from PACT about that and about the difficulties of productions and production fees and of the enforced use of a facility, which is contrary to the 1990 act and the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991. A different point arises. You heard proposals for a development in Benbecula—not that far away from Stornoway, but somewhere different. What was that proposal and why could it not go ahead?
The proposal was for a £1 million development on the island of Benbecula, which would indeed have diversified the industry throughout the Gaelic community. Proposals have been made in the past to lease the studio at Seaforth House in Stornoway—that proposal was rejected by the CCG. We then looked to alternatives, under which we would be diversifying the industry to other areas. We entered into a discussion with Western Isles Enterprise and came up with a workable system that would have produced a £1 million studio development in Benbecula.
You are describing an invidious situation. You are trying to develop the infrastructure but you find that the organisation by which you are primarily funded—it pays for the programmes that you make—is also developing the infrastructure and is using that as a condition of grant. We begin to understand why the Broadcasting Act 1990 was framed as it was—so that there should be no such conflicts. However, the conflict in which you found yourself meant that a commercial development could not go ahead because of a development that was state-funded—in the context of competition legislation, such situations are not to be encouraged. Do you think that that is essentially what has happened? Could you not go ahead because of something that state funding was intending to provide?
That is precisely right. If there is a strategy behind such decisions, there will be a continuing problem. Every time the state body invests in studios, equipment or anything of that nature, it militates against any kind of commercial development. If it militates against commercial development, it militates against the introduction of different money into the industry.
The final point that I wanted to raise was on the fifth section of your submission. We have had many discussions and have read many papers outlining the many problems. You have brought us a proposed solution, which is very good of you—I am sure that it will help us greatly. Tell us how your solution differs from the Milne solution. I think that I understand it, but I ask you to explain it. Where do you think your solution overcomes some of the problems that others have outlined today?
My understanding of the Milne solution is that, if the proposed authority were set up, a channel would be set up to work directly to that authority. The authority might envisage itself, at some point in the future, devolving that responsibility to another organisation, such as the BBC. In my view, the level of investment and operation needed by that channel would make it difficult for it to survive in any broadcasting world in which consolidation was the name of the game.
Can that be done only through a PSB model or could you have a mixed model?
I am talking about a mixed model, in the sense that we are proposing that the BBC undertakes almost half the work that will be done. There is, in different locations around the country, a commercial and economic model in the independent sector: an enterprise based in Islay accesses money through Argyll and the Islands Enterprise and one based in Skye accesses money through Skye and Lochalsh Enterprise. That diversifies not just the programming base, but the business base, which is a crucial factor.
The independent sector plays a large role and that can include broadcasters: it can include the Scottish Media Group or Channel 4, if those organisations wish to take part. The independent companies can be pretty large and what they can take on varies. The organisations vary from a small company, with one person who simply wants to buy a piece of equipment in Lewis or Skye, to what would be termed a large independent. Many of the country's strongest programmes are made by large independents, such as Tiger Aspect and Wall to Wall in London. That encompasses a wide range not only of programming proposition, but of commercial proposition.
In the fourth section of your submission, you state that, although you welcome the 10 years of development,
I predicate my reply on the fact that MnE has done particularly well in getting support from the CCG, the enterprise companies and others but that, because we are the leader in the industry, it is incumbent on us to speak up for those who are not here any more or who are struggling in one way or another in the industry in Scotland. We have to say, "This is the picture in the industry," although it does not necessarily apply to MnE. Other witnesses who have spoken to you today would probably back that up.
I am interested in the model that you propose. When we were in Stornoway, we talked about the Gaelic channel piggy-backing on the Parliament channel, because there would be space in the evenings and perhaps in the mornings. The BBC and ITV are worried about the coming of digital television. The multiplicity of choice means that channels as we know them are under threat, yet here we are talking about a channel that does everything for a population of 65,000 people. Do you see a Gaelic channel being like a local newspaper or like a glossy magazine, or will it be something in-between? What style of channel will there be in the end?
That is a good question. Unless we are talking serious money—S4C and others have budgets of £100 million—we are talking about a service within a channel. Although that point has not been discussed in detail, it has arisen in the evidence that you have heard. I tuned in to S4C on my digital satellite system yesterday. It is shown from 12 o'clock in the afternoon until 12 o'clock at night. Clearly, if investment in a Gaelic channel is significantly less than that in S4C, the hours will come down. S4C, TG4 and any service for the Gaelic community must, in effect, reflect what is happening across £3 billion-worth of programming in the English-language sector. That is a mammoth task for a small player to undertake.
Radio Borders is a successful, small commercial company, which takes local advertising and has a range of programmes. The range is limited, but it appeals to people.
I was responsible for setting up the BBC's radio station in Stornoway in 1979. It was the first community radio station in that area, so I speak with some knowledge. It was based on models from Canada and arose from a study tour to see how dispersed and rural areas were being serviced. When I was manager, the programming on Radio nan Eilean had by far the highest reach of any radio station in the country, at about 80 per cent. The programmes were highly appreciated. As someone from that background, I would not be looking for that kind of programming exclusively, although I accept that it will have an important part to play in any service that is created.
As there are no other questions, I thank Mr MacDonald and all our witnesses this afternoon, as well as our interpreters, Joan MacLeod and Johan Graham. I ask members to stay behind for a few minutes after the meeting because Michael Russell has some reports for us.
Meeting closed at 17:38.
Previous
Scottish Qualifications Authority