Gaelic Broadcasting
Item 2 on the agenda is the inquiry into Gaelic broadcasting. I invite Michael Russell to introduce his report and make an oral declaration of interest.
As indicated in the report, I would like to start the discussion by making a declaration of interest.
I have asked the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee—the Comataidh Craolaidh Gàidhlig—to furnish me with details of all the transactions that I have had with it since its foundation as the Comataidh Telebhisein Gàidhlig. I had hoped that that would be available to me today, but I have not yet received it. It will relate to the work that I have done directly on research projects, the work that has been done by my company, Eala Bhan—the sole directors of which are me and my wife—and work that I have done for other companies in producing, directing or researching projects that were funded either by the CTG, or by its successor, the CCG, from its foundation in 1991 until now.
When the full figures are available to me, I will lodge them with the clerks as a matter of public record—so that people know that Gaelic broadcasting does not pay.
I thought that it was about value for money.
The report has been circulated. I will be brief in introducing it. I am grateful to John Angus MacKay, the director of CCG, and his staff for providing some full background papers. The initial briefing note, dated 25 March 2001, is attached. I have his permission to distribute it. It gives a good analysis.
There is an appendix on the statutory basis of the establishment of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee and a second appendix, which is the Independent Television Commission document that is given to prospective members of the committee. There are also a number of very useful and coloured—I think that it is the first time that we have gone into colour in such a report—graphs illustrating a variety of important issues. Those are prefaced by a paper by me, which gives a perspective on some of the issues that the inquiry will have to address.
It is interesting to note that one of the main objectives of the establishment of the CTG was to increase the level of employment in broadcasting within the Gaelic-speaking areas. As our inquiry proceeds, it will be useful to examine in detail what that has meant. It would be fair to say that the bulk of the jobs that have been created have not been in the Western Isles, the north-west of Scotland or even Argyll. They have been created in Glasgow and Aberdeen—and indeed much fewer are in Aberdeen now.
The figures that have been provided by CCG show clearly that at one stage of the operation there were up to 500 full-time equivalent jobs, but the number is now as low as 250.
It is also important to note that the amount of money that was allocated by the Government to the fund in 1991 has not kept pace with inflation; it has been reduced over several years, so the spending power of that money is considerably less. The committee has also been given additional responsibilities, including for radio.
There are clearly some major issues. One is the decline in the number of Gaelic speakers, which I am quite sure that the census will reveal.
Another major issue is the fatal flaw that many believe there was in the way in which the CTG was established. It had no powers of scheduling and therefore had no powers of commissioning. It was, in essence, a clearing house for individuals who were running projects and broadcasters. It depended almost entirely on the good will of the broadcasters, who were also applicants to the Gaelic television fund for money. Therefore, the curious situation could come about in which individuals who sought to make a programme found themselves in competition with the body that ultimately would commission them or their company.
That was and is a difficult set of circumstances. Most people who are involved in broadcasting will accept that a truly independent broadcaster cannot exist unless it has control of the budget and scheduling. The CCG has some control of the budget but no control of the scheduling. There is therefore an inherent difficulty in the operation of the fund, which has created enormous problems.
In Ireland, Brittany and Wales, full-time channels have been established. Scotland, which started well ahead of the game in making money available—we were not ahead of Wales, but we were certainly ahead of Ireland and Brittany—has fallen behind, because we have not made the progress to a full-time channel.
The Milne report indicates how a full-time channel might be established. I have asked for copies of the report to be provided to the committee. The report was put together by a committee that was chaired by Alasdair Milne, a former director general of the BBC, who chaired the Gaelic broadcasting task force for the Independent Television Commission and the Home Office.
I have stressed some of the negatives. I will stress one or two of the positives. The amount of Gaelic on television was minimal until 1991. In one year, 1977, there was no broadcast in Gaelic because of a change of personnel in the companies. There was a growing amount in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. The CCG boosted the number of hours massively. It put Gaelic on prime-time television, which was the agreement, although it is now unusual—only the BBC maintains Gaelic on prime-time television through BBC 2. An audience that had never had access to Gaelic got access to it. People could learn, understand and relate to Gaelic.
The quality of production was high. People made fun of some things—memorably "Postman Pat" in Gaelic, which, I seem to remember, featured in a scene in "Tutti Frutti"—but they watched the programmes, which regularly had audiences of 100,000 to 150,000. That, for certain times of day, was a respectable audience in Scotland. Gaelic was considered to be becoming part of the main stream of Scottish broadcasting. In pure civil rights terms, an audience that had not been served and a language that had not been supported were beginning to enter the main stream.
The CCG and its work are worth defending because of that. The committee's job is, for the first time, to analyse—if we can—what effect the CCG has had and what might be done to assist it in future. That will be a tremendous service to the Gaelic community and the broadcasting community in Scotland and more widely.
It is also worth noting that the money for Gaelic broadcasting is the only money for broadcasting from the Scottish block with which the Scottish Parliament is involved. We therefore have a unique opportunity to consider a broadcasting matter.
I am happy to answer any questions on the paper.
Thank you for the paper. We are all looking forward to visiting Stornoway and hearing from people at first hand on the issues. The list of witnesses that you have suggested seems sensible. I suggest that we begin to make approaches.
We have already received half a dozen submissions, but we should press some people to move more quickly.
It would be useful to make some initial approaches to people so that they are available to give evidence, particularly on the days on which we are in Stornoway. Mike Russell has made a number of suggestions. They seem sensible and perhaps we should press ahead with them.
You do not mention the minister. Do you want us to see him?
It would be useful to see the minister, but perhaps we could do so once we have held both evidence sessions. We will not have an awful lot of time, but perhaps we could see him for an hour.
I have a suggestion for Stornoway. We have already had a submission from Dr Finlay MacLeod, an independent producer and director in Stornoway. He is a former assistant director of education and therefore also has a strong educational background. We should also consider taking evidence from him when we are in Stornoway.
The paper is helpful. Mike Russell's knowledge in the area is clearly going to be helpful to our work.
It struck me that the number of people who are in training does not seem to follow through to the number of people who are employed. I would hope that some of the training and employment would stay in the Western Isles and the north, but it is coming south. We need to consider that issue. I would like us to spend some time considering training and the sustainability of training. We should examine what qualifications or other outcomes the training produces.
We should probably ask the CCG for additional information on its training support and perhaps also ask Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to give us some information on that. It runs a course. That would be useful.
Would it be useful to have people from Sabhal Mòr Ostaig come to Stornoway?
It could be useful. We should ask whether they would like to come and give evidence. In Stornoway, we will want to have a fairly lengthy session, perhaps longer than normal. We should also visit the CCG's offices—it has invited us already—and the studios, where a feature film will probably be being shot at the time, and see some broadcasting activity. I am sure that, if Martin Verity and his staff speak to the right people—I will give him names—we will be well received.
Meeting closed at 16:24.