Enterprise and Culture Committee, 29 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Official Report 279KB pdf

---

Public Service Broadcasting (Office of Communications Review)

I welcome from the Office of Communications Vicki Nash, the director of Ofcom in Scotland; Alan Stewart, the head of broadcasting and telecoms in Scotland; and Tim Suter, the partner responsible for content and standards.

The purpose of asking you to the committee was primarily to enable you to update us on the review of public service broadcasting, but since we have you here, we might ask you about other issues.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss with the committee our review of public service broadcasting, and perhaps a few other areas besides.

I am director of Ofcom in Scotland. On my right is Alan Stewart, head of broadcasting and telecoms in Scotland. We are based in Glasgow, and, broadly, our role is to represent Scotland in Ofcom and Ofcom in Scotland. On my left is Tim Suter, partner in Ofcom's content and standards group. He is based in London. Tim and his team led the work on the review of public service broadcasting. He reminded me that he was responsible for setting some of the rules that you talked about earlier, including the two-out-of-three rule that Ms Baird touched on.

The paper that we submitted for this meeting and the one that we submitted for the meeting in April set out the conclusions that we drew from the review of public service broadcasting and the implications for Scotland. Broadly, we say that the traditional model of public service broadcasting is under threat in the transition to a fully digital world. More than 63 per cent of people in the United Kingdom have already signed up voluntarily to some form of digital television. A programme for switch-over was recently announced by the Westminster Government.

Our solution for moving public service broadcasting forward is a pot of funding in the form of a public service publisher, which would exploit all new forms of delivery of public service broadcasting. That proposition is now in the hands of Government for further consideration.

Pending switch-over for Scotland, our solution for the commercial companies recognises the economic pressures on broadcasters, but balances them with the increased affection for public service broadcasting in Scotland and recognises that Scotland is a very different place, with its own Parliament, education, health and legal systems, and cultural circumstances. As a result, our review placed higher obligations for public service broadcasting on the Scottish Media Group licences than on the channel 3 licences in England.

Our paper to the committee and our earlier submission detail our relationship with the BBC, which differs from the relationship that we have with commercial broadcasters. We also consider the prospects for Gaelic broadcasting on local television.

Our paper details in headline terms the switch-over process necessary. Scotland and Cumbria are the first areas planned for switch-over in the area covered by Border Television. Our role has been principally in the technical arena of spectrum planning. However, we remain engaged with Digital UK, which used to be called SwitchCo Ltd, which is the body established by Government to take forward the process in an active and supportive manner.

We were asked to touch on the issues for public service broadcasting as they relate to the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. You will see in our submission that we refer to the work that we have done, including with the Scottish Executive, on media literacy, which we have a statutory responsibility to promote. That is a key part of enabling people to take advantage of the new technologies, which increasingly provide a range of platforms to access broadcast material, not least information about public services.

The Scottish Parliament has responsibility for economic development. Our on-going review of the television production sector is examining its contribution to the programme supply market and the regulatory interventions that might continue to be required to ensure that there is a spread of production across the UK, including Scotland. Clearly, the Scottish Parliament also plays an active role in skills development. Skills will be required in the context of the revolution that we are seeing in the communications market.

Our paper provides information on our nations and regions audit, which is a critical piece of work that will comprehensively assess the state of the communications industries in Scotland and other parts of the UK, and will inform our regulatory process within Ofcom and perhaps also the actions of other parties, including the Scottish Executive. Ofcom is well aware of the need to be sensitive to the different circumstances of the countries and regions that are affected by our decisions. It is my job as Ofcom's director for Scotland to lead that process. I look forward to hearing your views.

That is helpful, as was the paper. I have a couple of specific questions before we get into the general policy issues, because a number of concerns have been expressed to me.

During the BBC evidence, we heard about the working party that is examining the Gaelic digital channel. Three concerns have been expressed to me about the future of Gaelic broadcasting. First, what will happen to the development fund of about £8.5 million that was originally set up by Michael Forsyth when he was Secretary of State for Scotland? Will it still be around? Will it be increased? Will it be used more flexibly? Secondly, there was a technical issue about receiving Gaelic television through a digibox, which I believe will be problematic after 2007. Thirdly, there is an issue about the number of hours for which Gaelic broadcasting will be shown, and also about pre-midnight broadcasting. Gaelic tends to be given a slot that does not generate the highest potential audience.

What about those concerns about the future of Gaelic broadcasting, which are of major concern to communities in the Highlands and Islands, but also to the Gaelic community in the rest of Scotland, including in the central belt?

If I may, I will address the first and third of your questions. I give advance warning to my colleague on my right that I will ask him to address reception.

Funding for the Gaelic Media Service is given by the Scottish Executive—I understand that it is part of the block grant. The extent to which that sum is increased, maintained or decreased is a matter for the Executive, but at present it is £8.5 million. It remains to be seen whether any additional money will be provided for the development of the digital channel. Your session with the BBC highlighted the importance of providing a sustainable funding pot for the new Gaelic digital channel.

It is important to put the hours of Gaelic broadcasting in context. Our new settlement with the SMG licensees has resulted in a small diminution in the amount of public service broadcasting—I think that it is about a 40-minute drop—but Gaelic broadcasting accounts for none of it. In other words, the same amount of Gaelic broadcasting will remain on the SMG channels.

We recognise that the single most important factor for Gaelic viewers, as expressed by about 87 per cent of them in recent research that was carried out for the Gaelic Media Service by Lèirsinn research centre, is having a dedicated channel. That has to be a priority. If it is to become a reality, it is legitimate for the SMG licensees to move from being producers and broadcasters of Gaelic to contributing to the Gaelic digital channel in its early years. Therefore, we propose that they should contribute £300,000 to £500,000 per annum for three years to the new digital channel to help to get it off the ground.

Recently, agreement was reached with the SMG licensees that they would contribute £1.2 million towards that over the next three years. As a result of that agreement, a reduction in the amount of Gaelic that would be shown during peak time from 20 hours to six hours kicked in but, overall, there will still be the same amount of Gaelic broadcasting. We want the new channel to happen and it can be kick-started by small amounts of money. It is for the Government and the DCMS to decide whether they want to make available any additional sums.

For us at Ofcom, a Gaelic digital channel is an important way forward for Gaelic broadcasting, as is the availability of other platforms, on the internet, through mobile broadcasting and so forth. I am pleased that Ofcom has taken the lead in making that happen. I have chaired round-table meetings of all the parties, including the Scottish Executive, the DCMS, the GMS, the BBC and the SMG licensees, to find out how we could do that and what commitments the Executive, the DCMS, the commercial channels and the BBC would make. It is clear that the BBC and the GMS are leading the partnership and we look forward to a fruitful outcome from those discussions.

I will ask my colleague to answer the question about reception.

I assume that you are referring to the digital terrestrial service that is called TeleG, which is transmitted on a multiplex—which is a transmission network—that is run by S4C Digital Networks. I admit that I am not aware of any changes that could threaten the availability of that service through set-top boxes, because the Broadcasting Act 1996 stipulates that that multiplex must show a certain quantity of Gaelic programmes every day, but I would not like to say categorically that there is no such threat. I might need to double-check that, but I would be surprised if such a threat existed.

We are aware that satellite is the preferred means of people receiving digital television in the Highlands and Islands and that the research that was carried out for the Gaelic Media Service showed that satellite uptake among its Gaelic panel of viewers had gone up quite a bit over recent years. If a Gaelic digital channel gets off the ground, the idea is that it would initially be available on satellite because of that medium's good coverage in the Highlands and Islands.

Perhaps you could double-check on that and let us know if there is any outstanding problem.

Okay.

Thank you.

I have another specific question, which is about the switch-over. How will Ofcom Scotland ensure that, after the switch-over, digital spectrum will be available to provide local digital terrestrial television channels throughout Scotland? I know that households in a number of parts of Scotland are affected by that issue. According to a colleague to whom I spoke just before I came to the meeting, Aberdeen is one of the areas in question.

When we published the report of our public service broadcasting review, we said that we wanted to do more work on the possibility of delivering local content in future. We were not—and are still not—prescriptive about how it would be best to do that in a fully digital age. It might be appropriate to make such content available through conventional television, broadband or a combination of both.

We are doing that work at the moment and we expect to publish our thoughts on the matter fairly shortly. Out of that will come a decision on whether there is a need to have a licensing regime in which it would be appropriate for some of the released spectrum to be made available for local digital television, but we are still some way away from being able to make that decision. First, we need to decide what opportunities exist for local digital content post-switch-over.

What about the Scottish local authorities? Will they be able to win some of the released spectrum?

Alan Stewart will reply to that. I think that there is an issue about the ability of local authorities to hold licences, which might be what was being hinted at.

There is such an issue, which I think the Executive and the DCMS are examining. When the Communications Act 2003 went through, there was a discrepancy between what an authority in Scotland could do and what an authority in England could do. I know that the issue has been considered, but that is about all that I know.

Again, could you check out the situation for us and follow up in writing? That would be helpful.

Okay.

I will follow up the convener's question about Gaelic broadcasting. My constituents have expressed concern—and I know that concerns exist in other parts of Scotland—that they cannot access digital television. Although I support the idea of having a dedicated Gaelic channel, I presume that that would mean that there would be no Gaelic programmes on the terrestrial channels. Are you saying that the only way in which people will be able to watch Gaelic television will be by investing in a satellite dish?

What we have said about the launch of a digital Gaelic channel is that there will be a gradual reduction in SMG's obligation to broadcast Gaelic programmes. Gaelic programming will not all immediately disappear; it will continue for a year. I can get back to you on the detail of the sequencing, but there would not be a sudden switch-off.

The all-party working group continues to consider access to the digital channel. We are aware that reception is a problem in some parts of Scotland, and we understand that constituents would not want Gaelic programming to disappear if there were to be a dedicated digital Gaelic channel. That is one of the corners that we have to look at.

Thank you. If you could get back to us on that, that would be helpful.

If you respond on all these points to the clerks, they will circulate your responses to all committee members.

I have a further, slightly related, question. We know that some people cannot access digital television, despite the increasing roll-out of digital services. Is it right that they should have to pay the full television licence fee? There are also people living not too far away from where I live who cannot access any television signals except by having a satellite dish and paying a subscription to Sky. Should they have to pay a licence fee?

The issue of who should pay the licence fee is properly one for the DCMS and the BBC, rather than us, to pick up. In our digital switch-over arrangements, which are the criteria that were laid out clearly by Government, we have committed to ensuring that the same number of people are able to receive the digital signal as are able to receive the analogue signal now—that is, 98.5 per cent of the population. That is the magic number that the public service muxes must achieve, and that is what will be achieved at digital switch-over. How the licence fee pays into that is not a matter for Ofcom to venture any comment on.

Oh, well. It was a nice try. Thank you.

I want to stick with the issues of Gaelic and the digital channel, picking up the concerns that Murdo Fraser has highlighted. Let us be clear: when will the £1.2 million from SMG to kick-start the digital Gaelic channel be made available? In which year will that start?

The reduction has already kicked in, so the contribution will start in the new year.

So, by 2008, SMG will no longer be broadcasting Gaelic at the same level as it is now; it will have gone down to six hours.

There will be a drop in the number of hours of Gaelic programming at peak times; however, SMG has a requirement to show Gaelic programmes under the current legislation. We recognise that some of our proposals for the showing of Gaelic programmes on the commercial channels require a legislative change, and we are in discussion with Westminster about that.

I will help you to answer my question. If I am a Gaelic speaker who wants to watch Gaelic programmes and I live in the STV/Grampian region, but I do not have digital television, what service will I receive until the switch-over takes place in 2010? Will the quality of the service that I receive tail off over time? By 2008, will I get only the rump of the service that SMG presently provides?

As we have said, SMG will continue to have an obligation to show Gaelic programmes for a year after the digital channel has been established. That is one of the corners that I would like to get back to you on. There are tapering reductions, but the position ties in with the legislative change that will be required, which will be a matter for Westminster to consider. It would be best if I could get back to you on that.

The £1.2 million that is to be made available for the digital Gaelic channel strikes me as a pittance. We are talking about £400,000 a year to run a dedicated, specialist digital channel. Surely we will not get the best quality of broadcasting for that. What further funding will be invested in the digital channel to ensure that it provides a good-quality service?

Clearly, it is not for Ofcom to fund broadcasters; we do not do that. Part of our review of public service television broadcasting was our "Statement on Programming for the Nations and Regions", in which we said that

"£13-16 million would be sufficient to create a digital channel … showing around 1.5 hours per day of original Gaelic language programming."

Over what timescale?

Per annum.

Per annum.

Absolutely. Clearly, the question is the extent to which the Scottish Executive will fund the channel. It is possible that it will provide additional funding to the £8.5 million that is put into GMS funding, to which the convener referred. I understand that discussions are continuing on the subject. Discussions between the BBC and the GMS are also on-going, and the BBC has made a commitment, plus there is the possibility of an additional contribution from the DCMS. That is the background to our statement on the £13 million to £16 million figure.

I turn to our estimate of SMG's contribution to the channel of £1.2 million over three years. In our "Statement on Programming for the Nations and Regions", which is a public document, we estimated that the sum that could be freed up over three years would be £300,000 to £500,000 per annum. We followed up on that statement with a detailed document in which we spelled out why we thought the sum was a reasonable one for SMG to contribute—the document, which was necessarily confidential, went to all parties, including the GMS, the Scottish Executive and the DCMS. Ofcom is an independent regulator. We are well aware of the economic circumstances of the industry and the funding pressures of programme costs, advertising costs and so forth. No one disagreed either with the figures or the assessment that we produced. I hear what the member says and understand that Gaelic speakers would like more funding for the channel. However, we feel that the contribution is a reasonable one for SMG to make.

When do you expect the Gaelic digital channel to be up and running? What do you expect us to get for between £13 million and £16 million a year?

We have said that we would expect the Gaelic channel to be up and running by January 2007 at the latest. As we heard in the session with the witnesses from the BBC, the sooner a sum of money can be identified for Gaelic, the sooner the dedicated channel will happen. We look forward to receiving news before Christmas on the outcome of the discussions between the BBC and GMS. Equally, we look forward to hearing news on the level of contribution that will be made by the Executive and/or the DCMS.

And what do you expect us to get for our money?

I mentioned one and a half hours of dedicated Gaelic digital programming per day. That is the amount of original programming that we would expect, in addition to which a range of archive material and so on would be broadcast.

Thank you.

I preface my question by saying, for the avoidance of doubt, that I start by taking our constitutional settlement as a given. In other words, I do not seek to enter into a discussion about where various broadcasting powers ought to lie, nor do I ask the witnesses to do so. I start from the factual position that we all know about, which is that the regulatory and legislative powers lie with Westminster. That said, the fact that we are having this conversation and that Ofcom has an organisation in Scotland indicates that all of us seek to ensure that the Scottish voice is properly heard.

The panel heard our exchanges with the previous panel from the BBC and a number of members have already touched on different aspects of that debate. If they can, I would like the witnesses to give us a sense of the nature of the relationship between their organisation and the Scottish Executive. If they feel able to do so, I would also like them to give us a sense of where some of the discussion that we are having today is taking place within devolved Scottish Government. It would also be helpful for them to suggest the way in which we in Scotland can ensure that some of the specific challenges and opportunities that we face in the period to come are properly heard and understood in the discussions that take place at the UK level and given proper consideration here in Scotland.

We have moved a long way from the position that some people took of it being thought better not to talk about broadcasting because it is a reserved matter, but I am sure that we could do more to achieve a more cohesive and effective approach. I would be interested to know what the world looks like from where Ofcom is sitting.

Okay. I preface my remarks by saying that we are clearly going through a huge communications revolution. I have lived in Scotland for the past 27 years and I would like to feel that Scotland is best placed to take advantage of that revolution. The interface between the Executive and Ofcom and the Executive and other parts of Scotland is very real and relates to the Scottish Parliament's devolved responsibilities.

I touched on media literacy, which is a critical area for the future given the communications revolution that is happening. The outcome of our nations and regions audit and our media literacy audit will inform the debate in Scotland enormously. How well placed is Scotland? Do citizens and consumers understand what is on offer and what is not necessarily on offer? That is where the nations and regions audit will highlight issues of availability, take-up and broadband coverage. Broadband and mobile technology will play a real part in broadcasting and access to public services in the future. We are going beyond the traditional television, whether it be analogue or digital. The audit will provide a picture of the situation in Scotland.

From an Ofcom point of view, our powers are our powers and we will work within them. It is my job to represent Scotland within Ofcom and to press the button and thump the table when I need to say, "That solution will not work in Scotland," or "You will have to think of something different."

The committee should be asking where Scotland is in having a joined-up strategy for media literacy and skills training. What opportunities might the digital media park at Pacific Quay in Glasgow present to the independent sector as well as to the commercial sector and the BBC in Scotland for engaging in and making the most of the communications revolution?

We have a good relationship with the people in the culture sector of the Scottish Executive Education Department and with the people in the telecommunications team, which is part of the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department. We also have emerging relationships with the Health Department, for example, because food advertising to children is on our radar at the moment. We are also developing a relationship with the media literacy people. On Friday, we had a round-table discussion with a good representative from the media literacy section of the e-learning division.

I am pleased to say that I have found that the Executive officials recognise the need for joined-up working and acknowledge that they have to start to think about the emerging technologies that I have talked about and about how Scotland can be best placed to meet the challenges that exist in ensuring that the public and businesses use and take advantage of emerging technologies where they exist and that broadcasters and the production sector make the most of the opportunities on offer. There are very real possible points of engagement.

Skillset Scotland was mentioned earlier and we have mentioned PACT and the screen industries summit group. Many groups in Scotland are beavering away, but I would like to feel that there is a comprehensive strategy for Scotland. My position in Ofcom means that I am well aware of the huge revolution across broadcasting, telecommunications and broadband. I am well aware of the possibilities and interested in how Scotland sits in the debate and in the opportunities that are presented for Scotland.

You mentioned several Executive departments and I am pleased that you have good relationships with them. However, do you have separate relationships with them, or is there any means by which they come together to discuss broadcasting with you? Are you required to speak to individual departments on a given subject?

To date, we have engaged with the Executive on a variety of issues. Clearly, public service broadcasting is an issue for officials who are concerned with culture, and the telecommunications team is very much engaged in our strategic review of telecommunications. However, there are points where the officials come together. For example, reference was made earlier to the digital dividend. What will happen when a wider spectrum becomes available as a result of the analogue switch off? There is a real debate to be had in Ofcom about that. Indeed, we have issued a consultation document that asks people what they think the wider spectrum should be used for. It could be used for more 3G, or third generation, telecommunications—clearly, 3G is not available in some parts of Scotland—for high-definition television or for local television, and asking people what they think creates a real opportunity for engagement. I have sent a report to the telecommunications people, but it struck me as I was coming here that I should also send it to people in the culture section, as they would clearly have an interest in the roll-out of the digital dividend.

You have raised a good point about our points of contact. When I speak to Executive officials, they recognise the need for contact and I think that they are starting to make connections with one another. That is at an embryonic stage, but Ofcom is also at an embryonic stage—we are trying to make sense of the emerging technologies in the same way that everybody else is.

Perhaps one of my colleagues will want to add to what I have said.

Media literacy, which is interesting for the committee and for us, was mentioned. Unlike with most of our other duties, we have no levers to pull in that context—our job is simply to encourage and promote media literacy. We are looking across a range of areas to make the case about the engagement that must be made. What is the future of public service broadcasting, for example? What is the role of a public service publisher? The role of local digital content was briefly touched on. What is the case for public intervention in local digital content? Broad cases and arguments must be made.

We also discussed the production sector. We are about to issue the first part of our review of the whole UK production sector. What opportunities exist for that sector? How can we ensure that production is appropriately spread throughout the United Kingdom? Those are important subjects that people feel passionate about and which underpin the sharply pointed regulatory interventions that are embodied in the Communications Act 2003. I hope that those interventions are the result of debate, discussion and advocacy rather than simply an end in themselves and that there is interaction on all those questions as we go forward.

I want to ask a final question about how things come together in the UK. The DCMS is a lead Government department with a clear link to Ofcom. Let us consider media literacy, which obviously requires significant efforts to be made in a range of sectors and by a range of deliverers of education, training and so on in all sorts of places. As a matter of interest, would you have a conversation with the DCMS and would it act as a conduit into other UK Government departments, or would there be parallel and separate discussions?

The DCMS directly funds our media literacy activity—that is one of the few bits of direct funding that Ofcom receives. We do not recoup that money from our licensees. We have an agreement with the DCMS about how and where we will spend the money and we look to it as our sponsor in the Government to ensure that our activity dovetails with activities elsewhere. Equally, we know that there is a huge amount of work to be done with the Department for Education and Skills and other Government departments. We have a Government sponsor in the DCMS, but we also have an energising role in trying to find activity on the ground and in supporting, promoting or seed-corning that. That is the job that the DCMS gives us to do.

I want to pursue that theme, but should first remind the committee of my entry in the register of members' interests. I am the chair of the Scottish Libraries and Information Council, which, of course, does a considerable amount of work on digital and media literacy.

First, I want to ask about SwitchCo Ltd, which I understand is funded directly by the DCMS. In the Scottish context, are the penetration targets that SwitchCo has been set—in particular, the target for the number of households in Scotland that will switch over to digital—realistic? Has SwitchCo been given a realistic budget for that?

Secondly, should public sector authorities such as councils have a greater role, through their libraries and learning centres, in upping the ante on digital literacy and in providing information from SwitchCo on switching over? I was impressed by the technical knowledge that the convener displayed in his opening questions, but I must confess that he beat me hollow, as I genuinely did not know what he was talking about. However, I suspect that my level of knowledge reflects that of most of my constituents—other than the very young or the very geeky.

We will move on quickly.

I will kick off on that question, but I may ask my colleagues to supplement what I say.

First, I can reassure Christine May that we have involved a number of organisations from throughout Scotland, including SLIC, in our media literacy round tables. Indeed, pulling people together is part of our function. When people turn up at such events, they can share ideas about what they are doing and make connections with the many organisations out there that are doing an awful lot of work on media literacy. As Tim Suter said, our role is not so much front-line delivery as helping people to make those connections.

On local authorities, I absolutely agree that they have a role to play. Because of my background in local government, part of my relationship with SwitchCo—or Digital UK, as we should call it—is to help Digital UK to make the right connections with local government and with the voluntary sector.

The voluntary sector has a key role to play in helping the people whom Ofcom's consumer panel described as society's most vulnerable in this context—that is, elderly people and others in the community who are isolated—with the switch-over to digital. Digital UK is increasingly engaged with that sector and it has had a number of meetings with voluntary bodies in the Borders area. Staffing and resourcing issues are uppermost in people's minds as they gear themselves up to cope with the lack of consumer awareness that you mentioned. My job in Scotland is very much to support those who have that kind of front-line role. We can actively support people but, as we have a role in regulating broadcasters in and around Scotland, we cannot necessarily be on the front line.

I do not wish to respond to the point about Digital UK's budget; one of my colleagues may do so.

SwitchCo—or, rather, Digital UK—was created by the broadcasters and is funded by the industry. Ofcom has provided the technical planning and infrastructure to guarantee that digital television is technically achievable, but Digital UK's job is to market digital television effectively. As Vicki Nash mentioned, Digital UK is a new organisation that is working out what needs to be done. However, we all know that its job will be very difficult until such time as it has realistic dates for when switch-over can and must be achieved. In a sense, we have suffered from not knowing when and in what order switch-over will happen. It is important that those things are clearly staked out, as the marketing messages need to be built around them.

I am interested in what you said about Ofcom not having a front-line role. Ofcom's relationship with the consumer must be very different from that of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, which I know is based on having a close relationship with consumers. Does Ofcom have no close role with consumers who receive television services?

I should clarify that we play a role in complaints handling. We have a contact centre that deals with complaints from viewers and from users of telephony, including mobile phones and broadband. When people phone us, they can get advice but we always ask them whether they have first contacted their provider or the broadcaster. To that extent, we have a front-line role.

By saying that we do not have a front-line role, I mean that Ofcom Scotland does not itself go out and promote media literacy but makes contacts with other organisations that have such a role. For example, we had a stand over the two days of the Citizens Advice Scotland conference that took place earlier this year and have engaged with the Trading Standards Institute in Scotland, which has a front-facing role.

We have also engaged with local authorities, which have a front-facing role, too. We have sought to engage the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in some of the issues that I have talked about, such as the digital switch-over. Earlier this year, we held a couple of events on the switch-over just over the road at Our Dynamic Earth. One was for MSPs and the other was for consumer groups and the voluntary sector. With our small but perfectly formed resources, we try to make the connections and to create cascading and umbrella effects throughout Scotland.

A concern is that the more vulnerable groups, which I consider to include disabled people as well as the elderly, will have difficulty in ensuring that they have a set-top box or a new digital TV set. They are often the people who rely on television most for company. The number who will miss out and be unable to make the connection is an issue.

Absolutely.

Do you have any relationship with television set retailers?

Digital UK has the direct relationship with retailers. We have no relationship with retailers. We have one intersection with that debate, because we have one duty under the Communications Act 2003 on the provision of easily usable apparatus. That role largely concerns research and development, but that is where we interact most with retailers and manufacturers, with the input of our Advisory Committee on Older and Disabled People, which is a formal, statutory committee. We work with that committee to determine the priorities that we should discuss with manufacturers and retailers on the provision of easily usable apparatus.

I am concerned that many retailers sell analogue sets. Who will tell them, "No—don't sell analogue sets, because people will need boxes," or ask whether what is on offer is digital? Even I bought an analogue set just two years ago, so I will face the extra cost.

One of Digital UK's critical jobs is to ensure that the consumer propositions are clear and that people know when their region will switch and what equipment they will need—what that means for their set, what additional material they might need to convert their video recorder and what kind of aerial they will need. People will need to address a load of technical issues. Digital UK's job is to ensure that those issues are addressed.

Who oversees Digital UK?

It was established by the Government.

Another matter that concerns me involves the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. When digital TV rolls out, a huge number of sets might be discarded. We will have to ensure that those old sets are recycled.

People do not need a new set; they just need a box.

Yes—but we know that sales pitches may make many people go down the road of replacing sets. The decision to roll out digital TV has implications down the line, but I do not feel that Ofcom is aware of all those implications. Perhaps I have just misunderstood.

To reassure the committee, I say that we are aware of all those issues, but we are keen for Digital UK to take responsibility for them. That is necessarily because we have a regulatory relationship with several of the broadcasters that are involved in Digital UK and because of Sky's position. We need to preserve our role as an independent regulator, but I assure members that we have well covered the issues.

The issue that was raised about elderly and disabled people was nicely illustrated to me at a meeting with the voluntary sector. Somebody from Ofcom who shall remain nameless said, "It's very easy—you just buy a set-top box and plug it into the SCART socket at the back of your television." The woman from Age Concern replied that old people do not necessarily know whether they have a SCART socket and, even if they know that they have one, they may not have the mobility to go behind the television or the manual dexterity to plug in the box. That is a good example. On such matters, engagement by Digital UK with the voluntary sector and front-line workers who work with people who might be disadvantaged could be most profitable. I know that Digital UK is keen to do that.

That is the issue that I am really concerned about. May I quickly ask another question?

Keep it tight, please, Shiona.

To what extent is Ofcom proactive in relation to the definition of public purpose and the need to reflect the make-up of the UK's nations, regions and communities? What do you do when you watch a television programme and see that something is not being reflected in the way that Jeremy Peat talked about? He mentioned enriching the story. Something that got me jumping up and down recently was when John Thurso was described as "Liberal Democrat MP, Scotland", as if there were only one Liberal Democrat MP in Scotland. That would never happen in relation to an English MP. I did nothing about that case but I wondered whether you had a panel of people who might react proactively—if that term makes sense—to such things.

Given the amount of complaints that we get when people see something that they do not like, I do not think that we need viewer panels. I would urge you to get in touch with us about the case that you mention.

We license 300 or 400 television channels. We do not watch all of them—we simply cannot and, in any case, I do not think that that would be an appropriate or creditable use of our time. We depend on people getting in touch with us if they see things that offend or upset them.

You should pray that they do not bring back "Come Dancing", because it was a disaster in terms of people complaining about there being no Scottish couples on it.

There is no Scottish couple on "Strictly Come Dancing".

I am talking about "Come Dancing" with Peter West. It was on a long time ago now.

Convener, I am full of admiration of your ability to span the beginning and the future of broadcasting in a single session.

I have to emphasise that it was my granny who told me about that programme.

I thank our witnesses. This has been an entertaining and informative session.

Before we move on, we should have a brief chat to determine whether we have any points that we want to follow up in relation to items 3 or 4. Susan Deacon suggested having this discussion. Do you have any points to raise, Susan?

I simply queried when we might have an opportunity to debrief after the two evidence-taking sessions. I think that, often, points are freshest in our minds just after we have taken evidence. I am in your hands as to how best that might be done.

We have had an update only from the BBC on the issue of the progress that has been made to date on its internal reviews. However, when we originally considered this matter, we took evidence from a number of other organisations, including the trade unions. It appears that our update has, therefore, been somewhat one-sided. I would be a bit concerned about drawing any conclusions about what progress has been made until I have had a fuller picture about what is going on from the other side.

It is fair to say that we have heard quite a lot from the BBC on this brave new world but have heard nothing from the independent broadcasters. It would be good to hear what they are doing to improve quality, raise the level of Scottish content, deal with Gaelic broadcasting, tackle the switch-over that Ofcom has just told us about and so on. We run the risk of concentrating on the BBC to the detriment of the broadcasting debate across Scotland. I would like us to consider that. Further, whether in a year's time or sooner, depending on what announcements are made in the new year, I would like Ofcom to report back to us on progress in relation to Digital UK and the other matters that have been raised.

You mentioned that we could get an update in a year. Obviously, the programme is rolling out over a period of time and I imagine that some of the impacts will become more evident over the next few months. I do not know whether Michael Matheson was thinking of asking the unions to come back to us quite soon, but perhaps it might be useful to have them before us in a couple of months' time, when the impacts of the pilots that are taking place might be clearer. I am just floating that idea because some of the things that will have an impact on quality—particularly some of the things that I am concerned about—will not come into play until February or March.

We need to be clear about where we want to go with these issues. There is the issue of drilling deeper into the BBC review and the wider question about the future of broadcasting in Scotland. I merely observe that we keep switching between the two; we really have to decide at some stage which way to jump. Whichever way we jump and whatever we say about regional broadcasting in general and broadcasting in Scotland in particular, it would be appropriate to ask the Executive how it is engaging and dealing with the issues. We could wait until we develop our report and ask the Executive to respond to it, and/or we could ask it now to tell us what capacity it has in place and how it is engaged with the processes that Ofcom has described.

We are operating at three levels. First, there is the general issue of the future of public sector broadcasting and how it affects broadcasting and associated industries and sectors in Scotland. Secondly, within that are the specific issues raised in the BBC proposals for change. Thirdly, there are even more specific issues such as representation on the new board of trustees for the BBC, which people have expressed strong views about.

In February or March, after the white paper has been published, we will know better the proposals for the future of the BBC. We have agreed to write anyway on the specific issue of representation among the new trustees. The right time to write would be sometime shortly after the publication of the white paper, by which time Ofcom will be further down the road with its review, particularly on issues such as Gaelic television. A variety of people could give us evidence on the Ofcom review, what is happening in the BBC and, as Susan Deacon said, the broader issues that we need to address with the Executive. We could have a meeting about the future of broadcasting in Scotland in general. We could agree beforehand who to invite when we consider the work programme. Is that agreed?

I flag up something that concerns me slightly, which is that we need to be clear about what we are bringing in people to discuss. It is not our role to interfere in the discussions between an employer and the employee representatives, and sometimes we have veered towards doing that. We have to keep focused on our remit, which is to ensure that public service broadcasting in Scotland is of the highest possible quality, takes into account the varying aspects of culture and life in Scotland, deals with training and skills and is fit for the next century. We need to be sure that when we arrange our next evidence session we are clear about what we want to get out of it.

I had thought that we would have a general evidence session at one of our meetings in the spring, to which we could invite representatives of the key stakeholders. The viewers are pretty well key in all this, as are the people who work in the industry as a whole, rather than just in the BBC. Also involved are people who work in peripheral bodies, such as the creative industries people at Scottish Enterprise and Skillset Scotland. Should we ask the clerks to prepare a paper? We could discuss that sometime in January, with a view to keeping the momentum going. There are legitimate issues for us to address, even though we do not have legislative responsibility for broadcasting. The clerks will seek the views and input of relevant members before the paper is circulated for discussion. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

As far as the white paper is concerned, we discussed writing to the DCMS on the issue of trustees with responsibility for Scotland. We should go ahead and do that.

I believe that we have agreed to do so.

I also sought clarification on that point, and I wonder whether, as a precursor to our evidence taking, we should ask the Executive for the factual position.

I suggest that, before we decide on which stakeholders to invite to give oral evidence, we should ask for written evidence to ensure that any oral evidence-taking session is necessary and productive. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Susan Deacon for her useful suggestion.