The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-01745, in the name of Sandra White, on BBC Scotland job cuts. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament expresses concern at the proposed cuts at BBC Scotland’s Glasgow headquarters and Edinburgh offices, which will result in one third of BBC Radio Scotland’s production staff losing their jobs and the axing of Scotland at Ten and Newsweek; believes that, at this time of historic political debate on the future of Scotland, these cuts are counterproductive to the aims of a thorough and informed debate; acknowledges calls for these proposals to be explored in more detail with an aim to producing alternative future models for broadcasting in Scotland, and hopes that any final decision will address these concerns.
17:02
I acknowledge the dedication and commitment of BBC staff across the country to delivering high-quality journalism. From television to radio broadcasting, they do a great job with what we have come to learn is very little. I make special mention of the poor souls at “Democracy Live”, who have the unenviable task of sitting through and sifting through every meeting of the Parliament and its committees. Our thoughts are with them.
I cannot say it too clearly: the work that BBC staff do is terrific. That is why the proposals, how staff are being treated and what they are being asked to do are a huge kick in the teeth. The delivering quality first project—that is true Birtspeak—aims to cut £1.9 million, or 16 per cent, from BBC Scotland’s news and current affairs budget over five years. In the first tranche of the cuts, a third of BBC Radio Scotland production staff will lose their jobs, which is staggering.
On top of that, programmes such as “Scotland at Ten” and “Newsweek Scotland” will be axed, which will lead to a reduction in overall quality, if not in the amount of politics coverage on Radio Scotland. The proposed cuts look bad enough, but the public are not being given all the facts. Four editorial posts have already been lost, which has led to a situation in which the programmes that we are told will replace “Scotland at Ten” and “Newsweek” are already seriously understaffed.
We are told that the rationale behind the cuts is the licence-fee freeze that the Westminster Government imposed, and that Scotland is just shouldering its share of the overall cuts. That is simply not true; Scotland is being singled out for deeper and faster cuts than will be made anywhere else in the UK, which is worrying. BBC Radio Scotland’s budget is due to be cut by 6.6 per cent and the budget for the Gaelic radio service is due to be cut by 6.7 per cent.
However, BBC Radio 4’s budget will not be cut, but will remain at £99.5 million. The budget for BBC Radio Wales will be cut by 3.2 per cent and for BBC Radio Ulster it will be cut by 1.6 per cent. BBC local radio in England will have a 4.2 per cent cut. I simply cannot understand why BBC Radio Scotland should receive larger cuts than BBC radio in any other part of the United Kingdom, especially at this time of unprecedented political debate on the future of our country. Although the political parties are unable to agree on which way to vote in the 2014 independence referendum, they all agree on the need for a full and frank debate on what independence will mean for the people of Scotland. The cuts will simply not help that.
The way in which the BBC is carrying out the cuts is equally troubling. It has announced changes, but it has not said what the changes will look like, and has given no details on the new two-hour Saturday “Good Morning Scotland”. There are fears that other programmes will be scrapped or downgraded because of the reduction in resources. There is also concern over the fact that the cuts are being rushed through on day 1 of what is a five-year strategy that is inappropriately called delivering quality first. It is no secret that the National Union of Journalists believes that the cuts to BBC Scotland’s radio news are fundamentally at odds with the BBC Scotland management’s stated aims to
“protect and enhance the quality of our core News and Current Affairs output across all platforms”
during what we could call the “delivering quality second” process.
I have received many letters from constituents asking the Scottish Government to make representations regarding the proposals and to ask the BBC to reconsider its current approach and proposals. For example, many people have questioned how axing a one-hour weekly show such as “Newsweek Scotland” could save much money when the proposal is to replace it with a two-hour “GMS”. Those questions are from listeners—the consumers—who are the very people that the BBC should listen to and serve.
As John Boothman, the head of news and current affairs for BBC Scotland, proudly pointed out when he gave evidence to the Education and Culture Committee in January, the corporation’s radio news coverage has an audience of 450,000 listeners, which is up 30,000 over five years. “Scotland at Ten” is listened to by 100,000 people each week, but what thought has been given to the provision of public broadcasting for that large amount of listeners? The BBC has a duty to provide for those 100,000 listeners. By removing the programme, it is failing in that duty.
To avoid further challenges, the BBC needs to issue clear evidence, at the earliest possible opportunity, of how the change does not contravene the guidance. At that meeting, Mr Boothman went on to laud the fact that BBC Radio Scotland broadcasts 63 hours of news and current affairs a week, which is well above the quota that is set by the BBC trust of 43 hours a week. For the life of me, I cannot see where those 63 hours come from, as that is a staggering nine hours a day. If Mr Boothman is tuning in or watching today, I would be grateful if he could let me and others know about that.
My colleague Joan McAlpine, who will speak later in the debate and who is a member of the Education and Culture Committee, had some pertinent points for the head of news and current affairs. She asked him whether he had made any representations to the BBC nationally regarding the scale of the proposed cuts in Scotland, given the importance of the 2014 Scottish referendum on independence.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, Christine, but I do not have time.
In reply, a rather reluctant and unusually coy Mr Boothman eventually suggested that Ms McAlpine would be better off speaking to his boss, Ken MacQuarrie, implying that the issue was above his pay grade—which, incidentally is £200,000 a year.
At the same meeting, Iain Macwhirter—I do not know whether he will like this, but I will say it—that sage and well-respected commentator, made the point that, when he raised the issue of the historical underfunding of broadcasting in Scotland, he was told that because Scotland has only a tenth of the population of the United Kingdom, programmes are made at a tenth of the cost. I was absolutely dumbfounded to hear that. It speaks volumes about how broadcasting in Scotland is viewed by senior executives in the BBC. To put it in context, what is being said is that, as Scotland has only a tenth of the population, programmes can be roughly a tenth of the quality. If I were to go to hospital or to access social services or any other public service, I would want the same service, no matter how much of the population there is in Scotland.
Staff are concerned about their future, because cuts have been announced but they do not know who the cuts will fall on. As far as I am aware, the staff have been instructed to attend boards in Glasgow next month, but they do not know what those boards will do or what they will consist of. People do not know whether they will be pitted against one another, asked to explain why they would be better for the job than a colleague or simply told that they had better consider voluntary redundancy or possibly face a worse fate. They do not know. Unsurprisingly, that is having a huge impact on morale in the organisation. It is no way to treat the dedicated workers who have, time and again, shown their value and commitment to the BBC and to one another.
The delivering quality first strategy is seriously flawed and we, in this Parliament, need to look seriously at what is happening in the BBC. If the higher-up staff at BBC Scotland fail to listen to our views, we will need to look seriously at the role of the BBC in Scotland.
17:10
I will speak quite quickly because there is a lot to say and very little time to say it in.
I congratulate my colleague Sandra White on securing tonight’s members’ business debate. I share the concerns of many members that these wholly unnecessary cuts will have a negative impact on the news and current affairs outputs in Scotland. I was frankly amazed to learn that the proposed cuts are larger than any cuts that have been proposed for the rest of the United Kingdom, which is simply unacceptable. We need to know why Scotland is being singled out in such a manner. It will mean a loss of the quality jobs that are being done expertly, and a loss of quality programming for the population of this country.
Since its foundation on 18 October 1922, the BBC has, overall, done a great job in the past century, which has seen huge political, cultural and technological change. If the BBC could handle those changes, why is it that, in the 21st century, it is said to be unable to respond to the changes in the political make-up of the UK? The advent of devolution in Scotland and Wales has undoubtedly thrown up challenges for the BBC in the way that it reports news and current affairs from Scotland and from outwith Scotland but, again and again, it has shown itself to be unable to respond, to evolve and, ultimately, to represent effectively those who pay the widely reported licence fee. That is not the fault of the people who work at the BBC, but the fault of the board.
As Aesop said, it is better to bend than to break. I agree with that wise man. The BBC board should bend to the will of the Scottish people before the BBC’s commitment to the service that it provides to the people is broken.
Perhaps a halfway house could have been found. The Calman commission, the mother of the Scotland Bill that is currently snaking its way through the Westminster Parliament, proposed just that in recommendation 5.4:
“The responsibility for the appointment of the Scottish member of the BBC Trust should be exercised by Scottish Ministers, subject to the normal public appointments process.”
Let us remind ourselves that the commission was, in the words of its founders, set up to find a way to make devolution work better for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee recommended that powers that are broadly in line with those suggested by the Calman commission should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament to regulate public service broadcasting aims. Has Westminster taken up those recommendations? The simple answer is no. What does that leave us with? A public service broadcaster that is not responsible to the people to whom it broadcasts and is totally out of touch with what is required in modern-day Scotland.
Ms White picked up on evidence that was given to the Scottish Parliament’s Education and Culture Committee. In the same meeting, Iain Macwhirter went on to say that the set-up is no longer acceptable. He said:
“We will have a referendum. We will have either independence or a move further towards a federal arrangement. Either way, we will have a different political and constitutional environment. I see no evidence that the BBC in the UK is even beginning to recognise that.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 24 January 2012; c 654.]
Even the former BBC chief, Jeremy Peat, has added his backing to the calls for Scotland to have more broadcasting powers. He said that the
“case for more and more production out of London remains and the pressure for increased devolution of programming must continue”.
Everyone seems to get the message and most of us seem to agree that the BBC needs to adapt to the changing political climate at this juncture in Scotland’s history and, even more than that, it needs to serve its listeners and viewers in Scotland.
Lord Reith, the first director general of the BBC, was born and raised in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland. To paraphrase him, if nation shall speak unto nation, they should first and foremost have a functioning broadcasting service. It is time for the BBC in Scotland to get with the programme.
17:15
Like Bill Kidd, I congratulate Sandra White on securing this debate, and I join her in her praise of the production staff at the BBC.
Ms White is right to point out the value that we should all give to informed, independent broadcasting, particularly at a time when the future of our country is being discussed, sometimes quite hotly. We know that more people than ever rely on the broadcast media for news and current affairs, so it is important that the service they get from our biggest broadcaster is as comprehensive as possible.
I lodged an amendment to Sandra White’s motion because it did not emphasise enough the concerns about job losses and their possible effect on both the quality of the BBC’s output generally and on individual programmes, and I still believe that to be the case. I am sure that colleagues will have received the briefing from the BBC, which relates directly to the motion before us and seeks to correct certain inaccuracies in it. We are told that a third of BBC Radio Scotland production staff will not lose their jobs, but that that figure relates only to radio production staff employed wholly within the news and current affairs operation, and that the total number will be about 11 over some five years, although that is still a matter for discussion. We are also told that about 30 posts in total will be lost over the next five years out of a workforce of some 240, based in nine centres throughout Scotland.
The situation of “Newsweek Scotland” and “Scotland at Ten” has also been explained, and it would appear that although “Newsweek Scotland” will no longer be broadcast, “Good Morning Scotland” will extend its reach into Saturdays, increasing from one to three hours the amount of news and current affairs on that day of the week. “Scotland at Ten” will end completely, but apparently there will be additional daytime coverage.
Although it might be possible to give some explanation for the changes to programming, it appears that staff members who are fortunate enough—I use “fortunate” advisedly—to retain a job, will be required to do more with less. Furthermore, although the explanation might be absolutely correct, I, like Ms White, do not see how the changes that the BBC says will happen will produce the kind of savings that BBC Scotland is being asked to make. Of course, the changes and cuts are necessary entirely because the licence fee has been frozen, and I am genuinely interested to hear from the cabinet secretary what the Scottish Government’s view is of that freeze.
The BBC needs to engage more with its staff and the trade unions, to minimise job losses and protect the conditions under which staff work. If the services of some members of staff are dispensed with, there will inevitably be more pressure on those who remain. The BBC has a duty of care to its employees, both to those it currently has and to the reduced number it expects to have in a few years’ time.
The BBC must also explain the measures to this Parliament and the viewing public, and reassure us that the quality for which the BBC is renowned will be maintained in Scotland. We should expect nothing less of the BBC; it is a public service broadcaster, and one that is renowned throughout the world. At a time when our future is under such discussion and our debates and our world of politics are under such scrutiny, we need a comprehensive and independent broadcaster that can explain to the people of Scotland exactly what the issues are and bring to them a point of view that everyone recognises as independent.
17:19
I, too, thank Sandra White for bringing this debate to the chamber, but I have to say that my briefing differs a little from hers. I express my admiration for the tremendous work of the BBC, which, because of its high standards and emphasis on impartiality, has become not only a great national asset but an important British cultural export. With that in mind, it is right to support the BBC’s great work and to strive to ensure that its international standing and reputation are maintained.
That said, it is also imperative to balance support for public broadcasting against the need to ensure that the BBC is run efficiently and with value for the licence-fee payer in mind. We are undoubtedly living in tough economic times. As a result, funds are being squeezed across a range of services and broadcasting is no exception.
The UK Government’s decision to freeze the cost of the licence fee until 2016 has meant that the BBC has been forced to suffer cuts in its budget. I am not against the decision to freeze the licence fee. It is right for the Government to recognise that all budgets, including household budgets, are being stretched like never before.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I do not have time to take interventions.
A sad consequence of the budget cuts is that jobs will be lost, although I believe that the numbers will not be those that Sandra White states in her motion. Job losses are not unique to the BBC, and they are certainly not solely confined to the BBC in Scotland. When businesses across the country are laying off staff, it would be unrealistic to expect broadcasting to be immune from that.
The situation is undoubtedly unfortunate for the individuals in question. It also puts extra pressure on the BBC as an organisation to strive to ensure that the quality and professionalism of its output do not diminish as a result. I am certain that the BBC will be able to meet the high standards that it sets for itself. The chairman of the BBC trust, Lord Patten, has made clear his belief that it is
“perfectly possible to run a great public ... broadcaster”
even in the face of budget cuts. I was heartened that BBC Scotland’s head of news and current affairs, John Boothman, maintained to the Education and Culture Committee that job losses and budget cuts would not negatively impact on quality or result in a decrease in broadcast hours. That commitment is welcome.
Moreover, given that the BBC and the media as a whole are increasingly moving to the online sphere, that will inevitably have an impact on production staff levels.
It is encouraging that, despite cuts to budgets across all the UK’s regions, funding for television broadcasting in Scotland has risen in recent years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Under the network supply review, spending on network television production in Scotland has doubled since 2007 and will continue to rise, even when budgets in London and other parts of England are being reduced. The BBC has undertaken to grow network TV production in Scotland to 6.1 per cent of eligible spend this year and to 8.6 per cent by 2016. Such an increase should be applauded.
As for BBC Radio Scotland, it is unfortunate that “Newsweek Scotland”, of which I am a great fan, and “Scotland at Ten” face the axe. However, it is reassuring that those cuts will be more than offset by a new two-hour slot on Saturday mornings for “Good Morning Scotland” and an increase in the station’s daily political output. That will go some way toward guaranteeing that Radio Scotland maintains a consistent and high level of public broadcasting.
I fully agree with Sandra White that this is a historic time in Scotland’s political history. As a referendum on our nation’s future will take place in the next few years, it is essential to have a public broadcaster that ensures that all sides of the argument are heard and that the debate is reported and presented impartially and fairly. I have no doubt that, even in the wake of budget and staff cuts, the BBC will rise to those challenges, especially given the standard of its political journalism.
17:23
I, too, congratulate Sandra White on securing the debate. I support her comments about and praise for the work of BBC staff in Scotland.
I will look at the subject in a wider historical context. Sandra White comprehensively outlined the effect on staff and the percentage cuts that are affecting us now. If Scotland had been generously treated when it came to slicing up the broadcasting cake, there might be a justification for prudent housekeeping now, but the opposite is the case. Scotland generates 8.8 per cent of BBC income in licence fees but receives only 5.7 per cent of the revenues that are raised.
The BBC’s Scotland-only budget is £102 million per annum, and it will be reduced to £86 million per annum by 2017. That is part of a worrying historical trend that is damaging to our national life, democratic participation and cultural development. The BBC’s Audience Council Scotland reported last year that the BBC should show more, not less, Scottish news and offer deeper analysis in its coverage. The Audience Council Scotland report said that there was a continued bias towards news stories on the network that affect only England. That is striking even to those from outside Scotland. It was put rather well by the respected “Channel Four News” journalist Krishnan Guru-Murthy in his blog last year. He wrote:
“I’d forgotten how English the British media is. The inevitable concentration in TV news programmes is on English concerns, English politics, English culture. Having spent just a couple of weeks north of the border it seems blindingly obvious that the status quo doesn’t make sense anymore.”
Far from cutting posts in news and current affairs in Scotland, the BBC should be expanding them. As others from across the political parties have said, just as our nation enters a period of intense debate about its future, the media spaces in which we can conduct that debate are shrinking. Why is BBC Radio Scotland’s most analytical and intelligent current affairs show, “Newsweek Scotland”, facing the axe? Why is the only Scottish opt-out on Radio 1, “Introducing in Scotland”, which showcases unsigned bands, being pulled and re-presented as a UK-wide programme from London? Why are programmes that have become part of the aural fabric of Scotland, such as the Janice Forsyth show, being unceremoniously dumped despite audience protests?
Janice Forsyth has been described as a national treasure. Can we imagine Radio 4 dumping what it considers to be national treasures, such as “Just a Minute” or “The Archers”? On the same tack, can we imagine it dumping “From Our Own Correspondent”, which could be compared to “Newsweek Scotland”? Of course, Radio 4’s budget is not being cut, because Mark Thompson has described it as the jewel in the crown of the BBC. Its budget of about £100 million a year is being protected. To put that in context, it is more than the whole of BBC Scotland’s broadcasting budget for our country after the cuts.
Sandra White referred to Iain Macwhirter comments at the Education and Culture Committee. I was chatting to a journalist who also has experience of working for the BBC in both Scotland and London, on “Good Morning Scotland” and “Today”. He mentioned that more money is spent on flowers for the “Today” green room than the entire GMS budget. I have no means of knowing whether that story is apocryphal or accurate, but I do know that the BBC has never made available figures that would allow us to compare those and similar programmes. Such an exercise is called benchmarking, and if it was conducted in a transparent way, it would be clear just how unbalanced is the BBC commitment to delivering quality.
I thank Sandra White for her remarks on my cross-examination of Mr Boothman at the Education and Culture Committee. I should add that I put the same question to Mr Boothman’s boss, Mr MacQuarrie, when he was before the Scotland Bill Committee. I asked him whether he had argued against the cuts because Scotland was a special case, and he was unable to answer, too. I reflect on the title “Delivering Quality First”. It is clear that Scotland is not first in line when it comes to quality treatment.
17:28
I, too, congratulate Sandra White on securing this evening’s debate. I know that the future of BBC services in Scotland greatly concerns her as she has raised it at First Minister’s question time, and indeed she raised it this afternoon. I am glad that we have now been able to discuss the matter at more length. I was pleased to hear a degree of cross-party support for the maintenance and enhancement of BBC services in Scotland, and also the recognition from members throughout the chamber of the quality of the staff. I share that sentiment.
I turn to a point that Bill Kidd raised. When the Prime Minister came to Scotland recently, he was kind enough to remind us that Reith of the BBC—Lord Reith of Stonehaven—was a Scot. The Scottish Government was already mindful of that fact, and mindful not just of his origins but of his vision of public service broadcasting.
In a particularly good speech, Patricia Ferguson raised the issue of the licence fee and the source of the problem. Had the coalition Government been more mindful of that vision when it imposed the current licence-fee settlement, which was negotiated secretly over 48 hours, we might not be having this debate. I have made that point repeatedly in the Parliament and directly to ministers, both in person and in writing. That is one of the reasons why, in the current Scotland Bill discussions, we proposed to include in the bill a power of consultation on the licence fee.
We come here not to criticise the BBC—although some members have done so—but to protect it. We recognise that the BBC has been placed in a difficult position by the cuts that have been made by the UK Government. Indeed, even as the Scottish Government absorbs the effects of cuts to its funding, we understand that that is also the case for the BBC. Just as the challenge for us is to respond to our financial situation in a way that maximises public benefit, preserves front-line services and protects priorities, so the BBC faces a similar challenge. Just as the Scottish Government expects the Parliament to recognise that the overall position under current constitutional arrangements is forced upon us and to hold us vigorously to account on how we work within those constraints, so it is entirely right to challenge the BBC on how it works within its financial constraints. Joan McAlpine’s point about the BBC not touching Radio 4 because it is the jewel in the crown gets to the nub of the issues that were raised by several members, including Bill Kidd and Sandra White, regarding the way in which radio, particularly, is being treated in Scotland compared with how it is being treated in England.
The BBC has approached its response to the cuts in a systematic fashion through its “Delivering Quality First” consultation, to which the Scottish Government has sent a response. Patricia Ferguson talked about the importance of the quality of output, and that was very much at the heart of what we put in our submission. We were grateful to Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC trust, for the opportunity to discuss that when he met me and the First Minister last month. We look forward to seeing the BBC trust’s response to the consultation in due course.
It is concerning, therefore, that the BBC both in Scotland and more generally is making decisions in advance of the BBC trust reaching a formal position in the light of the responses to its consultation. It is also concerning that, when such decisions are made, they do not always match the rhetoric of “Delivering Quality First”.
In the final paragraphs of the introduction to the Scottish Government’s response to that paper, we say:
“Turning to how the BBC will operate within these constraints, few—if any, and certainly not the Scottish Government—would argue with the broad ambition that is contained within the five pillars of proposed editorial strategy identified by the Director General: seeking the best journalism in the world; ambitious original drama and comedy; inspiration and commitment in the fields of knowledge, music and culture; outstanding services for children; and events that bring people together.”
Those are all laudable aims. However, it is vital that the detail of the BBC’s proposals matches those ideals and that they are met specifically for Scotland as for the broader network—a point that was made by a number of members.
Those aims and the items outlined in the pillars by the cabinet secretary are laudable, and I am sure that we could all sign up to them. However, all those things cost money. Does the cabinet secretary support the freeze in the licence fee? At the end of the day, we will either have an increase in the licence fee or face the consequences.
That ship has sailed—unfortunately, within 48 hours—and the renegotiation will not take place until 2015-16. Either we will have the full powers of independence to allow us to make decisions about broadcasting or, at the very least, we will need to have a consultation on the negotiation as it proceeds. Patricia Ferguson is absolutely right about the price of the cut and the freeze, and we should have been part of those discussions. I agree with her that there could have been other solutions, and the effects of the freeze should have been addressed.
The Scottish Government’s response continues:
“The emphasis on delivery in the title ‘Delivering Quality First’ is, like the Director General’s five pillars, wholly laudable. The concern is the lack of detail to demonstrate that the BBC’s proposals will, indeed, deliver those pillars to the standard of quality to be expected.”
As more detail emerges, that concern has grown rather than diminished. We debated “Introducing in Scotland” in January. However, the issue is not about a specific programme, excellent though it is, but about preserving the opportunities that it offers to our gifted young people and the “inspiration and commitment” to music and culture that it shows—to use the words from one of the director general’s five pillars.
The challenge is similar in relation to programmes such as the Janice Forsyth show, which I think is the best show on the radio, and “Mary Ann Kennedy’s Global Gathering”, which is described on the BBC’s website as
“a world music show with a uniquely Scottish perspective”.
The challenge for the BBC is to demonstrate how that kind of unique Scottish perspective in music and culture can be maintained. I was encouraged to see that BBC Scotland’s brief for the debate mentioned a continuing role for those presenters. I hope that more detail will follow soon.
I might be thought to have a vested interest in encouraging the BBC to pay particular attention to Scottish news and current affairs, but no more so than any member of this Parliament or, indeed, any citizen of this country. The First Minister and I had a very positive meeting with Lord Patten. We all agreed that the BBC must be properly equipped and staffed to cover Scottish news and current affairs fully at this vital point in Scotland’s history. I think that every one of us in the chamber can agree that that is imperative.
That applies both to factual reporting and to providing the opportunities for wider reflection and debate that a programme such as “Newsweek Scotland” currently delivers. A point that was well made by Bill Kidd is that the need for information on and analysis of Scotland’s constitutional debate applies not only to citizens of this country but to citizens of the world. Scotland is now subject to international attention as never before. That is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity that the BBC and other public service broadcasters need to live up to.
Let the word go out from the chamber that Scotland and the world look to our public service broadcasters to match the needs of this historic moment.
I will send a copy of the Official Report of the debate to Mark Thompson and to Ken MacQuarrie to reiterate our concern about the BBC’s proposals.
Meeting closed at 17:36.Previous
Decision Time