Grampian Television
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-474, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on Grampian Television. The debate will be concluded, without any question being put, after 30 minutes.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the contribution made in the past by Grampian Television to the regional identity of the North East of Scotland and to the social cohesion of the diverse communities it services; notes the threat posed to the station by the Scottish Media Group's proposals on re-organisation of its regional production department, which involve the shedding of jobs and a cut in pay levels; supports the high standard of regional broadcasting and the dedicated work of broadcasting professionals whose livelihoods are now under threat, and urges the Scottish Executive to state publicly its support for regional broadcasting.
I begin by thanking all the MSPs who have stayed behind for the debate and everyone who has signed the motion, which attracted the support of nearly a quarter of MSPs—that shows the strength of feeling on the subject matter.
One of Scotland's key strengths is its cultural diversity. Thankfully, down the years, the media in Scotland have recognised that. Regional identity is particularly important in north and north-east Scotland. Again, that is reflected in the local media, the local commercial radio stations—of which there are many—in the very successful regional press and, of course, in television.
Just up the road from where I live in Aberdeen are the city's BBC studios, while just up the road and round the corner are the Grampian Television studios. In my case, regional broadcasting is a subject that is close to home. I therefore had no hesitation in lodging the motion once it was clear that, since the merger in 1997, the Scottish Media Group has been allowing Grampian Television to wither on the vine.
There are 1.1 million people in the Grampian region—that includes the cities of Aberdeen and Dundee and a rural area the size of many European countries. Until the merger in 1997, Grampian Television played its role in reflecting local concerns and culture in the area. However, since the merger, the management in Glasgow simply refers to Grampian Television as "the Aberdeen office".
Members may have noticed a glossy advertising campaign earlier this week by the Scottish Media Group, which confidently proclaimed:
"You will just love the changes at Grampian."
Perhaps we can bring the management at the Scottish Media Group back down to earth this evening.
Many people are unhappy with the changes that are taking place at Grampian Television. What was regarded as an excellent and loyal work force has been undermined by a management in Glasgow that is obsessed with cutting costs to maximise profits. The last straw happened recently, when two out of three of the producer-directors—the core programme makers in Aberdeen—were issued with redundancy notices. On top of that, there is a threat to pay levels throughout SMG, both at Scottish Television and at Grampian Television. We are now at the stage where both stations are on the brink of industrial action.
Other changes that we do not like include the massive decline in regional programming. That is illustrated by comparing this week's television schedules in Grampian with pre-merger schedules. If we look down this week's list of scheduled programmes, we find "Grampian Headlines"; the excellent news magazine programme, "North Tonight"; and the weather. There are two co-production programmes in this week's list, both of which are made in Glasgow, and "Walking Back To Happiness", a repeat of a programme made before the merger.
If we compare that to a week in, say, November 1996—a few months before the merger—we find not only some of the programmes I have already mentioned, but "The Birthday Spot"; "The River"; a documentary on the A9 mystery; "North Tonight Special"; "Walking Back To Happiness", which was not a repeat back then; "Crossfire"; a Gaelic magazine programme; "The Art Sutter Show"; and so on. All those programmes cover a wide range of topics, from light entertainment to politics and current affairs. That massive decline in regional programming is a change we do not like.
Another change we do not like is the tricks of the trade that the Scottish Media Group is using to massage the figures, so that it can say to the Independent Television Commission that it is achieving its targets. Those tricks of the trade include catch-all programming, when it produces a magazine programme such as "Grampian Weekend". It is not a bad programme in itself, but slotting five minutes of arts, five minutes of politics, five minutes of light entertainment and so on into that programme—rather than producing in-depth programmes on those issues—helps SMG to achieve its targets.
Another trick of the trade we do not like is the captions of convenience. What is happening is incredible. To help the Scottish Media Group achieve its targets, captions are swapped between Grampian Television and Scottish Television, sometimes halfway through a series. "The Week in Politics" is captioned by Grampian, but produced and directed from Glasgow. How on earth is it a Grampian regional programme? "High Road" is called a co-production. It, too counts towards the targets. It carries both the STV and Grampian logo, but it is made in STV's area using STV staff. How on earth is that a Grampian programme? SMG, of course, says that it sends a cheque to help pay for the programme, but I do not think that the ITC will swallow that one.
The truth is that SMG has an atrocious record at Grampian. Many of the promises on the original licence application have been broken. I will give just one of many examples. Under "Scottish Celebrations" the application said:
"Grampian will mark with music, arts and entertainment programmes such special Scottish occasions as Hogmanay when it mounts a major outside broadcast to welcome the New Year at a location in the transmission area."
That has not happened since SMG took over. We have had the ridiculous situation in which there was not one camera out and about in Grampian's area during the millennium celebrations. That was not the case elsewhere in the SMG area.
The agreement was also broken because SMG was not meant to reduce the number of production staff in Aberdeen, but redundancy notices are on the desks of some core staff. SMG is happy to boast that it made a £50 million profit last year, but at the same time there are job cuts and cuts in pay. SMG is clearly turning its back on the sector that helped to build the group in the first place and which helped to make the profit that makes many people in SMG very rich.
SMG argues that it wants to move with the times—that is fair. If, however, Grampian Television does not make local programmes in that area, nobody will.
Parliament must send messages to three places. The first must go to the SMG boardroom. If the board is losing interest in television, it must let someone else take over independent television broadcasting in Scotland. If it wants to keep television broadcasting, it must drop its planned redundancies and pay cuts and restore programming to its pre-merger levels.
The second message must go to the ITC. The Scottish National party welcomes the commission's investigation of SMG, but if it finds SMG guilty, the ITC must use its full powers against the group—it must not give the group any more chances. Let us bring this sorry episode to an end.
Finally, we must send a message to the Scottish Executive. It is, to say the least, regrettable that Parliament does not have the power to make laws on broadcasting. This and many other issues highlight why that must change—broadcasting must come within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. I welcome the First Minister's warm words regarding the ITC and SMG's obligations at a recent question time, but warm words are not enough. I hope, however, that when the minister closes the debate he will come with warm words, but also with a commitment that the Executive will do what it can to save jobs at Grampian Television, to improve pay at STV and at Grampian and to protect regional broadcasting in Scotland. We need commitment to action, not just warm words.
I am glad that Richard Lochhead has secured this debate. I want to expand on what he has said about the historical contribution of Grampian Television to the regional identity of the north-east and the Highlands and Islands. One of the features of Grampian has been its decentralised nature. That reflects the fact that the transmission area is not one, but several distinct regions in Scotland.
When STV merged with Grampian two years ago, the former was already thoroughly centralised in Glasgow. In contrast, Grampian Television still has studios in each of the three main regions that it serves; it has studios in Aberdeen, Inverness and Dundee. It also has a studio in Stornoway. The maintenance of that structure is written into the merger agreement of November 1997, which was signed by SMG and the ITC. The agreement was designed to maintain not only Grampian Television's separate nature, which distinguishes it from STV, but its devolved character.
The merger was a bringing together of two kinds of company—a centralised company serving the central belt and a devolved one serving the disparate regions of the north of Scotland. It was clear that the merger would either strengthen the diversity of regional broadcasting in Scotland or diminish it. SMG freely undertook the responsibility to ensure that, at the very least, there would be no loss of diversity in the Grampian transmission area.
As has been said, the evidence is that SMG has moved in the opposite direction. Members will know that representatives of the company attended yesterday's meeting of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to give an account of their stewardship of the north of Scotland franchise for channel 3 independent television. The evidence that they gave did little to allay the fears of the committee.
In particular, company representatives were pressed on what they meant by co-production and co-commission, an issue that lies at the heart of whether Grampian is still genuinely producing programmes of its own. Instead of volunteering explanations, the chairman of the board suggested that such definitions were not a matter for him, but for the ITC—he suggested that we ask that organisation. Perhaps we will.
I suggest that there is a choice to be made in independent channel 3 broadcasting. A company can either go down the road of becoming more like the opposition—quiz shows, game shows and so on—or it can play to its greatest strength, which is the fact that it was founded for regional television broadcasting. I urge the Parliament to support the motion and call for SMG to go down the road of regional broadcasting.
I, too, take this opportunity to thank Richard Lochhead for securing this debate and for the work that he has done to highlight the issues surrounding Grampian Television. However, I would also like to use this opportunity to take a long-term perspective, holding up the record of Grampian Television as something that we would wish to preserve.
I have lived in the Grampian Television area all my life—I do not care to say for how long I have been a viewer. I remember Grampian Television in the middle of the 1960s, when it was a black-and-white service. We must remember that at that time it worked very hard to fulfil its cultural remit. It was at the forefront of promoting the interests of the Scots language and the north-east tradition; it promoted poetry, song, music and all the other prominent aspects of traditional north-east culture at that time.
We have just spent a whole afternoon talking about Gaelic. Grampian Television has pioneered Gaelic broadcasting; it is to be highly commended for providing a Gaelic service for huge areas of Scotland. Although we might think of Grampian as being the smaller of the organisations that form the current Scottish broadcasting network, we would do well to remember that it covers two thirds of Scotland's geographical area and is therefore significant.
More recently, there has been excellent coverage of news and, above all, politics in the Grampian area. Grampian Television was happy to cover political issues that were relevant to specific areas in the north and north-east of Scotland. That must be under threat if the service is to become more centralised—based in and driven by Glasgow.
As Richard Lochhead pointed out, there have been attempts to bring new ideas to Grampian Television and new ways of fulfilling the requirement. Admittedly, one or two programmes are being made at the studios in Aberdeen that are rather revolutionary and pioneering. About three weeks ago, I was a guest on "Loud TV", which is a programme of interesting content and great quality. However, in no way does it reflect the tradition of regional broadcasting that Grampian Television has been famous for during the many years that it has transmitted programmes from the Aberdeen area. For that reason, I am even more inclined to agree with Richard and to encourage members to support the motion.
I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the issue raised by Richard Lochhead. I agree that there are major concerns in the north-east over the future direction of Grampian Television and the regional identity that it underpins. The impression is that there is a stampede to create international media giants and that the actions of the Scottish Media Group may endanger the essentially regional strength of the entire ITV network.
Staff at Grampian have raised serious concerns. I am aware that the unions claim that 160 workers have been targeted for pay freezes or cuts; the results of a strike ballot will be known on 17 March. I hope that the good offices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which I believe has just been called in, will help to address those concerns.
However, I am also aware that SMG has claimed that £3 million has recently been spent on upgrading Grampian Television studios; that more programmes are now being made in Aberdeen than ever before; that SMG is committed to different delivery to different parts of Scotland; that Grampian Television's audience share has increased since the merger; and that customers obviously like what they see. Those are the claims of SMG.
We must be careful in this debate not to get too carried away. We need to ensure that we are conversant with all the facts before we rush to judgment.
I want to emphasise that, yes, there are legitimate concerns over the way in which SMG is perceived to be threatening the regional identity of Grampian Television and, yes, the staff of Grampian Television have expressed legitimate concerns over their future job security and terms and conditions of employment. However, I understand the need to accept commercial reality and the need to be in the vanguard of change in the media business.
Does the member accept that some of the hours of programming that have been advertised as being Grampian Television products are in fact programmes that are produced, cut and edited in cities other than those served by Grampian Television—that is, in Edinburgh and Glasgow?
I was careful to stress that the claims that I mentioned were the claims of the media group itself. I was just saying that we need to be careful.
I want to stress that, as far as I am concerned, changes to staff terms and conditions should be made through negotiation and by making constructive use of services such as ACAS. Above all, SMG must not lose sight of the vital local public duty and responsibility that Grampian Television owes to the communities that it serves. Grampian Television's effective regional service—as Alex Johnstone suggests—must not be sacrificed in a rush to create a multinational, multimedia giant.
I would like to talk about the broader issue of television broadcasting and, more important, television employment in Scotland. I am an ex-shop steward at Scottish Television and I was on the joint negotiating committee—when there was one. There is not one now, as I am sure Lewis Macdonald and Richard Lochhead are aware.
The key issue is this: our primary commercial broadcaster is in dispute with its employees—not for the first time in the past 10 years, but for the seventh time in the past 10 years. The reason for that is the arrogance of the current management of SMG, who were previously the management and board of STV and who took to heart Lord Thomson's phrase—once used in 1957—that STV was a licence to print money.
The current management wants two printers. That is clear from the £50 million profit that the company made last year. However, they want to cut salaries to what they term industry standards. The concept of industry standards was first introduced into STV negotiations in 1993 by the current transport minister, Lord Macdonald, who was unable to tell us exactly what industry standards were. As anyone who has worked in television knows very well, each individual, in effect, negotiates their own salary depending on which company they work for.
STV's attitude—which it has applied in Grampian and which it has expressed in meetings with trade unions—is that there are 100 people out there who want each staff member's job. Television is so important, and people—including people in this chamber—are so impressed by it that they think, and this management believe, that any job, even any skilled job for which training is required, can be filled by people from the street.
I have to take issue with Alex Johnstone's view that "Loud TV" is a high-quality programme; any of the staff, who have many years of service in television, will say that it is a very low-quality programme.
Mr Quinan, for a former shop steward, you are skating on ice that is a little thin. Perhaps in your concluding remarks you could come back to the regional issues raised in the motion.
Certainly. The key element is that SMG is Glasgow focused. It has run down its operation in Edinburgh; it no longer has a studio outside Glasgow; and it looks on Grampian as an irritation and an outstation office. That was its attitude during the negotiations and the merger, and has been its attitude ever since.
The fact is that jobs have been cut at STV, Grampian Television, The Herald and the Evening Times. I doubt whether the Executive can do much about issues such as employment or broadcasting as it does not have those powers. However, if the Parliament wants to take real action against SMG, all members should withdraw their co-operation from all areas of SMG until the current industrial dispute is settled to the satisfaction of the National Union of Journalists, the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union and the electricians union.
I thank Richard Lochhead for raising this issue and welcome the opportunity to discuss it.
Although I want to avoid the issue of industrial action, I find it difficult to imagine the quality of programmes improving when a company makes its producers redundant. It is not enough to send a team to Aberdeen for the day to cover local stories and issues, because local people need to be involved in the production. The producers at Grampian knew the area, its politics and its interests. Furthermore, it is not enough to make a programme in Glasgow, to say that it is from Aberdeen and to give it a Grampian Television label.
Although I am not from the Grampian area—I am from the central belt—I am concerned that what is beginning to happen in Scottish broadcasting could become more widespread. Programmes that claim to come from STV might in future be made by Granada Television. I am also concerned that a programme such as a game show can be called a Scottish programme.
As Alex Johnstone has pointed out, we have just been discussing the Gaelic language; we have already discussed the Scots language. Although this Parliament will be discussing many aspects of Scottish life, we are in grave danger of losing what we call Scottish broadcasting. I know that, with this issue, we are skating on the thin ice of what is a reserved matter and what the Parliament has the power to do. However, we have a right to examine the nature of Scottish broadcasting. It is important to ensure that Scottish broadcasting covers Scottish news and culture.
We must have our finger on the button. I am damned if I am going to wait until Scottish broadcasting disappears to Granada Television and beyond before I start shouting about it. We have to do something about this, and we have to do it now.
We have had quite a lengthy debate in a very short time and highlighted the issues that affect broadcasting in the north-east and north of Scotland. I have had a long association with and interest in the media and broadcasting in the Highlands, and I can attest to the support and well-being in that area for the Grampian Television group, Radio nan Gaidheal and the local radio stations. The fear is that we will lose one of the key players on the circuit—Grampian Television.
The ball started rolling some weeks ago when the staff were told that their jobs were at stake; some were made redundant and others were threatened with redundancy. The latest blow has been the removal of the Grampian Television logo from the screen, which is disappointing to say the least.
Centralisation of power is happening a lot these days. One might imagine that people would learn from their mistakes. The media in particular want everything to be centred in the larger cities, particularly London—and London's periphery certainly does not extend across the border.
We should ask the Scottish media for a kind of Grampian guarantee. If the media are to gain the support of the communities that they serve and to which they have a responsibility, they must give a guarantee about their commitment to the area and communities that have supported them over the years. Let us stop the centralisation, let us consider regionality and let us sustain the regions. SMG will be delighted with the response and support it gets from communities and it will have a long-term future among us.
I am glad to see that John Munro extended the Gaelic logic into this debate by having a long debate in a short time. His point is well made, however: the completeness of the consideration of the issues is clear, despite the fact that we had only a short time in which to debate them.
Like Alex Johnstone, Richard Lochhead and other members, I have a personal interest in this issue, having lived in the Orkney islands for quite a while and in the Highlands for 25 years. Grampian Television was the major source of much of the news coverage and entertainment that I saw. Such has been Grampian Television's success as a regional broadcaster that I had never heard of Lloyd Quinan before I came to the Parliament. I gather that he was famous in another quarter, but we were quite insulated from that—some people may regard that as a particular privilege.
I listened with great interest to Richard Lochhead and supporters of the motion, who come from all parties, which is significant. I also welcome the measured tones in which Richard Lochhead and others addressed the issue, which indicates that this is not a matter to which people attach any party advantage, but about which they have genuine concerns.
There are a number of concerns about Scottish Media Group's running of its two television franchises, Scottish Television and Grampian Television. The Executive is, naturally, interested in any evidence that suggests that viewers in Scotland are not receiving the quality of service they expect. In particular, we are interested in the specific regional interest, which the viewing public and members of the Parliament expect and want to continue.
I am pleased that Richard Lochhead referred to the north and the north-east. The motion refers to the north-east, but for people in Inverness the north-east is somewhere quite different from where it is for people in Dundee or Edinburgh. It is important to reflect on the inclusive nature of the Grampian area.
I want to pick up on a number of specific points that have been made. The industrial dispute was raised by Lloyd Quinan in particular, and by Richard Lochhead and Mike Rumbles. It is clear that Scottish Media Group is in an industrial dispute with the unions, especially BECTU, about terms and conditions of employment, particularly of staff in the production departments. SMG has proposed a number of redundancies.
Members will appreciate that, from the Executive's point of view, the detail of the dispute is an internal matter of a private company, in which we have no intention of becoming involved. BECTU and the other unions involved in the dispute are more than capable of representing their members' interests and articulating their views. Indeed, one of the reasons we are having this debate is the unions' success in bringing the matter to public attention.
Our concern is principally the programmes transmitted by SMG and by its Grampian Television operation in particular. Richard Lochhead and one or two other members referred to the licence conditions and the agreements struck between Scottish Media Group and the Independent Television Commission on the running of Grampian Television.
Richard Lochhead used terms such as "tricks of the trade" and "massaging figures" to describe what Scottish Media Group is doing. I stress that those were his words. Ultimately, the decision on whether Scottish Media Group, as the licence holder, is in breach of the conditions will determine how the issue progresses. That is a matter for the Independent Television Commission which, I understand, has received a number of formal complaints. I have no doubt that careful note will be taken of this debate.
The ITC was set up to license and regulate all commercial television in the United Kingdom and operates under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Act 1996. It therefore has a duty to ensure that a wide range of television services is available throughout the UK, that the services are of high quality—it has been implied that current services are not—and that the services appeal to a variety of tastes and interests.
When SMG took over Grampian Television, it took over responsibility for the requirements under the licence. Grampian's regional commitments were in fact increased in the light of the merger. Richard Lochhead alluded to the fact that two out of three production staff associated with regional broadcasting are being made redundant. How that is compatible with the agreement is something that Grampian Television and Scottish Media Group will have to justify to the ITC.
Grampian's regional commitments were increased in the light of the merger. It has to reflect the actual level of service that had latterly been delivered to viewers in the area, over and above the minimum licence conditions. For example, the ITC increased the amount of regional production required. In the light of the recent decisions and actions, it would be for others to justify how everything has been matched.
Grampian Television, as the licence holder, is required to produce eight hours and 48 minutes of regional programmes a week, which is made up of various amounts for different types of programming, including news, sport, entertainment, Gaelic, children's programmes, religion, education and other factual programmes.
In 1998, Grampian met, or was close to, those targets. For news, it produced three hours 51 minutes a week—seven minutes short of the target. For Gaelic, it produced 55 minutes—against a target of 51 minutes. In its annual performance review of Grampian Television published last April, the ITC reported that Grampian had produced eight hours 54 minutes of programmes a week.
I am delighted that the minister shares many of the concerns that have echoed around the chamber in this evening's debate. Does he agree that it would be fitting for the Executive of Scotland's national Parliament to communicate those concerns directly to the Scottish Media Group and the Independent Television Commission?
I hope that the comments that I have been making will have the impact on Scottish Media Group—and the ITC—that many members want.
The ITC concluded that the company's performance generally met or exceeded its obligations: that viewers in the north of Scotland continued to be well served, with dedicated local programmes plus some additional pan-Scottish material.
However, the ITC is due shortly to publish its performance review for Grampian Television for 1999. When that performance review is published, the Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee will no doubt consider whether it wishes to explore further the issues that it started to deal with yesterday with the ITC.
There are concerns, which have been clearly expressed today—I have reason to believe that the ITC is taking careful account of them—about the quality of the programmes produced and transmitted by Grampian Television. Ultimately, however, those are matters for the ITC.
Richard Lochhead's arguments for bringing power north are not to do with whether broadcasting is devolved, despite some suggestions that have been made; it is a matter of regional broadcasting. If the Westminster Parliament was considering the same issues in relation to the north-east of Scotland, its debate would also relate to the ITC. This matter relates to a regional policy dimension, not a national dimension.
As the franchises for the Scottish broadcast areas, including that of Border Television, are due to expire in the next couple of years, does the Executive support the suggestion that Scottish Media Group will apply for—and possibly get—the Border TV franchise, giving it total control over Scotland? That would make it possible to say that a programme made in Glasgow is a regional programme. This reason has been used in argument: that Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom.
It would not be appropriate for me to discuss what will happen with future negotiations for franchises. Cathy Peattie picked up this point rather well, and Mr Quinan can be assured that, in the discussions that we continually have with our UK colleagues, those matters are reflected as matters of concern.
Cathy rightly drew attention to the concern that might arise if we ended up with the branding of television in Scotland coming from further south than at present. The Executive is cognisant of the arguments that Mr Quinan makes.
This has been a useful debate and it has focused attention. It is an opportunity to reflect, through Scotland's Parliament, the concerns of many people—those working in the industry and consumers. I believe that the licence holder has much to gain from responding positively to consumers' interests and demands. I hope that the broadcasters will see today's parliamentary debate as a genuine contribution to the general debate about these important issues and that they have been listening intently.
Meeting closed at 17:44.