The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00308, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on Scottish broadcasting and the Scottish digital network.
14:55
I welcome Patricia Ferguson and Ruth Davidson to their front-bench positions. I look forward to working with them and other MSPs to support culture in Scotland.
This is a crucial time for digital technology and broadcasting in Scotland. Eight days ago, the pilot project to deliver next-generation access broadband to the Highlands and Islands entered its procurement phase. On the same day, BBC Alba was made available on Freeview—the first time ever that a channel featuring primarily Scottish content has been universally available in Scotland. It has already made accessible a major event—the RockNess festival—which other channels would not have been able to find time to cover. We are also in the final week of the digital television switchover. By 22 June, all viewers in Scotland will have entered the age of multichoice viewing, which many people have taken for granted for years.
There could not therefore be a better time to debate broadcasting. In addition to setting out the challenges that we still face, it is fair to reflect on some significant achievements that we have shared during the past four years.
Four years ago, the Scottish Government decided to establish the independent Scottish Broadcasting Commission. Chaired by Blair Jenkins, the commission included leading broadcasting and creative industries experts, such as Elaine C Smith, as well as respected members of major political parties, such as Chris Ballance, Lord Fraser, Henry McLeish and the late Baroness Michie.
The commission’s final report highlighted low and declining levels of commissioning by United Kingdom television networks, a lack of plurality in Scottish public service broadcasting, a strong desire from audiences in Scotland for more Scottish programmes, and concerns about the range and quality of the current radio and television services in Scotland. It also presented 22 recommendations for addressing those issues.
In the past four years, much has changed for the better, often because of the strong parliamentary consensus around the commission’s report. BBC Alba is an obvious example. Parliament consistently and unanimously supported its availability on Freeview. Indeed, the BBC trust explicitly referred to that support when it decided to place BBC Alba on Freeview. Last week marked the culmination of a long process in which the chamber played a full part, and which will benefit viewers throughout Scotland.
Network commissioning is another example. In 2008, 3.7 per cent of BBC network television commissioning came from Scotland. In 2010, the figure was more than 7 per cent. In the same time period, Scotland’s share of Channel 4 television commissions increased from 1.5 per cent to more than 4 per cent, in addition to its digital media and film investment. More can and should be done, but those increases, if they are maintained, will be worth approximately £30 million annually to the Scottish economy.
The Scottish public sector is also now more active in developing and supporting our television production industry. Major investment has been made in skills. Scottish Enterprise account manages 18 television production companies; and during the past year, Creative Scotland has developed partnerships with the BBC, MG Alba, STV and Channel 4. During the past year, the UK Government also took constructive steps on accountability structures in relation to the BBC trust member for Scotland and the board of MG Alba. We expect to see that reflected in the Scotland Bill.
That demonstrates the value of the consensus on broadcasting at Holyrood, which has given added authority to the Scottish Government’s dialogue with broadcasters, the Office of Communications and the UK Government.
However, significantly more can and must be done.
When Jeremy Hunt launched the UK Government’s local media action plan in January, I was struck by his recognition of the “painful truth” that the UK probably has
“one of the most centralised media ecologies of any developed country.”
That truth resonates especially painfully here in Scotland. My view is that the current framework for accountability in broadcasting contributes directly to the centralisation that Jeremy Hunt condemned.
The main evidence for that is the current fate of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission’s key recommendation on the establishment of a Scottish digital network. That recommendation was based on the crucial importance of ensuring sufficient competition with the BBC for Scottish public service broadcasting content. It was also firmly based on the evidence that the commission had taken from viewers, which convincingly demonstrated the appetite for more quality Scottish content.
It was unsurprising, therefore, that the idea of a Scottish digital network was explicitly welcomed when the Parliament unanimously endorsed the commission’s final report in October 2008. In March 2009, Ted Brocklebank went as far as to say that the establishment of such a network was the “settled will” of the Parliament.
Earlier this year, we received the findings of the Scottish digital network panel, a group of experts that I set up to investigate how a network could be established and, more importantly, funded. The panel—which, like the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, was chaired by Blair Jenkins—set out the many benefits that a digital network could bring, including greater opportunities for our creative economy, greater accountability for devolved institutions and, significantly, greater choice for viewers in Scotland. Importantly, the network’s online content would boost digital connectivity in Scotland. As the panel’s report says,
“New and attractive forms of Scottish content could drive take-up just as the Scottish Government is seeking to lead the UK in connectivity.”
Does the minister agree that we have a problem with take-up in certain parts of the country, particularly in my part of Glasgow, which, despite having some of the best digital infrastructure in Scotland, has a broadband participation rate of 53 per cent, which is lower than the Scottish average? Does she agree that making the supply available does not always lead to a big take-up?
I fully agree. Indeed, that point was made in the Government’s digital strategy, which we launched in March of this year. The member is absolutely right. We can provide a supply, but if the demand is not there, we face another challenge. Improving the content, particularly the Scottish content, would help in that regard, particularly in areas such as Glasgow and Lanarkshire, where the issue that needs to be addressed is not availability but take-up.
The panel reached the firm conclusion that a fairer redistribution of television licence fee income would be the most appropriate method of funding a new network but, in the event that it proved impossible to reopen the current licence fee settlement, it proposed an alternative, interim funding mechanism, which would involve a ring-fenced share of revenues from the auction of cleared spectrum after digital television switchover has been completed throughout the UK in 2012. We have proposed both methods to the UK Government, and we will continue to press the issue of spectrum auction revenues, in particular, but, so far, we have not been able to make any progress on that important recommendation.
I want to highlight two other areas in which I believe that our lack of power over broadcasting has had, or could have, damaging consequences. The first of those is the television licence fee. In October of last year, the UK Government negotiated a licence fee agreement with the BBC trust that will last until 2017. That agreement will have long-lasting consequences in the devolved nations, beyond the budgetary constraints that it will impose on all BBC services. In Wales, it implemented a new method of funding the Welsh language channel, S4C, through the licence fee. Among other things, the new arrangement will ensure that S4C in Wales will receive £95 million a year of support from licence fee payers from 2013 onwards. The equivalent figure for BBC Alba is only £8 million a year. For Scotland, the settlement had the effect of closing off a possible source of funding for the digital network for the next five years. It is unfortunate that last year’s licence fee agreement was negotiated over a period of a few days behind closed doors. Nobody outside the BBC trust or the UK Government even knew that the discussions were taking place.
The final area that I want to talk about is local television. Current UK policy on local television is a bit unclear, following an apparent reversal of direction two weeks ago. We are still waiting for further details, which we expect to get towards the end of July. However, as things stand, the UK Government can make decisions on local television in Scotland that would have a major impact on Scotland’s media scene without any discussion with the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament. As members have raised previously, that could have a knock-on impact on advertising revenue and the viability of Scottish newspapers. We have had meaningful discussions with Jeremy Hunt, Ed Vaizey and Sir Nicholas Shott, as he wrote his report. The UK Government may choose to consult us, but it is not required to do so, and discussions to date have been at the initiative of the Scottish Government. As we have an interest in the Scottish media scene, our media companies, the newspaper industry in Scotland, advertising revenue and availability in that market, it is concerning that we might not have any right to consultation.
Is the cabinet secretary criticising the Scottish Government for consulting her when it does not need to? That sounds a little like what she is doing, which is bizarre.
I am not criticising the Scottish Government because we are the Scottish Government.
I meant the UK Government.
We went proactively to the UK Government when it was making its local television proposals and said, “Look, the Scottish digital network could sit within that.” At one point, the question was whether there could be a mixed or private market. Those are exactly the discussions that we had with Sir Nicholas Shott. We want to continue to engage with the UK Government on the subject, which is why we are approaching it. We think that it is important that it consults us on such issues.
The issue is about not just the availability of local television in Scotland but the economic impact that it might have on Scottish companies in other media, whether that is newspapers or other media companies. There must be a dialogue about the issue, because it is not black and white; it is not just about what is reserved and what is devolved. That is why, in our motion, we call for an investigation of the options to transfer some powers, even if that is just consultation on the issues. It is very important that Scotland has a voice in relation to local television.
The past four years have demonstrated conclusively that this Parliament can use its influence, if not its power, to change broadcasting in Scotland for the better. I have set out examples of that. However, I believe that further changes to how broadcasting decisions are made are now necessary. The minimum steps would be the welcome provisions on the BBC trust and MG Alba, which are already likely to be included in the Scotland Bill at the request of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. There are, however, other areas in which broadcasting issues need to have further Holyrood input.
We need to be able to ensure the establishment of the Scottish digital network as a public service broadcaster with a remit within Scotland and with guaranteed spectrum that can make it available to everyone in Scotland. We need to be consulted on subsequent television licence fee settlements and the use of that revenue when it has knock-on impacts on Scotland’s media scene. We could have a responsibility for, or at least an involvement in, decisions made by the UK Government about local television stations that will broadcast within Scotland. Any such stations could have an impact on the viability of Scottish media companies, as I said—for example, when they compete for a limited advertising market. Those were the clear conclusions of the Scottish digital network panel and Sir Nicholas Shott. They are important live issues. I hope that the Parliament comes together with the UK Government to support the investigation into how we can exert influence, whether that is through transfer of powers or other options in the areas that I outlined.
Broadcasting’s cultural importance is a key reason why, during the 1990s, so many of the proponents of devolution from all parties believed that broadcasting should be a devolved issue. In 1995, the final recommendations of the Scottish constitutional convention envisaged a significant role for this Parliament in relation to broadcasting. Now is the right time to renew the dialogue on whether Scotland should have more responsibilities for broadcasting.
I acknowledge that our motion stresses investigation into more powers; but it does not commit this Parliament to support full devolution of broadcasting—although we might want it to do so, those are not the terms of the motion. I have proposed three sensible and proportionate measures that would do much to improve the current accountability framework for broadcasting in Scotland. In the near future, we will publish a paper setting out those proposals in more detail and highlighting other areas in which a consensus might be achievable. For example, it is surely appropriate for devolved Administrations to have a say on the list of sporting events that must be shown live on free-to-air television. There is also a strong case for Scottish ministers to be consulted on local cross-media mergers. Let us remember the economic importance of that for different communities and sectors in the economy. I hope that other parties, and the UK Government, will contribute proposals of their own.
Scotland needs to have a stronger voice in discussions on broadcasting and it needs to have powers to address matters such as the digital network that are a priority at Holyrood, but which may not be a key focus for Westminster. The consensus on broadcasting at Holyrood so far has served us well during the past four years. I look forward to hearing from all parties this afternoon, and afterwards, so that we can build on that in the coming session.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes recent developments in digital infrastructure and broadcasting in Scotland, such as BBC ALBA becoming available on Freeview and cable, the introduction of the final stage of digital television switchover in Scotland and the success of the bid led by Highlands and Islands Enterprise for UK Government funding to pilot the introduction of superfast broadband roll-out in rural areas; recognises that much more needs to be done, particularly to realise the vision for a Scottish Digital Network as set out by the Scottish Broadcasting Commission in 2008, which would make quality public service content available to all of Scotland on television and online; welcomes the work undertaken by the Scottish Digital Network Panel to explore options for the funding and establishment of a Scottish Digital Network, and encourages the Scottish Government to continue to explore opportunities with the UK Government to deliver a digital network and to investigate options for transferring further responsibilities for broadcasting to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
15:10
I thank the minister for her good wishes. I hope that she will not mind my saying that it is good to see culture back at the Cabinet table. It has languished a little in the past number of years.
I am pleased to open this debate on broadcasting and the digital network for Scottish Labour. As the minister said, our dialogue and debate are timely given that much of Scotland is moving over from analogue to digital. I am sure that I am not the only one in the chamber this afternoon who has unexpectedly lost channels along the way. So far, I have managed to retrieve them, and I hope that that is the case for everyone else, too.
Technology is moving quickly. The opportunities before us are many, and it is right that we reflect on them at the beginning of this parliamentary session. Speaking as someone who is old enough—just, I hasten to add—to remember the advent of BBC 2 and a time when the top prize in a game show could be the much-sought-after colour television, I find that it is sometimes hard to keep up with the changes that are happening and with the technology that we now use.
I suspect that in the near future—in fact, it may already have happened—the television in the corner of the sitting room will become a thing of the past. Of course, it is already possible to watch television on one’s MP3 player or phone, and broadcasters will be quick to try to capture the market in personalised television, in which people can choose to watch what they want, when they want, on the device of their choosing.
As I have said, we are almost there now with the advent of the BBC iPlayer and its equivalent on other channels, but it is not just television that is affected—radio is, too. One advantage of a digital network is that it can work across the various platforms that exist. It is important that we do not become too fixated with television, important though it is.
In its report, the Scottish digital network panel quoted Scottish Enterprise, which stated in 2009 that the introduction of the Scottish digital network, combined with the envisaged increase in network production in Scotland, could result in a doubling in the number of people who work in the sector in Scotland. That would, of course, be a very welcome achievement.
We must use the skills that already exist, but it is also vital that we train people in new skills and new technologies. Scottish Labour’s amendment seeks to highlight that necessary part of the discussion. Indeed, the digital network panel itself recognised that there was a skills gap and shortage in the sector.
My colleague David Stewart will talk in more detail about broadband, but we all know that good, reliable broadband access is vital to encourage economic growth and to improve digital inclusion across the country. The work done by Highlands and Islands Enterprise in securing £10 million from the UK Government to improve the broadband infrastructure and its speed is worthy of note, and I know that the Government supports the idea of other local communities and local authorities applying for some of the money that the UK Government has available. However, I wonder whether the minister could outline what shape she believes that Scottish Government support should take. Similarly, could she provide the salient points and timeline that will ensure that the Scottish Government’s target of everyone having access to superfast broadband by 2020 will be achieved?
That is a very important point. Our digital strategy, launched in March, set out that we want to see significant progress by 2015. We also have a commitment for a fund to help with infrastructure. We are supporting the south of Scotland communities in particular for the next level of bidding, and Richard Lochhead convened a summit for rural communities to take forward that issue. My colleague Alex Neil will lay out the plans for roll-out in the near future.
Given the publication of the strategy in March, I was going to ask the minister what steps had been taken thereafter to make it a reality, so that intervention was helpful.
As others have said—Ruth Davidson mentioned this in her intervention—we know that broadband take-up is low in Scotland. In my home city, it is lower even than the Scottish average. It seems to me that we have a chicken-and-egg situation. People will not be tempted to receive their programming from broadband if it is as slow, weak and unreliable as mine often is, but without a critical mass of users we will not get the quality content that people want.
If we are ambitious for broadcasting in Scotland, as I believe that we all are, we must produce good-quality material, and the Government, through its agencies, must support those producers who share that ambition. In its submission to the Scottish digital network panel, Creative Scotland stated:
“Our key message is that a digital network could be transformational—for the cultural sector and for the engagement of audiences, but the key will be investing in content.”
I am sure that none of us would disagree with that. That investment must be targeted not only at the bigger companies, but also at the smaller ones, which must be supported. We have a breadth of talent in our creative industries but it all needs support to help it to thrive and develop.
Scottish Labour supports the idea of a Scottish digital network, but we strongly believe that quality should be the driving force of the network and we do not believe that it should be introduced at the expense of existing channels. Any strategy for the network has a delicate balance to achieve if it is to be successful.
The Scottish digital network panel also seemed to talk only of Scottish content and the opportunities to promote that content around the world. I sincerely hope that that was not what it was suggesting. Our culture and our people benefit from and are stronger because of their exposure to other countries over the years. Surely, we want to ensure that we have access to what other countries have to offer. The joy and the success of events such as the Edinburgh international festival exist in the coming together of cultures from around the world and the opportunity that we are given not only to see new performances by our own companies, but to experience the very best that the world has to offer. I believe that a digital network should be no different.
I am delighted that BBC Scotland has now exceeded its own interim target for production in Scotland, but I am even happier that much of that production has been good-quality drama and interesting and insightful documentary programmes that have attracted audiences both in Scotland and throughout the UK. I am sure that many of those programmes will go on to be sold abroad, too. However, although the BBC has made significant progress, it still has work to do to meet the 8.6 per cent target that the Scottish Broadcasting Commission suggested and, unfortunately, other broadcasters do not seem to be making the progress that the BBC has made, which is a bit disappointing.
As someone who was there at the beginning, I am very pleased that BBC Alba is now on Freeview. I have also watched with pleasure the growth in the range of programming that that service now offers. When I watched RockNess the other weekend, I was particularly interested to see the way in which the broadcasters were able to switch languages and bring us in and out of the culture, which I thought was very clever.
The minister talked about local TV, and I am interested in the point that she makes. I refer back to the draft culture (Scotland) bill, which became the Creative Scotland Bill. In England and Wales, local authorities can broadcast some limited information about the services that they offer and the work that they do. The original draft bill contained that provision for Scottish local authorities; unfortunately, it was then stripped out by one of the minister’s predecessors. I realise that that is not what the minister is talking about today, but that might have given us a foot in the door and made that part of the debate a little bit easier.
Members might be interested to know that it looks as though Brad Pitt may make his next film in Glasgow and that the next Batman movie may also be filmed there. I am sure that the Presiding Officer is a big Batman fan. If those projects go ahead, they will provide a real boost for the city and will reward the good work that is being done by the city council and its partners in attracting such high-profile work to Glasgow. Other local authorities working with Scottish Screen and now with Creative Scotland have had similar successes. That is to be welcomed and supported because it brings money into our economy and further enhances our reputation as a tourism destination. Nevertheless, we could do more and I hope that Creative Scotland will prioritise that area.
I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the speeches that colleagues around the chamber will make. I confirm Scottish Labour’s support for a Scottish digital network and our belief that it should offer content of the highest quality and that its establishment should not be at the expense of existing channels. We must invest in the skills and training that will allow Scotland to be a destination of choice for programme makers.
I move amendment S4M-00308.2, to leave out “, particularly” and insert:
“and the need to invest in skills and training to maximise opportunities for the industry and”.
15:19
I thank the cabinet secretary for her good wishes to me on taking up my new post as the culture spokesperson for the Conservatives. I also welcome the ascension of the post of Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs to the Cabinet of the Scottish Government.
I also thank the cabinet secretary for her speech about the Scottish digital network. As one of the many newbies in the Parliament, I recognise the amount of work that was done on the matter by members in the previous session of Parliament, particularly by my former colleague Ted Brocklebank. That work was impressive, but we need more information, particularly following the cabinet secretary’s speech.
First, we need to hear more about the framework and vision for a digital network. Are we talking about linear or online programming? Would it be on demand or a mixture? How would it happen? What would the progression be? How would we future proof the content that would be sent out across the nation?
We have issues surrounding the funding and timeline for establishing such a network. We also have grave questions about the impact on our current broadcasting output in Scotland, particularly concerning BBC Scotland, the jobs there and Gaelic broadcasting.
I will get on to those issues in a moment. My colleague Alex Johnstone will talk in some detail about the boy side of it: the nuts and bolts, the heavy engineering and the pipes that will take all the content into people’s houses. Before that, I will come back on some of the points that the cabinet secretary raised.
When we talked about the problem with the take-up rate for digital broadcasting, particularly broadband and the infrastructure that is at the crux of the debate, the cabinet secretary suggested that there was a deficiency of content and that, if we improved content, we would improve the take-up rate. The problem with that argument is that, in Glasgow—my area and Patricia Ferguson’s—the take-up rate is low. That is nothing to do with how Scottish or Glaswegian the available content is, because Glasgow is best served of all the areas of Scotland by an identifiably Glaswegian and Scottish television output. It is where the major two networks are based. It is where the jobs are. It is where many of the dramas, such as “Lip Service” and “Taggart”, are based. People there see themselves represented on the screen, but we still see a low take-up rate.
I am not sure that content is the problem. The problem is that the digital network report and the cabinet secretary have conflated what is free and what is not. Glasgow has a low take-up rate because it has areas of great poverty. It has a low take-up rate because of the economics, not because of the programming and the output. The problem is that, although a digital network may be funded centrally, people would have to pay for the facility to have it in their homes. They would still pay for their broadband.
Ruth Davidson talks about future proofing and price. Surely a publicly funded Scottish digital network, with free access to all and available on television and online, would be a helpful development in that regard.
That is where the conflation and confusion are. We have always installed the strategic hardware centrally. That is fine, but if somebody uses their personal computer to access the digital pipes that we lay, they still pay whoever runs the software on it to connect to the internet.
I have digressed slightly, so I will move on.
We need structure and clarity on the proposed television channel. Part of the remit of the report from Blair Jenkins was inclusion for all. One great way of achieving that is on a platform such as Freeview. Like many other members, I welcomed the coming of BBC Alba to Freeview so that more people could watch it. However, I worry that BBC Alba will be the Government’s chosen method of transmission for the new content. If there was a business and political case for a Gaelic channel three years ago, where has that case gone if the channel is now to be used for English-language broadcasting? I would like some clarity on that.
It is a very important point. I refer the member to the evidence that Blair Jenkins gave to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in the previous session of Parliament, in which he said that any suggestion of the use of BBC Alba would have to be by invitation, not instruction. I strongly support that view, so I reassure her and the Parliament on the point.
I am glad of the reassurance that such a development would be by invitation. I worry about protecting a service for which members of the Parliament fought hard.
My main problem is that there will be an impact on people. I have spent 10 years of my working life in broadcasting across Scotland—in the BBC, the commercial sector and the independent sector. Particularly with my most recent former employer—the BBC—I have seen job cuts in the past few years. In the three-year redundancy rounds between 2005 and 2008, 3,500 jobs went in the BBC in the UK; 700 journalists across the UK went, and Scotland was affected proportionally.
The people who left the BBC—such as me and many of my colleagues who chose to take redundancy—did not stay in broadcasting in Scotland. When people leave the sector, they often go off to do other things. My problem with the Government’s proposed funding structure—top-slicing the BBC’s licence fee—is that it will have consequences, including for BBC Scotland. I want it to be protected.
I hope to hear more from the cabinet secretary on all those issues in her closing speech.
I move amendment S4M-00308.1, to delete from “and encourages” to end and insert:
“without compromising existing broadcasting capability.”
15:26
I am delighted to speak in the debate as we examine the plans for broadcasting in Scotland and the proposals to establish a Scottish digital network.
In 2008, the Creative Scotland Bill sought to establish the structure and organisation through which Scotland could promote the understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the arts and culture for all people in Scotland. Creative Scotland seeks to increase the number and range of people who use and enjoy the creative arts. In addition, it seeks to identify, support and develop talent and excellence in the arts and, in so doing, to realise the benefits—economic and otherwise—of the arts and culture.
There can be no doubt that the achievement of those objectives would be greatly helped and underpinned by the establishment of a Scottish digital network. Such a network would consist of a dedicated television channel that would be available to all and supported by a large range of content on broadband. A dedicated channel for Scotland could inform, engage and entertain Scottish viewers, but that would not be in a parochial way. It would open an opportunity to establish Scotland’s culture, sporting achievements and participation, business and civic life in a European and world context. In doing so, it would showcase our talents in all those areas. A Scottish digital network could be of the highest quality of public service broadcasting. It would be independent of the Government and impartial, and it would offer an alternative to the BBC, but would not diminish the BBC as an organisation.
For our culture, we could envisage greater coverage of our festivals, not least of which is the Edinburgh international festival. In sport, we might have more coverage of events such as the Melrose rugby sevens or local coverage of the Fort William mountain bike world cup. The network would offer an opportunity that was not previously available to showcase the likes of handball and sailing, in which Scotland excels but which rarely receive coverage.
In news broadcasting, we could see greater emphasis on reporting from a Scottish perspective. National reporting frequently fails to place news items in their Scottish context, which leads to confusion among the public about devolved issues. In an earlier debate today, Marco Biagi suggested that news items should come with the warning, “Not for viewers in Scotland”.
I gently suggest to Clare Adamson that much of that has to do with editorial practices in programming situations. For example, if she casts her mind back to the success of the Commonwealth games youth team several years ago, on the day when it came home with a huge haul of medals that had never been surpassed, “Good Morning Scotland” on BBC Radio Scotland covered the elephant polo championships.
I agree that the broadcasting opportunities that a Scottish digital network would bring would allow far more of those kinds of events to be covered and to be accessible to the public through their televisions and online.
Only yesterday morning, I watched a report on BBC’s “Breakfast” on proposed increases to the Humber bridge tolls. After saying that, if accepted, they will be among the highest in the UK, the reporter then listed toll charges throughout England and on the Severn bridge, which links Wales with England. During this breakdown of what were described as “UK figures”, no one mentioned that tolls in Scotland had been scrapped by an SNP Government, or presented that model or the buyout of bridge contracts as an alternative perspective. It is inconceivable that a Scottish public sector broadcaster would have failed to establish the Scottish context of that report and I believe that on that occasion the BBC let down every viewer in the UK.
A consistent finding of the research that was commissioned by the Scottish Broadcasting Commission in 2008 and the Scottish Government in 2009 is that Scottish viewers want more choice; indeed, since 2008, there has been consensus in the Parliament on the need to establish a Scottish digital network. The results of that research will come as no surprise when we look at the figures. Although in 2008-09 Scottish licence fee payers accounted for £300 million, of the total only £140 million was spent in Scotland, which demonstrates a substantial shortfall in investment.
Does the member acknowledge that the amount of UK network programming that has been commissioned, executed and filmed in Scotland and which has been shown to the entire UK audience has increased by 150 per cent over the past two years? By its very nature, such programming would not be available on a digital network.
Of course I welcome that; indeed, the cabinet secretary has highlighted the progress that has been made in such areas. However, we still have some way to go.
In such challenging economic times, the funding of the Scottish digital network will be key to when it is established and I agree with the recommendation of the Scottish digital network panel that was established by Blair Jenkins, that it be funded through an allocation of the licence fee. As the cabinet secretary has pointed out, the Welsh broadcaster S4C is to receive £76 million annually; in Germany, the regional public service broadcaster for Hesse, which serves six million people, receives £170 million of public funding; and in the Spanish region of Valencia, the public service broadcaster, which serves five million people, receives £150 million. The amounts that we are looking for are quite in line with those that are being allocated in the rest of the Europe.
Given that Scotland had no voice in the negotiation of the current settlement, I urge the BBC to revisit the six-year licence fee, which will run until 2017. If that is not possible, the potential funding gap could be filled with a share of the proceeds from the sell-off of the cleared spectrum following the digital switchover. In 2010, Germany raised £4 billion from a broadly similar auction.
I support the motion.
15:33
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon’s debate, first and foremost because in my years as an MSP this is the first time I have spoken about broadcasting, and because I welcome the chance to speak about and gain knowledge of new areas.
Broadcasting and the digital network are very important issues for Scotland in the 21st century. Indeed, they are particularly significant for Scotland; after all, John Logie Baird invented TV, which has come to dominate so many of our lives. I grew up in the TV age and iconic images such as the first man on the moon, the freeing of Nelson Mandela and the election of Barack Obama as the first black US President, which came to us through our TV screens, illustrate how powerful the technology is. We should be thankful that it is a Scottish invention.
I support the creation of a new Scottish digital channel, as other members do. With the greater Scottish input and diversity that would occur, it would present tremendous opportunities for those who work in the Scottish broadcasting and digital industry, and give great opportunities to expand the range of programmes and therefore provide greater entertainment to communities throughout Scotland. The tools that would be at the disposal of a new broadcasting channel in Scotland would allow significant expansion. The minister mentioned Creative Scotland and Skills Development Scotland, and gave examples of work that has already been undertaken. Those bodies can do much to underpin the work in the existing broadcasting infrastructure and in a new digital network.
As we expand the network, it is important that we get a proper balance and do not compromise on quality in considering the programme set-up. It is important to make the most of opportunities.
A number of members have spoken about cost issues; it is clear that there are cost issues—there are issues to do with how we derive £75 million. It is essential that we do not compromise the programming ability of existing channels in doing so, particularly in relation to Scotland.
I agree with all the comments that the member has made, but it is important to accentuate the fact that the Scottish digital network is not just about programming and television channels; there are also great opportunities for public service delivery. That is where future proofing and considering how we want to include participation, which has already been mentioned, come in. There is a wider avenue than just programming.
I agree that it is not purely about TV programming. There are important technological opportunities, which I will come to later in my speech. As well as public service issues, there is a clear link to the economy—there is an economic opportunity for Scotland.
I support the previous Scotland Bill Committee’s calls for a BBC trust member for Scotland. That is logical. Such a member would ensure that Scotland had a strong voice on that trust.
I welcome some of the recent developments relating to the BBC, such as the new headquarters at Pacific Quay, and developments relating to BBC Alba. Ruth Davidson mentioned a 150 per cent increase in programming. It is clearly important that we get to the 8.6 per cent production figure that has been stipulated. The meeting of the interim 7.4 per cent target for Scottish programmes is to be welcomed, but we must be vigilant about quality. It is not just a case of churning out programmes; it is important that we get appropriate Scottish quality.
There is a real opportunity with broadband and technology in general. Things have moved on. Those of us who are old enough to have done so used to watch flickering black-and-white TVs with four buttons that sometimes had to be pressed and held in to get the right picture. Youngsters like my kids now have small devices that generate all sorts of information through social networking, and people can watch TV programmes on them. There has been a big move in technology even in the past 20 years, and it is important that we are able to tap into the benefits of that.
Broadband expansion is one way of doing that. It is important that we be able to expand broadband coverage to all areas of Scotland, but it is not just a matter of covering rural communities. There is a high number of pensioners in my constituency and it is important that we allow pensioners to tap into the technological revolution, because there are great advantages in being able to access entertainment through broadcasting and to communicate with others.
The debate gives an opportunity to present important arguments in support of the Scottish digital channel. It also allows us to highlight the opportunities that are presented by the expansion of broadband and improvements in technology, the knowledge and information that those can give people of all ages and the benefits that they will have for the Scottish economy.
15:40
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I have a background in the media, that I receive continuing remuneration from the print media and that I am participating in a programme for STV this autumn.
It is encouraging to have such consensus across the chamber on the issue. In particular, there has been a lot of consensus on making network programmes from Scotland and the progress that has been made on that. Several members have referred to the fact that the number of network TV hours that are made by BBC Scotland has increased by 150 per cent in two years. The briefing from BBC Scotland suggests that it is on target to meet the 8.6 per cent minimum provision by 2016, which is good from an economic point of view, as it will bring technical and production jobs to Scotland and build capacity. However, I sound a note of caution on that subject. Through speaking to prominent journalists in our broadcasting institutions in Scotland, I know that they are concerned about the emphasis on making programmes for the network. Many of the shows do not contribute particularly to our culture and there is a feeling that many of them are box-ticking exercises.
Is the member suggesting that, for example, “Lip Service”, a network programme shown on BBC 3 and set in Glasgow, featuring a bunch of Glaswegian lesbians, was in any way just a box-ticking exercise rather than a fine piece of programming that was set in Scotland and designed for the entirety of the UK?
I have not seen the show, but I have heard that it is an excellent piece of programming. I certainly would not include it in my comments, but we have made shows here that do not necessarily fulfil the remit of addressing our needs in Scotland. For example, when “Question Time” moves up here, David Dimbleby will remain ensconced in London.
Broadcasting is not about the number of widgets that are produced from a particular cost centre; it is about reflecting the richness of our culture. The broadcast media are just as important as literature, painting and theatre and provide the culture with which most people in the country engage. Broadcasting is hugely important for our national life, for scrutinising our democratic institutions, for offering a forum for debate and for promoting understanding of our country.
I draw members’ attention to research that has been uncovered by former BBC journalist Kenneth Roy, which shows that the amount of English-language programming that is made in Scotland and is about Scotland has fallen in the past few years. In 2004, £72 million was spent on such programming, but by 2009 the figure was £50 million. It is fantastic that we are building up technical capacity by making shows such as “The Weakest Link”, “The Old Guys” and “The National Lottery: Secret Fortune”, but that is a real problem if it is done at the expense of programmes that address important issues in our culture. I am not knocking the BBC—I happen to think that the BBC is a fine institution that produces fantastic quality and breadth.
Nationally, the BBC has a huge range of news and current affairs platforms. We have highbrow programmes such as “Today” and “Newsnight” and we have Radio 5 live and youth programmes such as “Newsbeat”, all of which are excellent. However, they do not have capacity to address Scottish news and current affairs, and I am not sure that it is reasonable for us to expect them to do that, because 90 per cent of the people who watch and listen to those programmes are in other areas of the UK. Although they might be interested in what happens in the chamber from time to time, they are not going to demand the level of detail that people in Scotland would. That is why it is important that we focus on improving the quality of programmes made in Scotland for Scots, and I am hopeful that the Scottish digital network will do that.
This is by way of illustration. We have just been through an election campaign and, as a member of the winning party, I perhaps should not complain about the coverage that we got. However, it was disgraceful that BBC Scotland, as the public service broadcaster, managed to do only one leaders’ debate that was broadcast late at night, whereas STV, which is not subsidised to the same extent, managed two at prime time.
During the general election last year, there was a huge lead-up to the leaders’ debate, which engaged people in the democratic process.
In the lead-up to last year’s general election there were a number of Scottish debates, which involved the Secretary of State for Scotland, the shadow Scottish secretary and Alistair Carmichael from the Liberal Democrats—but not Alex Salmond, who seemed to be complaining about leaders’ debates. He had four opportunities to speak up in 2010, but he chose not to use them.
That is wrong: we were excluded from those debates. I could say a great deal about those debates, which completely ignored Scotland and in which we were not able to engage in talking about Scottish issues, but that is another subject entirely.
The fact is that we do not have a public service broadcaster that allows us properly to scrutinise events in this chamber, which should concern members on all sides. We might have good coverage on “Newsnight Scotland” and for people who are particularly concerned about politics—the political anoraks, if you like. However, when it comes to popular television and engagement, which the BBC does very well nationally through Radio 5 live and “Newsbeat”, we just do not do that for Scottish issues. I hope that the Scottish digital network will address that. However, I sound a note of caution: the digital network should not let our current public service broadcasters off the hook on this matter.
15:47
Like the minister and many others who have spoken in the chamber today, I welcome the huge improvements that have been made to Scotland’s digital infrastructure over the past 25 years. The pace of change has been breathtaking, and the ability to stream digital content—whether audio, video or even cloud computing applications—has certainly changed how we all live and work.
Many members will remember not only dial-up internet access, but black-and-white television. Speaking as one of them, I am firmly of the opinion that we must support innovation to drive even better digital services across our country. The motion that is before us today mentions many of the innovations that are on-stream, such as BBC Alba, which has joined the absolute mainstream ubiquity of Freeview—as Ruth Davidson and others have said—and the digital switchover that has happened in my constituency very recently.
The motion refers also to the pilot of superfast broadband in rural areas, which would bring many of the innovations that I mentioned in my opening remarks to virtually the whole of Scotland. Alongside that comes the call for a Scottish digital television network and another bid for the transfer of powers.
There is a great deal of agreement among members on the aspiration for more plural media in Scotland. It is a fair and desirable aspiration, but the question remains about how we would achieve that greater choice and content for Scottish citizens.
The creation of a Scottish digital channel has a great deal to recommend it. It would be a Scottish channel that would have Scottish content and be a proving ground for new talent in front of the camera and behind the scenes. As the cliché goes, what’s not to like?
The Scottish Broadcasting Commission estimated that a digital channel would cost between £50 million and £75 million, which is a tidy sum at any time, let alone in these financially straitened times. The SNP Government has considered various ways of funding that aspiration, but it keeps returning to the concept of taking money from the BBC licence fee to pay for such a channel. I do not think that that is a sensible way forward. It would be wrong to diminish BBC services for the creation of a new channel. The BBC has already experienced a substantial cut in its budgets, and we have all seen the redundancies and cuts here in Scotland. The changes to “Scotland at Ten”, for instance, might mean a slightly earlier night for MSPs as the programme is largely pre-recorded, but there is no doubt that the cuts that we have already experienced have had a deleterious effect on some aspects of political coverage.
Does Helen Eadie accept that the amount of money that is raised through the licence fee in Scotland is much greater than that which is returned to Scotland and that there is therefore a perfectly justifiable argument that more of that money should come to Scotland to fund broadcasting?
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the right way forward. If there is to be a Scottish digital channel, it should not be at the expense of existing channels. Some will feel that a less ambitious and hence cheaper channel would still be desirable but—again—that just does not stack up.
The goal must be to have more plural media, and that needs high standards and not cut-price television or journalism. Scottish journalism is integral to the entire debate. The media landscape in Scotland is in a state of flux. The recently announced push for 90 redundancies at the Daily Record and Sunday Mail has been decried by Labour and the other political parties. It is a short-sighted move that will damage not just Scottish journalism but debate and politics in Scotland. I wish the National Union of Journalists and its members the very best as their discussions with management continue.
The cuts at Trinity Mirror follow those at other media organisations in Scotland. When we think about new services, we should be careful not to forget the print, online and broadcasting operations that we have already. There is no doubt that local newspapers, with which I have great involvement as a backbench MSP, are struggling as the expansion of the digital world challenges their revenue models. Members who served in the third session of Parliament will remember the spirited campaign, which was backed by Labour, against proposals to drop recruitment and other advertising from local newspapers. SNP ministers saw sense on that occasion and dropped the plans. Similarly, the possible consequences of the establishment of a new channel, including how it might impinge on existing commercial products, need to be fully examined.
I have wished at times that the BBC would reflect Scotland better in its coverage. However, there have been efforts to ensure that, when news reports highlight policy, the differences between Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom are explained properly. Despite occasional howlers, the changes that are due to devolution are now better reflected than they were a number of years ago.
We all wish to see active media in Scotland that reflect the views and hopes of its citizens. A Scottish digital channel could play a role in achieving that goal, but ministers must explain how they will fund that aspiration without removing resources from elsewhere. There is always room for improvement, and if the Scottish Government or even the Scottish Parliament had the authority to appoint a BBC trust Scottish member, that might concentrate minds at the BBC even further.
15:53
I note with some irony that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has more control over the state broadcaster than the Scottish Government does. As members will know, the corporate body can exercise some control over the broadcast output from this fine building, but no Scottish Government minister has any say over what should be broadcast in Scotland. There is no proper Scottish public control over broadcasting, no proper public scrutiny of whether what is broadcast in Scotland properly serves Scotland and no control to ensure that Scotland’s diverse cultures and communities get what they need from our airwaves and digital networks.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on her work to help to address those issues and I congratulate the Scottish Broadcasting Commission on its work. It was a sterling piece of work by a distinguished group of individuals that encompassed a great deal of knowledge of, and experience in, broadcasting and digital media as well as a broad range of personal experience and political views. They produced what should be a route map for the future of broadcasting and digital media in Scotland. As Helen Eadie has just said, the pace of change is fairly rapid, and the commission’s report may need to be updated sooner than we might have expected. However, it is a solid platform on which to build a basis for debate, and it should be a catalyst that allows and empowers progress. In and of itself, it is not the final picture, and no one would argue that it should be, but it is a good start.
The report notes:
“Television is the dominant platform for public access to news and information in Scotland, being regularly used for that purpose by more than 80% of the population”,
and that there is a
“lack of opportunity for serious and in-depth examination of important public policy issues.”
That is part of an important greater whole.
There is a recurrent, confusing and, perhaps, dangerous habit in news organisations of seeing the UK news as the news and any Scottish news as little more than a local opt-out. We can continue to retread the “Scottish Six” arguments and to see the metropolitan sneer of broadcasters such as wee Jeremy Paxman, looking down on “Newsnight Scotland” as being the kailyard rather than the grand stage of current affairs. We can continue to be a bit chipper about whether “Good Morning Scotland” can bear up to the “Today” show, but that misses one important point. Clare Adamson touched on it, and I want to go into it in more detail.
In what could most charitably be described as a series of cases of accidental misinformation, UK news channels refer merely by their titles to English ministers whose writ does not run in Scotland; the BBC and ITN do it, and so does Sky. Broadcast audiences in Scotland hear that the health minister has decided to cut services, the justice secretary has decided to increase sentences or the local government minister has decided to cut the number of councils. The impression that is created is that that is happening here, when in reality it is not—it is happening in England, not in Scotland.
That may sound like a petty point, but it is not. I have with me a press release that the Scottish Cot Death Trust issued on Tuesday, after BBC’s “Breakfast” television programme broadcast about Government withdrawing the literature about cot death. That change applies only in England; the Scottish Government is continuing to provide the advice and support literature to parents here, but that was not made clear. As a result, the Scottish Cot Death Trust spent the whole day fielding calls from distressed parents of cot death children who want the literature to continue to be available. Unnecessary distress for those parents and unnecessary work for a busy charity was caused by a failure to make clear the geographical extent of the area to which the news item applied. It may be thought that that is not the worst thing that can happen to bereaved parents and to the charity; I agree. The confusion and distress of Scots may not be much of a concern for broadcasters, but other possible complications from a similar action could be much worse.
The episode also calls into question whether the actions of the broadcasters contribute to or damage the public knowledge of current affairs in Scotland. Joan McAlpine has already raised that issue.
Does the member have any statistical analysis to show that, on the two major networks that she mentions, the audience is not the same when a UK news bulletin is followed by a Scottish news bulletin or, in the case of STV, a Scottish news bulletin is followed by a UK news bulletin—in other words, that people do not choose to watch both because they want to hear from both?
I admit to the member that I do not have such evidence on me, but it is probably a great topic for the Education and Culture Committee to consider.
If confusion is sown about the various Government departments, people across this nation are being misinformed about what their ministers are doing and broadcasters are not clearly enunciating the public debate, there is a danger that public debate will not keep up with political events. If that happens, there is a danger that we will find that there is a disconnect between politics and the people. Are we in danger of seeing a democracy deficit open up before our eyes?
We need greater confidence in our people, our nation and our sense of self. We need to engage all our media in the debate, and they need to engage Scotland with accurate and intelligent work. We need fresh respect for Scotland from our broadcasters and other media, and fresh respect for public debate. We need control of broadcasting to be brought back home. We need to reinvigorate and reinvent our nation. We need to do that starting here, in this chamber.
I remind members once again that they should switch off their electronic devices, please.
16:00
Usually when I stand up to speak in a debate in the chamber, I have a clear idea of what I want to say and how I intend to say it. Today is different: I know what I want to say, but I am not convinced that it will be easy to express. What I have heard in the debate so far is all well and good, but all members who have spoken so far have failed to look far enough ahead and understand the scale of the opportunity and ambition that technology now affords us.
Yesterday afternoon, Elaine Murray, Paul Wheelhouse and I visited the Royal Society of Edinburgh. We appeared on a panel to discuss how scientists might better communicate with members of Parliament. Before we left, we were accosted by a gentlemen who wanted to talk to us about the provision of digital broadband networks in Scotland. I wish that I had asked the gentleman his name, but we were in such a hurry to get a taxi that I cannot give him a namecheck today. He wanted to emphasise—and it is emphasised in the Royal Society’s report, “Digital Scotland”, which he provided to me—the fact that no one has yet placed adequate importance on the scope of the provision of good-quality broadband networks across the whole of Scotland. It becomes clear in “Digital Scotland” that there is an opportunity that we have not yet understood.
Many members will be aware of Moore’s law, which relates to the development of all information technology. It states that the capacity of IT equipment or computers rises exponentially. I am now also aware of Nielsen’s law, which suggests that, every 20 months, the capacity of broadband will double, with a 64-fold increase in the next decade. That means that, as we work towards achievements in increasing the capacity of broadband networks such as that in the Highlands, which has been praised, the idea that somewhere along the way we might get to where we want to go is an idea that we cannot afford to follow.
I agree with the member that the RSE report is excellent. Does he agree with the conclusion that we really need a fibre optic backbone, similar to a trunk road or electricity network, across Scotland?
Yes, because I believe that whatever we do to increase the capacity of the digital highway will never be adequate. As the capacity increases, we will find new uses for it that are far beyond anything that we can imagine today. It is important that we take the opportunity to ensure that whatever we do produces a system that is capable of perpetual upgrading.
We in Scotland have a slightly more difficult situation when it comes to the provision of technology compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Our population is smaller and is more sparsely spread over large areas of the country. As a consequence, the market-led approach, which is successful in many areas, will inevitably fail to provide equality of service across Scotland. That is why it is important for Government, nationally and here in Scotland, to ensure that support is given where it is possible to give it.
Will the member give way?
I need to make progress—I am sorry.
The problem is that, if we take the low-hanging fruit and invest where the returns are best, the next low-hanging fruit will be in exactly the same place as the previous lot was. Investment will continue to be made where the service is best and where the population density is greatest. The greatest benefit to society as a whole, however, will be achieved where the population is sparse and distances are greatest.
I wish to tie those points back into the concept of broadcasting, which many members have discussed. We do not have enough of an understanding of the rate at which broadcasting and its characteristics are changing. The pace of that change is increasing, not diminishing.
As we heard from the minister this week, we have reached the end of the process of converting to digital terrestrial broadcasting in Scotland, yet we have seen a pattern emerge: as the number of channels increases, that variety means that audiences are smaller. [Interruption.] I believe that the opportunity presented by high-quality digital networks will accelerate the pace of change and that we will see more and more input into that broadcasting system and a much more decentralised approach.
Already we have seen the effect on the print media. The average circulations of our major newspapers are dropping daily, while the BBC website, and now the STV local websites, are increasingly providing the kind of content that our newspapers used to provide. It is a reasonable expectation that, with the availability of technology and the improvement of networks, the broadcast media will begin to behave similarly.
Just around the corner is a new concept: we may find individuals broadcasting to individuals—one-to-one broadcasting. When we get to that stage, there is nothing that members, I, the Government or anyone will be able to do to influence whether the content will be Scottish. We have, with this technology, created a monster that, although it delivers enormous opportunity, delivers a pace of change that few of us are able to encompass or understand. However, we will have to understand it because it will only increase. That is the challenge that we face.
I ask members to turn off their mobile phones and BlackBerrys because they interfere with the sound system. It is discourteous to speakers to leave them on.
16:06
I am disappointed to note that there are no members from the Liberal Democrats in the chamber because I was hoping that I could put to them the suggestion that we dedicate a couple of programmes in the digital Scottish network to them, namely “Total Wipeout” followed by “Party of Five”. Nonetheless, I am sure that their absence from the chamber in no way diminishes their dedication to the cultural agenda in Scotland or their devotion to the establishment of a Scottish digital network.
We need to ensure that we shake off some of the cringe that all too often dominates our attitude to Scottish televisual and cultural output. I have to be honest and say that that cringe emerged somewhat during Helen Eadie’s contribution when she spoke about low production values and discount programming. That is unhelpful, because all too often, we have an entirely unjustified cringe about productions that come out of Scotland.
We need to celebrate more what we do culturally and our televisual output.
rose—
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress, but I thank both members for taking an interest.
I am glad that Ruth Davidson has lost none of the characteristic feistiness that she used to show when we debated against each other at university. I note a certain irony in the fact that a member of the party that advocates competition in almost every facet of public life is concerned about the prospect of a little competition for the BBC. Competition in broadcasting is to be encouraged and could be healthy.
With that in mind, I reiterate my point to Helen Eadie that there is a deficit in Scotland’s share of the licence fee. Scotland puts about £300 million into the licence fee pot; according to 2008-09 figures, we received less than half of that back. Even if we take into consideration the fact that a Scottish digital network would cost in the region of £75 million to establish, that still leaves £80 million to £85 million unclaimed, as it were, for Scottish output.
If we take the example of broadband, there was competition throughout the United Kingdom. There were 60 bids, and the best bid was from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which won over areas throughout the UK. I do not follow the member’s logic that we are down on a pro rata basis. HIE has shown the way. It can win bids in competition with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I am not for one second suggesting that what I propose should necessarily be done on a purely pro rata basis, but what we pay in we should at the very least expect back, whether or not that is done on a pro rata basis.
I do not disagree with the member that the roll-out of high-speed broadband, particularly in rural areas, is to be welcomed. Indeed, at yesterday’s meeting of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, we highlighted the roll-out of rural broadband as something that we want to focus on. It is great that the Government is investing via mechanisms such as the next generation digital fund, but we have to ensure that, following that investment and the establishment of the infrastructure, the service providers match that by providing services along those lines, and at a reasonable rate, so that people can afford to access services via broadband.
There has been some talk about television programmes’ often UK-centric editorial positions—they do not always take account of the different flavours of devolution that exist in the UK. Ruth Davidson was perhaps a little too harsh on Joan McAlpine in relation to her suggestion that, all too often, the focus does not take account of Scotland. There can be no better example of that than that of our Deputy First Minister being chastised on “Question Time” for referring, in Glasgow, to a specific Scottish issue and being told that she should not do so because a wider UK audience was watching the debate. That happened even though, week after week, the programme features discussions on areas that are devolved to this Parliament, such as health, and speakers are at no point told that they should remember that there are viewers watching the programme in Scotland.
We have to ensure that, when editorial focus on Scotland is required, we can reflect that. We can do so through a Scottish digital network, which might enable more Scotland-focused political programming. That could be more accessible to the Scottish people on a regular basis, as opposed to the occasional arrival in Scotland of “Question Time” or other such UK programmes for a discussion of political events. I hope that that approach can be considered.
Local television output has been mentioned. As I am a north-east MSP, people might expect me to start banging the drum to bring back Grampian Television, but I will not do that at this stage. It is important to note that local television and radio have served as an important nurturing ground for future talent, which moves on elsewhere. For example, Isla Traquair started on Grampian Television and eventually moved to Channel 5, and I understand that Ruth Davidson made a transition from Kingdom FM to the Tory front bench. From such small acorns do large oaks grow.
It is important that we recognise that talent exists in Scotland, and we need to ensure that we develop and nurture that talent. There is talent not only in front of the camera or behind the microphone but in the back rooms, among the production staff, make-up artists, writers and so on. We have to try to create opportunities for Scottish talent to be retained—but not necessarily kept—in Scotland and at least to be given the opportunity to develop. The more opportunities that we can provide for young talented people to get into the industry and develop themselves at an early stage—and then look to move on elsewhere, if that is what they wish to do—the better. I think that the Scottish digital network provides that opportunity.
I call Angus MacDonald, who is making his first speech.
16:13
This is, indeed, my maiden speech—better late than never. I have an excuse for not having spoken before today. I had intended to contribute to the debate in the chamber last Thursday, but we had the small matter of a local government by-election in Bo’ness that day, which required my attention. I am glad to say that we kept up the by-election tradition in Falkirk district by securing more than 55 per cent of the vote. I congratulate the new SNP councillor for Bo’ness, Councillor Sandy Turner, on his sensational result.
I thank the people of Falkirk East for voting SNP in such large numbers at the by-election and at last month’s Scottish election. It is, of course, an honour and a privilege for me to serve the people of Falkirk East, and I will do my utmost to serve them to the best of my ability.
While I am discussing Falkirk East, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, Cathy Peattie, who represented Falkirk East for 12 years. As a Portonian—someone who hails from Grangemouth—she was in tune with the issues affecting the constituency, and was easily accessible to all her constituents. I intend to be just as accessible, but there are some of Cathy's attributes that I will find it impossible to emulate. I can confirm that there is no truth in the rumour that, as the member for Falkirk East, I will stand in for her by singing Burns songs at the members’ Burns supper. Nothing would guarantee a mass exodus more than me singing “Ae Fond Kiss”, although I have to admit that I have given “Scots, wha hae” laldie a few times.
I hope that my thanks to Cathy Peattie on behalf of the people of Falkirk East are duly placed on record. I also place on record my thanks to the team that works behind the scenes in Parliament: the unsung heroes who keep this place ticking over and who have been extremely helpful to all the new kids on the block over the past few weeks.
I turn to the substance of the debate. It is worth recognising the success of the recent campaign for the establishment of a dedicated Gaelic channel, BBC Alba, and, as we saw two weeks ago, the success of the campaign to have the channel made available on Freeview and cable. I congratulate everyone who lobbied to ensure that that happened. It was a sign of what can be achieved in Scotland through cross-party consensus, and I acknowledge the support of retired MSPs John Farquhar Munro and Ted Brocklebank.
BBC Alba was launched in September 2008, a couple of weeks before the successful Royal National Mod, of which I was the convener, was held in Falkirk. The event gave Falkirk district a major cultural boost and attracted more than £1.5 million of spend into the local economy, just when the economic downturn was beginning to kick in. I would therefore like to think that BBC Alba and Falkirk have a special bond through the 2008 Mod. I am sorry to see that Derek Mackay has left the chamber because I was going to wish him good luck for the Mod in Paisley.
Thank you.
I thank George Adam.
As we have heard, when the Scottish Broadcasting Commission reported back in 2008, it recommended the establishment of a Scottish digital network. With the same cross-party consensus that surrounded the establishment of BBC Alba, a new Scottish digital network could be operational within a few years. The suggestion is that the channel could cost in the region of £75 million per year, which should come out of the licence fee or spectrum fees; most certainly, it should not be commercially funded, although that is the favoured option of the UK Government at the moment.
It is clear that commercial broadcasters within and outwith Scotland have found their financial situations to be fairly precarious recently, so it should be a given that, in a similar way to how other European public service broadcasters are funded, the Scottish digital network be publicly funded. Helen Eadie said earlier that that would be
“Robbing Peter to pay Paul”.
She fails to grasp the argument that we are entitled to the funding from the licence fee in the first place.
I know that SNP members often use Norway as an example of many things. As a regular visitor to Norway, I can say that we would do well to emulate its local digital network, particularly the local outputs, which are second to none. Of course, Norway is an independent, oil-rich country with the funding to create world-class broadcasting, and it is now one of the countries at the forefront of digital technology.
From 2013-14, UK licence payers will spend £95 million per year supporting public service broadcasting on S4C in Wales, in addition to the money that is spent on BBC Wales programming. The level of support that is provided by UK licence fee payers for broadcasting in Scotland, in addition to BBC Scotland’s programming, will be £8 million. Surely that is not fair in anyone’s book, particularly when local digital networks in other parts of Europe regularly receive in excess of £150 million per year.
It is not as if the SNP Government is not putting its money where its mouth is. The intention is to create a next generation digital fund at a cost of £50 million, to be made available from the Scottish futures fund. The fund will accelerate the roll-out of superfast broadband to rural Scotland. That is all thanks to the £250 million that was saved through sensible procurement of the new Forth crossing.
With cross-party support and consensus, we can have the will to get a Scottish digital network up and running in the near future, with funding from the licence fee. That will be the first step towards fully devolving responsibility for broadcasting to Scotland, with the knock-on benefit of more jobs. It is now for the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to establish a digital network for Scotland that is funded from the licence fee, as S4C will be from 2013-14, or from the sale of spectrum, which will accommodate more localised broadcasting. I urge members to support the motion.
16:19
I congratulate Angus MacDonald on his excellent maiden speech. He is clearly a member to watch. His speech was well structured with a lot of humour, and I was touched that he mentioned my colleague Cathy Peattie.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I will concentrate my remarks on the roll-out of superfast or next generation broadband in rural areas. However, I first place on record my welcome for the developments that are mentioned in the motion, such as BBC Alba becoming available on Freeview and cable, the work of the Scottish digital network panel, and the Scottish Government’s report, “Digital Future”. Although “Digital Future” is a good report, I have a few technical issues to raise with the cabinet secretary on areas such as targets, broadband speed and funding.
Patricia Ferguson rightly mentioned the important role of film in Scotland and how excellent revenues can be generated from film tourism. In the past, I was closely involved with the BBC’s “Monarch of the Glen” series, which many members may recall. At its height, it had 9 million viewers across the UK. I confess that, because it was filmed in my local area, I was once an extra for a day, the whole of which I spent watching what was going on. I can reveal that my left foot was shown for only a millisecond—even my mother did not recognise me when the episode was shown. Perhaps I have the best-known left foot in the chamber.
I acknowledge the work of my former colleague Peter Peacock, who, as members will know, has retired from Parliament. He was an early advocate and pioneer of broadband in rural areas, both as education minister, through the development of the pathfinder network, which connected rural schools and libraries throughout Scotland, and through his campaigns, speeches and research, in which he sought to add to the development of superfast broadband in rural areas.
What is meant by “next generation” or “superfast” broadband, and why is it important for rural areas in particular? As the Scottish Government’s “Digital Future” report rightly says, there is no fixed definition of what speed constitutes next generation broadband, but the European Commission has set a speed of 30Mb as a minimum target, and Westminster aims to achieve the best next generation broadband in Europe, taking into account factors such as speed, coverage, price and choice.
As we all know, the Scottish Government target is for NGB to be delivered to all by 2020. Will the cabinet secretary confirm what the minimum speed will be for that target to be achieved? I accept that other issues will be taken into account and that meeting the target will depend on more than just speed, but it is clear that too low a speed causes problems for businesses and domestic users. The other Scottish Government target is for “significant progress” to be made by 2015. What is meant by that?
Does the member agree that a significant issue for the provision of broadband now and in the future is the fact that upload speeds are as low as 5 per cent of available download speeds? With the advent of new technology and new opportunities, it is essential that we up the upload speeds as well as the download speeds.
I thank the member for that highly technical intervention; perhaps he will explain to me what it meant later on. It was extremely worthy, nonetheless.
High speed digital connectivity is perhaps the single most important tool to battle geographic exclusion, to improve access to services and to stimulate the rural economy and sustain tourism. As many members have said, it is crucial that the digital divide is tackled but, as has also been said, we have a particular problem in Scotland. As the Scottish Government’s report mentioned, Ofcom reports that broadband use in Scotland is the lowest in any nation in the UK.
Within rural Scotland, the divide is stark. For example, a resident of the Isle of Eigg, which is in the Highlands and Islands region that I represent, conducted a survey of all users on the island, looking at broadband speed, service reliability and cost of service. On all three aspects, there was massive dissatisfaction. However, there is good news. Following the survey, the same resident, working with representatives of the University of Edinburgh, developed and established an alternative service for Eigg. A letter that was sent to my office said:
“This is acting as a pilot project for the wider roll-out of the network over all the Small isles, Knoydart and Loch Hourn area, for which we have yet to achieve any funding. The Eigg network is now almost fully operational, with over 20 households currently connected. For Eigg alone, when 40 subscribers are connected, the total net cost will have been less than £200 per household, although this excludes any labour element—it has been done entirely by voluntary effort.
Our network is a terrestrial wireless system, and is capable of ‘super-fast’ broadband speeds of over 100 Mbps. It is limited only by the non-availability of suitable backhaul on the mainland.”
As I said in my earlier intervention, I congratulate HIE on its first-class, successful bid to Broadband Delivery UK to implement one of the four UK superfast broadband pilots. The project has now gone to procurement under European rules.
I, too, congratulate HIE on the Highlands and Islands pilot.
Does the member agree that the fibre optic backhaul that Alex Johnstone referred to is exactly what is being put forward in the HIE pilot, as advocated by the Royal Society of Edinburgh?
I absolutely agree with the cabinet secretary. We had a briefing from HIE last night and heard that that is a key element of the proposal.
Will the cabinet secretary also support the Highlands and Islands receiving new rounds of funding under the intermediate category of structural funds, which can be used for broadband projects in the future?
Superfast broadband is a transformational product for the Highlands and Islands. What is required is collaboration between the public sector and the private sector to ensure that we reach the most remote and isolated parts of rural Scotland.
Let us not ignore the voices of dynamic local communities, such as the community on Eigg, which are using initiative and innovation to develop community information technology projects with existing LEADER resources.
16:25
I am the last speaker in the debate. In media terms, I believe that that means that I am either top of the bill or the warm-up man for the cabinet secretary.
I will go over some of the issues that came up during the debate. James Kelly mentioned some of the momentous television events that have happened over the years, such as the moon landings—one that he did not mention was the assassination of JFK. Two of the momentous occasions that happened recently were Alex Salmond winning the Scottish parliamentary elections not once but twice, which I will not forget in a hurry.
I want to dwell on the moving issue that my colleague Christina McKelvie highlighted to do with charities in Scotland. Because they hear the news from the UK hubs, they think that what the UK health spokesperson is saying is what is happening here and will affect the charity or the people involved with it. That got me thinking.
This week is national carers week. I met Sandra Webster, a young woman who has two autistic boys for whom she cares. She is a playwright and occasionally watches television. She asked me what I would be talking about today and I told her that I would be talking about broadcast media in Scotland. She said that television is her window to the world when she is at home with the boys and asked why she could not get television that affects her and her community. I thought, “Why can’t she? Why can’t Sandra get that media? Why can’t she get a localised news network?” I am not talking about just putting a see-you-Jimmy bunnet on the network but about having a localised news network or television output. That is the main issue that has come out of the debate.
Even yesterday, when I was going home to the centre of the universe that is Paisley—I thank Angus MacDonald for the good will that he showed towards Paisley when he wished us luck for the Mod in 2013—I saw that in Glasgow Central station there is a massive television screen, which broadcasts programmes from a satellite broadcaster, which is not a local broadcaster. Why is local news not getting shown in one of the largest railway stations in the country? Why are we not shown Scotland-based news?
The cabinet secretary is correct to say that we are in a multichoice, multiplatform time when we can choose what we wish to watch and how we go about it. It is about Scottish broadcasting.
BBC Scotland provides a very good service, in as much as “Good Morning Scotland” is a radio show that broadcasts out; it looks out at what is happening in the world and broadcasts it to a Scottish audience. It tells us what is happening internationally. That is a good example of a publicly funded Scottish show.
BBC Alba has set the template for TV in Scotland. I for one am happy, because we get Scottish Premier League football shown free—it can be watched through delayed transmission. I have the misfortune of being a St Mirren fan, so I watch the game during the day and go back and put myself through the pain again later.
As an Inverness Caley Thistle fan who often watches my team on BBC Alba, I wonder whether George Adam agrees that your team can be rubbish in two languages. [Laughter.]
Given that I have a majority of 248 in Paisley, I should possibly not answer that question. St Mirren have had a bad season and I have had to watch some pretty dreadful games.
The problem that we have with the media is that a lot of it is London-centric. Production in the BBC has moved to Scotland and is worth £20 million a year to Scotland’s creative economy. Again, it is more about the output and how we can put it to a Scottish audience. We have to look at what our commercial operator—STV—has broadcast. In a very competitive market, it has managed to put out more Scotland-based output than has been the case for a number of years. It is important that we consider that, because it shows why we need licence fee money to pay for the Scottish digital network. We would be putting pressure on our current commercial supplier. That is extremely important.
Scottish licence fee payers are not currently getting value for money. Even with the changes, it is still not enough. What is important is the governance of broadcasting. As the cabinet secretary said, there has been some movement on the issue. It is important that we have representation in the governing structures of television and the UK network.
In effect, Scotland created the television industry, and it is an industry that we can lead once again in this modern age. On the whole, we are in agreement that there is a need for a Scottish digital network. We may disagree on how we get there, but the benefits to our nation far outweigh an individual’s own opinions. We are here to serve the people of Scotland. Let us have a digital network that will serve the people of Scotland.
We turn to the winding-up speeches with the luxury of a few minutes in hand, so interventions may be accommodated. I call Ruth Davidson, who has about seven minutes.
16:31
Thank you for your generosity, Presiding Officer. I never need a second request to keep my mouth open and my gums flapping for longer.
I start my closing speech by congratulating Angus MacDonald on his maiden speech. It was a thoughtful and dignified speech on an issue on which there has been broad agreement in the chamber. We are all supportive of a Scottish digital network, and I hope that the cabinet secretary has seen the questions that have been raised from the Labour and Conservatives benches as ones in which we have looked for clarification rather than just provided criticism.
Looking across the chamber, I see the Labour members, and I appreciate their nostalgia for how far back they can remember, through all the progression that we have had to digital television. Helen Eadie and James Kelly talked about their flickering black-and-white cathode ray tubes, and Patricia Ferguson remembered the days before BBC 2. As a shameless copycat, I will mention the quirk of fate that means that I was born in the same week as BBC Radio Scotland as it grew out of the home service. In the past couple of years, we have both had a rather significant birthday, which I think we would both rather forget.
There are two sides to the debate in hand. One is about broadcasting: television, content, what we want to see, the context we want to see it in, who it is available to, and how they get it. The other side is the infrastructure: the pipes that are laid, who gets what, how fast and whether they can upload and download, and how the technology and infrastructure are used to help ordinary Scots up and down the country.
Let me turn first to the meat and two veg of broadcasting—the content. We have heard a lot from SNP members about having Scottish broadcasting in a Scottish context. In her contribution, Joan McAlpine basically said that, although she enjoyed watching networked BBC programming, she was upset that Scottish issues were not put in a Scottish context and that the programmes that she chooses to listen to on Radio 5 live and Radio 4 perhaps do not get it.
First, we must consider what we mean when we talk about the BBC. We are not just talking about broadcasting and programming that is played across all four of the home nations; we are talking, too, about our own content. It is remiss of the member, when she talks about Scottish public service broadcasting and Scottish news and current affairs in particular, not to mention programmes such as “Good Morning Scotland”, “Call Kaye”, “John Beattie”, “Newsdrive”, “Scotland at Ten”, “Newsweek Scotland”, “Shereen”, “Reporting Scotland”, “The Politics Show Scotland”, “Newsnight Scotland” and “Frontline Scotland”. Those are just the BBC shows that I could think of while she was speaking. It is unfair to say that we in this country have a politics and news agenda that is unexamined.
I appreciate the point that the member makes, but does she not recognise that there must be another broadcaster with a public service remit so that the BBC does not have a monopoly of public service broadcasting? In the years ahead, we will have negotiations on channel 3. Does she not recognise that it is an important democratic aspect of broadcasting anywhere in the world that no one provider has a monopoly of public service broadcasting?
People who work for STV news, for “North Tonight” and in commercial radio would suggest that there is no monopoly on news provision in Scotland but that people go across the way to get it. We also have “Channel 4 News”, which is funded by the licence fee.
I rise to the challenge that was given to me by the cabinet secretary’s colleague Mark McDonald, who said that, as a Conservative, I should not be afraid of competition for the BBC in Scotland. I absolutely am not. As I said during the debate, my worry is not about competition for the BBC. I want a Scottish digital network and I am supportive of it, as are all members around the chamber, but I do not want it to damage the fine programmes that I have mentioned. I want to see Scottish broadcasting plus; I do not want to see Scottish broadcasting flatlining and Peter being robbed to pay Paul.
I am worried about the funding structure that has been identified, which is top-slicing the BBC licence fee by 2 per cent. First, it is recognised that it is unlikely that the licence fee round will be reopened before 2017, yet the timeline for a Scottish digital network precedes that. We have legitimate questions about how we will pay for its start-up and running in the first couple of years. Also, if we top-slice the BBC budget, what are the consequences for the 1,250 people who work for the BBC throughout Scotland? I am thinking of those not just in Pacific Quay, in Glasgow, but in the regional outposts in the Borders, in Aberdeen and the north-east and in Edinburgh. I am even thinking of—dare I say it—the parliamentary scrutineers that we have in the Tun at Holyrood. There are plenty of questions.
I will not rehearse the point that I made about the inequality between the licence fee that is paid in from Scotland and the money that comes back. Is the member suggesting that, if the money to set up the Scottish digital network were to be taken from the licence fee, the BBC would take the money exclusively from the funding for BBC Scotland rather than from across the BBC or from the share that is paid in from Scotland at the moment?
I am saying that there would be consequences for Scotland. I am not saying that the full £75 million would be taken from Scotland, but it is wrong to say that it would have no impact on the BBC in Scotland at a time when its budget has been reducing—as the whole BBC budget has, and as the workforce has been reducing. It would be a dangerous precedent to set.
Questions have been raised by both Labour members and ourselves, and we look forward to working with the cabinet secretary in the future. We need to examine the provision of broadband, and I welcome the on-going pilot in the Highlands and Islands and the work that is proposed for the south of Scotland. We need to look at take-up, which is far more to do with cost than with content and needs to be addressed. We also need a Scottish digital network that adds to the cultural life of Scotland, creates more jobs and gives us greater provision, not one that, in purely competitive terms, affects current broadcasting and the high standard of broadcasting that we have in this country.
16:38
In keeping with most of the opening debates in the current parliamentary session, it has been a broadly consensual discussion. There is much for us to find agreement on regarding the need to support our broadcast and creative industries and the importance to Scotland of the whole country being able to benefit from digital technology through, for example, superfast broadband. There is one important caveat, however, which several speeches have mentioned directly or indirectly, and it concerns the devolution of further powers over broadcasting. It is a tricky issue, as Labour supports the devolution of broadcasting powers in some instances. For example, Fiona Hyslop cited figures from BBC Wales to support the argument that Wales is more generously funded than Scotland. Labour would support any argument that approached the discussion from that point of view and talked about fair treatment for Scotland. However, she went on to present three points to try to argue that we need new powers to achieve our shared goals of improving and expanding broadcasting in Scotland. I was totally unconvinced by that and I will return to the point later.
The bulk of the motion comments on the welcome developments of recent years, in particular the work of the Broadcasting Commission and its successor body, the Scottish digital network panel. With the switchover of many television services coming up later this week, I do not want to tempt fate, but the process has gone relatively well so far.
Although some of us occasionally struggle with technology in general—the information technology helpdesk will testify to my needs in that regard—Scots of all generations have not only adapted to the digital revolution but embraced it in a remarkable way. I am not sure whether you are aware, Presiding Officer, but speakers have been alerted to several mobile telephones and BlackBerrys going off in the chamber this afternoon, so we are clearly an example of that process.
From an economic perspective, digital access is crucial if we are to compete effectively. I find it interesting that, as Alex Johnstone and David Stewart said, the proven success story of established broadband access in some parts of the Highlands and Islands has already allowed those areas to economically leapfrog other parts of Scotland, such as areas of the central belt.
Another recent success story is the launch of BBC Alba on Freeview, to which several speakers referred. Like the minister, I point out that it followed cross-party lobbying from all parties in the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that I do not have to tell members the importance of growing the number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland if we are to ensure that the language is to survive. Alongside the expansion of Gaelic-medium education, access to the language through BBC Alba is crucial. I do not want to teach my grannie to sook eggs but, to grow the language, new learners are needed. In other words, BBC Alba is not a service for those in the traditional Gaelic heartlands alone. By putting the channel on Freeview, we have removed one of the major obstacles to widespread access.
I wonder in passing how many new viewers BBC Alba won with its televising of Rock Ness. I was another of those who tuned in to watch it and, like Patricia Ferguson, was hugely impressed by the way that the presenters switched from Gaelic to English and kept all viewers with them.
The recent BBC reforms have proved successful. The corporation is, as several members mentioned, well ahead of schedule for transferring production to Scotland. Indeed, the BBC as a whole is on the brink of major devolutionary change, not only for Scotland but for England, in moving production out of London to places such as Salford and Bristol.
I do not know whether many members saw that the corporation is talking of selling off BBC television centre, which is an iconic building. The recent election is an occasion of some moment for me because, in this session, I will have spent more time as an MSP than I did as a television producer, which is what I used to be. In fact, I used to be one of the hundreds of Scots who worked out of TV centre in London.
Just as I have moved on, so undoubtedly has the BBC. That shift has been driven partly by the technological changes—digital changes—that have allowed the BBC to move out of London, move round the country and reflect our views differently. It has also been driven by specific policy choices that the corporation has made to increase production in Scotland and ensure that its news programmes are more reflective.
A number of contributors, particularly on the SNP back benches, talked of that point in a way that caused me concern. Angus MacDonald made the point that we are entitled to a share of the licence fee. The difficulty with that argument is that it implies that the 10 o’clock news, as an example, is a solely English programme as opposed to one that we enjoy and from which we benefit. I do not ever quite accept the argument that the licence fee has to be divvied up individually.
Another argument, which Mark McDonald made, was that Scottish programmes would somehow be superior or of greater quality. Of course, the major concern of respondents to the Broadcasting Commission’s survey was a question about the ambition of some of BBC Scotland’s programme making. BBC Scotland is part of a big organisation, fantastic people work there and it has benefited from reforms in recent years.
I would never assert any superiority complex for Scottish programming. I simply suggested that the cringe that we often have—the feeling that, because something has been produced and output from Scotland, it is inferior—does not apply. That was my point, not the one that Ken Macintosh describes.
I am sorry, but I am not sure that I accept or would make that argument; I am not sure that it is the argument that Helen Eadie made. I argue that the BBC in Scotland should produce programmes for a national audience. That is what I want. I want production to expand in Scotland, but not solely for Scotland—I want UK-wide or worldwide programmes to be made in Scotland. I observe that a mixture of the brand-new Pacific Quay building and the increase in devolved production has given BBC Scotland palpable new confidence in its programme making.
I return to the motion and I will set out why the Labour Party will support both amendments. As I said, we agree with much of the motion, but it places too much emphasis on what others should do and not enough on what we and particularly the Scottish Government could and can do. One of the Broadcasting Commission’s most important findings highlighted the need to develop our skills base. In speaking to our amendment, Patricia Ferguson made the point that if we do not have the skills base, we cannot produce the content in Scotland. That was a key reason—or excuse—that Channel 4 gave to explain why it did not produce and commission more programmes here.
We will support the Conservative amendment, which Ruth Davidson moved, because it reaffirms a central finding of the Broadcasting Commission, which was that any new network that is supported by public funding should not undermine or be at the expense of existing broadcasters. I am sure that most members are aware that STV has returned only recently to a firm financial footing. The on-going success of STV is of great importance to all of us.
We also support the Conservative amendment because it would remove the one worrying line in the Scottish Government’s motion, which calls for broadcasting responsibilities to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. In discussing that point, we have heard two lines. The cabinet secretary tried to reassure us that the motion was simply about investigating new powers and not about demanding them, but every other SNP member has talked about control and demanding editorial control, which worries me deeply. Historically, the SNP has campaigned to break up the BBC—that has often been used as a proxy argument for the break-up of Britain. The tactic might have shifted to incremental accumulation of powers, but I do not believe that the people of Scotland want the break-up of the BBC.
I suggest that the Broadcasting Commission pulled off a remarkable feat in uniting us all around its conclusions on what is normally a divisive subject. Let us return to the commission’s central aims and unite to expand and improve Scottish broadcasting as an additional service, rather than a supplementary to UK broadcasters.
16:48
The debate has been valuable. It demonstrates that the Parliament is likely to approach broadcasting in a constructive and practical spirit. As we have heard, differences will exist, but what came across was how important the connectivity arguments and the wider issue of the digital network and broadcasting are to all members.
I congratulate Angus MacDonald on an excellent first speech. I am sure that he will be a powerful advocate not just for Falkirk East but for Gaelic. We were informed by the experience of Ken Macintosh and Ruth Davidson. We could describe her as a strong defender of the BBC or its cheerleader in chief, but she certainly brought to the debate her insight as a previous BBC employee. We also benefited from Joan McAlpine’s insightful journalistic analysis.
The debate explored areas in which the Parliament might seek to have more influence and/or power. I set out three areas that I believe we need to address. One is a Scottish digital network, and I was pleased to hear support for that from the Labour benches and the Conservatives. I also want to address the television licence fee and local television. The Scottish Government will publish a paper setting out our proposals—for example, on local cross-media mergers and the list of sporting events that must be shown live on free-to-air television.
I recognise that this is a moveable debate and that things are developing as we speak. However, I say to members, including Helen Eadie and Ruth Davidson, that the UK Conservative Government has already top-sliced the licence fee to fund S4C and local television. It is not yet clear whether Scotland will benefit from that top-slicing. Our discussions with the UK Government, at our initiative, are about the need for it to recognise that whatever it provides will have to provide local television for Scotland—not least in the south of Scotland, which, as many members said, is an area that needs addressed. I acknowledge that the extent of our influence and/or power will be debatable, but we really do need to influence what Scotland can achieve as a result of the existing top-slicing of the licence fee for local television provision. I want some of that to come to us as funding support for the Scottish digital network. If we can find a mechanism by which the UK Government’s plans and proposals for local television can chime and align with what we want to do with the Scottish digital network, that will be proof of a creative approach, with the Scottish Parliament working constructively with the UK Government.
I will expand on some of the issues that were raised in this afternoon’s debate. I entirely agree with Patricia Ferguson that having a skilled workforce is essential to the development of our television production and broadcasting industry, and the Government will support Labour’s amendment. Although I agree that there is more to be done, I note that we have achieved some progress. I will give just two examples. In 2009, I was delighted to announce the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council’s investment to support Skillset’s screen and media academy network in Scotland. That investment, which is worth £5.8 million over five years, has already made an impact. It has provided enhancements to industry-standard facilities at the six colleges that comprise the creative loop collaboration. In addition, Skillset, BECTU and BBC Scotland have jointly developed a drama training programme that is designed to secure Scotland’s future drama production capacity in line with anticipated growth. That fund was launched in 2010 and it will be worth approximately £500,000 over two years.
I think that it was Patricia Ferguson who made the point that recurring drama represents an opportunity to provide on-going skills development and that it is to be supported. We heard in the debate that there is a tension, but we should perhaps not be too precious, because we can meet a number of objectives in providing investment in skills and training. Yes, we need recurring drama in particular to ensure that we have skills and training, and I agree that some of that content can be exportable. We should also recognise that the content does not always have to be Scotland-based. It can be world-class Scottish content that will appeal to a wide variety of international media. At the same time, however, we should acknowledge that we can and should expect content that reflects Scotland as it is now and as we want it to be. I do not think that there is necessarily a tension within that. Some members seemed to find a tension there, but I do not think that that needs to be the case.
The worry that many of us have is that some speeches, particularly from SNP back benchers, suggest that the content should be exclusively Scottish, for Scottish people.
That might be a rather unfair assessment. I believe that content should reflect our society, as Joan McAlpine set out, for example, but as the Scottish digital network panel report said, the network’s remit should clearly include bringing more international content to Scotland. Patricia Ferguson made that point very well in her speech.
On the Scottish digital network, I stress that the reason why I cannot support Ruth Davidson’s amendment is that I believe that we should, at the very least, investigate options for transferring further responsibilities for broadcasting to Holyrood. The Conservative amendment would remove the reference to that option for investigation. I largely agree with the Conservative amendment’s statement that a new network should not compromise existing broadcasting capability and it is worth stressing that a digital network need not and would not do that. It would not mean losing existing programmes that are enjoyed by Scottish audiences. There is no intention or proposal to restrict access to the programmes that are currently provided by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and others. This is about adding to choice, not reducing it.
I want to stress the other benefits that a network could bring. In particular, a network would provide not only a linear television channel, but online content, which would be a core part of its services and would make it an integral part of our ambition to put Scotland at the forefront of the digital revolution. I agree whole-heartedly with those MSPs who stressed the importance of broadband connectivity, especially in rural areas. The point that Alex Johnstone made about ensuring that it is scaleable is important. It is important that connectivity can be upgradeable to meet future requirements. In respect of speed, we seek to meet European targets, as requested. That is why we are committed to developing a national broadband plan in collaboration with Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and local authorities. Doing so will ensure the roll-out of next generation broadband to all parts of Scotland, with particular emphasis on rural areas.
A digital network would also help to promote broadband uptake by making quality Scottish content available online, and it would promote the delivery of public services. The Scottish digital network panel noted the potential for a network to be an integral part of services such as digital healthcare services, and noted that
“Partnerships with local authorities, higher education institutions and wider civic society would be not just appropriate but essential.”
That is an important part of the debate that some members have perhaps, with our concentration on broadcasting and television, omitted to mention in their speeches.
If the UK Government establishes a network, that is well and good; if it does not, we will need to explore having the legislative power to do so ourselves. That is the only way in which we can give public service broadcasters the formal remit, the guaranteed independence from Government, the access to spectrum and the electronic programme guide status that such an important network would require. Indeed, on the point that Ruth Davidson made, it could have a remit that includes digital inclusion and participation.
We will continue to make the case for access to appropriate funding sources, as identified by the Scottish digital network panel, whether from spectrum auctions, future licence fee settlements, or both.
In my opening speech, I proposed that Holyrood could have a role in local television and future licence fee settlements. The reason for that is that decisions have been made or are being made in both areas that will have a lasting impact on Scottish media. On the recent licence fee settlement, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at Westminster judged that
“it is vitally important that both licence fee payers and Parliament should have some involvement when far-reaching decisions about”
the BBC’s
“funding and ... responsibilities are taken. It is regrettable ... that the opportunity for this was lost, thus undermining confidence in both the Government’s and the BBC’s commitment to transparency and accountability.”
Perhaps that is something that the Scottish Parliament’s committee might want to reflect on in setting out its programme. In my view, the interests of transparency and accountability require devolved Parliaments to have a say in the licence fee settlement as well as in the licensing of local television.
The current broadcasting arrangements are not meeting the needs of the viewing public in the 21st century. We need to have more influence and/or powers in those areas. Views on the extent of that influence or those powers will differ across the chamber in the different parties, but there is consensus in the Parliament that we should have a Scottish digital network. We have set out the reasons and rationale for that, and I hope that the debate will continue in the constructive manner in which it has begun.
Until the Scottish Parliament started to take a closer interest in broadcasting following the setting up of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, problems in broadcasting were simply not on the political radar. The steep decline in network production was a matter of concern. My view is that there should be a natural and logical fit between the digital era and devolution. Both are improving and extending the range of choices that are available to citizens and consumers, and bringing services closer to the lives of the people who use them. The Scottish digital network will be an ambitious and creative embodiment of the move towards a digital Scotland. With the right mix of powers, the Parliament will make it happen.