Broadcasting
The next item of business is a statement on broadcasting by Michael Russell. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
It is now just over six months since the Scottish Broadcasting Commission published its final report, which was widely acclaimed for the independence of its thought, the thoroughness of its analysis and the practicality of its recommendations. At the outset, I offer my thanks to Blair Jenkins and his team for their extraordinary and hard work.
Since the report was published, much has happened in broadcasting and the wider world. The Office of Communications has published a United Kingdom-wide review of public service broadcasting; the UK Government has published "Digital Britain: The Interim Report", to which the Scottish Government responded last week; and, in a broader context, the economic environment in which broadcasting operates has, of course, been transformed since September. This is therefore an appropriate time to update the chamber on the Scottish Government's work in relation to broadcasting, particularly as, today, the Scottish Government is responding formally to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's report.
The First Minister said in September last year that the Scottish Broadcasting Commission represented
"a blueprint for a revolution in Scottish broadcasting."—[Official Report, 8 October 2008; c 11553.]
The report contains 22 recommendations on increasing and improving the size and quality of our broadcasting industry. Its key recommendation, of course, is on the establishment of a Scottish digital network. I make it clear that the Government welcomes that recommendation unreservedly; indeed, it whole-heartedly accepts the report's recommendations.
The arguments for a digital network are compelling. We are entering a world where the public service broadcasting obligations of ITV and Scottish Television might no longer be commercially viable. Ofcom recognised that in January by limiting STV's requirement for public service broadcasting, other than news, to 1.5 hours a week. Furthermore, in some form or another, it looks likely that Channel 4 will provide the basis of public service broadcasting competition to the BBC at a UK level. Channel 4 currently produces virtually no content specifically for Scotland. I shall return to that point.
Without radical action, there will be no significant competition to the BBC for public service broadcasting content for Scotland. That is unacceptable. Our chief aim in developing the recommendations in the Scottish Broadcasting Commission report is to secure choice in quality public service broadcasting for Scotland, not just in news, but in documentaries, arts, drama and comedy.
Given that Scotland does not have any devolved powers in relation to broadcasting, we cannot achieve that goal by ourselves. The Scottish Government responded last week to the UK Government's "Digital Britain" interim report, and on 9 March I had a useful and positive meeting with Stephen Carter, the UK Government's Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting.
It is clear that the unanimity of opinion expressed by the Scottish Parliament in October when it endorsed the network has been noticed. It is also clear that both Ofcom and the UK Government recognise the strong desirability of choice in public service broadcasting for Scotland. For example, in the House of Lords debate on Scottish broadcasting last month, Stephen Carter said that recognising the importance of
"having news and content that reflects the nation's sense of itself"
is
"one of the things that we are seeing as a catch-up after the devolution agreements".
The Scottish Government agrees with that view. Furthermore, we believe that a digital network offers the best way of ensuring a choice of content that, as Stephen Carter put it,
"reflects the nation's sense of itself."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2009; Vol 708, c 283.]
We recognise that the ultimate prize we seek—a secure and sustainable alternative public service broadcasting voice for Scotland—is valued by all shades of political opinion in Scotland. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Scottish Government will engage constructively with the UK Government and others on proposals. To achieve that aim I am open to working with everyone in this chamber and with many others, including Westminster members of Parliament, in pressing the case.
In addition to the cultural and democratic importance of broadcasting, its economic significance is even greater in the current climate than it was last September. Broadcasting can be a major driver of growth within the creative industries, which are one of the priority areas set out in the Government's economic strategy and which are also a vital part of our plans for creative Scotland.
It is useful to remember the original reason for establishing the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, which lies in the shocking fact that in 2006 major UK broadcasters made only 2.6 per cent of their network programmes in Scotland—half the figure of a few years previously. Simply by subjecting that decline to detailed public scrutiny, the Broadcasting Commission performed a great service, which might already be starting to bear fruit.
In the past few months there have been some very welcome announcements from both Channel 4 and the BBC. The BBC had already made it clear in late 2007 that it intended to produce at least 8.6 per cent of network programmes in Scotland by 2016 at the latest. On 15 October last year, it announced implementation plans to start to make that happen. I discussed those plans earlier this week with the controller of BBC Scotland and told him that the Government intends to keep a very close eye on the BBC's progress on the matter—and I meant it.
Channel 4 has not set a target for production in Scotland, but it has acknowledged that, so far, Scotland, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, has not benefited much from its quotas for production out of London. On 20 January this year, Channel 4 announced that it would establish a commissioning editor in Scotland and would ensure that a proportion of programmes in all its key programming strands would be made by companies that are based in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Channel 4 has also established a commissioning hub in Scotland for its digital media innovation fund.
Those of us who are slightly long in the tooth—I include Mr Brocklebank in that, given his experience in broadcasting—might say that all this is a little late in the day, given Channel 4's 26 years in existence. Even now, Channel 4's current commitments in Scotland do not come close to the 8.6 per cent target set by the Broadcasting Commission, and we will therefore continue to press Channel 4 on the issue. Similarly, we want the BBC to meet its production targets by 2012, rather than by 2016—I made that clear to the controller on Monday. Both broadcasters can and should do more, more quickly, and a major role for all politicians is to keep attention focused on the issue.
Production statistics for major broadcasters are released by Ofcom annually. If it becomes clear that broadcasters are still failing in their duty to commission programmes from across the UK, we should all expect them to explain why.
The promised increase in demand for programmes made in Scotland, together with the prospect of a digital network, presents a major opportunity for Scotland's economy and its independent production sector. As independent producers, they must show imagination and energy—as independent producers always do—to take advantage of the opportunity that exists, and I am sure that they are doing so. However, there is also a role for the public sector to improve skills, provide co-ordinated economic support and demonstrate leadership within the sector.
Today, Scottish Enterprise is publishing its economic strategy for the broadcasting sector. The document makes clear the scale of the economic opportunity that the broadcasting industry in Scotland faces: there is the potential for it almost to double in size in the next three or four years, which would bring direct and indirect benefits to the Scottish economy of approximately £200 million each year. The strategy, which I see as a starting point for Scottish Enterprise's involvement in the sector, rather than an end result, sets out how Scottish Enterprise will engage with the production sector so that it can remove barriers to growth for the industry in Scotland.
On skills development, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council announced last month that it was making £5.8 million of funding available over five years for skills development in the creative industries. Of course, that funding is not solely for broadcasting, but, among other things, it will help to fund an additional 40 postgraduate places in broadcasting each year.
My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, announced last month that there would be an additional 50 modern apprenticeships in the creative industries in 2009-10. That will help us to address skills needs across the sector, to ensure that our future workforce is geared up for the challenges and opportunities that it will face.
The framework agreement for the creative industries, which was published last month, outlined how creative Scotland plans to work with enterprise companies, local authorities and the business gateway to develop the creative industries. Councillor Harry McGuigan of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and I will jointly chair an independent short-life group to drive the agreement forward.
Between them, our skills bodies, enterprise companies and creative Scotland have made a good start in ensuring that the broadcasting industry will have access to the skills, support and leadership that it needs in order to prosper, but of course more has to be done. The actions that I have outlined are a first step.
The final point that I want to make is that a thriving broadcasting sector in Scotland would have a cultural and economic impact both in Scotland and beyond Scotland's borders. That impact could have economic benefits through the export of programmes and through making online content available commercially to users abroad. It would also be culturally significant.
At present, Scots and other people who are interested in Scotland—of whom there are many—might not have ready access to news and programmes about Scotland. For example, people who live in England can find it hard to gain access to Scottish news. The availability of a digital network would allow people throughout the UK to watch Scottish programmes if they wanted to do so. The network's online presence could provide people throughout the world with a source of high-quality information and programming from Scotland. The network would help to explain the wider world to Scotland and Scotland to the wider world.
The Scottish Parliament and all of us are central to taking those issues forward. As I said, there is little doubt that the views that were expressed here on 8 October have been heard beyond Scotland. The debate on STV in December, which Ted Brocklebank sponsored, was also a welcome sign of Parliament's concern about the subject.
I hope that the Parliament will take an active interest in the topic, and I intend to report to Parliament later this year on the progress that has been made. I hope that Parliament will actively influence opinion in and furth of Scotland to make the case for a new network in a compelling, persuasive and inclusive fashion.
It is right that the Parliament should have a regular opportunity to scrutinise and speak on the issue, since the goal towards which we are working is important. To demonstrate that, I will conclude on an undoubted success story—the establishment of BBC Alba. BBC Alba was set up to meet a clear need for a specialist Gaelic-language channel. It is now achieving impressive viewing figures each week, despite being available only on satellite. I was particularly delighted that it has been nominated for seven awards at next week's 30th Celtic media festival, which I hope to attend as a minister and as the event's founder.
BBC Alba shows clearly that there is an appetite in Scotland for high-quality programmes that—to borrow an elegant and useful phrase from the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's chair—are distinctively Scottish, but not relentlessly Scottish. Alas, that appetite is not being met by public service broadcasting in Scotland, but it needs to be, if viewers in Scotland and beyond are to have the choice that they deserve.
That is why the Scottish Government will continue to work openly, constructively and tirelessly with the Parliament, the UK Government and others to deliver the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's recommendations. We know that doing so will boost our economy, enrich our culture and strengthen our democracy.
The minister will now take questions on the issues that his statement raised. I will allow up to 20 minutes for questions.
I welcome again the recommendations of the Broadcasting Commission's report "Platform for Success". I confess that I thought that the Government had already responded to the report, which we have debated many times.
I note that today's statement placed much emphasis on the recommendation that a Scottish digital channel should be created. Labour has supported, and continues to support, the creation of such a channel. We want genuine and constructive dialogue with our colleagues in the Scotland Office and in Westminster in order to achieve that.
Given the challenges that face public service broadcasting in general, and the specific challenges that face our Scottish channel, STV, will the Scottish Government give priority to protecting our existing public services and to resolving the funding issues? Does the minister agree that a special focus on what STV is trying to achieve for Scottish viewers would be helpful to broadcasting in Scotland? Does he also agree that it would be far better to extend the STV franchise to cover the ITV Border area, which would give viewers in the Borders the local news that they deserve?
Funding for the digital channel is a key question that I would like the minister to address. What is the Government's position on funding? Where should it come from? What will be the Government's contribution to costs? The minister has assured us that the Government will not take its usual stance of blaming the Westminster Government for not coughing up; I would not mind hearing further reassurance on that in his answer.
Finally, I will deal with skills and development and creative Scotland's role. It is unfortunate that creative Scotland is an idea that is collapsing around the Government's ears. Last week, a significant player from Scottish Screen resigned. I do not think that the industry has a great deal of confidence in the Government's current handling of the body, to which the minister referred in his statement. Can broadcasters really hope that the body will look after their interests? Can the minister say precisely what skills and resources he will bring to creative Scotland—a body that he says will be crucial?
The member must conclude.
Ken Macintosh and David Whitton will also press the minister on these questions.
Pauline McNeill's question is detailed, so I will try to roll it up from the bottom. I do not recognise the image of creative Scotland that the member presented. I noted the resignation of Iain Smith—
It was not me.
I was referring to the Iain Smith who has a Hollywood reputation, as opposed to the Iain Smith who is sitting next to me, who does not—although he has a reputation in Fife.
I noted Iain Smith's resignation and would have been happy to speak to him before he resigned. I remain happy to speak to him and am actively seeking an opportunity to do so. Creative Scotland is not an idea that is collapsing around us but an idea whose time has come—it will be delivered. I am working hard with Creative Scotland 2009 Ltd and the existing organisations to deliver it and shall have more to say on the matter in the future. As I have said today, creative Scotland will have a role in skills development.
Funding is a serious issue for the proposed new network. However, legislative responsibility for broadcasting lies south of the border, so I suspect that funding responsibility also lies there; that is the reality of money and political power. I would be happy to discuss with the relevant ministers south of the border ways—of which there are a number—in which they might be able to provide the resources that are required.
At the moment, the issue is not money, but the willingness to accept the principle that there should be a Scottish digital network; my discussion with Stephen Carter about our response to "Digital Britain: The Interim Report" centred on that issue. We can look at the ways in which resources can be applied to a Scottish digital network after the principle has been accepted, especially because of the timescale. It needs to be acknowledged in the discussion that it is unlikely that money will be spent on the project before the next spending review period. It may also be possible to link the resources that are being applied to developing the production base in the BBC, and the proposed increase in production by Channel 4, to spending to develop a funding base for the new network. There are synergies.
My penultimate point is that I accept entirely Pauline McNeill's comments on the needs of viewers in the Borders. I oppose strongly the development that has taken place, with news moving to Tyne Tees. That is nonsensical and does not serve viewers in the south of Scotland, especially the Borders and Dumfriesshire. A better solution should be sought—the solution that the member suggested is certainly better than the one we have. ITV has got the matter utterly wrong, and the Office of Communications was wrong to allow the proposal to go ahead. Alas, however, it has.
I will end on a positive note by reversing what we heard in the question. I welcome the Labour Party's support for the proposed new network, which will become a reality only if we all work together. I will work in any way I can with the Labour Party, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Scottish Green Party, Margo MacDonald, the UK Government—through the Scotland Office and other departments—MPs at Westminster, the House of Lords, members of the European Parliament and everyone else who can help us to convince the UK Government that it is right to establish a Scottish digital network. I look to Pauline McNeill to offer such opportunities, so that I can prove that I mean what I say.
I thank the minister for making available an advance copy of his statement, which includes much with which I agree. Does he agree that a Scottish digital channel, which was first proposed by the Scottish Conservatives, was adopted by the Scottish Broadcasting Commission as its flagship policy, and is broadly supported by Parliament, is now the settled will of the Scottish Parliament? Does he also agree that it is vital for that settled will to be maintained and acknowledged by the Labour Westminster Government and the minister with responsibility for broadcasting, Lord Carter, who is apparently still to be fully convinced of the case for the new digital network?
It may be difficult in the present economic and political climate for Westminster to write a £75 million annual cheque to fund the new digital channel for Scotland. I note in that connection that, in response to the recent Ofcom report, Lord Carter stated
"that additional expenditure might be difficult to justify in current circumstances".
Does the minister agree that substantial private sector funding, on the basis that has been outlined by the Scottish Conservatives, is still most likely to deliver the new channel? Does he agree that the model could also provide the platform and core schedule for a raft of local or city TV companies, in line with the Conservatives' national broadcasting policy?
I am happy to accept many of the ideas that Mr Brocklebank has advanced, not as being writ in stone or as guidelines for what the new channel might achieve, but as part of the debate on how the channel should proceed. If Mr Brocklebank wishes the plan to be seen as the settled will of the unionist parties, it is probably better for it to be seen as that, rather than as a nationalist plot. If that is how he wishes to present it, I am happy to have it presented in that way. To return to the point that I made in response to Pauline McNeill, we need to show our ability to work together, in and outside the Parliament, so that we can persuade the UK Government of our case.
Ted Brocklebank raised funding issues. I do not wish to be drawn into that again, but if there has in the past been an imbalance in respect of investment in television in Scotland—as I think Mr Brocklebank would accept—the establishment of the new channel might be seen as balancing the debate, through the investment that will be made over time. Broadcasters are very fond of balancing things over a period, as Mr Whitton knows. The investment will be large in Scottish terms, but in terms of the totality of the licence fee, it is a very small investment. If one were to tot up the licence fee that has been raised in Scotland during these past 15 to 20 years, the investment would represent a miniscule amount in comparison.
There are all sorts of ways to approach that sum of money, but in doing so let us fight for acceptance of the principle that we should have the new channel as being the way forward. Then, let us have a detailed debate—which will take some time—about how we will structure the channel, how it will operate and even about the vexed question of where it will be based, which will take considerable effort.
I am with Mr Brocklebank on many of the points that he made, but they are points that can be resolved later. Let us all fight for the principle.
Following Mr Russell's earlier comments, I was reminded of waking up in Sierra Leone the year before last to hear the headline "Ian Smith dies in Africa".
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. There was little in it on which there would be disagreement in Parliament, and I particularly welcome the comments on investing in skills in the broadcasting sector. I also look forward to studying Scottish Enterprise's "Economic Development Strategy for Scotland's Broadcast Sector". We welcome the commitment of the BBC and Channel 4 to do more to produce programmes in Scotland, but they must be programmes that are genuinely produced using Scottish production skills, staff and facilities, and not just programmes that are made by people jetting in so that programmes can be badged "Made in Scotland".
The minister is right that the chief aim must be to secure a choice of high-quality public service broadcasting for Scotland, but what was lacking from his statement was any form of road-map on how we are to reach the ultimate prize of the Scottish digital network. Does the minister agree that, before we can reach that ultimate prize, we must ensure the survival of our existing broadcasting industry? Will he therefore urge Ofcom and the UK Government to do more to help to develop for the Scottish channel 3 a sustainable model that will allow STV to compete on fair terms for ITV commissions, taking into account the retrenchment of ITV plc into London? If Ofcom does not require ITV to produce any of its programmes outwith London, let alone here in Scotland, will the minister at least encourage Ofcom to allow STV to compete for some of the 25 per cent share of programming that is required from independent producers?
Mr Smith raised a number of good points. One of them, however, was not: the demand for a road-map for achieving the channel. Believe me, Presiding Officer—if I had such a road-map, I would not be hiding it, but distributing it in the chamber. There is no road-map, but there is an opportunity for a united campaign. I make that point again to ensure that the Liberal Democrats will be part of that campaign, as Mr Smith is indicating they will.
The issues around channel 3 are interesting. I do not believe that channel 3 is an alternative to the digital network. It is important to understand that we are talking about two different creatures. The digital network is a public service broadcaster to balance what is taking place and to create new opportunities. STV exists—the Scottish channel 3 exists. The difficulty in which the Scottish channel 3 finds itself is in moving from one model of broadcasting to another. We have to give opportunities to the many creative people—albeit that there are somewhat fewer of them than there used to be—who still work in STV and who need opportunities to access the pot of money that should be providing production opportunities throughout these islands, although the funding seems to be applied in a very restrictive way. I want people to access that money and I want the commitment to local programming—which still exists in the licences, although it is much reduced—to continue.
When we talk about the digital network, we are talking about something different—something that is much fuller and more varied and that might, as Mr Brocklebank said, grow into the type of city and local television about which there has been a great deal of debate and which is part of the new infrastructure of broadcasting. Channel 3 will have a place in that infrastructure—a regional channel 3 might well have a place, although that is not yet certain—but it is not the alternative. If we start to describe it as the alternative, we will lose the real prize, which is the digital network. Let us keep our eyes on the real prize, while not forgetting the opportunities and difficulties that exist in relation to channel 3.
I allowed front benchers some latitude; I now ask for brief questions and commensurate answers.
It is clear from what the minister and the Scottish Broadcasting Commission have said that there is untapped potential for broadcasting activity in Scotland. Will the minister say more about how he envisages broadcasting activity being part of the work of creative Scotland?
It is clear that there is a skills issue for creative Scotland. That needs to be recognised. It is clear that there is an interface between what one might call the art of film production and the people who, quite rightly, treat film production as an art form, and people who work in the broadcasting sector, just as there is—historically, there always has been—an interface with people who work in the advertising sector. There are lots of interfaces. A key issue for creative Scotland will be the organisation's role in developing skills—there are other key issues. I have much sympathy with the view that we should provide opportunities for broad film training in Scotland, which would also train people in excellence in television.
Like the minister, I think that skills are one of the secrets to our success. Does he share my disappointment that it has taken Scottish Enterprise three months beyond the date that the Scottish Broadcasting Commission set for it to come up with its strategy? Scottish Enterprise said that the number of jobs in the sector could double to 5,700. With that in mind, does the minister think that it is enough to offer 40 postgraduate places and 50 extra modern apprenticeships? Will he undertake to speak to his colleagues the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, to secure more money to create more such opportunities, which will lead to the jobs of the future?
Those opportunities represent a start, not a conclusion, as I said in my statement. Like Mr Whitton, I think that it is important to create opportunities for people to acquire skills. I want those opportunities to continue to grow. There are always financial difficulties, and I am sure that Mr Whitton does not want to be one of those Labour members who constantly call for more money and uncosted commitments.
I absolutely believe that we must show that there are opportunities for individuals to enter and continue in broadcasting in Scotland. As Mr Whitton and Mr Brocklebank know—and as I know from another perspective—it is unfortunate that the way in which the established and operating mainstream broadcasters in Scotland were able to bring people in and train them on real wages, rather than exploit them, is now sadly missed in Scotland. We would love such opportunities to exist again.
The minister talked about the need for quality broadcasting; Pauline McNeill and David Whitton talked about funding. Given that £180 million of the £320 million that is raised each year in Scotland from the licence fee heads south to subsidise BBC London, what discussions does the minister plan to have with the BBC and Lord Carter, to ensure that the bulk of that money is retained in Scotland, to boost production of more and better-quality programming and to support the establishment of a new £75 million digital TV channel?
As ever, Mr Gibson makes a good and combative point. I have argued the same point in the past. In my meeting with the controller of BBC Scotland this week I touched on the imbalance in relation to the licence fee in Scotland. If £320 million is the figure, as I believe it is, only a proportion of that money would be used for the new channel. Indeed, over 10 years the proportion would be very small.
I am keen that we keep our eye on the prize and are able to argue for the new network in a way that looks forward, not back. I hope that all members will contribute to that argument. Given Mr Gibson's skill as the most formidable campaigner in the Scottish National Party, I am sure that he can be a formidable campaigner for Scotland on the issue.
We were doing well on unity until Mr Gibson contributed.
I note the publication earlier today of Scottish Enterprise's strategy on broadcasting, to which the minister referred. The strategy talks about a major expansion in the industry, but points out that progress can be made only if funding can be secured for the new digital channel. Why has the minister not referred once to funding in his response to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission? Does he seriously believe that the unity in Parliament on a new digital channel can persevere if there is no financial contribution from the Scottish Government?
It is slightly amiss of Mr Macintosh to accuse Mr Gibson of threatening unity and then to do exactly the same, so let us try to draw ourselves together and re-establish unity. I will make the point about funding that I made some moments ago. If Mr Macintosh missed it, I ask him to allow me to make it again—
The minister said that it is someone else's responsibility.
If I may, Presiding Officer, I will make the point in a spirit of unity. The legislative power lies south of the border; therefore, the funding responsibility lies south of the border. If Mr Macintosh would like to go further than the Scottish Broadcasting Commission and support the repatriation of broadcasting legislation to Scotland along with the funding that goes with it, I will be a happy man. However, as I am sure he will not do so, let us find a way of working together on the matter.
I discussed funding with Stephen Carter and acknowledged that the issue will concern the United Kingdom Government. A number of solutions have been proposed already. One involves the licence fee and another is the allocation of revenue from spectrum sell, but both have some difficulties.
It is extremely important that we campaign for the principle of a new digital channel. In so doing, we will need to have a constructive discussion about funding among all the bodies that are involved.
I also said that a number of issues have not been taken into account on funding. For example, the channel would build the production base in Scotland, which would undoubtedly have an impact on the work that the BBC intends to do on building the production base in Glasgow. It would also have an impact on the commissioning that Channel 4 intends to do in Scotland. There may be synergy between those three that has not yet been fully recognised. If we have the opportunity, we might find that our resources go to one part of that triptych, which might usefully be the channel itself.
I say that to Mr Macintosh in order to indicate that I am engaged with funding issues. There is a detailed discussion to be had, and I would like to have it as part of the combined campaign to establish the channel. However, if Mr Macintosh wants to settle the funding issue as a prerequisite before we have the campaign, that will be unfortunate.
We will move on to the next item of business. I apologise to the member whom I was unable to call.