Border Television News
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-464, in the name of John Lamont, on support for Border television news. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that moves by ITV to merge some of its smaller regional news services should be opposed; believes that these proposals pose a significant threat to the future of Border television and would be damaging to regional news in the region; considers that a merger of Border television news with STV news services would also be a bad move for television in Scotland and would provide a downgraded service for the customer, and believes that local and regional television services provide a valuable role in an increasingly centralised market.
I welcome the opportunity to debate an issue that will have a severe impact on local news coverage not only in my constituency of Roxburgh and Berwickshire, but throughout the South of Scotland region. A number of members have expressed an interest in the issue and I hope that as many of them as possible will contribute to the debate. I note the presence of the Presiding Officer, whose constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale would be affected by the proposal to abolish Border television news.
I will set the scene. ITV Border has provided local news and programming to the Scottish Borders, south-west Scotland, Cumbria and the Isle of Man for almost 50 years. It has the second largest geographical region in the ITV network. Despite the difficulties of catering for such a wide and diverse audience, the flagship daily newsround programme, "Lookaround", has one of the highest ratings of any BBC or ITV regional news programme in the United Kingdom. In March 2005, the Sunday Herald highlighted those exceptionally high ratings when it reported that while "Scotland Today/North Tonight" drew a 26 per cent audience share, and "London Tonight" took a 28 per cent share, Border's "Lookaround" was watched by a whopping 42 per cent of the population at 6 pm on weekday evenings. I acknowledge that those ratings may have slipped in recent years, but Border TV news continues to have one of the highest ratings in the UK.
Why does the service have such a success rate? Why, in particular, does it score much better than any of the Scottish Media Group's ITV regions? In response to that question from the Sunday Herald, the managing director of ITV Border, Mr Paddy Merrall, stated that Border news was
"more relevant to the people".
He went on to say that Border TV benefits from there being no dedicated BBC television studio in the region—the nearest are in Newcastle and central Scotland.
The large area that Border TV has to cover has one of the lowest populations. That said, the audience is one of the most loyal. In the recent people's millions competition for the allocation of lottery funding to local projects, the Border TV region attracted the highest number of votes—almost 52,000. That compares with 19,650 for STV Central, and perhaps most surprising of all, just less than 20,000 for London.
With that background, one would have thought that the future of Border TV news would be secure. Unfortunately, the chief executive of ITV, Michael Grade, thinks differently. Shortly after his appointment, Mr Grade stated that his first priority for ITV would be to improve its programming. However, in September this year he announced a controversial five-year restructuring plan, which included a major overhaul of the regional structure of ITV. The proposals would see a consolidation of the ITV regional news programmes across the country, but for the Border region, it would involve a full merger between ITV Border and ITV Tyne Tees. What would that mean for our local news? The bulk of the local news—which is currently covered in the nightly half-hour programme—would be reduced to a 10-minute opt-out that would be expected to cover the entire Border region. That reduction in service would undoubtedly have an impact on the quality and amount of news programming for the Border region.
Let us look at some of the figures, and the stories that Border TV news has been covering in the past year. Since the start of 2007, there have been more than 300 stories on Border TV from the Scottish Borders, including 35 stories from Hawick, 17 from Eyemouth and 19 from Peebles. For Dumfries and Galloway, there have been more than 500 stories on Border TV, including 109 from Dumfries and 69 from Gretna. What hope will those local news stories have in the new enlarged ITV region? What hope can our local communities, community groups, campaign groups and sports teams have of getting on to the news agenda when they will be competing with stories and issues from Newcastle, Gateshead, Middlesbrough, Sunderland and north-east England?
Although I am assured that there will still be a news-gathering capacity in the Border TV region, by definition, the stories that come from the more populated parts of the new ITV region will be of greater interest to more people and the news agenda will be adjusted accordingly. A 10-minute opt-out is simply not sufficient. The same arguments could also be made on the danger of losing out to Glasgow, Edinburgh and other major cities in the south central belt in any proposed merger with STV.
In passing, it is interesting to note that there is no campaign by the staff at Tyne Tees Television against the proposals, which is perhaps an indication of how they think that they will work in practice. They clearly do not regard their news coverage as being put under threat by the proposals.
Michael Grade states that he wants to reconstruct the ITV regional layout and that the existence of Border TV "no longer makes sense". Further, we are told that the move is expected to give ITV plc "greater value for money". Well, it might not make sense to a London-based metropolitan journalist like Mr Grade, but the service has, in the past, provided a crucial lifeline for thousands of people living in communities throughout the region. We need only consider the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 2001 to see the valuable public information service that the channel provided by giving people the latest news and public information on the problems as they unfolded. It is unlikely that that would have been the case if the news had come from the north-east of England with a 10-minute opt-out. The loss of our local news services would be another example of the marginalisation of people in rural communities.
What happens now? Following my meeting with the Office of Communications in Glasgow yesterday, I can confirm that it is still waiting for formal notification from Michael Grade of what ITV proposes to do with Border TV. Once notification has been received, it will be for Ofcom to decide on the process of consultation that it will undertake to consider the proposals.
My advice to Ofcom is to consult as widely as possible so that everybody in the Borders has the opportunity to express their views. The news that ITV has already appointed someone to head up news services in the Border and Tyne Tees region has given rise to a feeling that there is a done deal. People do not want a rubber-stamping exercise; they want to be engaged in the process and they want to know that Ofcom can and will say no to ITV's proposals. I intend to host a number of consultation meetings throughout my constituency so that local residents' voices can be heard. I urge other members to carry out similar exercises in their constituencies.
Developing technology may well mean that people will be able to access news through their computers in the future, but it is important to acknowledge that many people in the Borders do not have access to computer networks or adequate broadband services, so the option is not necessarily open to them. Ofcom must resist the agenda of urbanisation and centralisation. It must examine and consider all the options that ITV proposes, bearing in mind the rural and diverse area that Border TV currently serves.
I look forward to hearing other MSPs' speeches. I hope that the debate will move forward across the region and that a strong argument for the retention of our local news services in the Borders and the South of Scotland will be presented to Ofcom and ITV.
A number of members wish to participate in the debate, so I ask for speeches of a fairly tight four minutes. I call Elaine Murray.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Not being able to participate in the debate must be one of the disbenefits of holding your office.
I congratulate John Lamont on initiating the debate, because the issue is of major concern to my constituents. Border TV had a campaign caravan at the switching on of the Christmas lights in Dumfries. It was mobbed by people who wanted T-shirts and balloons or wanted to take away petitions or postcards to get signed.
There is very strong feeling about the issue in my constituency. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the strength of local feeling when the University of Glasgow threatened to withdraw from the Crichton campus. We saw how powerful that was, and I hope that the strength of feeling about Border TV may persuade Michael Grade and Ofcom that the proposals that appear to be on the table are highly unsatisfactory.
Let us make no mistake: local media have a greater penetration and are a great deal more trusted than national media. Dumfries and Galloway is fortunate at present: it has excellent local newspapers, three good local radio stations and Border TV's coverage. All tiers of government are well reported, whether the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Parliament or the local council. That results in a high recognition factor for local politicians; I have lost count of the number of people who have seen me on television and told me that they thought I was taller.
Being recognised can be a disbenefit when people approach me at Tesco and so on with various bits of casework, but it means that they know who their local members are, and that makes our constituents more confident about contacting us about local issues that affect them personally or to express their views on local or national issues. The local media and Border TV provide an excellent service to the democratic process because they make us closer to our constituents and bring our constituents closer to us.
My preference, like that of John Lamont, is for the status quo. Cumbria and Carlisle have strong links to—and are important to—my constituency. People in the east of my constituency use medical facilities in Carlisle—they tend to use the hospital in Carlisle rather than the Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary. People from all over the Dumfries area use Carlisle for leisure pursuits—they shop there and they go there to play skittles and to visit the multiplex cinema. The last train back from Carlisle on a Friday night is always very busy with people coming back to Dumfries and Galloway. We have many people who work on both sides of the border. The Scottish Enterprise city region strategy has always been a concern to me as, for Dumfriesshire, our city is on the other side of the border.
I do not like the idea of going in with the north of England and having news from Newcastle—I know that we would get an opt-out and that we would still get some Carlisle news, but we would certainly not get as much Dumfries and Galloway news—but nor am I keen on the STV idea, because that would result in our getting just central belt news. If we want to watch central belt news in Dumfries and Galloway, we can watch the BBC. I do not want us to receive only central belt news on both stations.
Like John Lamont, I always hoped that digital technology would improve access to local coverage rather than reduce it, but a reduction seems to be happening. Instead of an improved service because of new technologies, we are in danger of losing out. My call to Michael Grade and to Ofcom is to let us keep local news coverage in the south of Scotland, in the Borders, and in Dumfries and Galloway—let us keep our local and much valued news coverage. We should also keep the Solway basin together, because it is an important geographic and economic unit and there are many cultural links across the border.
I congratulate John Lamont on raising this serious issue. Border TV is an unusual station in that it straddles a border, although there are stations serving Wales that do the same. It is also unusual in that it serves an area outwith the United Kingdom—it is the only station that covers the Isle of Man. It has been hugely successful in local coverage, although its figures have been slipping quite significantly recently, which must be a worry for it.
As Elaine Murray said, local politicians get far more coverage—although we should not presume to comment on whether that is a benefit for our constituents—than we would if we were covered by the STV area. Indeed, if we were covered by the STV area, many of the members present in the chamber would be mentioned once a year if they were lucky, and only if they had been caught with their fingers in the metaphorical till.
However, having a station that serves two sides of the border is not an unalloyed blessing—I disagree with Elaine Murray on that. Of course, 95 per cent of the time it does not matter which ITV station people get, as they get the same soap opera transmitted to them wherever in the United Kingdom they are. Regarding the remaining 5 per cent, or whatever fraction it is, there is sometimes inappropriate sports or news coverage that does not necessarily interest the viewers.
A more logical choice would be a Scottish station that gave us the same type of local coverage that we currently get from Border television—but STV would not offer that. The ITV proposals, which would give the Border TV area north of the border a fraction of the current Borders coverage, which in turn would be a fraction of the Tyne Tees local coverage, are totally unsatisfactory. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that ITV is a commercial organisation and that it has been set up as such. The days when Roy Thompson said that running a commercial broadcasting station was a licence to print money have long gone.
If nothing else changes, we will have a choice that is akin to steering between Scylla and Charybdis—a choice between Tyne Tees and STV. That is not an enviable choice, and it comes at the same time as the digital age, in which, ironically, the Border area will be one of the first in the United Kingdom to switch over. The digital age gives us the technical capability for more varied and more local coverage than we have ever had, but while the technology is theoretically pushing us in one direction, the commercial pressures are apparently pushing us in entirely the opposite direction. It will not be possible to use all that technical capability.
Society needs modern media that respond to the needs of local communities. If all we get is the bland output from the Murdoch stations, people will switch off ITV in droves—and the BBC for that matter. They are already doing that. I hope that the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, which the Government set up, will examine the matter. The problem exists throughout Scotland. Our ambition should be not simply to keep the current level of local news coverage in the Borders and south-west Scotland but to increase the rest of Scotland to the same level, so that every other part of Scotland gets the same degree of coverage of local events from its local television station.
It is not simply a matter of pumping more money into the system, although I am sure that the people who run it would say, "Give us more money and we can do more." We need more imaginative ways of allowing local people to contribute to what goes out over our networks. I hope that the Scottish Broadcasting Commission will address that. What is on the table at the moment will not give us a satisfactory solution, nor is it satisfactory to take away the local coverage that we have enjoyed for so many years. I hope that we will look to extend that level of coverage to the rest of Scotland.
I congratulate John Lamont on securing tonight's debate.
ITV proposes to reduce the number of local newsrooms in the UK from 17 to just nine. I cannot think of anyone who has welcomed the proposal. The National Union of Journalists said that ITV's announcement marks
"the beginning of the end for ITV as a public service broadcaster."
Alasdair Morgan mentioned Tynwald, the ancient Parliament of the Isle of Man, which voted unanimously against ITV output to the Isle of Man being based in Gateshead in north-east England. My Westminster colleague Michael Moore lodged a motion strongly opposing the proposals, and Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the south of Scotland have added their voices to the collective opposition, as have Conservatives and independents. Like others, I met Paddy Merrall of Border TV and Vicky Nash of Ofcom here at Holyrood. We expressed our strong opposition to the plans.
The success of Border TV lies in good quality, regional and local news coverage and programming that is relevant to the people. Frankly, that will not get a look in if ITV Border is operated from Tyne Tees or STV. We see little coverage of the south of Scotland from the BBC and I doubt whether anyone in Gateshead knows where we are.
Border TV's region incorporates three distinct cultures—English, Scottish and Manx—but we are all united as Borderers. For centuries, we contested the border or debatable lands, not caring whether we were ruled from Edinburgh or London. We have not changed. I will not bore the Parliament again by repeating some of the Border reiver names, but some of them went on to shape the world—Armstrong, Douglas, Graham, Bell, Chamberlain, the Bruce, Burns, Nixon, Scott, Murray, who was Roosevelt's ancestor, and of course Hume.
Under the changes, Border's flagship news programme "Lookaround" would be axed within two years and replaced with 10 minutes of local news that would be slotted into a nightly broadcast by Tyne Tees, which is based in Gateshead. The audience figures for "Lookaround" show that it is one of the highest rating programmes of any BBC or ITV region in the country, as John Lamont mentioned.
The important point is that we are talking about a public broadcasting service that has operated successfully at the local level since 1961, which is before I was born—just. Border TV has always provided a regional service since its inception. The region enjoys good coverage of the common ridings festivals, for example. Borderers are passionate about the common ridings tradition, which dates back nearly 500 years. The festivals are unique and unequalled in the rest of Scotland.
Presiding Officer, you and Elaine Murray are well aware of the Dumfries and Galloway side of Border TV's area, which has the immensely popular and successful Wigtown book festival. I hear that any coverage of that 10-day event will be lost if the merge with Tyne Tees or STV goes ahead.
It is 145 miles from Gateshead to Wigtown and 180 miles from the furthest point in the Border TV area to Gateshead. That is a nine-hour round trip. The logistics are madness. It is same as going from here to Ullapool in the north or to Birmingham in the south. The Border TV region is already vast enough.
I plead with Ofcom, as a public interest body, to take the public view on board and to reject any formal merger proposals that arrive from ITV. We are talking about a public broadcasting service that has served its viewers very well. It has the viewing records to prove it. I also plead with Michael Grade and ITV to keep Border TV in its current operating form.
I, too, congratulate John Lamont on securing the debate.
Although it was the second-smallest company in the network, Border TV was one of the excellent regional ITV companies that played an important part in local news, current affairs and political TV coverage in Scotland. It was based in Carlisle and had a difficult patch to cover, as the Border charter also included the English side of the border down to the Lake District. It had the tricky job of handling stories governed by the different legal and education systems, and by different local authority legislation, on different sides of the border, but it always punched above its weight with frequent network contributions as well as the nightly news magazine "Lookaround" that, as we have heard, regularly attracted more viewers than its BBC counterpart.
Indeed, that was the strength of ITV's regional policy: most companies, including STV and Grampian—both of which I worked for—could attract the majority of viewers for local news, sports and politics because we were able to regionalise our coverage. The Independent Television Authority watchdog, as it then was, encouraged us to believe that localism was our strength. My old company, Grampian, led the rest of the United Kingdom in introducing lightweight electronic newsgathering techniques. We adopted technology that was being used in the United States—we felt that we had no choice because we had by far the largest geographic area in the UK to cover and had to get pictures from places such as Shetland and Lewis back to Aberdeen. Border TV, which also had a huge transmission area, was not far behind in embracing the new ENG technology.
With the explosion of new channels and cut-throat competition for advertising revenue, all the ITV companies came under heavy siege, and most amalgamated into a new single company—ITV—which south of the border kept regional headquarters in places as far apart as Carlisle and Southampton. To the viewers, it seemed for a time that their favourite local TV companies were being maintained.
Much to my personal regret, Grampian, which along with STV had remained outside the ITV conglomerate, saw its own identity subsumed into that of STV. As we have heard, Michael Grade, the new chief of ITV, has claimed that the commercial channel's regional responsibilities can no longer be maintained on economic grounds. Viewers in the south of Scotland may continue to have a newscaster ostensibly providing the 10-minute opt-out and sitting against a Border TV background, but the key editorial decisions will be taken in Gateshead.
For the rest of Scotland, STV claims that, far from reducing news coverage, it plans to increase it to an hour a night, but serious questions remain. STV recently announced that it is not taking up its rights for Scottish Premier League football, which means that for the first time in 50 years the Glasgow-based company is dropping regular Scottish football coverage. I understand that job losses in Glasgow and Aberdeen are threatened.
Strategically, it could be in Border TV's best interests to campaign to be a part of ITV's Scottish coverage, especially as there is a Scottish Broadcasting Commission that is looking into the future of Scottish broadcasting. Given Ofcom's acceptance that ITV's contractual obligations may have to be changed in the light of shifting economics, the hard fact is that, for Border, the status quo may not be an option.
One thing is for sure: BBC Scotland needs strong competition from ITV. New funding methods may be necessary to allow that competition, and there have been suggestions that part of the licence fee should go to ITV to allow it to continue to provide public service broadcasting. There are other options. The Scottish Conservatives have unveiled plans for a Scottish digital channel, which could help to resolve the vexed Scottish Six problem as well as provide more local and regional access.
It cannot be in the interests of a devolved and politically aware Scotland for any of our sources of broadcasting to be allowed to wither. I am happy to lend my support to John Lamont in calling on Ofcom to focus on the problems of ITV's Scottish regions and, particularly, those of Border TV.
I congratulate John Lamont on securing this important debate and, among more important matters, giving me the opportunity to make my third speech in two hours—I hope that it will be a bit less contentious than the previous two.
John Lamont's speech was extremely informative. I do not see Border TV routinely, but to hear that 300 stories from the Scottish Borders and 500 from Dumfries and Galloway were shown on that channel in the past year highlights the potential loss that the new arrangements could create. Not for the first time, I heard how the situation is a major concern for Elaine Murray's constituents. Local people's views must be at the heart of the debate.
From having read more general material, I was not too surprised about the local support. "New News, Future News"—a recent Ofcom publication—said that the people of Scotland show much more interest in local news than do their counterparts in England and Wales and that, despite the increasing plurality of news outlets, public service broadcasting channels remain overwhelmingly the main source of news for most people. It also said that many people in Scotland want more local news, not less. In a general way, that reinforces the examples that members have given.
Under the Communications Act 2003, public service broadcasters are obliged to provide
"a comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and current affairs … in the different parts of … the United Kingdom"
to facilitate "civic understanding" and encourage "fair and well-informed debate". Broadcasters must also provide sufficient programming that reflects
"the lives and concerns of different communities and cultural interests".
I am sure that Ofcom will bear those words in mind. It is charged with overseeing the Border issue and wider public service broadcasting matters. However, we must remind ourselves that the 2003 act says that Ofcom must also have regard to
"the costs to persons providing relevant television services of the fulfilment of the purposes of public service television broadcasting".
At a time of incredible change and diversification in the media and the communications industry, broadcasters face as many challenges as possibilities.
Ofcom will focus its attention on those issues in its second review of public service television broadcasting, which will address the further challenges that arise from the digital switchover and investigate future mechanisms for providing public service broadcasting after 2014, when ITV's licence expires. Ofcom is doing that work now; some of us attended its conference in Scotland to launch that. It will also consider the Border issue specifically. I hope that Ofcom will be able to balance the competing priorities to which I have referred and—crucially—to listen to the views of people in the Borders. I know that Vicki Nash and her team will do a highly professional job.
One interesting feature is the fact that people want to preserve through local, national and UK-wide news the multiple identities that are available to them. One lesson that I will take from the debate is that they welcome and relish the diversity of identities that is available to them in their communities.
We all hope that the availability of more space on the digital spectrum will mean more, rather than less, local television—a parallel debate is about the possibility of having more local television channels—and I hope that that opportunity will allow local television to continue in the Borders. The efforts of John Lamont, Elaine Murray and others will help in achieving that objective.
Here at the back of the chamber, I have been hearing choristers as well as Malcolm Chisholm.
As a politician for the past eight years, I have had much to thank Border TV for, as I suspect other south of Scotland politicians have. Its reporters are always in the garden lobby. When we see one of our kin giving an interview, we drift past, trying to catch wind of what they are up to and what they are saying. I say that with great affection for Border TV, which is important to the democratic process. I say to Elaine Murray that people may think that she is smaller in the flesh, but they think that I am less frightening in the flesh—well, not everybody thinks that, but some people seem to.
This is an important debate, but there are no easy solutions. As many members have said, Border TV has had the difficult task of serving not just twa but three maisters—England, Scotland and the Isle of Man. It has not always succeeded. I accept that there has been an heroic attempt to work the system in recent years since news bulletin opt-outs were introduced, but that has not been wholly successful. I understand why Borderers sign petitions to keep Border TV, but many would say that they would also like to see STV programmes. They do not see football matches and other programmes, such as Government information programmes—I know that they are not the most exciting things—or my occasional punditry, which could be a good thing or a bad thing. The point is that people are missing out on STV network materials.
I am grateful to John Lamont for lodging the motion, but I do not know whether I wholly agree that merging Border TV news and STV news would be a wholly bad thing, although I am not an expert. As Ted Brocklebank said, the status quo is probably not an option—indeed, it has not been an option for some time given the new democratic situation in Scotland, as people in the Borders often hear about legislation and other issues that pertain only to England and not to Scotland. Constituents of mine who have affection for Border TV have frequently raised that issue with me. They think that there should be modernisation. Borderers can make submissions to Ofcom, but they can also make submissions to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission so that we can consider the significance to the Borders of having proper local news and access to commercial networks.
We should consider the success of local newspapers. The circulation of national newspapers is falling off, but local newspapers have strong constituencies and loyal readerships. In the same way, television stations have very loyal viewers. That loyalty could be galvanised and used. There could be either a Border TV station in the Scottish network or STV could have a strong opt-out. For me, the STV opt-out in respect of east and west news bulletins does not work. I might want to know what is happening in the west or the south if I am in the east. I do not want to miss the news from elsewhere.
There are solutions. There is no point in simply fighting for Border TV as it has been, although I am sure that John Lamont is being more progressive than that. I do not think that that would satisfy the needs of Borderers who want to see things other than their local news. I repeat that the way forward is for people to make submissions to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. I encourage Borderers to do so.
This debate is about local awareness, local understanding, local appreciation of events in communities and individuals' parts in communities, which are key components of communities. I commend John Lamont for securing parliamentary time to debate those important issues.
There is a point to arguing for the continuation of a framework to retain local news coverage in the Border TV area. Shortly after Michael Grade's announcement to the stock market, I asked the First Minister whether he would support the local campaign to continue the current level of news coverage. I was pleased by his positive response, and I trust that it will be reflected in the minister's remarks.
ITV is commercial; it relies on advertising revenues. We know about the pressures on broadcast revenues as opposed to the large growth in online advertising revenues. There is still uncertainty about immediate plans for Border Television following the switch to digital in the Borders, which will—of course—be the first region in the UK to switch over.
There is also uncertainty in respect of ITV's intentions. It has not submitted formal requests for a change of the existing licence, nor has it made a formal submission to the Ofcom review of public sector broadcasting. However, ITV has published its plans to make savings from local news provision and it is now holding a gun to the head of Ofcom by saying that unless Ofcom allows it to do what it wants—although it has not told Ofcom what that is—it will make savings anyway and, in effect, kill off local news production and editorial control from our region by starving it of resources. How Ofcom responds will be a test of that organisation. In my view, Ofcom acts on behalf of the consumer; it is not a body that should respond solely to the commercial difficulties that are faced by one broadcast provider. Ofcom should demand that ITV bring forward proposals on its intentions; otherwise, a threat will be hanging over Border TV, which will mean that people will wish to leave. Few people will wish to make their careers at Television centre in Carlisle. If the situation is allowed to continue, that will be an outrage.
I understand the considerable concern in the region about the threat of the loss of news coverage, which is a significant development. I commend Scottish Borders Council for passing resolutions in support of Border TV in response to the announcement. I understand that arguments have been rehearsed about whether it would be better if there was a division at the border in relation to television output. I know that there is not universal agreement on that in the Scottish National Party or in other parties. However, there is an all-party view on the continuation of local coverage.
Border TV has always balanced the mixture and texture of cross-border life. There is no neat cultural divide at the border. Although I understand the argument that there should in the future be a clear division at the border so that the next ITV franchise in Scotland is for all Scotland, one cannot easily design news coverage for a region that inevitably looks to itself as well as outwards in four directions. Cultures, communities and local economies of the Border TV region look towards Carlisle, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Any editorial control from one of the centres will inevitably require a careful approach. The base in Carlisle, which is historically accidental, is also contemporaneously appropriate. Editorial control from Newcastle or Leeds, which ITV proposes, or from Glasgow, for which some have argued, will mean a slashing of local output from the Borders.
I was brought up watching Border TV. Members will know of Eric Wallace, the voice of local TV, and others. Local TV is a key component of our communities. It would be a scandal if the BBC and ITV were to recreate the very essence of local TV coverage either through online provision or, as we hear about now, citizen journalism. The growth in online provision must be seen in the context of the real benefit that ITV brings: local coverage that strengthens our communities, which has to be retained.
Other members have made the point well about the difficulty that Border TV has, given the area that it covers. It might well be an accident of history that it covers that area. Even during my lifetime—I recall Border TV back in the early 1990s—the quality of coverage, particularly in the Scottish part of the region, has improved. We still hear complaints that there is too much emphasis on Cumbria and the Isle of Man, but we hear them rather less than we did. We ought to give Border TV credit for trying to manage a difficult situation relatively well.
Alasdair Morgan touched on the new relationship in respect of TV since devolution. Border TV handles the balance of cross-border news better than the BBC. Often in the main BBC news there is no appreciation that what is being talked about is specific to England rather than to the UK generally. When English matters—or indeed Scottish matters—are covered in Border TV news, it tends to be clear which area is being talked about and where the implications lie. We ought to congratulate Border TV on doing a better job than the BBC has done in its UK bulletins.
Other members have talked about the links that Border TV has. There is no perfect way of drawing the area that it should cover. There is logic to considering an all-Scotland broadcasting company but equally, there are strong links between the south-west of Scotland and Carlisle and between the borders and the north-east of England. Radio Borders covers not just the Scottish borders but north Northumberland. Crucially, it does not take in the major population centre of Newcastle and the area to the south of it. We can argue about what the appropriate structure might be, but the local element to programming is key.
In an area that has a strong local community and sense of identity, it seems to be bizarre that we are talking about moving away from local TV coverage, especially as that seems to go against some of the broader trends that we are seeing. The BBC has dramatically improved the degree of local coverage of its online service for the south of Scotland, which is to be welcomed. It would therefore be bizarre if ITV was to pull back from local coverage when other organisations in other media are moving forward.
Alasdair Morgan said that the issue is not simply about money. That is true: it is also about regulation. We should not kid ourselves that broadcasting is some sort of charitable act; it is a commercial venture and if, as part of the commercial conditions that we attach to that, we want to say that there should be greater local news coverage, it is open to the Government to do that. With a bit of commercial flair—Michael Grade seems to suggest that he has that in spades—there is no reason why greater local news coverage could not be turned to competitive advantage. After all, advertising that can be targeted at a specific area of Scotland rather than more generally could be a commercial strength rather than a commercial weakness.
Christine Grahame made a point about the other programming that Border TV broadcasts. Other members might have a different view, but I sense that the affection is for Border TV's news coverage. There is much less strength of feeling about its other programming which, to be fair, has probably diminished in recent years.
My final point is very simple. All of us here tonight have agreed that Border TV provides a good local news service. If it goes, it is not going to come back—if it goes, it goes for good. That is why all the issues have to be considered seriously by the Governments north and south of the border and, I hope, by Ofcom.
In calling the minister to respond, I will be forgiven for pointing out that, had I not been precluded from taking part in debates because of my office, I would have brilliantly encapsulated all the points that have been made tonight in a further four-minute speech.
Presiding Officer, I would never think that you could be anything but brilliant and everyone here agrees with me.
The debate has been particularly interesting. I say that with real feeling because I did find it interesting and I have learned so much. The Borders is not an area of the country that I know particularly well.
A point of clarification should be made. The Border TV area does not equate with the Borders. Certainly in Dumfries and Galloway—particularly Galloway—people do not describe themselves as Borderers.
If Mr Morgan had not been so presumptuous, I was about to say that, although I do not know the Borders particularly well, I know Galloway very well. I might as well include the Isle of Man because I have not been there yet, although I hope to visit quite early in the new year.
I have learned a lot from what Elaine Murray and Jim Hume said about the history of their areas and the cross-border working that goes on. It is a different way of living from that of those of us who live in the central belt or the north of the country.
I particularly welcome John Lamont's motion and delivery. I do not know whether this is his first members' business debate—I see by his nodding that it is—but his speech was excellent in its clarity and delivery, and it was worth listening to. I can tell that Christine Grahame felt the same.
What has come out very strongly is the strength of feeling of those who represent the area and their differing views about the best future. That is interesting because it is a mark of how important an issue broadcasting is for Scotland. For those in the Border TV region who are concerned that they could be facing a future as a very small part of a large English news area, the issue is even more important. Therefore, I can understand why people are lobbying to the degree that they are.
The minister mentioned concerns that the area could become part of a larger English news area. However, there are equal concerns that it could become part of a larger Scottish news area. That context is quite important.
I am perfectly happy to take that on board. The changing state of the service is what worries and concerns people. What is interesting is the differing views of those who feel equally strongly about how, in the area that they represent, broadcasting could best be carried out to maximum advantage.
The Communications Act 2003 sets out quotas in the ITV1 schedule for news and non-news programmes in the nations and regions. As we have heard, those quotas are regulated by Ofcom—I understand that members who represent the area have had a meeting with Ofcom—which would need to approve any action to change local news provision. However, as Jeremy Purvis said, that application has not yet been submitted.
I can understand why ITV might consider changing its news services. As Alasdair Morgan and others pointed out, the way in which people consume the media—and news in particular—and the types of media that they use are changing because of the convergence of technologies. Of course, that can bring opportunities for new and varied means of communication. We all know that digital switch-over will begin in the Borders in November 2008. I think that Ofcom has anticipated many of the developments. Its research has shown—interestingly—that television news remains important. That is particularly true in Scotland, as Malcolm Chisholm mentioned, and in Wales and Northern Ireland.
Local news is difficult to fund, especially for the commercial broadcasters. That point was made, from a background of great knowledge, by Ted Brocklebank. We all need to work together with the commercial broadcasters to consider how we can ensure that Scotland receives the service that it needs as Ofcom starts the next round of its public service broadcasting review.
In that context, there is probably a need for new thinking on the provision of news services in Scotland. STV has already demonstrated its awareness of the situation by taking the decision to broadcast a full hour of Scottish news rather than the ITN network news. STV made that decision on 4 May because it believed that the outcome of the Scottish Parliament election was important to the Scottish people.
In fact, STV will continue to take the full coverage from ITN and, in addition, it will provide an hour of local news. It is not the case that STV's news hour will be instead of coverage from ITN.
I am grateful to Mr Brocklebank for that clarification.
The Scottish Broadcasting Commission has surely focused the minds of many interested parties in this country. The commission is considering the economic, cultural and democratic importance of broadcasting for Scotland. For the first time, we have the opportunity to examine ways in which Scottish broadcasting and television can be transformed.
In its published work plan, the commission has stated that it will give consideration to what changes if any are required to the structure and funding of the ITV licences in Scotland. I am sure that that will include issues to do with the coverage of the Border TV region in Scotland. I hope that the commission will also look at how well current arrangements meet the wishes and aspirations of those in the south of Scotland, what the effect might be of the proposed merger—however that might come about—and what arrangements might best serve the Border TV region. Of course, I cannot pre-empt the findings of the commission, which will report next year. I hope that Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss the report when it becomes available.
I urge all members to carry on inputting, as they have done, to Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting and news provision.
As the responsible minister, I will consider today's debate. As I said, I have learned an awful lot today and I look forward to reading the contributions that have been made. Having considered the debate, I will raise any issues that I feel are particularly important in my next meeting with Ofcom. I am happy to take on board other issues that members want me to raise with Ofcom, so they should please e-mail me or write if they have anything else that they would like me to take on board.
I hope that members will, as Christine Grahame has advised, consider submitting their concerns, either individually or collectively on behalf of constituents, to the Broadcasting Commission to ensure that it has the necessary evidence to recommend changes that will benefit the people of Scotland.
I again congratulate John Lamont on securing an extremely interesting members' business debate.
Meeting closed at 17:55.