The next item is a debate on motion S4M-15695, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the BBC charter renewal process.
15:55
I am delighted to open this debate on the BBC charter renewal process. I thank the Parliament for the key role that it has played in the process. From the outset, the work of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee was vital, not only in ensuring that the Scottish people are properly represented for the duration of the renewal process but in engendering a collaborative and consensual approach to what could have been a very partisan issue.
The quality of that committee’s work and the commitment to securing the very best for Scotland were reflected in the Parliament passing—without opposition—a motion to agree to the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government, the United Kingdom Government, the BBC and this Parliament. Likewise, the work of the Education and Culture Committee has been a perfect example of how our committee system can work across party lines to provide a depth of consideration and forensic expertise to tease out important new strands of the debate that had previously been elusive.
It is worth sharing that, in feedback from my meetings with representatives from across Scotland and beyond, I repeatedly heard that our approach in Scotland has been considered refreshing and that the debate has been of high quality and genuinely meaningful. I congratulate everyone who has been involved in the debate on that; it is a testament to the value of the participative approach that we take in Scotland, which I hope will continue. In that regard, I am happy to acknowledge all in the debate, and I am minded to accept Labour’s amendment.
A key reason why a broad consensus has been reached is that the principles of what Scotland wants from the charter renewal process are well established. They are
“To empower BBC Scotland to address the concerns of audiences and deliver better outcomes for audiences, including more representative content across all outputs ... To ensure that the governance and structure of the BBC is more responsive, and that, by reflecting the changing political structures of the UK, it is able to deliver similarly decentralised decision making”
and
“That through these structures the BBC is not only able to deliver better outcomes for audiences in Scotland but also implement commissioning and editorial practices which will support Scotland’s creative industries.”
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. Parity of esteem between the Gaelic and Welsh languages is an important factor. Would she care to comment on MG Alba’s view that we should move to having at least 10 hours of original programming a week?
I will not just comment on that, because the idea is part of our proposals, as the member will know if he has read our document. Only yesterday, I raised directly with the BBC the issue of ensuring an extra 10 hours of original content for MG Alba. That is part of on-going discussions.
In its policy paper, the Royal Society of Edinburgh pointed out that the ability of a publicly funded BBC to continue making high-quality content that is relevant to audiences and maintaining universality of access and provision in a way that is transparent and accountable to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament is core to the issue. Such accountability will allow the BBC to catch up with significant changes that we have seen in the political structure of the UK. That becomes more critical as we approach the referendum on membership of the European Union and, for example, when striking junior doctors fill the news in Scotland while our own junior doctors are not on strike.
I am pleased that the BBC shares that view. That was outlined in Lord Hall’s recent appearance before the Education and Culture Committee, when he said:
“We all recognise the pace of change in devolution, and that it is changing asymmetrically across the United Kingdom ... That is why I stress hugely my wanting an open BBC: not an arrogant BBC, but a BBC that works as a partner with people, that supports the creative industries and which is also an open platform, where that is right, to help others to get visibility not only in Scotland or the UK, but globally.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 12 January 2016; c 8-9.]
I think that we can all share Lord Hall’s vision, which is of a BBC that represents the people it serves, which provides a platform for their views and creativity to be reflected not just in Scotland but across the UK and beyond, and which underpins all our policy thinking on the charter process.
I fundamentally agree with the importance of the editorial and management independence of the BBC from the Government and politicians, and I will therefore accept the Conservatives’ amendment.
Just last week, I was pleased to publish a comprehensive vision of what the Scottish Government sees as priorities for the BBC during the charter review period and to set out the strategic and wider issues that could be addressed at any time outside charter renewal. Our vision has been well received by the sector in Scotland and has gained a cautious welcome from the BBC, which demonstrates how far relations have progressed since last year. I welcome its appetite for collaboration to achieve the best possible outcome from the process for the people of Scotland.
I have taken the vision to the UK Government and I discussed the policy positively with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at Westminster yesterday. I have also had a separate meeting with senior members of BBC staff. I will sit down with the director general next week for a detailed discussion about how we can realise the ambition that we share for the BBC in Scotland.
Scotland can add real value to the debate about the BBC across the UK by raising issues for discussion. Decentralisation of budget decision making would empower Scotland and other areas of the UK that feel that they are not being well represented by the current model. A BBC in Scotland that could develop high-quality content that represents its audiences but is also valuable to the UK network would enhance the BBC’s reputation nationally and internationally. That is critical to keeping the BBC at the heart of our cultural and social life and would deliver economic benefits that helped to drive forward our creative industries. It is a win-win that would involve better content for our audiences, more support for our creative industries and a stronger and more diverse BBC.
The high level of content output from Scotland would support the BBC’s development of additional platforms, perhaps initially online, through which the content could be promoted to viewers in Scotland and to wider national and international audiences. In that context, the observations of the Education and Culture Committee on the pace and opportunity of rapid technological change are welcome and bring to the debate another aspect of the future proofing of the BBC that needs to be achieved through the charter.
Let me be specific about what I mean by a decentralised model. At a practical level, it amounts to a restructuring that would bring the BBC’s governance, editorial and commissioning decision-making and budget responsibilities into line with the devolved nature of the UK and would give Scotland greater autonomy while maintaining an appropriate and strategic link to the wider BBC. The BBC’s activities are not developed and delivered in a vacuum and we believe that a long-term strategic vision for the nations and regions is required if we are to improve audience satisfaction levels in Scotland. That vision needs to be held to account in Scotland by audiences and the Parliament through a unitary board structure.
Much of the debate so far has focused on the future governance of the BBC and the prospect of a service licence for Scotland. Such a licence would be a welcome development and would not necessarily require a new charter. A service level agreement would need careful implementation to ensure that it delivered for Scotland.
I welcomed Anne Bulford’s statement in her evidence to the Education and Culture Committee that there is an opportunity to use a service licence to set out aims and objectives for the BBC in Scotland and for that to form a framework for monitoring. It is critical that that is supplemented by an appropriate up-front allocation of funds to allow BBC Scotland to make strategic decisions about how those funds are invested.
A BBC Scotland board would have oversight of the editorial and commissioning control that was vested in the executive team. As a consequence, BBC Scotland would have direct control over a level of funding that approximated to the revenue that is generated from the licence fee in Scotland, less a proportionate contribution for centrally developed content from services that would ensure continued access to UK network content such as “War and Peace”. That is not dissimilar to the current position, except that budgets would be allocated in advance.
Does the cabinet secretary have an idea of what the proportionate contribution to the central resource would be?
Part of the investigation that was done by the committee of which Mark Griffin is a member looked at the provision of funding from the BBC. We identified about £100 million of additional funding that we could get into Scotland. What is not as clear for the network provision that we have from Scotland is how much we can produce in Scotland. Part of the debate that I had yesterday and the discussions that I am having with the BBC is about how we achieve decentralisation. Is it by subject and content, genre or country?
I think that decentralising the budget on a Scotland basis is the way forward, but there are different ways of proceeding. That needs to be part of the on-going discussions that we can and should have and will be part of the discussions that I have with Tony Hall next Monday.
Our proposal would require not new money but the reallocation of funds to Scotland up front, instead of the spend that is allocated to Scotland being qualified retrospectively, as is currently the case. Our approach would allow BBC Scotland to develop and implement a strategic plan and to be held to account for its strategic decision making in Scotland by audiences and by the Parliament in a much more accountable way than is currently the case. That would transform how the BBC operates in Scotland and empower it to play a central role in supporting a sustainable production sector by providing up to an additional £1 billion of investment in our creative sector over the 10-year period of the charter.
A further product of decentralising the structure, decision making and funding of the BBC would be the opportunity to deliver benefits for audiences in Scotland through the provision, over the charter period, of additional linear or digital channels across radio and TV for listeners and viewers in Scotland. Initially, as the BBC suggested, that could be through a specific iPlayer splash page for Scotland that highlighted Scotland-produced content. However, over time, additional production should support further channels over the next charter period.
It is surely not too much to expect that, with the current degree of technological innovation, the iPlayer should be able to be tailored to the user’s location, so if I chose to watch the BBC 10 o’clock news via the iPlayer in Scotland, I would get “Reporting Scotland” at the end rather than the BBC London news as is currently the case.
At the centre of the proposal—and as a product of increased production in Scotland—would be additional content, which would support new TV and radio channels as well as providing more content that was produced in Scotland for UK TV and radio networks.
The director general of the BBC referred to the delivery of additional platforms for Scotland. He said:
“However ... we also need to think about how we ensure that the audiences of the future can have the content that they want where they want it. That applies to younger audiences in particular, but it includes many of us, too. In that respect, it seems that building an online channel is important.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 12 January 2016; c 14.]
Let me be clear that this is a great opportunity for Scotland, but we must not lose our focus. Changes to the delivery of news would be welcome, for example, but we do not need the charter review to deliver those changes. The BBC should be seeking to constantly improve its output and we have set out in the policy paper such areas, which include news and current affairs.
I am sure that we can all recall the bad old days and the frustration of hearing the dreaded words, “Except for viewers in Scotland.” That was an off-hand phrase, but it starkly illustrated just how the BBC in Scotland really viewed its viewers here. Therefore I am pleased that the BBC in Scotland is consciously working to make itself more relevant and representative. However, there is still much to do.
I reassure members that my vision for charter renewal is born from my unerring support of the value of the BBC, of the need for a strong, independent BBC and, crucially, of the need for a BBC that can deliver better outcomes for Scotland. I look forward to the debate and to the speeches from across the chamber, which will contribute to shaping how we continue to play a central role in the next crucial phases of the BBC charter renewal process.
I move,
That the Parliament notes its own new formal role in the BBC charter renewal process and that of the Scottish Government, which is to be consulted throughout the process of developing the BBC charter by the UK Government; recognises the important role that publicly-funded, public service broadcasting plays in reflecting a nation to itself and to the wider world; agrees with the recommendations of the Education and Culture Committee regarding BBC charter renewal and the future of broadcasting in Scotland; notes the Scottish Government’s recent policy paper informing the ongoing development of the BBC charter; welcomes the emerging consensus for more decentralised decision making for the BBC, and urges the Scottish Government to reflect these views fully in its ongoing discussions with the UK Government in the development of its white paper on BBC charter renewal.
16:08
The BBC is one of our most valued and trusted institutions. Generations of families have grown up watching and enjoying BBC content. From the election night results to the world cup finals, and from children’s TV to the Open University, the BBC has educated, entertained, informed and united this country since it was founded in 1922. It is admired throughout the world as a public broadcaster funded by everyone that produces quality programming with a depth and a breadth that are not matched by any other broadcaster.
The charter process provides us with an opportunity to deliver a sustainable future for the BBC in an increasingly competitive landscape. The way in which content is viewed and shared has changed dramatically since the previous charter. The BBC must stay relevant in a time of smartphones, streaming and social media. This is a crucial charter for the corporation and we must rise to the challenge and ensure that it is forward looking.
We also have the opportunity to secure a good deal for BBC Scotland and the Scottish broadcasting industry. We have a lot of talent in Scotland and we need to look for opportunities to secure more commissioning and production in Scotland for network broadcast as well as for BBC Scotland. I will continue to argue for increased investment for Scotland, partly through a more effective quota system for production and commissioning, so that the benefits and effects are felt in Scotland.
We cannot ignore the fact that the charter renewal process takes place in a challenging financial context for the BBC. The UK Government’s decision that the BBC will fully cover the cost of the licence fee for over-75s will be the primary factor in the reduction of the BBC budget by almost 20 per cent by 2020-21. That will leave the BBC with a decade of declining resources, and the debate must take place in that context.
In recent months, I have welcomed the cabinet secretary’s invitations to take part in stakeholder events, and today I am content to work towards a common view in the Scottish Parliament in order to increase our influence over the charter process. I welcome the Education and Culture Committee’s report, which has made sensible and achievable recommendations, particularly in the light of the recent BBC settlement. The committee highlights the need for greater transparency from BBC Scotland and the BBC. I realise that the BBC has not always provided the most willing parliamentary witnesses, but the report has demonstrated a new relationship between the BBC and the Scottish Parliament, which must be welcomed.
The committee considered the proposal for a new service licence for the BBC’s services in Scotland and argued that that would provide greater budget transparency and accountability. Significantly, it would also give BBC Scotland greater flexibility and control, more opportunities for collaboration and the chance to generate savings that could be reinvested in more programming.
A common theme that has emerged from the charter process is that the BBC is too London-centric and that we need more investment in the regions and in Scotland through more decentralised decision making. In particular, the commissioning process is seen as too London based. It is thought that it does not give enough opportunities outwith the centre, which makes it difficult to build confidence and reputation, and that in turn leads to fewer commissioning opportunities.
Although the current charter committed to decentralisation of expenditure, the Ofcom definition of regional production has led to the spirit of that quota not being fulfilled—hence the term “lift and shift”. There is an argument that that model brings financial benefit to Scotland and utilises our studio space, but it does not do as much as it could to support the creative industries in Scotland.
The BBC can and should go further on commissioning and production and in addressing the flaws in the lift-and-shift model. The charter renewal process is the right time for the BBC to show that it is listening and to take action. It must improve the quota system in Scotland. The committee makes fair points about further decentralisation of decision making, commissioning and accompanying budgets.
A great expectation is being put on the BBC about what it can deliver for Scotland. I have a couple of comments on that. We should recognise what the BBC already delivers for Scotland and primarily what it delivers for the viewer. It delivers world-class broadcasting, online services and Scottish news and sport. Viewers in Scotland can watch “War and Peace” as easily as they can watch “Shetland”. In fact, 19 of every 20 adults in Scotland consume BBC content every week. The BBC offers a unique service that delivers a great deal for our creative industries. For example, the BBC is the most significant producer of live music for broadcasting. Much more can of course be done, but the BBC already does more than any other broadcaster.
The cabinet secretary was unfair yesterday when she said:
“Audience satisfaction ratings show the BBC has lost its way, and that Scots do not feel the corporation fully represents their views and interests.”
I have to ask where the evidence is for that statement. The Government frequently uses a figure from the BBC trust on whether people feel that their lives are reflected in the BBC and particularly in the news. The figure for Scotland of 48 per cent, which is not much different from the figures in other regions, comes from a poll with a relatively low sample size that lacked any context on why respondents felt that their lives were not being reflected. Was that because there is not enough Scottish content or because the Scottish content is too focused on the central belt? Alternatively, is there not enough ethnic minority or female representation?
It would be wrong to draw too many conclusions from the figure. For example, BBC audiences tell a different story. The figures for “Reporting Scotland” are increasing and it now has close to 600,000 viewers. The 2015 quarter 4 figures for “Good Morning Scotland” are the highest in 18 months. I welcome the BBC’s review of news coverage in Scotland, but any changes have to balance expanding the Scottish news coverage in response to changes in the Scottish Parliament with the continuing demand for quality international and European reporting, relevant United Kingdom political news, UK-wide sports coverage and shared-interest UK reporting.
The Education and Culture Committee report must be seen in the light of the report on the creative industries by the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. At times during the charter debate, there has been an assumption that it is the BBC’s responsibility to shape and grow our creative industries, but that cannot be seen as the only solution. We are still waiting for progress on a film and television studio—a proposal that is now stuck in the opaqueness of contract confidentiality and planning applications.
Creative Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government have, so far, failed to deliver a film and TV studio. Not only Wales and Northern Ireland but now Liverpool and Yorkshire are overtaking us. The BBC must not be seen in isolation with regard to the creative industries; there is a role for us all to play.
The motion notes the Scottish Government’s policy paper. Although I agree with areas of the paper, there are proposals in it that I do not support. I strongly disagree with its opening comment that,
“In the absence of this current level of constitutional change, the BBC Charter process provides the opportunity to deliver elements of the policy vision for broadcasting in Scotland, which may eventually build towards a more significant level of constitutional change in this area.”
That is unacceptable politicisation of the BBC. The charter review is not about advancing the political agenda of the Scottish Government or the Scottish National Party. Changes to BBC governance are not designed to facilitate constitutional change. The Government’s paper loses sight of the viewer and, again, misinterprets the satisfaction ratings to justify a political position.
The Government’s key proposal, which the cabinet secretary outlined, for the BBC to move to a federal structure does not command support, as the Education and Culture Committee’s work showed. I do not believe that the majority of licence fee payers in Scotland would like that level of radical change and I am not convinced that it would benefit Scottish viewers. It would dilute the offer and quality for Scottish viewers and introduce a complex system of fees for network programming.
Many viewers in Scotland still remember the controversy about STV not showing programmes such as “Downton Abbey” and “Doc Martin”. People are likely to be concerned that the Scottish Government’s proposal could lead to a similar scenario in which an executive in Pacific Quay decides to prioritise one area at the expense of network content.
The strength and extent of network programming are strong arguments against a percentage licence fee figure being calculated for BBC Scotland. I support more investment in Scotland, but the Government’s proposal involves a blunt figure that does not reflect what we get in return for the licence fee: full BBC programming, radio, iPlayer and website content. It is right and fair that a proportion of our licence fee contributes towards that. To create an internal market for those services would be a disaster.
There will be robust exchanges over the BBC’s longer-term future, but I welcome the cabinet secretary’s intention to seek consensus for the task in hand, which is to ensure that the interests of Scottish licence fee payers, as well as those of the Parliament, BBC Scotland and our creative industries, are represented in the charter renewal process.
I move amendment S4M-15695.3, to leave out from “Scottish Government’s recent” to end and insert:
“views of the Scottish Government in its recent policy paper, alongside the views of all political parties, creative industries and licence fee-payers in Scotland on the ongoing development of the BBC charter; welcomes the emerging consensus for more decentralised decision making for the BBC, and urges the Scottish Government to reflect the Parliament’s views fully in its ongoing discussions with the UK Government in the development of its white paper on BBC charter renewal.”
16:17
I issue the apologies of my colleague Mary Scanlon, who had hoped to take part in the debate but, unfortunately, is not well.
This is an important debate, which is reflected in the tone of the Scottish Government’s motion, which the Conservatives have no hesitation in supporting. That tone is also in the other amendments, which we also support, and in the Education and Culture Committee’s report. We particularly welcome the positive engagement from the BBC and the recognition that the current governance arrangements are not fit for purpose in the age of maturing devolution and in a competitive, technologically changing and diverse media environment that puts many challenges in the way of any broadcaster, whether the BBC or anyone else.
Whatever happens in the charter renewal process, the cabinet secretary is right to say that the BBC must emerge able to maintain the high quality of production and the marketable programmes that have given it its great distinction as an institution. It also must serve all parts of the UK, as well as the international community, and be able to keep pace with—indeed, to lead—technological advances so that it is not left behind its commercial rivals.
The BBC knows that it must continue to strive for excellence across all its services. It must do that by taking into account the increasingly diverse range of audiences throughout the United Kingdom, Scotland included. On that note, it has been encouraging to hear about the positive relationship that has developed on the future of BBC Alba, especially when measured against its counterparts in Wales. I say to the cabinet secretary that that commitment is good news.
Above all, there must be greater transparency when it comes to the spending of public money. In that context, it is right that the Scottish Parliament has an enhanced ability to hold BBC Scotland to account.
It was good to hear the BBC acknowledge that in some respects it had failed Scotland. In education committee meetings some years back, we saw that senior figures in the BBC clearly did not have sufficient respect for the role that the Scottish Parliament could play, nor did they appreciate the detrimental effect of London-centric bias. It was encouraging to hear the cabinet secretary describe Lord Hall speaking of “excellence without arrogance”. That is good news. Lord Hall also said:
“As director general of the BBC, I want to achieve a strong and vibrant BBC that reflects the nation that it serves, is full of confidence in its output and is properly fearless in its journalism.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 12 January 2016; c 8.]
It was good to hear that from the BBC. Lord Hall has fully recognised the pace of devolution, and that it is “changing asymmetrically”, as he described it. I will come back to that comment.
Several members in the chamber will recall previous controversies at education committee meetings, when some unseemly party politics prevented the focus from being purely on the running of the BBC and what was best for Scotland. For that reason, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary accepts the Conservative amendment, because at the heart of the debate is that the BBC must be wholly independent of Government and politicians.
I come to some of the details. There is general agreement that a more robust news service is required for Scotland. There is an important debate to be had about how to achieve that without diminishing the scope of UK BBC broadcasting in Scotland, some of which produces the Scottish audience’s best-loved programmes.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s submission rightly says:
“Advances in technology, increased competition and changes in the methods through which the public consume content mean the BBC faces more challenges than ever before in fulfilling its remit to inform, educate and entertain.”
Discussions on those issues in the devolution context are interesting. How we take them further within the charter renewal process is a particularly interesting debate.
The BBC faces particular challenges around how different resources are deployed. Both the cabinet secretary and Claire Baker outlined that the issue is not necessarily about having more resources but about redeploying them, which necessarily must reflect different structures. That is a particularly interesting point.
Audience demands are clearly changing, and the BBC will have to compete with other broadcasters to ensure that it is fit for purpose in the decades ahead. I will say more in my summing-up speech about how that relates to funding.
There is a debate to be had about how Scottish we want the BBC to be in Scotland and what the percentage share should be against traditional UK input. That debate must be had in the context of considering the best way in which to maintain the quality of an independent broadcaster. Claire Baker is quite right: we must have evidence to show what audiences actually want in Scotland. There is an interesting debate to be had, and I will come back to some of these points in my summing-up speech.
I move amendment S4M-15695.1, to insert at end:
“in a way that does not undermine the BBC’s independence from governments and politicians”.
16:23
As I have family members who are current and former BBC employees, I start by declaring an interest.
I am acutely aware that the institution has its shortcomings, but it is commendably honest about them—more so than most, perhaps. At the same time, it is an institution for which I, like countless millions in this country and across the world, have enormous admiration and affection. Like the various witnesses who gave evidence to the Education and Culture Committee over recent weeks, to whom I extend my thanks, I consider myself to be a BBC loyalist. That, in essence, is the motivation behind my amendment. I would like Parliament to state unequivocally that when it pursues legitimate claims for change and reform, those are intended to enhance and strengthen an institution that is the envy of most around the world and one that we take for granted at our peril.
The Government’s motion says nothing that explicitly endangers that institution. It asks merely that Parliament notes the Scottish National Party’s proposal. I presume that it has been drafted to try to secure a united position around which Parliament could coalesce, which is laudable. I welcome the tone of the cabinet secretary’s comments, but we cannot ignore some of the rhetoric that has been used by ministers and SNP back benchers over recent years, who have levelled accusations at the BBC. Alex Salmond still nurses his wrath and unashamedly holds the BBC responsible for his defeat in the referendum. For some within the wider nationalist movement, their motivation is less than altruistic with regard to the BBC.
That is why I believe that, if Parliament is to unite around a common view at decision time, it should do so by being unambiguous about the value of the BBC and the imperative for it to remain impartial and challenging, and about our collective desire to see change safeguard and enhance that position.
Liz Smith’s amendment makes very much the same point, drawing on concerns about the so-called joyous demonstrations outside the BBC studios in Glasgow or the appalling treatment meted out to individual BBC journalists during the referendum.
This is not about resisting change. No one is seriously arguing that change is not needed, as was clear from the evidence considered by the committee. Lord Hall himself accepted, very willingly and convincingly, that greater decentralisation of decision making is both required and desirable.
The full detail of what that should look like still seems some way off, but change is already under way. Parliament has a voice within the charter renewal process. That is a step forward, although it should be about recognising the diverse voices and views of the Scottish people, not simply the settled will of a single party—a point made fairly by Claire Baker in her amendment and acknowledged by the cabinet secretary in her remarks.
In passing, I add that I also believe that future charter renewal processes should be decoupled from the electoral cycles of Westminster and the devolved nations.
Greater transparency over budgeting is also on the cards. That is welcome, not least given the extent to which it is being asserted that Scotland is somehow short changed by the BBC. That was a constant refrain in our evidence taking, yet figures show that a higher proportion of adults in Scotland view BBC One and Two than in other parts of the UK, and 88 per cent of that content is UK network content. It is not as if there is not a choice—alternative options have scarcely ever been more available than they are now. Delivering that content, however, does and will continue to require investment from across the UK. Therein lies the conundrum for the cabinet secretary and for others who argue for a federal structure: how to square the determination to have separate Scottish television channels, radio stations and more Scottish content while simultaneously retaining the same access to UK network and content.
In support of the flowering of stations and channels, various models from across Europe were cited, although none is renowned for matching the BBC’s quality and range. Indeed, some rely heavily on importing content and therefore provide limited additional opportunities for domestic production or artistic talent. That said, as the committee concluded, there is scope for reforming the commissioning process to help grow a strong, sustainable and competitive creative industries sector in Scotland. Again, Lord Hall acknowledged and accepted that proposition.
Such reform would need to recognise the growing complexity of and collaborative nature involved in putting productions together, which make applying quotas—the mechanism of choice over recent years—increasingly difficult. That approach has delivered economic benefits to Scotland, including through the development of skills, but now is in need of change. A greater degree of decentralisation of and accountability for commissioning and budgets should lead to improvements, in relation to not just the effect on creative industries but the way in which the BBC portrays the diversity of Scottish culture and identity.
Care must be taken as to how and the extent to which that is done. For example, demands for 100 per cent of the licence fee raised in Scotland to be devolved appear to show inadequate concern for what that could actually deliver or its likely effect on the capacity of the wider BBC.
As for the idea of a federal structure, I remain to be convinced. The committee recognised that improvements do not require the BBC to be federalised. Indeed, it was interesting how often those advocating such an approach—
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in his last 20 seconds.
—appeared to distance themselves from it under questioning from the committee. In part, that may have been because no one appeared to have a detailed assessment of what it would mean. Even within the context of devolved budgets, about which there is now remarkably little controversy, a cautionary note needs to be sounded.
Will the member draw to a close, please?
I know that Fiona Hyslop feels that accepting my amendment would result in a rather clumsy motion. That is not something that has concerned Parliament unduly in past years, and without my amendment we risk agreeing to a motion that fails to properly acknowledge the value, quality and contribution of the BBC. That would be a mistake.
I move amendment S4M-15695.2, to insert at end
“; notes that the Education and Culture Committee concluded that a greater degree of decentralisation and accountability can be achieved without adopting a federal structure, and believes that any reforms to the BBC must be sustainable, protecting and enhancing its status as a world-class impartial public service broadcaster, and not undermine its ability to deliver the high-quality programmes and other output that its audience in Scotland, the rest of the UK and around the world expects and values”.
We come to the open debate. I call Stewart Maxwell, who will speak on behalf of the Education and Culture Committee. Mr Maxwell, you have up to six minutes.
16:29
As the Presiding Officer mentioned, I take the slightly unusual step of speaking, in a Government debate, as convener of the Education and Culture Committee. I do so to ensure that the significance of the committee’s report on the BBC charter renewal process and, more important, our recommendations is not lost.
As the cabinet secretary and others have acknowledged, the Scottish Parliament has, for the first time, a formal role in the charter renewal process. That is important. It reflects the changing constitutional position in Scotland and a new role for this Parliament. As the committee saw during our inquiry, there is an appetite for more public engagement in the charter renewal process. It is also right and proper that the BBC is held to account by this Parliament. In our report, we make some suggestions for improving the accountability and scrutiny of the BBC. I will come to those later.
The unanimous view of the committee is that the BBC is a hugely important cultural institution. Committee members will agree with me when I say that we all want to ensure that the BBC is relevant to the people of Scotland. The BBC is the single most important contributor to public service broadcasting in the UK and, through commissioning programmes and investing in skills and training, it plays an important role in supporting the wider creative economy.
However, as our report clearly sets out, the BBC must do more to represent Scotland and the diversity of Scottish culture. It must also change the way it works with and supports the creative industries in Scotland. It is clear that the BBC itself recognises that it needs to do better. When Lord Hall gave evidence to the committee, he told us that he
“would like to see more of what we currently do centrally in London move out of London.”
He also emphasised the importance of having
“a strong and thriving Scottish production sector”.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 12 January 2016; c 31, 9.]
As we say in our report,
“We welcome the BBC’s continuing commitment to seek to improve how it represents and portrays Scotland across its services.”
However, we consider that “significant change” is required to improve the way the BBC commissions programmes. The report makes it clear that we need to decentralise decision making and the associated expenditure.
Some members have referred to the production quota for Scotland. Concerns about that are central to the need for change. We were told in evidence that the quota rules can be subverted by production companies who relocate a small part of their operation temporarily to Scotland in order to meet the criteria. Those so-called lift and shift practices have led to suggestions that producers need spend very little of the production budget in Scotland for 100 per cent of the budget to be counted as Scottish spend and therefore set against the quota. We were also told of concerns about the commissioning process and difficulties experienced by Scottish companies in gaining access and recognition from London-based commissioners.
Those practices do not help to develop a sustainable television production sector in Scotland. In fact, they do quite the opposite. The criticisms are not new; they have been highlighted on numerous occasions. The audience council Scotland has been advising the BBC trust about them for years. The criticisms were also raised by two parliamentary committees. This Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee both recommended action to ensure that indigenous Scottish production companies benefited fully from the quota and from improved access to commissioners.
In our report, we suggest that the current quota system for regional production for the network is inadequate. It is an artificial mechanism that, as others have said, has helped, but it has not done enough to encourage a sustainable production sector in Scotland. The committee unanimously agreed that a proportionate amount of BBC spending should be guaranteed to directly benefit the creative industries in Scotland. To enable that to happen, we believe that the budget for the BBC’s network content spend should be decentralised to BBC Scotland. We believe that BBC Scotland is best placed to make judgments on how to assist the creative sector in Scotland.
Transferring that budget to BBC Scotland would make a big difference, particularly when we consider that BBC Scotland’s commissioning budget currently amounts to £35 million. Of course, that money is combined with additional production costs that allow programmes to be made. Taken together, that constitutes the local content spend by the BBC in Scotland, which is around £73 million. The fundamental point that our report makes is that there must be decentralisation of decision making, commissioning and the accompanying budgets to BBC Scotland. That will help to rebalance the criticism that some have made that the BBC is too centralised inside the M25, and will lead to improvements in the way in which the BBC portrays Scotland and the diversity of Scottish culture. It would seem reasonable to expect that, as a result, that would benefit the creative industries in Scotland by attracting, developing and retaining talent, thus helping the sector to become strong, sustainable and competitive.
The BBC has acknowledged that its commissioning practices need to change. We welcome Lord Hall’s decision to review the set-up, and we hope and expect that decentralisation will be part of the solution.
I mentioned earlier that the committee considered the accountability and scrutiny of the BBC. In our report, we suggested improvements that relate to the openness and transparency of the BBC’s practices and operations and its accountability to the people of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. Specifically, we want the BBC to be required to provide detailed financial information about its operations in Scotland. Frankly, we found it impossible to disentangle spending in Scotland from the wider consolidated UK accounts.
You should draw to a close, please.
The BBC seemed to recognise those difficulties. We welcome Lord Hall’s commitments in that area.
It is vital that the BBC makes a firm commitment to maintaining a Gaelic language channel and, indeed, to increasing what it produces for BBC Alba to the same level as that which is produced for the Welsh language channel.
This debate offers us an opportunity to unite and speak with one voice as Scotland’s Parliament in our desire to see a better outcome for BBC Scotland, our creative industries and the people of Scotland.
16:36
I am pleased and relieved that this is a relatively consensual debate about the future of the BBC. I am relieved because—I make no bones about this—I take a personal as well as a public interest in the corporation’s future. Before I was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, I worked for the BBC for 13 years as a TV producer in news and current affairs. Most of that time was spent in London, although for the last two years I was in charge of the Scottish output on national news programmes.
I have been struck by how similar the content of much of this debate, the Government’s policy paper and the committee’s report is to that of the discussions that we had about the BBC over two decades ago. Over that period, the technology, our viewing habits, the number of channels and other available media have changed out of all recognition.
I will give just one example. I noticed this year that the television figures for Christmas day revealed that peak viewing did not exceed 7 million for any one programme. Over the following fortnight into January, that was boosted by almost 4 million by those who watched on various forms of catch-up television, but that total still does not come close to the audience figures that were pulled in 20 or 30 years ago. The audience is smaller, and that also reveals a little about the way in which many people watch TV. They do so on their own devices and at times that are convenient to them.
I said that because it makes discussions around the idea or importance of a Scottish 6 o’clock news, for example, sound a little arcane. Delivering impartial, trusted and high-quality news will remain one of the most important services that we expect of the BBC, but the issue that we need to wrestle with as part of charter renewal is more about how to reach an increasingly diverse audience, rather than how Scottish a fixed programme at 6 o’clock may be. If families are not sitting down together to watch the same programmes that they used to watch and there is a decline in so-called linear viewing habits, that is the challenge that we need the BBC to rise to.
Politicians, such as we are, are particularly concerned with the news agenda, but our obsession is not necessarily shared by most of the public, nor does it reflect the changing media landscape. More and more people are getting their news online and the BBC iPlayer has been biggest success of recent years. If we are interested in preserving and holding on to the independence, trust, reliability, creativity, balance and watchability of the phenomenally important institution that is the BBC, we need to reflect and cater for that wider interest, not just our own potentially narrower focus. We need to think a bit more about the habits of the viewers and listeners and less about our own political agendas. I am therefore relieved that, today, we are putting the emphasis on where we can agree rather than on where we disagree, although I am conscious and wary of those other agendas.
It would help if we could acknowledge that the BBC is and always has been surrounded by people and interest groups who do not necessarily have its best interests at heart. The free marketeers would like to dismantle it and sell off Radio 1 or Radio 2, which they say could equally well be provided by the commercial sector. The Conservative Government has cut £700 million from the BBC’s budget without even the face-saving pretence of a consultation. Right wingers like to portray an objective public service broadcaster as a nest of leftie sympathisers, and they have their appetites whetted by anti-BBC stories in the Daily Mail and elsewhere. The Murdoch press rants without a trace of irony about the BBC’s dominant media position.
What is the situation in Scotland? On the one hand, there is a well of support and good will for this altruistic organisation. Perhaps it goes back as far as Lord Reith, the first director general of the BBC, who left his Presbyterian mark on the corporation. To this day, the BBC holds true to his values to inform, educate and entertain, and long may that continue.
On the other hand, many of us were pretty appalled by the behaviour of some in the SNP during the referendum campaign. I echo the sentiments that Liam McArthur expressed. There is, unfortunately, a vein of illiberal, book-burning intolerance among a minority of SNP members or supporters, and Alex Salmond’s bizarre dispute with the BBC’s political editor, Nick Robinson, and the protests outside BBC Scotland were the most high-profile and worrying examples of that. Today’s support for the BBC from the Scottish Government is welcome, although I am sure that the minister and members across the Parliament will understand if some of us remain suspicious about the SNP’s long-term goals.
Just to be clear, I do not wish any Government or any political party to bully, cajole or otherwise dominate the editorial or broadcasting freedom of the BBC.
What can we agree on? I think that we all want more high-quality and larger-budget programmes to be made here in Scotland. The creative industries are essential to our country’s future, and we do not have to look far to see the talent and ability that is pouring forth from our schools, displayed in our art colleges and heard on our music scene. I would like anyone with that talent to be able to fulfil their potential here in Scotland and not to feel obliged to move elsewhere.
Just to be clear, I believe that more programmes should be commissioned and made here in Scotland, but they do not have to be about Scotland. They should be network programmes that are aimed at a UK and potentially an international audience, but commissioned and produced here in Scotland. I say yes to greater decentralisation—I am pleased that the process is already in place in the BBC—but that does not mean breaking up the BBC into a federal structure, and it certainly does not mean divvying up the licence fee along similar lines.
I see that the Presiding Officer is asking me to wind up. I am certainly not alone in my affection and regard for the BBC, but more important is the trust that most of us in Scotland place in the organisation and the public service that it provides.
16:41
The BBC has been a foundation of our community for the past century, and it will remain so. Inevitably, though, a large communication company that covers all features of our society will come under attack. Sometimes, the attack will be valid, but in general the organisation’s professionalism has prevailed.
Change is a constant. There has been pressure for Scotland to have a more formal role in the charter renewal process, and the agreement of that, which is underpinned by the memorandum of understanding, is welcome.
There is no such thing as a coincidence, and I have no doubt that, as we discuss the issue over the next few months in a period of major political debate, voices will be raised and there will be a focus on the proportionality of the BBC’s reporting on Scotland and Europe. However, given Scotland’s role in the charter renewal process, I feel sure that the corporation will rise to the occasion, and I feel sure—indeed, I feel confident—that the director general will ensure that we have the fairness that we seek.
Of course, proportionality is not just about news and political views. We also need a fair reflection of the wider issues of diversity, opportunity and relative equality, and a recognition and understanding of the cultural differences not just between the nations but within the regions of the nations of these islands.
Although I agree whole-heartedly with the proposals that the cabinet secretary outlined in December and in her speech on 12 February, I venture that there will inevitably be an extension of the proposed quasi-federal, decentralised structure with, at some time in the future, the creation of a BBC organisation in Scotland, albeit under a unitary UK BBC board. Such an organisation would be responsible for its overall strategy, its financial performance and its outcomes related to revenue, expenditure and asset management, and above all it would be responsible for optimising its creative output and operations.
The Education and Culture Committee was frustrated that it was unable to determine the BBC’s financial and other outcomes, but I will leave it to my colleague Gordon MacDonald to enumerate some of the issues. If an organisation does not own the strategic finances, the features and the forecasts for its business, how it can determine competitive investment or even disinvestment is a conundrum.
I howled—or was it Hjuled—on Friday, when I read an exposition in one of our national broadsheets that suggested that there is little need for substantial change, because we are not of different races. I presume that the writer meant that there are not differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Of course there are. There are differences in culture, and there is diversity even within the regions of Scotland, all of which are covered by elements of the BBC.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not.
The charter renewal process should and must embrace our input, in the context of proportionality, identity, diversity, creativity and cultural focus, and it must be economically productive.
We must reflect on the survey that found that 74 per cent of viewers and listeners want more local and Scottish news. I am sure that it is within the professional capabilities of the Brians, the Jackies, the Glens, the Davids and so on, and their respective production teams, to deliver such an outcome within a refined overall BBC strategy for broadcast TV news and current affairs.
News is but one area. To that, we add meaningful and robust sub-strategies for production and programme commissioning, which can be applied in a decentralised, federal structure. We need a strategy that relates responsibility to the accountability for delivering those sub-strategies—and delivering them profitably. That is what we are all about—delivering the best outcome at the best cost for our customers.
That cannot be the approach for much longer in the current situation. Doing things as they are currently being done will not achieve the growth that I am sure that the corporation’s centralised and devolved elements seek. That cannot be achieved with a London-centric management, a London-centric strategy and London-centric funding. The BBC is far too important to have such an approach.
Now that we in Scotland have a formal and constructive role in the charter renewal process, let us determine a meaningful devolved role for BBC Scotland, partnering with—but not only with—producers in the independent sector, for example, to produce content that is marketable internationally and resonates with the Scottish diaspora.
Let us determine that the service licence, and the strategy, management and commissioning that result from that in a federalised Scottish operation will be buttressed by ensuring that a greater amount of the BBC licence fee that is raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland.
Many thanks for your brevity.
16:47
Over the past year, two parliamentary committees have conducted inquiries into the BBC’s performance in Scotland and, with cross-party support, concluded that we get a raw deal from the existing BBC production arrangements.
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee said:
“The Committee supports the call from the Scottish Government for the BBC to increase support for independent TV production based in Scotland.”
The Education and Culture Committee said:
“We also want the BBC to do more to support BBC Scotland’s in-house production arm and the creative industries in Scotland.”
What is the current situation on licence fees, and how much is spent on sustaining our indigenous television sector? The BBC informed us that the licence fee raises £323 million, although the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at Westminster said that the amount collected is £335 million, excluding our share of the worldwide television sales that we help to fund. BBC commercial revenue amounts to £1.1 billion per annum; our population share would be £94 million. That would result in an overall Scottish budget of £429 million.
In Ireland, Raidió Teilifís Éireann has a budget of £242 million and provides five television channels and nine radio stations. What do we get? We get an opt-out BBC Scotland, 80 per cent of whose output is news, current affairs and sport, plus BBC Alba, which has had its funding cut by the UK Government, and BBC Radio Scotland, which defaults to BBC Radio 5 Live during the night.
How is our contribution to the BBC spent? The BBC informed us that it is spent on a combination of local output, television for the network and other BBC channels and services.
Will the member give way?
No, I want to get through the numbers.
Does the BBC really spend our contribution on those things? The BBC could not provide any detail on how it arrived at the total expenditure, as it does not produce accounts for Scotland. That raises the question of how it arrived at the total of £337 million. The BBC website claims that £123 million is spent here on local content, yet the committee was told by the managing director of finance and operations at the BBC that the figure available to BBC Scotland to commission local content was around £35 million. That sum would also be supported by around another £35 million of largely fixed costs. The cash budget available to make programmes for local consumption, however, remains at a lowly 8 per cent of our share of BBC revenue.
Then there is the network spend that the BBC is supposed to use to represent and cater for the different nations, regions and communities across the UK. The BBC claims to have a network spend here of £82 million, making those well-known Scottish programmes such as “Homes Under the Hammer”, “Question Time” and the lottery show, to name but three, but is it really spending that amount on Scottish network television, albeit on mainly lift-and-shift programmes transferred from other parts of the UK? The guidelines that the BBC abides by in determining nations and regions spend are set by Ofcom, which highlights the following in its regional definition guidelines. If a Scottish-based TV production company wins a commission from the north of England and spends 60 per cent of the budget in that area and only 10 per cent in Scotland, the total budget is attributed to Scotland. If, however, a London-based production company wins a commission in Scotland, it can spend 30 per of the total budget and 50 per cent of the crew budget outwith Scotland and the total is still attributed to Scotland. Therefore, actual network money spent here could be £82 million or it could be as low as £8 million.
Then there is the £132 million covering the other services that we get from the wider BBC. It would seem on the face of it to be value for money, until you realise that Ireland has been receiving the same BBC programmes for a fraction of the cost. The commercial director of BBC Worldwide, speaking in 2014 after a new licence deal was agreed with Ireland, stated:
“We’ve enjoyed a really productive partnership with RTÉ over the last twenty years and I’m delighted that this is set to continue. It’s great to know that as a result of this deal RTÉ viewers will be able to continue to enjoy the BBC programmes they love for years to come.”
The RTÉ accounts state that overseas programming cost nearly £16 million covering all foreign programmes including what is acquired from the BBC. Ireland pays the BBC, at most, an eighth of what we are being charged.
We need the BBC to provide some clarity around the actual level of spend in Scotland and to tackle the production shortfall. The BBC finance director did suggest a way forward, saying that
“we can move towards an overall service licence for Scotland, that would be helpful and would give us a framework that could be used for monitoring.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 12 January 2016; c 27.]
With a service licence for Scotland we could utilise the former BBC Three channel to create a proper TV station with full commissioning and editorial rights with its own controller, based here and free from political control. Nobody would lose any existing TV programmes, as BBC One and BBC Two would still be broadcasting. We could then support and sustain the wealth of creative talent that we have here and have the best of both worlds.
16:54
Being politicians, it is natural that a lot of what we think about the BBC is determined by its political output. After all, what could be more important than what we have to say here in the Scottish Parliament? UK and international news should get a look-in, but preferably from a Scottish perspective. The BBC in particular, as the nation’s main public service broadcaster, is expected to fulfil the task of political reporting and to do so in a fair and even-handed way.
In trying to strike the right balance it is impossible to please everybody, especially in the current polarised political climate in which people are strongly divided by their views on constitutional issues. It is all too easy for politicians and activists to think that if the BBC is not a mirror reflecting their views, it must be pursuing its own political agenda or—worse still—the political agenda of another party. My feeling is that if people from all political perspectives think that the BBC is biased, it is probably doing an okay job of being relatively balanced—if not neutral.
Moving beyond news coverage, I say that there are also demands for more Scottish cultural content. That is not just a demand for more programmes that are Scottish; there is also, in some quarters, a demand for programmes that are “more Scottish”, with a dedicated Scottish channel as a home for them. That inevitably prompts on social media recollections of “The White Heather Club”. Of course, there is more to Scottish culture than that, and the vibrant contemporary culture of Scotland deserves a fair share of our airtime. What the social media reaction highlights is that reforms of the BBC’s output should be about what viewers want, and not about giving politicians more power over broadcasting. The public do not want state-controlled TV—federal or otherwise.
There is more to the Scottish broadcasting industry than Scottish output; there is a bigger picture that encompasses not just programmes that are made in Scotland for Scotland, but programmes that are made here for the United Kingdom and international markets. I will concentrate on that bigger picture. The expansion of BBC activity in Scotland should not just be about filling a perceived gap in Scottish needs but about expanding our contribution to the broader world of broadcasting. Indeed, as many people who gave evidence made clear, only by bringing in work for the market beyond Scotland can we safeguard and underpin production for Scotland. Paul McManus, for example, said that
“Scotland could sustain a commercial studio operation that sells its products abroad and helps to build the industry in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 5 January 2016; c 36.]
I would like to see more television programmes being made in Scotland for the UK and beyond—programmes that would put Scottish broadcasting on the global TV map in the way that “Dr Who” has put Wales on the map. I believe that we should make more programmes that serve bigger audiences.
In doing that, we must address long-standing issues about how the BBC quota system lifts and shifts financing and intellectual property rights to London-based companies. We must also address the BBC commissioning processes in which the ultimate decision-making power lies in London, which puts Scottish companies at a disadvantage. We need increased investment in Scotland and significant improvement of the quota system for commissioning. We can make programmes that travel the world—and not just sport and daytime TV shows, worth while though they may be. What about a Scottish Government-based drama that is like “Borgen” or “House of Cards”? The very mention of those programmes should be enough to set the parliamentary sketch writers scribbling.
We need both to foster and to attract talent and we need apprenticeships and training to sustain our broadcasting and film industries. Those are crucial to the growth and success of the Scottish industry, and the BBC should provide a fair share of such opportunities for Scotland in Scotland. We need young Scots to be given the opportunity to get into and to develop within Scottish broadcasting. Nevertheless, Scottish broadcasting should not be just a training ground and a staging post; it should be a destination to which others aspire, with the BBC being instrumental in achieving that.
16:59
This has been an interesting debate in which, at times, we seem to have veered away from the issue that we are here to discuss. I do not want any political or personal control of the BBC; I want good-quality TV and radio that reflects the community that I represent and that represents value for the people of Scotland.
From the initial investigations of the Education and Culture Committee up to and including today’s debate, the one thing that everyone—witnesses who came before the committee and contributors to the debate—has agreed on is that the BBC is valued. Some people expressed to the committee their great affection for the BBC, because it provides a unique broadcasting service and does so across platforms, and many of those who gave evidence that could have been deemed to have been critical of the BBC did so in a very positive manner. In effect, they were asking how a very good public broadcaster could be made even better and how the BBC could serve modern Scotland’s needs.
Therefore, what we are considering today is the continued evolution of the BBC in Scotland. As many of my colleagues have said, this is the first time that the Scottish Government and Parliament have had a formal role in the charter renewal process, so we must ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard during that process. It is important that the amount of licence fee that is raised here, whether it is £323 million or the £335 million that my colleague Gordon MacDonald mentioned—part of the problem appears to be that the BBC does not know what the figure is—fully delivers for Scotland.
There was much said at committee by people in television production about how BBC Scotland’s having commissioning powers could make a difference to local production, and they were correct. It is time for us to be bold and to look at things in a different way. In its written submission, Independent Producers Scotland said:
“We are subject to the imperial power of the BBC, centred in London. They do not ‘get’ the new Scotland and its independent spirit. We want to see change, a shift in emphasis in the relationship between the BBC and BBC Scotland, between BBC Scotland and independent producers in Scotland, between BBC Scotland and its audience. This is an opportunity to be bold, taking initiatives that are sustainable and for the long term rather than a ‘quick fix’ in response to the immediate political situation.”
That shows that people want to work with the BBC to take a different approach.
Does George Adam believe that all the money that is raised in Scotland should be spent in Scotland, or does he believe that some of it should be spent on, for example, “The Ken Bruce Show” on Radio 2?
I think that a contribution should be made to all that, as well. By its very nature, the BBC is that type of organisation. I am saying, as I have right from the start, that I want good-quality television and radio that represents the people of Scotland to be produced. For me, how we go about delivering that is the important debate.
The problem that we have at the moment is that we have so-called lift and shift. The BBC’s spending figures in Scotland include the practice of lift and shift, which can mean that staff are sometimes brought in just to use studio space in Pacific Quay before returning to London. That does not help production in Scotland, nor does it help the dramatic arts in Scotland. In effect, some of the production companies that we are talking about are simply a brass plate on a door. We need to ensure that we get the investment and that it delivers something more positive, more constructive and more solid for companies in Scotland.
John Pentland mentioned the difference that “Dr Who” made to BBC Wales. Members know that I am a science fiction fan. One of the longest running science-fiction TV series is a BBC production that has been made in Wales since 2005. The movement of the production of “Dr Who” to Wales has made an incredible difference to television production in that country. That did not happen because the BBC had a wonderful way of commissioning drama; it happened only because the BBC decided that it wanted Russell T Davies to bring the show back, and he said that he would not do it unless the programme was produced in Wales.
My argument is that we need to move beyond the situation in which such decisions are made by individual producers. We need to get to a stage at which we have a system that allows commissioning to be based in BBC Scotland and we can get the type of productions that we want and need. That does not mean that productions will have to be wrapped in tartan; they need not be Scottish dramas. They could be in any television genre—including science fiction. We must ensure that we find a way to make that happen, and I think that the charter renewal process gives us an opportunity to do that.
Personally, I do not care which platform delivers productions—TV, radio or digital—because it is about empowering BBC Scotland. If we can find a way to do that, we can do the production companies and the people involved in the arts in Scotland a service.
We move to closing speeches. I call Liam McArthur. You have up to six minutes, please, Mr McArthur.
17:05
I start by thanking Stewart Maxwell for expounding on the Education and Culture Committee’s findings on the inquiry. He fairly summed up the evidence that we heard. As a number of committee colleagues have indicated, the evidence was broadly consensual around the need for change. However, once we dug into the detail, some of that consensus started to splinter. Nevertheless, I think that it is accepted that change is coming.
Lord Hall, who has been quoted in several speeches so far, summed that up and acknowledged the need to strive for “excellence without arrogance”. I thought that his contribution to the committee’s evidence gathering was extremely constructive. Of course, some of that change is already under way. The mere fact that we are considering charter renewal is symptomatic of that. There is also greater transparency on the way about budgets. I certainly share some of the frustrations about that that have been expressed—probably more volubly by SNP colleagues on the back benches—so it is welcome that greater transparency is forthcoming.
There is also the fact that change is inevitable because of technological changes and how content is consumed. Ken Macintosh made that point very fairly, drawing on his inside experience and looking at the consumption figures.
I have to say that Chic Brodie made a very pertinent point in relation to diversity within not just the nations and regions of the UK but within Scotland. That is a drum that I constantly banged in committee, as colleagues will remember.
However, although there is consensus for change, we need to take care: as Ken Macintosh said, we need to be wary about the different agendas. I very much welcomed the tone and tenor of the cabinet secretary’s comments earlier, and I accept the point in Claire Baker’s amendment about the need to draw not just on the views of all the political parties in the Scottish Parliament but the wider views of the public at large. There is not a settled Scottish view on the matter. Scots pride ourselves on being fairly contrary and adopting a range of different views, and the fact that that is acknowledged in the debate is to be welcomed. We need also to reflect on the fact that it is not really about political imperatives but about the needs, desires and expectations of the public—not just viewers and listeners, but the wider public.
There is consensus about having a more decentralised approach. A number of witnesses expressed to the committee criticisms that have been echoed during the debate about what is seen as a London-centric model. Proposals for change have been made over many years, but they have not all borne the fruit that we wanted. The devolution of some commissioning, budgets, and decision making is inevitable and is to be welcomed, but we need to be careful what we wish for. There is a seductive simplicity about the federal model, but it overlooks the complexity of how productions are put together and their collaborative nature. A proposition that is inherent in my amendment is that we need to see change that safeguards and enhances an institution that is—or should be—a source of pride for us in the UK, and which is held in the highest regard worldwide. Anything that detracts from that should be avoided at all costs.
Gordon MacDonald certainly honoured his promise to Chic Brodie that he would deal with the figures—he provided a veritable snowstorm of them. He talked about having the best of both worlds, but it struck me as being a case of having your cake and eating it rather than one of having the best of both worlds.
I think that the accusation that the BBC has somehow lost its way needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. The viewing figures illustrate that consumption patterns in Scotland may be changing, but the extent to which people in Scotland rely on and, clearly, value the BBC’s content is there for all to see. The figures need to be drilled down into, because there will be more underlying them.
Let us not misdiagnose the problem that we are trying to address. Change is needed, change is happening, and—inevitably—more change will come. Some of that change is driven by technological changes, and some is driven by consumer expectations. Some of it will reflect the change in political circumstances and cultural changes. However, those changes have to be seen in the context of enhancing an institution that is held in affection and in the highest regard, not just in Scotland and the wider UK but internationally. Anything that detracts from that should be guarded against with the greatest vigour. In that respect, even at this last stage—
Close, please.
I hope that the cabinet secretary can back my amendment this afternoon, despite our concerns about the motion that may result from it.
Many thanks. I call Liz Smith, who has up to six minutes—although less would be more, please.
17:10
I think that this has been a good debate, because it has been set against the context of much greater co-operation. The cabinet secretary spoke about the memorandum of understanding that has been agreed by her and her counterpart in Westminster, and by the BBC. That situation is vastly different from education committee sessions that I recall from many years ago when that was not the case—we had a very difficult scenario then. As I said in my opening speech, that led to a lot of party politics and took the focus off what we were trying to do.
We are now on a different plain, which is good news because there are some very serious debates to be had. One of the most interesting of those debates relates to the suggestion, made by the Scottish Government, about the possibility of introducing a federal structure. Like Liam McArthur, I am not absolutely convinced of that, and the committee—under Stewart Maxwell—picked up on that point too.
There are debates to be had, not least because there is a need for bona fide evidence to support exactly what different audiences in different parts of Scotland—and, indeed, in different regions in Scotland—actually want to be delivered. There are lessons to be learned from BBC Alba and some of the other more local broadcasters about where the BBC should look to address what audiences actually want. I know that that takes up the funding model, which is a difficult situation. That comes back to Lord Hall’s comment about there being an asymmetry about devolution. He is right that devolution across the UK does not have symmetry, and that is for very good reasons. Therefore, the evolution of the BBC might not have that asymmetry, and it certainly might not have a symmetry of funding.
These debates are interesting because they try to ensure that, if we go for an alternative to the licence fee model, it absolutely has to be tested against the ability to maintain the British system of content creation, while at the same time allowing Scotland to do what it wants to do with the BBC and, more importantly, for the BBC to reflect what is happening in Scotland. These are very interesting debates, and I was pleased to hear about that.
Putting on my sports cap for a minute, I would be interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on what role sport has in this. Having spoken to many people who are involved in discussions about the charter, I understand that sport is an issue that has quite big implications. The success of the BBC is partly related to that, and I would be interested to know about it. For many people, if there is anything that is precious about the BBC, it is its ability to broadcast top-quality sporting events. We have had discussions about what has happened to golf and—in some ways—to cricket. That needs to be written into what audiences want. These debates will be better for anything that the cabinet secretary can do to prove that good-quality evidence is coming forward to support some of the ideas.
The cabinet secretary talked about whether decentralisation should be done by subject, genre or funding, and I think that that is also an interesting debate to have. It is important, when looking at focus groups, that that relates to what people want from the BBC overall. That would have some bearing on whether we pursue a federal structure.
Many different people across the audience feel quite strongly—this has been reflected in the speeches in Parliament today—that the core issue is about quality of delivery. I thought for a minute that Gordon MacDonald was going to be a bit party political, but he raised a good point about where accountability should lie. The sums that Gordon MacDonald mentioned are indicative of the new transparency and accountability that we need to get into. We need to spend a lot of time debating that before we take anything forward.
In conclusion, the debate has been good and we are happy to support the amendments. As I said, the driving force is all about the quality that can be delivered well into the future in a fast-changing world. That will not necessarily be very easy but, this time, there is a much better spirit in Parliament about how to go forward.
17:16
The evidence sessions, the committee’s report and the debate have been helpful in looking at what we expect from our public broadcaster. The committee’s evidence was clear that the BBC is one of our most valued and trusted institutions. To hear witness after witness describe themselves using the term that Liam McArthur used—“a BBC loyalist”, or a variation thereof—was a fairly new experience for me, given that committee meetings are deliberately set up to have panel members who have competing and contrasting views.
However, it is no surprise that the BBC is valued so highly. As Claire Baker said in her opening remarks, generations of families have grown up watching and enjoying BBC content. Given the strength of support and the extent to which people value the BBC, it is only right that further public consultation should take place before any decisions are made about the future funding and scope of the BBC in Scotland.
The BBC receives £3.73 billion of public investment each year from the television licence fee, of which around £323 million is collected in Scotland. The £3.73 billion is supplemented by commercial revenue. Those figures are set against a backdrop of impending financial cuts at the BBC, and of bearing the responsibility and costs of providing free TV licences to over-75s, which means that the corporation will face significant challenges. However, it was difficult for the committee to work out the full extent of the cuts and the impact that they would have on services in the upcoming charter period, particularly with varying announcements being made by the chancellor.
We welcomed the additional financial information that the BBC was able to provide on spending in Scotland, and Lord Hall’s commitment to making the financial information more transparent and accountable to licence fee payers in Scotland. The committee felt that it is only right and proper that a share of that funding should be decentralised to support the creative industries across the nations and regions of the UK, and our report called for that. We recognised that the quota system for regional production for the network has helped to increase economic investment in Scotland and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union’s evidence made it clear that that has sustained jobs and training opportunities.
However, the committee decided that the system is inadequate in its current form. It is an artificial mechanism that has not done enough to encourage a sustainable broadcasting and production sector in Scotland. Allegations were made in evidence that the BBC’s commissioning practice has sometimes operated to subvert the spirit of the quota, which can mean that the quota spend does not benefit Scotland. Although that gave the committee serious cause for concern, the BBC said that all spending is evaluated pre and post-production before it is allocated to a particular nation’s or region’s quota. We believe that substantial change is required for the commissioning process to grow a strong, sustainable and competitive creative industries sector in Scotland.
I would expect a greater degree of decentralisation of and accountability for commissioning and accompanying budgets across the nations and regions to address the concern that the BBC has a London bias. That would lead to improvements in how the BBC portrays Scotland and the diversity of Scottish culture and identity.
The committee stated in its report:
“Implementing these improvements would not necessarily require the BBC to adopt a federal structure, but would require greater decentralisation of decision making, commissioning and accompanying budgets.”
That, I think, puts us at odds with the Government position of fully devolving broadcasting and moving towards a more significant level of constitutional change. There are issues with a federal BBC that the Government has spoken about, not least that I cannot see any public appetite for such a move.
I said during our consideration of the evidence that although the committee had rightly considered the impact of BBC spending on the creative industries in Scotland, I did not think that we had fully reported on the potential impact on viewers of any alternative model.
Claire Baker mentioned the controversy of STV not showing “Downton Abbey” in Scotland and I think that viewers would be concerned if a similar situation were to arise with the BBC.
If the licence fee funding raised in Scotland were to be held by a federated BBC Scotland, it would inevitably have to make choices on which services and programmes it would choose to buy in and which home-grown products it would produce. What impact would that have on the viewing of big, expensive sporting events such as the world cup, Wimbledon or six nations rugby, which are screened across all nations of the UK on the BBC at the moment? What impact would it have on a Scottish audience’s ability to watch “Dr Who”, “Sherlock”, “The Great British Bake Off”, “Match of the Day” and “EastEnders”? Just how much of a federated BBC Scotland’s budget would be spent on productions such as those, the BBC website or the iPlayer and how much would be left to stimulate the creative industries here in Scotland? That is a key question to consider before the debate on a fully federated or devolved BBC goes any further.
We have to bear in mind that we are debating a BBC charter that will last for 10 years. The BBC will have to adapt to the growing consumption of media online through smartphones or tablets and to the use of catch-up services such as the iPlayer on TVs at home, where people expect their viewing to match their lifestyles rather than having to stick to the rigid TV schedules that we were used to in the past, as Ken Macintosh pointed out.
I think that the BBC is up to that challenge. I welcome the debate and the committee report and ask members to support Claire Baker’s amendment.
17:23
I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate. Collectively, we can seize this opportunity to make sure that the BBC is able to deliver for the people of Scotland. The speeches today, which I have listened to carefully, will help to inform that debate as we go forward.
The decision of the Parliament on the motion before us is an important moment in our new role in BBC charter renewal. The UK Government will publish a white paper in the spring, probably in May, setting out the parameters for the drafting of the charter itself, which will follow closely after. Today, Parliament has been asked to give the Scottish Government a mandate to ensure that we are able to argue a strong case, as has been set out across the chamber by members from different parties, for our collective proposals for the BBC to be included in the white paper.
Many of the arguments have been about decentralisation. The Scottish Government’s point of view is quite clear—we would prefer a federal model. I acknowledge that there is not a consensus on a federal model. There is a consensus on decentralisation—the key issue is the degree of decentralisation and what that means.
It might be helpful to share with members that similar debates are taking place across the UK. I conducted a videoconference with the Welsh and Northern Irish culture ministers, along with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish directors of the BBC. There are common interests and there are different interests. We recognise that there is an asymmetrical nature not only to our devolution settlement, but to what each of those nations and areas requires from the BBC charter. I am very conscious of that.
Liam McArthur’s amendment would make the motion not as clear as it would otherwise be. He states factual information in the amendment, but it is unnecessary, in that I do not think that anybody in the debate has said anything that tries to undermine the BBC. On the contrary, there have been positive contributions about the opportunities.
I can crystallise the debate by saying that we are trying to deal with three issues—audience, access and accountability. On audiences, as Claire Baker made clear, it is important that we ensure that there is quality and that we understand what audiences want. However, everybody agrees that audiences in Scotland need better representation in some degree. The BBC has said that through Tony Hall’s remarks, and there is an acceptance that changes are required in that area.
There is also an issue about access to funding. The forensic accounting analysis from Gordon MacDonald in the committee and again today showed how we can make better use of existing resources if we know where they are, what contributes to the central network production and what can be used here. A simple accounting approach that measures the Scottish context at the end of the process cannot serve Scotland as well as a process that ensures that the BBC allocates the funding for Scotland up front to allow strategic commissioning. That was the subject of not only the Education and Culture Committee report but the report of Murdo Fraser’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which made a similar proposal about how we can better use existing resources to stimulate the creative industries in Scotland.
That goes back to the issue of accountability. I will praise Mary Scanlon when she is not here—she would be too shocked if she were here. Along with others, she has made a point about how the Parliament can ensure that the BBC can account for the money that is spent in Scotland and its purpose. We were in the process of considering that. It is helpful that the BBC has shared information on that, because we are not arguing about the figures any more and there is now a common understanding, but it is important that we make better use of that. Providing accountability on that issue is a key part of what we in the Parliament can do.
I agree with Liam McArthur about sustainability. I think that we in the Parliament believe in public service broadcasting. However, if we were debating the BBC at Westminster, part of the argument would be whether we should have public service broadcasting in the form of the BBC. Here, there is an absolute agreement that we want quality public service broadcasting and that we believe in the BBC delivering that for audiences not just in Scotland or the rest of the UK but globally. The issue is how we ensure that we have a sustainable solution for public service broadcasting and for the creative industries in Scotland. I think that we can marry those in a way that better serves Scotland. That is an argument that I can take forward—I think that we can get better economic impact and the diversity that we have talked about.
I suggest that a future committee might come back to the issues of diversity and sport and the agenda on women’s representation in the media. I raised that with the BBC yesterday, but perhaps we should come back to it as part of the charter process.
On where we go next, as I said, yesterday I met the secretary of state, John Whittingdale, and the BBC’s executive team. Next week, when I meet the BBC’s director-general, Tony Hall, I will reflect the views that have been expressed here. I think that we can make progress on the charter and on some of the non-charter issues that must be dealt with to improve the output of the BBC for Scotland. The BBC already offers a great deal to Scotland, but there is an opportunity for improvement, and everybody is up for that change.
The debate will be closely monitored and watched, which is why it is right to accept the Conservative and Labour amendments to our motion. People will be watching the debate, because Scotland has had a mature, reasoned, strong and articulate voice in the process. We are in a critical period for public service broadcasting. I am determined that we will use the opportunity to deliver not only for the people of Scotland but for the BBC. Support from across the chamber will be critical to our success. I am therefore pleased that we have had such a consensual debate. Important points have been made. We know the process for where we go with the BBC charter. The activity of the Parliament has shown what we are capable of and it will stand us in good stead as we work towards the completion of the BBC charter renewal.
Next
Fiscal Framework