Broadcasting
I remind members that we are short of time this afternoon. As a result of the two points of order, we have even less time.
The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on broadcasting. As always, the minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions during it. This will be a 10-minute statement.
When the First Minister spoke to the Scottish Parliament on 8 October last year, he identified three areas that he saw as being of particular importance: increasing network production by existing broadcasters; establishing a Scottish digital network; and improving accountability arrangements by giving Scottish institutions more power over Scottish broadcasting. All those issues arose from the report of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, which published its final report on 8 September last year after sitting for 13 months, hearing 83 hours of oral evidence and considering more than 200 written submissions. Unsurprisingly, the commission's final report was widely acclaimed as being rigorous, detailed and compelling. It is important that the report continues to command such an impressive consensus, because its implementation still requires support from across the broadcasting industry and the public sector in Scotland and the United Kingdom as well as from this Parliament. My statement today is what might be called the first annual report on the progress of implementing the commission's findings—a commitment that the First Minister made when he spoke last year. I will report today under the three areas that the First Minister identified.
On increased network production, the figures that were produced by the Office of Communications in August this year provide a stark reminder of why the commission and this Parliament have previously emphasised the issue. Ofcom's figures show that, between 2007 and 2008, Scotland's overall share of the value of network production decreased from 2.6 per cent to 2.5 per cent, its share of Channel 4 programming fell from 1.7 per cent to 1.4 per cent and its share of ITV network programming declined from 1.9 per cent to 1.4 per cent. There was a slight increase in Scotland's share of BBC programming—from 3.3 per cent to 3.7 per cent—but that was counterbalanced by a decline in overall BBC production across the UK.
The BBC and Channel 4 have made strong public commitments to do more to increase network production in Scotland. Since the commission's report, the BBC has appointed commissioning executives in Scotland for factual, entertainment and daytime programming, and it has built its expertise here in comedy, drama, factual programming, entertainment and children's programming. The BBC says that it is confident that Scotland's share of network production will increase significantly in 2009. Many remain doubtful, and the jury is out.
Channel 4 needs to play its part. I welcome Channel 4's commitment that a set number of programmes from key programme strands will be made in Scotland in future. I also welcome Channel 4's decision to establish a nations pilot fund to invest in new programming from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the fact is that only 1.4 per cent of Channel 4's network programming is made in Scotland. That is completely unacceptable. Channel 4 needs to do much more.
My job—and, I believe, the job of this Parliament—is publicly to hold the BBC and Channel 4 to account on these matters. Their rhetoric must be matched by progress. We must ensure that network production share in Scotland is increased rapidly, sustainably and in a way that brings genuine benefits to the Scottish production industry. A start has been made, but we need to keep an eye on what is happening so that improvement is made on that start.
Getting network broadcasters to increase their share of broadcasting production will bring major benefits to Scottish producers, but any such increase in demand requires the broadcasting industry to have a concomitant ability to meet it. That is why the Scottish Broadcasting Commission included in its report recommendations for Scottish public bodies to help the development of the industry. Their response has been positive. Scottish Enterprise is now working far more closely with the television production sector than was the case before the commission's report was published. Postgraduate students in broadcasting now benefit from the investment that the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council announced in March last year. Creative Scotland has agreed a clear way forward with local authorities and the enterprise agencies for supporting the creative industries. I firmly believe that creative Scotland will have an extremely positive impact on the television production industry, just as it will across all the other creative industries.
Some progress has been made on increasing network production, but more is needed. The First Minister's second point last October was about the establishment of a Scottish digital network, on which we have seen far less progress. The Parliament unanimously endorsed the need for progress on the issue. The Scottish Broadcasting Commission argued that a Scottish digital network would secure a sustainable source of competition to the BBC for public service broadcasting. Nothing that we have seen during the last year suggests that the need for such competition—and, therefore, for the network—has reduced. In fact, if anything, it has increased. In January, Ofcom reduced the amount of Scottish programming, other than news, that STV is obliged to provide to just 90 minutes a week. STV, of course, has promised to provide more Scottish programming than that, and to provide more high-quality, home-grown programming, but we await the outcomes.
The need for us to move forward with the network has been accepted by a number of people outwith Scotland, most notably Stephen Carter, who, in February, when he was the minister in charge of broadcasting, said in a House of Lords debate on public service broadcasting:
"I … recognise the importance, having been reared on it, of having news and content that reflects the nation's sense of itself … one of the things that we are seeing as a catch-up after the devolution agreements is how critical that is".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February; Vol 708, c 283.]
As I said, the Parliament endorsed the idea of a Scottish digital network. I agree with what my colleague Ted Brocklebank said in March, when he described the creation of a new network as
"the settled will of the Scottish Parliament".—[Official Report, 18 March 2009; c 15864.]
His words were not original but are resonant.
In that context, it is astonishing that the United Kingdom Government's final "Digital Britain" report simply ignored the need for a choice of non-news public service broadcasting content in Scotland. Although its recognition of the importance of ensuring sustainable news provision in Scotland was welcome—provided that it extends to the south of Scotland as well as to the current STV regions—"Digital Britain" missed a golden opportunity to rectify a difficulty that its author had correctly identified. As Blair Jenkins, the chair of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, pointed out after "Digital Britain" was published, it is simply not sustainable to say to Scottish audiences
"that they can have 500 channels, but none of them will be Scottish. That's not digital Britain, that's a digital deficit—and also a democratic, economic and cultural deficit."
I do not think that we as a Parliament can or should give up on the case for a digital network simply because the "Digital Britain" report ignored it.
The Scottish Government's power to establish a network is incredibly constrained, but we will continue to press the UK Government on the issue. I recently urged Ben Bradshaw to explain how the lack of competition in Scottish public service broadcasting can be addressed, and I hope that all MSPs will apply pressure on their Westminster counterparts to deliver the outcomes that Scotland needs.
Of course, I acknowledge that funding difficulties are an issue, but the Scottish Government has pledged to be as constructive as it can be in making suggestions to the UK Government and others on the issue. The argument is not just about money, although money is an element of it. We need to ensure that the unanimity on the issue in Parliament and in Scotland as a whole is maintained and increased, because that is how we will win the argument.
The final area that the First Minister highlighted last year was accountability. The Scottish Broadcasting Commission made some straightforward suggestions on how accountability could be improved. I welcome the fact that the Calman commission agreed with the SBC's recommendation that Scottish ministers should in future appoint members of the BBC Trust. That recommendation does not require legislation and is not dependent on any other recommendations in the Calman report. It can and should be implemented immediately.
I hope that recommendations in the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's report that relate to MG Alba and Ofcom can also be implemented. Those recommendations would require legislation, but the digital economy bill that will soon be introduced at Westminster represents an ideal opportunity to improve accountability.
It has been heartening to see the Scottish Parliament playing an increased role in scrutinising broadcasting. In particular, the director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, gave evidence to the enterprise and lifelong learning committee for the first time in June this year. I hope that such evidence sessions with heads of the major broadcasting organisations will take place regularly in the future.
My belief, of course, is that the devolution of broadcasting powers should go much further than what the Scottish Broadcasting Commission has proposed. That will be no surprise to anybody in the chamber. Nothing that I have witnessed in the past year, during which a report that commanded cross-party consensus at Holyrood was ignored at Westminster, has dissuaded me from that view. However, I recognise and respect the fact that many members hold a different view.
That is one reason why the Scottish Government is today publishing a national conversation paper on broadcasting, which sets out further options for how broadcasting in Scotland could evolve under four different constitutional arrangements. I hope that the document will inform genuinely open debate about broadcasting in Scotland. It goes without saying that Scotland should have additional powers over broadcasting. It should have different structures, and it should enhance those structures. How it should do that is a matter for debate. The fact that the Parliament has been able to express unanimity on a key issue is a strength.
The past year has been one of limited progress. The Scottish Broadcasting Commission's report has spurred some welcome moves, but they are far from complete. Scottish Enterprise and skills bodies have risen to the challenge, but the broadcasting companies have not yet fully done so. Much more needs to be done to meet the economic, democratic and cultural needs of the Scottish people.
I am happy to announce that, later this year, I will host a major national conference on broadcasting in conjunction with the Saltire Society to discuss the way forward for Scottish broadcasting. The conference will be informed by new research that has been commissioned on attitudes to broadcasting and broadcasting requirements in Scotland.
The current system is still short-changing viewers in Scotland one year on from the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's report. We can make the system better. I hope that members will unanimously agree the means by which to do so.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. We have barely 20 minutes for questions; after that, we will simply have to move on to the next item of business. It would therefore be useful if members kept their questions as short as possible.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
This is a difficult time for the media industry, including the broadcasting industry. The battle for STV's survival is reaching a critical point. There is consensus that we need a strong commercial television company. That should be a priority for the Government, even if it comes before some of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's good recommendations. There is a desire for a new Scottish digital network, but that should not come at the expense of STV or our existing network. What is the point of gaining a new digital network if we lose what we have now? The Scottish Government must put aside any differences and use its consensual mode, rather than its conflict mode, when it discusses with the UK Government how we can find a genuine solution and how we can work with the regulatory bodies for a workable solution for our existing broadcasting companies.
The Scottish Government has confirmed today that it wants to break down the current broadcasting model as we know it. Its primary aim is to separate Scotland from the UK's network, infrastructure and investment. We support increased scrutiny powers for the Scottish Parliament and greater accountability for network production in Scotland, but we still believe that our broadcasting must be part of the UK network. We believe that Scotland benefits from economies of scale. That is where the consensus ends. We do not want to move in the direction that the Scottish Government wants to move in.
There is consensus in that we, too, believe that the BBC and other broadcasters have neglected Scotland. We confirm that we will work with the Government to demand improvements in the share of production that is based in Scotland.
I press the member for a question.
What meetings has the minister had with Channel 4? Notwithstanding what we have said about where we believe the Scottish digital network fits in the level of priorities, what funding will the Scottish Government put up for Scottish production and to ensure that there is a Scottish digital network? Surely, in delivering that, there is a role for the Scottish Government in funding it, rather than just demanding it from Westminster.
Pauline McNeill asked a number of questions; I will try to run through them all.
At a time when the Labour Government at Westminster is cutting the Scottish budget by £500 million, asking us to find additional money for Scottish broadcasting is part of the fantasy wish-list approach that Labour spokespeople tend to enjoy. The reality is that, if the Westminster Government is prepared to enter into an agreement with the Scottish Government to devolve broadcasting power and the resources for broadcasting—with power must come resources—Pauline McNeill will not find us wanting in implementing a radical and important new policy for broadcasting in Scotland.
Pauline McNeill gave no indication in her questions or her commentary—and there was more commentary than there were questions—whether she continues to support the establishment of a digital network. Her analysis of the situation regarding ITV was extraordinary. To accuse the Scottish Government of being in conflict mode with ITV when it is ITV that has taken out a writ against STV seems to show that she does not even read the newspapers. I strongly support the work that STV does. STV itself has welcomed the idea of a digital network; it did so again in a meeting with me on Thursday. Our job is to ensure that there is healthy plurality and diversity. I met STV on Thursday and I continue to meet all those who are interested in broadcasting. I want to ensure that they all succeed.
Pauline McNeill should join all the other people in the chamber who want to see progress made on Scottish broadcasting as we continue to press her friends in London to deliver the Scottish broadcasting network. I do not judge her on the fact that she has so far failed to do so; I just ask her to do better in the future.
I, too, thank the minister for early sight of his statement. Although it was perhaps not quite as early as I might have liked, I understand why, in the current circumstances relating to STV, any statement on Scottish broadcasting had to be fairly carefully crafted.
The minister seeks to refresh the Government's support for the proposed digital channel for Scotland—a proposal that was first made by the Scottish Conservatives to Blair Jenkins's commission on broadcasting. I am happy to reiterate our continuing support for a Scottish digital channel that is funded largely by advertising or sponsorship, or a combination of both. Would the minister's support for such a channel be so enthusiastic if it were to become a UK digital channel? Clearly, Scotland would have its own place in such a structure. Does he not accept that a UK digital channel might prove a natural successor channel to ITV, particularly given the fact that, as he has noted, it appears that that organisation will walk away from its public service broadcasting responsibilities as early as 2012? Will he welcome the proposal that has been made by Jeremy Hunt, the shadow secretary of state for culture, that a future Conservative Government would set up a range of local or city television companies that would become opt-outs from possible UK and Scottish digital channels, which could effectively bypass the dated "Scottish Six" arguments and bring local TV news directly to communities all over Scotland?
There are some interesting points in what Mr Brocklebank says. However, I do not regard the "Scottish Six" project as dated; it is long overdue, but that is not the same thing. We need news that is reported in Scotland and which reports on Scotland, on these islands, on Europe and on the world from a Scottish viewpoint. That will be an important step forward, whoever delivers it.
We are trying to achieve increased plurality in broadcasting, which Mr Brocklebank supports. In that context, I am not looking for a successor to the ITV network; I am looking for more variety within Scotland. I foresee circumstances in which a federated UK digital channel—I know that the F-word comes as a shock to Liberal Democrats, who have more or less given it up—might be a possibility. There are all sorts of models. As Mr Brocklebank knows, I have deliberately not got locked into how the channel should be finally structured; I am interested in getting agreement in principle from Westminster that such a channel should be established. There is potential for discussion on those matters.
I offer the minister a point of clarification: Mark Thompson had the great misfortune to give evidence to the education committee.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I note with concern the lack of progress on a new digital network in Scotland, particularly in relation to the "Digital Britain" report.
I want to put on record our concerns about some of the developments at STV, as we received mixed messages yesterday on the "Scottish Six" on the one hand and the legal challenge from ITV on the other. I welcome the discussions that the minister has had with STV and ask him to give us further information about that.
It is essential that Scotland receives an increased share of production. To do that, we have to ensure that we have the skills in place. Will the minister comment on what progress has been made by the TV production working group of the Scottish digital media industry advisory group on setting industry priorities that respond to the challenges and opportunities facing the broadcasting sector to ensure that there is a clear approach from broadcasters, independent companies, support agencies and the Government to addressing the skills shortages that could be a barrier to growth in the sector? What role does the minister envisage that creative Scotland will play in that?
Much of the focus in relation to broadcasting has been on television production, but does the minister share our concerns about the viability of some local commercial radio stations, which serve fundamental local and community interests across Scotland?
The situation concerning ITV and STV is a legal dispute, which I cannot, therefore, get involved in. However, it illustrates, in general terms, the basic instability of the ITV settlement in the modern age and the fact that broadcasting has changed so enormously that the old-fashioned structures and licences are, by and large, irrelevant. There are real issues in there for the ITV companies and for STV in particular. I will keep a close eye on what takes place, but I repeat that the matter is a legal dispute within ITV that STV and ITV will have to settle themselves.
On the question of skills, it is always important to keep in one's mind the fact that there is potential for skills shortages, on which a great deal of work is being done. However, the real issue for most people who work in the sector is not the shortage of skills but the fact that skills are not being utilised. Many people who have such skills simply find that the telephone no longer rings. The other day, I happened to meet a cameraman with whom I used to work—I know that others in the chamber have worked with him, too—and he told me that he had not had a phone call about a job in six months.
Freelance and independent contractors in the industry face a problem, but the issue is not lack of skills but lack of work. That is why one of my concerns around the issue of production in Scotland is that there needs to be a real increase in production in Scotland, not a cosmetic increase.
Margaret Smith's reminder about radio was timely, as radio faces a number of issues. The independent radio structure in Scotland is interesting and has successes. We need to examine two aspects of it in particular: community radio and the changes that are needed in the regulatory framework so that community radio can grow; and the issues around Radio Scotland. The Broadcasting Commission's strictures on Radio Scotland were clear, but they have not been responded to. There is general disappointment at the performance of Radio Scotland, which will need to improve.
We come to open questions. One each please; we do not have long.
In light of the recent comments by STV about the editorial need—in its view—for an evening news bulletin combining Scottish with international stories, does the minister believe that the argument for such a bulletin on the BBC and STV has been strengthened rather than weakened?
Yes, but I ask the member to be cautious. The STV plan is interesting, but it is not fully worked through—all that I have seen is a clip of what it might look like. There are three hurdles to be overcome. The first is that, at the moment, there is a consultation, not a policy, on the independent news consortiums and the top-slicing of money for them. The second is that, even if the proposal becomes UK Government policy, there is no firmness yet about which areas will be covered. I am firmly of the view that the whole of Scotland, not just the Grampian and STV areas, should be covered. However, that is still to be decided. The third is the fact that there will be competition in terms of who would like to take part in the new system, as we know from an announcement last week. Therefore, the proposal is not a done deal.
I would like all broadcasters in Scotland to recognise the reality of news coverage, which is that news starts from where one is. In Scottish terms, that means looking at the world from Scotland. Scottish news coverage would be considerably better if that principle lay behind a "Scottish Six" on ITV and a "Scottish Six" on the BBC.
I declare an interest, as I am a very minor shareholder in STV.
Paragraph 1.28 of the national conversation document, "Opportunities for Broadcasting", says that the Government cannot comment in detail on the dispute between ITV and STV. However, Mr Russell will have seen the headlines in today's Daily Record about the latest twist in that dispute.
As the minister met them last Thursday, he knows that STV employs real people who do real jobs and produce real programmes for and about Scotland right now. What meetings has the minister held with ITV to assist in reaching a solution to that dispute that will protect those jobs?
I am happy to meet ITV, but the present issue concerns STV's decisions about its programming. It is, as Mr Whitton knows, a long-running dispute, and the issues are many and varied. I cannot solve or negotiate the dispute—I can only indicate my policy for broadcasting in Scotland; show generally, as I have done, strong support for the ITV network and what exists within it; and ensure that the staff understand that we wish to have a flourishing production industry in Scotland. I am pleased to do all those things.
If there would be any benefit in myself or others meeting ITV, we will do so. It is important to recognise that STV has a right to set its own agenda, its programming and its means of operating. However, it also has a responsibility not only to its staff—although that is important—but to its viewers, many of whom are somewhat puzzled by the way in which the company has proceeded.
I, like the minister, welcome STV's moves towards a "Scottish Six". Does he share my concern, however, about STV's proposal to reduce the north of Scotland broadcast by the former Grampian Television from 25 minutes to 10 minutes? Does he consider that that is not in the spirit of activities that are supported through public service broadcasting finance?
It is important that there is more diversity and plurality, and everyone—including those who work in broadcasting in the former Grampian Television area—will be better served by having a Scottish digital channel in addition to the existing service. It is not a good idea to reduce the service to any viewer in Scotland, but any new programme that might emerge is some distance away. As I said, it is at least three hurdles away from happening, and all that currently exists is a five-minute mock-up of what the programme might look like. I do not think that anyone's interests in any part of Scotland would be served by reducing the good local news service that exists. That is particularly true in the north-east, where there is a fondness for the type of local service that was provided by the former Grampian Television.
Does the minister accept that the news service that is produced in Aberdeen is regional rather than local, and that it has the highest audience penetration of any regional news programme anywhere in Scotland, England or Wales? Does he recognise that STV's current proposals would cut the level of production by nearly two thirds? How many jobs does he think will be put in jeopardy? Will he tell STV the next time he meets the company that he shares those concerns—if indeed he does—about the impact on the creative and media hub in Aberdeen?
STV is in no doubt that I share members' concerns about programme production and news production in the former Grampian Television region and throughout Scotland. I want to see more, not less. There is no question that I would in any way support the reduction of programming.
I return to my point that any such situation is rather a long way away, if it ever happens. There will be competition for the independent news consortiums if the network is established, but no one currently knows whether that will happen. The consultation ended yesterday, so there is considerable time for views to change at Westminster. Because it involves BBC top-slicing, there will be a vigorous argument about it.
Of course, we need more production, news and local and regional coverage rather than less. The concept of a "Scottish Six" is attractive. If it is done properly it will look at the world from where we are. With respect to Lewis Macdonald, that can be done from Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Galashiels or anywhere. Perhaps it should be done from Aberdeen.
The minister mentioned in his statement the extension of sustainable news provision to the south of Scotland as well as to the current STV regions. Does he agree that my constituents in the south of Scotland, and the Scottish Borders in particular, have paid a very heavy price for ITV's change to basing its news coverage in Tyneside? Does he support my call for STV to extend its coverage to the Scottish Borders?
Yes. I could go on at great length about that, but the Presiding Officer would not want me to. I have argued strongly with regard to the areas that Christine Grahame mentions—particularly Dumfriesshire and the south of Scotland, slightly further west than the area that the member is talking about—that the present dispensation that Ofcom has imposed is completely and utterly daft, and does not serve viewers in the area in any way.
I have said publicly—I am happy to say it again here—that the independent news consortium should, if it comes about, apply to the whole of Scotland, including the Scottish part of the border region. It would be unreasonable for it to cover every area but that one.
I thank the minister for his helpful list of what everyone else should be doing to support the new digital network. He talked about the roles of Scottish Enterprise and creative Scotland. Given the devolved powers over which the minister has control, what sort of support does he think his Administration is giving the new digital network? Mr Swinney's budget proposes a cut in the funds that are available to Scottish Enterprise, no more money but new powers for creative Scotland and, most important, no direct funds at all from the Government for the proposed new Scottish channel.
Mr Macintosh questioned me closely—I suppose that is what he was trying to do—on those matters at this morning's meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. The reality of the situation is that creative Scotland has the opportunity to draw in more resources from the enterprise network.
If Mr Macintosh will persuade his friend Gordon Brown—assuming that Gordon Brown is his friend—to rescind the £500 million cut and increase the resources to the Scottish Parliament, and if he will persuade his party to vote for independence for Scotland and the use of Scottish resources, I will fund the channel.
Can the minister provide Parliament with any further information on the Scottish Government's efforts to secure a wider audience for BBC Alba through its provision on Freeview?
I have said publicly that I and the Government favour the Freeview option for MG Alba. The option could be taken tomorrow. It is because of the incredibly bureaucratic structure of the BBC that the review is taking almost a year. Let us just do it. MG Alba needs a wider distribution mechanism and it is clear that there will be take-up on Freeview. There is no barrier to use of that option. The Government supports it. If was put to a vote in the chamber, Parliament would support it—I think that every party has supported it. If the BBC would stop counting the number of angels on the head of a pin and just do it, everybody would be pleased.
I ask Margo MacDonald to be very brief.
I think that I am the only person here who has worked on a local television station with news bunnies, weather in Swedish and topless darts.
Very briefly, please.
I advise against going down that route until a lot more money is available. I ask the minister to ensure that the language that is used in any further presentation of the idea, whether in the national conversation paper or elsewhere, is simplified. People on the streets do not understand the technicalities.
Please answer within 10 seconds, minister.
I disagree with Margo MacDonald. We are debating the policy and we need to be able to do so. As for news bunnies and topless darts, that is not my plan for Scottish broadcasting, although it might be hers.
On that note, we will move rapidly to the next item of business. I apologise to members whom I was unable to call.