Television (South of Scotland)
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-05112, in the name of Joan McAlpine, on television in the south of Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the decision of Maria Miller, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, not to block the renewal of Channel 3 television licences in 2014; understands and welcomes that this means that STV will continue to hold the licences for central Scotland and Grampian; expresses concern that ITV, which holds the Channel 3 licence for the former Border Television area, has limited public service content obligations; understands that local news in the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway comes mainly from Gateshead; notes that recent Ofcom research reports dissatisfaction in the area with the ITV local coverage; welcomes Ms Miller’s acknowledgement of the deficiencies in ITV’s local and Scottish news coverage in the Border Television region in her letter to Ofcom of 16 November 2012; further welcomes Ms Miller’s request that Ofcom work with ITV plc. to find a solution, and would welcome real choice for viewers across the south of Scotland.
17:09
I thank colleagues from across the chamber who intend to speak in the debate.
The granting of commercial public sector television licences is a complex matter that is done by the regulator, the Office of Communications, after consultation with the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Maria Miller. In November last year, Ms Miller announced that she would allow the renewal of channel 3 licences across the UK for another 10 years, subject to negotiation. Ms Miller’s announcement was broadly welcomed by the industry, for understandable reasons. Commercial pressures have been considerable in the past decade, as advertising revenues have declined, and the renewal offers a period of stability.
I am pleased that STV, a company that has in recent years exceeded its regulatory requirements for opt-out Scottish programming, will continue to hold the licence for central and northern Scotland. However, none of the programmes that STV makes about Scotland, including the much-acclaimed “Scotland Tonight” is shown in the former Border Television area of the south of Scotland, which takes in around 200,000 people, from Stranraer and Dumfries in the west to the Borders towns in the east. That means that viewers miss out on information about services that are decided in the Scottish Parliament—the things that they really care about, such as health, education and justice. Unless things change, the viewers will have less information than other Scots will have about the referendum in 2014, from both sides of the argument.
In addition to that curtailed national dimension, the local news that covers the Scottish side of the border is inadequate. In February 2009, ITV Border and ITV Tyne Tees merged, making 51 of the 64 staff at ITV Border redundant. Operations for ITV Border, including news, moved from Carlisle to Gateshead, and capacity to cover local news and current affairs was reduced. Many of my constituents will say that the news service pre-2009 was far from perfect but, since then, the level of dissatisfaction has increased considerably. The main regional news programmes are ITV Tyne Tees news and “Lookaround”, which airs at 6 pm, with a short bulletin at 10.30 pm each day.
Ofcom research that was conducted last year at the request of Ms Miller concluded:
“viewers in the south of Scotland were significantly less satisfied than those further north with the coverage of Scottish news, with only 49% responding positively compared to 64% and 74% in central and northern Scotland respectively.”
According to Ofcom, viewers in southern Scotland felt that stories from the urban north-east of England and Carlisle dominated the programme, and the location of ITV Tyne Tees in Gateshead was seen as a real problem.
A number of constituents have complained to me and offered specific examples. For example, Andrew Simpson of Dumfries told me that the local TV coverage this week of high-speed rail focused on the residents of a place called Church Fenton near York, who were concerned about the value of their houses dropping because of the proximity of the railway.
In addition to such individual comments, my motion has received support from organisations such as the Scottish Borders Chamber of Commerce, a spokesman for which told me:
“The Chamber’s view is that a simple question needs to be asked. Will we get better coverage of the Borders by being connected to STV or a station with its HQ in the North of England? More coverage can only be good for our local businesses and tourism. So many great things are happening in the Borders just now and we feel that this is not getting the coverage it deserves. Also, the Borders are part of Scotland. It is simply ridiculous that at the time of a referendum on Scottish independence we are not able to receive programmes such as ‘Scotland Tonight’.”
Such is the strength of feeling in the Scottish Borders Chamber of Commerce that it intends to hold an event in May on the future of the media in the Borders.
If we look at past coverage of Scottish political issues in the regional TV area, the 2012 local elections provide a good illustration of the disparity between coverage in the ITV Tyne Tees and Border region and in the STV region, where a number of special reports were shown. Members will see from the briefing that ITV provided that the offering in Scotland is more popular than other regional channel 3 news programmes. ITV also argues that the Ofcom research that I quoted earlier showed that the greatest demand was for more local news and that few individuals in the focus group that was interviewed spontaneously asked for additional coverage from Scotland. However, there are reasons for that. The south of Scotland is poorly served by the BBC. In the south, the BBC has some excellent journalists, but capacity has been scaled back in recent years. The only place for local news is channel 3, which is why viewers tune in to “Lookaround”, hoping—often in vain—to see something local.
It is true that Ofcom’s research also demonstrates a greater demand for local news. However, when they were asked, people said that the choice of Scottish news was inadequate. Industry experts have pointed out to me that the Ofcom questions were framed in such a way that respondents would ask for coverage that they had already lost due to the merger. It is much more difficult to expect people to ask for something that they have never had. You cannot miss what you have not had.
There is also a democratic aspect to the debate. At the moment, the BBC is the only provider of national Scottish news and current affairs in the south of Scotland. If the BBC was the only provider of news and current affairs for the whole of the UK, with no Sky or ITN, we would not regard that as satisfactory or democratic. Indeed, one of the reasons why the Jimmy Savile affair damaged the BBC so much was the perception that people were not told the whole story and that the BBC had somehow covered up his crimes and left its commercial rivals to expose him.
In its last public service broadcasting review, Ofcom found that 86 per cent of UK viewers thought that plurality of news provision among television channels was really important and 77 per cent assigned a similar value to current affairs. Those findings are reflected in the Scottish research, which was carried out in 2010 for the Scottish Broadcasting Commission and found that three quarters of viewers wanted a choice of providers of Scottish television news.
How do we go forward from here? My preference—and I believe the Scottish Government’s preference—is for a single Scottish licence. It is significant that Wales will get a new countrywide licence from 2014 at Maria Miller’s instruction. My earlier quote from the Scottish Borders Chamber of Commerce suggests that it shares my view. However, a single Scottish licence is not possible unless ITV consents, which it has not done.
I am pleased that Maria Miller has asked Ofcom to work with ITV to address the poor news offering in the Borders region. However, I am extremely concerned that ITV is in denial about the problem. In a letter to the clerk of the Education and Culture Committee last February, Magnus Brooke, director of regulatory affairs at ITV, insisted that the company was serving viewers in the Borders “highly effectively”. It has now been forced to accept that the Ofcom research shows that that is not the case. However, the ITV briefing to MSPs for this debate seems grudging, as it complains about the cost of provision and suggests that demands for Scottish content are political.
There is a long way to go and Ofcom must be forceful on the matter. It must demonstrate that, although it reports to the UK Parliament, it appreciates the distinctive needs of Scotland as a nation and the particular requirements of our rural communities, such as those in the south of Scotland, which will be more expensive to serve, no matter who serves them.
There is an easy way forward. ITV could negotiate with STV to take its non-news programming, including “Scotland Tonight”. ITV could provide a local opt-out, which could give in-depth coverage for the south of Scotland.
Given the political choices that Scotland faces, I expect Ofcom to be proactive in facilitating an agreement as soon as possible, long before the licence is renewed, for the sake of democracy and choice.
17:17
I congratulate Joan McAlpine on securing the debate.
TV coverage in the south of Scotland has caused a degree of contention over the years. Indeed, prior to the introduction of digital TV, many of us were unable to access BBC Scotland on an analogue signal, which was extremely frustrating. Some of the frustrations have died down a bit, because we are now able to get BBC Scotland in my constituency.
I appreciate that this may not have been the case across the former Border TV area, but viewers in Dumfries and Galloway were generally content with the service that Border TV offered.
I read with interest Joan McAlpine’s column in yesterday’s Daily Record, in which she compared the situation with that of people in the south of England receiving news from France. That is not the case for people in the east of Dumfries and Galloway. We are interested in Carlisle, as it is the nearest city to most of my constituents. Indeed, in much of eastern Dumfriesshire, Carlisle is at least as accessible as Dumfries, which has sometimes been a disadvantage to Dumfries. East Dumfriesshire residents travel to Carlisle for work, leisure and retail and are probably more interested in what is happening there than in Edinburgh or Glasgow.
Colleagues from the south of Scotland may recall that in the early days of the Parliament we were very well served by Border TV. Dedicated staff were based in this building and regularly interviewed us on all manner of issues, including the legislative programme and everything else. It is unfortunate that tough times and competition with new media hit the broadcasting sector and, as Joan McAlpine said, Border TV was subsumed into the larger ITV Tyne Tees region. I think that that is what created most of the dissatisfaction, certainly in Dumfries and Galloway, or the eastern part of it.
The research that Ofcom commissioned last year bears out what I have heard from many constituents. The area of coverage is now too large and people are not interested in local news from Sunderland and Newcastle, which they rarely visit. There is a perception that the share of news that is local to our area has been reduced.
However, now that we can receive BBC Scotland, the lack of a national Scottish component of ITV news is perhaps of less concern than it was previously, although I am certainly not saying that it is of no concern. Many viewers access the BBC for national news and then hope to go to channel 3 to catch up with local news.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I have only four minutes.
Joan McAlpine expressed concern in her column about whether councils are getting enough news coverage. I do not know about coverage in other council areas, but Dumfries and Galloway Council certainly gets some TV coverage in the local news, although maybe not as much as we would like it to get.
Despite what we say about ITV Tyne Tees, the news programme “Lookaround” attracts a higher percentage of viewers in the Scottish Border area—just under 50 per cent—than it does in the entire Tyne Tees and Border area, and significantly more viewers than ITV or STV attracts in general across their areas of broadcasting. We complain about “Lookaround”, but we still like it.
However, given the responses to the research that Ofcom commissioned, which reflect general opinion, as I said, I am pleased to learn that ITV is planning to introduce an enhanced and more distinct news service for the Border area and that it is taking account of what it described as a political desire for more Scottish content—I am not sure whether that was intended to be offensive.
However, ITV argues—and this is where one begins to worry—that expenditure per capita in the Tyne Tees Border area is already higher than it is in any other ITV region and that news enhancements would incur additional expenses that might be disproportionate. I suggest that the higher expenditure is probably due to the sparsity of the population.
You must conclude, please.
It becomes difficult to see how the circle can be squared. Ofcom has been tasked by the secretary of state with finding a way forward that preserves or strengthens the public service broadcasting commitment and addresses the need for a greater proportion of local news and increased Scottish content—
I am afraid that I must ask you to finish.
Given that the issues have been correctly identified, I hope that the next step is to agree how we improve the local TV news services in the Border TV area of Scotland.
I must ask members to keep to four minutes.
17:22
I congratulate Joan McAlpine on securing this debate on an issue that is of importance and concern to constituents in the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway. I am pleased that the Parliament is pursuing the issue, given the number of constituents who have been in touch with us to talk about their on-going concerns about the poor coverage that they continue to receive.
Members will recall the debate on the subject in October 2011. The concerns that members expressed then have not gone away, but they have been collated, surveyed and assessed by Ofcom. Perhaps now that the regulator, the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Maria Miller, and ITV have seen for themselves the level of dissatisfaction among the viewing public in the south of Scotland, rather than simply hearing that dissatisfaction expressed here, they will start to take a proper interest in improving the situation.
Let us be clear: the situation needs to be improved. Respondents to the Essential Research study for Ofcom said that the ITV Tyne Tees and Border area is too large and that reporting is skewed towards the urban centres of the north-east of England. I therefore welcome Maria Miller’s recognition that the warnings that were given in 2009 and the concerns that we raised in 2011 were well founded. I am slightly encouraged by her request that ITV and Ofcom address the unmet demand for local news and Scottish programming in the south of Scotland. However, we still need to see action.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the south of Scotland audience. The south of Scotland is a rich tapestry of distinctive communities, and ITV has an ideal market for a different and very local model of TV, if it is only bold enough to try it. If it chooses not to do that, the alternatives are increasingly clear.
The Scottish Government favours a Scottish digital channel, which was a key recommendation of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. That is also strongly supported by bodies that have worked hard on local TV for the south of Scotland, such as the south of Scotland alliance and the Scottish Local Television Federation.
There are a number of hyperlocal TV channels, including Annandale TV in the south. When people do not like what they have, they will find ways of doing it themselves. Hyperlocal TV is hindered by broadband speeds and availability across a rural region but, as next generation broadband is rolled out with the assistance of the Scottish Government, those technical obstacles will fall.
Ultimately, there is nothing to protect any commercial television company’s news provision from the same fate that has befallen print journalism through the growth of the internet; there is nothing except a willingness to change—to move away from large multiregional conglomerations that please nobody—and give viewers the content that they want, rather than what suits the company.
As matters stand, people from Drummore to Eyemouth learn more in their local TV news about what happens in Carlisle and Gateshead than about their own areas. They hear much more about Carlisle City Council, instead of the decisions that their locally elected members take on vital services in the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway. Any mention of events that affect the region is fleeting at best. As my colleague Joan McAlpine said, both sides of the argument on Scotland’s independence referendum will lose out.
Nowhere else in Scotland—and certainly nowhere else in Britain—would tolerate such a position. It is up to Ofcom, the UK culture secretary and ITV to come up with a better offer. I hope that that will be substantial, but it certainly cannot be more of the same.
17:26
I welcome the opportunity to debate television services in the south of Scotland, and I congratulate Joan McAlpine on securing parliamentary time to discuss the issue.
The quality, as well as the plurality, of television programming is a matter of great importance in the Borders constituency that I represent, especially when it comes to national and local news provision.
The UK broadcasting map is a complicated business, with licensee boundary lines seemingly drawn more by historical accident than careful planning, with the result that licence boundaries do not directly duplicate geographical ones. Not only that, but in the south of Scotland the profile of Borders television has changed significantly since the amalgamation of ITV Borders with ITV Tyne Tees in 2009. For many, that was one merger too far, with viewers in the Borders becoming understandably upset at the loss of regionally tailored services that resulted in programming and news coverage from areas that were of little local interest or relevance.
Therefore, it comes as little surprise to me that contentment levels with channel 3 have been in decline, with satisfaction in Scottish news programmes in particular decreasing by 9 per cent between 2007 and 2010. It was against that background that the UK culture secretary, Maria Miller, announced in November 2012 that channels 3 and 5 are to have their licences renewed for another 10 years in 2014. That move is to be welcomed; it gives much-needed certainty to the broadcasting industry that depends on those channels and the significant investment that they attract in their regions.
The secretary of state has instructed Ofcom to begin discussions with licence holders on the cost and terms of possible renewals. I agree—and endorse—the two issues that she has highlighted as important components of any negotiations. Those issues are, first, the need for licence holders to maintain, or increase, current levels of public service requirements; and, secondly, the requirement for careful scrutiny of proposals advanced by ITV that could leave viewers in the south of Scotland with a lower level of Scottish programming than elsewhere in Scotland.
On the first point, it is, of course, essential that licensees deliver quality public service programming. It is therefore pleasing to see that Ofcom’s recent report, “Licensing of Channel 3 and Channel 5”, concluded that licensees of both services exceeded their respective production and programming obligations between 2007 and 2010. However, although exceeding current obligations is to be applauded, that does not mean that we should not be pushing further.
The secretary of state has secured increased commitments for UK-sourced children’s programming on channel 5 from Northern and Shell, and there is no reason against an ambitious approach to public service requirements for channel 3, for example, in local news or regional content.
That brings me to my second point. Some—including members in the chamber, as we have heard tonight—have used the disquiet and the lack of regionally tailored television services in the south of Scotland as an argument in favour of a Scotland-wide service, as under the model proposed by STV.
However, as Ofcom’s report noted, although viewers in the south of Scotland were less satisfied with Scottish news coverage from their channel 3 licensee than viewers elsewhere in Scotland were with the coverage from STV, they placed “considerably more importance” than other Scots on the need for a focus on their local area. On that basis, especially when it comes to news, neither the status quo nor a Scotland-wide STV service appears to be the way forward.
For that reason, last June I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs whether she agreed that local broadcasting in the Borders would be better served by having a more local service dedicated to the south of Scotland, which could be supplemented with coverage of national Scottish issues, than it would be by having a Scotland-wide service, as would be the case under the STV proposals. I was pleased that, in her response, the cabinet secretary agreed with me on the matter, and I hope that other members will join us in agreeing that that is the best way forward.
I must ask you to conclude.
One way of achieving that could be through a public service requirement obligation on licensees. I urge other members to consider that approach. In that respect, I would very much welcome any proposal from ITV to enhance the news and current affairs service for southern Scotland, and to return to the traditional, smaller Border region without Tyne Tees. I believe that that would more fully reflect viewers’ wishes.
I again congratulate Joan McAlpine on securing the debate, and I commend other members for their thoughtful speeches.
Again, I make a plea for four-minute speeches.
17:31
I welcome the debate, which was secured by the highly knowledgeable Joan McAlpine.
We may or may not be bemused that Maria Miller—she of Remploy fame—says that she will not block the renewal of channel 3 television licences, with ITV still covering the Borders. She acknowledges that there are deficiencies in ITV’s local and Scottish news coverage in the Border Television region. We should add to that her ministerial predecessor’s comment that he wanted people to be able to
“watch television that’s truly relevant to them, about what’s happening where they live and featuring the people they know.”
What is relevant to the Borders, to Dumfries and Galloway and, indeed, to the communities and people of Scotland as we approach a momentous time in the country’s history is that we reassure them that Gateshead, Carlisle and Leeds are not in Scotland. Perhaps we should send Ms Miller a sat nav. The main provider of commercial television to the Borders should be Scots. It should be STV.
People in Scotland spend an average of 4.5 hours per day watching television—that is the highest figure in the UK. According to Ofcom, nine out of 10 adults consume local and national news, and 75 per cent of them rate local news and weather as personal and important types of communication for them. Those are facts that cannot be disputed. There are, of course, some technical and cost issues to do with transmission and transmitters, but they are not insurmountable.
Equally, it is feasible to support that national network with already proven community television, which Aileen McLeod mentioned. Communities are setting up their own local broadband television networks as part of the URTV Community News TV digital network. As has been mentioned, the success of Helensburgh and Lomond TV has been followed by that of Annandale TV. Launched in May 2012, it serves the communities of Annan, Lockerbie, Moffat, Gretna and Langholm.
Those local channels cover major issues. There is a doctor who does a programme on Helensburgh and Lomond TV who says that he can reach 8,500 people, which would otherwise be impossible for him to do. The aim of Community News TV is to create a community-run co-operative network of social enterprise channels. It wants to provide professional public service communication through broadband TV. By working alongside a major licensee for national news and programmes dedicated to the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway areas, it could match the expectations of the television viewers—the customers—in those areas.
I suggest that local and television news and weather provision on digital terrestrial television that is managed by STV and which is complemented by internet protocol television such as that provided by Community News TV is no less than the people of the south of Scotland deserve.
17:34
It is a pleasure to speak in this evening’s debate, which is on a topic that has vexed many of my constituents as well as me since the merger of the Border and Tyne Tees regions by ITV back in 2009. I, too, congratulate Joan McAlpine on bringing the subject to the chamber for debate.
As is the case with most members who represent the south, I suspect, my contact with constituents often leads to conversations about the relevance of the region’s news output on channel 3. It was such conversations that led me to make representations to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and to have meetings with both Ofcom and—with other members—ITV to press the case for greater Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway content for people in southern Scotland. As others have said, the secretary of state made clear in her letter to Ofcom that she also has concerns about the output that is received by those in southern Scotland, and I welcome her desire for Ofcom to address the matter.
I make clear my admiration for the staff at ITV Border, particularly those who are based at Holyrood and in the region—Kathryn Samson and Jenny Longden are just two of them—as they are hard working and they produce good-quality output. My issue is not the standard of ITV Border’s news output, but its relevance. From what others have said, I am not alone in that.
The research that Ofcom published last year revealed that those who had no issue with the content of news service output were those who had low interest in regional news or were infrequent viewers—essentially, it was those who had little need or desire to use the service in any case. Everyone else in the Stranraer, Galashiels and Dumfries focus groups had concerns about the urban bias towards the north-east of England that has become prevalent since the merger.
There is an appetite for change among most of my constituents and indeed most members who are in the chamber this evening. The question is what shape the change should take. Joan McAlpine appears to support STV assuming responsibility for the output that is currently provided by ITV Border. However, people in Stranraer and Eyemouth would argue, as would I, that Glasgow is as remote from them as Newcastle. The consensus is that, if people want national news, they will watch “Reporting Scotland” on the BBC, as Elaine Murray said. They see channel 3’s regional news as the place for more localised content.
The upcoming independence referendum necessitates relevant news output from broadcasters with public service obligations. At present, there is a problem with people being adequately informed about the goings-on here at Holyrood—a problem that is compounded for viewers in the region by the absence of “Scotland Tonight”. Although STV news would remedy that problem, I suspect that the north-east of England bias would simply be replaced by a central belt bias. The research project made it clear that, although that option might be slightly preferable to the status quo, the preferred option, as John Lamont mentioned, remains going back to the pre-2009 service, under which it was more commonplace to see news crews on the streets of Dumfries, Selkirk and Galashiels.
I welcome ITV’s confirmation that it is discussing the matter with Ofcom and looking at ways in which to retain a local news programme with more local content. That is a positive step and I look forward to monitoring the progress of the discussions in the coming weeks.
17:38
I will be quite brief because members have already said some of the things that I wanted to say. However, I want to touch on a couple of issues. The first is something that almost every speaker has mentioned, which is the dissatisfaction with the news coverage that we get at present. We need to be a little bit careful about the direction in which we point the finger for the cause of that dissatisfaction. As a constituency member, I have to agree with something that Elaine Murray said. Many of my constituents, particularly those in the east of my constituency, are interested in what happens in Carlisle and Cumbria. It would be wrong to write that off as a reason for having to look at the matter.
It is important to look at the research, which showed clearly that the dissatisfaction exists largely because it is felt that the area that is covered in the current offering is too big. The cause of the dissatisfaction is the amount of local news—for Dumfries and Galloway or the Borders—that is contained within the wider offering of ITV regional news. We need to be clear about that. The amount of national news is not a key driver of satisfaction.
That leads me on to the issue of real choice, which the motion mentions. I grew up on the west coast of Scotland, where we could get only BBC Northern Ireland. I missed many punchlines of jokes and high spots of films because of cuts to newsflashes in Northern Ireland during the awful troubles, which are, fortunately, largely behind us. The current situation is therefore a lot better than the situation then, despite there being room for improvement.
We must recognise that the Ofcom research showed quite clearly that the respondents believed that the BBC’s news coverage acts as quite a good complement to the ITV offering. Jim Hume referred to that. People see the two together. If they want national news, they will possibly go to the BBC rather than to the ITV offering. Therefore, viewers have a choice, particularly when we add in the increasing number of people who watch through digital channels and online systems and programmes.
The desire for much more local coverage is not in doubt. I, too, remember the debate back in October 2011—I think that it was then—when we discussed exactly that matter. Chic Brodie showed clearly what advances are being made in local stations and how people are taking matters into their own hands. I very much welcome that.
I also welcome the fact that Ofcom and ITV are apparently working together to try to address concerns. Maria Miller told them to do so—I welcome that, too. If some of Joan McAlpine’s suggested options to improve that are workable, I welcome them, because there is a genuine issue.
The one thing that shines through the debate that is quite clear and on which everybody agrees is that the vast majority of participants and constituents in our part of Scotland have called for a return to the footprint and, indeed, the format of the pre-merger ITV Border news. I strongly endorse that. If something like that comes out of the discussions, I warmly welcome them.
17:42
Members may wonder why someone from the north-east of Scotland is participating in the debate. I noted that the motion refers to
“real choice for viewers across the south of Scotland”,
and thought that it might be useful to talk about what happens elsewhere in Scotland and how that might be relevant to the debate, and to talk more generally about the value of television’s being a part of communities engaging with themselves and talking to one another.
In the north-east of Scotland, we talk about “Having a news,” which involves calling on a neighbour, having a discussion and talking about things in general. Good local media support and sustain that.
Good communication and information flow also support economic and political success. Two thousand years ago, it took the Greeks 30 days to send a message to one of their outposts, and it took another 30 days to get a message back—an incredibly long time. A person would have forgotten what the question was by the time they got the answer.
The Romans improved things dramatically; they could send a message from Londinium to Roma and get a reply back on the same day by a system of hilltop signalling. It did not work at night or if there was fog, but it was a huge improvement.
To move forward rapidly, it was a huge step forward when Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated the telephone in 1876. By 1881—only five years later—Edinburgh had 300 telephone subscribers. People want good-quality communications that are relevant to them.
I have done family-tree research for many years, and have a letter to my great-great-grandfather that is dated 1870. It was written over a period of a month and told him that one of his sons who lived in Scotland had died; my great-great-grandfather was in Canada. That was such a precious communication that the writer waited until the outcome of the illness before sending it. It shows that familial conversation, as well as community conversation, is important. I remember that my father’s first telephone call to the United States in 1958 had to be booked a day in advance and that it cost half the average working man’s weekly wage.
We now have a television pattern that was established when ITV started in around 1955. It will change, and it is changing. We have already seen that with STV. It is not a monolithic news service—there are four separate bulletins across Scotland. More fundamentally, as a commercial imperative STV is now reaching down into communities, with local reporters, local websites and local TV inserts, which are often picked up and used. In my constituency alone there are two STV websites—in Buckie and Peterhead. Such action will be a key part of sustaining companies that were born in the mid-1950s into the next 30 or 40 years. The future will not be like the past.
On journalists from television companies, Colin Wight at BBC Aberdeen goes out with a camera on his own. He writes for the web, he does for radio and he does for TV. That will be the pattern—people getting to the root of what is going on. A letter that I got from my relatives in Canada took 360 milliseconds to arrive—not the 360 minutes it took the Romans to talk to London. In the future, it will be so instantaneous it will not be true. We have to find ways of delivering for the Borders. Perhaps they can show the rest of us how to do it, because their need is greatest.
Thank you, Mr Stevenson. I am glad that you returned to the Borders at the end of your speech.
17:46
I, too, congratulate Joan McAIpine on securing the debate on a very important subject. She set out the issues very well. I also thank all the other members who have spoken. We have probably had more members’ business debates on this one subject of broadcasting in the south of Scotland than on any other subject. That says something about how people, particularly in the south of Scotland, view the issue as being important.
As the motion makes clear, the prospective relicensing of channel 3 has particular implications for the south of Scotland, and I will come to those shortly. It is a subject that concerns Scotland as a whole, partly because it matters to all of us that viewers in the south of Scotland should, as a democratic right, be able to see news and current affairs coverage on the same basis as viewers elsewhere in Scotland, and also because, in relation to channel 3 licensing, the future of STV as a major Scottish media company matters to us all.
Lord Thomson of Fleet—the Canadian media entrepreneur, Roy Thomson—who first acquired the Scottish Television licence back in 1957, described an independent television franchise as
“like having your own licence to print money”.
Broadcasting has moved on. In 1957 there were only two channels. Now there are almost 50 on free-to-air terrestrial television, and many hundreds through cable and satellite. The move from analogue television to digital, cable and satellite services has greatly increased the choice that is available, which is good news for viewers. For broadcasters, however, one of the consequences is that simply owning a channel does not guarantee success. Lord Thomson printed money, but now it has to be earned through quality programming.
It is therefore good to see STV doing so well. In 2011, its pre-tax profits rose by 12 per cent. STV has won the local television licences for Edinburgh and Glasgow. We would have preferred a different model for local television. One that was provided through a Scottish digital network with local opt-out programming would have met John Lamont’s call for local coverage in the Borders and elsewhere. However, STV had to bid for what was on offer, and it is to be congratulated on its success against the competition. As STV will not be taking up the minimum £300,000 of BBC funding for local television content, it is vital that that be used to boost BBC Scotland’s news and current affairs resources, which are already being cut severely. I am writing to the BBC’s acting director-general to that effect.
A public sector broadcaster should not be judged only on financial success or even on the employment that it generates. The key test is the extent to which public service broadcasting requirements are met. In that, too, STV is doing well. The advice from Ofcom to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on channel 3 relicensing, in May last year, specifically praised the level of regional news programming by STV, which has been mentioned by a number of members. The recent announcement by the culture secretary that she will allow Ofcom to proceed to renew channel 3 licences for a further 10 years is to be welcomed. For STV, that ensures a stable basis on which to plan for the future.
I also welcome the fact that renewal will be on condition of addressing the issues in the south of Scotland. The Scottish Government has persistently pushed for that, and it was highlighted by the Scottish Broadcasting Commission that we established in 2007. I have personally pursued the case in meetings with the chief executives of both STV and ITV, and in meetings and correspondence with UK ministers. I know that many members of this Parliament have also pushed the cause; I welcome the fact that so many have done so again tonight.
It is clearly right that viewers across Scotland should receive coverage about Scottish health, Scottish education and the range of matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, in a way that is appropriate to their experience and locality, and to what matters to them. It is a case that we should consider under devolution, because it is about reflecting to people what matters to them and their experiences. However, it is also a cause that is now more important than ever, as over the next two years Scotland approaches its most momentous decision in over 300 years.
That highlights a problem of timing. The renewal of the channel 3 licences will take effect at the earliest from 1 January 2015—after the independence referendum in autumn 2014. It is therefore essential that we see progress in the south of Scotland, not just in the context of the new licences but under the existing licences. I will give an example of why that progress is needed soon.
In the spring this year—which is not, however wintry it might seem now, that far away—STV will show a major three part three-hour documentary on the background to the current referendum debate, entitled “Road to the Referendum”. The series will take an in-depth look at how the constitutional debate has evolved over the past few decades. That is exactly the sort of programming that people in the south of Scotland deserve to see as much as people in the rest of Scotland do, regardless of what side of the debate they are on. Such programming should be shown, as part of the public service broadcasting condition to inform and educate, at an appropriate slot in the schedule rather than in the small hours.
ITV has, in the past, made available significant events including the debates for the Scottish Parliament election of 2011, so I call on it to take a similar proactive stance during the next two years. I emphasise that this is about democracy; it causes me concern that people see it in a political way. It is about educating and informing as part of public service broadcasting.
We all have an interest in seeing a referendum that fully meets modern democratic standards, of which adequate coverage throughout Scotland by the broadcast media must surely be part. If Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders do not have the same extent and range of coverage, that will result in a democratic deficit in public service broadcasting. We will see Ofcom consult on channel 3 relicensing, which will obviously take place after 2015 and the other date to which I referred. However, we need to see three particular things in that consultation. First, it must be an open consultation that involves everyone and does not just reflect negotiation with the licence holders. Secondly, it must be an informed consultation that sets out all the options, including for adjusting the transmission infrastructure to direct Scottish content to Scotland and, thirdly and probably most important, it must be a consultation that is rooted in the public service broadcasting mission to inform, educate and entertain.
The interest in democracy transcends any party political interest. That is why this is a subject on which all parties in the Parliament can unite. However, it is important that for the channel 3 relicensing we think about not just what will happen after the relicensing but what will happen in the period up until the relicensing. The intense and intellectual arguments that everyone in this debate made, very much informed by the experience of local constituents, were well founded.
This is not an issue that will easily go away; it should not go away. I agree with all members who have spoken that their constituents deserve better. We have yet to see what “better” looks like, but we can all agree that they deserve it.
Meeting closed at 17:53.