“The Scheme”
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-00193, in the name of Willie Coffey, on “The Scheme”. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the interest in, and issues raised by, BBC Scotland’s programme, The Scheme; considers that the programme, almost exclusively highlighting people with drug and alcohol addictions, gave an unfair impression of the wider community of Onthank; recognises the many challenges facing people with addictions and leading chaotic lives all over Scotland, and supports measures to assist those leading such lives who want to break the cycle of addiction and return to a normal life.
12:34
I lodged the motion to help to restore some balance to the story that the BBC told about my community in Onthank. Despite the film makers’ initial promises that the film would be balanced, it turned out to be nothing of the kind. We did not expect a gloss-over of many of the problems and issues that can be seen anywhere else in Scotland, but we were entitled to expect some balance from a publicly funded broadcaster that takes money from people in licence fees only to turn against them by depicting their community in such a way. It was tabloid TV at its worst.
Local people were kidded and conned by the venture. They feel used and abused, and many who agreed to be filmed now wish that they had not done so. It simply is not good enough to say that it was an exposé of chaotic lifestyles and an insight into addiction. If that was the case, why was it necessary to accompany the stories with the depressing visuals of water running down the drains on a rainy day and graffiti-covered walls and shots of privately owned derelict flats? That was what upset so many local people. The film showed vulnerable, at-risk people parading and playing up in front of the camera, but showed the wider community in a very poor light, too. As recently as a few weeks ago, local children who were playing football for their school team were jeered as “The Scheme” team. There is no defence for that, and there has been no hint of an apology from the BBC.
We will not find out the impact on the community as a whole if we read the brief from Ian Small from the BBC, as it does not mention that. I take it from that that the BBC is not interested in how the community in Onthank feels about the programme that it commissioned. All that we got was the usual stats about how good the viewing figures were. If the programme is the best thing that the BBC has done in Scotland for 10 years, that raises questions about what on earth it has been doing with its public funding for so long.
It was wrong and dangerous to expose on TV for nothing more than public entertainment people who are already at risk and lead chaotic lifestyles. I am sure that the public are following with some alarm the progress made by a few of them since the programme was shown. What will happen to those people when the interest fades, the interviews end and the money runs out? Who will look after them? It certainly will not be the BBC; rather, the decent, honest folk of Onthank, the local authority and voluntary staff will pick up the pieces from those chaotic lifestyles and try to help people to recover some kind of normality. How dare people breenge into our community, do that to us and then swan off into the sunset, leaving behind nothing but an angry community and broken hearts.
Mr Small has claimed that what was on screen was neither contrived nor constructed. How on earth did the camera crew manage to be in a house when the kids were already late for school, with their mother still in her bed? Did they have a key to get in? Did the mother let them in and then go back to bed to get a better camera shot? During all that rubbish, why did nobody think about the kids and get them to school on time? I suppose that the film makers and then the BBC opted for the dramatic rather than thinking about vulnerable kids. It was convenient that the camera also just happened to be rolling for another scene in which a girl came out of her house to slap another person in the face, perfectly on cue. That was purely a coincidence, of course.
If the programme had stuck strictly to the characters only, there might have been a case for it, even with the concerns that I have expressed for their long-term welfare, but it did not. It strayed beyond them to show in the worst possible manner the community that I was born and brought up in, and that was wrong.
Anybody who bothers to look will see that Onthank is a wonderful place to live in. The schools in it—Mount Carmel and Hillhead—are booming and local families are queueing up to get their kids into the local primary and nursery schools. Only on Tuesday, I attended the prize giving at Onthank primary school, which has a thriving Gaelic unit. The event was packed to capacity with proud parents, grandparents and youngsters. I know that the BBC was not interested in telling that story.
I would like a clear message to go out to the BBC from this debate that, in the whole controversy, it is the one body that is open to severe criticism. Everybody else has an excuse for their part in the programme. The programme makers are clearly in the business to make money, and they certainly did that on the back of some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland, especially as they were able to sell the programme for broadcast outside Scotland.
When the BBC was comparing the edited programmes with the apparent objective of the series, it should have demanded changes, not least to the title of the series. There was no one scheme in the programme, and there never was. Those who appeared on screen did not all come from Onthank, and the programmes gave no sense of the complexity of life in Onthank or in any other scheme in any meaningful sense. When the BBC realised that it was being given a programme that focused almost entirely on the lives of people directly and deeply affected by drugs, alcohol and crime, it should have insisted that the families were drawn from a much wider area and that a single scheme and its residents should not bear the brunt of the media focus. The people at the BBC who flunked that decision should hang their heads in shame, and their subsequent failure to acknowledge the error is an example of the media at its worst—being prepared to exercise the power of the press without taking responsibility for the consequences.
The BBC has a duty to come back to Onthank and repair the damage that it has done to the community. We did not deserve to be treated like that. In a perverse way, the programme has galvanised the community by giving us a keener sense of identity and a determination to promote the many positives that we share in Onthank. Let us see if the BBC is up to the challenge of helping us to recover, and perhaps a new film about Onthank will be its next best seller.
12:40
I thank Willie Coffey for bringing the debate to the chamber because it raises some important issues. Unlike Willie, I am not from Onthank, but I know the community well. I worked with the people of Onthank and others in Kilmarnock for more than 24 years. One of the first things that I learned when I took up my job was that Onthank considers itself to be a community. The people see themselves first and foremost as residents of Onthank.
I remember that when I started working there, I suggested to someone that Onthank is still Kilmarnock; I was corrected and I never made that mistake again. Onthank is a very proud community and the people do not deserve to be treated in the way that they have been by the BBC.
Vulnerable people were exploited and, as my colleague Willie Coffey has already said, they regret it now. Some of them are living with the consequences of their day of fame.
The people of Onthank are proud of their community. They also know that there are problems in the community. They know about the drug and alcohol problems and that some people lead chaotic lifestyles, but they are a small minority of the residents. The people of Onthank, the community groups, the local authority, the health board and voluntary agencies are working actively to address those problems, which are not exclusive to Onthank; they are in every community in Scotland. We have a duty to work together to find long-term solutions to the deep-rooted problems in all our communities.
My issue with the BBC is about the name of the programme. “The Scheme” focused not on a problem but on an area, and that was wrong. It concentrated almost exclusively on the problems of a small minority of people who are living chaotic lifestyles. There was no balance between that and all the good things that happen in Onthank, such as the schools that Willie Coffey talked about. This week, I read about the nursery school in Onthank getting a glowing report from the care commission, and that the parents were congratulated on their input and the effort that they put into the nursery school. A lot of what is going on in Onthank is good.
Willie Coffey is right about the impact that the programme has had on the people and their families—I saw it. They took it as a slur on their community, which was portrayed as a community blighted by drugs and alcohol, as if there was nothing else there. That was very insulting to them. They saw the spectacle of people from many parts of Scotland driving around Onthank expecting to see a rammy in the street or people taking drugs in public, which, of course, they did not see. They saw a housing estate like any other housing estate in our towns and cities, with people going about their business as they would do anywhere. That is the reality of Onthank.
The programme did highlight some important issues about drugs, alcohol and deprivation. Society needs to know about those issues and we must address them, so I do not have an argument with the BBC about that. My argument is with the way in which it tried to build that into some sort of reality TV programme.
The programme had a negative impact on the majority of the Onthank residents, and on the wider community of Kilmarnock. The people saw their community turned into something akin to a soap opera. I urge the BBC and any other programme producers who want to raise issues in future to consider the impact that the programme will have. When they leave the town and walk away, they will, I hope, consider the problems, the negativity and the way that people are left feeling, and I hope that they will consult the wider community before they try to put a programme like that on again.
12:44
First, I declare an interest in that I used to be employed by BBC Scotland, although I was never employed by the factual department in charge of the documentary “The Scheme”. In addition, I have never watched the programme. Having read a write-up of it, I had no wish to watch it. I agree that it sounded like tabloid television at its worst—a number of newspapers have called it “poverty pornography”—and that is not my kind of show. Therefore, I do not have the intimate knowledge of the programme that some members in the chamber have when talking about it.
However, I know that nobody wants to see their community misrepresented, particularly on screen to a wide sector of Scottish society. I grew up in Fife and went to school in Buckhaven. I know that there are myriad ways in which communities can be represented. There were high levels of deprivation, drug abuse and economic inactivity in the areas of Methil, Buckhaven and Kennoway, but that was not the whole story for me when growing up. My school delivered a fantastic extra-curricular roster of activities that helped all the children at the school to make the most of their talents. Mr Coffey is right to refer to the Onthank school and the great work that it does at the heart of the community.
The programme has, however, provoked a debate in Scotland about not just poverty and the representation of the people in the programme but addictions. I note that the text of Mr Coffey’s motion refers to recognising the challenges for people who suffer from addictions and lead chaotic lifestyles and to measures to assist those who lead such lives.
Within Mr Coffey’s wider point, I want to talk about the new drugs strategy for Scotland, which a number of my Conservative colleagues helped the previous Scottish National Party Government to implement. The strategy is based on treatment and abstinence, and is a step forward. However, there are grumblings that the strategy’s implementation on the ground does not live up to its aims and ethos. A recent report from Audit Scotland, entitled “Drug and alcohol services in Scotland”, referred to the scale of the problem of drug and alcohol abuse in Scotland. We have a high level of such abuse, particularly compared with other European nations: its incidence has doubled in the past 15 years. The latest figures show that in 2007-08, £173 million was spent on combined drug and alcohol abuse services.
That is not the whole story, however, because Government policy and wider health policy concentrate too much on inputs in drug and alcohol services for tackling what are complex and conflicting problems and not enough on outputs and—most importantly—outcomes, which are far harder to quantify. I hope that the Government recognises the merits of the suggestions in the Audit Scotland report on what we can do better to measure our progress on the ground in order to offer help to the large number of agencies involved in addressing alcohol and drug addiction in co-ordinating their work.
It is entirely appropriate that we, as legislators in the Scottish Parliament, discuss the serious issues of poverty and drug and alcohol abuse, which affect all areas of Scotland and not just Onthank, and I thank the member for Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley for bringing the debate to the chamber.
12:49
I, too, welcome Willie Coffey’s bringing of the debate to the chamber. I speak not as somebody who has a direct connection with Kilmarnock, although Willie Coffey is aware of my genetic connection to the area, but as somebody who represents the south of Scotland and, therefore, felt that I had a responsibility to the community of Onthank to state my view.
Like Willie Coffey and Margaret Burgess, I have a number of concerns about the BBC programme. The main thing to highlight is the programme’s visual impact, as Willie Coffey rightly said. I was a neutral observer of the programme and I watched only one episode—that was enough for me—but I was struck by the frequent, low-angle shots from the gutter, which showed cans rolling around in the alleyways, and by the focus on graffiti. I thought that the approach was unhelpful and exacerbated the negativity of the programme.
The BBC sent us data about the viewing figures and made great claims about the programme’s popularity demonstrating how good a documentary it was. I interpret the figures slightly differently, The BBC said that the programme had 840,000 viewers on average, which was significantly more than is typical for programmes that are shown at that time of day, which usually attract 230,000 viewers. I congratulate the BBC; it generated a lot of viewing. However, if the BBC is right to suggest that the programme stimulated a debate, why was there a gap of 500,000 between the number of people who viewed the programme and the number of people who viewed the programme about the issues that followed? It is clear that 500,000 people watched the programme for reasons other than those that the BBC claimed.
There was a degree of exploitation—albeit perhaps unintended—of the people of Onthank for entertainment. Members who, like me, use Facebook regularly will have seen hundreds of negative posts about the residents in “The Scheme”. We can conclude only that the programme was about entertainment. It was a reality TV show; it was not genuinely about presenting serious issues for debate. I take Ruth Davidson’s point and I hope that she is right that a genuine debate about the issues will follow, but I suspect that half a million viewers of the programme did not think about the issues and simply enjoyed the programme for entertainment.
The BBC said:
“Concerns were raised around the graphic nature of certain scenes. However, the fact that some people were so shocked surely underlines the need to reveal and inform. Sometimes a powerful image can provoke more response and engagement than any number of words.”
That might be true. However, Willie Coffey is right; the BBC exploited negative aspects. For example, the issue to do with the state of the community centre building was presented in a way that almost suggested that the residents who were part of the group that was trying to restore the centre were going about things in a cack-handed way. When people turned up at the drop of a hat to see the person who was inspecting the building, the programme suggested that that was inappropriate.
Douglas Hamilton, head of Save the Children in Scotland, said:
“The only way to understand deprivation is to see it through the lives of those who experience it on a daily basis.”
I was disappointed by his comments about “The Scheme”, which failed to reflect the exploitative nature of the programme. As Margaret Burgess said, people who visit the estate realise that it is a pretty normal Scottish estate, but anyone who watched the programmes would draw anything other than that conclusion.
I support Willie Coffey’s motion and I hope that the BBC will reflect on the criticisms that have been made in the Parliament.
12:53
I, too, congratulate Willie Coffey on securing the debate. We heard him give a passionate defence of his community. That was an example of an elected representative doing exactly what an elected representative should do, so I doubly congratulate him in that regard.
The common theme in the debate was the widespread perception of a lack of balance in the programme. I will return to that, but as Willie Coffey and other members know, my ministerial responsibilities do not extend to broadcasting, so I am a little wary of stepping into a minefield by making a critique of broadcasting. It would be hard to defend such views in anything other than an individual sense. I heard the individual responses from members and I am bound to say that as an individual I have great sympathy with what they said.
Like Paul Wheelhouse, I saw some but not all of the series, for exactly the same reason that he and Ruth Davidson gave—it really was not something that I particularly wanted to watch. I do not know whether Willie Coffey would regard that as copping out or whether he is grateful that there were people who felt that the programme just was not appropriate and who did not want to put it on their viewing schedule.
I will say a few words about the Government’s perspective on the important social issues raised in the programme, to which members have referred. We as a Government recognise the role of strong, cohesive and innovative communities in collectively tackling issues around drugs, alcohol, deprivation and social exclusion. Margaret Burgess and Willie Coffey both gave examples of that happening in Onthank, which the programme makers did not really cover.
With our partners, we are supporting safer and stronger communities throughout Scotland. As I said earlier, almost all members talked about balance. There was perhaps one small redeeming feature of the programme: the final episode focused a little more on hope, rather than hopelessness. We saw the beginnings of a sense of recovery from drugs and alcohol and the impact that a few inspired individuals can have when they work together to meet a community need. Both Willie Coffey and Margaret Burgess talked about those people.
We know the importance of the early years in offering the very best start in life for all Scotland’s children. Although I did not see the bit of the programme that involved the young girl in one of the families, it obviously hit home very hard for those who did see it.
Every Scot has a fundamental right to live in a safe and strong community.
We should examine more closely the potential, the strengths and the social innovations that exist in all communities throughout Scotland and not define a community solely by the challenges that it faces. It is the case—Margaret Burgess pointed this out—that the problems focused on could be found in many communities in Scotland. She could have gone much further; she could have pointed out that such problems are manifest in communities not just throughout the whole of the United Kingdom but throughout Europe, too. In one sense, the difficulties, challenges and problems faced within Onthank are faced by many other communities. It was a little unfair to single out a community and to suggest that it was somehow special. That is where the issue of balance comes in. The real issues of drugs, alcohol and deprivation should not be about entertainment, because many of our communities face serious and important challenges in that regard.
Progress is being made and it is a pity that more emphasis was not put on recovery from drugs and alcohol abuse. Communities that support sustained recovery from drug and alcohol addiction are flourishing across Scotland. Those communities are of interest. They belong to the individuals who are in recovery, the network of workers, peers and families involved and others who support those individuals more widely. Those communities welcome all those who aspire to recover; they support them to change their lives and become contributing members of the community. I believe that Willie Coffey, Margaret Burgess and other members would have liked to have seen more focus on those individuals, that contribution and that support, rather than what we got from the programme makers.
As Ruth Davidson said, the Government is very much part of the whole drug programme, the road to recovery, which is beginning to have an impact, although we face a massive challenge. Big improvements are being made: waiting times for access to treatment are coming down significantly. If Ruth Davidson had been in the Parliament four years ago, she would have known that the issue of waiting times for access to treatment is massive in many parts of Scotland. We have made huge inroads in that regard, just as we have made huge inroads in relation to investment to tackle Scotland’s relationship with alcohol.
There is a very great deal to be done, but it is not just about Onthank; challenges are faced right across Scotland and the UK. I warmly congratulate Willie Coffey on his positive contribution about the people he represents.
13:00
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—