Chamber and committees

It comes out very clearly that, at the moment, Channel 4 is doing well in terms of production across the UK. It makes a profit. I want to focus particularly on the film sector, because the films that are produced and commissioned by Channel 4 appear more diverse but they also appear to be award-winning across the UK. Can you comment on that aspect? It feels like there is a huge potential loss here, if you look at the impact on the companies that potentially would take over, because it appears that they would lose some of their own internal production. It feels like a lose-lose for everybody in terms of geography, private businesses and quality. John McVay, do you want to kick off first? You have quite a lot of evidence.

It has been good to hear your evidence today. I was struck when I read the justification for privatisation from Nadine Dorries. She said that it would

“give Channel 4 the tools and freedom to flourish and thrive as a public service broadcaster long into the future.”

The evidence that we have had today is that, although you are not for profit, you make money—you made £74 million last year that was reinvested into the sector—and we have had a lot of evidence about the positive impact that you make in Scotland in production, in the quality of filmmaking, in training and skills, and in diversity.

To kick off, Alex Mahon, could you put on record for us today what Channel 4 has presented as its alternative to privatisation? I understand that you have given that feedback to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but it would be good to get it on the record how you would want to continue to deliver the success that you have had in the past.

It was very useful to get your written evidence. I will ask you a couple of questions about the timing. I understand that, when asked, almost one third of the population was not aware of the census particularly given the change of timing to look at the digital issue. My understanding is that, when the 2021 census was carried out in the rest of the UK, there was a safety net approach to try to include people. You made a big deal of the digital response rate, but to have to send out 600,000 paper forms is not going for the safety net approach to target areas of lower-income households and a disproportionately older population, and also rural areas.

Can you give us a comment about that, and can you give us comparable statistics on local authority turnouts in terms of households and individuals? I am making sure that the local authority turnout data that we have is comparable. How are you going to go below the local authority level to make sure that people who did not respond to the census, or areas where people did not respond disproportionately do not miss out? Will you be producing evidence or analysing the census output areas so that we get accurate knowledge about who has missed out in the census?

It does not quite answer the question, because I was asking for the comparable figures from local authority level data for the 2022 census and the 2011 census. I am particularly interested in credibility. I have looked at the statistics, and I want to double-check that my interpretation is right. The gap is significant—for example, the figure for West Dunbartonshire was 11 per cent down from 2011. However, I want to check that I am using the right figures in terms of households and individual responses.

I want to go back to the information about people not knowing about the census or their personal responsibility. There would be even more of an impact if, several weeks into the census programme, a third of the population were still not aware of their obligations or the impact of the census.

All that goes back to the credibility of the 2022 census, given the aspirations to hit a response rate of around 94 per cent. What do those figures do for the effectiveness and usefulness of this year’s census?

So, in your view, there is no issue about the credibility of the census. When I visited with your enumerators, I was struck by the fact that I was in a very significant area and, with just under two weeks to go, there was a turnout rate of 57 per cent. It just did not tick the box of 94 per cent. How will those missing households and missing people be accounted for so that their needs are not ignored in future investment or Government policy? Even after today’s answers, I have significant worries about that.

That is a very helpful summary. On one level, it is a case of building on success. I find the privatisation proposal hard to understand, particularly given that Channel 4 is successful for the whole of the UK—it is almost like levelling up in practice. You provide evidence that it works to spread investment across the UK.

Can you briefly talk about the importance of the quality of film production on the ground in terms of the people in the film sector, the artists and the people behind the cameras? Other witnesses have told us about the impact of the diversity of Channel 4’s programming. You have won a number of BAFTAs. Do you want to say a bit about the success of the film side, which is critical, given the difficulty of doing film production, because it is very expensive? Although you operate in a not-for-profit context, you manage to make a profit. Could you say a little about that?

I have a brief supplementary to Alasdair Allan’s question about war crimes. I understand that people who are fleeing the war will not have been interviewed before they arrive in Scotland. I presume that doing that once they get here could have a role in enabling them to record their experiences. They can be interviewed so that they can give evidence while their memory of what happened is still sharp. That would mean that there can be accountability in future for what is happening in Ukraine.

[Inaudible.]—but it is just the feedback that I got, and it seems to be one of the things that we might need to fix.

That is useful as far as it goes, but it is the detail of those issues that is important. For example, Highland Council tells us that the lack of guidance from the Scottish Government is creating a major problem for it now in relation to the supersponsor scheme and contingency planning, and COSLA has sent us a big list of problems that it has with the matching service at the moment. I hope that you can be given a copy of those papers, and it might be helpful if we could have a briefing back from you on those issues. I could not possibly ask you today about all the issues that have been raised, because there are so many of them.

That was really helpful feedback.

Another challenge that I have clocked is things not working out after people get allocated a host. It is not the fault of the family or the host—it is just that people have different expectations and there is a reality check when people settle in. It could be pets and allergies, food choices or anything else that would normally be taken for granted. It was an issue that I picked up from people who are trying to support Ukrainians—there was a real nervousness about it. My sense is that Ukrainians are so grateful to come here and get support that they do not really want to complain, and there is an issue in how we support Ukrainians, particularly those with kids, when the first match does not work out. Loads of hosts are volunteering, but we need to make sure that we can match people up.