Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Official Report 1165KB pdf

---

Scottish Screen Sector

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-14400, in the name of Joan McAlpine, on “Making Scotland a Screen Leader”, the report examining the Scottish screen sector. I call Joan McAlpine to speak to and move the motion of behalf of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee.

15:24  

I am pleased to open the debate on the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee’s report, “Making Scotland a Screen Leader”.

I thank the committee clerks and our Scottish Parliament information centre researcher who worked so hard over this extensive inquiry. I also thank the many individuals and organisations from across the film and television industry who gave oral and written evidence to the committee, and which hosted our visits, including Wardpark Studios in Cumbernauld, Film City Glasgow, Northern Ireland Screen, BBC Scotland and Below the Radar, which is a television production company in Belfast. We are very grateful to the Edinburgh International Film Festival, which hosted the launch of our report at the Traverse theatre in June, where it received an extremely positive reception from the industry professionals who packed the theatre.

The overwhelming support that our report has received from stakeholders has made a deep impression—indeed, it is humbling, not least because the support comes from people who are experts and high achievers in their field. The Government, its agencies and important commissioners, such as the BBC, must recognise the significance of the overwhelming industry support for our recommendations not just in this debate but in the months and years ahead.

Since the publication of our report, we have seen direct evidence of the economic impact of the screen sector, particularly last week with the premiere of “Outlaw King”. That is a Scottish production, with a Scottish producer, Gillian Berrie, and a Scottish director, David Mackenzie, partnering with a global giant, Netflix. It is an £85 million production, which more than justifies the investment made in it by Creative Scotland through its production funds. The need to attract more such productions of international scale was a key theme of our inquiry.

It is certainly true that spending on film and television has increased exponentially in Scotland—it has increased by an impressive 300 per cent in the past decade. As well as “Outlaw King”, we can point to other recent and forthcoming successes: “Avengers: Infinity War”, “Mary Queen of Scots” and, perhaps most significant of all, Sony’s investment in “Outlander”.

With all that going on, people might ask why there is a need for the inquiry, the report and this debate. Surely Scotland is already a screen leader. However, we need to take a comparative approach. The worldwide demand for high-quality screen content is, not to put too fine a point on it, insatiable. This year, Netflix alone is making 40 productions in the United Kingdom out of 700 around the world and a global investment of £8 billion. We need to attract more such investment, but we heard time and again in our inquiry that Scotland is behind other parts of the UK in doing so. Therefore, although we are growing, we are concerned that we are not growing fast enough.

This week, we heard James Cosmo—one of the stars of “Outlaw King”—bemoan the failure to capitalise on “Braveheart”, in which he also starred more than two decades ago. In particular, he criticised the failure to deliver a dedicated film studio, which is a saga that sometimes seems as ancient as the battles of Bruce and Wallace themselves.

Our report seeks to address some of the barriers that we need to overcome, which were first identified in 2015 by the Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. As well as the need for studio capacity, that committee highlighted the need to address the failure to set up a proper screen agency, the need for more investment, the need to address the failure of the BBC and other commissioners to support sufficiently the indigenous independent production sector in Scotland and the need to address the misunderstanding in Scottish Enterprise of how screen businesses operate.

As a result of the 2015 report, the screen sector leadership group—a group of experts chaired by John McCormick, who is the former head of BBC Scotland and Scottish Screen—was tasked with making recommendations and did so in January 2017. It found that public sector support for screen was fragmented, with a number of different bodies having some responsibility in specific areas. That meant that there was no agreed, overarching screen strategy and a lack of leadership and accountability. The group made recommendations about investment from Government and it wanted the BBC to spend more of the licence fee raised in Scotland in Scotland.

My committee set itself the task of ensuring that the recommendations that had been made by John McCormick’s expert group were taken forward. I think that it is fair to say that the Government pre-empted our inquiry and the leadership group’s report by announcing significant new money for investment in production. It also committed to setting up a screen unit in Creative Scotland, which was seen as a significant step forward.

Initial proposals for the new screen unit were published last December, and our committee began taking formal evidence in February. We heard from more than 50 witnesses—from directors and producers to regional screen officers and educators. The new screen unit in Creative Scotland is intended to bring strategic focus and leadership by promoting Scotland as a place to make films, attracting international investment, supporting the indigenous industry, including through training, working with television commissioners to ensure that more productions are made here and, crucially, addressing the fragmentation among public agencies whose job it is to support the sector.

It became clear early in our inquiry that the model that had been set out in the proposals for the new screen unit did not command confidence among those working in the screen sector in Scotland—the people whom it was supposed to support. The governance arrangements of the proposed new screen unit introduced additional bureaucratic complexity, with five different public agencies sitting on its management committee. There was a distinct lack of industry expertise at executive and board level, and the convoluted system of governance involved multiple levels of accountability, with no clear lines of decision making. The screen unit was also behind schedule. The long-promised online portal for the industry—a place where anyone in the screen sector could go to look for support—had not materialised at that point and key appointments had not been made.

As we were wrestling with that evidence, the committee visited Northern Ireland Screen in Belfast, which had been instrumental in supporting the delivery of a film studio and in attracting “Game of Thrones”. It was completely industry focused and, of course, independent. The contrast with Scotland could not have been more stark—if you will pardon my “Game of Thrones” pun. Therefore, in May this year, we published an interim report, which recommended that, rather than pursuing an interagency model, Scotland should work towards an autonomous stand-alone agency, led by the industry, with clear lines of accountability. I understand that our interim report, “The Bigger Picture”, may have provoked some initial frustration in Government. However, we believe that it was both necessary and effective, as are the recommendations of our final report.

It is clear from subsequent decisions that the evidence that we gathered has, to some extent, been influential, although a stand-alone screen agency has not been set up. Screen Scotland has now launched, albeit later than planned, and its governance arrangements seem to have been streamlined. Recent appointments have bolstered industry experience at board level—indeed, they include David Strachan, the founding manager of Tern Television Productions, who gave evidence to the committee’s inquiry and played an important part in influencing our report. The committee also welcomed the appointment of Isabel Davis, formerly of the British Film Institute, as executive director, with responsibility for the screen unit.

In September, Creative Scotland published a memorandum of understanding, to formalise the partnerships between the agencies that are responsible for the delivery of screen Scotland—something that the committee called for. We still await the detailed business plan that will underpin the operation of screen Scotland. In a recent letter to the committee, Creative Scotland indicated that the business plan and recruitment of business development staff will be completed by March 2019.

The committee remains concerned that the MOU that sets out the partners’ responsibilities sets out a role for Scottish Enterprise that is broadly similar to the agency’s previous role, in that the agency provides business development support only for businesses that are identified as having high-growth potential. Time and again, the committee heard persuasive evidence that the Scottish Enterprise support model is unsuited to most screen businesses. The model bases investment on the number of full-time salaried employees, whereas the industry model is based on freelance workers. The making of a film or TV production is, by its nature, a short-term undertaking. Companies expand and contract, and that does not fit the Scottish Enterprise model.

We are pleased that business support professionals will work inside the screen unit, but we do not think that Creative Scotland should shoulder the entire financial burden in that regard, given that Scottish Enterprise, too, is funded by Government to support and grow our creative industries. The committee therefore recommended that part of the Scottish Enterprise budget be transferred to a stand-alone screen agency for business development.

A significant part of our report addressed the long-running sore of the need in Scotland for a film studio and more adequate infrastructure, which I mentioned. Since our report was published, Netflix has spoken of the “overcrowded UK studio market”. There is a demand, so why cannot Scotland meet it? Other areas in the UK, most recently Birmingham, have done so.

At present, Wardpark Film and Television Studios, in Cumbernauld, where “Outlander” is filmed, is Scotland’s only dedicated large-scale facility. Members of the committee saw at first hand how beneficial a production facility on such a scale can be. Much of Wardpark’s success can be attributed to the passion and drive of “Outlander” producer David Brown, who was able to bring a world-class production to Scotland with minimal support from the agencies.

In 2013, the Scottish Government established the film studio delivery group, which brought together multiple agencies, with the purpose of delivering studio capacity. However, the group has not delivered.

In a recent letter to the committee, Creative Scotland announced that a business case for such a studio had received the cabinet secretary’s approval in principle in July. While the committee welcomes that announcement, we await being convinced, given the many previous decades of unfulfilled promises.

Although enhanced studio infrastructure plays a pivotal role in supporting growth, particularly when it comes to attracting large-scale productions, it is important that we do not lose sight of the role that indigenous productions play in the industry. Scottish producers told us that public sector broadcasters do not commission enough content from Scottish companies. In its report, the committee says, quite clearly, that it expects to see more work commissioned from Scotland by such broadcasters. We also want Ofcom to tighten up the definition of what constitutes a Scottish programme under the nations quota, and we want more robust reporting in that area. We also recommended that ITV, like the BBC and Channel 4—

I am afraid that you will need to—

—should have a nations quota as part of its existing out-of-London quota.

Please stop for just a second, convener, and sit down for a moment. You have already had an extra minute. I can give you only one more minute.

I will just finish up now.

Creative Scotland’s recent letter to the committee sets out a progress report with regard to research work and the gathering of data, which was one of our other recommendations.

As I said in my opening remarks, there are many reasons to be optimistic about the future of the Scottish screen sector, and we are convinced about its potential benefits. However, we want to ensure that we reach our potential, and we want Scotland to be a screen leader.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee’s 6th Report 2018 (Session 5), Making Scotland a Screen Leader (SP Paper 366).

15:36  

I welcome this opportunity to focus on our screen sector and to highlight the visible progress that we have made in supporting our screen businesses. I thank the convener of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee and all its members for playing their part in that.

The decisive steps that we have taken to strengthen and streamline support for the sector mean that we are now seeing real momentum for success. What unites us in this chamber is a genuine good will and a shared ambition for our screen sector. We agree that Scotland has the talent, the skills, the settings and the stories. We also agree that there are opportunities, an avid global demand for content, and an escalating broadcasting spend in the nations, along with the prospect of a new BBC channel for Scotland and Glasgow’s bid for Channel 4’s creative hub. Now, with the right support in place, Scotland’s film and television businesses are showing just what we can do together. I firmly believe that this is just the start.

Let me begin with some highlights, because it is important to record how far we have come. On Friday, in Edinburgh, we celebrated the Scottish premiere of “Outlaw King”, which is a feature film, shot in Scotland, about Robert the Bruce. It was conceived and driven by top Scottish creative talent, by its writer and director David Mackenzie and producer Gillian Berrie. The film will soon be screened by Netflix in more than 190 countries around the world. It is important to note that when “Outlaw King” was chosen to open the Toronto international film festival, it was only one of four features backed by funding from Scotland: “Wild Rose”, a country music drama; “Tell It to the Bees”, set in rural Scotland; and the documentary “Freedom Fields”, which also premiered there, which illustrates the wide range of work that is now being produced. As for television, we are seeing the gripping prime-time BBC drama “The Cry”, which was produced by a Scottish company and filmed in Scotland and Australia. It is great to see network drama from Scotland back on our screens and getting such high audience ratings.

Those are just a handful of the productions that are breaking through. Overall production spend in Scotland has risen to record levels, hitting £95 million in 2017, which was up by £26 million on the previous year. Film-makers are seeing Scotland as a great place in which to film, with “Avengers: Infinity War”, “The Wife” and “Mary Queen of Scots” having been here recently. “Outlander” is now in its fourth season and is firing imaginations and drawing tourists to stunning locations across Scotland.

The committee’s recent report is anchored in the thoughtful recommendations of the screen sector leadership group. We welcome that report and commend the sector for making the evidence sessions at committee stimulating, informative and valuable. The Scottish Government listened to the committee debate carefully, and I am pleased to report on the progress made both prior to the committee’s publishing its report and since then. The steps that have been taken already largely address what the sector was asking for and says that it needs.

The sector asked for increased funding: this year, we made an extra £10 million available for screen development production and growth, doubling the budget for screen. That is in addition to the £12.8 million that we already provide for BBC Alba and one-off funding such as the £475,000 that we spent to support the National Film and Television School in setting up a base in Scotland.

The sector asked for public sector support to be focused, visible and joined up, and to have clear leadership. We backed the creation of a dedicated screen unit—screen Scotland. We believe that there is now a coherent partnership between Creative Scotland and our enterprise and schools agencies. In August, this came together publicly when screen Scotland launched its website, which offers clear pathways to support in film and television.

We were asked for expert leadership and Isabel Davis, formerly of the BFI, is now heading up Creative Scotland. Three new members with extensive screen experience have also joined the board of Creative Scotland. The advisory screen committee also has industry representatives, and screen Scotland is planning to concentrate the screen sector leadership group into an industry advisory group. That will give the sector a voice in advising its executive on the direction and delivery of screen Scotland.

We were also asked for a broader range of funding. Screen Scotland has launched expanded production growth funding of £2 million and a new broadcast content fund of £3 million. Although the creation of screen Scotland may have been slower than I would have liked, I am greatly encouraged by recent progress.

Memorandums of understanding have been agreed among partners and, working with business gateway, partners are developing a new approach to general business development support. Two programmes of specialist business support that are also under way are supporting screen companies and selected senior executives to expand their expertise, networks and knowledge. Screen Scotland partners have carried out an in-depth skills review of staff and freelancers to enable targeted investment in building talent and skilled crews.

Work on increasing studio facilities is well advanced. Creative Scotland is finalising a business case for a new permanent studio and it plans to launch a tender for a studio operator shortly. Screen Scotland currently markets 136,000 square feet of full-time converted stage space and 335,000 square feet of build space.

We understand the frustration that can result from delays to studio projects, and we continue to work with the private sector to find constructive and appropriate ways to help increase facilities.

The first £3.7 million allocated by the production growth fund resulted in an estimated £60 million spend in the Scottish economy. Given the effect that funding can have, I have high expectations for the outcomes of increased support.

Why does the cabinet secretary think that the screen sector in Scotland is doing relatively badly in comparison with the screen sector in other parts of the United Kingdom? She has painted a very rosy picture, but does she have any analysis of why we seem to be going backwards rather than forwards?

I do not think that we are doing badly and I do not think that we are behind. I understand the point as it relates to the spend at Pinewood and some of the traditional studios around London, but compared with the amount of spend in other countries, the spend in Scotland is very competitive. We are very advanced when it comes to production and production spend. We should be talking our screen industry up rather than down.

I know that the committee has proposed the creation of a stand-alone agency, but I am not persuaded that current circumstances justify diverting funds that could go to the screen sector to setting up a new body. As it is now established, screen Scotland has the necessary capabilities and resource to achieve the outcomes that we and the committee desire to achieve, and it should be given the opportunity to show what it can do.

Big strides are also being made in broadcasting, and there are big opportunities there, too. I do not have time to set out all of those now, but extra funding has been pledged by the BBC, which has promised £20 million a year for network funding and £19 million for the new Scottish channel. We welcome that funding and urge that it be delivered quickly, along with the commitments that have been made by other broadcasters, such as Channel 4’s commitment to increase spend in the nations.

The Scottish Government has already helped to improve delivery for Scottish audiences and industries through its work to strengthen the royal charter to ensure that the BBC must support the nation’s creative industries. We continue to work to support that by insisting to broadcasters and to the regulator, Ofcom, that a tougher test must be set for what constitutes a Scottish production. Meanwhile, screen Scotland will work with new strategic partnerships and content producers to build a sustainable system to further enhance the quality of our productions and bring on talent.

We welcome the committee’s work to seek greater transparency and rightly increase opportunity for the Scottish sector. All too often, we have—as Johann Lamont did—focused on what is missing in Scotland. Today, I have highlighted all that we have helped to create and all the support that we have put in place to go on making more of the opportunities ahead. The story of our screen sector is one of mounting success, and I look forward to working with everybody in the chamber to generate even more concrete results and a long list of productions that are made in Scotland that we can be proud of.

15:44  

I thank the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee for the publication of its report, “Making Scotland a Screen Leader”, and I thank all those who submitted evidence for the valuable insight that the committee got from them. I was lucky enough to be on visits to the BBC at Pacific Quay, Film City Glasgow, Wardpark Film and Television Studios and Northern Ireland Screen in Belfast, which gave us a specific insights into those organisations.

It is great that the ball is finally rolling, according to the cabinet secretary, with regard to a new screen unit, and we welcome the increase of £10 million from the Scottish Government, but it has taken a long time to get here. We know that Scotland’s film industry generates £95 million a year, but it currently lags behind comparable nations when it comes to film studios. Wales has multiple studios, including the new 250,000 square feet Wolf Studios Wales in Cardiff. Northern Ireland already has the fantastic 110,000 square feet Titanic Studios, which has attracted productions from HBO, Universal and Playtone, and is now developing the 120,000 square feet Belfast Harbour Studios. We heard recently that “Game of Thrones”, the successful television fantasy drama that Joan McAlpine mentioned, was eager to film in Scotland but was lured to Belfast by Titanic Studios, which is now one of the largest film studios in Europe.

Although it is not part of the committee report, I must stress the vital role that the UK Government plays in creating an attractive business environment for film production with a package of measures—namely, the significant tax breaks that set the foundations for investment in this fantastic industry.

We have to consider the time that it has taken to get to this stage. Although Conservative members welcome the establishment of a new screen unit in Scotland, I am glad that the committee also acknowledged the lengthy delays. As we know, the screen unit was promised back in the 2016 budget, but the SNP has failed to deliver since that point. The 2017-18 draft budget promised that

“a dedicated screen unit will be set up within Creative Scotland in the next year.”

However, the 2018-19 draft budget also promised

“the creation in 2018 of a dedicated screen unit to support the screen sector.”

We have heard nothing but broken promises. The question remains: can a public sector collaborative approach deliver the studio, and will the Scottish Government accept the stand-alone approach that has been suggested by the committee? It does not sound as if the cabinet secretary is likely to take that on board.

I think that Rachael Hamilton is confusing the establishment of screen Scotland, which is the dedicated screen agency that is up and running and is staffed at the highest level, with the opportunity to have a film studio. In my opening remarks, I gave members an update on the tender that is going out for a studio operator for a film studio. Those are two distinct and separate but related issues.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention. If we look back to the film studio delivery group that was set up by the Scottish Government in 2013, we can see that it demonstrates that the multi-agency approach has a weakness. That is why the committee ultimately expressed its wish for a stand-alone unit.

It is not just the Conservatives and members of other parties who have expressed frustration: industry figures and bodies have done so, as well. We are all disappointed by the timescale for setting up the studio facilities. The Association of Film and Television Practitioners Scotland said:

“For decades, Scottish film-makers have had a nomadic existence using buildings that have been discarded by other industries. Ten years ago, Scotland had the largest screen industry outside the home counties, it is now far behind Northern Ireland, Wales and the English regions.”

Scotland’s film potential is currently not being realised.

Will the member take an intervention.

I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.

We must see action. Talent and investment have been driven elsewhere because of lack of movement on the matter. Moreover, James Cosmo, who was quoted earlier and who starred in “Braveheart”, lamented the lack of progress, and said:

“I’m making His Dark Materials just now—a long-running series for HBO and BBC Worldwide. It’s being filmed in Wales, where they have four studios.”

He even acknowledges that it “doesn’t look ... good for” Scotland, when that production could have taken place right here.

There are challenges presented by state-aid rules. I understand that, and I am glad that the committee considered it unacceptable that although other areas of the UK have developed enhanced studio infrastructure in line with state-aid rules, Scotland has continued to fall behind.

I want to make a couple of other points on things that the report highlights. The Scottish locations network said that retaining and nurturing domestic talent is really important. The development of a film studio would allow a more sustainable pipeline of production in Scotland, which would mean that crew could consider working in Scotland as a career instead of as a short-term stopgap. The network also pointed out that higher and further education are not set up for production training, and it gave examples. Atlanta has created a film production training campus, and there is a commitment by the National Film and Television School to open a focused training centre in Scotland specifically for screen production skills.

“Outlander” has been a huge success in taking on Scottish trainees. When we visited Wardpark Studios in Cumbernauld, where the blockbuster is filmed, we met trainees including costume designers, set designers, plasterers and joiners. Furthermore, the EKOS skills survey is now complete, and we look forward to a skills plan for the industry.

Joan McAlpine touched on public sector commissioning, which will also help with regard to building skills and capacity in the sector. That is essential in order to attract work from other sources.

We have a wonderful opportunity in front of us. I am glad that in the past few days the announcement has been made on construction of a new studio, which has been welcomed by industry leaders and Conservative members. We look forward to further progress on the matter.

15:51  

Three years on and a committee of this Parliament is once again calling for action to turn the potential for a world-leading Scottish screen industry into reality. I was a member of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee when its inquiry began this time last year, and I was a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which reported on the economic potential of the Scottish film and television more than three years ago. A glance at that committee’s report shows that much of what it felt was important then is what the current report highlights today, and a look at today’s report shows what has changed—and what has not—in that time.

In 2015, the first three recommendations focused on the need for a world-class film and TV studio in Scotland. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee called for a Government decision on existing proposals “as soon as possible”, for Government evaluation of what more could be done

“as a matter of urgency”

and for Government direction of public agencies, because their failure to work together was “acting as a barrier” to effective support for

“the economic and cultural needs of the film industry”.

Three years on, there have been changes in those key areas, but not enough. Scotland lacked a world-class film studio then and we lack one still. We were told then that the Government had to be cautious about its approach, that it was up to others to make things happen and that the private sector would come up with a solution. However, that has not happened yet, and simply saying that action will come is no substitute for action on the ground.

In 2015, the Government said that Creative Scotland, the enterprise agencies and Skills Development Scotland really could work together to improve support for the screen industry, despite all the industry concerns to the contrary, which we have heard about today. Three years later, multiple agencies are still involved, despite the welcome establishment of screen Scotland and the cautious improvements in its focus, which Joan McAlpine mentioned. It is all the more important, in that case, that screen Scotland be empowered to make the big decisions without having constantly to seek approval from other public agencies. I see that the minister is nodding. I hope that she can give some assurances on that.

Any major investment of over £500,000 would need to go to a Creative Scotland board decision, as is the case for any other agency. Three screen experts are now part of that, and we have the industry advisory group. With anything less than £500,000, screen Scotland can move ahead. I give Lewis Macdonald that reassurance.

That reassurance is welcome but, as the cabinet secretary said, big decisions have to go to the board of Creative Scotland. That is the fundamental difference between what the Government is taking forward and what the committee recommends in its report and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee called for three years ago—that is, a stand-alone agency that is able to make the big decisions itself.

Of course, one recommendation from three years ago has been implemented, which has led us to today’s debate. The screen sector leadership group was created as a direct response to a recommendation in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s report. As the cabinet secretary said, it will continue as the industry advisory group under the new arrangements. The SSLG’s report in January informed the views of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee in the lead-up to today’s debate, and I hope that the leaders of the sector will agree that the report that we are debating matches the boldness of its vision.

The report calls for urgent and significant progress on a purpose-built studio in Scotland, saying that

“We need delivery, not debate.”

That means that ministers should not hang back because one particular project has fallen, but should redouble their efforts to ensure that projects come forward that can be delivered.

The committee has also warned that screen Scotland must not be

“burdened by cumbersome and overly bureaucratic governance arrangements.”

The production of an interim report in May, which emphasised the case for a strong and autonomous Scottish screen agency, was unusual. It marks the difference in today’s debate. The committee report that we are debating today builds on that interim recommendation and makes the case. It is the logical culmination of the process that was begun in 2015 to have a separate and autonomous screen agency in the future.

As we have already heard, the Scottish screen industry was second only to London 20 and even 10 years ago. It has now fallen behind other nations and regions in the UK. I hope that ministers will devise the business plan for screen Scotland as a step towards the creation of an autonomous agency on the model of Northern Ireland Screen, as the committee recommends.

I also hope that ministers will take a proactive and imaginative approach to providing public support for the establishment of a world-class studio in Scotland—again, as the committee recommends. If ministers take both steps in those two areas, during the next session of Parliament the relevant committee will be able to publish a report that is about achievement, and not just about potential.

15:56  

I thank the committee for its welcome report. As the French-Swiss filmmaker, Jean-Luc Godard, said:

“A story should have a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily in that order.”

During the past few years, we have seen a range of plot twists, drama and suspense in the story of the screen sector.

When I look back at the history of film in Scotland, and think of watching films such as “Whisky Galore”, “Local Hero”, “You’ve Been Trumped” and, more recently, “T2 Trainspotting”, which had scenes filmed in this very building, it is clear that we have a huge potential for film and TV production. It is a growing creative industry that is attracting talent and investment, including in the “Outlander” series and the recent Avengers movies.

Yet, for all the showcasing that has been done by a few high-value productions, we continue to fail to capitalise fully on the many opportunities. The committee’s report makes that clear.

Scottish Screen was an independent screen agency that ran successfully of its own accord until Creative Scotland subsumed it in 2010. As long as a new body such as screen Scotland is contained within Creative Scotland, it is hard to see how it will be able to properly drive the screen sector as effectively as is done in many other countries and, indeed, other parts of the UK.

We need to think about how we can facilitate and support a thriving sector. As many in the film sector have made clear—indeed, the committee report makes it clear, too—we need at least one national film studio to provide the space necessary to support large-scale productions. It is also clear to us that the Scottish Government must take the lead in making that happen.

In response to a question that I asked earlier this month, the First Minister indicated that Creative Scotland will launch a tender for investors to operate a public sector-backed film studio. That is a welcome development, but there are few actual details, and I was disappointed to learn more about that from reading the Sunday papers last weekend than I have done from the cabinet secretary this afternoon.

This is about much more than attracting investors. The Scottish Government can no longer hide behind state aid rules to justify its lack of action. In March this year, when I substituted for my colleague Ross Greer on the committee, I noted that there was a lot of confusion about state aid’s role in this matter. In part, it was evident that, if the public sector is to lead the development of the industry in Scotland, it must either operate as a municipal enterprise, as happens in Manchester, under the market economy operator principle, just as the Lothian councils operate a highly successful bus company in this city with no state aid issues, or it must be a wholly private enterprise.

That leads us to the final scene: where should this film studio be? That has in itself been a drama worthy of a BAFTA. Jim O’Donnell from PSL Land Ltd told the committee on 29 March that a site at Damhead in Midlothian was

“the best site for the studio in Scotland” [Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, 29 March 2018; c 11],

and the Scottish Government granted planning consent to that site.

As members will know, earlier this month, after a long legal battle, the smallholder who occupies most of the site, Jim Telfer—a constituent of mine whose family has farmed the land for a century—successfully defeated an application to resume his two holdings. That was a welcome decision for a family that has suffered considerable stress and anxiety over the past few years. It begs huge questions about the process by which we have been attempting to identify the site for a national film studio.

In conclusion, the Scottish Government must reach out and work with the industry to develop a national film studio that benefits films in Scotland, but it should be minded that this can happen only in a location that is lawful and adaptable to the needs of a growing screen sector.

16:00  

Like Andy Wightman, I will try to have a beginning, a middle and an end to my speech. The beginning involves a Swedish couple whom I met walking down the road to the shop in Bressay, where I live, and who said to me, “Where did the murder take place?”

I looked at the couple somewhat aghast and thought about phoning the local constabulary; I then realised that they were looking for one of the murder scenes in “Shetland”, which gives the impression that there is a murder in Shetland every five minutes. I can assure members that that is not the case.

The Swedish couple were some of the 28 per cent of visitors to Shetland who now come to visit the islands because they have seen them on TV. Netflix has syndicated “Shetland”. It is shown here on the BBC, it is made by an ITN TV production company, and it is now going around the world, hence the visits of Swedes, Australians and New Zealanders—indeed, anyone we find in Shetland these days who has seen “Shetland” somewhere.

Not only that, “Shetland” is so good that it has been nominated for the scripted TV award at the forthcoming Scottish BAFTAs, Dougie Henshall has been nominated for the TV actor award and David Kane has been nominated for the film/TV writer award. We at home are a bit puzzled as to what they will do next with the plot. I am led to understand that they know what is in next year’s production but who knows where they will go with it thereafter?

I move to the middle of this speech. Andy Wightman mentioned “Whisky Galore” and Lewis Macdonald mentioned various other movies. I feel that there is a sense of “Back to the Future” about the debate, for the very reasons that the committee convener gave in her opening remarks.

Why did we, as a Government and as a Parliament, subsume the separate and independent Scottish film company organisation into a body that is for all the arts? The answer to why that has not worked is the very answer that the cabinet secretary gave to Lewis Macdonald in the earlier exchange, when she said that any big decision will be taken not by an independent body but by the board of Creative Scotland.

In fairness to Creative Scotland, it has many decisions to make over many areas of the arts, including many conflicting and tough financial decisions. That is at the nub of why the Government’s approach to this is wrong. The convener fairly pointed out the strength of the arguments around a single agency—a single organisation, a Scottish screen body—simply taking forward what is, as the cabinet secretary rightly said, one of the most exciting areas of activity in Scotland, in economic, cultural and artistic terms.

For the life of me, I am not quite sure that I have yet heard an argument from the Government as to why that is not the right thing to do—why that is not the right approach for Scotland when it demonstrably is the right approach across many other parts of the world.

A number of members, including Rachael Hamilton, have mentioned Northern Ireland. The committee went there at an earlier stage in its proceedings and the evidence for a single agency was pretty overpowering and overwhelming. If the arguments can work for other small countries—we often hear this record played—it certainly would appear to be appropriate for Scotland.

I thought that the committee convener’s point about the separate Government agencies involved in the labyrinth that was the original proposal—I take the point that the labyrinth has, to some extent, now been streamlined—was the most compelling evidence that we heard. I do not think that the cabinet secretary has fully addressed that point yet and I hope that she will in her remarks later on this afternoon; it is about the range of organisations involved, the different agendas that some of our different quangos bring, and what more could be achieved if the approach was so much less fragmented and we were so much more clearsighted about what we are trying to do. The only logical conclusion that one can come to—and this is the end of my speech—is that there should be a separate Scottish screen organisation.

16:04  

The committee’s report shows the exciting opportunities that are available to Scotland in film and TV. In listening to the debate, I almost feel like I am in a television show about some kind of alternative universe where I am the only one who can see the positive side of what is happening in the industry at the moment. The timing of the debate could not be better, because last week saw the premiere of “Outlaw King”, which is probably one of the biggest movies in our screen history to be filmed in its entirety in Scotland. The particularly interesting thing about that movie is how it is to be distributed. Nobody will go down to the local multiplex to see it, because it will be distributed through a streaming service, Netflix, which is now in the business of producing big-budget movies.

Given the investment that the Scottish Government has made in the Scottish television and film industry, I believe that it is aware of the issues. Last year, £95 million was invested in Scotland, which was up from £45 million in 2014 and £23 million in 2007.

Content is king in the new multiplatform world of television and film. In the not-too-distant future, BBC Scotland will embark on a new and exciting adventure as it launches its new channel. Once again, content and the use of the BBC iPlayer, or at the very least easy access on the BBC iPlayer, will be key to the channel’s potential success.

It is interesting to look at people’s viewing habits. In 2017, in this multichannel and multiplatform world, viewers in Scotland spent a daily average of three hours 46 minutes watching television in the traditional manner, which was a decline on previous years. Traditional viewing declined even more among younger viewers. In 2017, four to 15-year-olds watched one hour 27 minutes of broadcast television per day, which was down 41 per cent from 2010, and 16 to 34-year-olds watched two hours 16 minutes of broadcast TV, which was down 34 per cent from 2010. However, the amount of streaming content consumed by those age groups increased. Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube and subscription and on-demand services were all regularly watched by people in those age groups. In order to have successful TV shows, movies and documentaries, we have to follow the trends and, more importantly, we have to follow the audience. That is why I come back to Netflix spending in excess of $100 million on a Scottish historical drama.

I am not sure whether the member plans to come on to this, but I am interested in whether he agrees with the committee that there should be a stand-alone screen Scotland in order to facilitate the work that has already been done.

I am trying to prove that some of the work that screen Scotland has embarked on and done recently, and the fact that we have had movies such as “Avengers: Infinity War” and “T2 Trainspotting” as well as the on-going production of “Outlander” in Scotland show that we are moving forward positively. All the Scottish Government support for our film and TV industry shows that that approach is the way forward.

As I said, distribution of content is the key to on-going success in the industry. Next year’s BBC Scotland channel is a testing point, and I hope that it is successful. Content is king, and in this multiplatform and multichannel world, access to that content will aid any future success of the channel. That will also ensure that we have the production and everything else in Scotland. We live in a world where families no longer sit round the TV watching it in their living rooms—they have other ways of accessing content. We must be aware of that in everything that we do in relation to the industry.

16:09  

I thank the committee members, clerks and witnesses for producing a very important piece of work on the subject. I will not be able to rival George Adam’s comments about YouTube, Netflix and the variety of media, although I certainly enjoyed listening to his speech on that. I also enjoyed Andy Wightman’s comment that a film should have a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily in that order—that may explain some of the things that have happened in the Parliament over the course of its history.

I was not a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee in the previous session of Parliament, when it looked at the screen sector and its economic impact, but it seems that two issues consistently arise in the debate. First, there is the potential economic value of the screen sector and the significant potential for growth in Scotland. I refer to “economic value”, but I readily accept that it is not just money that matters—I will come to the second aspect shortly. Scotland aspires to be a leader in the world and to be a welcoming place for business, including for film makers, and we would like to see that happen.

The second issue is the frustration that our potential is not being met as a result of shortcomings that were highlighted in 2015 and indeed long before then, and which have not yet been resolved.

Iain Smith, who is chair of the British Film Commission, said:

“on the larger issue of Scotland’s image, how Scotland is seen in the world is directly linked to our participation in the media world, and that will affect how Scotland performs in all sorts of ways.”—[Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, 8 February 2018; c 29.]

The world knows that Scotland has the natural assets to be an attractive location for film producers, from the glorious beauty of the Scottish Highlands to the Borders, the rolling hills of Ayrshire and many other places. Here in Edinburgh alone, we have our magnificent built heritage, which includes Cockburn Street, the Royal Mile, St Giles’s cathedral and Waverley station. Nevertheless, the dearth of strategy and infrastructure often prevents Scotland from capitalising on those natural opportunities.

An example is the recent shooting of the blockbuster film “Avengers: Infinity War”, which is apparently one of the most expensive films ever made, with a budget of between $300 million and $400 million. It included a seven-week shoot in Edinburgh that was estimated at the time to have brought to the city £10 million in economic benefit. Nevertheless, without a permanent studio space with infrastructure in Edinburgh to help them to continue making the film, the producers finished shooting the scenes here, packed up and went home to Atlanta, Georgia to finish the film. Rosie Ellison, who is head of film at Film Edinburgh, has reportedly said that Scotland loses films, or gains only parts of them, because of the lack of a large permanent film studio for indoor shoots.

Although the report acknowledges that some progress has been made in recent times, it is highly critical of past lack of progress. That may be due partly to organisational structures such as Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise not being suitable, and being inflexible in response to the needs of the Scottish screen sector. An online portal for screen is yet to be created, despite the report anticipating that that would be done before September 2018. Perhaps most significantly of all, as has been mentioned, a film studio delivery group that was established in 2013 has talked a lot about providing the necessary infrastructure of a film studio, but to date it has failed to deliver.

Scotland was once second only to London in the screen sector, and there is no reason why it should not once again become a home to many good and quality productions.

16:13  

I am not a member of the committee, but my constituency in the centre of Glasgow has been at the heart of a number of TV and film productions, so I will enjoy the chance to speak in the debate today, and I hope that other members will enjoy my contribution. I thank the committee and the clerks, and all those who provided evidence to the committee. The report on our film industry is robust, timely and welcome.

I fully support the committee’s ambition for Scotland to become a global screen leader, and I understand the recommendation for a stand-alone unit, which is certainly the option that the majority of witnesses preferred. The Scottish Government has outlined its reasons for not taking that direction at present—I emphasise the words “at present”—and it has injected a substantial chunk of funding into the unit- along with its partners. I welcome that; however, I respect the committee’s recommendations.

Our local economy in Glasgow has benefited from a £15.1 million boost from the screen sector in the past year alone. I am eternally grateful to those at the Glasgow Film Office, who must take some of the credit for their contributions and efforts in securing large and small productions in the city.

Viewers across the country were gripped by the recent BBC drama “The Cry”, which was partly filmed in Glasgow. Filming starts today in Glasgow on “Hobbs and Shaw”, the latest spin-off from “The Fast and the Furious”, and “Fast & Furious 6” was filmed in Glasgow a couple of years ago. “The Wife” was also filmed in the city. It has just opened in cinemas, with Glenn Close tipped for an Oscar for her performance.

As I said before, I welcome the positive benefits that Glasgow and the rest of Scotland receive from our vibrant and healthy screen sector, but I am about to say something that people might perceive as being negative, although I hope that they do not. As a constituency MSP for the city of Glasgow, I represent a number of constituents who live in the heart of the city, and I want to say that, when producers are filming in the city, any disruption that is caused by filming—which has happened—must be handled appropriately. Residents in the centre of Glasgow received a letter only yesterday from the producers of “Hobbs and Shaw” notifying them of the filming that is taking place. An urgent meeting was organised last night and residents discussed various issues such as not being able to get into their own homes or use their cars, gunshots being heard and not being told when there would be low-flying helicopters. As I said, I do not want to be negative, but my constituents have asked me to raise the issue and to say that, when something like that happens, the producers should speak to the local people who are affected.

As has been mentioned, Scotland has lost out on many large productions, such as “Game of Thrones”, which went to Northern Ireland. It was chosen because it is able to host such a production as a result of the investment that has been made in the sector there. As producer Iain Smith said to the committee, instead of being content with the crumbs from the table, we should aim to provide all the means that are required for film production.

The screen industry provides not only financial benefits but a platform to display our fantastic talent and, in relation to Glasgow, the fantastic architecture and heritage of the city. It provides many opportunities. I fully support a purpose-built film studio, and I look forward to it being created.

I only have a couple of minutes, so I will sum up by saying that we have incredible potential but we need to provide the opportunity to realise that potential. We should not be happy with just the crumbs from the table; we should aim to have the whole cake.

16:17  

I congratulate the committee on its report. I also congratulate it on its interim report, which was proactive and sought to engage in an important debate. Those reports follow on from the serious work of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which published a report in March 2015, when I had the privilege of serving on that committee. The debate at that time was dominated by the issue of the film studio and the importance of having infrastructure for the sector, so I welcome the recommendations in the report that we are discussing today.

I do not say this lightly, but I feel that this saga is something of an embarrassment for the Scottish Parliament. We need to rise to the challenge. The committee has done so, and the Scottish Government must do so, too.

The work of both committees was defined by seriousness of intent, by thoughtfulness on the part of those who gave evidence and by rigour on the part of the members who drew up the recommendations. However, more than anything, the work of the committees was underpinned by the substantial and carefully argued evidence of those who work in the sector, who are fleet of foot and passionate, but whose huge frustration at the lack of progress was evident then and remains evident now. We need to take their concerns seriously. The cabinet secretary said that I was talking down the sector, but if the sector itself is speaking out, we have a responsibility to listen. When we celebrate the sector, we are celebrating what it is able to do despite the barriers that are put in its way rather than anything else. It deserves better than the current sense of apparent paralysis in tackling the problems that it faces, which is captured by the lack of a film studio.

The inquiry that I was involved in dealt with a number of themes that are as relevant today as they were then. The screen sector matters not only because we celebrate creativity; it also matters economically and should be taken seriously in terms of its economic impact. The role of the public sector not as a facilitator but as a brake on the work of the sector has to be confronted. At present, there is not a proper understanding of the challenges that are faced by those who are working in a global industry. People say that they are blocked by what the public sector is doing rather than supported by it. If I am disappointed by the lack of progress, how much more disappointed must the sector that took seriously both inquiries feel?

In 2015, Fiona Hyslop told the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee—of which I was a member—that it was perfectly reasonable to expect evidence of a studio by 2016. We are now at the end of 2018, and I am struck by the lack of progress. Furthermore, as someone who has not been paying close attention in recent months, I looked at the reporting of the issue over the weekend and was struck by the recycling of explanations that we heard two years ago. One explanation in particular related to our old friend, state aid. A terrible problem, which seems to be unique to Scotland, is that we somehow cannot do anything because we are inhibited by state aid. Such inhibitions do not seem to affect studio development in other parts of the United Kingdom. Critically, we need to understand that recycling old explanations ensures that, instead of developing, the sector falls behind the rest of the United Kingdom. That matters not just to our creativity but to our economy.

It is now time for the cabinet secretary to respond to a reasonable request. The Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee’s report is thoughtful in its analysis and solutions, and it is essential that those solutions are embraced rather than explained away. Lots of things are being done, but the fundamental issues that the screen sector persistently and compellingly asked to be sorted out two years ago and more are still there. If the screen sector’s role in the economy was being taken seriously, there would have been far greater progress than there has been. I ask members to support the committee’s recommendations and ensure that those who have given evidence to all the Parliament’s inquiries on the issue see the progress that they demand.

16:22  

All of us with an interest in Scottish history look forward to seeing “Outlaw King”, which has been mentioned a few times. As we have heard, the film has had impressive early reviews for its portrayal of Scotland’s wars of independence. Needless to say, when our stunning locations are featured in screen productions such as that one, there is an impact on our economy and on tourism. Visitor numbers to some of the locations featured in “Outlander” have increased significantly. For instance, there has been an increase of 91 per cent in visitor numbers to Doune castle since it featured in the series. There was a similar effect on Rosslyn chapel after wild claims were made about it in the “The Da Vinci Code”.

Total production spend on film and TV in Scotland has increased by more than 200 per cent since 2007. “Outlaw King” is the largest feature film to have been made in Scotland, with locations that include Linlithgow palace, Glasgow cathedral, Glencoe and the Isle of Skye. The Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee has welcomed all of that, as well as the additional support from the Scottish Government.

Another theme that emerges from the committee’s report is the evidence that public sector broadcasters still do not commission enough content from Scottish companies. There is an emerging consensus that we need tougher Office of Communications definitions of what qualifies as a Scottish programme and better monitoring to ensure compliance; we also need a significantly greater proportion of the BBC licence fee that is raised in Scotland to be spent here.

On that theme, I positively welcome the BBC’s new Scotland TV channel. We must keep seeking assurances about its funding and structure, particularly regarding the channel’s commitment to drama, but it is undeniably a very positive step.

The production growth fund, which is funded by the Scottish Government and the National Lottery with an allocation of £3.25 million for the period to March 2018, has also contributed to the wider industry. The PGF provides a financial incentive to major international productions basing themselves in Scotland, as well as increasing the funding available for Scotland-based producers to anchor more of their production work here. The fund is helping to create significant employment opportunities for Scotland-based crew and delivers a direct and significant economic benefit to the country.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the claim that my constituency has as a spectacular film location. Some of the Hebrides landscapes would not look out of place in “Game of Thrones”, and, as is often overlooked, we have many state-of-the-art studio and sound-stage facilities to go with those landscapes.

The development of BBC Alba has also proved something interesting, which is that independent production companies can flourish in our island communities. Though perhaps a location used more by television than by the big screen, the Hebrides probably first came to the attention of feature film producers in 1949, with the much-loved “Whisky Galore”—filmed in Barra and Eriskay—which introduced the culture and landscape of the islands to a wider world.

Although Brexit presently looms on the horizon as a figurative hazard to shipping, it is hardly likely to excite the salvors in quite the way that the wreck of the SS Politician did in “Whisky Galore”. The key concerns about Brexit for the screen sector are: fear over loss of funding from EU sources; hindrances to free movement of artists, performers and companies; rising costs; and a damaging inward focus. However, putting those questions to one side for the moment, the report that we are debating today demonstrates the huge contribution that the screen industry makes to Scotland’s cultural and economic life, and I am sure that it will make even more of a contribution in the future.

16:26  

For decades, Scotland has provided a spectacular backdrop for the screen sector and its reach has spanned the globe. We have punched above our weight internationally, while films and television have grown to form a major part of our domestic culture.

The screen sector has also supported other parts of our wider cultural offering. Scottish literature has often reached further, finding wider audiences, through film. Our history has been translated across borders, and the benefits to our heritage sector are clear.

There has been a resurgence in our film and television industries around the UK. The British Film Institute’s report earlier this month showed the importance of the tax reliefs that were introduced in 2013 in powering the growth of the UK film sector. It has created thousands of jobs and contributed to our economic growth.

Let us consider the successes in Scotland. Only last night, “World War Z” was on television, with Glasgow playing the part of an American city. There are now a number of productions that are set and filmed in my region, the Highlands and Islands, including the extremely popular “Shetland” series on the BBC, as Tavish Scott mentioned. He asked what will happen next with “Shetland”—I imagine that a spin-off in Orkney would be good.

However, opportunities are still being missed. There are productions that are set or written in Scotland that are being filmed elsewhere.

We have one of the biggest and best screen sets anywhere in the world—our country. However, we have spoken for far too long about studio capacity in Scotland. We know that it is a problem and now is the time for action. The report describes the situation as “urgent”; that is not an understatement if we are to invest in infrastructure for our screen sector.

Another area that the report touched on is the development of skills that are relevant to this sector of our creative industries. It is disappointing that recent statistics from the Scottish Government showed that there were only nine creative and cultural apprenticeship starts in the first quarter of this year, in comparison with 62 starts in the same quarter last year. The apprenticeship route into the cultural sector must not be overlooked.

If we want growth that brings benefits to Scotland, we must build the skills that are required and have a workforce that is ready to meet demand. The screen sector should be dynamic and inspiring and it should be a sector that young people want to get involved in, yet we are struggling to bring in new entrants via the apprenticeship route.

Why is that? The committee heard that the sector is difficult to access, that there is little awareness among young people of the available career routes into it and that there are a number of other hurdles, such as the lack of distinctive Scottish qualification structures. As the committee recommends, there needs to be a clear skills plan for the future—one that is built by the industry, but with the support of Government. That will be a vital step, which should be championed, implemented and supported.

Scotland has an uncommonly strong cultural base on which to build its screen sector. We have a resource that is, if not untapped, certainly underutilised. We have a number of annual film festivals in Scotland and one of the world’s largest cultural festivals on our doorstep, and we have access to world-leading cultural organisations and the ability to communicate our ambition to the world.

I cannot do justice to the report in my allotted time, and I appreciate that I have not spoken about a number of areas. The interaction of public bodies is important, as is consideration of how they work collaboratively alongside the industry’s priorities. The report also acknowledged our domestic audience and the importance of streaming services and access to superfast broadband, particularly in regions such as mine. There is a balance to be found between promoting inward investment, building a truly domestic presence for the screen sector and ensuring that support is in place for aspiring enterprises to grow and expand.

I welcome the committee’s contribution and work, and I commend its recommendations.

16:30  

As a member of the committee, I am delighted to speak in this debate. It was a pleasure and informative to take part in the inquiry. I am pleased with the report and the work that went into it, which can help to shape a growing sector in the years to come.

At the outset of the inquiry, on 8 February, we heard from Tommy Gormley, who is a first assistant director from the west of Scotland. He provided hugely beneficial evidence that was, for me, some of the most powerful evidence that I have heard in my time in Parliament. Although I do not agree with everything that he said on the record, he stated:

“Furthermore, on the larger issue of Scotland’s image, how Scotland is seen in the world is directly linked to our participation in the media world, and that will affect how Scotland performs in all sorts of ways.”

I asked him about training and future opportunities, and his answer was:

“There was no structure for training when I started. I am thankful that there is a structure now—it is vital. Things are much better than they used to be, with genuine skills training programmes in place with various agencies.” —[Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, 8 February 2018; c 29, 31.]

That sounds like common sense, and that progress has been made.

I am thankful that progress has been made in the sector over the years, although it has been slow. A graphic on page 10 of the report provides the justification for the frustration that many people in the sector and industry have felt. With regard to Rachael Hamilton’s earlier comments, when she tried to blame the Scottish Government, it highlights that much of the situation predates not only the SNP Government but the establishment of this Parliament.

It is clear that there has been a wide variety of activity since 2010, but there remains outstanding the issue of a film studio, which others have touched on. I have raised that issue before in Parliament. I believe that my constituency would be a perfect location for a studio, and I say to Mr Wightman that if the Lothians do not want it, Inverclyde certainly does. Both the former IBM site in Spango valley or the former power station site at Inverkip would lend themselves to the creation of a lawful and adaptable film studio of the scale necessary to fill the gap in the key infrastructure that needs to be filled. The location is perfect: Glasgow international airport is merely 35 minutes away, transport links to Glasgow are excellent, we are the gateway to Argyll, and Burns country is just south of us.

The crucial point is that Inverclyde has a history of programmes and films. The recent adaptation of Agatha Christie’s “Ordeal by Innocence” was filmed at the Ardgowan estate in Inverkip, and parts of Inverclyde regularly portray parts of Shetland, which Mr Scott and I have discussed in the past.

Mr Gormley also told me something else that day. He told me, in a very frank manner,

“Think of the film industry just as the shipbuilding industry. Instead of launching a ship, you launch a film. As well as the actors and camera crew, you need joiners, painters, electricians, accountants”

and many other skills.

Inverclyde can launch both ships and films, and with the growing film sector and the opportunities in the country, Inverclyde can offer to fill part of the infrastructure gap by being the location of a much-needed studio.

16:34  

In addition to being an MSP, I am wearing the hat of a former further and higher education lecturer on the creative industries of 13 years. My colleagues know that I taught television and film production and ran my production company. Previously, albeit that it was a long time ago, I was a film and television studies undergraduate.

As a result of that background, I have a few niggles about our screen sector’s ability to reach its potential. Chief among them is the lack of opportunities in Scotland for students and graduates of the creative industries disciplines to access financially supported experience opportunities in their own country. I appreciate that the committee’s report had a much broader focus than that, but given that it is the year of young people, I thought that I would home in on the benefit to Scotland of using its young people. It has long been my plea that we should always consider opportunities for young talent, in particular when support decisions are made and funding is being given.

Of course, I would like all production companies to start valuing young people regardless of whether they access public funding. I call on the screen industry as a whole to rid its sector of opportunities that only wealthy individuals can access. However, given the levers that are available to Parliament, I would like there to be a commitment to giving financially supported work experience and internships to college or university film and television students whenever support is given by Government-funded agencies. Members will note that I said “financially supported”. The creative industries are, to be quite frank, among the worst sectors for expecting young people to give their labour and time free—and, often, at their own expense. At the very least, travel and subsistence overheads should always be met by the company.

Yes—working for a production company “will look good on a CV” and might “lead to other opportunities”, but I am tired of such phrases being used as justification for not offering young people financial support of any kind. Those well-worn phrases, which anyone who works in the creative industries will have heard many times, automatically exclude students from lower-income families from accessing opportunities that could take them out of poverty.

I note that some intern opportunities are given in lieu of credits for course work, and that many further education institutions assist with overheads that are incurred by students. However, many production companies routinely contact colleges with offers of work experience that is often just free labour, with little in the way of training and mentorship being offered, and certainly without financial assistance. If any of my former colleagues are listening to me, they will be rolling their eyes, because I banged on about that for 13 years.

Just as Creative Scotland is required to commit to a percentage of Scottish spend, I would like there to be a commitment to ending unpaid internships in the sector and, more important, a commitment to include at least one paid internship with production companies that access funding—preferably using an intern from the area in which filming is taking place, in order to allow opportunity to be geographically spread throughout Scotland.

There would be multiple benefits to this country from doing that. Most important is that we would give access to opportunity to all our talented young people, regardless of income, geographical location or social background. We would also underpin youth opportunity as a condition of all our endeavours in promoting and cultivating a Scottish screen sector. Imagine the impact on a Scottish student if visiting foreign productions were obliged, as part of any deal, to take on a local student during production. The local knowledge of the student could enhance the visiting production team’s visit, and the connections that were made could be life changing for the young person. Most important, that would be an investment in our home-grown industry and our talent base.

I hugely welcome the recent announcement of tighter collaboration between the enterprise agencies and Creative Scotland, the National Film and Television School location announcement and, of course, the amount of funding that is being put into our home-grown industry. My hope is that young people throughout Scotland, from all backgrounds, will benefit from that funding—not just in the year of young people, but for years to come. Let us be a leader in that.

16:38  

Throughout today’s debate, there has been a significant theme of consensus around the opportunities that the screen sector and creative industries offer to Scotland. Everyone has made it very clear that we have always believed that Scotland has the talent and the locations to take those opportunities.

A number of members have explained quite well why those opportunities are particularly important at the moment. George Adam gave his refrain that “Content is king” and took us on a run round the new platforms through which he and others consume that content.

The committee cites Iain Smith of the British Film Commission:

“Netflix is just the beginning; beyond it, there are ... big companies ... coming in fast ... Amazon ... Apple ... Google ... Hulu ... and beyond those is Disney”.—[Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, 8 February 2018; c 28.]

I think that we are agreed that there is a real opportunity here, and the cabinet secretary talked about the shared ambition for our screen sector, which has been the major theme of the debate. I think that there is consensus—perhaps it does not extend across the whole chamber, but across most of it—that we have failed to grasp the opportunities that have been presented by the sector in recent years.

Lewis Macdonald was clear that we have been here many times before, but have not progressed. We have seen the opportunity and talked about what we have to do to seize it, but we have failed to do so. We have missed many boats. “Braveheart” has been mentioned: it was made in Ireland, not Scotland. “Outlander” and “Avengers: Infinity War” were both filmed here, but completed elsewhere. Indeed, Tommy Gormley, the director, told the committee:

“We have not just missed the boat in this country; we have missed an entire fleet. There has been a cataclysmic failure at every level to deliver.”—[Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, 8 February 2018; c 20.]

He calls the situation a “disgrace”.

As has been mentioned in the debate, other countries have moved forward. Northern Ireland has several studios, Wales has more than one studio, and Bristol and Birmingham are coming forward as production areas, too. Johann Lamont called the situation an “embarrassment”. Iain Smith told the committee:

“if I look at a map of the UK, to my huge frustration, I have to say that Scotland is underperforming compared with the other nations, such as Northern Ireland and Wales.”

He continued:

“Scotland used to be the second production cluster in the UK ... at the moment, it is in fourth or fifth position after Wales, Cardiff and Bristol”.—[Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, 8 February 2018; c 27-28.]

If we ask ourselves why that has happened, we can see that perhaps the cabinet secretary’s refusal to accept that we have fallen behind other parts of the United Kingdom is part of the problem. There has been complacency and lack of leadership in recent years.

That brings us to another theme of today’s debate: the need for an independent agency that is fully empowered to seize the opportunities. The committee is certainly convinced of the need for that, and I do not think that the cabinet secretary has explained today why the Government believes that that view is wrong.

The other symbol of failure to which many members referred is the lack of a studio facility. Andy Wightman talked about the Pentland proposal and the problems that it has run into. Stuart McMillan made the important point that the studio does not have to be in Pentland: there are lots of places that could provide the facilities for which we are looking. He made the case—as he would—for Inverclyde. I highlight that immediately following the news of the court’s decision about the Pentland site, some of my constituents in East Lothian formed a campaign to bring the film studio to Cockenzie, and the local council is looking at other sites in East Lothian, or across East Lothian and Midlothian, that would be suitable.

It is very difficult to see why we have failed to move forward on the issue. I have to be honest and say that the cabinet secretary’s rather cryptic promise today does not give us much hope of moving forward.

The final point to which I will refer briefly is the theme that was covered by Gillian Martin in her speech—the importance of providing opportunity for talent and ensuring that that opportunity is open not only to those who already know people or have family who are in the business, or who have the capacity to work for free as an intern. We need to create a skills strategy that is for the many, rather than for the few.

The report is important. This time, we need to seize the opportunity and deliver, rather than simply acknowledge the opportunity.

16:44  

I am almost tempted to say that we need a screen sector that works for everyone, but I will resist doing so.

For 15 years, when I was asked what I did for a living, I said that I worked in TV. The first thing that people would say in response would be to ask whether I worked for the BBC. I faced that question about eight times a week.

My career in the screen sector was an interesting one. I started off as a runner; I was unpaid for the majority of the first couple of years—Gillian Martin mentioned payment—while trying to make my way in an expensive city. I made tea for annoyed producers and angry directors. I worked my way through the production sector, and before I joined Parliament two and a bit years ago, I was head of sales for a technology company that delivers on-demand content technology to telephone companies and triple-play and quad-play operators. I am glad that Stewart Stevenson is not here today to tell us all about that.

So, my journey has been an interesting one. I am new to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, but my interest in the area is very personal, vested and unambiguous. My career in television was made possible only by heading to the bright lights of cities including London, Manchester and Birmingham. Unfortunately, when I was 21, there were no opportunities in Scotland, and those that existed were limited in terms of the scale and range of existing domestic production. Like many others, I had no choice, and so I sought opportunity where it existed. The question is, 15 years on, is the situation any better?

Technology has changed beyond recognition in that short time. The screen sector is now diverse and much more digital than it was. Although I have been on the committee only a few months, I have found the production of the report eye-watering. The screen sector in Scotland faces significant challenges, as the convener outlined in her opening speech.

However, there is potential: it is not all doom and gloom, and there is great work going on. Anyone who is commuting through Glasgow today will know that much of the city centre is closed for the “The Fast and the Furious” franchise, which is shooting in the city centre. We know about the success of “Outlander”, about the new channel that the BBC is launching and about Channel 4’s potential new headquarters here. We might even have a Scottish James Bond at some point.

There is a lot to be positive about, but the report unequivocally mentions problems in the sector that have been alluded to and addressed many times in previous parliamentary sessions. It saddens me that, in this short debate, we are going over so much old ground.

The studio space issue is the eternal thorn in our sides. Throughout the debate, my colleague Rachael Hamilton and I have been hoping that the cabinet secretary will stand up and make a grand announcement about studio space in her closing speech. If that does not happen today, it needs to happen soon. We do not want to read in the news a vague comment that the new agency might make an announcement at some point before Christmas.

New studio space was being talked about years ago—way before my time as a member of Parliament. In 2015, a tender went out for a public-private proposition. If space can be found and there is genuine financial buy-in from the private sector, I hope that we can see results quickly.

I am glad that Stuart McMillan mentioned the evidence that we took from Tommy Gormley, who said that

“There has been a cataclysmic failure at every level to deliver.”—[Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, 8 February 2018; c 20.]

He is not the only person who has made that point. Producer Iain Smith said:

“I’ve personally been on two of these committees with MSPs, and they seem positive at the time, but nothing transpires, and I don’t quite know why.”

I was in the screen sector for a decade longer than I have been in politics, so I share people’s frustration as yet another damning report comes out of yet another Holyrood committee. It will be a complete failure of Government and this Parliament if, in a couple of years, we find ourselves sitting here again lamenting the same lack of progress. I say that not to talk down the screen sector, but because we are listening to what the sector has to say. We really need progress.

It is unfortunate that we do not have a huge amount of time to go through the committee’s recommendations. I will recap the main ones. The new agency must have true autonomy and it must be able to deliver on its budget effectively and without being held back by the complicated processes and agencies with which it works. It must be able to deliver not just for big-ticket items but for small-scale productions, too. Individual producers and people with ideas and concepts should be able to get genuine help and assistance from the agency when they need it. The executive director must focus on screen and must not be distracted by other forms of the creative arts.

We need to regard the agency as a step on a journey towards having a stand-alone agency. The committee was clear about that and the industry is clear about that. I, for one, cannot understand why the cabinet secretary does not agree. If she can say otherwise, I will be happy to hear her do so.

We really need to get on with it. The Scottish screen sector is exciting and important. My goodness! I do not want to be having, in a couple of years, another debate about why we have let the sector down. The situation is not good enough and we must do better.

16:49  

I began my contribution by setting out the successes of our screen sector and reporting on the demonstrable progress that we have made in providing effective public sector support. On the points that were raised on my opening remarks, I can say that the MOUs have been agreed among partners, they have a new approach to general business development, there are two programmes of specialist business support, screen Scotland partners have the in-depth skills review that was called for, and work on increasing studio facilities is well under way. We should reflect on the progress that we have made.

The debate has underlined just how great the opportunity is. It has shown enthusiasm but, of course, it has shown frustration as well. The effect that funding for screen can have on not only economic spend, but our confidence, our reputation as a creative country and our international reach in attracting tourism must not be underestimated. We are achieving, as is our screen sector, and I must underline that.

Gillian Martin made an important point about traineeships. I say to her that the funding for “Outlaw King” included support for 30 trainees, some of whom I met on set at Craigmillar castle. Jamie Halcro Johnston also mentioned issues around skills.

I share members’ ambitions. I want us to move faster and I understand members’ frustrations about such issues—especially regarding the studio—but it is important to recognise how far we have come. To give members some perspective, I remind them that, 10 years ago, the equivalent public spending for the screen unit was just £3 million for Scottish Screen, which is about a sixth of what we have committed this year. Our total investment is more than that of other nations, such as Denmark, Ireland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and it is almost comparable to England’s.

I am also encouraged by the progress that has been made by screen Scotland and by how the pace is picking up under its new executive director. A clear commitment to strong working partnerships is now in place and support on business developments, skills and forging strategic partnerships with broadcasters is moving ahead at pace. Core to the committee’s report is the fact that many members have called for the immediate establishment of a stand-alone agency. I am not persuaded that that is the imperative action and priority at this time. Today, screen Scotland has all the tools and resources that it requires to lead, support and promote our film and television sector.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

No; I took an intervention from the member earlier and I am very limited for time.

There is no doubt that we can draw on the new expertise that we have added to Creative Scotland, with new board members David Strachan, Elizabeth Partyka and Ewan Angus bringing their records and strengths to guiding it. There are also new arrangements for the screen sector leadership group to have a strong voice with the executive. That collaboration of industry and agency will bring renewed vigour to public sector support. The new website, the portal, and the visible focal point for seeking support that was recommended in the report have already been delivered. A suite of funding opportunities is there to be accessed. It would be premature to derail the effort that has been established over recent months by focusing on a stand-alone agency at this time. Equally, the time and effort involved in creating a new agency would divert us from the most important task, which is nurturing and growing our screen sector. The last Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive bears significant responsibility for the original merger of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish screen.

Quite understandably, a lot of the debate has focused on representations for a new, purpose-built studio in Scotland. The Scottish Government supports the wish for more infrastructure and work to provide that is clearly under way. Creative Scotland has developed a business case for additional studio facilities. Shortly, it will launch a tender for a studio operator with public sector backing.

Undoubtedly, there are success stories about private sector-led consortia and initiatives in other countries and other parts of the United Kingdom, as well as those led by city organisations. However, there are also instances in which projects have gone less well, including some that have received public sector backing. There can be the potential for legal challenge on state aid if the Government itself leads that. Northern Ireland and Wales have used available, vacant, publicly owned property for some of their studio spaces—not least, of course, the former shipyards that house Titanic Studios. Other public sector investors have brought together consortia to enable the purchase of private property for development. We must not forget that, in Wardpark, we have a permanent, successful, working studio, where the highly popular “Outlander” has filmed four series. In addition, screen Scotland currently markets 136,000 square feet of stage space and 335,000 square feet of built space.

I visited the Pyramids business park in Bathgate where “T2 Trainspotting” was filmed, and the Livingston studio where “Churchill” was based. We continue to welcome private sector initiatives for studios. I cannot say much about the Pentland Studios case due to the potential for legal appeal. We also understand that Guardhouse Studios’ interest remains live.

This has been a fantastic year for screen. On the big screen and in our homes we have started to see just what our industry can produce when the right support and the right circumstances come together.

Given the dedicated expertise of the newly established screen Scotland, backed by generous funding and planning for increased skills and business development support, I am excited and optimistic about the future of our film and television industry.

I call Claire Baker to close the debate for the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee.

16:55  

It has been an interesting, if brief, debate, in which we have had many insightful contributions.

Our committee’s report is the second major report on the subject that the Parliament has produced. It is frustrating that MSPs who worked on the 2015 report find themselves commenting on the same issues that the sector says are holding it back.

The sector has grown in recent years. Scotland is increasingly chosen as a fantastic location, and members have highlighted our successes, but we are in danger of missing a huge opportunity. It is clear that if the sector is to meet its full potential and bring Scotland the cultural, economic and social benefits that will come with that, the Government, Creative Scotland and the new screen unit and all its partners must provide greater focus and ambition.

We welcome the establishment of screen Scotland and wish it every success, but we have made it clear in our report that we believe that it needs to be empowered to bring about that success. Our witnesses expressed a degree of frustration with their engagement with public agencies, which they said involved too much bureaucracy and decision making that was too slow.

As other members have highlighted, we continue to have concerns about the use of a fragmented approach and overly bureaucratic governance arrangements. Given the success of the model in Northern Ireland and the increasing global demand for content, the landscape has changed since the establishment of Creative Scotland, and we believe that Scotland should have an agency that is independent of any master. It is concerning that no commitment has been made that the executive director for screen Scotland will continue to have a sole focus on screen and that the business plan has still not been finalised. In addition, we continue to have concerns that partner agencies—principally, Scottish Enterprise—do not fully understand the needs and diversity of the sector.

We do not wish to hamper the work of screen Scotland, but we will closely monitor its progress. We expect to see a strong, empowered and ambitious agency, but we remain to be convinced that the current arrangements will facilitate that to the extent that is required.

Members have emphasised the importance of having a purpose-built film and TV studio. Notwithstanding the development at Wardpark, which is exclusive to “Outlander”, Scotland needs a flexible, fully equipped space that can attract international business as well as offer facilities for indigenous productions and support the sector to grow. The importance of having fully equipped studio facilities could not be emphasised enough by witnesses, and there was frustration at the lack of progress in Scotland. That is not a new issue. In May 2013, the Scottish Government said that active discussions were under way and that an announcement was expected soon. In 2015, statements were made about further discussions, and in 2016, an announcement was imminent but, so far, nothing has come to fruition. At the weekend, there was an exclusive news story that said that an announcement would be made any day now. It is perhaps no surprise that that has been greeted with a degree of scepticism.

The committee supports the efforts of screen Scotland and the Scottish Government in reaching a positive decision, but we find it frustrating that the barriers that the Scottish Government identified in evidence—state-aid rules, a lack of suitable and available buildings and a lack of private sector investment—do not seem to have hampered Manchester, Belfast, Cardiff or Birmingham, where a complex has recently been announced, in making studios a reality.

Good points have been made about public sector broadcasting and the need for robust Ofcom guidance.

There are big expectations of the new screen unit. If Scotland is to have a vibrant, growing and ambitious sector, the screen unit has an important role to play in providing the building blocks; supporting the development of new ideas and intellectual property; supporting clear pathways on skills and training into the industry; and maximising the wider benefits for the sector that international investment can bring through fair criteria in return for public sector investment. We all want the sector to do well; achieving those things is a tall order for any organisation, but we must get serious about delivery.

Part of screen Scotland’s remit is overseeing skills development. In closing, I want to highlight recent figures from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts. As the nominations were announced for the Scottish BAFTAs a couple of weeks ago, Jude MacLaverty, director of BAFTA Scotland, drew attention to the lack of women shortlisted in the major categories, including directing and writing. That is not uncommon at award ceremonies.

“Who’s Calling the Shots?”, a report on gender inequality from Directors UK, focuses on women directors in UK television and shows that the gender gap is widening. Gillian Martin made good points about opportunity and exploitation in the sector. During the summer I visited Screen Education Edinburgh, after being impressed by its evidence to the inquiry. Working with disadvantaged communities, it works to nurture talent and creativity and to raise attainment and aspirations among young people as well as adult learners. It provides a pathway into the sector for people who might otherwise be excluded.

Screen Scotland has a role to play here along with Skills Development Scotland. The new screen sector skills strategy for Scotland needs to have increasing diversity in the workforce as part of its outcomes, and to achieve that we need targeted, proactive provision that opens up opportunities in the sector and for employees so that all of Scotland’s talent can grow and contribute to the huge benefits that an active screen sector can bring to Scotland’s economy and its creative, social and cultural life.