Meeting of the Parliament 23 February 2016
As I have family members who are current and former BBC employees, I start by declaring an interest.
I am acutely aware that the institution has its shortcomings, but it is commendably honest about them—more so than most, perhaps. At the same time, it is an institution for which I, like countless millions in this country and across the world, have enormous admiration and affection. Like the various witnesses who gave evidence to the Education and Culture Committee over recent weeks, to whom I extend my thanks, I consider myself to be a BBC loyalist. That, in essence, is the motivation behind my amendment. I would like Parliament to state unequivocally that when it pursues legitimate claims for change and reform, those are intended to enhance and strengthen an institution that is the envy of most around the world and one that we take for granted at our peril.
The Government’s motion says nothing that explicitly endangers that institution. It asks merely that Parliament notes the Scottish National Party’s proposal. I presume that it has been drafted to try to secure a united position around which Parliament could coalesce, which is laudable. I welcome the tone of the cabinet secretary’s comments, but we cannot ignore some of the rhetoric that has been used by ministers and SNP back benchers over recent years, who have levelled accusations at the BBC. Alex Salmond still nurses his wrath and unashamedly holds the BBC responsible for his defeat in the referendum. For some within the wider nationalist movement, their motivation is less than altruistic with regard to the BBC.
That is why I believe that, if Parliament is to unite around a common view at decision time, it should do so by being unambiguous about the value of the BBC and the imperative for it to remain impartial and challenging, and about our collective desire to see change safeguard and enhance that position.
Liz Smith’s amendment makes very much the same point, drawing on concerns about the so-called joyous demonstrations outside the BBC studios in Glasgow or the appalling treatment meted out to individual BBC journalists during the referendum.
This is not about resisting change. No one is seriously arguing that change is not needed, as was clear from the evidence considered by the committee. Lord Hall himself accepted, very willingly and convincingly, that greater decentralisation of decision making is both required and desirable.
The full detail of what that should look like still seems some way off, but change is already under way. Parliament has a voice within the charter renewal process. That is a step forward, although it should be about recognising the diverse voices and views of the Scottish people, not simply the settled will of a single party—a point made fairly by Claire Baker in her amendment and acknowledged by the cabinet secretary in her remarks.
In passing, I add that I also believe that future charter renewal processes should be decoupled from the electoral cycles of Westminster and the devolved nations.
Greater transparency over budgeting is also on the cards. That is welcome, not least given the extent to which it is being asserted that Scotland is somehow short changed by the BBC. That was a constant refrain in our evidence taking, yet figures show that a higher proportion of adults in Scotland view BBC One and Two than in other parts of the UK, and 88 per cent of that content is UK network content. It is not as if there is not a choice—alternative options have scarcely ever been more available than they are now. Delivering that content, however, does and will continue to require investment from across the UK. Therein lies the conundrum for the cabinet secretary and for others who argue for a federal structure: how to square the determination to have separate Scottish television channels, radio stations and more Scottish content while simultaneously retaining the same access to UK network and content.
In support of the flowering of stations and channels, various models from across Europe were cited, although none is renowned for matching the BBC’s quality and range. Indeed, some rely heavily on importing content and therefore provide limited additional opportunities for domestic production or artistic talent. That said, as the committee concluded, there is scope for reforming the commissioning process to help grow a strong, sustainable and competitive creative industries sector in Scotland. Again, Lord Hall acknowledged and accepted that proposition.
Such reform would need to recognise the growing complexity of and collaborative nature involved in putting productions together, which make applying quotas—the mechanism of choice over recent years—increasingly difficult. That approach has delivered economic benefits to Scotland, including through the development of skills, but now is in need of change. A greater degree of decentralisation of and accountability for commissioning and budgets should lead to improvements, in relation to not just the effect on creative industries but the way in which the BBC portrays the diversity of Scottish culture and identity.
Care must be taken as to how and the extent to which that is done. For example, demands for 100 per cent of the licence fee raised in Scotland to be devolved appear to show inadequate concern for what that could actually deliver or its likely effect on the capacity of the wider BBC.
As for the idea of a federal structure, I remain to be convinced. The committee recognised that improvements do not require the BBC to be federalised. Indeed, it was interesting how often those advocating such an approach—