Oral evidence: Public broadcasting in Scotland, HC 1048
Monday 23 January 2023
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 23 January 2023.
Members present: Pete Wishart (Chair); Deidre Brock; Wendy Chamberlain; David Duguid; Douglas Ross; Dr Philippa Whitford.
Questions 303-377
Witnesses
I: Julia Lopez MP, Minister of State for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; and Robert Specterman-Green, Director, Media and Creative Industries, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Witnesses: Julia Lopez MP and Robert Specterman-Green.
Q303 Chair: Welcome to the Scottish Affairs Committee for our last session in our short inquiry into broadcasting in Scotland. We are delighted to be joined by the Minister responsible for such matters. Minister Lopez, will you introduce yourself and your colleague? Anything by way of a short introductory statement would be fine and appropriate.
Julia Lopez: Thank you. I am Julia Lopez. I am the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, which includes broadcasting and creative industries policy. As you know, broadcasting is a reserved matter, so we take a UK-wide view of how we govern this area. I am joined by Robert Specterman-Green, who I am sure will happily introduce himself. We work closely together on developing policy in this area.
Robert Specterman-Green: Good afternoon. I am the Director for Media and Creative Industries at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Q304 Chair: Excellent. Thank you for your concise introductions. As you said in your opening remarks, Minister, broadcasting policy is indeed a reserved matter. I think we can all remember some of the conversations about the Scotland Bill, as was, on whether broadcasting should have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps you will set out your Department’s responsibilities and activity with regard to Scotland. What do you do, basically, in terms of arrangements with our colleagues in Scotland?
Julia Lopez: Broadcasting is a reserved matter, so our policy is UK-wide. However, we have ongoing conversations with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations: at my level, most recently with Ivan McKee about some digital infrastructure issues; and our Secretary of State, Michelle Donelan, met Angus Robertson back in December to discuss cultural and creative matters in person.
In policy terms, we devise UK-wide broadcasting policy, looking at questions about the sustainability of the public service broadcasting system and what it means for representation, creative activity and so on for each part of the UK. In our relations with the public service broadcasters, we try to ensure that they represent all voices in all communities across our country, because that is an important part of what they deliver for a thriving broadcasting and creative sector.
Q305 Chair: I am sure Cabinet Secretary Robertson will be delighted that you actually know his name. At the DCMS Committee, the Secretary of State failed to name him when she was asked to do so by one of the Committee members, so that is great. Will you tell us when you or anyone in your Department last had a meeting with Cabinet Secretary Robertson or Minister Gray, who also has responsibilities for culture and broadcasting in Scotland?
Julia Lopez: As I say, the Secretary of State and Mr Robertson met in December to discuss matters—I have not seen a read-out of that meeting, but I know that one of the issues discussed was having an inter-ministerial group on shared policy interests.
Q306 Chair: On that, because the Committee has been looking at it, what are the formal structures for engagement with the Scottish Government on the whole issue of broadcasting? I understand that there was a proposal—a suggestion, at least—of an inter-ministerial group on culture and media. Is that still part of your plans? If so, when are we likely to see the fruits of that attempt?
Julia Lopez: IMGs are a fairly new innovation. They started to be rolled out formally in 2022. It was one of the matters discussed when the Culture Secretary met Mr Robertson in December. I think that there are plans to draw up some terms of reference for having an IMG on culture, with a view to setting that committee up this year.
Q307 Chair: What would that group be likely to consider?
Julia Lopez: Areas where they have shared portfolio interests. As I say, I have not been party to that conversation or the read-out from that meeting, but I would imagine that issues of broadcasting may be contained within that.
Q308 Chair: Skills, production, standards, quotas—that type of thing? Are those the areas that you would expect that group to cover?
Julia Lopez: Well, potentially. As I say, I was not party to that discussion or what was agreed in terms of what might be in there. I think the terms of reference are still to be drawn up, but there are mutual areas of interest and areas where there is overlap. You mentioned skills. For instance, DCMS has run a pilot of the creative careers programme in Scotland, but it is the devolved Administration that runs education policy. I think you could probably have a good conversation about how you link those programmes up to be most effective in terms of ensuring that the creative and broadcasting industries have the right type of labour to fill the jobs that are being created.
Q309 Chair: When you look at the whole broadcasting environment in Scotland, and some of the emphasis and priorities that have been identified, particularly by the creative sector, what do you think of what you observe? Do you see a sector that is pretty much getting there and realising ambitions in terms of what it hopes to achieve?
Julia Lopez: Yes, I think Scotland is a very important creative hub, particularly around Glasgow, where the BBC has operations, and where Channel 4 has operations and will be increasing the number of staff. As with anything now in DCMS, there is overlap between sectors. One of the great success stories in Scotland is how well the video games industry is doing in places like Dundee. There are obviously other clusters, including film production, in Scotland. It is a very lively sector. Although it is doing well, there is always an opportunity to grow the sector. That is one of the reasons why we are looking at a creative sector vision, which will try to enhance everything that the creative sector is doing, and provide more jobs and opportunities for people in every corner of our country.
Q310 Chair: A creative sector vision?
Julia Lopez: Yes.
Chair: Could you tell us a little more about that?
Julia Lopez: Sure. We are going to be launching it in the next couple of months. It is effectively looking, up to 2030, at our creative industries and how we maximise their impact in the economy.
Q311 Chair: Excellent. I do not think it will surprise you that we are going to ask you a little bit about what is happening in the BBC just now, particularly some of the issues around the chair and the loan to the Prime Minister. Do you think this reflects badly on the BBC and the whole process of the arrangements for the selection of the chair of the BBC? I am just wondering if you have any sort of update for the Committee about what is happening.
Julia Lopez: DCMS ran the campaign and ran the process. While it predates me as a Minister in DCMS, as far as I am aware, the process was run to the letter. It was a competitive and open competition for the role. I believe there were eight shortlisted candidates, of which five were found to be appointable. There was a broad panel to appoint, all the right questions were asked in terms of conflicts of interest and so on, and then once the candidate—there is a certain term for it, Robert, isn’t there? The candidate select, or something.
Robert Specterman-Green: The selected candidate, yes—the Government’s preferred candidate.
Julia Lopez: Once the Government’s preferred candidate was selected, the matter went to the DCMS Select Committee for pre-approval, and I think the Commissioner for Public Appointments was also consulted on the matter. So, from a DCMS perspective, this was followed to the letter, and we are confident in the process that was run.
Q312 Chair: I think there was an announcement this morning that there is going to be an inquiry into the appointment of the BBC chair. My understanding is that that inquiry will be done by the BBC itself. Do you think that is a bit like correcting your own homework? Is there any case whatever for some sort of external inquiry into what has happened?
Julia Lopez: Well, we are only just finding out the details of the BBC’s inquiry. I believe that that is something that Mr Sharp has been involved in, and will be decided at board level within the BBC. As I say, from a DCMS perspective, we are confident that the process was followed to the letter.
Chair: Thank you for that.
Q313 Deidre Brock: Good afternoon, Minister and Mr Specterman-Green. Thank you for coming along today. The BBC announced a big round of cuts to English local radio stations towards the end of last year, and it is suggesting that that could see the end of regional radio stations as stand-alone outlets. I should declare an interest at this point: I am co-chair of the BBC APPG.
The BBC in Scotland has announced that is planning to axe three specialist radio music programmes: “Classics Unwrapped”, “Jazz Nights” and “Pipeline”, which is “Crùnluath” on Radio nan Gàidheal. That has caused a huge amount of concern to cultural figures in Scotland, who have written an open letter saying: “The effect of these cuts will be devastating for Scotland’s classical, jazz and the piping scenes,” and that it will greatly affect the fostering of young talent. Didn’t those sorts of cuts seem inevitable, given that the UK Government is forcing the BBC to freeze its licence fee for a couple of years, and given that the ongoing speculation about the very existence of the licence fee adds to the uncertainty? What are your thoughts on that?
Julia Lopez: The licence fee is a contentious issue. There is a lot of change going on within the broadcasting sector with the presence of new online streamers that are drastically changing viewing habits, the amount of money that some of those content providers are putting into the system, and the ways in which audiences are reacting to that—they are moving away from some of the traditional broadcasters on to subscription services and all the rest of it. That is creating some very serious questions about how we support our public service broadcasters going forward. One of the challenges is that, no matter what political take you have on the licence fee, the number of people signing up to it is in decline. There is an increasing view among viewers that this is an outdated system of funding a broadcaster, and that creates a long-term challenge for the BBC about the sources of revenue it relies upon.
As a Government, we want to see a successful BBC. We believe in the BBC as an important cultural and creative engine of our economy, and it also has an important role in our democracy. Providing the kind of local radio services that you talk about is one of the important roles that we see it playing.
I appreciate the concerns that the BBC has about the impact on its budget of freezing the licence fee, but in the light of the very substantial pressures on household budgets, and given the public view that the BBC licence fee is in decline—it lacks the level of support that it previously had—we did not feel we could go back to households and ask them to fund substantial increases to the BBC’s budget. Obviously, that creates challenges to its budget, but it will get £3.8 billion or £3.9 billion in guaranteed income in the coming licence fee period. That will lead to the BBC having to make some difficult choices, but some of the radio changes are actually cost-neutral: the BBC is trying to move some of its teams out of those radio stations and into digital. We have some wider questions about whether that is the right move.
Q314 Deidre Brock: I don’t know whether it is cost-neutral or not, but the change to the cultural output is certainly not neutral; the cost there is quite considerable. Do you think the principle of public service broadcasting is important?
Julia Lopez: Yes, of course.
Q315 Deidre Brock: Oh, great. Can I ask, then, what the UK Government is doing to support public service broadcasters’ ability to deliver that regional programming? That is certainly relevant to Scottish viewers—we know from the Ofcom report that they value it considerably. What is the Government doing to support that?
Julia Lopez: Our fundamental approach in relation to public service broadcasting is to ensure public service broadcasters can withstand some of the dynamics, challenges and market changes that are coming at us very rapidly. Each public service broadcaster is set up slightly differently, so the ways we can support each of them are slightly different. We are looking at how we have a sustainable funding mechanism for the BBC going forward, which is why we are looking at the licence fee. On Channel 4, which I am sure we will come on to, it is about whether its model is sustainable going forward, because it is so reliant on advertising revenue. They all share a need to ensure they are still able to be viewed by a large number of viewers.
In the media Bill, which we hope to bring forward as soon as possible, we have a series of reforms that will universally benefit the public service broadcasters. One of the main things is something called prominence, which means that no matter what platform you view television and other content on, you will be able to locate public service broadcasters. We think that will be a massive boost to the business cases they can make and their sustainability as broadcasters. In sustaining the public service broadcasters, we then believe that they will continue to be able to fulfil their remit obligations on things like news, content production, and local and regional representation.
Deidre Brock: We will have other questions later, but it is good to hear that the Government supports that prominence issue, because I know that is certainly a big issue for public service broadcasters.
Q316 Dr Whitford: Thank you both for joining us. Obviously, it has been widely welcomed, but can you explain why the UK Government reversed its position on privatisation of Channel 4? In particular, what has changed since the 2021 consultation and last year’s White Paper?
Julia Lopez: What hasn’t changed is that Channel 4 faces sustainability questions. Those may not be in the next couple of years, but it is a broadcaster that is uniquely dependent on a single type of income, which is linear advertising revenue. It is also a broadcaster that is uniquely unable to produce its own content because of the publisher-broadcaster restriction.
The former Secretary of State decided that the best way of dealing with those challenges was to remove public ownership of Channel 4 so that it could get private capital into the business and be given greater flexibility on how it could produce content. But it would still have been a public service broadcaster within that context.
The incoming Secretary of State took a different view. She wanted to make her own decision on this, considering what an important part of the broadcasting picture it is. She took the view that, yes, there are sustainability challenges, but she would rather try to solve those within public ownership and look to give a freedom in relation to the publisher-broadcaster restriction, give it more flexible access to borrowing, and introduce the prominence reforms and other things that will help the PSB sector. So I don’t think it is a difference in analysis in relation to the kind of feedback and challenges we saw with Channel 4; it is a difference in approach in how you want to try to address those challenges.
Q317 Dr Whitford: Obviously, the concern among producers and developers was around its support for the independent sector and nations and regions, and perhaps losing that. Channel 4 has now committed to doubling the roles outside London from 300 by 2025 to 600. How was that new figure arrived at, how many of those do you think are likely to be in the Glasgow hub, and how will that be monitored to make sure that it is putting those roles outside London?
Julia Lopez: That was something that the Government asked of Channel 4 as part of the negotiation over privatisation. It is similar to what happened previously when the Government looked at the question of selling Channel 4 and decided that one of the things that we could do was to increase the number of roles outside London. That is why Leeds became such an important hub, creatively, for Channel 4. But as I said, we thought, in having the negotiations with Channel 4, in terms of next steps, that doubling the number of roles was something that we could ask of it.
We have not, however, been prescriptive as to where those roles go. Some of them will go to Leeds, some will go to Glasgow, some will go to Bristol and other small hubs. Ultimately, Channel 4 will remain an independently governed broadcaster. While we have overall requests of it as the owner of the broadcaster, we are giving it flexibility as to how it delivers that. But we believe that there is an opportunity, as a public service broadcaster within the Government’s ownership, to try to get some broader positive outcomes by spreading its footprint across the UK in a deeper way.
Q318 Dr Whitford: One of the proposals is to relax the publisher-broadcaster status, because, as you say, it could not gain from its own content—but that meant that it was a big supporter of independent production companies. The quota for that was 25% of content and actually they are currently at 59%. How will you avoid that sliding back when they may end up just pulling more things in-house?
Julia Lopez: It is not a bad idea to remind ourselves that Channel 4 was set up in the 1980s by Margaret Thatcher precisely to boost the independent production sector. It has done that, and then some more. As a result, you now have some super-indies that are larger than Channel 4 itself. The independent production sector has really thrived.
As I alluded to, we are not trying to be prescriptive to Channel 4 about how it sets up its production. What we are doing is giving it a range of tools so that it has much greater flexibility—so that, in so far as there is a point at which it believes that producing more of its own content would be a good idea, that is its choice. There is no edict going out from us that says, “You have to do this.” We are giving it the option to do it, and then it will be a decision for Channel 4 whether it wants to go down that route.
In relation to independent production quotas, that is an issue that we are looking at and consulting on now, as part of the new proposals towards Channel 4.
Q319 Dr Whitford: But also—to add to that—particularly to protect the smaller ones. As you say, some of them have now grown but, equally, Channel 4 has done a lot about supporting small, independent creative producers.
Julia Lopez: It has. It has done some really good work—particularly in Scotland, in terms of small indies—and we do not want to try to stifle that work. That would not be in Channel 4’s interests. One of the reasons why it has been a successful broadcaster is that slightly subversive and creative content that comes from the grassroots that it has become famous for. I do not think it would seek to try to snuff that out in any way. Robert, is there anything you wanted to add?
Robert Specterman-Green: I was just going to add that we have committed to working closely with the independent production sector precisely to address the potential risks that you outlined. The broadcasting sector is one that carries many carefully calibrated relationships and balances, and we want to ensure that in providing this potential flexibility we manage any unintended consequences.
I believe it is also true to say that Channel 4 has no interest in damaging the excellent relationships it has with the independent production sector. Over the next period of time, we will be working together to design the appropriate protections. The Secretary of State has said that she is minded to increase the quotas around independent production as part of that consideration. I think you mentioned the regional programme making; this package does not affect the quotas on regional programme making at all. Those are set down in the broadcast licence issued by Ofcom.
Julia Lopez: I will just point out—Robert says these are really carefully calibrated issues. I have asked the team to look previously at whether we can do anything precisely on those very small indies. The problem is that sometimes you create perverse incentives if you start adding certain thresholds and so on that can disincentivise the growth of smaller production companies. We would not want to do anything that would do that.
Similarly, in terms of upping the quotas for Channel 4, if it is going to stay in public hands, we also want it to be commercially successful so that it does sustain as a business that can continue to commission among the creative economy in the country. All these things have to be a judgment on where one policy outcome that you are seeking to achieve merges into another and does not untip the balance that you are trying to strike.
Q320 Dr Whitford: You mentioned, Robert, the nations and regions. Particularly there, the quota is 35%, but actually two thirds of their content is regional and from the devolved nations. Scotland particularly plays a significant role in there. Will that quota just stay at 35%, with a possibility that—actually—the amount from nations and regions will go down, or will you be trying to push that quota up? Do you have any vision for a quota for independent producers? It is only 25% at the moment and, while Channel 4 is way beyond it, it could obviously go backwards. The two are connected—the nations and regions and independent producers. It does tend to be independent producers that are scattered across—
Julia Lopez: All these questions are interconnected. Ultimately, the No. 1 priority is that we want Channel 4 to sustain and grow as a business. That will increase the overall spend on production in the UK, and probably increase the representation of that production in the UK so that audiences relate to the content more. Within that, there are questions about quotas that we are going to be exploring.
There is no malintent here: we want production that is reflective of the whole of the creative economy in this country. In so far as you are seeking a signal ahead of any decisions on quotas, I think you should take heart from the very fact that we have asked Channel 4 to spread its employment beyond London as a priority.
Q321 Dr Whitford: Was that one of the main reasons—that concern that, had Channel 4 been privatised, a lot of this lively creative environment might have been lost? That is very much what the independent producers were saying. Was that quite a major part of the decision not to go ahead?
Julia Lopez: Independent production obviously had a strong view on the privatisation of Channel 4. I don’t think anyone was approaching the question of Channel 4—to sell or not to sell—with the view of trying to undermine the organisation or the creative economy as a whole. It was just a different approach.
There were lots of discussions—in so far as if we did sell, how would we spend the proceeds of any sale, and how could we push that back into the creative economy? These are all questions of balance, where we think the future is going, and how we think we can best set up our PSBs for that future.
There has been a lot of commentary on Channel 4 and a lot of putting words into people’s mouths as to what the aim of privatisation was. All I can say as the Media Minister is that I saw no difference in intent between Secretaries of State, but just a difference of approach or what the judgment was on how to fulfil the same objectives.
Robert Specterman-Green: I want to add one other example of how the measures set out by the Government are focused on that question of sustainability. In addition to the reforms that the Minister just outlined, we are also going to introduce a statutory duty on the board of Channel 4 to have regard to its long-term sustainability. That is at the heart of what we are trying to get at with the approach that we have taken.
Q322 Dr Whitford: Will that give Channel 4 more flexibility about borrowing or where it can borrow and so on?
Robert Specterman-Green: We have said that we will support the existing borrowing facility, which Channel 4 does not make full use of at the moment. We will enter into a discussion if, at some point, it feels it has to borrow more. The statutory duty is about ensuring that the board has an explicit responsibility for which it is accountable to Parliament and to itself always to be thinking about its long-term future. We are trying to lock that in as a key consideration.
Dr Whitford: Thank you. As I say, it is probably a welcome decision.
Q323 Chair: Do you see how difficult it is for members of the public to understand what happened with Channel 4? One minute, the best interests of the company and all those associated with it were to privatise, but the next minute they were to retain it in the public sector.
We had Alex Mahon here to give evidence as part of this inquiry. She, being as diplomatic as possible, had this philosophy: “We’ll just have to get on with it, if this is the case.” We had independent production companies coming through and raising their fears. No one supported it, other than in the DCMS itself. How did we get to that stage, where you are pursuing one policy but, all of a sudden, the hand brake goes on and another policy is announced? It is like a bad dream, isn’t it?
Julia Lopez: The question of the right ownership structure for Channel 4 is not something that was under review by one Secretary of State, completely out of the blue—
Chair: It does seem like it was just one Secretary of State.
Julia Lopez: Well, it wasn’t. It has been a question that has been live and looked at by several Secretaries of State. Robert, you can probably give me the dates—it was 2015 or 2016 that it was looked at previously.
Robert Specterman-Green: I can’t actually give you the dates, but it has been looked at a number of times, because we have a concern about the sustainability of the corporation.
Julia Lopez: Numerous challenges face the broadcasting sector in the UK, which I alluded to by suggesting that it is a very dynamic sector and is moving quickly. Viewing habits are changing rapidly, and that is creating separate challenges for each PSB according to the ways in which it is structured.
For the BBC, the live discussion is, “Is the licence fee the right means of funding the BBC long into the future?”, but for Channel 4 the question naturally is, “Would you set up a broadcaster in this manner in this day and age? If not, does how it is set up create challenges for how successful a business it can be going forward?” That remains a point of concern, because we in DCMS have a duty to look not just at who is in post now and whether they benefit from the current set-up; the Government view has to look at the long term, because we are there to represent the interests not only of the taxpayer, who owns the organisation, but of the creative sector and the audiences that the broadcasters serve more generally.
Obviously, if you are in Channel 4 and believe that you have a great business, you will defend the status quo. That is the same for a lot of independent production companies, which also benefit from the status quo, but those are not the only questions that need to be asked. We as a Government felt that it was correct and right to ask those questions. Different Secretaries of State have come to different conclusions as to which is the right means of addressing the problems, but the challenges remain.
Q324 Chair: But it wasn’t just asking those questions. The Government’s clear policy intention was to sell off Channel 4 to the private sector. Is the Government’s long-term view that the question is now concluded, and that Channel 4 will remain within the public sector?
Julia Lopez: I think the long-term view is that we need to make sure Channel 4 can survive as a public service broadcaster because it delivers a range of public good. We think it delivers great content to audiences and contributes to the creative economy. How that is best structured will always be a question that the Government seeks to look at to ensure those things remain the case.
We want to ensure that Channel 4 continues to serve audiences and the creative economy. It is never going to be taken as a policy question that we should never return to, so I am not going to make that kind of commitment. A series of reforms will be brought forward, and it is our hope and expectation that they will help to deal with some of the sustainability challenges.
Chair: Thank you.
Q325 Wendy Chamberlain: Thank you, Minister and Mr Specterman-Green, for your time today. I would like to return to the BBC. While we have been sitting, it has been confirmed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, William Shawcross, that there will be a review into the appointment of Richard Sharp. Given that you have said, Minister, that you believe the rules were followed to the letter, have you got any observations on that?
Julia Lopez: I would welcome any scrutiny, in so far as there are public concerns expressed about that appointment process. From DCMS’s perspective, an open competition was run transparently and competitively. Eight candidates were put through to that competition, five of whom were found to be appointable. That then went to the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the DCMS Committee for an appointment confirmation hearing. From DCMS’s perspective, we followed all due process, and all questions were asked about any conflicts of interest. We were content with the process that was followed to make Mr Sharp the chairman.
Q326 Wendy Chamberlain: Thank you. It has been eight months since the Government announced a midterm review. Could you give us an update on progress, please?
Julia Lopez: Certainly. It might be helpful to set out what the midterm review is. It is a relatively new innovation. It is there as a sort of check-in halfway through a charter period. The charter was last signed off in 2016, and it will be renewed in 2027, potentially under different terms. In the midterm review, we are looking at the ways in which the current charter is operating. We are looking at whether the BBC is complying with its editorial standards on questions like impartiality. We are looking at the impact it has within the market, and at competition with other broadcasters. We are looking at transparency, at diversity, in relation to how well the BBC is reflecting the breadth of the UK, and at things like the complaints procedure.
That is a live process at the moment. The terms under which it was set out were that it had to be completed between 2022 and 2024, so we have begun that process. We have started talking to relevant stakeholders, including to a number in Scotland. We have talked to MG Alba, BECTU Scotland, Screen Scotland, PACT Scotland, STV and Ofcom’s Advisory Committee for Scotland, and so we are just gathering information from all those conversations. That is where we are at the moment. I can’t set out all the conclusions yet because they haven’t been reached.
Q327 Wendy Chamberlain: Thank you. That was very comprehensive. Given that you have described this as a new process, but you have raised a number of issues within that, including impartiality and diversity, have you got a particular concern about impartiality and editorial standards within the BBC?
Julia Lopez: Well, a concern in so far as I am the Minister for media and I want to make sure the BBC has the ongoing support of the public. It is absolutely fair to say that the public has raised concerns about how impartial it sees the BBC to be as an organisation. I want to make sure there is a public demonstration of the BBC’s impartiality, and in so far as people think it is falling short, that should be rectified. It is understandable that we would want to do that.
Q328 Wendy Chamberlain: Are the concerns that have been raised by the public in a particular area—for example, news?
Julia Lopez: Well, news, obviously. I see impartial news coverage as a fundamental tenet of what the BBC should do and a key means through which it receives public support. Yes, I would want to see that its news content is perceived to be impartial and is actually impartial.
Q329 Wendy Chamberlain: It was reported earlier this afternoon that for the first time the chairman of the BBC, Richard Sharp, whose appointment has been reviewed, was directly involved in the selection panel for the appointment of the director of news last year. Is that something that you would expect to see? That sounds like quite a different process.
Julia Lopez: I would expect that the senior leadership of the BBC would be very interested in who is appointed as the new head of BBC News because of its important role in producing the kind of content that is a key part of the BBC’s remit, but, also, in producing that content in such a way that the public continues to support the service.
Q330 Wendy Chamberlain: Mr Specterman-Green, you wanted to come in.
Robert Specterman-Green: Thank you. I just wanted to add that the BBC itself has recognised the importance of addressing its own impartiality; the director-general has been very clear and passionate about his focus on that particular issue. The BBC is operationally and editorially independent. It is for the BBC to decide how to appoint its executives, but one could say that the fact that the chair of the board had a role in that process is a sign of how seriously the board of the BBC are taking that particular challenge.
Q331 Wendy Chamberlain: I think you could say that. I suppose that the concern now is that the very appointment of that individual is now being reviewed, so it potentially does not help the situation.
To move on to talking about Scotland in terms of diversity, you have mentioned a number of the people that you are speaking to, Minister, in terms of Scottish output, and it is good to hear that you are doing that. But are you looking at the BBC Scotland channel launch as part of this as well? Obviously, from a news perspective, “The Nine” has been given here in evidence as an example of what BBC Scotland is doing in this space.
Julia Lopez: The mid-term review does not have a specific remit to look at the operations of BBC Scotland, but BBC Scotland as a development will probably be taken into account in terms of whether the diversity objective is being fulfilled. I would have thought that it is under those terms.
Q332 Wendy Chamberlain: I would appreciate your own views then. In terms of the nations and regions, do you feel that the BBC is sufficiently diverse, given that the mid-term review is specifically looking at that?
Julia Lopez: The Government want the BBC to be perceived as being reflective of the nations that it represents because, without that perception, the overall support among the public for the BBC as an institution is undermined. There has been a lot of commentary about whether the BBC is too London-centric, and it put forward its own plan. I will probably get the name wrong; it is something like “The UK—
Robert Specterman-Green: “The BBC Across the UK”.
Julia Lopez: “The BBC Across the UK”. They have put forward their own plan. They will be substantially increasing their spend beyond London up to 2027 by something like £800 million—again, I have probably got my figures wrong on that, but it is to the tune of that. There will be a substantial increase in spend beyond London. Scotland is part of that representation, but there are lots of corners of the UK that feel they need to have their voice heard more strongly in the BBC’s content. There is a whole programme of work under way already about how that will be done.
Q333 Wendy Chamberlain: Thank you. This will be my last question in this area. There has been a big growth in interest in Gaelic. Do you see BBC Alba as being central to the BBC’s offering from a Scotland perspective?
Julia Lopez: Yes, absolutely, and it is one of the things that we seek to preserve in its remit as part of our media reforms. I know that it is something that a number of Scottish MPs feel very passionately about, and it is something that we want to see being reflected in the BBC’s content.
Q334 Chair: Do you ever get concerned about satisfaction ratings for news in Scotland? We seem to be below the rest of the UK for general satisfaction about the way that news is reported.
Julia Lopez: Because it is a reserved area, I take the view that there are various different parts of the UK that feel like the gap between them and Westminster is too wide, and I think that is a problem that we must seek to address, not necessarily with a Scotland-specific view. But we must ask: how do we make sure that the BBC is more reflective of the nations it serves more generally? I think that they are already taking steps to try to address that.
Q335 Chair: They have always been taking steps to address it, but, in the 22 years that I have been a Member of Parliament taking an interest in these issues, there has always been higher dissatisfaction with news coverage in Scotland than any other part of the UK, including what you call the “nations and regions”. Do you not feel that the Scottish people are not really securing the type of news that they feel they deserve?
Julia Lopez: The Scottish consumption of BBC services is very high. Various issues have been raised in relation to whether the BBC is adequately representing public debate in Scotland, but we have seen ways in which that is going to be addressed through the BBC’s own actions. If there are issues about whether the BBC is reflecting stories accurately and so on, it is independently regulated by Ofcom, which has taken action against the BBC in areas where it feels it has not been adequately representing the Scottish debate.
Q336 Chair: An example of how this is reflected in Scotland is how Brexit was covered, particularly by the BBC. An opinion poll done in a national newspaper said that 53% of Scots were dissatisfied with the way Brexit had been covered. Only 3% thought it was covered well, and 15% thought it was alright. Does it not suggest that maybe Scotland isn’t getting the type of news it requires if something as big as Brexit is being covered in a way that people don’t find is reflective of their own opinion?
Julia Lopez: I represent a constituency in east London, on the Essex border. It is a very pro-leave voting area, so my constituents might make the opposite case: that some of those views were not adequately reflected in the BBC’s coverage. I am simply making the point that there are different perceptions of the BBC in different parts of the country. The BBC has to address those by trying to move staff out into different parts of the country so that there is that breadth of debate, and to ensure that programmes are made about different parts of the country that are reflective of those communities. It is not for me to say, “Those views are valid, and those views aren’t.” We have an independent regulator, so it is not for the Minister to start determining who is not being satisfied by news production. We set broad policies that allow that reflection and that diversity of viewpoints to come through.
Q337 Chair: There always used to be the Manchester conference in Salford—the nations and regions media conference. Maybe it should just be the nations. What is your view on that?
Julia Lopez: I don’t have a strong view on it, I’m afraid.
Q338 Douglas Ross: Good afternoon, Minister and Mr Specterman-Green. I was not going to ask you about that, but I will follow up the Chair’s point. Maybe there are lots of complaints about the BBC in Scotland for its perceived bias in favour of the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon. I certainly get a lot of complaints about its coverage of that. The BBC had to put out a statement just last week when one of its reporters interviewing the Prime Minister called Nicola Sturgeon “our leader”, forgetting, clearly, that Scotland has two Governments, and a Prime Minister and a First Minister. Maybe, Chair, that is where a lot of the complaints are coming from.
Let me be a bit more positive than Mr Wishart. This Committee heard evidence from STV, which discussed the rights to football matches. At the time, Scotland were on course to qualify for Qatar—sadly, they didn’t, following a defeat to Ukraine at Hampden. Had they got to the play-off final against Wales, after pressure from this Committee, STV were going to make an exception and show that match—Scotland versus Wales, the final qualifier for the World cup—but that was very much seen as a one-off, and they were almost conceding to pressure. Why shouldn’t public service broadcasters like STV bid for and get big sporting events, including those involving the Scotland national teams? Why should people in Scotland have to pay for them on subscription television? Why do they get to watch England matches? I am sure many people enjoy doing that, but we seem to have to fight for and pay for our Scottish football matches and other Scottish sporting events. Do you think that is correct?
Julia Lopez: It’s a tricky one. DCMS as a Department has to balance a number of competing objectives. It is for Scottish rights holders to determine how television rights are paid for, who has them, who can broadcast and what kind of money they get from that. That money is, by and large, pushed back into the sport so it can invest in players, the grassroots and so on. The DCMS policy in relation to listed events, which are effectively events that PSBs can bid for, is on a UK-wide basis. It relates to certain issues of national—when I say that, I mean UK-wide—importance. We don’t have a listed events regime that says, “These sporting events have to be a PSB right,” and we don’t do the same for Scotland. So if you have concerns about those rights-holder issues, they are best taken up with the Scottish sporting bodies. Ultimately, we want to make sure that the PSBs are financially viable and therefore can make bids for these kinds of events.
In relation to the listed events regime for UK-wide programming, we are looking at whether to make that a PSB-specific benefit, but also at where the digital rights sit for those and whether we can make sure that the digital rights are also taken on board. But in terms of individual sporting issues at a Scotland-wide level, I am afraid that we do not take a view on how best to make sure that those are seen.
Q339 Douglas Ross: You will understand, though, how important these games are for Scottish fans like ourselves on this Committee. The last time that Scotland qualified for a World cup, I was still at school in Forres Academy, so when there was even a chance to get to Qatar last year, there was a keenness and an eagerness to show those matches far more freely to people across Scotland. I just hope, perhaps, that in any future discussions you have with STV in your ministerial role, you will remind it of the commitment it gave for that one-off match, and how this Committee would very much appreciate it if that could be enhanced going forward.
Julia Lopez: I would be happy to deliver that message.
Q340 Douglas Ross: Thank you very much. I wrote to you at the end of last year about the future of terrestrial broadcast TV, and you very kindly replied to me last week. Could you give a summary, for anyone watching this session, of the concerns around this and where your Department currently sits on the future of terrestrial TV?
Julia Lopez: DTT, or Freeview, is available to 99% of the Scottish population, and it is a means of being able to receive services. A lot of television is moving to internet streaming, which is a different way of receiving television, leading to questions about whether we should maintain services like Freeview on spectrum, and also the infrastructure that provides it.
As a Government Minister, I am concerned that that kind of content is available to people long into the future. While a lot of people are starting to view television over the internet—and ever more will do so as we have better digital infrastructure—it is my role as a Minister to make sure that all parts of our population can access that content, so we have made a commitment to Freeview up to 2034 and beyond. What happens after 2034 is a live question.
Some of these issues depend on something called spectrum, and there are international conferences that determine how to allocate spectrum, which is a finite resource. Ofcom is our representative at the next conference in November, and has taken the view that it does not want to change the status quo in relation to spectrum allocation for Freeview. The Government are supportive of that position.
As I say, we have signalled our commitment to Freeview up to 2034 and beyond. I am not going to tie any people who follow me in this role to policy decisions beyond that date, which is in 11 years’ time, but I suspect that any decision that will be made on that will take into account factors like the reliability of our digital infrastructure—how easily people can view things over the internet.
Q341 Douglas Ross: This is particularly important for Scotland, which is why I am keen to include it in this Committee session, because there are more people who rely on this service than in other parts of the United Kingdom, just because of our demographics and our geography. While you say that 2034 is in 11 years’ time, there needs to be continued investment. Surely, for that investment to happen, those working within this industry need security that it will go beyond 2034.
Your letter indicates that the Government is very keen for this to continue. At what point do you anticipate that you, or a subsequent Minister in your role or your Department, will make that commitment? If 2034 is the current cut-off, can we work back to say when the industry can expect to get positive assurance?
Julia Lopez: You are right; we need to make sure that we are planning for what comes next. That is why we have asked Ofcom to carry out a study on this, and to give us its assessment of where the situation is likely to be post 2034, so that we can do some of the planning up to that. But that is in the fairly early stages; it was last year that we asked it to begin that review. Over the next few years, I would expect us to start drawing out some of those policy choices.
Q342 Douglas Ross: You mentioned the spectrum allocation; I think that is in Dubai in November this year. Is it usual for an organisation like Ofcom to represent a country, or would it be a Government, or both?
Julia Lopez: Ofcom takes a view, and it gets permission for its negotiating position from the Secretary of State. I believe that is what happens. It is something that we do in collaboration with Ofcom, but it leads the discussions.
Q343 Douglas Ross: So based on what you have said to this Committee and in this correspondence, going into that conference in Dubai later on this year, Ofcom should be in no doubt that the Government are eager to see this facility continue beyond 2034?
Julia Lopez: I am not going to make a commitment beyond 2034. An 11-year commitment is substantial at a time when things will change quite drastically in terms of digital infrastructure in the intervening period. I think that is a strong commitment. I assure any people reliant on Freeview that any Minister making a judgment on whether to move away from it would look at the quality of digital infrastructure and the way in which certain communities are served. We would not want to be in a position where we are cutting people off from key services.
Q344 Douglas Ross: You say in your letter that you would like to reassure me that DCMS is aware of the unique and vital role broadcast plays within the UK, and its particular importance within the demographic groups I had mentioned in my letters. That is unlikely to change significantly. I understand we are speaking about a long time into the future. However, our demographics are not suddenly going to change in Scotland. Indeed, some of the connectivity issues that we have now we had a decade ago, and I have serious concerns that we may still have them in a decade’s time. I think we can take from your positive responses that this is the line that Ofcom has been given.
Robert Specterman-Green: Just to clarify, it is not a new thing that Ofcom represents the UK at the WRC. That is the way the representation works. In its call for input ahead of the WRC 2023, Ofcom made public its preference for a no-change position. My understanding is that Ofcom is not alone in the delegations to the conference in preferring a no-change situation, but it has to be recognised that there are other jurisdictions that take a different view. That is one input into this reflection, but we have asked Ofcom to look at the question of DTT by the end of 2025. That is obviously in advance of the 2034 licence period that has been confirmed, and that will allow us time to think about what happens beyond that point.
Douglas Ross: Thank you.
Q345 Deidre Brock: On the issue of broadcasting rights to major sporting events, there are concerns that this could impact sports themselves, in particular with respect to take-up among younger people, because they are not able to access them on free-to-air television. For example, there is a compare and contrast going on with the free availability of cricket to people in Australia, and the impact that has had on the sport; I would suggest it is broadly more popular and more widely played than we see not just in England, but in Scotland. I wonder whether you have concerns about that. Does it play a part in your thinking when you are discussing this with subscription and streaming services, for example, to see if they can widen the possibility for people to access those sports?
Julia Lopez: The listed events regime is not totally static; we have added to it. We added the Paralympics to it in 2020, and we have added some of the women’s football events. In the course of those discussions, there is a question about whether you are reducing the amount of money that can go back into those sports from the sale of rights. That has to be asked, because a lot of the time the sports themselves don’t necessarily want to go down that route if it is going to restrict the amount of income they can make from television rights. It is a balancing act.
I know that cricket has come up as an issue before. We don’t currently have an intention to open up the listed events regime to add to it. What we are trying to do at the moment is focus on the digital aspect of listed rights and whether PSBs should have a stronger hold on digital rights. We saw some particular issues in the Olympics, for example, where there might have been a broadcasting right for the PSB to do the live broadcast, but some of the replays and digital rights went to other broadcasters, meaning that unless you watched it in the early hours of the morning, you were not able to access the control freely. These are the live questions we are looking at, rather than opening up the listed regime itself.
Robert Specterman-Green: There is something called the Sports and Recreation Alliance voluntary code of conduct for rights owners—a slight mouthful—which includes a number of principles around accessibility and reinvestment, whereby the rights holders should put a minimum of 30% of their net UK broadcasting revenue back into the development of the sport, so there are a number of guidelines and principles in the sector already. To the extent that sports policy is a devolved area, there may be scope in Scotland for the Scottish Government to work with sporting bodies there to try to promote the appropriate implementation of those principles.
Q346 Deidre Brock: Okay. I suppose it is really just that if young people are not seeing it on the television in front of them and it is not easily available, that will clearly impact ultimately on the sport. Yes, of course investment—hopefully at the grassroots level—with that money will make some difference. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that that is something you are aware of. I hope you will be able to carry it forward in your discussions on that.
May I ask about something else that is distinctively Scottish, Scottish Gaelic? You mentioned your concerns about the long-term sustainability of Channel 4. I want to ask about similar sustainability for Scottish Gaelic in the digital domain. What measures are you looking at to address the needs of Scottish Gaelic?
Julia Lopez: In the broadcasting White Paper, we are looking at whether to make—well, I think we will be making—minority languages a part of the PSB remit. Currently, MG Alba receives licence fee funding. We expect the funding situation for MG Alba to be maintained. It also receives, incidentally, funding from the Scottish Government. We have had discussions with MG Alba. We believe it is sustainably funded until the end of the current licence fee period, so it will have Gaelic broadcasting in the PSB remit and it has a funding stream from the BBC to sustain its operations.
Q347 Deidre Brock: I just notice that, in the licence fee settlement at the end of last year, the Welsh language channel, S4C, got extra money in the five-year agreement that was signed. Critics point out that the funding is still lower than in 2010, but S4C I think got £7.5 million towards helping with digital delivery. Increasingly, digital delivery is seen to play an important part in helping to promote minority languages. I just wonder when Gaelic media will receive similar funding support.
Julia Lopez: I understand the drive towards having a similar situation in Scotland as in Wales, but they have a fundamentally different set-up. S4C was set up 40 years ago and is more independent from the BBC. MG Alba delivers services to the BBC, but does not have its own stand-alone channel. It therefore benefits from the investment that the BBC makes in its digital output. It is a slightly different situation. S4C has had a specific pot of money from the BBC licence fee to help it digitise some of its output, but that would not be the same requirement for MG Alba, because it does not have a stand-alone channel; it provides services to BBC Alba and therefore benefits from what the BBC does in relation to digital content.
Q348 Deidre Brock: Can you see that for Gaelic language activists, that looks a little bit like dancing on the head of a pin? The language needs extra support so that it moves into the digital domain, which is increasingly important. Mr Specterman-Green?
Robert Specterman-Green: I just wanted to say that it is not true to say that there is no support for MG Alba. In the existing framework agreement, the BBC is under an obligation to provide a multi-genre television channel to the Gaelic media service, MG Alba, and it does that, as well as providing funding, coupled with the funding that MG Alba gets from the Scottish Government. What the Minister was saying is that S4C is an existing independent broadcasting corporation. The way that the services are constituted does differ, and that is reflected in how they are supported.
Q349 Deidre Brock: I still don’t really buy that. I can’t see why one language can get that extra support and another cannot.
Julia Lopez: It does get support; it is just that is not a stand-alone—
Deidre Brock: Yes, of course it gets some support, but it does not get the £7.5 million that the Welsh language channel got. I am still unclear why that should be and why the Government would choose—
Julia Lopez: S4C was set up 40 years ago. It is a stand-alone channel; it is not part of the BBC. MG Alba provides services to the BBC that are then broadcast over the BBC’s own digital content—iPlayer, effectively. Therefore, it does not have the same requirement in digitalisation terms, because it can benefit from what the BBC is doing on digitalisation. MG Alba was set up in 2003, I think. It is just set up in a different way, and, as Robert said, that is reflected in how it is funded.
Q350 Deidre Brock: But you appreciate that to activists it looks like you are supporting one but not the other.
Julia Lopez: If you wish to present it that way, you can—
Deidre Brock: That is how it is viewed, I am afraid, in Scottish Gaelic—
Julia Lopez: I am just telling you the reasons why it is set up in that way.
Robert Specterman-Green: As the Minister said, we are also going to put in legislation a requirement to protect indigenous and minority languages, which would of course include Gaelic.
Q351 Deidre Brock: What would be the nature of that protection?
Robert Specterman-Green: It would have a statutory protection, so it has to continually be provided.
Q352 Chair: When are we likely to see that?
Julia Lopez: It will be part of the media Bill.
Robert Specterman-Green: That will be in the media Bill.
Q353 Deidre Brock: When is the media Bill going to be here?
Julia Lopez: DCMS is pushing for the media Bill as soon as possible. We are rather reliant on the decisions of the scheduling authorities.
Q354 Wendy Chamberlain: It sounds like I need to put in a good word next time I speak to Simon Hart. I will start with that, because that was in my questions—I am talking about the White Paper and the media Bill. My understanding is that this Session of Parliament is likely to run until potentially late summer or early autumn. Surely there is enough time for the media Bill, given that it was in the Queen’s Speech, and we should have an expectation of seeing it?
Julia Lopez: As I said, DCMS would like to see the media Bill as soon as possible. The reason we have drawn it up is because we think it is incredibly important to the sustainability of our public service broadcasters. We have put a lot of work into it. Ultimately, we are not the scheduling decision makers, and the Government have to run a programme that balances a whole bunch of competing priorities. I would like to stand here and announce that all the legislation that I have bid for is going to be prioritised next week, but I am afraid that I am not in that position.
Q355 Wendy Chamberlain: It is disappointing, because part of what we are talking about here is public stewardship. We have heard throughout this inquiry a number of concerns and a number of ways that things could be improved. All stakeholders, including yourselves, have said the media Bill is part of that. Maybe a letter or a report will help push things along.
The White Paper was published in April last year. We have had a few changes since then, but now you are back. Obviously, as already discussed with Phillipa Whitford, there has been a different decision from what was initially in the White Paper in relation to Channel 4. Is there anything different now in the Government’s approach in relation to last year’s White Paper?
Julia Lopez: In terms of what would be in the media Bill?
Q356 Wendy Chamberlain: Yes. Robert is shaking his head. Are we saying that other than the decision on Channel 4, generally what is in the White Paper is what we should expect to see in the media Bill? Robert is nodding—lovely. Thank you.
As you mentioned in your evidence to the Chair, the Secretary of State did meet the Cabinet Secretary in Scotland, Angus Robertson, in December. Although you said that you did not have a readout of that meeting, our understanding is that the Scottish Government do have some quite serious concerns about some of the White Paper’s proposals. What is the Government’s response to that? What are we going to try and do to reach some degree of compromise, or do you not recognise the Scottish Government’s concerns?
Julia Lopez: I would be interested to know what those concerns are.
Q357 Wendy Chamberlain: He has talked about the impact on Scotland’s creative landscape. I am assuming that would be looking at things such as the role of PSBs, some of the things that Deidre Brock has raised, and that ongoing question of how devolved and reserved responsibilities fit together.
Julia Lopez: I do not recognise anything in our broadcasting White Paper as being there to undermine the creative economy. Without further details of those criticisms, it is hard for me to respond to them, other than that I think they are unfounded.
Q358 Wendy Chamberlain: One of the other areas is about the importance of distinctively British content and putting it into the PSB quota system. How do we describe distinctively British content, and how do we ensure that Britain in all its diversities is recognised? What is the impact of that in bidding for Scotland?
Julia Lopez: We are trying to simplify the remit. We have taken 14 purposes and we are trying to condense them to give PSBs more flexibility in how they deliver their remits as a key part of trying to make sure that they can thrive long into the future. Rather than having lots of different subcategories of content to be provided, we think that what people value is having content that is made locally and reflective of local communities’ experiences. We will be more precise in how this is defined. There is a piece of work under way on that. If there was a piece of activity in a part of your constituency with voices reflective of the communities in your constituency, that would count as distinctively British.
Wendy Chamberlain: Thank you, Chair.
Q359 Deidre Brock: This is about the White Paper again. I want to ask about the suggestion within it that the Government will replace public service broadcasters’ existing obligations with a shorter, simplified new remit. It gives PSBs “greater flexibility to meet their obligations, including reaching audiences by delivering content on a wider range of services, including via on-demand platforms.” Can you tell us what you are hoping to gain through that change?
Julia Lopez: Sometimes the current remit’s purposes are too prescriptive. Our overall aim in the broadcasting White Paper is to set PSBs up for a different landscape in which they need to make sure they can move quickly and with agility, but still produce content that is valued by UK audiences. Currently, the 14 different public purposes overlap in some respects, so we want to try and condense that into a simpler set of requirements that will give PSBs greater flexibility in how they deliver content. One thing we want is distinctively British content, which, as I have already reflected in previous comments, is effectively local content made locally—not things that are produced in the UK, but for an international audience.
Q360 Deidre Brock: So we will certainly see regional programming and diversity between nations reflected within that new remit.
Julia Lopez: Yes. There are various quotas that are put on different PSBs for production of a certain type of content, and I would think that a programme that is made, say, in your constituency or mine that is reflective of a UK perspective would be considered as part of them fulfilling their remit.
Q361 Deidre Brock: There are concerns that giving PSBs more flexibility to meet that remit through on-demand services rather than through the main linear channels could reduce access to public content services. Nearly one third of Scottish households are still reliant on Freeview. How will you accommodate that?
Julia Lopez: These are all live questions. It would not be our intention and desire to see that kind of movement. These things have not been fully nailed down yet. These are all questions that we will consider.
Q362 Deidre Brock: Of course not—there are always unintended consequences, aren’t there? You are conscious of the fact that there are still a very high percentage of households dependent on Freeview.
Julia Lopez: Yes. As I said to Mr Ross, we are certainly aware of that. The whole idea of a public service broadcaster is to have universality in terms of who can receive your content and who benefits from it. That is a tension that has to be worked through—trying to make sure that PSBs are relevant to people and can be viewed where audiences are, but keeping up with the dynamic changes in the sector. That is what our policies are designed to try and balance.
Q363 Deidre Brock: You do not think that potentially PSBs might try to put less commercial product on on-demand and then keep linear channels for “bang for bucks” product? Might it skew the productions that are shown on the linear channels?
Julia Lopez: There is always the potential, which is why these are all questions that we are considering, but I think it is also important to understand this. Some of these PSBs don’t have to renew their PSB licence; it still has to be an attractive prospect for them to want to be a public service broadcaster. There is always a risk that if you put too onerous requirements on some of these PSBs, if you’re too prescriptive and if you make it too difficult to make that system work, some of these PSBs—Channel 5 is a PSB; ITV is a PSB—might decide not to renew their licence because it is too prescriptive in a very dynamic environment.
Q364 Deidre Brock: Was that a suggestion that PSBs put to the Government and that you have accepted as something that you would like to see happen, or—
Julia Lopez: The PSBs say to us, “This sector is changing very, very rapidly. We want British broadcasters to survive in that environment and be able to produce content that is relevant to audiences and also content that is reflective of the country we live in, but you have to give us the tools to be able to survive in that environment.”
Robert Specterman-Green: Could I add two more points? The first is that we have to remember the role of Ofcom as the regulator here. They are a really important party in monitoring how new flexibilities are actually used, including by checking for the impact or the potential risks that you have just outlined. More generally, we obviously worked very closely with the PSBs but we took a very wide range of input from stakeholders in our considerations. That included reports from Select Committees in both Houses. Ofcom themselves engaged in a nationwide exercise, “Small Screen: Big Debate”, which was a very, very valuable input into our work.
Q365 Deidre Brock: I suppose I am thinking really, going back to what I asked you right at the beginning, about those three music programmes. Some would see them as very niche—they are about jazz, classical music, and piping—but they are very important to the Scottish identity, and certainly there are many people within Scotland who value them highly and see them as a really important part of those different musical cultural scenes. Their loss would be a significant loss to Scotland. I just am a little concerned that we might see that increasingly happening as a result of the flexibility that you are potentially—
Robert Specterman-Green: The regulator does have a role in ensuring in that case, in the case of the BBC, that it is fulfilling its mission and public purposes. I don’t know whether you are calling Ofcom to give evidence, but I am sure they would be able to say a bit more about how they implement their regulatory powers at the moment.
Q366 Chair: The other part of the White Paper, of course, is the plans to introduce a new prominence regime. Throughout this inquiry, from practically everybody we have heard from among the public sector broadcasters, there has been a great deal of unhappiness and anxiety about what may be proposed. Have you got anything you can update this Committee about concerning that?
Julia Lopez: One of the main changes that we want to bring forward in the media Bill is about prominence—that is, the discoverability of public service content on different platforms, because that is something that has been taken for granted in the previous way in which we have all consumed television. As we view more television through computers or from video-on-demand platforms, PSB content is less discoverable, so one of the key things that we want to bring forward in the media Bill is changes to the prominence regime, which means that all the PSBs would be prominent on online platforms.
Q367 Chair: But didn’t ITV suggest only a few weeks ago that it was considering abandoning its PSB status, because of the slow progress on implementing the reforms due to be included in the media Bill? Does it not concern you that one of our biggest PSBs may be abandoning—
Julia Lopez: If it didn’t concern us, we would not be putting forward the proposals on prominence.
Q368 Chair: So what are you doing to satisfy their concerns about this? I am not really hearing anything other than—
Julia Lopez: We have drawn up an entire piece of legislation to satisfy their concerns, which we are now seeking to get through the House. I hope you will be supporting it.
Q369 Chair: In your exchange with Ms Chamberlain, we were not hearing a huge commitment to getting that media Bill through speedily in terms of an introduction to the House—
Julia Lopez: It is one priority of the Government among a number of other, competing priorities, but I would not take that as us not caring or not responding to the concerns. The entire thrust of our policy making within the Department has been to try to respond to some of these concerns and draw up a legislative regime that is relevant to now rather than 20 years ago, when broadcasting was last—
Q370 Chair: If I was hearing from what is probably our second biggest PSB that it was thinking about abandoning its commitment to that, a sense of urgency might just be required. I leave that to you, Minister. You have talked already about the media Bill, but I think this is something that was picked up quite a bit in the course of this inquiry.
Julia Lopez: I speak to ITV regularly. I know how much it wants to see the prominence regime come forward as soon as possible, and I share its desire to get that through the House as quickly as possible.
Q371 Chair: We had a very positive session with the streaming companies. I think this Committee learned quite a lot about their role, what they are doing, and their relationship with PSBs and other broadcasters. It was really good. How do you see the arrival—it is more than an arrival, because they are pretty established now—of the streaming services, with existing PSBs and other broadcasting entities? What is your view about their role in the broadcasting environment? Do you go along with the idea that they have something distinctive to offer, so that means everything else just gets on and does what it usually does?
Julia Lopez: Audiences have never had more choice in the content they view. What is great for us in the UK is that a lot of these big streamers are choosing to produce that content in the UK. That is partly because of our regime here. We have tax incentives to welcome that production. We have a skilled workforce, albeit that we do not have enough people, because there is such a high demand from some of these film and high-end TV production companies. We have a range of fantastic sets, including the beauty of the Scottish—
Chair: Including in Ms Brock’s constituency.
Julia Lopez: Yes—the beauty of the Scottish cities, countryside and so on. That is obviously reflected across the UK as well. People like to create stuff here. We have seen that it is not just about tax incentives, but about a whole range of other things. We have various initiatives under way to try to increase studio space and so on, because of the intensity of demand. From a creative economy perspective, and also from an audience perspective, you are getting great choice and great production in the UK.
There is no doubt that that creates challenges for the public service broadcasters, because of the inflation in content spend, but it also provides them with new opportunities to co-produce. Amazon has done a recent co-production with the BBC that has just concluded filming, and I think it has 24 other productions under way in Scotland. That will be reflected in other streamers and what they are doing. Overall, they have been a benefit, but that is not to say that they do not create challenges in terms of whether our PSBs can keep up, whether audiences are watching them in the same numbers as they used to and whether PSBs can compete with the production budgets. All these are challenges.
Q372 Chair: Everything you have just said reflected what we heard from independent producers and the streaming services. There seems to be a healthy relationship and symbiosis in the broadcasting environment. I know that Amazon Prime, for example, is moving into the field of live TV, particularly around sporting events. Is there a need to keep the streaming services separate from live TV and other activity—from the range of channels that you expect to see when you put on your television—or are you okay with that?
Julia Lopez: Is there a need to keep them from that?
Q373 Chair: Is there a need to keep the idea of your terrestrial TV—what you would normally assume you will receive on Freeview or on your Sky selection of channels—separate from streaming services?
Julia Lopez: There will be a natural move towards streamers taking on different kinds of services. The key question that we are trying to address with our prominence reforms is: if viewers start viewing more and more content via the internet on a platform, can they still access and see PSBs? That is what the prominence regime is there to deliver. It is there so that when you switch on your television and go via your app—whatever streamer it may be—you can still discover iPlayer, ITVX and so on.
Robert Specterman-Green: I would just add that another way of looking at this is as trying to ensure a level playing field from a regulatory perspective. The streaming services are not currently subject to the same requirements, for example, as more traditional broadcasters are under the broadcasting code. For that reason, we will look to introduce more regulation of video-on-demand platforms to level the playing field.
Q374 Chair: And this will be in the media Bill too?
Julia Lopez: Yes, so if you want to complain about—
Chair: Great. I am quite excited about seeing everything that is in the media Bill.
Julia Lopez: You’re going to love it!
Q375 Chair: I hope so, Minister, I have to say. Unless other colleagues have any questions, I have a final one. I think what we heard from independent producers, particularly, was that because of all the activity that we have just discussed in the past few minutes, there seems to be a real demand on skills and expertise when it comes to production companies being able to develop and become the successful businesses that we all want to see. I know that is really an issue with the joined-up working with the devolved Government in Scotland, given that skills and education is obviously devolved, but what is the Department doing to help address some of this?
Julia Lopez: There are various strands to this. First of all, we need to identify what the particular skills challenges are. We have a bit of work under way, which is being led by the BFI. ScreenSkills are also doing some important work in this area to identify the precise skills shortage we are talking about. In the film and TV industry, it is everything from shortage of cameramen to shortage of producers and so on—it can even be specialist accountants and carpenters. There are a huge range of challenges. In a sense, that is something that has come about because of the success of the industry.
We have a range of initiatives under way. As you say, elements of this are devolved, because it is education. In England, we are working with DFE on apprenticeships and how we make sure that you get an apprenticeship that is designed in a way that works for the film and TV industries. Some of the ways in which freelancers work make that quite challenging, and there are also various confidentiality NDAs that productions want to put on before release. People want to make sure that their content is not shared in advance of release, which makes it difficult if you have an apprentice who is moving between different placements and so on. All of these things need to be ironed out. We have the creative careers programme that we have a pilot on in Scotland, but, ultimately, a lot of these questions are ones you might want to ask your Scottish compatriots.
Chair: Indeed.
Q376 Wendy Chamberlain: A very quick one on the Chair’s point about skills. One of the things that has been in the news of late is “nepo babies”. When you think about the media and film sectors, it is close to politics in terms of thinking about how people get connections to get into those sectors. We have talked about skills, but I would be interested to hear your views about how, when we are talking about diversity, we are actually thinking about it and what we are doing with the PSBs to ensure that they are reaching beyond. My fear is that Scotland is a village and sometimes, when you spin things out, you end up in a cycle where it is the same people again and again.
Julia Lopez: It is acknowledged that a lot of the time, you need to know somebody to break into these sectors. I think there is a lot of awareness of that within the film and TV industry, and it is something that we are trying to change through some of the work that we are doing in getting the PSBs to look at diversity in terms of not just characteristics, but socioeconomic background, because that has been an underplayed aspect of this. If you have gone to a certain school or been in certain circles, it is much easier to get access.
There is also a question of low pay. Inevitably, people from well-off families are able to sustain low-paid, entry-level jobs. That is why we want to try to find paid apprenticeships as a route in, and other forms of more structured placements, so that it is not just relying on people who can live at home with mum and dad, get their train fare paid and all the rest of it.
Q377 Wendy Chamberlain: Would you expect to see that through some of the independent funding as well—that they are looking at those considerations as PSBs?
Julia Lopez: As I say, the mid-term review is looking at diversity in relation to socioeconomic diversity as well. There are various different strands to this. I don’t think there is a cure-all approach.
Robert Specterman-Green: I want to add a couple of other pointers on that topic, which I believe is recognised across the creative economy. First, the BBC framework agreement requires the BBC to think about the diversity of its workforce, and the BBC is a really important linchpin in terms of training and development of the creative skills pipeline. The Minister mentioned the creative careers programme, which is intended in particular to try to get at younger people and help them see the possibilities of careers in the creative industries beyond some of the entrenched relationships that exist. There is something called the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, which has been conducting a review of job quality and working practices in the creative industries, including around worker representation. That report is going to be published in the near future, and we very much look forward to its conclusions. This is not just about funding; it is about practice and behaviour, so we need to ensure there is a more holistic approach to those issues.
Wendy Chamberlain: And the checks and balances that ensure that that is happening.
Deidre Brock: I want to give some assurance to the Minister that some of the practice and behaviours that Mr Specterman-Green mentioned—the training and development, and the offering of training for film crews and so on to people from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds—is already taking place. On Saturday, I attended a screening of three short films by young people from throughout Scotland, but predominantly from Edinburgh. It was through Screen Education Edinburgh, which is a wonderful organisation in my constituency, in conjunction with BFI Film Academy and Screen Scotland. They were staggeringly good, and I have to pay credit to the 20 young people who were involved. If that is an indication of the talent we have waiting in the wings, we are looking towards a bright future, I hope, for film and TV in the UK generally.
Chair: It is always nice to end on a positive note, and on that particularly good account of what happened at the weekend. I think we all agree that the creative industry sector in the UK and Scotland is in pretty good condition and health just now, given what we see in terms of exports and excellence in the sector. There are a couple of things on which you said you might get back to us, which would help us with whatever we are going to be crafting by way of a report, which we look forward to submitting to your Department in due course.