| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 pm
The summary sent to us by BBC Scotland tells us how well it is doing. Across Scotland, it has 10 centres and 1,000 staff. It brings in £157 million in licence fee income, has invested a total of £83 million recently in its programmes and has 670 hours of television programmes specifically for viewers in Scotland and 920 hours for the
United Kingdom radio networks. Why on earth can we not say that the Scottish Parliament has a clear role to hold to account a body that is so important and has such a big impact on life in Scotland and to ask about the way in which it exercises its responsibility?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether we wanted a separate Scottish BBC. No one is arguing for that, although I would certainly not be averse to a devolved Scottish BBC. We are arguing for accountability. Those people who operate and spend the money in Scottish broadcasting should be held to account, and the Scottish Parliament should not be excluded from the role of holding them to account. In fact, it is much better suited to holding such bodies in Scotland to account than the Westminster Parliament. That is not my merely my view, but that of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and when it drew up the blueprint for a Scottish Parliament it certainly expected that to happen.
The tabloid argument that people in Scotland are happy to watch "Crossroads", "Coronation Street" or "EastEnders" is a complete red herring. No one suggests that anyone in Scotland should be deprived of any programme on the BBC network. I see some of my hon. Friends are laughing, but one of our hon. Friends argued that earlier.
Mr. Godman:
My hon. Friend is kidding.
Mr. McAllion:
I do not watch any of those programmes anyway. No one is denying anyone access to the BBC UK network. We are saying that BBC Scotland should be accountable. Clearly, that must be the case.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the insensitivity of the BBC hierarchy in relation to the party political broadcast put out in Scotland immediately before the election. I could cite other examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will confirm that the BBC has taken away resources and manpower from stations in Dundee. Who holds it to account for that? We are merely the two local Members of Parliament. I would rather have a powerful Broadcasting Committee in the Scottish Parliament, which could summon the controller in Scotland and ask questions, such as why this office is being closed or that reporter taken away, or why certain investments were being reduced. That is what should be happening, but it will not happen in this Parliament. It should happen in a Scottish Parliament.
What about listed events? Because of Sky Television and the tendency nowadays to auction to the highest bidder coverage of sporting events, we have had to list a number of major events that cannot be put out to contract or to the highest bidder, including the Scottish cup final. The Scottish Parliament would be much more likely to defend major Scottish events than would the Westminster Parliament. Therefore, I plead with my hon. Friends not to dismiss entirely the idea that the Scottish Parliament should have a major role in monitoring and overseeing broadcasting in Scotland. Throughout the debates in the convention, we always intended that that should be the case, and the Government should not be backing out now.
Mr. Hawkins:
The hon. Gentleman mentioned listed sporting events, in which I have taken a big interest, along with a number of his hon. Friends. Does he agree that
Mr. McAllion:
That all depends on the balance of power inside the panel set up to defend the listed events and whether it regards the Scottish cup final, or indeed the Scottish junior cup final, as a priority. The hon. Gentleman is probably grateful for the fact that the England-West Indies Test series is not a listed event and he does not have to watch it, unless he has Sky Television.
This is a serious issue. Specifically Scottish events are far more likely to be defended by a Parliament based in Scotland than by a Parliament down here which is dominated by English Members, and rightly so because of the size of the country. That is a simple point, and I hope that the my hon. Friend the Minister will take it on board.
Broadcasting was intended to be a responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. At some stage, a decision was taken to reverse that intention. I do not know why the decision was taken, what consultation was carried out beforehand or the arguments for it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make those matters clear when he replies to the debate.
Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West):
First, I reaffirm that the Liberal Democrats fully support the amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), which would ensure that the Scottish Parliament controlled equal opportunities and which will reappear at a later stage. We also support many of the arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), which is not unusual.
What is unusual is that I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) contained a lot of good sense. As other hon. Members and I have often criticised the Conservative contribution to these debates, it seems only fair to say that, although I did not agree with all of it, it was constructive and on the right wave length, if that is the right expression in this debate. I hope that by complimenting the hon. Gentleman on it, I will not ruin his political career.
We support the first of the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party. It is regrettable that Scottish politics is such that because that party has proposed it, some hon. Members--certainly some Labour Members--feel that they have to oppose it. The Scottish nationalists may not have got all the right answers, but we agree that there must be some sort of say for the Scottish Parliament in broadcasting. It is not realistic for the Scottish Parliament to be precluded from having any opportunity to debate and discuss broadcasting and to call people before it for consultation.
The line taken by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) that if the Scottish Parliament had some say in broadcasting it would diminish this Parliament,
is not correct. That is the faulty argument, often put up by the Conservatives, that sovereignty is indivisible. We can cheerfully have two or three different bodies--I am sure that the European Parliament discusses such things--with some input into the control of broadcasting.
The Liberal Democrats certainly do not want political control, censorship and all that sort of thing, but we think that it is reasonable to say that democratically elected Members of the Scottish Parliament could make a contribution on the subject of broadcasting, which impinges on so many other things that that Parliament will control--for example, education, the arts, sport and Gaelic. It would be ridiculous if the Scottish Parliament was promoting some considerable change in education to which broadcasting could contribute, but was not allowed to tell the broadcasters that certain types of programme would be a great help. What if the Parliament wanted to promote the arts? As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, Scottish broadcasting puts in much more money than the Government via the Scottish Arts Council. It would be ridiculous if, for example, the broadcasting people did not give some great festival in Scotland adequate treatment, but the Scottish Parliament could not discuss with them how they could do more.
We have concentrated on ITV and the BBC during the debate, but there have been great developments in local television and radio, and in new technologies, which I do not understand. Other hon. Members must have been asked for their views by television and radio stations that they have never heard of. I have no idea whether anyone watches or listens to their programmes, but such organisations are multiplying, so not allowing the Scottish Parliament to discuss the conduct of the local radio station in Auchtermuchty, if one exists, is ridiculous.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East was worried about political control. We should turn the argument round: all of us worry about the control exercised by media moguls such as Mr. Murdoch, and it is possible that broadcasting in Scotland might be seriously influenced by a tycoon who was thought by most Members of the Scottish Parliament to have had an adverse effect on events in Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament must be able to defend itself against the political tyranny of a media tycoon. Our amendments address that point modestly, and the Government should accept them. We suggest that the Scottish Parliament should discuss the annual reports of the BBC and ITV. Specifically, the Scottish Parliament should have a say on Gaelic broadcasting and the appointment of BBC governors in Scotland.
Our amendments and those tabled by the Scottish National party put down a marker and send a message to the broadcasting centralisers in London. The arts world in particular is over-centralised. I meet London critics who come up to the Edinburgh festival and think that it is great to get out of London for a week or two. Unless an artist appears in London, he does not appear at all so far as they are concerned. Such over-centralisation must be challenged. If the Government refuse to accept the amendments, they will be sending the message, "London rules broadcasting, OK!", which is wrong.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |