 Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting of the European and External Relations Committee in session five. I would like to remind members and the public to turn off mobile phones and any members using electronic devices to access committee papers during the meetings should ensure that they are switched to silent. Apologies have been received today from Tavish Scott MSP and some other members will be joining us once they have finished attending another committee meeting and I believe that there is one member in particular who has been held up because of problems on the trains today. Our first item of business today is consideration of the BBC draft charter and draft agreement. I would like to welcome to the meeting our first panel of witnesses, David Smith, managing director of matchlight, David Strachan, managing director of Tarn TV, Rosina Robson, head of nations at Pact, Donald Campbell, chief executive of MG Alba, and Natalie Usher, director of screen at Creative Scotland. Welcome to you all. The background to this is that the draft charter has been published by the UK Government in the past couple of weeks. We have been told here in Scotland that we must debate it before the October recess so that we can feed into the scrutiny that the charter is going to be put under in the UK Parliament. That means that this committee scrutiny has had to be arranged at rather short notice. I am sure that many of us would have liked more time, but I would like to thank you for coming at short notice and just explaining that background. Can I start by moving straight to questions? We are under quite a lot of time constraints by asking the panel what they see as the strengths and weaknesses of the charter in terms of delivering for their sector in Scotland. Who would like to start? Perhaps one of the independent production companies? I think that the charter offers a number of checks and balances in the first instance, which there have not been before, which allow for scrutiny by this place and by other organisations. It also sets out in tablets of stone the ambitions which the BBC has and an acknowledgement that it needs to redress what has been an imbalance in the way that it represents the UK. I think that the charter is a very welcome step forward. I think that it is not the end of the journey by any stretch and the service agreement that flows from the charter is going to be crucial to how the BBC operates across the UK and across the next 11 years. I think that there is some very useful new wording—public purpose, clause 6, public purpose—in commissioning and delivering output the BBC should invest in the creative economies of each of the nations and contribute to their development is a real win, I think. I have had it echoed to me from people within the BBC that they see that as a win as well. It is set forward but by no means the end of the journey. Would anyone else like to contribute? Yes, certainly. I think that from Pak's point of view and maybe taking a broader UK approach as well as the impact that is going to have in Scotland, we are pleased overall with the overall shape of the charter and the agreement. I think that certainly from our point of view there are going to be more opportunities for both production companies in Scotland and across the UK to pitch for opportunities because the BBC is going to be that much more open. There will be opening up to 100 per cent commissioning over the course of the charter period over the next 10, 11 years. There is going to be more opportunity for Scottish companies to pitch as well as companies across the UK. That is a positive step from our point of view. We are working through a number of issues at the moment with the BBC around BBC Studios, which we can perhaps come on to later on. Overall, I think that we are pleased with the overall shape of the direction that the BBC is going to take over the next 10 years. One of the strengths of the charter is that there is a commitment to supporting the regional minority languages of the UK. In particular, we are pleased that in the draft framework agreement there is a specific commitment to supporting the partnership with MG Allapa and the Gaelic TV channel BBC Allapa. I believe that it probably falls short in that it does not set out a coherent policy towards minority languages and it does not set out a consistent way of dealing with the two minority language channels, S4C and BBC Allapa. We welcome the direction of travel and the commitment to fostering the creative economy in nations. That is a big step forward. I think that I would echo all those points. I suppose that I will pick up on one additional positive point, which is the appointment of Ken Macquarie, the director of nations and regions. We would hope to have a positive outcome for us here in Scotland. I know that the Scottish Government had a number of asks, which are in the charter such as an enforceable service licence agreement and a commitment to the continuation of support for Gaelic as Donald Campbell has alluded to. There were some asks that were not delivered and I just wondered if you would care to reflect on them. One of them was a commitment to a fair share of the licence money in Scotland to invest in Scottish programme making and the creation of a Scottish board, not just a BBC appointed sub-committee. The key thing that has been pushed by stakeholders is where commissioning lies. Is the commissioning capacity, will the charter ensure that commissioning really happens in Scotland? I wondered if you wanted to reflect on that. We would very much like to have seen those things. This is the first year that the proportion of licence fee raised and spent in the nations has been published by the BBC. The fact that only 55 per cent of the licence fee that is raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland is, I think, indefensible culturally, economically and politically. 55 per cent needs to be said again and again and again in the context of the BBC to remind them that it is a measure of the lack of reflection. You asked about commissioning and that is the process by which that change in cultural reflection would happen. Yes, we would very much have liked to see a commitment to the licence fee raised in Scotland being managed and spent in Scotland. It makes a world of difference if a Scottish producer has 95 per cent of the cost of a production in his pocket and then goes to London and says, would you like to put in the other five and then we've got a network programme. That completely changes the balance from what it is at the moment, which is that you go to London where the perception of what the rest of the UK is is not necessarily the same as our perception would be. They tend to think that if you're going to say anything about Scotland at all, you should go back and get a little bit of the Scottish opt-out money added into your budget, which is completely not what the Scottish opt-out money is for. We do need to change those things. We will continue to be arguing for that within the BBC post the settlement. There is a genuine imbalance in how the licence fee is spent and raised across the UK. It's quite a staggering imbalance and it's not one that was revealed prior to these accounts. 55 per cent at best of what is raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland. At least 95 per cent of what is spent in Wales is spent in Wales. Actually, that excludes some spend on S4C, so it's estimated 105, 110 per cent of what is raised in Wales is spent in Wales. England is a net beneficiary in that it draws in funding from across the UK. Northern Ireland is sitting around 75 per cent of money raised spent in Northern Ireland. That means essentially that a licence fee pair in Scotland gets 55p back for every pound they put in where somebody in Wales gets 110p back. We see the logic. I don't think you can divorce those figures from the lack of audience satisfaction that's been measured across Scotland, and I think that you have to ask why Scotland is seen as this net contributor. It's often been said in rooms like this that we also get the network services that we benefit from the BBC, Radio 4, everything that are pan UK. It's absolutely true, so does Wales, and yet they seem not to be contributing towards them. You also have to ask why all those central services are based in London. There's no longer any reason for that to be the case. You could move any one of the services around the UK. Glasgow is a very fully functioning broadcast community, so does Belfast, so does Cardiff. I think that on top of that, you have to really think about the network share of spend. Network is the most important, most valuable part of programme spend on television channels. We're 9 per cent of the UK population, 9 per cent of licence fee pairs. You would think that Wales, which is sitting around 5 per cent of both of those figures, would have a less of a network share in terms of spend than Scotland does. In fact, it's got about £3 million more, so they're sitting at around £69 million and we're sitting at about £66 million. There's a real imbalance that needs to be addressed, so the charter is very welcome. It shows a direction of travel that I think is really positive and lots of language coming out of the BBC in the last week that echoes that, but there is a fundamental block there. If you can shift that spend so it's more in balance across the UK, things like quotas, commissioning power, that's just a natural consequence of that shift. If you can get the money right, everything else will flow. There's nothing in the BBC charter, as I understand it, the draft charter that would stop BBC management from making those decisions that you've outlined and need to be made. No, it's all within their gift to decide. Okay, I think that I'll pass over to Lewis MacDonald before I open. That's very interesting and very helpful. I suppose that looking at it in the context of what, for example, the economy committee of this Parliament said in the last session about encouraging and enabling independent production, I guess the question is whether what's before us today and what's before Parliament when we debated next week is going to enable that shift. I think that everyone in responding to the convener's first question said that this is the right direction of travel. Is it sufficiently clear what that direction of travel is in order for us to be confident that the charter period will see a change in the right direction in terms of the quantity of independent production, for example, in terms of support for Gaelic language and the other things that we've talked about? There's clearly an economic outflow from Scotland and I think that it would be very welcome if there was a specific strategic commitment over the lifetime of the next charter to addressing that by the BBC. I think that Gaelic broadcasting would play a very important role in that and offers an opportunity for the BBC in Scotland. It's already a success and it offers I think the platform for further success and for serving audiences in the way that the BBC want. In relation to the prior question about should there be a board for Scotland, I think that if there is a high level strategic commitment to addressing the economic imbalance, I think that a board in Scotland would be very useful. A key mechanism in addressing the imbalance is through the systems of quotas, but quotas are an intervention in a sense. Content is king and there's no lack of creative talent in Scotland whatsoever. What sometimes there is a lack of is confidence in the sector, the ability to commit to creating a really strong domestic market. If there's a strong domestic market, which includes the BBC Alipa as part of it and an integrated part of it, I think that then you can punch into the international market as well. Any other thoughts on what? The charter is a sort of first stage and then obviously there's a conversation to be had with Ofcom about the exact shape that the service light or the operating framework actually takes and how that incorporates what's needed from Scotland's point of view. Certainly in the BBC white paper, there was a very clear commitment to continuing with the out-of-London quotas. Certainly PACT has always will continue to support the out-of-London quotas going forward. I noticed from some of the background documentation on the charter that Ofcom is considering possibly raising or changing those quotas in some ways. Obviously that's a conversation that we would be pleased to shape Ofcom thinking on that. It comes down to—I think that both the Davids have touched on this—how the money is spent locally and how the money is spent on network programming as well. Sorry before David comes in. I guess what you're saying, because the quotas don't guarantee—it was maybe Donald Campbell's point about quotas are an intervention—they don't guarantee how the quota is. There's no guarantee built in as to how that quota is met and it doesn't necessarily stimulate additional independent production or production here in Scotland. Is that your point, Rosina? I know, for example, this week the Ofcom out-of-London register is being published on Thursday. Obviously that lists all the productions in Scotland and in the other nations that have been produced here. That always, from our point of view, stimulates a conversation with Ofcom about how those quotas are being met and whether there's real investment coming into Scotland and whether that's short-term or long-term. It's certainly something that we have an eye on and a debate we like to influence. We don't want to be arguing about numbers and percentages forever and having to drill down into those, but they are the tool by which we measure those things. At least they ought to be the tool by which we measure those things, but when the rules and regulations are being implemented in the letter, but perhaps not the spirit, we have to drill further down into the processes and how the numbers are interpreted. If you look at the BBC statistics, they will tell you that a significant amount of investment has been made in the independent sector. That means that investment has been made in a number of independent companies, some of which may spend most of their money by buying the services of BBC Scotland's specific key in order to deliver studio shows. Technically, that's independent spend, but most of it is going back into the BBC. Some of it is being spent on companies with very little presence here, most of whose profitability then drifts back to London. It is being represented as having been spent here, but it's not. As a result, we have a weak independent production sector here compared to what it should be after 10 years of the 9 per cent target. We will persist in using the mechanisms that are set up by the charter and the support and engagement that we have had from all levels of politics in Scotland to explain not in, we hope, in any kind of whinging way, but just to say, look, these are the facts. This is how it is ought it to be different. A question came back to me last week from somebody who was in the BBC asking, if my view of what is and is not Scottish and is off Scotland to use the wording of the white paper would be reflected back to me by other producers within Scotland, I don't have the answer to that question. I think that what you can say about production from Scotland is that there are companies that are inarguably genuinely headquartered here. All of our staff are here, our profits and IP are reinvested in Scotland, the gross value added of our activities is within Scotland and there are companies who move to Scotland temporarily, rent a desk or to put up a brass nameplate and consume quota and disappear as soon as their commission has done. Between those two points there's a continuum and the quota and the mechanism that decides what is and is not Scottish could pick a point in that continuum and say that's where the line is drawn. More usefully and more quickly because this does come down to BBC Choice, the BBC could simply choose to commission from those companies who are inarguably Scottish. If it is Scottish quota, spend it in Scotland on Scottish content. I go back to the previous point which is that there's a bigger hole here which is this £100 million plus in balance of net contribution to the UK, the BBC across the UK. I think if you get both of those there's a journey we're going to have to go on across the next 11 years where we see this rebalanced because if we continue to meet the network through what's been called lift and shift, Scotland will end up with very little actual Scottish production, will end up with a service economy. Just for the benefit of people who are watching who might be coming to this new, could you give us an illustration of what lift and shift means? It's where a project or a business of a company is displaced from where they are normally based to another part of the UK to meet a quota. The early examples were things like the week's link, which came and went quite quickly. Waterloo Road, which came and went quite quickly. I think a current example which we've raised with OFCOM is IMG sports media and it's sneaker coverage. There are hundreds of hours of sneaker coverage from Sheffield that are badged as Scottish and set against the Scottish quota. When we looked into who constituted the team, what gave them the substantive base within Scotland, there did not seem to be much of a substantive base. There were desk rented within PQ, Pacific Key in Glasgow, there were production management individuals working there, there was some kit hire from Scotland but there was no real, it didn't stick to our economy in the way that I would have thought that the quota envisaged it should. Can I just final point on that? Just to understand what I think you're saying is that the shift is not about the charter, it's about how BBC policy chooses to implement what's been laid out here and what's been agreed. We occasionally hear from colleagues that a project can't be commissioned unless it is commissioned out of the Scottish pot, which requires it to be shifted to Scotland and become Scottish on a temporary basis. Jackson. I think you're being very polite. It seems to me that after 10 years and a 9 per cent target, the actual original programming making in Scotland is pathetic. You've alluded to the lift and shift notion of the BBC and obviously the charter is talking about trying to stimulate the creative end in Scotland. Given that we've made so little progress in so much time, have you got confidence—notwithstanding the word of the charter—that the actual spirit that you referred to is going to find a voice in BBC Scotland? In terms of that commissioning, if we are trying to genuinely stimulate the broadest possible cultural renaissance in Scottish broadcasting, to what extent do you feel the BBC welcomes independent production? Thank you. You're right to identify the fact that we are trying to phrase what we're saying in acceptable language. It has been deeply frustrating over 10 years when the 9 per cent target was introduced, our company, which had already established relationships with commissioners and was delivering successfully to the BBC network, looked forward to a period of growth. We have seen a steady decline in the amount of network commissions that we have had ever since then because the emphasis has been overly so on lift and shift. I would not like to say that lift and shift has been always bad. There have been career paths created within the production of homes under the hammer in Scotland, where people have been able to work in our company, who came to us as researchers and because we were not able to grow sufficiently quickly, they have been able to go to other companies and progress up the ladder to be serious producers. That's good, but it's not everything, and it has been deeply disappointing. You ask if we have confidence in the direction of travel. We have hope in the direction of travel, but I think that it's too early to say that we have confidence. There's a report that's been commissioned by the TV working group, which is a body set up to advise Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise from a company called Ecos, which shows that, essentially across the period from 2012 to 2015, turnover in Scotland in production has been static. It's maybe gone up or down a little bit, but it's broadly been static. Across the same period, employment's fallen by 27 per cent. That's because, essentially, the work that is badged to Scottish remains attached to the Scottish total, but the jobs are not always in Scotland, they flow elsewhere. That's seen as an erosion of opportunity for people within Scotland. I don't know if... I have confidence. I think that the BBC is genuinely trying to address those issues. I think that the change in the charter, the movement to BBC studios, the movement to 100 per cent contestability have made them think about how they source content. Diversity of supply is really important to them. That's become a mantra I've heard repeated back to us again and again over the last month or so. They appreciate that audiences like ideas from a lot of different sources. That's why independent producers are useful. That's why nations-based production is useful. As David said, it's democratically, economically unjustifiable to continue as they were. However, it will come down to deeds, not words, effectively across the next 11 years. When the original 9 per cent quota came in in 2009, we did feel very optimistic. I started the company in 2009 on the basis that there was an opportunity here. We have had an opportunity and we have grown over that period. However, it's fair to say that, as Pax's most recent survey and the Ecos survey suggests that the main beneficiaries of that have been the larger companies who have set up branch offices in Scotland. I'd like to see that change. It's in the BBC's gift to make that change. The impression that I have at the moment is that too much creative talent in Scotland will conclude that it has to go south because the leadership has not been in Scotland for them to be able to develop new ideas here. I know that new production is not just drama, which is studio intensive. There are all sorts of other forms of production, documentary, lifestyle series that don't require studio capacity. I know that there is a big issue with studio capacity actually available in Scotland. However, if we look at—you mentioned this studio's initiative and I think that songs of praise and one or two other shows have been identified as now being open to tender—is Scotland set up to take advantage of that? It seems to me in terms of studio capacity, both Northern Ireland and Wales have been ahead of us in terms of providing the actual space which allows productions to go there. I'm kind of aware that invest Northern Ireland seems to be much more proactive than Scottish enterprises in working with the independent sectors and others to take advantage of the opportunity. Are we set up even to take advantage of the new initiatives that are being provided under the charter? Am I all right? You are right to identify the opportunities that are presented are of a scale. If you have been pitching for a three-part art series on BBC 4, it is quite different to be pitching for a 52-week series like songs of praise. That is a substantial increase. There will be a continuum of BBC shows being put out. The next batch of them is due to come out in December. There will be another batch in the new year. There could be a steady stream of them coming out. Around 150 hours and 250 million of stuff is due to be coming out over the next couple of years. You are right to identify that Northern Ireland's screen has been proactive. Why? Because when you are a company of a certain size, the resources that you need to step up, not just in an even organic pattern but to make a sudden leap, may be beyond you. That is why Northern Ireland's screen has stepped in and said that if any of the companies in Northern Ireland want to go after those opportunities, they will support them. We have been saying—and the Culture and Committee heard it all in January—for some time that parallel levels of partnership and engagement with the public agencies would be helpful. There are signs that there are initiatives in this direction at the moment. When those come through, we will be very glad. In terms of studio capacity or the facilities available, in order to be able to respond to that potential opportunity, Scotland needs to be able to offer a range of spaces from converted or pop-up spaces. For example, the west way in Glasgow houses robot wars. Those sorts of spaces have no infrastructure to speak of. Productions go in, take a short-term lease and come out again at the end of it. That works for certain types of production. We have a very large amount of that. We currently market about 435,000 square feet of pop-up or alternative space. That figure compares very favourably with the other nations in the UK. You also need to have converted space, which means that it is usually X industrial space that has some infrastructure already in it for productions to come in, make use of, probably spend more on infrastructure as well to tailor it to the production itself. But at least there is something that is there, which is continuous. We have Dunbarton Studios as a converted space. We have the Warpot Studios currently housing Outlander, which is converted space. We would say that we need more of that, but we do have a significant amount. In Belfast, the Titanic Studios is a part converted and part new purpose built. That is how Game of Thrones works, is that it uses both those two types of space. When the Warpot Studios expansion takes place, it would be very similar. It would have the converted space from the factory and then two new purpose built stages. We have that coming up. Planning permission has been granted. And then what we all know is that Scotland lacks purpose built studio space, so we'll have some with the Warpot Studios when that happens. We have a studio on Stornoway where Katie Moorack, the BBC Children's programme, was shot, but we need more and we all know that there is the Pentland studio proposal, which is currently going through planning. So with that range of options and with what will come with Warpot Studios, and we at Creative Scotland and the Film Studio Delivery Group are hoping very much that the Pentland studio proposal is successful at planning, then I think that yes, we will be in a good position. Can I ask just one final question? Thank you everybody and it is actually to you, Natalie, and it is Creative Scotland's role in all of this. I mean, I've associated Creative Scotland's input more at the moment or historically with film rather than with television. And one of the things I don't think many of us foresaw was the burgeoning international digital and other services, as well as the BBC, many of which are actually partnerships with the BBC. Now I'm watching something called The Collection on Amazon Prime, which is, I must recommend to everybody, but it is, I think, going to make its way onto the BBC in due course, but it's currently being screened internationally on digital services. As we go forward, the opportunities for television creativity must be burgeoning, and again, if we are going to have the infrastructure and the opportunity for creative talent to take advantage of the opportunities that might now arise out of the charter, where does Creative Scotland see its role potentially in that television sector as opposed to screen? Historically, Creative Scotland and before Scottish screens, main source of funding is lottery funding. As you know, that comes with the conditions attached to it that relate to good causes. For the most part, our investment through those lottery funds have been in film. However, because of the crucial role that the television sector in Scotland and because of the size of our screen sector, we have been able to invest in TV drama using those lottery funds. We have invested in KT Morag, T-Cup Travels, Bannon and MG Alba. We have managed to work within that TV drama, within certain parameters. We have focused on the development of pilots or a project to first series, but because of the limits of that funding, which is a £4 million annual fund, we have felt that, if a programme gets commissioned for a second series, the market needs to take that on in terms of funding, and we could look at other alternatives. The opportunity currently for us alongside the BBC charter renewal is the Scottish Government's manifesto commitment to enhance the screen units at Creative Scotland. That is something that we are working on with our partners in government, Scottish Enterprise and other relevant agencies. We see that, if we were rather like Northern Ireland's screen to have in one place enterprise money and creative involvement and experience, we would be able to take charge of those opportunities and to be able to invest in that. We would be able to invest in the wider TV market currently. As the lead agency for Screen, we interact a lot with—we sit on the TV working group and we are able to contribute to the work with the TV sector on the basis of advocacy or influencing, but we do not have the funds to be able to support these businesses in the same way that, for example, Northern Ireland's screen can. We are working very hard to see if we can enable that with enhanced resources in terms of money and people to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that we see at the moment. One thing that I would perhaps add is that the sector in Scotland is very much a kill-to-eat kind of sector that is based on short-term commissioning for the most part. We see the benefits of the likes of Outlander getting commitments to multiple series. We know that Scotland is capable of producing, of sustaining large-scale production if there is a commitment to multi-year returning series. At BBC Alipa, we commit about two-thirds of our money to three-four-year production agreements with companies. It is a sign of confidence in the companies and in the individuals who are in that sector. Not all the money is tied up in it, but a lot of it is. I know that that allows for those companies to plan, to train, to liaise with the enterprise agencies, to borrow against making investment in capital. We, in a sense, are willing and want to make a commitment and to show a sign of confidence in the production talent, even though sometimes we do not know exactly what that is going to give, perhaps in three or four years' time. That is where we need to gradually move the whole of the sector towards. If the BBC were able to be the bold and creative BBC that it wants to be in Scotland, and the BBC has shown lots of intent in terms of the open eye player and BBC studios of being willing to take big decisions that are aimed at making a step change, to do that in Scotland requires making longer-term commitments and tying up the enterprise agencies, creative Scotland and ourselves, in a partnership to enable that to happen over a number of years. It needs to be movements of scale rather than a little here and a little there. They need to be pretty big, I think, to make a difference. I agree with essentially everything that Donald just said in terms of the so-to-read model being the current model that we all follow apart from when we are working with BBC Alpa. Your point about capacity and whether we can grow to meet the capacity if we had an increase in spend. The alternative, which is the so-to-read model that BBC Alpa follows, helps to build capacity. It concentrates investment in a number of companies who are then able to draw in. If there is a lack of talent, we can hire people. If there is a lack of infrastructure, we can buy it, we can go to the bank as Donald says and hire, borrow money. I think that the new charter does require the BBC to enter into partnerships, creative partnerships for the benefit of all, combine that with the obligation towards the nations and regions, creativity and economy. It is very useful. What we perhaps have lacked—the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have been very useful in focusing on this—has provided real leadership. The committee and its predecessor have really helped us to air a lot of the issues that we have been struggling with. What we have lacked potentially—actually not potentially—is real leadership from the public agencies. Creative Scotland, but particularly Scottish Enterprise, have been more or less missing from the field at times. However, I also think that you have to compare and contrast—if you go back to that 55 per cent spend target—somebody at BBC Wales is doing the right thing, somebody who has really got their head screwed on the right way around, they are providing creative leadership and they are delivering a win for their whole economy. That is what I would like to see flow from this new round of nations and regions. Thank you. Richard Lochhead. Thank you. In terms of David Smith's comments earlier on about the snooker being classified as Scottish spend, which was new to me until I read your evidence, I heard what you said today. That sounds pretty ludicrous. It is all because our production manager, according to your evidence, is on LinkedIn and is living in Scotland. The question is, how do you define or how do you recommend that we should look into this Scottish spend? I know that you touched on that, but should there be a list of companies that are defined as being wholly Scottish or whatever, I do not know? How do you have a situation where Scottish companies can still compete for productions elsewhere in the UK? The first thing is to keep on doing what you are doing, which is to provide oversight. That has led to a lot of the evidence that is in those accounts. The previous version of the committee, the culture committee, was required that the BBC provided detail on specifically Scottish spend, and that has allowed us to look a lot more clearly at what is and is not happening and undercut a lot of the arguments that were previously presented at other committees. I go back to my early point about the continuum of what is and what is not Scottish. It is very hard to define, and I think that the BBC could, without too much effort in terms of how you refocus definitions, move to an authentic model of commissioning. That would be the first step. There is an off-com definition that requires a substantive base, which is the two desks in Pacific Key in the case of the sneaker, which is clearly not substantive in any meaningful way. I think that if that test was more rigidly applied, that would be useful. Off-com at the moment is reactive rather than proactive. If somebody sees an entry in the out-of-London register, which details every show that is badgers either Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish or English for that matter, if somebody sees a project in there and has a question about it, you can raise that with off-com, but off-com will not investigate. For example, in the sneaker, we did raise a question, but this time last year, just after publication of the previous report, we still do not have an answer as to why the sneaker was able to qualify. The question really is for the BBC. How was that able to qualify? In what way was that base substantive? Where was the spend? It would be useful going forward if off-com was more proactive than reactive. Maybe we have to move the Scottish border down to Sheffield not to help her, or that has been more genuine. In terms of the programmes that we watch as a committee, I know that Jackson Carlaw said he watches collection, which I have not seen, so I will keep my eye open for that. I have watched lots of other series such as Borgon, The Killing and so on and so forth and paid attention to the resurgence of Scandinavian drama. Is there any lessons we should learn in Scotland from what is happening over there in terms of the role of the state broadcaster? Is this something that you must be debating as professionals in your arena? We talk about it quite a lot. I think that what is interesting about it on the surface is that language is not a barrier to success. We are already thinking about ways in which we can work better together. What it involves is a real focus in the context of drama, as you are describing. A real focus on the development of that new talent and also an opportunity for existing talent writers directors to create that next Borgon out of Scotland. We would welcome the opportunity through the enhancement of the Screen Unit in Creative Scotland from a resource perspective. We would then be enabled to work more closely with M.G. Alba and BBC Scotland to focus specific amounts of money together on that and to make sure that we develop that talent and those new programmes. There are at least three things that we have learned. One of them is the distinctiveness of the content that is required. We see that with Hintland just now with the Welsh and BBC4 and all three media collaborations in Wales. One of the first ones that broke into the consciousness in the UK was the killing and the Americans remade it. It reigned continually in the American version. There was something about that. It gave it a distinctive look and feel, so it didn't necessarily have to be the panoramic views and to build on the natural assets of which Scotland has got a huge abundance, but it can build on other assets of distinctiveness as well. Language quite clearly now is not a barrier as we have found out, so that is something to build on. It has taken about 10 years for those things to happen. They didn't materialise. They were the result of strategic planning. They were the results of decisions taken 10 years ago to invest in training, in collaboration, in trying things out and pilots. A whole host of them have come to fruition most recently from Iceland with Fortitude on Sky and also trapped as well. The third thing that I would say is that when you look at the end credits and the titles at the end, you will see a whole smorgasbord of contributors and partners. They have built up networks of collaborators across Scandinavia and Germany as well. They are primed already in their networks to invest in the right content and to locate it where it can be as distinctive as possible. Talking to the people who produced the killing, it was really interesting that they made it work for their own domestic audience first. If it worked for their domestic audience and it was a story of universal appeal, despite its distinctiveness for the local market, then it would cross boundaries very easily. All of those things suggest to me that we should take a long-term 5-10-year approach. The charter is a great length of time to be able to plan that so that we can envisage something in the future, if you like, in 10-15 years' time, which is a bit different to the one now. We should start working in collaboration and partnerships, not just with the BBC but with the Scandinavians, with the Irish, with the Australians, New Zealand, etc. Sorry. Step on the way to that process, which is the tendering process that is now under way with BBC studios coming into existence in the end of the in-house guarantee, allows the BBC to issue tenders, the first one in drama, I think, as a whole-by-city. The BBC has already talked about eligibility criteria attaching to those tenders. It could be that the eligibility criteria require the movement of projects around the UK, which could be another iteration of lift-and-shift, but it could be used more constructively. It could require that that project, if it is open to tender, is open to tender from a consortium of producers within some of whom are Scottish, some of whom are not necessarily quite so Scottish. It allows for transference of skills, it aligns for build-up of capacity. It also comes down to commissioning where the money sits. At the moment, there is talk of a commissioner for drama sitting in Glasgow for the BBC. That is a step forward. That commissioner will have no direct commissioning power. He will have a report to the drama controller in London who will have the final yes, no, along with the channel controller. Shifting some spend to attach to that commissioner would be useful. As a factual producer, though, I would like to see that just at the beginning of the process, I would like to see factual commissioners based in Glasgow, as well as drama commissioners. We are a centre of excellence for factual. Let's have history, let's have documentaries, let's have arts, let's have features and daytime already in Scotland doing quite well. Let's replicate that. Emma Harper It is similar to Richard Lochhead's question about Sheffield and Snooker. Last year, I was told that BBC Question Time was a Scottish show. Is that an example of lift and shift, or is that still the case? Can you help to clarify that? That goes back to the continuum that I mentioned earlier. Question time is produced by Mentorn. Mentorn has been invested in Scotland quite substantially over the past five years. They have approached it authentically, so the project was lifted and shifted to Scotland. Around that, Mentorn has built a genuine Scottish business. They have senior talent based in Glasgow, the project was run from Glasgow and they have built around that other project. It has become a useful example of lift and shift. That is where the continuum is tricky, because there are shades of grey all the way along it. Mentorn lies in Scotland, a few others fall very much to the right end of the spectrum. They are authentically Scottish. Others, for example, like Snooker, are less so. What is interesting about those projects and Homes under the Hammer is that, in order to provide that support and allow those companies to invest genuinely and remain in Scotland, they have been given substantial commitments, three years generally, commitments that have not been offered to the indigenous production companies. Who knows? It is a question of dialogue as to what is the appropriate project upon which that can happen, but I think that there have been projects to which there could have been a longer term commitment. Is this a supplementary list? I also have Stuart McMillan wanting to come in. It follows on from the questions from Richard Lochhead. It is about the Swedish television minute. That is a similar model to the BBC in terms of how it is set up. I accept the point about companies, particularly when Richard was talking about the programmes from Denmark, which companies commission on things together and work in a more collaborative way. However, in terms of how Swedish television operates, as compared to the BBC, even though the structure appears to be similar, what would you say the main differences would be and any lessons that there could be there for Scotland to take on? I am familiar with Sweden particularly, but I have spent some time in Denmark, and it is probably a more direct comparison in that our populations are roughly equivalent. I think that it is a strong domestic market is the change. Denmark has from memory six or seven public service broadcasters and a host of commercial broadcasters. They have a thriving domestic advertising sales market. They have a very strong public sector initiative into all things screen. I cannot remember what the equivalent of Creative Scotland is called. The Dangerous Films to Teat. The Dangerous Films to Teat actively invest. It gets 50 million euro a year from the Government. There are direct comparisons in terms of population size. They are protected to degree by their language, but their language is similar enough to their neighbours that they can co-produce. We are in a different position in that we sit next to London, which is a global media centre. It is a huge centre of gravity that draws a lot of talent and investment to it. The one area where that does not have to be the case is the BBC, which raises its money across the UK and could juice suspend it across the UK. I had another question that was going back to a point that Donald Campbell made in introduction around the comparison and the difference between the way in which MGLIPA operates with the BBC and the relationships that S4C enjoys in Wales. Just to understand a little more about what that difference looks like and whether a specific commitment by the BBC in terms of Gaelic language broadcasting would make a difference to the generation of programmes in Gaelic and generally in the Scottish production cycle. There are two different structural arrangements for Welsh language television and Gaelic language television. For S4C, there is a separate company established by Statute, which the BBC is obliged to support with 10 hours a week of BBC-made programmes. As a result of the last licence fee settlement, there is also about £75 million of cash funding to S4C. For BBC Alipa, we chose a different route in 2008, and that was a route of what you might call an unincorporated joint venture. It is a BBC-licensed service, but it is delivered in partnership and funded in partnership. The staff of MGLIPA are very much involved in commissioning, scheduling, managing the media, etc. I suppose that what the framework agreement sets out is a very clear financial settlement for Welsh and a promise of support for Gaelic television. Where we think that that comes a little bit short is that we think that Gaelic television is actually a matter of important policy matter for the BBC and should be a policy commitment, and there should be a coherence, if you like, between the commitment to the Welsh channel and the Gaelic TV channel. Every TV channel requires a minimum outage to make it work. BBC Alipa currently has 1.9 hours a day of new programmes, which compares to 8 hours a day of new programmes on S4C. Without an increase in hours on BBC Alipa, it will be tough to keep the current success going. The other way to look at it is that, with additional reallocation of BBC funds into BBC Alipa, at the very least, to match what the BBC does for S4C in terms of programme hours, so a 10-hour-a-week programme commitment to BBC Alipa, to match the BBC's 10-hour-a-week programme commitment to S4C, would give a huge amount of oxygen to BBC Alipa, not only of benefit to those who speak and use Gaelic but also to the whole of the creative economy in Scotland, because BBC Alipa, believe it or not, is a hot house of talent and it's a huge opportunity to increase the skills-based capacity in Scotland. If there was such a 10-hour requirement, although the structure is different from S4C, that requirement would be compatible with the structure that you have as a joint incorporation or unincorporated enterprise. Is that a matter, like some of the things that we talked about earlier? Is that a matter for a policy decision by the BBC as opposed to something that needs to be built into the charter or the framework agreement? The Welsh commitment is a statutory compulsion on the BBC and it's one that the BBC could opt to match as a matter of BBC policy and that's where we would like the BBC to move towards. Is that a supplementary? Right. Are you finished, Lewis? It's an apocryphal story that Michael Dobbs tells of the originator of House of Cards, who by the third season of House of Cards had sold the creative way in which his books were adapted away and wanted to have his name removed from it and says that somebody stood to their full height at the BBC and said, if you do that you'll never work for the BBC again. I'm just wondering with the eyes of the BBC on your back, do the independent sector and those giving evidence to the committee, are you entirely comfortable in being candid given that what you would like, obviously ultimately, is the BBC to look to the independent sector far more as a resource for creative programming? In other words, is the debate that we are having constricted in any way by the fact that the big player in all of this ultimately is the BBC? Ken Macquarie said once when that question was discussed that the BBC is used to robust arguments and we should not feel inhibited about saying exactly what we thought. I think that we endeavour to say nothing, which is not evidence based and has a strong strategic argument behind it. We're not afraid of saying what we have said and we have said it. The last time when the culture committee was here, I was due to be making a speech the next day and I handed a copy of it to the director general as he left the room and it was a fairly robust speech. We don't say things that we can't entirely back up and we believe that the people at the strategic level of the BBC are quite concerned about making progress in this direction. It's a question of driving that down to the implementation level. That's where the difficulty is because the relationships that are going to clinch the work are relationships between producers and commissioners and those are very precious and very fragile relationships. We have some understanding of the concerns of commissioners who have the ultimate responsibility for the spend of hundreds of millions of pounds over which they have very little control and we understand why there has been over the last decade a reluctance to take risks and to move into other areas and a preference to work with people that you know and trust, but it takes that boldness and that change to deliver the numbers that we've been talking about at this committee. David, just quickly. Very briefly, we're a public service production company, the BBC's public service TV Telly, and we wholeheartedly support the BBC as a provider of public service television. These are constructive criticisms and I think that they welcome them. Donald Campbell mentioned earlier that you can make very culturally distinctive television programmes that then have a universal appeal. You can sell them around the world, as the Scandinavians have shown, and I believe that Bannon's had its first international sale as well. Congratulations for that. We have talked a lot today about what you keep, what evidence-based in terms of the figures, the quotas, the jobs that are creative, and that is, understandably, absolutely key. However, if I can go back to that point about cultural, something that is produced here in Scotland that is culturally distinctive as Scottish, that then has a universal appeal, people have told me that there is an attitude within the BBC, particularly in terms of network, that they won't commission those culturally distinctive programmes because they don't think that, not just that they'll have an international appeal but a UK-wide appeal. Is that something that you would care to reflect on? I realise that you are not drama producers, you are factual producers, but have you perceived that attitude at BBC network level? Colin Cameron used to say that he was very frustrated when he suggested that there should be, for instance, something significant about child abuse in Orkney that was regarded as a little local difficulty, but when it happened in Cleveland it was of national importance. I think that that is something that we suffer from. If you listen to James Robertson's wonderful little clip from his book 365, The News Where You Are, the news where you are is not news where we are, that sort of thing. That is a cultural issue that the BBC is going to have to deal with all over the place, and in some respects it's about, its problem is partly Scotland but it's partly the south-east, which has been used to thinking that everything that it is concerned about is of national significance and anything beyond the south-east is trivial. Representation is important but potentially a trap. I think that, as a producer of public service content, probably our most critically acclaimed film last year was about Ted Hughes, who's in no way Scottish and only tenacially connected. We want to make representational content but we don't want just to make representational content. We want to make Lewis Grasic Gibbon and Shakespeare all of those things. I think that you have to be careful not to be too tightly hemmed in by that. I think that it's incumbent on commissioners and programme makers to know exactly who their audience is going to be as well. Sometimes the cultural distinctiveness is the thing that's really going to sell, so when you know that, you can build up a really strong offering that crosses borders. If we're commissioning for BBC Allop, we need to be clear about whether this is a programme that's only ever going to be seen by BBC Allop audiences or whether it's something that we would envisage being seen across the UK or even internationally. A good example of that might be the programme that Solis TV productions made about Alexander McQueen, which was recently shown at the Madrid fashion festival in Spanish, dubbed across into Spanish. Some things travel particularly well and others won't. You just need to be clever enough at the outset to know who your audience is and who your market is. I think that you heard the supplementary student. Yes, thank you. The commissioning of programmes is one aspect in terms of Scotland. I think that Mr Campbell's point leads on to the supplementary student. It's not just about the commissioning, but it's about the promotion of programmes that do come from Scotland. Do you think that there is enough promotion of Scottish-made programmes across the network and elsewhere via the BBC? My personal view is not at all. I think that the BBC brand and the Scotland brand are hugely underdeveloped in combination, both in the UK and in the international marketplace, so I don't think that we've even tapped into the potential of that. Unfortunately, we're going to have to wind up. This is obviously a session scrutinising the charter. You've been very eloquent and concise in what you see the problem is in Scotland, and you've all said that this is a problem that can be identified and addressed by BBC management without necessarily the charter forcing that on them. Is there anything that you would like to see? Is there any way that the charter could be changed that would deliver your objectives for you? Now about the service agreement, more than the charter. I think that changing the wording of the charter now would be all but impossible, but there's really useful language within that charter that the service agreement can then build upon, like the public purpose about commissioning and investing in the creative economies of each of the nations. That's a clear public purpose that the BBC now has to deliver, how it delivers it, will be framed within the service agreement and how that's monitored is up to this Parliament, the Westminster Parliament and the Governments in both places. Is it in scrutiny of the annual work plans and then the work of OFCOM to review those each year is going to be the opportunity to ensure that that public purpose is delivered? I think that the dialogue between OFCOM and the BBC and the rest of us becomes critically important in setting the standards and the performance measures that will be put in place in the new service agreements. It's important that it's an opportunity for consultation in that process. If he has an opportunity to look at the service agreement before it's finalised. Point taken. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence to us today and we'll now have a short adjournment before moving to the next panel. Hello, I'd like to welcome to the meeting our second panel, Anne Bulford, Deputy Director General of the BBC, Alan Dixon, Chief Operating Officer of the BBC Scotland, Ken Macquarie, Director of the BBC Scotland and Bill Matthews, the BBC trustee for Scotland. Before I move to members' questions, I'd like to give Anne Bulford the opportunity to make some opening remarks. Good morning and thank you convener for inviting us here today and giving us the opportunity to discuss with the committee some of the key issues around drama, around charter and the likely impact here in Scotland. When the Director General and I were here along with Kenny in January, we discussed a number of charter proposals that both underpin the BBC's commitment to Scotland and support real positive and lasting change in the country's broadcast sector. Before we turn to that, I'd like firstly to start by saying how very much we welcome the proposals within the draft charter and the clear and stable basis for production that comes with the guarantee of license fee funding. We're also pleased that there's been some movement around proposed appointments to the BBC's unitary board, which should provide an appropriate distance between the broadcaster and the governments of the UK. Over the past few months, we've been working hard to develop many of the proposals around the charter for our audiences in Scotland and across our offer for the UK's nations and regions. Work continues apace, for example, on developing the Scottish digital editions of our home pages in news and in sport and as discussed by the Director General when he appeared here at the previous committee. That committee's report called for the BBC to provide detailed financial information about our operations and spend in Scotland. From the last session and from looking at the accounts, you'll all be aware that we've made a number of submissions to the previous committee and have since, for the first time, laid before the Scottish Parliament our annual report and accounts further, as recommended by the committee, a commitment by the BBC to appear at the relevant Scottish parliamentary committees, contained within the draft charter, as is the committee's recommendation that the length of the charter be adjusted to make further future scrutiny of the charter process unaffected by the electoral cycle. The committee also sought a strong Scottish element in the regulatory framework, and the draft charter ensures that a non-executive director for Scotland will sit on the BBC's new unitary board. In terms of the committee's calls for increased commissioning power in Scotland, we've already announced a new drama commissioner and a new comedy commissioner for Scotland, a drama development fund will be set up, and Scotland will be identified as a centre of excellence for the BBC in factual production. I would like to stress that this is not a definitive list. This is progress to date. I'm very aware that time is tight, so I'd only like to make one more observation if I may, and that is to put on public record, just delighted we are across the BBC, that my colleague Ken Macquarie has been appointed as the new BBC director of nations and regions. It is an excellent appointment for Scotland for the nations and for the BBC, and above all, I believe for audiences. For a note that Kenny's focus in that role will be entirely on ensuring that audiences, particularly those in the nations and regions, remain at the heart of our thinking in the years that lie ahead. Thank you. I would like to open up by congratulating Mr Macquarie on his appointment. You'll have heard some of the evidence that we've just taken. By far, the key complaint is the amount of licence payers' money that's spent here in Scotland. In Scotland, we uniquely received just 55 per cent of licence fee revenue. That compares to 74 per cent in Northern Ireland, and we heard today that in Wales it's above 90 per cent. You have presided over that, Mr Macquarie, in Scotland. You have presided over that failure in Scotland, and we have heard today that that's a failure of management. It's not to do with the framework. How are you going to address that now that you have this even more elevated position as director of nations and regions? I do not regard it as a failure of management. I think that the figures are dynamic and they have changed from year to year. We saw in 2014 when we had a considerable investment in Scotland that those figures were high. Admittedly, the figures have fallen relative to the licence fee that was collected in Scotland, but the comparison with Wales has very specific circumstances in relation to comparing with Wales that I think would be useful to take the committee through. In terms of where we get to, the key thing for us is to make the fourth purpose of the charter absolutely live and breathe. The director general is committed to that being one of the top important issues for the BBC, thus the appointment of the director of nations and regions. Clearly, in terms of the investment that comes out of Scotland, if we look over the last five years, we have had 8.9 per cent of the eligible spend in terms of meeting our targets. That has been, since over the last seven years, we have tripled the amount of money spent in Scotland. That is a tens of millions of pounds. It is a considerable achievement under what we refer to as the network strategy review. The specific comparator of whether you are dealing with different funding in terms of the languages in Wales and also a set-up in terms of which has been funded by a number of partners in Roth Lock, which has provided a base for drama, is probably not the only lens that we should look at here. The key thing for us is, first of all, just to understand what underpins those figures are, specifically to Wales. I just asked my colleague chief operating officer, Alan Dixon, to make a number of points just as to what the breakdown of those figures is. Thanks, Kenny, and thanks, convener. Kenny has looked at a comparison between Wales and Scotland, and I think that it is important to inform the committee of the three major drivers of spend in Scotland and Wales. The first one would be on English language content across all services, and that is broadly similar. It is around 30 per cent of the licence fee taken in both countries. The next element, I guess, would be network TV production. It is fair to say that Wales had a fantastically strong year in 2015-16, and in Scotland that has been challenging. We fully expect that to increase in 2016-17. The last element of what any level of spend happens in Scotland in Wales relates to indigenous language provision, and in Scotland that amounts to 3 per cent of the licence fee take. In Wales it is 23 per cent. I guess that there are specific reasons about why that is the case—some historical, some related to the level of speakers in those areas. Those are the three main economic drivers about how much the BBC spends in each of the three nations. That is all very well, but it is there in black and white that in Northern Ireland it is 74 per cent compared to 55 per cent, so it is not just about comparing with Wales. Northern Ireland spends considerably above ours as well. What I would say to that convener is that, again, if we look at the spend on English language content in Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is maybe slightly more in Northern Ireland, but I guess that there are economies of scale of setting up a production base in Northern Ireland that would be included in those numbers. Kenny is right in terms of the nature of—this is not a static number. Last year the equivalent figure for Scotland was 63 per cent, so higher simply because of the level of network TV business and spend that we had in Scotland. The annual accounts and make it quite clear in terms of some of the reasons about why that dip and expenditure has happened, related to the decommissioning of Waterloo Road and some of our other titles. We have recognised that and we have done something about it. We believe that, this year, when you look at the network levels of spend, they will return to a level that is much closer to those in 2014-15, an increase of 20 million. That is driven by drama titles, so we have got some impressive stuff happening in terms of one of us that is there. Shetland, the next series of Shetland, will be there as well. It is a difficult situation to manage when you lose a returning series, like Waterloo Road, but we have made a good recovery from that and will continue to do that. We are hopeful that the announcement about a drama commissioner in Scotland will help that situation. I would not see it as a static figure. It is something that moves and one of the main drivers is around network TV spend, which happens in any one year. Although we have broad targets, they are ultimately dependent on the quality of ideas that are coming through in any one year. In some cases, they are transmission patterns. You have explained what your interpretation of the figures is being, but we have got lots of evidence from right across the sectors, not just this committee, previous committees, the economy committee who have been very critical about the way things operate and the amount of money that is spent in Scotland, but also the way it is spent and the lift and shift culture that we have held about in our first audience session, which is, for example, a snooker from Sheffield, which is classified as a Scottish programme for these accounting purposes. Do you agree that that is just not good enough? I think that you have to look at what has been achieved in terms of the network strategy review over the period and, as I said, a tripling of the spend in that period. I am reluctant to get to speak specifically about a specific company because, obviously, we lay directly with PACT. We have heard evidence from David and David representing their two companies today. As they said, I have encouraged them to be robust in their critique of the BBC for us to engage in an open debate. Where you get into what we are dealing with are the off-com criteria. We have a number of assurances and processes whereby we ensure that we are having dialogue with the companies in terms of the spend. However, the thing to focus on is the tens of millions of pounds over the period. We have a lot of focus on one specific company but, as was evident from one of the examples that was given, many of the companies that have started with a production have now offering substantial employment opportunity in Scotland but also winning very large commissions across the genres. You heard about the example of one of them there today. Overall, the network strategy review and I think that my colleagues in the independent sector, whatever their critiques of individual titles might be, has been an absolute success for Scotland both in driving the skillspace and also increasing the opportunities available. To your point earlier, convener, as to what we should do in terms of increasing the spend, I think that the deputy director general has mentioned a number of the commissioners that we have in place. We will be announcing further commissioning roles in Scotland but also looking at development spend in order to seed and develop the industry. We have an on-going dialogue with Creative Scotland where absolutely open to partnering. We have heard that employment fell by 27 per cent between 2012 and 2015 but, from what you are saying, you do not seem to accept that there is a serious problem. Does that mean that you cannot give us any kind of guarantee that over the next charter period more percentage of the licence fee will be spent more equitably across the nations and regions, particularly in Scotland? When we came in January, we spoke about this. Our view, we welcomed the six purpose and our collective view across the whole board, there is no disagreement on this, is that it is very important that as a national broadcaster across the UK that we both represent that UK, we reach out to all audiences and, at the same time, we make a contribution to the creative economy around the UK. I think that Kenny has described very well that, in the last charter period, there was a clear objective to move the focus of spend out of London and to move the focus of network spend out into the nations, and we set specific targets on that, which we have met consistently through the period. I think that the challenge of the next charter is to build on that and to develop that further. We are investing in commissioners here in Scotland and we are investing in development to bring on new ideas and encourage new talent. We also need to focus even more on the issue of portrayal. However, as one of the witnesses in the previous session, I think that he made the point very well that we do not want that to somehow be constraining, so we want producers in Scotland to have opportunities to bring forward great ideas as well as representing the Scottish nation. As you have heard in the previous session, there was a discussion of left and shift, and where examples can be positive as well as negative. Mentorn was cited as a specific example of a company that was attracted to Scotland and has proven very successful and good for the industry in Scotland. However, the issue that came out of it was that companies being attracted to Scotland are being offered long-term commitments where indigenous production companies are not. I was wondering whether you could explain why that is the case and how that can be corrected to ensure that the talent, resources and companies that are already here are getting those kinds of opportunities? The nature of a commissioning contract and the length of it, the number of episodes and the money attached to it will all depend on the individual project and the clear line of sight that the commission will have on their competence in that project in terms of its likely success, the place they see for it in the schedule and the term that they are likely to want it for, as well as economic questions about whether you can get more economy of scale out for a longer run rather than a shorter run. There is always a particular issue with children's programmes where they tend to have longer runs because for the children's drama with the young people in it, it is difficult to get continuity through, for example. I am not aware of, I have never seen any evidence of a bias in length of commission or commissioning terms between individual companies and if there is evidence of that, of course, we will look at it. I think that it is very much driven by the nature of the commissions and the titles concerned. Of course, I do not like the phrase lift and shift, but it is the phrase that we are using here in the committee, so we stick with it. If, of course, you are looking at an established title, it is much easier to give a longer term commitment. Just to make a quick point, Mr Greer, I heard from Donald talking about ideas of scale, which would help the sector. I also missed the start of the session, but it is packed to produce some really strong work about the sector in Scotland and what we can do to improve that situation. One of the concerns that you are relating to is about sustainability of supply. We have certainly got some very strong plans, which we hope to share quite quickly, which we think will start to address some of the concerns about some of the smaller indigenous companies in Scotland. The term factual centre of excellence is an interesting one, because I think that within the BBC we have a very strong blueprint of an example of where that works well. If you only have to look at Cardiff and Rothlock and the level of drama that is happening there, but the key thing there is that returning series are being delivered. That is something that we are really, really passionate about making happen in Scotland. How do you achieve that? You achieve it certainly by looking at the levers of commissioning power and seeing exactly when and where they should be devolved. You achieve it by working, I would say, even more proactively with all the agencies in Scotland to achieve that. Also, what is important would be development funds and development funds that might be targeted specifically at those types of companies. I am also glad that David Smith mentioned some of the changes that we hope to bring in in terms of new contestability arrangements and how we put commissions out for tender, because I think that the ability to specify where we want production to happen from will be something that benefits us in Scotland. I take on absolutely the point around the individual project mattering. Obviously, in the case of mentor and question time, it is safe to go for a long-term commitment with a programme like question time. The fact that it was mentioned goes back to a point that was raised earlier in that session in the spirit versus the rule of the agreements. An issue of broader confidence that production companies in Scotland have with the BBC is how you are going to address the issue of confidence, not just through written agreement but the relationship that you have with those companies, because, for it to even come up, it strikes me as there being an issue of confidence. I think that the first thing to speak about is the quality of the relationships and the way in which both commissioners based outside of Scotland and the teams that are based in Pacific Key reach out, explain opportunities to the sector, explain opportunities to secure development money and work closely with talent. I think that that is something we do a lot of, we need to do more of, and having more established commissioning base in Pacific Key will help with that. I think that the second thing is in terms of the definitions. It is just to be completely clear. The definitions that we use for qualifying independence, for qualifying for out of London are the definitions that are used across the whole sector have been in place, I think, since the early 2000s, and they have a series of decision points on them. A substantial base, usual place of employment for senior personnel managing the business, 70 per cent of the production budget, excluding on-screen talent archive and copyright to be spent in the region and more than 50 per cent of production talent. Those are long established and they are used across the whole industry, and sometimes they work very well and very easily, and sometimes they do not. I think that it is our job to be transparent about it, to put the report into off-coming the normal way in which we do and when questions arise to seek to answer them. I do not want to comment further on the specific title that was raised, because, as the previous witnesses explained, they have put a question into off-com and they await for off-com to answer that. I think that it is about the personal relationships and the feeling that that is leading to success and that great creative content is coming through from Scotland and everybody wants that. Investing in development, investing in the commissioning base and spending time on the relationships is designed to bring that through. I had a supplementary convener on the previous question. We have heard evidence today from Creative Scotland and the types of resource, facility and support that they need to succeed. Can you be more specific about the contribution investment that you will give to Creative Scotland? I think that, in terms of the investment, it tends to be project-based at the moment with Creative Scotland, but what we do seek out, we have a memorandum of understanding with Creative Scotland in terms of ensuring that we work together and we respond to an initiative that they may be developing. We often respond very positively to that. I think that where we want to get to is a longer-term approach, perhaps more similar to Northern Ireland's screen, which has a specificity about it. That is one of the things that we could move to and there is a great will in Creative Scotland to do so. On Mr Greer's point about the trust in the relationship, there is a very good relationship between our commissioners and PACT both locally and at UK level. That has been particularly in the light of the recent meetings that we have had and where we have been open as to where we are tendering and what new opportunities are, which are considerable for the independent sector in Scotland. I think that the dialogue, although robust, has been good and open. I might make a quick point if it is okay. On listening to Natalie Usher, I mentioned the relationship with Northern Ireland's screen and the BBC. That is an example where it is right and proper that we look at that relationship with the BBC to see how well that works and see exactly what issues, learnings and themes we can take into a future and a more improved relationship, one that is more productive with Creative Scotland. That has come about in Northern Ireland by a lot of hard work and investment on our side as well. I do not see any reasons why, if that was a direction of policy within Scotland, we would not want to contribute fully to developing that further. I will take us back to the charter. As a member of the BBC Trust, I am part of the governance mechanism going forward. I am pleased to see that the proposed charter hardwires some of the things that we are talking about here. As I think the earlier conservators said, it gives us a platform that writes in a duty of partnership for the BBC, which I think speaks to the last point that was just made. It is a charter that has more references to nations and regions and effort and energy towards doing more in the nations and regions than we have ever seen in a BBC charter before. That has to be a good thing on behalf of Audiences in Scotland. I have a couple of things arising from the previous evidence session that would be of interest. There was some discussion around MG Alaban and the difference between the approach to Gallic language broadcasting, which is on the basis of a joint unincorporate adventure, and the statutory position that underpins the position of S4C. I think that the answer to the question was essentially that there is no need to replicate the statutory provision. What is required is a policy approach. I think that we heard from Alan Dixon earlier on that the big difference between Scotland's spending wheels, the largest single item of that, is the difference in language broadcasting. I know that it is an area close to the heart of Ken Macquarie as well, but I wonder what the approach will now be from the board, the BBC across the UK, to the question of Gallic language broadcasting. Is there an opportunity here to build in the same level of programme making for Gallic in Scotland, as is enjoyed by Welsh in Wales? What are the potential benefits of that for the wider production sector in Scotland? The first thing to say is that I am extraordinarily proud of what BBC Alaba has achieved. I have a stake in that as I was probably one of the most important voices in arguing forward in the setting up of BBC Alaba. I am delighted that, in the last charter, it is the one new channel that we were able to deliver in Scotland. I am also delighted by the success that it has had. Alan Dixon sits on the joint management board with Donald, etc. He is an example of a really good partnership between the BBC. Specifically, there are different lifestyle stages, if you like, in terms of where BBC Alaba is and where S4C has been over a 25-year period. S4C has been in existence and, as Donald mentioned, it has had legislative underpinning, statutory underpinning in that regard. On the point of policy, we have already been active in doing things as far as policy, but we have, within our available funds, made increases in the investment to BBC Alaba. Kenny, as you rightly say, privileged to sit on the joint management board of BBC Alba. It is a fantastically creative partnership between ourselves and MG Alba. Donald described some of that very well this morning. On the BBC side, it is not just words that we have backed up financially very recently. In this current financial year, we will increase direct funding into the channel of £0.9 million and rise to £1.2 million in 2017-18. That is a 20 per cent increase in the funding that the BBC puts in directly, but that is only one aspect of what I think the BBC can still bring to this partnership. I think that we can and will bring more. There is something about leveraging some of the brilliant ideas of programming that happens right across the BBC and making sure that Gaelic is a discussion that happens much earlier in those commissioning decisions about children's content and various other genres so that that can pass across and be available to the channel in BBC Alba. I know that the head of service, Margaret Mary Murray, is doing some work on that front as well. Where we can share costs, we will. Certainly, in terms of my involvement with the joint management board, it is continually trying to look at ways in which we can bring more to that partnership and ultimately free up money that can go on screen. I think that just looking at the total resources of the BBC and the iPlayer is a very good example where, if you like, a pan BBC investment allowed BBC Alba and its audiences to have a really, really rich service in many ways, perhaps the richest service in terms of language that iPlayer offers. That is something that we are really proud of. In terms of the leadership of Margaret Mary Murray, who Alan mentioned, she has been a tremendous leader of the service, really proud of what she has achieved. Friday I will be in Stornway with the director general talking to the teams. I have no doubt that the issue will come up again. I thank you for giving evidence today. I am just trying to work out, given all the political developments that have taken place in Scotland over the last decade or so, Scotland's desire to be represented for decisions to be taken closer to home to Scotland bills through that have given more powers to the Scottish Parliament with the referendum in 2014. It has been quite an eventful decade for Scotland. I would like to ask Anne Balford why we are here in 2016 discussing the fact against that backdrop that, due to the slow pace of devolution in the BBC, only 55 per cent of licence payers' money is spent in this country? There is never going to be an equal arithmetic money from one part of the United Kingdom, spent evenly in another part of the United Kingdom, because our services are national services, and a significant part of the spend is spent on services for everybody. For example, sports rights are negotiated for the networks as opposed to sports rights for BBC Scotland services. Negotiated centrally, paid for centrally, distribution contracts are handled and paid for in one place, and much of the core news-gathering effort, including the world service, is dealt with for the whole. We are very clear that we do not think that 55 per cent is enough, having set all that to one side. It is disappointing that the proportion of spend in Scotland has reduced. The financial year is reported in the accounts that we published in Spring versus the previous year. We are encouraged that we see that increasing back-up in 2016-17, and that is by no means a cap. We are broadcast across the United Kingdom, and we want creative contribution from across the United Kingdom because of the benefits that that spreads and because of the requirement to represent programming. It will come up, it will come up more, and it is unlikely that it is going to be pound for pound. In this context, it is worth remembering that almost 90 per cent of consumption of BBC services from Scottish audiences is for network services, which have that rich range of spread with all the things that are available to all, including the Olympics and the football. Given that the previous witnesses clearly were putting a lot of emphasis on the need for more expenditure in Scotland to create a critical mass of talent and companies involved in production and everything else to do with the television and film sector, can you give the committee an assurance that 55 per cent is going to be history and that, with the changes that are proposed, you believe that they are strong enough? I think that there is a lot of doubt around the table, clearly and certainly from the Scottish Government, that we are going to be substantially greater in terms of the percentage of Scottish licensed pair of money that is actually spent in this country developing talent and producing our message for the rest of the world, be that via news or drama or whatever it may be. The percentage of content that is spent on network television is what has been used historically in May and will be used, I am sure, over the next number of years to drive that creative base in Scotland. We have said that we expect to see that proportion increase in the current year that we are in and we are putting direct effort into building that base further in Scotland, so that network spend should increase. The pattern of BBC spending as we go through the 11-year charter will change and the mix of money that goes on, for example, digital distribution versus others, so that kind of core infrastructure which everybody benefits where the checks are written from wherever they are written from, may shift, but that network spend on content should increase. The other thing that I do think that it is worth going back to is that opening up the whole of the production-based competition over the course of the charter and setting aside the in-house guarantee and opening up returning series, we saw the first batch put to the market last week will offer real opportunity for the whole of the independence sector, including Scotland, and people will have the opportunity to bid for these fixed titles in the schedule, which audiences know and love, but of course it is a constraint on opportunity unless those are put out to market. What would you like expenditure to get to in terms of percentages? I know that you cannot give a precise percentage for the reasons that you have explained, but you have said that 55 per cent is unacceptable, and given that we need to give an assurance and some continuity to the media industry in Scotland and all the businesses that benefit, what do you think would be a reasonable figure? I am going to be considerably more encouraged seeing it go up by the 20 million that we see this year, then we will need to look at what is a helpful landmark in the future as we do two things, build the content plan across the whole of the BBC and the service licences, and look at the service licences for Scotland and work that out. I think that it is hard to see that any part is going to hit a complete arithmetic match, but I am certainly going to be considerably more encouraged to see it at what were peak levels in 2013-14 and come back much closer to that. Sorry, I hope that I am not going to be circular in some of this, but can I go back? Am I right in thinking that the new position of director of nations and regions is, in fact, in new position? There is not a current occupant of that post. That is right. That is right. Therefore, having identified the need for this new post, can I understand from your perspective what the problem is that you think the appointment of this position is set to resolve and what levels of authority Ken Macquarie will have in this position to actually affect the change that you believe this position has been put in place to deliver? I think that Kenny may want to comment on this as well. I think that the director general was very clear when he announced the post that he wanted a way to focus around the boardroom table to ensure that, alongside the individual network services and alongside the infrastructure of the BBC, much of which I am responsible for, that in the leadership team, reporting directly to him, there was a person in a position to really represent the voices of the licensed fee payers and to ensure that many of the issues that we have been discussing today remain in focus, remain on the agenda and are turned to. It also, of course, is the person who will oversee the operation of the way in which the services around the UK run and are managed and ensure that we get best opportunity to share ideas and share experience and make sure that good things done in one part of the United Kingdom are reflected elsewhere. It is a role that spreads across the nations and regions of England and it is a role of considerable weight and authority at the table. First of all, as I said earlier, delivering the fourth purpose in terms of how we invest in nations and regions and in the creative economy of those nations is absolutely at the top of the director general's priorities. That role will, on a weekly and daily basis, drive the importance of that. I think that it will be supported by the totality of the BBC in terms of drawing resources, whether that is from marketing or research across the whole organisation. I feel that, in terms of the potential that we have within the nations and regions in terms of talent, there is a huge opportunity for us to use that talent, both between the nations and taking good lessons from one nation to another, but also to the whole of the BBC, and that is the director general's view. He has made that commitment in the letters that he sent to the Scottish Government, specifically about Scotland, but it goes for the whole of the UK. I unreservedly welcome the appointment. I hope to give hope to the confidence that we are trying to see. I was very struck by a phrase that you used at the beginning of the evidence session when you said that the core purpose of the charter is to live and breathe the spirit, I think, was what you said. It is that essence that I imagine when the last charter was awarded, some might have said the same. It was not said in any maliciously critical way, but the suggestion was given that the safe option is the option that some have fallen back on in coming up with the 9 per cent or the achievement of the 9 per cent of original programming target because that was easier than potentially taking a risk. You have identified the appointment of a new drama commissioner in Scotland. You have talked potentially about other commissioners. Earlier in the evidence, we heard that they will not actually have a budget to spend. They will still have to go through somebody who is at a higher level of a commissioning base. Going back to your saying, the core purpose of the charter is to live and breathe it, that you yourself have got this position of nations and regions. What actions can you point to that are in your mind that might lead to the delivery this time round of the objectives that we are trying to see achieved, as opposed to the letter of them being something people look to do rather than the spirit? I am, as I said earlier, proud of what has been achieved in the last charter, whether it is BBC Allop or whether it is the tripling of the spend. I absolutely, as I said, take the criticism that has been offered in an open spirit and that there are areas where we have to do better. Specifically, the areas in which I think that we need to focus is firstly in drama because of the volume of spend, the cost per hour of drama drives the tentative to drive your overall spend, but it also has iconic or emblematic status for audiences and I think that we can see that from the success of Shetland, one of us and also the other area that is particularly important in terms of winning young audiences is comedy, because one of the areas that this next charter will be looking at is to ensure that we are providing for all audiences, but specifically I think that we need to provide more for young audiences and comedy either in a digital form or in the straightforward channel form and often it can be both, is one of the genres that can deliver both a high cost per hour but also a real mass appeal for audiences and we've got a great slate of comedy coming up from Scotland specifically between now and Christmas, which is really some notable commissioning successes in that regard. The development spend I think is important that the commissioners have been able to seed ideas, to encourage ideas and I think the way that commissioning works essentially you have to have a channel schedule in place, so there's a channel controller, you need the ascent of the channel controller even if the overall head of genre commissioning wants to do it because you're trying to make the best possible offer to all audiences, so it's a complex set of decisions but ultimately the benefit of having a commissioner on the ground is one the development spend, the relationship and the trust that they have with the either the independent sector or BBC studios as will be and their ability to deliver the content and where that works well you tend, despite the fact that they may not have the total devolved budget, you tend to find high levels of trust between the individuals working in that sector. So I'm both optimistic and confident that we'll see real returns from that. Thanks very much, Emma Harper. Thanks very much. We've talked a lot about drama and comedy commissioners and putting money into drama TV. I'm interested in news, for instance, in the draft charter it says the public purpose is to provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them. I'm wondering if there's a proposed self-monitoring process to check whether there is an impartial news and if there was evidence demonstrating an absence or lack of impartiality, would there be a strategy to act on it? First of all, certainly we will measure against our impartiality on a number of issues we have done in the past and the trust will take a number of reports in that regard. So giving news that a news service that's independent impartial is absolutely at the bedrock of this charter, that's something we'll absolutely pay close attention to, so it's one of the most important deliveries for the public service broadcaster. I sit on the editorial standards committee of the BBC Trust, which is the final stage of any complaints process on matters of impartiality or accuracy, fairness and we've worked very hard to put a lot of effort into reactively and proactively dealing with impartiality matters. It's a wide spectrum. Most recently we published a report on how the BBC presents statistics, which I think was pretty well received and looked at things that the BBC did well and the BBC could do better. That's an example of the kind of work that has gone on under the auspices of the trust. Obviously in the new governance mechanism of com will ultimately be the regulator of the BBC, so there will be a process that will replicate the editorial standards that currently are regulated by the BBC Trust. You have another question? You finished? Yeah, I know, that's fine, thanks. Okay, we're fast running out of time. Can I just finish up by just pressing Ann Balford again on this issue of the 55 per cent, if 55 per cent's unacceptable, what is acceptable in your view? Is it 74 per cent like Northern Ireland or are you going to get above 90 per cent? What is the target? There is no target at present. I think that, as we've tried to explain, the difference, there's a structural difference between Scotland and Wales coming through from the commitments to, as far as I've seen... Sorry to interrupt, but I have already heard that already from Mr Dixon. I want to know, I don't want to know well about the past, I want to know about the future, I want to know what your commitment is. The commitment is to continue to work with BBC Scotland to build the share of network commissioning. We previously set a target, which was to ensure that 8.6 per cent of network commissioning came from Scotland, and we've worked towards that and achieved that. When we come to set the service licences and the content plan, we will revisit those targets. We haven't yet done that. It's the network commissioning, which is the substantial opportunity to increase that percentage. It's the network commissioning also, which has, as we've heard, previous committees have heard, failed to be robust in insisting that the production that's commissioned is recognised as Scottish in terms of both economically and creatively. We've heard that. How are you going to ensure that this target is met by production companies based in Scotland, authentically Scottish, employing Scottish people, telling Scottish stories? We will continue to operate within the rules as they are. We will continue to look to the spirit of that, to build a creative base in Scotland and to build it further. Over the course of the last charter, we have substantially grown, tripled the network spend in Scotland. We've brought very many jobs to Scotland, and we've brought through some brilliant programming which audiences know and love. We've talked throughout about the way in which, out of London and independent definitions are monitored and managed. To change that in some way and to make judgments about whether the shareholders are sufficiently Cornish or sufficiently Welsh is a very difficult set of judgments. There may be difficulties, as the previous witnesses explained, about a spectrum, but the advantage of the current definitions are that they are used across the whole industry, across the whole of the UK. It's not about saying how sufficiently Cornish or Scottish someone is. It's clearly about the content being produced here and emanating from Scotland, which, obviously, the program, the Snooker programme from Sheffield is a good example, but there are many other examples. It's not just this committee that's heard, it's previous committees that have heard it. The sector talks about it continuously. It's seen as a failing, and the figures suggest that there is a real failing. I don't think anything that you've said here today must have built for us, given us any real reassurance that the BBC at managerial levels is going to change. I think that I'm disappointed if that's the case, because I think that we've tried throughout the hearing to explain the commitment that we have enshrined in the charter to build creative industries around the UK. We've spoken about the way in which we're investing in Scotland and we have set out the shared ambition to build that base here. It is not the case that there is no strong Scottish programming coming through from the network commissioning from here. Shetland seems to me to be a wonderful example of a programme commissioned from Scotland that is representative of a community that has a universal appeal, and there are many more titles on the list that also meet that criteria. It's also the case that producers in Scotland can make programming that is from a broader base and not necessarily specific to Scottish culture. The question that was discussed in the previous session came around in addressing, for example, how successful Scandinavian television programme making had been recently, and some of the answers around that were that training and collaboration and planning over a 10-year period had produced this upsurge of very high-quality programming that was exportable and creative. Would your view be to agree that the 11-year window that we have here creates an opportunity to do that in this current charter period, and will that address some of the questions that have been raised about it? I think that it does. The length of the charter period and the security that comes from agreeing the licence fee mechanic through that period is extremely encouraging and gives a great based plan and to build partnerships and to work with organisations like Creator Scotland against a background of more certainty than there might otherwise be. I think that's entirely correct. As we discussed, you've accepted that 55 per cent of licence payers' money from Scotland only being spent here is unsatisfactory, and you said that you would look at targets in the future. Does that include that kind of target? Are you going to look at a target of how much of the revenue raised in Scotland should be spent in Scotland? We're on the cusp of moving into a whole new governance process, which will have a whole new set of requirements, which will come through the service license agreements that need to be agreed with OFCOM. If I go back, it was disappointing to see the share of network and the absolute pound notes in terms of network commissioning drop in 1516 versus 1415. That's disappointing. I'm very pleased to look at the forecast and to know that that will increase back up in 1617. It's not a cap. There isn't a different target, but that will comfortably bring the spend back to the 8.9 per cent plus, which is what we've been looking to achieve. In terms of that long term planning, what are the roads being mentioned and the fact that it wasn't recommissioned? That's explained the fall off. When Waterloo roads moved in the storyline to Greenock, because someone who went to a comprehensive school in Greenock regarded it as completely absurd, I didn't say it at the time, like many people, because we were told that this would provide the springboard, the platform for creative talent in Scotland. You would have a major drama series. However, absurd the plotline was relocated from somewhere in the middle of England to Scotland. Clearly, that's not happened. That was an example that we were told. That's a good few years ago now. We were told that we're doing this to help long term planning, to help the growth of the sector in Scotland. Now it's not being recommissioned. Where's the growth that we were told at the whole point of the thing was? I think what's encouraging is when we look this time next year, I guess, or when we publish the accounts in July, and we see the 1617 numbers, we'll see that the money that was previously being spent on that commission from Waterloo Road has been moved across to new commissions, some of which Alan and Kenny spoke about earlier, which have a different flavour and a different base. That commission, that share of networks being replaced by a number of other titles, which we all very much hope will be a creative success as they're transmitted out, so we'll see that come back through. It's certainly the case that we've seen and the previous colleagues, David and David, spoke about this, that we've seen considerable success in daytime and studio shows as a result of bringing titles to Scotland where the skills base has been built up, and then in the next iteration as the new titles come through, the teams in Pacific Key, in BBC Scotland and independent companies have been able to bid for those sorts of shows successfully when those commissions and build returning series, so there are a number of different tools, different levers being used to build up that base. What Scottish companies are making drama for you from Scotland? I'm sorry. In terms of the number of drama, first of all, River City, which we... I say it from River City. ...within BBC studios, we had a number of ITV studios that are making Shetland for us. First of all, coming up in terms of scripted comedy, we've got Still Game, just about to launch Two Doors Down. These are all Scottish companies, so a huge slate coming up. We're also... All of these skills and scripted... When there's a scripted comedy or scripted drama are very complementary, and I think the craft base that we established here and the role of BBC Scotland in sustaining the craft base is really important, because to Mr MacDonald's point, there are a number of different aspects here. Number one is the creative economy, the strength of the creative economy. Number two is the skills base that we have, the capacity that the industry has to actually provide. I think that we've had a number of initiatives that we've done in partnerships, whether it was in Skills Development Scotland, both at entry-level schemes for apprentices, which has been a fantastic record for BBC Scotland and that sort of level of encouragement. However, the point that you're referring to in terms of portrayal and representation, that is equally important. Personally, I believe that when you have a story that's rooted in a particular place that, if you like, is authentic, the success of that is likely to travel not only to the UK but also on a global basis. However, it's important for either the BBC studios or for the independent companies to have a mix. I just had two quick points there. I would refer the committee back to the director general's note back in May, which focused on drama and talked about a writer's room and talked about some investment in commissioning that would happen in that area. Those are the types of things that we need to do, as well as just looking at the kind of spend numbers around this. We talked earlier about better partnerships with agencies in Scotland and I'm absolutely passionate that that's something that we really take forward and move to a different level. I think that we heard from the first panel here about some of the building blocks that you need to put in place to reach that position of returning series and returning shows. That starts to create much more of a feeling around sustainability and retaining jobs and skills in Scotland. I'm both talking about the studios, productions, songs of praise, and the whole city were on that list. We heard earlier this morning how Invest Northern Ireland has already moved to approach the independence in Northern Ireland, who might be in a position to bid for some of these productions to work in partnership with them. I suppose there's a question for Ken Macquarie and Alan Dixon. Do you believe that Scottish Enterprise and the other agencies that are available in Scotland are working similarly to support the independence sector in Scotland so that it is in a position to make sensible offers to potentially bid for some of those productions? Or is there a danger that unless perhaps with the support of the Scottish Government Scottish Enterprise becomes a little bit more proactive in this sector, that those other areas countries like Northern Ireland and Wales where their development sectors are more actively engaged, that they'll secure those productions whereas Scotland might miss out? I think that the fact that John McCormick is chairing a sort of review, which we'll report at the end of the year, you know, in looking at this specific question, I think he probably answers the question, Mr Caller, that we can do better in this area. I await the conclusions, you know, from that review, but in terms of co-ordination and whether that, and we will take the responsibility for the BBC's part in that, whether all of us who are involved in spending the public pound can get more value from that pound by longer term planning a different type of conversation, let's await the report at the end of the year, but we are certainly open to doing things differently to listening to what's required from our partners. The other quick point that we would make, Mr Caller, is that this is a huge change that you referred to in terms of opening up the BBC's commissioning slate to competition. We've heard last week about that being delivered from a network perspective, but those changes will happen locally within Scotland. It's a really good point about just the level of preparedness that we can make sure happens in advance of that, but on all our future plans for BBC studios and opening up the market, we are engaged in what I hope is a productive dialogue, first and foremost, with our in-house teams, but also with PACT, which we've met two or three times. Rosina Robson was on the panel earlier, and certainly any other stakeholders that we think would have a positive impact in having further discussions, we'd be delighted to do so. I've just got one last question from Stuart McMillan. Thank you. Mr McCorrie, in your comments earlier, you spoke about the new role and the promotion of Scottish programmes. You spoke about the new role in marketing, research and relations in regions of talent. I put the question to the previous panel in terms of not just about commissioning of programmes, but about the promotion of the programmes. How do you see your role going forward in terms of the promotion of Scottish-based programmes? First of all, in getting those programmes to the audience, making sure that we get a wide audience for those programmes, both in Scotland and across the UK, is absolutely critical. I would be arguing and putting the case for, in terms of prioritisation, where we have specific titles that we want to absolutely make an impact, ensuring that, from the very early days of commissioning, right through to the transmission, we have a plan in how we're going to get that to the audience. We've been investing recently in a whole number of different areas, particularly in social media, which, if we're getting to a young audience, it's important to make sure that you are with a younger audience. It's consuming the content. That's been a really successful strategy for us in BBC Scotland. Basically, we've measured the success in terms of views and also the reach of a particular programme. We're looking at those two metrics and the key metrics, as far as we're concerned at the moment. We may change that because we're looking at the total media experience across the BBC. That's a project that's been led across the UK. We're trying to assess how the audiences are consuming your content, whether it's on different platforms, such as mobile, tablet, social media or online. Those are issues that every company, if you like, is wrestling with at the moment, to get the right ways of measuring it. That's our first stab at it at the moment, Mr McMillan, but I think that it's a key role. I'd like to thank our panel for coming today. I look forward to having an on-going relationship between the BBC and the committee. Can you just give me an assurance that the BBC will continue to provide us with detailed information on operations, income and spend in Scotland? Yes. Thank you very much.