Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are you saying that the BBC was not the source of that perception?

It still feels as though there is quite a lot of confusion about where that came from and the way it has been handled is extremely unfortunate. If there is any suggestion that anybody at “River City” was told something that was not true by the BBC, you should investigate that seriously.

I move on to the impact of the decision. Hayley Valentine clearly set out the issue of making sure that the BBC is producing output that people want to watch. Even the folk at “River City” understand that there are changing tastes. They do not have their heads in the sand. However, the BBC needs to do another thing beyond producing content that people want to watch—it also needs to create the ecosystem for the industry, including training opportunities and first job opportunities, on a scale that justifies it. One reason why I think that there should be a broadcaster like the BBC—a large, dominant, publicly funded broadcaster—is to create that ecosystem, because nobody else will do it.

Can you confirm that you do not expect the new six and eight-part productions to create the same level and scale of career opportunities and training opportunities as “River City”? How do you intend to replace that for the longer term so that the BBC is making that permanent, on-going investment in opportunities that mean that in 10, 20 and 30 years we will have an increasing and diverse cohort of folk working in the industry?

I will move on to the recent announcement about qualifying criteria for regional production. There has been a broad welcome for that. Would you accept that it is, in a sense, an admission that the situation has been not always wholly honest in the past? For example, a report from Screen Scotland last year showed that of the top 15 “Scottish” producers by hours commissioned, only five were based in Scotland—two thirds of them were headquartered in London. Only two of the 11 suppliers mainly used by the BBC in that list were companies formed and headquartered in Scotland.

Is it fair to say that the way in which those issues have been handled in the past has failed to create the level of benefit and investment in a broadcasting and production ecosystem in Scotland that there could have been and that we therefore have to catch up a bit, which is why the changes are long overdue?

I get the point, but part of the BBC’s purpose and value is to shape that landscape; it is not just to say, “We want to get the best ideas so we’ll go to a company that is based in London to do it”, but to say, “We want the best ideas to be coming from companies based here”. That is what you have the opportunity to grow.

Do you expect those numbers to be reversed as a result of the changes, such that two thirds of companies will be based here and occasionally you will use one that is based in London?

But you expect the numbers to change to some extent as a result of the decision that was announced last week?

I appreciate that it will not always be a like-for-like replacement, but there will be a strong expectation from the committee and from others that you are able to demonstrate that what is being created afresh will be at least as valuable in terms of those new opportunities as what you have decided to close.

I could probably go further on that point for quite some time, but I am aware of time. We will have to come back to that as we see the effect of the decision.

Some do. You referred to the racist riots last year, which were sparked by online misinformation, propaganda and racism; they were quite deliberately stirred up in that way. Some people will tell the difference between truth and lies when they see it and some people will understand that social media content is not going to be honest or reliable, but others will not.

On your point about the responsibility of the broadcasters, this week the main regulated broadcasters covering a Reform Party press conference just broadcast its racist film about Anas Sarwar, uncritically and unquestioningly; the cameras turned to the projection of that film and it was broadcast to the nation on regulated mainstream news channels.

Good morning. Sorry, not sorry: I will come back to “River City” for a couple of questions first but then I will move on to the recent announcement on regional production.

You have said clearly that ending “River City” was an editorial decision and I accept that that was the motivating factor, but one thing that has left a bad taste in the mouth for the people who received that distressing news was their strong perception that they had been misinformed that the landlord wanted to sell the site for housing. If we can tie that off and put that issue to rest, I would welcome that. Can you confirm whether the “River City” team were told that? If they were not told that, how has the perception arisen that they were misled?

I am not asking if you personally were responsible for where that suggestion came from.