12/05/2016 Scotland 2016

The corporation survives into a new charter, but can it

remain truly independent and what does the future hold?

The UK Government's Culture Secretary unveils a new White Paper

The fears of left-wing luvvies have not been realised, he said.

We'll assess the future of the broadcaster.

And we'll speak live to the new presiding officer

on the challenges he faces reforming Holyrood and steering parliament

The BBC was first founded in 1922 and received its first

Today, the UK government revealed its thinking for the next

Some friends of the BBC said it wasn't as bad as they'd feared.

But there are concerns about the broadcaster's

independence from government, and how it serves its audience

in Scotland, as Huw Williams reports.

It is almost as if it is some kind of destruction. Some people are

going to need the White Paper. Good news if you are a fan. Jack and

Victor are back. These mountains and forests and rivers provide the

perfect place to raise the next generation. Natural history

programmes like Highlands, Scotland's wild heart, along with

comedy, some reasons the people love the BBC. But the announcement from

the UK Government made it clear the broadcaster must do even better. We

will place a requirement to provide distinctive content and services at

the heart of the BBC's mission of informing, educating and

entertaining in the public interest, and we will affirm the need for

impartiality in news and current affairs broadcasts. One announcement

that is particularly relevant in Scotland. The BBC will be required

to give greater focus to underserved audiences, in particular those from

black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds and from the nations and

regions who are currently less well served. Has the BBC in Scotland had

been under serving audiences here? We recognise there is a deficit in

areas of output and there is a need for more representation through

drama, comedy. We recognise television news has too adapt to a

country that is increasingly being divulged. Why has it taken Charter

review for the BBC to acknowledge it? We have recognised it for a

while but charter renewal gives an opportunity. This has been a root

and branch review and given an opportunity to look at everything we

do and by giving it that scrutiny we are able to see exactly where there

are deficits and given the fact there is a licence fee settlement,

we are able to bundle it together to identify where the deficits lie and

what has to be done to address them. The Scottish Government wants all

license fees collected in Scotland to be spent here, and it wants the

BBC here to have a more powerful voice in editorial and commissioning

decisions. I am pleased because of the work of the Scottish Government,

the wider sector in Scotland and Parliament, there is a consensus,

helping the BBC to understand, there is a good job done but more for

Scottish actors and production can make the most of what is a hefty

resource available from the licence fee and I am pleased we are given

certainty on that in the White Paper. The governance of the BBC

will be changed with a unitary board replacing existing structures. The

way it works in practice has concerned some. Today we learned

that half the board will be government appointees. This board

will run the BBC and it will have influence over output and editorial

decisions, despite what he says. Talk of income streams and corporate

governance might find remote. But this is what -- about what is on

your radio, your TV. A short time ago, I spoke to

John McCormick, who was controller of BBC Scotland between

1992 and 2004. He is Professor of Media

and Communications at Goldsmiths, University of London

and is currently working on an inquiry into the future

of public service television. What was your reaction to the White

Paper, John McCormick? Not as bad as feared? A good way of summing it up,

I think. People feared the worst from the headlines over the last ten

days and there are a number of big ticket issues one can take

satisfaction in, like the 11 year charter, the licence fee linked to

inflation and the BBC committed to producing a wide range of

distinctive programmes for audiences across the UK and all types of

audiences. They are strong issues, a good foundation for the future of

the BBC. If you have the funding certainty, and you have 11 years.

Some governments have in the past kept the BBC on a short reign. This

is good for planning for the future, new technology, but as ever the

devil is in the detail stop a lot of the detail has yet to be worked out.

That detail yet to be worked out, but the BBC clear today about

concerns about editorial independence. They are probably

right to be. The fact is we could have quite significant and

high-level ministerial influence inside the heart of the BBC, whereas

we used to have people appointed to the top of the trust. Now we talk

about a unitary board responsible for the operational end of the BBC,

that is the day-to-day editorial questions and if you have

ministerial appointments it raises fundamental issues about whether a

broadcaster can just go about its business independently. It strikes

me it is something to worry about, going in the opposite direction.

Philip Davies the Conservative MP said it is a publicly funded

organisation and that is the reason why the government is entitled to do

that. It is an independent media organisation and that is what the

Secretary of State tells us and if he believes in that he needs to put

in place structures to ensure it can work independently. John McCormick,

the majority of the board will still be BBC people, appointments. Maybe.

They could be half and half. The devil is in the detail. I agree with

Des about that. The perception internationally of the BBC is it is

independent of government and accountable to the people through

Parliament. The idea that the government of the day would appoint

half of the board, responsible for editorial direction and content is a

bit scary and there is work to be done on that and hopefully it will

be pulled back. The White Paper uses a lot of the right words about a

transparent process of appointment, but there should be a gap between

the government and who is appointed to the board, so we can say

international need the BBC is truly independent. It is important in

Scotland where there will be a sub board and the person representing

Scotland, there is no detail of that board, what powers and influence it

will have and how independent it will be. The Culture Secretary,

saying perhaps it is fair someone is appointed by the Scottish Government

if neutrality is still there, it is sad. Do you agree? It should be

transparent, open to people to apply. The appointments process,

based on the Nolan principles, there has to be clear water between the

government of the day, whether it is the Scottish Government, the UK

Government, and appointments to the board. Des Freedman, an interesting

part of the White Paper is the BBC having to provide distinctive

content, that is the core mission of the BBC. Is that not perhaps what

the BBC does anyway? I think what the Culture Secretary has done is to

weaponise distinctiveness. It should be a term that is our -- that is

anodyne. I think it is used as a stick to beat the BBC, to ensure

that it allows commercial rivals to constantly say you are not

distinctive enough in this area or that area and I think already the

BBC is fulfilling a remit around distinctiveness in terms of mixed

programming catering to a range of audiences across the nations, but I

think this is a new understanding of distinctiveness that will say if the

BBC is copying some of the popular formats, then we want to make sure

there is a way of holding it to account. I think it is taking what

should be an everyday and easy word and using it against the BBC.

Looking at the nations and Scotland in particular, how can the BBC

improve in Scotland, because we are well versed in the criticism of the

BBC in Scotland. In Scotland it has the smallest number of those

satisfied that the BBC reflects the way we live our life in Scotland and

something has to be done about that. There was correspondence between the

director-general and Culture Secretary in which they pointed out

there will be a strengthening of drama commissioning and it will

become a centre of excellence for factual programming in Scotland.

They do not depend on charter renewal. The director-general,

management and trust at the moment have the power to do that and what

we have seen in Scotland that lead people to be dissatisfied, and BBC

Scotland does great things, it is because we have had 17 years of

devolution when the parliament is stronger and plays a bigger part in

people'slives and during that time the BBC has not matched the

development by strengthening devolve decision-making to Scotland and in

investment in programmes and news and current affairs coverage across

the UK, which it says in the White Paper will continue to report the UK

to the world. It is not very good the new service reporting to

different parts of the UK and something needs to be done about

that. Why has the BBC not done that in 17 years of devolution? It is

very nervous about picking some of the structures. It thinks if it

loses one area, the status as national broadcaster will disappear,

but the UK is changing and it strikes me the White Paper does not

quite keep up. It does not keep up with some fundamental

transformations in the UK. Why it has not done that, for more than 17

years, this is an historic problem whether national broadcaster has

clung to a centralised place and there is no where near enough detail

or commitment to have a new looking BBC that fits the configurations of

the UK. Does the BBC seek safety in centralisation? I think the BBC's

remit as a UK organisation is more secure or if it devolves more

investment across the UK, in this goes to Scotland, Wales, Northern

Ireland and the regions, and decision-making. Only if the BBC is

serving a change in UK can it be a strong global forecaster. That is

where its future should lead and it does not need a new charter to do

that. It allows that to happen, now it is up to the management and

leadership to deliver it. Thanks both for joining me.

A week on from the election, we had another election.

This time, MSPs were voting - electing a new presiding officer.

And I'm pleased to say I'm joined by Ken Macintosh now.

Ken is elected as the presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament.

He secured an overall majority after three rounds of voting in a secret

ballot, beating his former party boss, Joanne Lamont. I'm pleased to

say I'm joined by Ken Macintosh in the studio now.

Firstly, congratulations on you new role, surely a week ago tonight you

did not think you would be sitting in this chair or any chair? You

summed up the week for me, Andrew. It has been optionee turvy. I am

very conscious of the many opportunities I have had to serve as

an MSP for my constituency. Last week saying goodbye with thanks to

my constituents, only to rediscover I was elected again on the list. And

now a week later, elected. I cannot tell you how humble and grateful I

am. A proud moment today but you failed

to win the constituency seat. You did not get the Labour leadership

last year. Are you the right man to be the ambassador for the

Parliament? Thank you for the reminders! The system we have is the

one we have. I have been elected to represent the West of Scotland, to

serve Scotland. My politics are such that given the circumstances we are

in, the arithmetic of the Parliament, then it is for others to

see why they voted for me but I can see why I'm a good choice. My

politics reaches out across the other parties. Never a tribal

politicians, the skills and the values have come to the forenow.

Have you changed your perception on politics as after being a party man

for so many years you must be completely impartial? Yes, it did.

No doubt about it. The one reason that I have been able to stand as a

presiding officer is because of the misfortune of losing my constituency

seat. The obligations that imposes on you.

But, I mean, I entered Parliament, I have always believed in Labour Party

values but the reason I sat for Parliament is because of devolution.

I still remember to this day, the way I felt when first elected in

1999, the queue fora around the Parliament.

The ex-- the queue fora, the expectation over here in Scotland,

the cross-party politics, I have never forgotten that. What is

interesting is that now we have 51 new members. It has reinvigorated

the place. It is a chance to reach out to that kind of politics.

You are well known in Parliament, well known for being a

mild-mannered, a polite man, do you have the authority to oversee a

Parliament that could be tetchy at times in the next few years? Yes, I

do. I don't think you should confuse

mild manners with lack of will or authority. It is a different style.

I won't be confrontational. I will not pretend otherwise. Can I

suggest, that I do not want to switch on my telly or walk into

Parliament to see politicians shouting at each other. I don't like

that hostility. It is too key visive. I will not be

confrontational, I will try to ease the tempers rather than make matters

worse. But I think that Scotland would want that, they would want a

dialogue between thinking people. They don't want point scoring and

shouting at each other. I'm sure you want to reform

Parliament. We have seen from all of the parties, indeed, Nicola Sturgeon

speaking about politicians reforming Parliament, what do you want to see?

What do you want to see happening, changing in Parliament to make it a

better Parliament for the people of Scotland? Well I start from the

premise that the Parliament is not broken. It works well. It adapted to

every administration we have had. I fully expect the Parliament to work

again. But I would like to see a separation between the executive and

the Parliament itself. The Parliament is not in awe of

government nor is the Parliament an alternative government. It is not

the job of Parliament to be oppositionist. But we can scrutinise

and hold the government to account. And at the weekend, I know many

backbenchers from our own party and others would like a strong committee

system, so that Parliamentarians can have a role and make their voices

known. But all we want to do is each, 129 of us, is the opposition

to stand up and say what we want on behalf of the people that we rep

resent. And scrutiny and elected convenors

not from the government may not be the way forward. What do you want to

see happening from the committees in particular? Well, elected committee

was considered and voted down last Parliament as not a good idea. I

want to see a stronger role for the committees. They used to promote

legislation themselves. There are many issues in which we can have a

far more consensual cross-party approach. There is room for

independent minded backbenchers, Parliamentarians, cross benchers, as

it were, those voices to be heard in Parliament. That means resourcing

the Parliament and seeing its role effectively. Not just as too many

Parliamentarians finding themselves making up the numbers in the

committees, looking after government legislation, that is not our job.

Our job is to scrutinise effectively. I believe if the

government has 63 MSPs they deserve their share of committeeship too.

Parliament is not obstructive. It is not our job. It is to question that

the government is doing what it said it would do, spending the money

where they said that they would and in this case raising taxes where

they said it would or not. And finally, how might your part of

this business go about changing Parliament? I don't know yet.

There was the rainbow Parliament in 2003, although there is one

government, there are four parties in opposition. There will be a range

of voices. The tone of the Parliament will change. The tone

should be more cross-party, more consensual, and more advisable.

Thank you. Now, before Ken Macintosh

took up his new post, the new group of MSPs was sworn

in at Holyrood. All 129 members took either

an oath or an affirmation. Our political editor

Brian Taylor was watching. Wearing MacDiarmuid's white rose of

Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon walked forward to pledge allegiance to the

Queen as required but not without a preamble.

We Scottish National Party pledge allegiance in line with the Scottish

tradition of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Reflecting the new power structure, followed by Ruth Davidson, the

Conservative leader, who raced her hand to take the loyal oath.

To bear allegiance duds Third, Kezia Dugdale, the Labour leader, sporting

a red rose. Fourth, Patrick Harvey of the Greens. Also lodging a caveat

to the affirmity. And finally, among the leaders,

Willie Rennie of the Liberal Democrats, wearing in tribute a tie

once worn by the late Charles Clarke.

On to the other MSPs, new and returning. All to swear or affirm in

English but there are add-on options. Peter Chapman chose Scots.

I will have allegiance to Her Majesty, the Queen Elizabeth...

Like several others, Kate Forbes repeated the allegiance in Gaelic.

And another in Urdu. Only one, the youngest MSP, Ross

Greer of the Greens, opted for the clenched fist.

Ceremony over, time for an MSP family photo.

You're not a bad looking bunch! Intriguing Parliament ahead En.

Let's pick up on some of the other news of the proceedings.

Let's have a look at some of the issues making the news tonight.

I'm joined by the political editor of the Courier, Kieran Andrews.

And by Catherine Schenk, who's Professor of International

Economic History at Glasgow University.

Firstly, let's pick up on the Ken Macintosh interview. What did you

make of the reforms to Parliament? What he was saying? He has giant

shoes to fill. Before there were reforms pushed for

to hold government to account. It is vital that Ken Macintosh takes this

forward as well. I was confused to hear him not being

quite so strident on elected convenorship. Something that Nicola

Sturgeon advocated. Something that seemed to be gaining cross-party

support, holding the government to account. Ken is right, there are

other ways to do it, it is not just about how to pick the convenors but

I hope his consensual style, as he put it, does not mean he will be

slow or shy in taking the big decisions.

Catherine can one be too consensual in that approach? He is in that

context with the Palestine European Court government. Indeed between the

SNP and the Conservatives, where there could be sparks, possibly even

between SNP and Labour. So a different dynamic. There are the

Greens as well. They could be more important. They are a larger group.

So I think it is going to be difficult to build the consensus.

More difficult in this Parliament than in the last.

Of course, we saw the swearing in ceremony, people taking the oath. A

colourful Parliament, I suppose, I a diverse Parliament? As was said, it

will be an interesting make-up. How dot SNP function? They are by far

the largest party. We have a mandate but they will need support from

other people. Thinking ahead, there is the Budget, the tax plans for

example, their closest are the Conservatives but there is no way

that either parties will do a deal unlike in 2007 and 2011, a party

like the Liberal Democrats, the smallest party, how crucial will

they be when it comes to getting through the votes that the SNP want?

And when you talk about speaking to Ken Macintosh a week ago, being in

the chair, things have changed. It is hard to think that the election

was a week ago? Indeed. You were saying it is a diverse Parliament

but maybe not that much change. So colourful outfits with the kilts but

the proportion of women, that has not increased or made progress. Some

parties have small numbers of women represented. I think we have to be

careful about saying this is a more colourful rainbow type of Parliament

in terms of who has been elected. OK to RBS, the former boss, Fred

Goodwin avoided criminal charges relating to the bank's near collapse

in 2000le after there was unsufficient evidence to charge an

individual. It seem as long time ago but finally we are getting this

news. What do you think of that? I don't think anyone will be

surprised. I think some will be angry.

Bankers, they dipped to below eve politicians and journalists in terms

of how popular they are with the general public in 2008 at the time

of the crash. But for all of the anger that people feel here, they

will be looking at this, thinking he has gotten off with it. They have

gotten off with it. Seeing bankers going to jail in eyesland, thinking

why can't this happen here? You have the evidence it is very difficult to

prove criminality or find it in these transactions so we have to be

careful as to whether it is bad banking or criminal banking but

people will not be happy with this across the board.

Catherine, it is a fine line? It is. The inquiry was specific. It was

looking at the issue of new shares to existing share holders between

ape and June 2008. Looking to see if the share holders high pressure

misled and somehow conned into taking the shares on. There were

seven tightly written pages full of warnings about the risk that the

bank was under taking that ABN-AMRO could go bust. There could be ?6

billion of assets worth in that prospectus, so the purchases share

should have been in the document. So a bit of caveat, not to protect the

bankers. Does it draw a line under the

affair? Maybe the attention is turning to the Panama papers and the

tax havens? Yes, on that front. The potential involves some of the same

characters. The Panama papers are the flavour of the month as it were.

It will move on. There is always a different scandal, issue to blow up

and to distract people to take people's attention. It does not mean

it should be allowed to lie, though. If there are instances where a

wrongdoing is committed, just because something else is the shiny

item at the top of the news agenda, this should not be ditched.

And confidence in institutions, is it dented after the scandal? I think

so. Bankers have come under fire in times of crisis and this is a time

of growing income inequality. People feel more damaged by these kinds of

activities. Looking at the same thing going on with the bonuses, the

little change in the behaviour of banks and bankers after the crisis.

Thank you very much. That's it for tonight

and for this week.