[cma-l] CALMAN COMMISSION ON SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION - INTERIM VIEW ON BROADCASTING

[Dave Rushton]

Dear Colleagues,

Thought this might be of interest for Members on Media Policy Network  
network.

Colleagues in Scotland might be particularly interested in the  
opening offered by Calman's Interim Conclusion. Full submissions and  
other details are on the website.

Regards,



Dr David Rushton, Institute of Local Television




INTERIM CONCLUSION ON BROADCASTING – CALMAN COMMISSION ON SCOTTISH  
DEVOLUTION published 2nd December



• Broadcasting is an area about which the Commission has received  
considerable, if

sometimes conflicting, submissions. We would welcome further views as to

whether current arrangements are sustainable or whether there are  
changes to

ensure the specific broadcasting needs of Scotland can be addressed.  
In particular,

the Commission would wish to have more precise submissions as to how and

whether the responsibilities of Scottish Ministers in respect of  
broadcasting might

be changed.





CALMAN’s Selected Broadcasting Submissions

• Should be devolved (radio, TV, film – including tax incentives for  
filming in Scotland).

(Scottish Green Party)



• “Current powers over broadcasting should be devolved, not to narrow  
the perspective to

parochial concerns but to ensure adequate reflection of Scottish  
perspectives on a wider

world.” (Church of Scotland)



• “Broadcasting would be better controlled by Holyrood. I know I am  
not alone in feeling

disgruntled about having to pay the license fee for broadcasting  
which predominantly

concentrates on English news.” (Ruthie Allan)



• The aim should be to give fuller and better coverage of Scottish  
national and

international cultural and political matters. (Prof Douglas Gifford,  
University of Glasgow)



• Broadcasting should be regulated by the Scottish Parliament: “The  
present situation of

the English BBC News masquerading as British News must be  
corrected.” (AJ Parrott)



• Sick of watching “main” news dominated by English cricket, NHS,  
education stories – we

need a “Scottish Six”. (David Macphail)



• Could be devolved – but this “would not necessarily entail the  
break-up of the BBC” – or

“it could become a concurrent competence, with the UK setting only  
broad guidelines”

(Prof Michael Keating)



• “Scotland has a distinctive culture that should be reflected in  
broadcast media” – so

general support for devolution, subject to further consideration of  
the regulatory function

of Ofcom and oversight of the BBC. (UNISON Scotland no.2)



• Some devolution may be appropriate to respect “the distinctive  
cultural life and

ambitions of Scotland”. (Scottish Episcopal Church)



• UK regulatory bodies such as Ofcom, the BBC and the Competition  
Commission should

report jointly to the UK and the three devolved administrations.  
(David Hutchison)



• Ofcom is not accountable under the Communications Act 2003 to the  
Scottish Parliament

for its regulatory functions, but its activities impact on devolved  
matters such as culture,

broadband and digital inclusion. Ofcom has an agreed protocol with  
the Scottish

Government and Scotland Office on liaison and consultation. It  
regularly engages with

Scottish Government activities and Scottish Parliament inquiries, and  
undertakes its own

Scotland-specific activities. (Ofcom)



• The Scottish Parliament should have power to direct Ofcom and the  
BBC Trust, and more

far-reaching devolution should not be ruled out. (STUC no.2)



• No view on whether broadcasting should be devolved – but if it is,  
“this should include

the transfer of the UK’s obligations under Article 11 of the European  
Charter for Regional

or Minority Languages and the power to legislate to allocate  
broadcasting capacity on

the electromagnetic spectrum. The devolution of obligations must  
carry with it the grant

of the means to fulfil those obligations.” (MG Alba)



• There is a case for “a tiered approach to communication  
responsibilities (including

broadcasting and wireless broadband) based on the principles of  
devolution and

subsidiarity”. Each nation would be responsible for terrestrial  
communication services for

reception and transmission internally, while voluntary broadcasting  
trusts would oversee

wireless communication requirement that benefit primarily local  
audiences and

subscribers. Mobile phones would be a shared responsibility. Surplus  
spectrum could be

leased by nations and local trusts, partly to provide revenue to  
support national and local

services. Satellite services would continue to operate  
internationally, and the regulatory

structure would conform to European principles. (Institute of Local  
Television no.2)