Official Report 242KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01962, in the name of Màiri McAllan, on the BBC and public service broadcasting in Scotland. There is no time in hand and any interventions must be absorbed within the speaker’s time. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
16:16
I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the future of the BBC and public service broadcasting in our country, which comes at a critical moment. The debate responds to the BBC’s proposals to close the BBC Scotland linear service and to end entirely “News at Seven”. However, it is also about so much more, because the recent proposals—which, let me be clear, the Government opposes in the strongest terms—are just the latest in a long line of blows to the Scottish media landscape in recent years.
When we talk about the closure of the BBC Scotland television channel and the end of “News at Seven”, we are also debating the strength of cultural expression in Scotland and the existence of locally relevant journalism. We are debating jobs and investment in our broadcasting sector, and we are confronting serious issues about democratic accountability for decision making.
The Government’s contention is therefore that the position is untenable and, alongside our colleagues in the Welsh Government, we are calling for the devolution of broadcasting powers to this Parliament once and for all, so that people will be accountable to this Parliament for decisions that are made. I will be interested to hear what members say in the debate, but I cannot imagine why any member would refuse that opportunity for their constituents.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
On that note, I will be glad to take Murdo Fraser’s intervention.
Can the cabinet secretary explain what the exact purpose of devolving control over the BBC would be—unless the Scottish Government is going to step up with substantial extra cash to support the BBC in Scotland, which it can already do if it chooses?
Mr Fraser is very well acquainted with the fiscal framework within which this devolved Parliament and our Government operate, so he will understand that with devolution come the freedom and opportunity to invest as we see fit. Right now, we have a scenario where I am having to invest what we can, but ultimately the powers over broadcasting rest with the United Kingdom Government, which is underinvesting.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I will take a brief intervention from Patrick Harvie.
Although I am instinctively more in favour of the cabinet secretary’s position, which is in favour of devolution, is there a viable middle ground that the UK Government might be persuaded to support, whereby multiple Governments in the UK would have to jointly approve changes to the charter, agreement and licence, rather than having wholesale devolution?
The BBC charter renewal is an opportunity to consider those matters, and the Government has been raising questions about accountability and decentralisation out of London and into the nations. I will move on to reflect on the engagement that I have had so far with the secretary of state and some of the feedback from the Westminster committee, but it does not give me a great deal of confidence that that is the direction of travel.
I want to consider the chronology and how we have found ourselves at a point where closure of the channel is proposed. In 2019, the BBC Scotland channel launched. It replaced the BBC Two Scotland opt-out. “The Nine” was introduced at that time.
Five years later—in August 2024—Ofcom approved the BBC’s decision to halve peak-time news requirements for the BBC Scotland channel. That marked the end of the very short life of “The Nine”. At that point, “Reporting Scotland: News at Seven” replaced the ill-fated “The Nine”. However, as sure as night turns to day, here we are, just two years later, facing the end of that programme, too.
In September 2024, the BBC announced plans to reduce the number of editorial and production jobs in the nations and regions, including by up to 30 jobs in Scotland.
In 2025, there was the end of “River City” and the decision not to renew the lease on the Dumbarton studio, which had been home to that programme for many years. Last year, too, the BBC instigated changes to Radio Scotland’s late-night programming, which has caused consternation among its community of listeners and artists.
In April this year, the BBC announced that it would cut between 1,800 and 2,000 jobs, with an aim of saving £500 million in three years. The first phase of those savings includes plans to make savings in Scotland of more than £10 million—which I ask the Parliament to note is the highest figure of any of the nations.
In recent weeks, the BBC Scotland director has communicated to me the intention to close the BBC Scotland channel and end the “News at Seven”.
That is a sorry chronology of seven years of disinvestment, job losses and, I have to say, a degree of disregard for the BBC’s obligations to Scottish audiences.
There has been no greater manifestation of that than—
Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?
I am a bit concerned about time, Presiding Officer, but I will take a very quick intervention.
Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the linear channel has very poor viewing figures and that the content of that channel was viewed by more people on iPlayer than on the linear channel? Therefore, when it comes to viewing habits, there is a certain logic driving the BBC to that conclusion, given the cost of the linear channel. Does she not agree that that makes business sense and that it does not take away from the availability of that content to Scottish viewers?
That was not the short intervention that I was hoping for. Nonetheless, I will make two points in response. First, not everybody has ready access to iPlayer, whether because of age, ability to navigate technology or connectivity. Secondly, there is a logic, in that good programming follows proper investment. If Stephen Kerr is quoting the figures on those who have watched the BBC Scotland channel, I simply say in response that, had more been invested in that channel, we might not have found ourselves in this position.
However, I want to say a little about the practical implications. In the summer, when the eyes of the world were on Glasgow for the Commonwealth games, the irony was that nobody in Scotland could turn on BBC One and watch the games. I thank BBC Alba, which broadcast them in Gaelic, but the BBC position was untenable.
I have also put on the record a number of times my dissatisfaction with the significant disparity in funding between Welsh language broadcasting and Gaelic language broadcasting—a gulf of £95 million. I do not begrudge a single penny that is invested in Welsh broadcasting, but I cannot defend that significant gulf, and we cannot allow it to continue.
My final point to make in the time that I have left is that this is about cultural expression, jobs and investment, but it is also about democratic accountability. I have written on several occasions to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about my concerns, but I have not received a reply. In the perverse constitutional set-up of the UK, we have a London Government minister who is in charge of broadcasting in Scotland who will not reply to correspondence from the culture secretary in Scotland, and, although I do not doubt that the members of the Westminster committee are doing their job for their constituents, none of them represents a Scottish constituency or Scottish interests. I note my time, Presiding Officer. We therefore have a significant gap in funding and in accountability.
In moving the motion, I ask members across the chamber to back the devolution of broadcasting so that members in this Parliament can hold the BBC and others to account for the decisions that they make, and so that people in Scotland can turn on their radios and televisions and see their lives authentically reflected back at them.
I move,
That the Parliament opposes the BBC's proposal to close the linear BBC Scotland channel and to discontinue Reporting Scotland: News at Seven; expresses concern that proposed changes could reduce access to Scottish news and public broadcasting, particularly for audiences who rely on traditional television services, and could impact jobs and investment in Scotland; highlights the contribution of broadcasting to Scotland's economy through investment in skilled jobs, the screen sector and the creative industries workforce; notes the importance of fair and sustainable support for Gaelic media and the continuing disparity in funding between Gaelic-language and Welsh-language broadcasting; believes that licence fee revenues raised in Scotland should be reinvested in full in Scotland; recognises the opportunity presented by the ongoing BBC Charter Review to deliver greater accountability, representation and investment for Scotland; believes that BBC television and radio must authentically reflect the lives of people in Scotland, and calls on the UK Government to devolve responsibility for broadcasting to the Scottish Parliament.
16:25
I begin by saying that my thoughts are with the workers affected by the proposed changes to BBC Scotland. It is a deep shame that those proposals have had to get to this point.
It is of paramount importance that the BBC continues to support broadcasting in Scotland and, as the cabinet secretary said, that that broadcasting reflects our communities and places and tells our stories. However, when the BBC falls short, I do not believe that defaulting to more devolution is the way to hold it to account. Rather, that makes clear the need to ensure that this Parliament and Government are fully engaged in the charter renewal process and that Scotland has a strong voice at that table. I am concerned that, by calling for broadcasting to be fully devolved, we will not seize the opportunity in the here and now.
The cabinet secretary mentioned funding for Gaelic broadcasting, and I agree—as does the UK Government—that more needs to be done to provide stability and certainty. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has said that it is
“exploring measures that would afford MG ALBA greater certainty and operational stability, ensuring that Gaelic-language media remains sustainable into the next Charter period and beyond.”
Does Katherine Sangster accept that it is within the Scottish Government’s power to spend more on MG Alba? It could do that now; it is already the biggest provider of funding. The Government’s argument, based on its grievance, does not hold water, does it?
I accept that it could do that, but I also say that the UK Government is open to having those discussions with the Scottish Government.
There is an opportunity to press the case for more funding as part of the charter review process, and I believe that the Parliament should take it. We need to see investment that continues to support and promote Gaelic language broadcasting, with the local economic growth that that generates in communities. We should not be beholden to one particular number but should look at the impact of the spend. We have an opportunity before us to address both of those things.
I am slightly puzzled by the Government’s call for the licence fee money raised in Scotland to be used exclusively in Scotland, which suggests that money that is not spent in Scotland does not benefit Scotland. There is a wealth of UK-wide content that is not produced in Scotland but is heavily viewed here—the Olympics, “Strictly Come Dancing” and Wimbledon, to name a few.
None of that is to say that the BBC does not require improvement—it clearly does—but we should be open minded and proactive about what that means. With the charter review comes the opportunity for Parliament to make clear what its priorities are for the next chapter of the BBC. We need to grasp that with both hands, not least because of the contribution that broadcasting makes to Scotland’s economy through investment in skilled jobs, the screen sector and, as the Government notes, the workforce in the creative industries.
However, we do ourselves no favours by pretending that broadcasting is not changing. Moving services online to protect them is a sensible measure. Stephen Jardine has warned that the BBC needs to keep track of the “breakneck speed” at which viewing habits are changing. People do not just sit and watch TV in a linear way any more. As Mr Kerr pointed out, streaming is more common, and people are catching up with shows on demand rather than watching them live.
However, when the nation comes together to watch live television, it is invariably on the BBC. “River City” was a huge success story in Scottish storytelling, and its cancellation is a blow, especially for Scottish actors, costume designers, set designers and so on. I go back to the question that I asked the First Minister earlier about the cuts to costume design at the University of Edinburgh. He told me that that was an operational matter, but there is no point in us in this chamber protecting Scottish filmmaking if we have no Scottish kids doing costume design at university in order to go into those jobs. I am not convinced that devolving broadcasting answers any of those questions.
A few weeks ago in this chamber, I spoke about our creative industries requiring a joined-up approach, and about how systematic barriers to accessing the arts are still in place and are not being removed with the urgency that that deserves.
I am glad that the Government has demonstrated such an interest in how the changes in the BBC will affect Scotland’s creative industries, but it must demonstrate the same commitment across all areas. I remind it of the areas that are under its control now. We need a strong college sector to train people and give them the technical expertise that is needed to sustain our creative industries; we need to ensure that those people are able to work in television in the future; and we need to reduce barriers to access.
According to the most recent Scottish household survey, a quarter of households in Scottish index of multiple deprivation 1 areas attended no cultural performances last year, compared with only 6 per cent of those in SIMD 5 areas. I urge the Government to stay focused on the issues that I have raised and to engage with the BBC in a positive and pragmatic way to ensure that it keeps telling Scotland’s story in music, drama, news and comedy.
I move amendment S7M-01962.1, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert:
“believes that audiences in Scotland should have access to high-quality programming that tells Scottish stories and reflects the richness and diversity of its culture and communities; recognises the BBC’s important role in delivering this content and supporting Scotland’s creative industries, including independent Scottish production companies; believes that moving BBC Scotland content online and onto BBC Two provides an opportunity to protect this programming, including Gaelic content, while ensuring audiences can continue to access news on terrestrial television through Reporting Scotland; calls on the Scottish Government and all Members to engage fully in the BBC Charter Renewal process to champion Scottish broadcasting and to protect the future of public service broadcasting, and further calls on the Scottish Government to support Scotland’s screen sector by making the creative economy a national industrial priority and reforming the skills system and business support to reflect the needs and priorities of Scotland’s creative industries.”
I call Victor Currie to speak to and move amendment S7M-01962.3.
16:30
Let me start at the point at which the Government’s motion starts: with the BBC’s decision to close the BBC Scotland channel and end the “News at Seven”. I understand why people are anxious, and I associate myself entirely with Katherine Sangster’s words. Jobs are at stake, as are the independent production companies that depend on BBC commissioning, and nobody in this chamber should be indifferent to that.
However, a motion that just says no is not a plan. The motion asks the BBC to keep in place a model that audiences have already moved away from. The BBC is not closing the channel out of malice; it is closing it because it needs to find £500 million of savings by 2028.
As we have heard, this is not the first cut. In 2024, the flagship programme “The Nine” was axed and the channel’s news output was reduced amid poor viewership. Therefore, it is not a sudden shock but the latest stage in a long decline that we have had years to see coming.
However, why is it happening? It is because the way that people watch has changed. Ofcom’s latest “Media Nations” report found that viewers are now as likely to turn first to Netflix as they are to the BBC—26 per cent for Netflix versus 25 per cent for the BBC.
The figures that my amendment cites—
Will the member give way on that point?
I will give way.
An important point is that Scotland is one of the parts of the United Kingdom where, in an average week, more people consume content from the BBC on the BBC iPlayer than on all the other streaming platforms put together. That is an amazing statistic.
I entirely concede that point.
Ofcom’s weekly reach figures indicate that 58 per cent of the population watch at least one BBC channel in a week, which means that more than four in 10 do not. Among people who are aged under 25, fewer than half watch any BBC channel in a full year. Those are not the numbers of a broadcaster that is in step with its audience, and the BBC has not adapted to long-term changes in media habits.
I say that without pleasure. I served in the Royal Navy and know what it means to depend on an institution that is proud of its history and that serves the public. However, pride is not a business model. An institution that cannot adapt to how people live does not survive by being defended; it survives only by being reformed.
I ask members to consider what problem the Government’s motion would solve. If the BBC’s difficulties are too few viewers and too little money, a new layer of governance in Edinburgh would fix neither. The Government has overseen the amalgamation of the fire and rescue services, supposedly to introduce efficiencies and to better serve the public. It has overseen the amalgamation of Police Scotland to create efficiencies and to better serve the public. The Government now intends to merge our health boards to create efficiencies and to better serve the public. Yet, when it comes to the BBC, the Government asks for a reduction in the level of centralisation, which just smacks of the politics of grievance.
Let us be honest about the licence fee itself. A household pays whether it watches one hour of the BBC or none, and a pensioner on a fixed income pays the same as a millionaire. It was designed for a world of a handful of channels and one television in the living room, whereas we now live in a world of on-demand viewing, where people pay for what they choose and cancel what they do not.
In the Highlands and Islands region that I represent, many households rely on a broadband connection that is not as strong as it should be, yet they are still expected to pay a compulsory charge for a service that is shrinking around them. That is why my amendment asks for something different: it does not ask the BBC to stay as it is; it calls on the UK Government to carry out a broader charter review, one that starts from what audiences want today.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Previous
HMP and YOI Polmont