Chamber and committees

The briefing clearly states that Scotland’s ageing population will inevitably result in an increasing demand for social care services and resources, and paragraph 25 outlines that it is predicted that, by 2038, nearly 25 per cent of the population

“will be over the age of 65”.

To what extent is the increased funding from the Scottish Government over the current parliamentary session likely to meet the needs of the growing ageing population in Scotland?

No—I will be out of time soon. I am sorry.

STV helps to fuel not only the creative industry but many businesses, through its growth fund, its green fund and its local lifeline campaigns.

I am happy that PSBs are now also benefiting from the transformation of the Kelvin hall in Glasgow into Scotland’s biggest film studio.

We have made a good start in moving away from centralisation, but we need to do more. It is vital that we have more initiatives across Scottish rural areas. We have a wealth of talent in our rural areas in fields such as music and theatre, and we need to capitalise on that.

The Scottish Conservatives continue to support public service broadcasting because it brings many benefits to Scotland. BBC Scotland, Channel 4 and STV create jobs, support countless roles in the freelance and creative economies, drive our creative sector and provide world-class programming that is made in Scotland. All members can agree that we want to see public service broadcasting succeeding in the 21st century.

It is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. From across the chamber, we have heard about the great value of public service broadcasting to the Scottish people. As has been mentioned, platforms include the BBC, Channel 4 and STV, which continue to play a key role in educating, entertaining and informing audiences across Scotland.

During the debate, colleagues have raised key points about the value of public service broadcasting. For example, Donald Cameron highlighted the work of BBC Alba and MG Alba in promoting the Gaelic language, as did Jenni Minto, Pauline McNeill and Maggie Chapman.

Angus Robertson spoke about the value of reporting the conflict in Ukraine, as did Sarah Boyack. I would be interested to hear about the cabinet secretary’s future plans, which he was going to talk about in his speech, but his time was cut short.

Alex Cole-Hamilton said that public service broadcasting is vital to the health of our democracy. Among other things, Fiona Hyslop mentioned the success of Channel 4 and the number of producers that it supports.

Stephen Kerr spoke about the soft power of public broadcasting and the need to support and protect it, as well as the need for increased coverage of his speeches in Parliament—I am sorry; I should have said “our speeches”—which Pauline McNeill agreed with.

Christine Grahame spoke about editorial sensitivity, while Jamie Greene talked about his experience in the sector.

From Scottish independent production companies to Screen Scotland, many organisations benefit from public service broadcasting. For example, the renewed commitment between BBC Scotland and Screen Scotland will strengthen the production sector and raise its profile across the UK. In addition, various BBC-led initiatives have created opportunities for young individuals, including “Make it Digital”, which is a UK-wide initiative to inspire people to get creative with programming, coding and digital technology; “Ten Pieces”, which opens up the world of classical music to seven to 14-year-olds by offering a variety of films, lesson plans and live events; and the Scottish drama writers programme 2021, in which the BBC partnered Scotland-based writers with independent production companies to develop authentic network dramas.

Profound changes in the media landscape for local newspapers resulted in the creation by the BBC of the local democracy reporting service. Research by Press Gazette found that there had been a net loss of 265 newspapers in the UK since 2005. The local democracy reporting service has created up to 150 jobs across the UK to improve reporting on local democracy issues.

Channel 4 has spent more than £200 million on Scottish productions since 2007, and it annually invests around £20 million, which provides a boost to the Scottish screen industry.

I am sorry. I do not have enough time.

Channel 4 has supported the growth of businesses through its growth fund and its alpha fund, and its training schemes have benefited more than 10,000 people since 2015. It has funded 15 production trainees at Scottish independent production companies, as well as numerous apprentices.

I recently met the heads of several Scottish independent production companies, who strongly believe that there is positive momentum at present, which has been supported by the opening of Channel 4’s new creative hub in Glasgow. That will shift the production centre of gravity away from London, to Glasgow and beyond.

STV has also made a significant contribution, including through the work of STV Studios, which is Scotland’s biggest production company, and “STV News”, which is the most-watched news programme in Scotland.

No.

That could not be further from the truth. As was well reported at the time, a mechanism now exists to create exemptions for policy divergence, which provides a path for devolved Governments to choose their own way.

Today, I will focus mainly on scrutiny. The matter came up time and again in the committee, so I found it a little puzzling that it received such a brief mention in the report, totalling less than 1 per cent of the document. A huge weight of EU law comes into force each year. In 2020 alone, the EU adopted or amended 1,562 different pieces of legislation. All that must be considered, particularly given the Scottish Government’s decision to align with EU law wherever possible, regardless of how it interacts with UK policy making.

An appropriate independent Scottish monitoring service needs to be established. The divergence tracker that has been made available to the committee is a good start, but it is not Scotland specific. The committee agrees, noting that

“Robust guidance should be agreed between the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament on how transparent and meaningful scrutiny can be delivered”.

The message is clear. Parliament cannot be sidelined, and neither can stakeholders. We must know when and why the Scottish Government is aligning with EU law and what it is aligning with. Perhaps even more notably, we must know when it is diverging from EU law. The decision-making process must be open and transparent, particularly when it comes to the keeping pace power.

The keeping pace power concerns me for a number of reasons, not least of which is to do with the circumstances in which it would be used and how it would be used. Scrutiny of that provision is nearly impossible, with there being only an annual requirement to inform Parliament of when it has been used. Other than that, the only guides that we have to its use are the policy statement and the comments of the cabinet secretary. That is simply not enough detail to go on. I therefore call on the Scottish Government to implement a more transparent reporting process, for the Parliament’s peace of mind.

The free passage of goods between the four parts of the United Kingdom—our largest and fastest-growing export market—is not only desirable but essential for the economic wellbeing of Scotland. I think that we can all broadly agree on that. However, I can understand why some members might have concerns about how all this is going to work. It is a complicated subject, as many of us have been finding out, and it does not look likely to be simplified any time soon.

First, it is important to clear up a couple of myths. We have heard many claims that devolution is under assault, that the Sewel convention has been violated and so on. However, the clue is in the name: it is a convention, not an act or a set of regulations. The Law Society of Scotland noted in its submission that

“there should be no inference drawn that the Sewel Convention has in any way been diluted”.

On the subject of policy divergence, there is still plenty of room for Scotland to choose its own way. In a blunt letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the previous cabinet secretary suggested that the UKIMA would threaten policies such as the ban on smoking in public places, the approach to tuition fees and minimum unit pricing.

I know that you just started in January, but the report says that the initial recommendation was made in 2018. Why has it taken so long for the framework that you intend to publish at the end of March to be produced?

During 2021, the Scottish Government commissioned an external consultant to conduct a review of its relationships with public bodies. The review considered the current delivery of sponsorship arrangements in the Government, including how it should organise and manage its relationships with public bodies. It also considered how sponsors and public bodies can effectively manage risk and, importantly, the escalation of issues when challenges arise. What improvements has the consultant advised should be made? Has the Government accepted all the findings?

We will see it then.

You have explained how you will implement the recommendations, but I ask for timescales so that we know when they will be implemented and that we do not end up getting a report further down the line about—