Chamber and committees

Amina has touched on this and I will be directing this question to Amina. I have heard examples of people in BME communities being reluctant to visit specialist services for that community due to the community being so close that it will inevitably get out one way or another and there may be repercussions for them socially. How can that effect be mitigated? Is there an argument for wider services being more prepared to deal with cases for BME communities? Mariam, you have touched on that already. You said that it could come back on victims, and you might want to touch on that as well and say how what is done about that could be stronger.

My next question will also be for Mariam Ahmed and Tumay Forster. Is there sufficient funding in the system to allow for language-trained staff who are also trained in dealing with trauma? If not, what would it take for the situation to be improved?

Today, we have heard considerable support for the future of public service broadcasting. We have heard how it benefits the Scottish economy and Scottish culture. We have also heard criticisms—some of which were fairer than others—of the BBC and the state of public service broadcasting in this country.

The motion welcomes the increasing number of productions that are being made in Scotland and the on-going efforts of Screen Scotland to attract productions. Scottish Labour agrees with that. We also strongly agree with the sentiments in the motion on defence of the BBC and Channel 4 against threats to their “operational independence”.

The BBC is a national asset. Although it is not infallible, it is envied around the world for the quality of its productions and the reliability of its journalism.

The UK Government seems to be content to use the BBC and Channel 4 as red meat to throw to Tory back benchers in Westminster—no doubt, in order to keep them on side after recent scandals. However, what it proposes would be an act of cultural vandalism for only momentary political gain.

Where Scottish Labour cannot agree with the motion is in the demand that BBC Scotland receive a “far fairer” share of the licence fee income that is raised in Scotland. We do not believe that that compares like with like. The “BBC Group Annual Report and Accounts 2020/21” show that, in the most recent pre-pandemic year, 85 per cent of the licence fee that was raised in Scotland was spent in Scotland. Given the inevitable outside costs of its broadcast service, international journalism, sports coverage and global media monitoring, that seems to be reasonable. My colleague Sarah Boyack noted the incredible work of the BBC in covering Ukraine and Russia. We can be proud of those parts of the BBC without considering the spending on them to be anti-Scottish.

The share of the licence fee that is spent in Scotland has, of course, fallen during the pandemic, when the BBC has been forced to cut non-essential TV production. We must be patient and see whether investment returns to its pre-pandemic level before we make sweeping judgments about fairer funding for Scotland.

I have a lot to go through, so I will carry on.

Instead, the fairer funding issue that we should be considering is to do with working conditions in the screen industry. Sarah Boyack has already highlighted the difficulties that women and parents face in the industry because of the working conditions that are now common. Our amendment to the motion suggests that secure working conditions and support for talent in Scotland should be priorities.

Although we have a screen sector that we can be proud of, more can be done to maintain the sector and to support the people who work in it. Scottish Labour believes in a vibrant public service broadcasting sector, and our amendment seeks to preserve it into the future. I invite members to support it.

It is a pleasure to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I thank the committee and its members for their report. It is an in-depth and considered look at a topic with many strands, and the committee has done well to pull them all together. I also thank the many witnesses who contributed to the committee’s inquiry. The sheer breadth of their expertise is impressive and has provided us with a considerable resource as we proceed to consider these matters.

It is clear that the creation of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was a watershed moment. It not only signalled the effective end of the immediate Brexit process, but inaugurated the new and uncomfortable era in which we in the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies of this country now find ourselves. The committee’s report does a good job in highlighting the tensions that are at play between the devolved institutions and Westminster, and it provides constructive commentary on how those tensions might be mitigated in the future.

It is necessary to look back briefly at how we got into this situation. It was clear to everyone that certain powers would be repatriated when the UK left the European Union. It would therefore have made sense for the UK Government to engage with the devolved Governments and institutions to arrange how that would work in the context of the devolved settlement. The fact that it did not do so and we are now in a situation of considerable tension within the devolved settlement illustrates that devolution works best when Westminster and the devolved nations work together, rather than apart.

I hope that future Governments learn the right lessons from that experience. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in a situation in which an act of the UK Parliament was created despite the withholding of legislative consent in Scotland and Wales. However, we are where we are. Scottish Labour remains committed to devolution and to allowing it to work well. Let me move on to the tensions that are set out at the heart of the report and the committee’s suggestions on how they might be resolved.

On the tension between free trade and regulatory divergence, the committee’s view appears to be that the UK Government has got the balance very wrong. We in Scottish Labour agree. We agree that there needs to be room for Scotland to innovate in policy and in its economy, and that the UK Government has come down too harshly on the side of being prescriptive about what must be done in devolved areas. We are concerned that, in effect, the 2020 act reinforces the Tory free-market view of the world and stifles Scotland’s ability to set its own standards in public procurement practice.

On the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition, Scottish businesses, particularly in the agriculture sector, could be put at risk if the Tories pursue their worst regulatory instincts and insist on lowering the standards to which we have become used over the past few decades. However, I am pleased that the committee, having examined tensions in that regard, underscores the importance and economic benefit of open trade across the UK.

I note that the committee heard examples of complete or near-complete integration of supply chains within the UK. It surely follows that the imposition of trade barriers within Great Britain, which would happen eventually under the Scottish Government’s plan for independence, would cause significant disruption to such supply chains and the wider economy. Certain members might not like to hear that, but it is the logical consequence of there being such deep integration in our economies.

The report makes it clear that there is room within the common framework to work through some of the tensions that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has caused in the devolution settlement, but it also highlights the risk of creating a power imbalance between executive and legislative functions across the UK. That is a crucial point. It is perhaps not surprising that it is committees of this Parliament and the House of Lords at Westminster that are highlighting the tensions and distinct lack of transparency in the intergovernmental system.

To put it simply, members of this Parliament and other legislatures across the UK need to be able to see and comment on the processes to do with the common frameworks, and so, too, do other stakeholders in the economic and regulatory environment. We cannot possibly repair confidence in our devolved settlement if all the work to do so is done in the dark, away from the eyes of people with an interest in the system and how it is supposed to function.

I am grateful to the committee for all its work in bringing those concerns to the Parliament. Labour members look forward to engaging with continuing work to address the matter in future.

It is perhaps for Linda Richards or Vivien Thomson. I can see Linda shaking her head.

No, thank you.

Both, I would say, but mostly financial entitlements.

Good morning, panel. I want to go back to a topic that my colleagues have already asked about. I guess that my question is for any of our witnesses. What are the barriers to informal kinship carers gaining the benefits to which they are entitled, and what do you see as the problems with the current system of entitlements?

Thank you, convener.