You have given us some points to go on. Thank you.

The issue is not just about reviewing sites; it is also about ensuring that there is sufficient funding for those sites to be able to remain open and be safe. As a resident of this city, I know that, just minutes away from us, in Holyrood park, we have the Radical Road, which has been closed for a long time, and the problems with Duddingston Low Road. The issue is not just about reviewing but about making sure that Historic Environment Scotland has enough resource to keep our fantastic cultural heritage alive and accessible to all of us, wherever we live.

The point is that we are not getting fair funding anywhere in the BBC—£1 billion has been cut in every year from 2017 to this year. It is not the share that we get in Scotland but the pot that is diminishing as costs rocket during the pandemic. That is the point that we are getting across.

As has been said, earlier this month we debated the importance of public broadcasting—music, sport and drama, the BBC World Service—as well as the importance of campaigning to stop the privatisation of Channel 4, which would massively disrupt a hugely successful model of commissioning that delivers high-quality and diverse programmes. Scottish Labour will not support the Tory amendment as it calls for us to support “all possible funding options”.

We are keen to look at options to increase the accountability of the BBC and are interested in the Co-operative Party’s call for mutualisation of the BBC to increase the influence of viewers, but we are resolutely opposed to the privatisation of the BBC. The important principles that underline the accountable and impartial programmes that we can watch could not be more relevant today and we should be proud of them.

I echo the comments made by the cabinet secretary and Donald Cameron: news programmes covering events in Ukraine and Russia this week have brought home why we must defend our public broadcasting and the importance of accessing news online. That is demonstrated by the BBC News statistics that show that in the past week, viewing figures have increased by more than 250 per cent in Russia and by 154 per cent in Ukraine.

It has been inspiring but also moving to watch our journalists across Ukraine reporting on live events from bunkers or streets where there are weapons being fired, and then seeing our journalists in Russia asking tough questions of the regime—just as we would expect them to do of our Governments in the UK.

Our amendment calls on the UK Government to ensure that there is no support for broadcasting services that spread propaganda and disinformation—they are unacceptable both in Scotland and across the UK. Public broadcasting is also key to our culture and economy, but our amendment highlights that more needs to be done on that. Last year, we were made aware of the concerns about the proposals to privatise BBC Scotland’s studios. Points were made then about the importance of programmes being made in Scotland to provide decent jobs and create more programme-making capabilities in Scotland.

Covid has reinforced the need for jobs across the culture sector that are not short-term precarious contracts and has also exposed the vulnerability of freelancers. We also need to see fair rates for those jobs and workable hours, whether someone works in make-up or on camera teams. For example, someone could be on a 10-hour contract and have to travel a couple of hours just to get to and from work.

The Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union is clear that commissioning needs to be properly funded to deliver jobs in Scotland going forward. We need that investment in studios and staff across Scotland so that our news output and programme making is an attractive opportunity for all our TV broadcasting companies.

Our amendment also references the importance of parity of esteem for Gaelic broadcasting compared with Welsh language broadcasting. Last week saw the announcement of the winners of this year’s prestigious Gaelic short film competition, FilmG 2022, in a special awards ceremony on BBC Alba. We need to celebrate the quality of programming in Scotland and ensure that it gets the funding needed.

However, I question the line in the Scottish Government motion that says that we need a “far fairer share” of the licence fee paid in Scotland. We need investment and pipelines for new programming to be generated in Scotland, but we are also part of a wider network of productions. For example, the BBC World Service is something to be proud of, as is the sports coverage of international events, and the music, drama, comedy and documentary programmes that we are able to share not just within the UK but across the world. We also have new TV channels, such as BBC Three, which serves viewers across the UK—critically, those are new viewers who are young people who are increasingly watching on phones or laptops, rather than on TVs. Podcasts and apps are transforming how we consume radio and television programming and enabling people to get involved.

I agree that the Scottish Parliament’s role in the BBC charter needs to be respected. The voice of parliamentarians in holding Governments to account and representing our constituents is vital. The text of the charter says that the review

“will not look at the BBC’s mission, purpose or the method by which it is funded”.

However, we know that the Tory Government has already frozen BBC funding for the next two years and that will put massive pressure on programme budgets. There are other ways to enable everyone to afford to watch the BBC—we know that with over-75 passes.

Scottish Labour is not against change, but public broadcasting must be properly funded, accessible to every citizen, and not privatised. For 44p a day, it is a service that we should be protecting and enhancing. We should not destroy something that is part of who we are as a democracy and a society.

I move amendment S6M-03420.3, to leave out from “calls for BBC Scotland” to end and insert:

“further condemns those who seek to undermine trust in the impartiality of British public service broadcasting; supports parity of esteem for Gaelic broadcasting compared with Welsh language broadcasting; calls for funding allocations to prioritise fair funding for fair work, in terms of hours worked and salaries, to ensure that talent is supported in Scotland; encourages the Scottish Government to provide more comprehensive support for freelancers, who make up a significant part of the industry; calls on the UK Government to ensure that broadcasting services that spread propaganda and misinformation, against the principles of public service broadcasting that this nation should defend, are unwelcome in Scotland and the UK, and further calls for the Scottish Parliament’s role in BBC Charter Renewal to be respected.”

This is probably one of the most important debates that we will have in Parliament. I thank the committee clerks, all the organisations that sent us their views and analysis and the witnesses who shared their expertise and answered our questions.

The work of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee is the start of significant scrutiny not just by my committee but by other parliamentary committees. Brexit is only just over a year old, yet it has had a massive negative impact on businesses, farming and food producers, those in the haulage industry and those in our cultural sector. The UK Conservative Government’s ambition to create an internal market to lower standards must not throw into reverse the devolution settlement, our food and environmental standards or the labour market.

However, at the same time, we need to have an effective internal market, because that is crucial to our future. As has been referenced, the statistics show that Scotland’s exported goods and services to the rest of the UK are worth more than £51 billion, which is 60 per cent of our exports. Therefore, we must have an internal market that works for us in Scotland.

This has been a good debate. It has flushed out the disagreements and we must deal with those issues. We need to focus on the recommendations to manage tensions between Governments and ensure that the principles underpinning devolution are not undermined.

Life after Brexit was always going to be a challenge, so ensuring transparency and enabling all those with an interest to allow our internal market to work while making sure that our businesses across Scotland are not disadvantaged is crucial.

Common frameworks are clearly an important means by which the UK Government and the devolved Governments are able to work together. That gives those in government the opportunity to decide how they can manage the tensions in the internal market and ensure that, where there are strong arguments for divergence and different approaches, those can be enabled and understood.

Although intergovernmental working is crucial, as has been agreed by all parties, the Law Society of Scotland was clear that the current arrangements

“lack sufficient transparency and accountability.”

We need to have interparliamentary work and work within our Parliament to make sure that we get that transparency. In that way, our citizens and our businesses will be able see what is coming down the track, as well as understand the timetables, what the frameworks will cover, and the fact that we have public consultations where significant changes are being proposed. That is why the committee calls for clarity and regular updates to each Parliament across the UK, and for Government to highlight upcoming proposals to enable people to plan ahead.

We recognise the economic benefits for businesses and consumers of having trade across the UK. However, given that a fundamental principle of devolution is the decentralisation of power so that we can meet local needs and address local circumstances, we have to accept the importance of innovation and regulatory learning that has come about. That is why we think that both the Scottish Government and our councils should be able to set standards through public procurement, whether in relation to procurement of food or a deal for fair work.

This is not the time to reject previously high standards, particularly in the aftermath of the ambitions that we all agreed at the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. Our committee was concerned that the internal market act and the Subsidy Control Bill cut across the devolution settlement, and that concern was expressed very effectively. OneKind expressed concern that the act limits our

“ability . . . to improve farmed animal welfare standards”.

Professor Weatherill said that the act

“places too much emphasis on market liberalisation over local rights to regulate”.

Professor McEwen and her colleagues argued powerfully that the act gives

“a powerful disincentive to engage in legal reform or policy innovation”.

Scottish Environment LINK expressed concerns about the lowering of environmental standards in relation to air, water and soil quality, which we should we worried about.

We need greater transparency, and we need effective intergovernmental working. However, as both Foysol Choudhury and Donald Cameron observed, we also have to have interparliamentary debate. The committee had an excellent briefing on our report this morning. One thing that came across clearly was the need for an independent secretariat to resource and monitor common frameworks. We also need a clear traffic light system, so that citizens, businesses, and campaign and stakeholder groups can also monitor common frameworks and alert us, as MSPs, to their interests and concerns, so that their issues can be raised and debated. There will be times when we want to diverge and innovate—and we should be able to do that—but there will also be times when we want to align. That needs to be a debate that is conducted in public, not behind closed doors.

Whether it is about keeping pace or an internal market, what must drive us are the principles of what we are trying to achieve: environmental standards, quality products, support for our local economies and fair labour market standards. We need to see the Subsidy Control Bill enable strong public procurement that not only gets us value for money but is not a race to the bottom. We need innovative strategic government intervention, both by our Government in Scotland and by our local authorities, when there is a strong case for action.

I think that the UK Government needs to listen to the concerns that have been raised by our committee. Our report was unanimous, and unanimity is not something that we always get on a controversial issue on which there have been differences of opinion in the chamber. To come back to that point: our committee was unanimous. I want the UK Government to listen to our recommendations, and I want it to act. There is an issue about treating our Parliaments across the UK with respect.

That is very useful—thank you.

Yes, and that means that Governments have to think and plan ahead and be much more strategic. As you have observed, it is year 6 from leaving and we are not at that point yet. Professor Menon, it was interesting to get your take on what different future Governments might do on alignment—about whether they might choose to align on most issues and then potentially innovate in areas where they are prepared to put in subsidy and Government investment. You gave the example of solar panels to Maurice Golden and, presumably, Governments could invest in other renewables, but they have to be strategic and think long ahead and put chunks of central Government money in to kick it off.

That is a useful insight. Maybe there could be something like a kick-start fund to get things going. We could then think about the three-year funding that you talked about to enable longer-term investment and ensure that care and safeguarding issues are picked up so that we are not making people with mental health issues more vulnerable.

Diana, do you have any insight into how we could make this happen and kick off that approach?

In a way, we probably need both, because prevention is as critical as supporting people once they have had a crisis or incident.

I draw colleagues’ attention to a good report that was published this week that highlights the work of the Whale Arts project. It is about mapping cultural dispersal by the Edinburgh festivals. A point was made earlier about spreading investment so that it is not just in Edinburgh and Glasgow but, even within Edinburgh and Glasgow, the social barriers to accessing culture are huge.

We very much need to pick up the evidence that we have just heard, convener.

I thank the witnesses for the fantastic submissions that they have sent us in advance, which are very much in tune with what we have been discussing.

On the one hand, we have the evidence from Creative Scotland that says that key parts of the cultural sector risk collapse after Covid. There has been a decade of cuts to local authorities, which has impacted on community culture massively, because it is not core funding.

On the other hand, we have the evidence that you are giving us about the preventative impact of spending on culture. Jenni Minto talked about this week’s CPG meeting on culture in the business sector, and we have had the culture in communities evidence. That all aligns with your evidence today, and it tells us that it makes economic, financial and human sense to invest in social prescribing.

How do we do this? We are a committee that gives recommendations to the Government, but it feels as though social prescribing should be part of a fast-track Covid recovery. Young people with mental health issues cannot get that support, yet it could potentially get them back on track so that they do not have to miss years of progress in their lives.

We have the budget, so what are the triggers to lift the issue up? We all agree that preventative spending makes sense but, as Robbie McGhee has just observed, some of the research has been out there for more than a decade and Campbell Christie made his recommendations a decade ago. What is the trigger that would help us to come out of Covid and on to the right track? What would you recommend?