Chamber and committees

That raises the question why the Israeli-American regime wants to have young, fighting-age males—as it would call them—trailing around Gaza and being put into particular locations. Leaving that to one side, I want to clarify another point.

I am a little bit confused, as people who are watching the meeting might be, about the issue with the Rafah border. As I understand it, the Egyptian Government is clear that Israel will not allow goods to go through there. UNRWA was absolutely clear with us that Israel will not permit it. The one person who seems to think that that is not the case is Mr Kerr.

I wonder whether you have any other information that confirms that that is the situation—that it is Israel that is preventing access through the Rafah border—or even whether it is the case that Israel has closed the border on its side at Israel’s request. It would be useful to have that, if it is possible to provide that information to the committee. I understand that Israel has made statements to that effect.

Before Mr Kerr interrupts, I wish to say that he regularly gets to ask more questions than anybody else on the committee, so it would be good if I could ask my questions without any interruption from him. The point that I was making, cabinet secretary, was that it would be useful to get any information that you have that evidences that situation in writing, because a member of the committee is saying that that is not the case.

That is up to the convener.

Can I ask my last question before Mr Kerr comes back in once again?

On Mr Bibby’s point about the review of the aid that is currently provided, the committee heard from UNWRA that funding actually is an issue. It was not entirely clear, but I think that it was saying that certain countries have undermined UNWRA by withdrawing funding. Funding is an issue, even for it, despite the fact that it has hundreds of trucks of goods ready to go. What the Scottish Government provides is a pretty small proportion of that. However, if that funding is being reviewed, will the review consider and react to the UK Government’s decision to slash its international aid, or will the Scottish Government’s funding just be done on its own terms, as it was before?

I enjoyed the light relief of hearing Brexiteers complaining about trying to deal with the EU and saying that we are tough and all the rest of it.

You made the point that the disaffection that is felt by the Scottish Government is shared by the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Sinn Féin First Minister. Last week, when we were in Westminster, we found the same disenchantment in the House of Lords, which felt that it was ignored or not consulted on large parts of the agreement. At what point do we say to ourselves, “This is not working”? There have been continued requests—this has as much to do with parliamentary scrutiny as it does with IGR stuff. We are just demeaning ourselves by continually pleading to get an occasional half-hour private chat, off the record, with a minister. At what point do we say, “We have reached the limits of devolution. There has to be a better way to do business”?

[Inaudible]—but I am taking up time, and other members want to come in. I had a second question, but I will come back to it if we have time at the end.

Good morning. Many important things connected to the TCA and the agreement that the UK Government has reached will affect things that are important to this committee, such as musicians, cultural connections and all sorts of other things. Unfortunately, we must come back to process, and I particularly want to discuss fishing in that regard. I understand that the Scottish Government’s position is that it was not consulted in any way, shape or form about the issue or the eventual outcome on fishing—or even on the overall agreement. That is really quite appalling, when other European countries seem to be able to take a far more inclusive approach.

I understand that the UK Government very recently said that it did not initiate any fishing discussions, although it said that it had had engagement with the fishing industry. You can imagine what the reaction would have been had it done so and said what it was about to do. However, the UK Government’s position now is to say that it is a great deal and that the fishing industry is very happy. The dissonance between what the UK Government is saying and what the fishing industry is saying seems to be huge.

Will you confirm what involvement the UK Government had with the Scottish Government on the likely decision on fishing? We have heard from other sources—which I am not able to mention—that that part of the deal was done long before they got to the UK-EU summit, or that it was understood to have been done. What discussions on that deal did the UK Government have with the Scottish Government and, as you understand it, with fishing interests?

I should be careful with my words. My understanding, from a meeting that we held last week—I will not go into the details of it—is that, in relation to the fisheries part of it, it was understood on both sides what was likely to happen long before they got down to it. It was almost a precursor for the summit agreement; I think that the word “precursor” might, in fact, have been used.

It is useful to think about examples of what Ofcom could be, and I am thinking about Canada. I think that it was Pierre Trudeau, Justin’s dad, who said that being in Canada is like being “in bed with an elephant”, because its southern neighbour is 10 times its size and the danger of complete cultural overspill is huge. Canada had quotas for the numbers of university lecturers who had to be Canadian. A dark secret from my past is that I was a radio DJ in Canada, which sounds a bit grand, but it was on Sunday night campus radio. I was obliged to play a certain number of Canadian songs during the course of that two-hour programme.

We can contrast that with what Ofcom is doing here. We have heard lots of talk about “nuance” and “guidance” and maybe increasing it and so on, but Ofcom agreed with the BBC last year when it decided to reduce news output in Scotland by, I think, half, from 250 hours to 125 hours. George Adam mentioned what has happened to radio in Scotland. It does not feel like local radio any more. I started campaigning in 2007 to have Scottish football matches free to air. It took a long time to get anywhere, and when it did we had the absolute fiasco of the Greek match, where the sound and the covers did not work because the BBC was so out of touch with doing that. Channel 4 has no target for Scotland and you seem to be content with that. I understand that Ofcom is a creature of the UK Parliament and if the UK Parliament decides that you will be toothless, as George Adam put it, that is what you have to be and work with.

Let me ask you this. You may have covered this and it may have been in the briefing, but I could not see it. What has the BBC’s record been like on the 8 per cent spend and hours quota that it is asked to deliver in Scotland? I heard your explanation about “The Traitors” earlier, but it is not Scottish in any meaningful way apart from the venue where it is filmed. What has the BBC’s track record on the 8 per cent requirement been over, say, the last five to 10 years?

What counts? I forget what the obligation is. Is it production based in Scotland?