Chamber and committees

A number of European countries have capped their energy cost increase at 5 or 10 per cent, but the United Kingdom has capped it at 54 per cent. Yesterday, I heard a suggestion that it could be significantly higher than 54 per cent in island areas, which already probably have some of the worst fuel poverty rates in Europe. How can the planning system respond to that? I presume that such a savage increase would have an impact on whether people decide to live in island areas and the kind of balance with which that leaves the community. What levers exist in the planning system—whether it be obligations on developers or other measures—to cope with what will undoubtedly be an extreme situation with fuel poverty on the islands?

I have a supplementary question on 20-minute neighbourhoods. Is the plan agnostic on the way that the housing market operates in some rural areas where, essentially, people have to have acquired capital from property transactions in a city before they can buy or build a house? That has implications for the age profile and the sustainability of many of our rural communities. What can the plan do to address that fundamental problem that many rural communities now face?

Some of the questioning in this session has been about the potential cost of the bill to local authorities and other agencies. What is the potential for spending to save, if you like, given that there is a health benefit here that may impact the work of local authorities?

I have two or three questions for Jayne Jones. You have indicated, I think—I do not want to put words in your mouth—a wariness about local authorities spending too much time on reporting on their activities in connection with the plans. Does that also indicate a wariness about targets?

Is the continued existence of Gaelic-speaking communities among the aims of the framework?

Is having Gaelic-speaking communities in the future one of the aims and objectives that you have set yourself in the framework?

Taing do dh’Ailig Cole-Hamilton airson an deasbad seo a thoirt dhan Phàrlamaid an-diugh.

’S e seirbheis air leth luachmhor a tha anns a’ BhBC, agus tha e na phàirt chudromach den bheatha aig iomadach duine san dùthaich seo.

Le naidheachd brèige agus clioc-glacach fada ro chumanta air-loidhne san latha an-diugh, tha e fìor chudromach gu bheil companaidhean fhathast ann a tha a’ feuchainn ri bhith cothromach, urrasach agus fiosrachail a thaobh nan naidheachdan a bhios iad a’ sgaoileadh don phoball.

Gun phrothaid mar chnag na cùise, gu tric tha barrachd saorsa ann airson cruthachas anns na prògraman a thèid a dhèanamh leis a’ BhBC.

Chan eil am BBC idir gun mura-bhith ge-tà. Tha cunntasan beachd ag ràdh, mar eisimpleir, gun do chaill am BBC an earbsa aig deagh chuid den phoball ann an Alba ron reifreann ann an 2014. Bha seo air sgàth ’s nach robh na daoine sin den bheachd gun robh craoladh a’ BhBC uile gu lèir neo-phàirteach air a’ chuspair.

Tha ceistean cuideachd air nochdadh o chionn ghoirid mu chùmhnantan geàrr-ùine a’ BhBC, na tuarastalan àrda aig diofar phreasantairean, agus mar a chaill seann-daoine na ceadaichean telebhisein saor an-asgaidh aca.

Ach, a’ cur nan rudan sin dhan dàrna taobh, tha mi airson beachdachadh airson greiseag air na meadhanan Gàidhlig gu sònraichte, agus cho cudromach ’s a tha seirbhis phoblach leithid a’ BhBC do mhion-chànain mar Ghàidhlig agus Cuimris.

Tha pailteas fianais acadaimigeach a’ sealltainn cho cudromach ’s a tha na meadhanan airson mion-chànain a ghlèidheadh agus a leasachadh. ’S urrainn do na meadhanan urram a thoirt, neo a thoirt air ais, do chànan, is a’ deimhinneachadh gu bheil an cànan ud buntainneach don t-saoghal san latha an-diugh.

Tha cothroman eaconamach a’ nochdadh cuideachd, leis na meadhanan a’ cruthachadh àiteachan-obrach do mhion-chànan leithid Gàidhlig. Faodaidh na meadhanan deagh bhuaidh a thoirt air ionnsachadh le bhith a’ leasachadh ghoireasan, mar eisimpleir am pròiseact SpeakGaelic a chaidh a chur air bhog an-uiridh.

Nan robh e an urra ri companaidhean coimeirsealta a-mhàin, tha deagh theans nach biodh sianal neo stèisean rèidio Gàidhlig ann idir mar eisimpleir.

Tha na prògraman aig a’ BhBC a’ tarraing dhaoine aig nach eil Gàidhlig a-steach, gu tric mar chiad cheum dhaibhsan a tha airson barrachd ionnsachadh mu chànan agus cultar nan Gàidheal. Cha chreid mi gum biodh an aon àireamh de dhaoine a’ tachairt air Gàidhlig anns an aon dòigh nan robh e an urra ri luchd saor-thoileach a-mhàin stuth-mheadhanan Gàidhlig a chruthachadh.

A thuilleadh air a’ BhBC, tha mòran anns an sgìre-phàrlamaid agam fhèin—eadar companaidhean agus daoine ag obair air an ceann fhèin—a bhios a’ dèanamh phrògraman airson a’ BhBC, a’ cur ris na tha ann de sgilean ann an sgìre dhùthchail.

Tha na sgeulachdan aig na Gàidheil a cheart cho cudromach ris na sgeulachdan aig gach sluagh eile ann an Alba. Ach ann an saoghal às aonais seirbheis-craolaidh phoblach, agus prothaid an rud as cudromaiche, cha bhiodh an aon chothrom ann na guthan ud a sgaoileadh air feadh na dùthcha.

Mar sin, ge b’ e ’s a tha Boris Johnson a’ smaoineachadh mu dhèidhinn a’ chuspair seo, tha mise den bheachd gum bu chòir am BBC—no, aon latha, an SBC—a bhith air a dhìon airson an àm ri teachd.

Following is the simultaneous interpretation:

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing the debate to the Parliament today. The BBC is a hugely valuable service and is an important part of the lives of many people in this country.

These days, with fake news and clickbait far too common, including online, it is immensely important that there are still companies that try to be fair, trustworthy and informative in the way that they broadcast the news. Without profit at the heart, there is often more freedom for creativity and for a focus on quality, in programmes that are made by the BBC.

However, the BBC is not without its faults. For example, opinion polls say that the BBC lost much of the trust of the public in Scotland before the 2014 referendum. That was due to their view that the BBC’s coverage of the topic was not completely impartial. Questions have also arisen in recent years about the BBC’s move towards short-term contracts, the high salaries of some of its presenters, and the way in which the elderly lost their free television licences.

However, to put all that to one side, I want to discuss Gaelic media in particular, and how important a public service such as the BBC is to minority languages such as Gaelic and Welsh.

A wealth of academic evidence shows how important the media are for maintaining and developing minority languages. The media can give or restore respect to the language and demonstrate the relevancy of that language to the modern world. It represents economic opportunities, too, with the media creating minority language workplaces, such as for those working in Gaelic. The media can also have a beneficial effect on language learning, by developing resources such as the SpeakGaelic project that was launched last year.

However, if it were up to commercial companies alone, there is a good chance that we would not have a Gaelic channel or radio station at all. Given the number of Gaelic speakers just now, after centuries of suppression, the BBC’s programmes give opportunities to learn more about the language and culture of the Gaels. I doubt that the same number of people would be able to access Gaelic in same way if it were up to volunteers to create media content. In addition to the BBC, there are many in my own constituency—both in companies and as self-employed individuals—who make programmes for the BBC, which adds to the skills base in rural areas.

Presiding Officer, the stories of the Gaels are just as important as those of every other population in Scotland. However, in a world without public service broadcasting, in which profit is the most important thing, there would not be the same opportunity to share those voices across the country. Therefore, in contrast to Boris Johnson, I believe that the BBC—or, one day, the SBC—should be protected for the future.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his opening remarks.

I do not know whether you heard the evidence from the previous panel about the benefit that our international offices provide. There is quite an interest in having more of those offices. What ambitions are there for further countries to benefit from a Scottish presence around the world?

Professor Nolan, you have talked about some of the stresses that the academic sector has faced in coping with events, let us say, post-Brexit. You mentioned the Northern Ireland protocol. Will you give us a picture of how much academic time or university time is being devoted to trying to resolve some of those problems? How are universities coping with that and working together to overcome the problems by trying to recreate things that used to exist or to find new opportunities?

We heard from the previous panel of witnesses that there is an opportunity now to draw together policies and activities in different strands of the Government’s work. That might be cultural activity, economic development and education. In thinking about where future offices might be, do you factor in how those offices could draw together different strands of Government activity and what the universities are saying about where they would like further activity?