Chamber and committees

I hope to speak completely spontaneously. I congratulate Jenni Minto on her motion and thank her for the words of congratulation that she has expressed to the BBC.

November 1963 was, of course, a month of international world significance. The first episode of “Doctor Who” was broadcast, and this four-year-old was, at that time, completely entranced by it, along with—to compete with Mr Dornan—“The Woodentops” and “Blue Peter”. Thereafter, I was absolutely smitten with the BBC, but I was furious the following week when Kennedy’s assassination meant that it repeated the first episode of “Doctor Who” rather than showing the next one, which featured the Daleks, which determined my childhood thereafter.

At that point, I embraced a ritual that I have never broken—every Tuesday since 1963, I have read the Radio Times when it has been published. I bought it just yesterday. It remains an almanac of everything that the BBC does—its complete range of television, radio, the World Service and local radio stations. It has been the cultural tapestry of my life, but we have to recognise that the world has changed.

In 2016, when the Parliament had the BBC in to discuss how many hours of programming were going to be filmed in Scotland, we did not realise that the world was changing underneath our feet with the introduction of streaming. If members look at this week’s Radio Times, they will see that the 10 pages that used to be devoted to film reviews have been axed in favour of 10 pages covering streaming services such as Apple, Disney, Now, BritBox, Paramount, Netflix and Amazon Prime.

It is not about the principle of the licence fee—I support the principle of the licence fee—but the fact of the matter is that an increasing number of people under 35 are not paying it. They are not subscribing any longer because they are happy to watch streaming services instead. Therefore, as a funding model over the next 10 or 20 years, the licence fee will not be a reliable source of income for the BBC. If, as we expect, terrestrial, traditional broadcasting services are to be switched off and all broadcasting will be online, what is the funding model for that? With its brand recognition, the BBC could become one of the world’s most successful international streaming services and compete with every one of the services that I mentioned a moment ago.

However, that does not mean that there does not still need to be a role for public service broadcasting in that, and we must have an intelligent conversation about how, in due course, that will be funded. We want Gaelic television to be promoted but, if that was to be supported by a streaming service, frankly, the number of people watching would not be high enough to generate the income to fund a television channel. We want to know that there will be news reporting and that, having received Government funding to support it, the World Service will still have a role.

However, in an environment where the licence fee will be increasingly irrelevant to younger people—and that younger cohort, who use streaming services and get their media in different ways, will only grow—it is foolish simply to believe that the BBC can survive on a licence fee model alone.

If we look at the ratings for those programmes that I enjoyed, we see that in those days, 20 million people watched BBC programmes every week. I still look at the TV ratings, because I am an anorak for those things, and programmes on terrestrial television are now sometimes at the top of the top 10 with as few as 3.5 million viewers. People are getting their entertainment in different ways. Gone are the days when we would sit down simply to watch the schedule that one broadcaster had laid out for the night, and gone are the days when we would wait from one week to the next to see what would happen in a series. People want to watch the box set and binge on some shows, but stretch others out.

I congratulate the BBC, I am a fan of the BBC and I want the BBC to have a future, but we need to take some of the pejorative, partisan argument out of all of this, and sit down and discuss rationally how we ensure that the BBC is protected as an institution that can provide public service broadcasting on a sustainable funding model into the future. The licence fee might be part of the mix, but there will also have to be something beyond that, if we are to see the BBC prosper and survive.

We will defer closing the petition, Mr Stewart, if you are content, although I think that your analysis is largely correct. It would be interesting to put that question more directly back to the JCVI. Mr Ewing is correct: I do not think that, in all the representations that the JCVI has made, we have a specific explanation of why it is right in one place and wrong in another.

Colleagues might agree with your suggestion. I was minded to close the petition, given the difficulties with the school estate, but I take your point. It may well be that, given the strength of expression from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, it would be useful to see the Scottish Government’s response to that. I still think, however, that it is unlikely that it will choose to err on the side of a national directive, but it is worth seeing that response. Are we content to make that further inquiry?

I am happy that we do so.

Members indicated agreement.

I agree. In fact, although this might be for a later stage in our consideration, I recall having a conversation recently about supermarket chains. One or two supermarkets have actively decided to provide defibrillators on their premises, and one or two have actively decided not to. It will be interesting to hear from the British Heart Foundation and others what the potential barriers are to any of this. Perhaps, through the committee, we will be able to acknowledge the good work of all those who provide them. As you said, Carol, it is certainly an issue that has come up in members’ business debates and in questions in the Chamber, not least because people have had direct experience of a defibrillator making a meaningful difference and leading to a successful outcome for someone who has been subject to an attack.

Okay, are we agreed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

As always when we consider new petitions for the first time, it is important to say to anybody who might be tuning in because we are considering their petition that, prior to our consideration, we do a certain amount of background work in relation to the petition. Often, we seek the Scottish Government’s view, although any position that we might take thereafter is not conditional on that. I assure petitioners that we will have begun the process even before our first consideration in public.

The first of the new petitions is PE1983, lodged by Daniel Osula and calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the transparency and accountability of the Scottish legal system by ensuring that clear information is provided to members of the public about how their case will be considered and that information is made available to members of the public about the processes for making a complaint about court staff.

In the petition’s background information, Mr Osula raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of court staff when cases are being prepared and allocated to judges. He notes that he has pursued complaints about the issue directly with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. In a response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it considers both matters raised by the petition to be operational matters falling under the statutory responsibility of the Scottish Civil Justice Council and the Criminal Courts Rules Council. The Scottish Government also highlights that the operation of the courts is the responsibility of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service under the leadership of its independent board, headed by the most senior judge in Scotland and the head of the Scottish judiciary, the Lord President.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Colleagues, are we content to keep the petition open and to write as recommended by Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

Our final petition is PE1994, which is lodged by Margaret Fagan and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a review of the trial process and the handling of witness evidence in sexual offence cases. Ms Fagan tells us that, while reforms aimed at protecting victims of sexual offences are welcome, changes to the law are, in her view, unduly disadvantaging those accused of committing such offences. She is particularly concerned that evidence gathered by the defence, such as medical reports and witness statements, is being rejected on the grounds that it is irrelevant or inadmissible.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that reforms introduced through the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 amended the restrictions on evidence relating to sexual offences. The reforms were intended to prevent the leading of evidence that is of limited relevance to the particulars of the case or that unduly undermines the credibility of the complainer. The provisions were not intended to increase conviction rates, nor should they infringe on the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Scottish Government response also notes that careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Lady Dorrian review, “Improving the Management of Sexual Offence Cases”, with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislative reform as part of the criminal justice reform bill. As noted in the SPICe briefing, it is anticipated that that bill will be introduced in the spring or summer of the current year.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are we content to proceed on the basis of Mr Torrance’s recommendation? I believe that we are.