Chamber and committees

No, it is not.

Yes, we could ask the Government. I was wondering whether to write to every health board, but that would be quite cumbersome. We could maybe ask the Government whether there is any standard practice on this, identifying the fact that, among the young people who are petitioning us, there is a sense that it is an emerging and growing concern. It may well be that it is something that needs to happen because of a growing number of incidents.

Do we agree to the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Our first—I hope, very easy—decision is whether to take item 4 in private. Are we content to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That is a sympathetic and comprehensive response. Are colleagues agreed that we will write to the petitioner, confirming the information that we have received and the fact that NPF4 has been published, and that we will close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

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 keep the petition open and write to the organisations accordingly.

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.

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.