Chamber and committees

Do you agree that it is also not really in the long-term interests of the BBC because, fundamentally, it weakens the political argument for sustaining the licence fee and the principle of public service broadcasting altogether?

I put one more question to Frank Gallagher, as someone who has been involved in the “River City” production for a long time now. BBC Scotland decided to take a punt and make “River City”. It took a risk and invested in it and now we are seeing the plug being pulled, without consultation—it was a bombshell announcement. Can I ask about the period in-between? Has the BBC ever come to the production team, or the crew or the cast or anybody involved, and said, “Look, we need to make some changes to make ‘River City’ viable for the long term. What positive changes could we make?” Has it had a conversation at any point about what positive changes—whether that is experimenting with the format, investing in aspects of how the show develops or the way in which it is promoted—might be possible that would give the show a stronger future in the BBC’s eyes?

A very different drama. We have less explosive plot lines, but there we are.

The aspect that I want to talk about is the sense of there being an ecosystem in which there are those first opportunities for people to start their careers. That has been talked about very clearly. The BBC and public service broadcasting used to be the bulk of production because there was nothing else. Now the BBC is a player in a much more diverse market that is dominated, as Paul Fleming and others have been saying, by some of the big streaming services, which will never have a self-interest in investing in that ecosystem. How do we get public service broadcasting—and the way it is funded—to recognise that it still has that on-going responsibility to invest in the ecosystem and the infrastructure rather than just to produce individual bits of content to put out into a market for viewers?

The power does not allow the accessing of data on devices of that kind. Would it allow the seizing or destroying of those devices?

I want to ask about the enforcement provisions. I apologise that I have not yet had time to compare the bill with the 2020 bill as introduced or as passed, but I am interested in the changes that were made to that bill during its passage through Parliament. In particular, there were discussions about the need to protect people against personal searches and searches of their electronic devices, the argument being that the police already have those powers and that, when they exercise them because they suspect that a crime has been committed, they have set procedures and safeguards to protect people. The expansion of those powers to council officers for the purposes of trading and advertising offences could have risked the unnecessary violation of privacy rights.

Has the Government modelled the bill on the 2020 bill as introduced or as passed? Have the changes that were discussed and agreed by Parliament been incorporated into the bill that we are discussing?

Would the power to destroy, albeit that its use would be a last resort, be exercised by council officers, by the police or by both?

We will perhaps need to discuss that in detail as we get into the evidence on the bill.

Mr Kerr talked about the purposes of the protection of monopoly rights, which UEFA and others who organise similar events insist on. They would make the case that those rights are necessary to make the event commercially viable. Mr Kerr, perhaps understandably, talked about the impact on other businesses that might want to compete for that custom. However, there is also a concern about the impact on civil liberties. There have been a number of instances, not just in this country but around the world, where similar legislation has been used not against commercial operators who were trying to rip off a brand, but against messages, protests or expressions that have criticised some of the multi-billion-dollar brands around the world for their ethical behaviour.

Where has the Government sought to draw the line in protecting the brands that UEFA and its partner businesses will be concerned about, but also protecting civil liberties at the level of either organised peaceful protest or, for example, somebody wearing a T-shirt that satirises a brand?

That is helpful. Thank you very much.

Flegs!

Thank you.

The minimum unit pricing example leads on quite well to my final question, which is on the UK Government’s position—or at least, cabinet secretary, your understanding of the UK Government’s position.

As a Green politician, I am well used to having to hold fast to the true vision of what I believe in, while at the same time recognising that there will not be a majority for it and that I will have to compromise and figure out how close I can get to it. I am not going to suggest that you should not advocate for what is in your paper—in fact, I would probably advocate for a lot of what is in it with regard to the architecture that ought to be in place. However, we know that, in reality, the current UK Government seems unlikely to scrap the IMA and might not even make major changes to it.

Therefore, I would like to ask you about your attitude to some of the specific propositions for change that some of our witnesses have talked about. One proposition was for an explicit list of criteria for exemptions. Indeed, if we had had such a list, and if minimum unit pricing had been taking place under the IMA, we would have been able to argue that it aligned with a specific exemption criterion. Another proposition was for a shift in the burden of proof, so that the default expectation would be that devolved legislatures had the right to act, and the UK Government would have to come forward with a sufficient burden of proof if it wanted to constrain that. Those kinds of more modest changes do not go as far as I want—and they will not go as far as you want, either, cabinet secretary—but if they are achievable, what will be the Scottish Government’s attitude to them? Do you think that, politically, they are achievable, given the discussions that you have had so far with UK colleagues?