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?

First, I apologise to Christine Grahame. If I had realised that she was moving on to make the point that I was trying to make, I would not have interrupted her, but I have to say that she made the point extremely well.

The challenge that we have to address, as pro-Europeans, is to acknowledge that being pro-European is not to be uncritical of the EU institutions. In fact, if I have one major criticism of the campaign to remain in the EU nine years ago, it is that it was not willing enough to say that Europe could change and do better, whether on international issues, climate, equalities or anything else. It should have been willing to talk about how Europe could and should change to address people’s priorities.

That also relates to some of the points that George Adam made about the impact on communities that feel that they are being poorly served. There is a reason why “Take back control” was a powerful slogan. It was a profoundly dishonest slogan. If the 2014 independence campaign had rested on something as simplistic as a three-word slogan such as, “Take back control”, I would not have taken part because it would have been so simplistic and dishonest. However, the idea of taking back control was politically powerful because so many people do not feel that they have control.

That is a domestic matter—it is about the structure of the UK state and the funding of public services, in Scotland as well as in the rest of the UK; it is not the European Union that is responsible for that feeling of a lack of control. It is also to do with the power—the unaccountable power—of private interests and the privatisation of what should be democratically accountable power in our society.

I will come to some of the points that the Scottish Government has been making about the negotiating position that it wants the UK Government to strike in the upcoming summit. I agree that there would be opportunities to at least ameliorate some of the damage of Brexit with an agreement on veterinary and food and drink arrangements and high regulatory standards as well as on climate and energy. In recent weeks, we have debated net zero—from a more sceptical position in the case of the Conservatives—and we have debated hydrogen, for example. There is a clear sense that, although many of us are pointing out the shortcomings of using hydrogen in certain parts of our economy, there is a general consensus that green hydrogen can play a significant part in our wider decarbonisation and in export, and that there are other European countries that could see Scotland as a source of green hydrogen, which would also benefit our economy.

However, we need to work together with those European countries to achieve that as well as on issues such as high-voltage direct-current interconnection with Europe for electricity and the skills that are needed for net zero, including building decarbonisation. Many European countries are decades ahead of Scotland on building decarbonisation, so there is a great deal to learn from them, and we should certainly be doing more to work with Europe on that agenda.

However, I also want to question the idea of a reset. I genuinely hope that the UK Government has a reset with Europe in mind. It has used the same language in relation to a reset with the devolved Governments in the various parts of the UK. I do not see that yet; I do not yet see the flesh on the bones of either a reset with Europe or a reset with devolution. I hope that that emerges, but, really, months and months into the new UK Administration, we should be seeing a little more detail by now.

Youth mobility should absolutely be one of the UK Government’s key priorities, and it should be seen as a step towards wider free movement. I echo Elena Whitham’s point that, in this week’s furore around the UK Government’s announcements on migration, the portrayal of care work as low skilled and therefore of low value in the broadest sense is deeply offensive and harmful to those whose dedication was being applauded on doorsteps right across the country just a few years ago, as health and social care workers kept going during the pandemic.

Quite apart from the rhetoric on “strangers”, which I found uncomfortable—given Paul Sweeney’s response, I think that he did, too, even if he might use more diplomatic language to criticise it than I would—is the idea that a UK Prime Minister is openly promoting the far-right conspiracy theory that there has been an open borders experiment in the UK. I know that in the chamber we are expected not to accuse anyone of lying, so I will try not to do that. However, it stretches the power of euphemism to describe accurately the nature of that claim. If there had been such an experiment in the UK, there would have been no dawn raids and no detention centres, the people of Kenmure Street would not have had to fill it to defend their neighbours from immigration enforcement action, and the bodies of children would never have washed up on the shores of the Channel. It is a falsehood to say that there has been such an experiment, and I think that Sir Keir Starmer knows it.

My final point is on the notion that we should not be debating reserved issues. The Conservatives play that card when they like, but not on other occasions, such as during yesterday’s debate, in which Mr Kerr spoke on a Tory motion that was mostly about such issues. I was happy to debate that motion and explain why it was wrong, but it was largely about reserved issues such as oil and gas licensing, and a great deal more besides.

In truth, the split between devolved and reserved issues has never been a precise one, and it is less so now than it was when the Scottish Parliament was created. In much of our relationship with Europe, we see aspects that affect both types. Therefore, acting in the spirit of collaboration and openness and developing shared positions across the Governments of the UK, which the cabinet secretary was calling for, are all the more important.

However, the UK Government is not doing that. I hope to goodness that it will change its attitude and take a more collaborative, open and democratic approach to negotiating with our European Union partners and to achieving a restoration in our relationship with them. If it will not, I come back to where I ended my earlier remarks. If the UK Government will not behave in that way, Scotland will have to take to itself the powers to restore its relationship with Europe and make those decisions in a democratically accountable way.

This week, Glasgow’s Pride announced that, in line with major pride events in England, political parties are no longer welcome to participate. That never happened even in the worst days of political homophobia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a direct result of political attacks on the rights of LGBTQ+ people, especially in relation to transphobia.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that the political landscape as a whole has betrayed the trust of our community? Does he understand that there are Scottish Government employees who are currently living in fear that their workplaces will be subject to segregation policies, as has already happened in Parliament? What does the First Minister intend to do to begin restoring the trust that has been lost?

Will the member accept an intervention?

I am strongly pro-Europe, as I have made clear, but does Christine Grahame agree that this is an area in which the European Union has failed? It took a strong position on sanctions against Russia following the occupation of Ukraine, but the same strong position should have been taken against the occupation of Palestine and has not been.

I agree with the sentiment that the cabinet secretary expresses, but does he agree that that sentiment would be given fuller expression if the UK and the EU were to agree that Russian fossil fuel trading must be included in the sanctions regime? A company that is based in Glasgow is still making a profit from trading in Russian liquefied natural gas, which is within the rules of the current sanctions regime. Surely such a lethal business should be added to the sanctions.

I may be mistaken, but I do not recall Mr Bibby voting against the business motion when Parliament agreed that we should have this debate.

If Mr Bibby wants to use the debate to criticise others for inconsistency with a position from decades ago, can he explain why Labour’s position now is inconsistent with the position that it was arguing less than one decade ago, which was that Brexit would be a catastrophic decision for the United Kingdom to make?