Chamber and committees

Before we end, I just wanted to broaden out the discussion a little. The subject of the evidence session is Gaza, because the scale of the violence and the collective punishment of the people of Gaza is so severe. Your written briefing, however, also mentions the West Bank, which is obviously connected. As your briefing indicates, there have already been situations where people have had to flee refugee camps in the West Bank, as a result of violence either by illegal settlers or by the occupying power itself, and the political intent that is clear from statements that have been made at the highest level of the Israeli Government is very similar. Those who have expressed explicitly genocidal intent in relation to Palestine make similar comments about all of Palestine, not just Gaza.

Is there an anticipation that the situation and the humanitarian need in the West Bank could reach something comparable to what we have seen in Gaza, if the statements that we have seen from senior members of the Israeli Government become active policy?

Thank you.

Saleh Saeed talked about the need for humanitarian agencies to balance the immediate action that is required with the need for long-term planning over months and even years. How possible is it to do that, when the statements that have come from the Israeli Government at the highest level seem to suggest that its intention is to make the situation far worse?

If you care to respond, I would welcome that.

Good morning, everyone. I put on the record my thanks to the production team for letting me come and visit the set recently with one of my colleagues and for welcoming us there. As Jackie Baillie knows very well, I grew up about 10 minutes’ walk away from where that set is based. When I was growing up and getting involved in am-dram at the Dumbarton People’s Theatre, if I had known that 10 minutes’ walk away there was a place where young people were getting their first opportunity in that career, I might never have bothered the Scottish Parliament. If things had worked out differently, who knows?

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?

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?