Chamber and committees

::Basically, the case that you are making, cabinet secretary, is that, just as the UK does not really perceive itself to be a multinational country, the BBC does not perceive itself to be a multinational broadcaster, and that as the culture at the top of the BBC is not to see itself in that way, that filters down to its output at every level. Is that the basic case that you are making?

::That being the case, and acknowledging what you said about your degree of scepticism that Scotland’s voice will be taken account of in processes such as charter renewal, I would still like to have on the record what the Scottish Government’s desired outcome is, even if we are sceptical that it will happen.

When we talk about broadcasting, we still frame it in an out-of-date way, in the way that the Scotland Act 1998 does. That act has a reservation on broadcasting, which covers the Broadcasting Act 1990, the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the BBC. It also has a reservation on, to use the outdated language, “Telecommunications and wireless telegraphy”, which now includes internet services. Some of that has been replaced by the Digital Economy Acts, which were not in place at the time, so were not specifically reserved but are taken to be reserved. It also has a reservation on entertainment, which includes the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the Cinemas Act 1985.

The media landscape that we have now is touched on by a fragmented range of different specific reservations in the Scotland Act 1998. Whatever the outcome of a particular review, are we in danger of still having a fragmented approach to the regulation of the media landscape in the UK as a whole, even if there were a degree of decentralisation of the BBC? In particular, are we missing a trick if we just look at the public service broadcasters in isolation in the way that we did when they were dominant? They are no longer the dominant force in the media landscape. They have to fight against a torrent of dross, artificial intelligence slop, misinformation and conspiracy theory, which will only get worse.

::When the BBC witnesses were—

::And disinformation.

::Good morning. I was starting to think that Stephen Kerr was so close to getting it.

::Just to tie this off, I have a final question. Would you agree with the argument that, although the Scottish Government can—and in my view, should—continue to make the case for decentralisation of the BBC and for a role in the oversight of broadcasting, the opportunity provided by charter renewal also needs to be taken to make a wider case for a reformed and updated approach to the regulation of the media landscape more generally and for a devolved role within that? It is not enough to see broadcasting in isolation.

::Thank you.

::If I can cut through it, the case that you are making, if I understand it rightly, is that structural change towards a more decentralised BBC and a role for the devolved institutions in the oversight of broadcasting would fix the issue, rather than warm words and intent.

::When representatives of the BBC were in front of the committee, they mentioned the steps that the BBC was taking to have a big presence on YouTube, for example, to which you referred. I made the case that that is a concern, and that it is not enough to have some reliable, trustworthy and high-quality regulated content on YouTube if it is simply swilling around in the wider context of conspiracy theories, extremism, lies, anti-science propaganda and what-have-you.

Do you share the concern that that approach is taking public service output that is produced in accordance with a public service broadcasting ethos and simply diluting it in an ocean of unregulated content?

::I am tempted to follow up on the transport policy aspects of the last question, or perhaps to encourage COSLA to look at, rather than just capital, the opportunity to have the power to make decisions about road pricing as a source of revenue generation in the future to meet those needs. Instead, however, I will ask about the spending review—not just what it contains, but how we use it.

For quite a long time, the emphasis has been on single-year budgets, and people have talked about the value that a longer-term look ahead would give us, but we need to be realistic about what the spending review can include. It will never include the level of detail or absolute certainty that some people would wish for. It is a first sketch of the Government’s intentions or expectations with regard to its spending plans. However, what I do not get from the 2026 spending review is a sense of how the Government will apply priorities if it finds that it has more or less slack in its budget in the years that the spending review period covers. For example, will it choose to prioritise preventative spending, real-terms pay settlements or the needs of a sector that has been constrained, such as local government? I do not get a sense of what those priorities will be as things change.

Do any of the witnesses have any comments to make about the extent to which we can realistically expect to enable democratic debate and scrutiny on the setting of those priorities, and on the deprioritisation that has to come with such prioritisation, as opposed to just going back to the pattern of receiving each year’s budget and reacting to it?