Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022

Official Report 1011KB pdf

---

The BBC (Funding)

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-02995, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, on the future of the BBC. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. As ever, I would appreciate it if members who wish to participate could press their request-to-speak buttons now, or as soon as possible, or place an R in the chat function.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the uncertainty around the future funding model of the BBC, following recent UK Government remarks; understands that the people of Edinburgh Western value the content and output of the Corporation, from educational resources to local radio, and what it sees as ground-breaking television production; recognises that the BBC employs over 1,200 people in Scotland, and notes the view that the principle of public service broadcasting should be defended.

17:12  

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion in my name. From David Attenborough to “Doctor Who”, from “Strictly Come Dancing” to CBBC and from Radio 1 to Radio Shetland, the BBC is a national institution of unparalleled quality that is respected in the United Kingdom and far beyond our shores for the scope and calibre of its journalism. The corporation was founded in 1922 with the stated aim to

“act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain”.

The BBC has been respected throughout its history for its content and probity. In the darkest days of Nazi occupation, refugees and resistance fighters across Europe would huddle around radio sets to listen to the voices of hope being broadcast from London. Hitler feared those voices. In the 1980s, images of famine in Ethiopia were first transmitted on the 6 o’clock news, sparking country-wide philanthropy that continues to this day.

It is important to acknowledge what has prompted the debate. The BBC has long been in the crosshairs of people at both ends of the political spectrum. The attacks on its independence and impartiality are commonplace, largely from people who just do not like, or would rather mask, the truth as the BBC finds it.

There is usually a rhythm to those attacks but, last month, while Westminster boiled with scandal and intrigue, seemingly out of the blue, the UK Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Nadine Dorries, announced that the BBC’s funding would be frozen for two years while the Government undertook a review into its funding structure. She suggested that the licence fee would be scrapped by 2027. It is abundantly clear that Boris Johnson’s latest assault on the BBC is the action of a Government in disarray, trying to dissemble and distract attention away from its transgressions, incompetence and disunity. That is a wholly cynical gambit, and it will be remembered for what it is.

I put on record my respect for and gratitude to Conservative members of this Parliament who have already distanced themselves, and will do so tonight, from both the Prime Minister and his culture secretary. It is no wonder that Boris Johnson wants rid of the BBC—of course he does. He represents exactly the type of entitled politician who feels affronted whenever anyone dares to hold him to account or challenge his version of the truth. His Administration’s attempt to undermine the broadcaster demonstrates precisely the purpose that it serves and why we need to protect it.

Nadine Dorries has claimed that freezing the licence fee would help with the soaring cost of living, but it would save families only a little more than £6 per year. That can be contrasted with the Prime Minister’s increase to national insurance, which will cost the average worker an extra £225 per year. The UK Government must think that we button up the back.

Let us be clear: without the licence fee, the BBC would be hobbled in its ability to produce fair, unbiased and challenging content, free from the interference of advertisers, shareholders and political interests. Removing public funds would begin the slow and steady march towards the privatisation of our national broadcaster.

Nearly 90 per cent of all UK adults tune into some of the BBC’s services at least once a week, and it is not hard to see why. It is because it caters to all tastes, viewpoints and demographics, and it more than earns its fee. We should not forget that it is also an employer—in Scotland alone, it employs more than 1,250 employees, some of whom work in this very building; they are our colleagues and our friends. We might not always like the BBC’s reporting, and we might cringe at softball questions or the way that different presenters frame particular events, but in the main, and across the board, the depth and scrutiny that it provides in its reporting is world class and second to none.

Indeed, the controversies with which the BBC has been associated in the past stem from its fearless desire to get to the truth and to hold those in power to account. The 4,000 people who marched on the BBC headquarters in 2014 to demand Nick Robinson’s dismissal did so because he dared to challenge Alex Salmond on the facts during the independence referendum campaign. The antipathy from nationalist quarters continues—only last year, a number of Scottish National Party MPs threatened to boycott paying the licence fee after making a list of demands, which included scrapping the fee in Scotland. We can tell the measure of an organisation by the enemies that it keeps. [Interruption.]

I was just about to congratulate some of the SNP members in the chamber—if they give me the time to do so, I will. I recognise that there is cross-party support for the BBC, and I am grateful to SNP members including Ruth Maguire and Bill Kidd for backing the motion.

We must remember that the BBC’s scope extends far beyond politics and beyond these islands. It plays an important role as an educator, and that has never been more important than it was during the months of lockdown. The BBC produces enlightening and challenging drama, and it provides countless radio stations up and down the country that give light to local issues in a way that would not happen otherwise.

There is room for improvement and for reform of the BBC—of course there is—but I ask members to show me an institution where that is not the case. We must remember and acknowledge that the BBC has a unique role, which only it can fulfil, in shining a light on what unites us and what we hold in common. It provides the glue that binds so many of us—people up and down the country—together, providing content that resonates widely, regardless of one’s background or geographical location. It informs us, makes us laugh and entertains us, and sometimes it brings us together in times of national mourning. Who could forget the countless national moments that it has covered, such as its poignant marking of the 75th anniversary of victory in Europe day during the first lockdown, when the BBC’s programming managed to provide a sense of togetherness amid unprecedented isolation?

It is during those times of important reflection, celebration or sadness—the times when we need to come together to commemorate or mourn, or simply to enjoy ourselves—that we turn to, and turn on, the BBC. It is a national beacon of togetherness that has stood the test of time. The question is: do we truly understand the importance of the service that it provides to us, and do we value it enough to preserve it? In a world where fact-based reporting and the very notion of truth itself are under threat, we diminish the BBC, and the principle of public service broadcasting, at our peril. If we lose it now, we will regret it for ever.

17:19  

As a former employee of BBC Scotland I welcome the motion and congratulate Alex Cole-Hamilton on securing the debate.

The proposal to freeze the licence fee for the next two years, followed by inflationary rises until 2028 and then, possibly, abolition, has been described as cultural vandalism by some commentators.

I grew up watching “Swap Shop” and “Grange Hill” and listening to Radio 1 and “Sportsound”. Then, in the early 1990s, I joined BBC Scotland. My role was behind the camera or microphone. I worked with talented programme makers across the television and radio spectrum and across every programme genre on output that fell very much under the public sector remit: Gaelic broadcasting, Radio Scotland, education and the BBC Scottish symphony orchestra. I support the principle of public service broadcasting. It should be defended, but that does not mean that it should not be improved.

In its charter, the BBC has a public purpose to invest in the creative economies of the UK’s nations and regions. However, there is no requirement that the BBC invests to the same extent in each of the UK nations or regions. Analysis of the past five years of the BBC’s annual reports—members can tell that I was an accountant—shows how much of the licence fee is raised and spent in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. Between 90 per cent and more than 100 per cent of what is raised in Wales is spent in Wales. In Northern Ireland, the figure is between 84 and 97 per cent. However, in Scotland, it is 67 to 75 per cent.

Scotland is consistently being short-changed. That is important, because an independent report from KPMG calculated that every £1 that is spent by the BBC generates £2.63 in the wider creative economy. In 2020-21, £101 million of the licence fee raised in Scotland was spent by the BBC elsewhere in the UK. That is a £265 million loss to Scotland’s creative economy.

I ask members to imagine all the stories that could have been told from the Scottish perspective, to think about all the young people of Scotland who could have been on traineeships to work in the industry, and to picture how the lives and talent of those of us who live here could better have been reflected on screen and on the airwaves. BBC Scotland news has only one journalist based in my constituency, covering 22 inhabited islands, miles of coastline and five county towns, in English and Gaelic. Yes, that is value for money but, with lots of renewable energy, fantastic food and drink and amazing communities, Argyll and Bute has many stories that it could tell.

I want to see and hear Scotland better represented on television and radio at local and network levels, but we face the danger of things getting worse. Tory attacks on the BBC are nothing new. Before Nadine Dorries’s announcement, the previous three culture secretaries had raised the question whether public sector broadcasting and the licence fee were fit for purpose. The Tories have form in opposing the BBC and the very spirit of public service broadcasting.

Scottish ministers are supposed to have a role in any review of the BBC’s charter. The provocative statements from the UK culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, on the future of the BBC had no input from devolved nations. That demonstrates a complete lack of interest in devolved views on public service broadcasting. Although the debate is about the BBC, I say to the UK Government that it should keep its hands off Channel 4, too.

There is, of course, a solution to any Westminster attempt to diminish public service broadcasting for Scotland: let us cherish the ethos of it and enshrine it in an independent Scottish broadcasting service for an independent Scotland.

17:24  

As I have advised the Deputy Presiding Officer, with his permission, I might have to leave the debate early, depending on its length.

I am grateful to Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing the debate to the Parliament. There are some constitutional issues, but I hope to skirt around them, because it is important that we have a sensible and level-headed debate about how we fund the BBC and ensure that it can continue to produce high-quality output that meets the values of its consumers. I record the Scottish Conservatives’ support for the BBC as an institution, an employer and a creator and broadcaster, with news, entertainment, drama and sports, to mention but a few items.

I too have had personal experience—I worked for the BBC bureau in Washington DC after I left university. It was a lowly role, but I saw at first hand the professionalism of the BBC’s journalists.

We want to see the BBC thrive for another 100 years, as it has done in the preceding 100 years. It delivers exceptional content to UK audiences, but its global presence is significant too, in particular through the World Service. Similarly, BBC-led initiatives such as “BBC Music Introducing” have launched the careers of many young and undiscovered musicians, and BBC Radio Scotland’s young traditional musician of the year 2022 competition shines a light on all the talent that exists across Scotland beyond the mainstream music sector.

With regard to the Highlands and Islands, I have spoken on numerous occasions about the important work of BBC Alba and BBC Radio nan Gàidheal in promoting the Gaelic language and culture to audiences in and beyond the Gàidhealtachd, especially in the context of the support that Governments of the Conservative stripe provided for developing Gaelic-language media in the 1980s and 1990s.

Does Donald Cameron recognise that in our region, the Highlands and Islands, the BBC plays a particular role in supporting local radio? Stations such as BBC Radio Orkney and Radio Shetland play a role in supporting communities, providing local news and promoting local groups.

I am glad that you took that intervention, Mr Cameron.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have fond memories of being interviewed in the BBC Radio Orkney studios when I was once a candidate in Orkney, and Jamie Halcro Johnston is right to acknowledge the BBC’s role in that regard.

Nonetheless, we have to recognise that the way in which people consume media and news has changed radically since 1922, in particular during the past decade. On-demand and streaming services have grown exponentially, alongside thousands of media and news websites that people can access online at any time. That is why it is right to consider the model by which we fund the BBC, and the costs to the consumer that we attach to that model. I note, and understand, the decision to freeze the licence fee for two years until 1 April 2024, and to have it rise with inflation thereafter. We need to have a serious debate about the model that supports and funds the BBC in the future, and nothing is set in aspic.

At present, people are required to pay for a TV licence even if they do not consume BBC content. That means that a person who watches only live football on Sky Sports, for example, has to pay not only for their Sky subscription but for a TV licence, which funds a broadcaster whose content they might never watch. That model was created for an era in which the BBC was the only channel and radio broadcaster in town. There are now thousands of options for people to choose from, and we have to acknowledge that there are different funding options on the table. They include a subscription service, funding the BBC directly from Government, allowing the BBC to carry advertising to reduce its dependency on the licence fee, and the status quo.

I have not personally reached a clear view as to which of those options, including the existing model, provides the best value for money, but, given that we are discussing taxpayers’ funds, they should all be debated properly rather than being dismissed completely. I want the BBC to have another 100 years—and more—of delivering high-quality content, media and news, but we need to have a proper debate about how it can meet those needs in a landscape that is radically altered from when it was founded.

Before I call Sarah Boyack, I advise members that the speaker after Ms Boyack will be Alasdair Allan, who is not only joining us remotely but will deliver his speech in Gaelic. Members should find headphones on their desks—I will advise on how to use them and how to access the English translation.

17:09  

I, too, thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing the debate, which is timely. The BBC ensures that we all have access to high-quality broadcasting, whether through our TVs, on our radios or, increasingly, on our phones or online. In response to Donald Cameron, I say: yes, the world is changing, but that makes the BBC more important than ever.

The BBC ensures that we have fantastic opportunities to access top-quality programming and diverse TV, film, news and web content, and it represents the best of what we in this country can create. It also provides the World Service, which is about not just the international soft power of the BBC, with its reputation for reliability and impartiality, but what we all can access around the globe.

The BBC is important to each and every part of the UK, particularly for us, with BBC Scotland, Radio Scotland, Radio nan Gàidheal and BBC Alba. It goes further into our communities, however, with regional news and programming and local radio stations for Orkney and Shetland and opt-out local news bulletins for the north-east, the Highlands and Islands, the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway.

There is targeted programming for people across the UK, wherever they live, on TV and radio, in Welsh and in Gaelic, and through the BBC Asian Network, which gives people access and accessibility that they did not previously have. There has also been innovation with podcasts, sports and weather coverage, and even free recipes written by experts. That is all available at our fingertips for 44p a day.

I want to reiterate some of the points that were made by Alex Cole-Hamilton. We have about 1,300 specialist jobs in media and production, developing Scottish talent with comedies such as “Scot Squad”, soaps such as “River City”, and dramas such as “Shetland” and, most recently, “Vigil”. There has also been a fantastic range of documentaries.

I hope that colleagues will agree that we need to do everything that we can to support the current model of the BBC. I am not saying that it is perfect—no organisation is—but let us not put at risk the quality and range of productions and programmes to score cheap points in tabloid papers. That is not acceptable. Access to public broadcasting is part of who we are, and knowing that we can rely on the news for accuracy and fairness is a critical part of our democracy. Whoever is in government will have moments of unhappiness. It is the nature of the work of a public broadcaster to ask difficult questions of ministers and Governments.

The Tory proposals are not about the public interest; they are about pandering to right-wing Tory MPs, who regard the BBC as being too liberal. To respond to the points that Donald Cameron made, I say that that is not where Nadine Dorries is coming from, with her real-terms cut of £3.2 billion to the BBC and her suggestion that the universal licence fee could be abolished by 2027, with no clarity on what it would be replaced by. Who would pay for the World Service, for example? It is a critical part of us.

I hope that we can work across the chamber. I know that SNP colleagues have critiques to make, and the BBC is not perfect, but let us keep the BBC and think about how it can be improved and how it can be better. Labour supports impartial public broadcasting, even when it is critical of us, because we live in a democracy. Politicians and political parties should not be above criticism, not just here but in countries across the world, which rely on the BBC for impartial journalism. That is why the World Service is so important.

I reiterate that we are not against change or innovation. We have a system of accountability in the UK, and let us consider how to improve it, but we get rid of the BBC at our peril. The proposed privatisation of Channel 4 also undermines broadcasting. I agree with Jenni Minto on what she said in her speech about “cultural vandalism”.

The BBC is incredible value for money—£159 for a licence fee that lasts a year. We should think about the different subscriptions that we would have to pay to get what we currently get from the BBC: that would cost a lot more, we would lose out on investment in our music and in our creative sectors, and we would lose out on jobs and innovation. Just this year, the award-winning BBC Three is back—something that young people want. Let us not put all of that at risk. The BBC needs universal funding.

I will now call Alasdair Allan, who will be followed by Mark Ruskell. As advised earlier, if members wish to listen to the English interpretation, they can plug in their headphones either side of the console. You have the touch-screen option of pressing “Menu” and then “Select audio”. You should select channel 1, and you should then be able to hear the interpreting.

17:34  

Taing do dh’Ailig Cole-Hamilton airson an deasbad seo a thoirt dhan Phàrlamaid an-diugh.

’S e seirbheis air leth luachmhor a tha anns a’ BhBC, agus tha e na phàirt chudromach den bheatha aig iomadach duine san dùthaich seo.

Le naidheachd brèige agus clioc-glacach fada ro chumanta air-loidhne san latha an-diugh, tha e fìor chudromach gu bheil companaidhean fhathast ann a tha a’ feuchainn ri bhith cothromach, urrasach agus fiosrachail a thaobh nan naidheachdan a bhios iad a’ sgaoileadh don phoball.

Gun phrothaid mar chnag na cùise, gu tric tha barrachd saorsa ann airson cruthachas anns na prògraman a thèid a dhèanamh leis a’ BhBC.

Chan eil am BBC idir gun mura-bhith ge-tà. Tha cunntasan beachd ag ràdh, mar eisimpleir, gun do chaill am BBC an earbsa aig deagh chuid den phoball ann an Alba ron reifreann ann an 2014. Bha seo air sgàth ’s nach robh na daoine sin den bheachd gun robh craoladh a’ BhBC uile gu lèir neo-phàirteach air a’ chuspair.

Tha ceistean cuideachd air nochdadh o chionn ghoirid mu chùmhnantan geàrr-ùine a’ BhBC, na tuarastalan àrda aig diofar phreasantairean, agus mar a chaill seann-daoine na ceadaichean telebhisein saor an-asgaidh aca.

Ach, a’ cur nan rudan sin dhan dàrna taobh, tha mi airson beachdachadh airson greiseag air na meadhanan Gàidhlig gu sònraichte, agus cho cudromach ’s a tha seirbhis phoblach leithid a’ BhBC do mhion-chànain mar Ghàidhlig agus Cuimris.

Tha pailteas fianais acadaimigeach a’ sealltainn cho cudromach ’s a tha na meadhanan airson mion-chànain a ghlèidheadh agus a leasachadh. ’S urrainn do na meadhanan urram a thoirt, neo a thoirt air ais, do chànan, is a’ deimhinneachadh gu bheil an cànan ud buntainneach don t-saoghal san latha an-diugh.

Tha cothroman eaconamach a’ nochdadh cuideachd, leis na meadhanan a’ cruthachadh àiteachan-obrach do mhion-chànan leithid Gàidhlig. Faodaidh na meadhanan deagh bhuaidh a thoirt air ionnsachadh le bhith a’ leasachadh ghoireasan, mar eisimpleir am pròiseact SpeakGaelic a chaidh a chur air bhog an-uiridh.

Nan robh e an urra ri companaidhean coimeirsealta a-mhàin, tha deagh theans nach biodh sianal neo stèisean rèidio Gàidhlig ann idir mar eisimpleir.

Tha na prògraman aig a’ BhBC a’ tarraing dhaoine aig nach eil Gàidhlig a-steach, gu tric mar chiad cheum dhaibhsan a tha airson barrachd ionnsachadh mu chànan agus cultar nan Gàidheal. Cha chreid mi gum biodh an aon àireamh de dhaoine a’ tachairt air Gàidhlig anns an aon dòigh nan robh e an urra ri luchd saor-thoileach a-mhàin stuth-mheadhanan Gàidhlig a chruthachadh.

A thuilleadh air a’ BhBC, tha mòran anns an sgìre-phàrlamaid agam fhèin—eadar companaidhean agus daoine ag obair air an ceann fhèin—a bhios a’ dèanamh phrògraman airson a’ BhBC, a’ cur ris na tha ann de sgilean ann an sgìre dhùthchail.

Tha na sgeulachdan aig na Gàidheil a cheart cho cudromach ris na sgeulachdan aig gach sluagh eile ann an Alba. Ach ann an saoghal às aonais seirbheis-craolaidh phoblach, agus prothaid an rud as cudromaiche, cha bhiodh an aon chothrom ann na guthan ud a sgaoileadh air feadh na dùthcha.

Mar sin, ge b’ e ’s a tha Boris Johnson a’ smaoineachadh mu dhèidhinn a’ chuspair seo, tha mise den bheachd gum bu chòir am BBC—no, aon latha, an SBC—a bhith air a dhìon airson an àm ri teachd.

Following is the simultaneous interpretation:

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing the debate to the Parliament today. The BBC is a hugely valuable service and is an important part of the lives of many people in this country.

These days, with fake news and clickbait far too common, including online, it is immensely important that there are still companies that try to be fair, trustworthy and informative in the way that they broadcast the news. Without profit at the heart, there is often more freedom for creativity and for a focus on quality, in programmes that are made by the BBC.

However, the BBC is not without its faults. For example, opinion polls say that the BBC lost much of the trust of the public in Scotland before the 2014 referendum. That was due to their view that the BBC’s coverage of the topic was not completely impartial. Questions have also arisen in recent years about the BBC’s move towards short-term contracts, the high salaries of some of its presenters, and the way in which the elderly lost their free television licences.

However, to put all that to one side, I want to discuss Gaelic media in particular, and how important a public service such as the BBC is to minority languages such as Gaelic and Welsh.

A wealth of academic evidence shows how important the media are for maintaining and developing minority languages. The media can give or restore respect to the language and demonstrate the relevancy of that language to the modern world. It represents economic opportunities, too, with the media creating minority language workplaces, such as for those working in Gaelic. The media can also have a beneficial effect on language learning, by developing resources such as the SpeakGaelic project that was launched last year.

However, if it were up to commercial companies alone, there is a good chance that we would not have a Gaelic channel or radio station at all. Given the number of Gaelic speakers just now, after centuries of suppression, the BBC’s programmes give opportunities to learn more about the language and culture of the Gaels. I doubt that the same number of people would be able to access Gaelic in same way if it were up to volunteers to create media content. In addition to the BBC, there are many in my own constituency—both in companies and as self-employed individuals—who make programmes for the BBC, which adds to the skills base in rural areas.

Presiding Officer, the stories of the Gaels are just as important as those of every other population in Scotland. However, in a world without public service broadcasting, in which profit is the most important thing, there would not be the same opportunity to share those voices across the country. Therefore, in contrast to Boris Johnson, I believe that the BBC—or, one day, the SBC—should be protected for the future.

17:38  

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for raising the topic for debate. The debate has shown that although, perhaps, we have different perspectives about the governance of the BBC, we all care deeply about what it represents and, as Jenni Minto said, we need to do everything that we can to prevent the cultural vandalism that will occur if we continue to see a drive towards privatisation and a cut in funding to the BBC.

Clearly, Nadine Dorries wants to grab the headlines, having announced on Twitter that the licence fee will first be frozen and then scrapped in 2027. Of course, Rishi Sunak later forced her to retract that statement about scrapping the fee. However, I think that that does not matter to the Westminster Government, because it is all about building a populist distraction and diversion from the chaos at number 10.

The two-year freeze of the licence fee is one of the worst settlements in decades for the BBC and constitutes a real-terms cut. Richard Sharp, the BBC chair, described the deal as

“disappointing ... for Licence Fee payers, but also for the cultural industries ... across the UK”.

He noted that

“The BBC’s income for UK services is already 30 percent lower in real terms than it was 10 years ago”

and that the settlement would necessitate tougher choices.

It is not yet clear what those choices will be. Will they mean that valued channels such as BBC Four are scrapped? Will they lead to significant staff cuts or a retreat from certain types of programming? We have yet to find out. It has been estimated that the decision will create a shortfall of £871 million by 2027, which will add to the pressure of the two licence fee settlements that there have already been since 2010.

An increase in the licence fee in line with inflation would have added only roughly £10 per household per year. I ask members to contrast that with the average energy cost, which will increase by nearly £700 in April. Let us not pretend for one minute that the decision to freeze the licence fee is a serious attempt by the Westminster Government to control the cost of living for hard-pressed households. It is, instead, an ideological attack on a trusted institution.

Perhaps we finally stop taking the BBC’s most valued output for granted when it is at its most threatened. When BBC Radio 6 Music was threatened with the axe in 2010, it led to a huge campaign from ordinary listeners and stars such as David Bowie who valued what the station was doing to provide a wide platform to nurture new musical talent, directly building on John Peel’s inspiring legacy at the BBC.

It is also important that the BBC builds on its respected Scottish output. We have already heard about the impact of its Gaelic broadcasting and the local services that are needed by communities, which Jenni Minto and Dr Allan mentioned. The memorandum of understanding between Screen Scotland and the BBC should continue to strengthen studio-based production and develop our home-grown output but, when it is set against a declining licence fee, we must ensure that staffing, production and commissioning are retained in Scotland rather than leaking down to London. In the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, we have heard concerns that that drain down to London is already starting to happen.

Members have spoken about the corporation’s news output as a critical public service. The UK Government itself has hailed the BBC as being the most trusted broadcaster worldwide. According to the BBC’s latest annual report, eight out of 10 British adults continue to use at least one of its news services every week and it is rated as trustworthy by the majority of the population.

In a populist world where trust is in short supply, where fake news grows exponentially across social media and where propaganda machines such as Russia Today stalk the airways, a reputable public sector broadcaster is needed more than ever. As Brexit Britain looks inward on itself, it is more important than ever that the BBC reaches out to the world. That means that we must protect its funding and build, rather than dismantle, its legacy.

17:42  

I congratulate Alex Cole-Hamilton on securing the debate, particularly as this is the centenary year of the BBC, which first broadcast on 14 November 1922. Although that is before my time, I predate television. My early childhood involved gathering around the family wireless—that is the radio, to members—listening to “Dan Dare”, “Life with the Lyons” and “Two-Way Family Favourites”. Somewhere out there, somebody remembers them. My mother would recount how she listened to Winston Churchill’s broadcast that said

“We shall fight on the beaches”,

which resonated through family homes throughout the country. The radio was the communicator by the fire. It was the entertainer and educator, and it still is.

TV came into our home in 1952, with a screen that was no bigger than that of my Surface encased in a clumsy large wooden structure. It was black and white TV with received pronunciation Queen’s English and newsreaders in evening dress, and broadcasts were for a few hours a day. We invited neighbours in to watch, with the accompaniment of Shippam’s paste sandwiches and the luxury of a glass of lemonade.

In later years, the BBC pioneered “Play for Today”, in which upcoming writers could exercise their literary muscles with a 30-minute slot. That is where Dennis Potter cut his teeth and progressed to writing the absolutely magnificent TV miniseries “The Singing Detective”.

The BBC has produced the most extraordinary drama documentaries, such as “Cathy Come Home” by Ken Loach, which led to the establishing of Shelter and was the beginning for a renowned director. It has produced period adaptations, such as “Pride and Prejudice”. Such productions make lots of money for it. It has produced documentaries such as “Natural World”. Its current production “The Green Planet”, which is narrated by David Attenborough, educates and engages. That was preceded by documentaries such as “Civilisation” by Kenneth Clark in the 1960s. Those are just a few examples. I also highlight the BBC World Service, which others have mentioned.

There are too many game shows on some BBC channels, so I switch to BBC Four and Channel 4. I also listen to BBC Radio 4, where people can find short dramas that are missed from television now. I listen to the “Last Word”, to political satire and even, I confess, to “The Archers”.

To be frank, sometimes, the BBC appears to be close to the establishment. Only now is it beginning to respond to the fact that we have devolution, because Covid has meant that it has had to distinguish between legislation in England and that in the other nations. That has been some time coming. However, the BBC is a public service, whose accountability is important and precious and must not be eroded.

I suggest that the BBC should reintroduce the sponsoring of new writers and documentary makers. That should not be through—heaven forfend—another competition or game show, which I am fed up to the back teeth with, but by giving them space to exhibit and develop their skills. The investment in that should be fairly distributed across the four nations. The licence fee should be invested in that way. That will pay back not only in quality but in returns, as the BBC sells the developed products abroad. Such creators can contribute to the public service. However, they are missing now, which they were not in previous decades.

I hope that somebody from the BBC is listening to my plea for support for writers and documentary makers. They might make mistakes in their 30-minute slot, but we can remember what came from Dennis Potter and Ken Loach’s programmes.

17:46  

I want to say how much I enjoyed Christine Grahame’s speech. I hope that she has discovered the joy of BBC Radio 4 Extra, where she will find many of the programmes from yesteryear that she mentioned.

I, too, thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing this important debate. It is because the BBC is one of Britain’s finest institutions that the United Kingdom Government has a responsibility not only to protect the BBC but to create the conditions so that it can prosper.

One of the BBC’s greatest strengths is that it adds to the United Kingdom’s global soft power. By broadcasting British art, culture and news around the world, the BBC helps the UK to punch above our weight on the world stage. The BBC also adds to the lives of people across these islands through educating, entertaining or informing.

When discussing the BBC’s future, we must seek to preserve such benefits. Such is the reputation and standing of BBC output around the world that the BBC should be looking to the future with confidence. However, like all institutions, it is absolutely right for the BBC to take time—especially on the auspicious occasion of its centenary—to make a strategic check and to adjust so that it is in the best possible place to continue to be the global broadcast leader. To do otherwise would be an act of gross negligence.

If the BBC does not adapt to the 21st century, rather than being a world-leading public service broadcaster, it will run the risk of being outpaced by the rapid change that is happening all around us and of being consigned to the past. As a Conservative who wants to defend great British institutions, I do not want that to happen.

Does the member agree that such consideration should take place when the charter comes up for renewal? That would mean that, between charter renewals, the BBC had confidence about what its financial future held.

I understand the point that my friend makes. However, the centenary provides us with a welcome opportunity not only to celebrate the 100-year history of the BBC, which many members have touched on, but to talk about how it gets through the next century.

In 2017, data showed that almost a third of all female convictions were because of a failure to pay the TV licence fee and that women were almost 10 times more likely to be convicted for not paying than men were. Surely nobody in the chamber believes that it is right to criminalise people for not paying a TV licence.

In 2018, James Purnell, director of strategy and digital and a former director of radio at the BBC, said that streaming services were “an existential threat” to the BBC. Although the focus on streaming services tends to be on Netflix and Prime, Purnell also stressed that young people are more likely to listen to podcasts and Spotify than to BBC radio.

With the massive expansion of online streaming services, I fear that the BBC licence fee is putting young people off the BBC. If the BBC is to survive, it must attract young people to its services, which is why the UK Government is correct to launch an inquiry into and have a debate about the BBC’s future funding model. Surely we do not want a future in which the majority of people are forced by statute to pay for programming and output that they do not value or consume. That would present an existential threat to the future of the BBC. My message to the BBC is not to be afraid of change but to be confident about embracing change. There is a world of opportunity ahead for the BBC in its second century.

I will point out two ironies from the debate. The first is the SNP’s staunch defence of a British institution, which I welcome. I hope that that is proof that members of the nationalist party see the benefits of our union in the BBC as an institution.

The second irony is, soberingly, more serious. In 2014, the then SNP leader accused the BBC reporter Nick Robinson of bias, thereby triggering a protest from the nationalist movement outside the Pacific Quay studios in Glasgow. Those protests have been described as “bullying” and “intimidation”, and the treatment of BBC journalists that day has been compared to what is seen in Putin’s Russia. I will therefore take no lectures from the SNP about defending the BBC.

I want not only to protect the BBC but to see it flourish. Rather than having it stand still, we must update and improve the BBC, while preserving the values that make it the great British institution of which we are all proud.

Given the number of members who still wish to contribute, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Mr Cole-Hamilton to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Alex Cole-Hamilton]

Motion agreed to.

17:52  

I thank my colleague Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

The BBC belongs to us all. That is the theme of a new BBC promotional video, which stitches together some of the hundreds of thousands of hours of BBC material to embody the central mission of the BBC to inform, educate and entertain. Everyone will be able to name at least one of the shows that the clips come from, which is proof, if it was needed, of the BBC’s impact on our lives. As Mark Ruskell said, it is a trusted institution.

During the pandemic, the BBC stepped up to the challenge. Cooking shows adapted from showing us fancy Saturday night showpieces to taking everyday ingredients to help us to prepare a meal that was fit for a weeknight after work. Our young people were taught by guest teachers to help them through tricky maths questions, and we were entertained by past comedy hits and replayed sporting events.

We saw something similar from other public service broadcasters, but simply not on the same scale due to the BBC’s vast library of content, its production capabilities and the trust of viewers. Liberal Democrats want to protect that cultural impact and the independence of the BBC, which is being threatened by the UK Government’s discussion on changes to the funding model. Changes could result in a cut to the BBC’s budget, and the BBC director general has stated that

“Everything is on the agenda”

when it comes to BBC budget discussions.

I will talk about BBC local radio stations, which others have mentioned, and their value to communities, including the one that I am privileged to represent. For half an hour each evening, BBC Radio Shetland’s magazine programme broadcasts a mixture of local news and current affairs; updates on local events; music; and the all-important weather forecast. Radio Shetland and its sister station, Radio Orkney, began broadcasting 45 years ago, and they allow our island groups space to gather and experience our shared culture. The stations are well respected for their impartial coverage of island events.

We all know about the impact of storm Arwen and the length of time that it took to restore power. Many households in the north-east of Scotland were without access to phones, the internet and links to local news and community help. In Shetland, we were lucky to escape the worst damage from Arwen, but we might not always be so lucky with future extreme weather events. A few batteries and a hand-held radio can provide vital information from a local radio station, especially for communities that live on the fringes and, in the best circumstances, still struggle to get broadband—let alone high-speed broadband. Local radio stations are truly a lifeline public community service.

It would be remiss of me not to mention, before I conclude, the now iconic BBC TV show “Shetland”, which Sarah Boyack mentioned. That has showcased Shetland, shown off our beautiful landscapes and reinforced in viewers’ minds the different challenges that our islands face. Viewers also wanted to know more about our cake fridges. With a smaller population and the greater distance from mainland Scotland, it is important to reflect that life on the isles is different. Without the investment and the risk that was taken by the BBC to dramatise Ann Cleeves’s excellent novels, the opportunity for a crime drama set in Shetland might have been missed. Where the BBC goes, others follow. The risk that it has taken proves that it is possible to film and produce successful programmes in rural and remote island areas.

The BBC belongs to all of us. It informs, educates, entertains and challenges us, and it enriches our lives through not only its outputs but its cultural impact. Changing the payment model could limit all of that. Is that really something that we want to risk?

17:56  

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing the debate. I apologise to Dr Allan if I cover anything that he has already spoken about, as I was unable to access the interpretation from my console.

Back in 1979, when I was 12 years old, I watched the very first episodes of “Life on Earth”. I can still remember seeing the crude drawings and animations of trilobites. The programme sparked my lifelong love of biology, evolution, dinosaurs and everything scientific. I still find myself, tens of decades since then, glued to the BBC watching “The Green Planet” and being captivated by the totally inspiring and passionate David Attenborough. In the intervening years, the crude drawings have gone, and so did the brontosaurus, which was usurped by the apatosaurus, only for the brontosaurus to return once again as a real dinosaur. I fear that there will not be such a scenario for the BBC and that its defunding and the threat to the licence fee will lead to the extinction of what is the jewel in the crown of public broadcasting in this country.

We have the most incredible award-winning film making to watch, such as “The Green Planet” and other BBC documentaries. Members have spoken about their favourites in the debate.

In 2020, Simon Pitts, the chief executive of STV and a defender of public sector broadcasting, said:

“free to air, high quality impartial local news must be safeguarded ... Decisive action is needed to ensure”

that public service broadcasting

“content is easy for viewers to find on all platforms ... A level regulatory playing field is required with online competitors, particularly in advertising regulation”,

and that

“Stimulus measures are important to ensure a diverse range of programming from the nations and regions, including tax relief for unscripted production”.

Simon Pitts was being interviewed by Krishnan Guru-Murthy, who is, of course, one of Channel 4’s excellent journalists. This week, he took apart Nadine Dorries in the halls of Westminster, and he might well take her apart again on her views on the future of the BBC and public sector broadcasting.

In his interview, Simon Pitts pointed out the importance of

“high quality, impartial, universally-available Scottish journalism”,

in order to create

“stimulus for production in the nations and regions”

and to deliver

“a level regulatory playing field ... with online competitors”.

It is very important that we not only recognise the global change in how we consume and watch programmes but secure the future of public sector broadcasting in all its forms, which includes Channel 4, the BBC and STV.

I will give an example of that local broadcasting. Many members might have signed my motion on the paupers graveyard at Hartwood hospital, which has been reclaimed by the locals, who have done a historical investigation to identify the unmarked graves of people from that hospital. That was highlighted in the BBC Scotland broadcast “My Kind of Town”, which looks at the lesser-known histories of our towns across Scotland. That is like the old collection of the history and culture of our towns. If we do not have public sector broadcasting at a local level, we will lose our oral history and the experiences of our people. That is why such broadcasting is so important.

Jenni Minto was absolutely right: we need production in Scotland that is proportionate to the contribution that Scotland makes and a fairer deal from the BBC. As she said, we need improvements, not cultural vandalism.

Thank you, Ms Adamson. I apologise for the problems that you had in hearing Dr Allan’s contribution. I assure you that there was little crossover; he showed a wanton disregard for apatosauruses and brontosauruses.

The final speaker in the open debate is Martin Whitfield.

18:01  

It is a great pleasure to follow Clare Adamson and her memories of David Attenborough all those years ago. In 1975, he presented “Fabulous Animals”, a series for children about extraordinary animals, and I had the great pleasure of discovering that a book accompanied the series.

I, too, thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing this important motion to the chamber. In particular, I thank him for mentioning educational resources, and, in the time that I have, I will concentrate on the educational role that the BBC has played.

Of course, we hope that we are coming to the end of Covid, but during the first lockdown, we witnessed the BBC at its very best when BBC Bitesize provided education to children who sometimes struggled to speak to their class teacher. During the second lockdown, the BBC stepped up by using CBBC, CBeebies and BBC Two to transmit programmes that were aimed at primary and high school children in the morning and afternoon, not only to give support with the difficult maths questions that we have heard about but, in a much wider way, to remind young people of what was happening around the world, and tying that in to why they are educated in the way that they are. The programmes looked at history, invited authors to come into the studio or to join remotely by Zoom to talk about their books, and provided something that children found very difficult to achieve—a bit of fun, because learning should be fun.

From its original mission, the BBC has had a requirement to educate. I remind those who talk about a change in funding—so that only people who take things from the BBC should contribute to it—that children are not in a position to contribute financially to the BBC. However, as a representation of our community and the culture of the United Kingdom, the BBC is able to give those children a great start in their lives—perhaps not in the way that their boring teachers do, but in colourful pictures of sperm whales and blue whales. I still remember the first time that—again, through David Attenborough—I saw moving pictures of a blue whale. I remember how enormous that creature was and being told that it was possibly the largest living creature that has ever been on earth.

Education is one of the pillars of the BBC. Everyone deserves a bit of a history lesson, so I will explain that it all goes back to 1924, when special broadcasts for schools went out on the wireless, before moving to television in 1957. That allows me to mention one of my great heroes, Mary Somerville. As the first director of schools broadcasting, she was a woman at the heart of the BBC, defining what education should be for the children outside. She also happens to be the woman who forced the BBC to make maternity payments—so that she could return to work after the birth of her first child.

I celebrate the transmissions on CBBC and BBC Two and the work of the BBC education department in delivering that public purpose to promote education. They are central to fulfilling the BBC’s mission to inform, educate and entertain; one of the great pillars of our BBC is its ability to do that, not just for children but for adults. At a moment when we are being asked to think about what the future holds for the BBC and how it should be funded, we need to consider all that it did for us when we were young, all that it is doing for the young of today and all that it will do for the young of tomorrow. For that, it deserves certainty of funding, independence and our support.

18:05  

I commend the member for Edinburgh Western for securing this debate. I also commend other members from across the chamber for their speeches, including Sarah Boyack, who highlighted the range of services provided by the BBC; Jenni Minto, who pointed out that the BBC is neither perfect nor above criticism, particularly with regard to the unacceptable underspend on television production in Scotland; Dr Alasdair Allan, who made clear its importance to Gaelic-medium broadcasting; and Martin Whitfield, who highlighted its importance to education and children’s programming. Any parent in this chamber will attest to the fact that the BBC is worth its licence fee for CBBC alone.

I welcome the opportunity to close this debate on the crucial matter of how we celebrate, protect and develop public service broadcasting and the BBC in the face of UK Government actions that risk doing the very opposite. At this stage I should declare an interest, as I worked for the BBC for nearly a decade as its Vienna correspondent.

As cabinet secretary with responsibility for external affairs, when I meet leaders and diplomats from other countries, I am reminded almost daily of the exceptionally high regard in which the BBC and public service broadcasting in the UK is held across the world. It is hard to overstate its significance, which comes from its core principles of providing impartial news and information, of supporting education, creativity and our creative economy, and of representing us with high-quality compelling content.

Dr Allan very clearly said that public confidence in the BBC in Scotland had been eroded as a result of the 2014 referendum. Does the cabinet secretary share that view? Does he regard the reporting of the referendum as biased, and will he condemn the actions of the nationalist movement in hounding Nick Robinson and other members of the BBC?

I will give you the time back, cabinet secretary.

I find it disappointing that the member for Edinburgh Western is not seeking to build compromise in the chamber, but I look forward to debating these issues in the future.

Nick Robinson has reflected on his part in reporting the 2014 referendum and has said that he has regretted it in part. The member for Edinburgh Western should reflect on the fact that there was highly contentious reporting during the independence referendum. As someone who is an incredibly strong supporter of the BBC, I am sorry to say that it did not come up to its high standards of impartiality during that time. As a result of that, the level of public confidence in the broadcaster is lower in Scotland, and I think that everybody, not least the BBC, should reflect on that.

When Covid hit, we got a further reminder of why broadcasting matters. The BBC in particular became our school, our place of worship, our social escape and our source of crucial public information in those long weeks when we could not see our families and friends. As has been mentioned, we need look only at the enormous impact of David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet” in waking us up to the danger of climate change. That is what real public service broadcasting looks like and is doing today.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

The member will forgive me, but I am running out of time.

Alarmingly, the UK Government seems blind to that. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Nadine Dorries, just over a week ago to raise my concern about the UK Government’s actions and intentions. I am sad to say that, instead of recognising what we have and supporting the BBC and other public service broadcasters in delivering more value for everyone in the UK, she seems intent on dismantling them, one bit at a time.

First, the UK Government shifted responsibility for the welfare policy of free licences for the over-75s to the BBC. At the time, the cost to the UK Government was £608 million, or about a fifth of the BBC budget. Caring for older people must be the Government’s job, not the BBC’s. I urge the UK Government to stop diverting blame for the consequences of its decision to the broadcaster and to take back that social responsibility.

After that, the Government announced that it would consult on privatising Channel 4, putting at risk the distinct role that it plays by making programmes in the public interest and helping to grow the independent production sector. That came at a time when the channel was showing its resilience, having weathered the pandemic and increased its focus on content spend and investment in Scotland.

Now Ms Dorries has announced that she is freezing the licence fee at £159 for two years, and has suggested a review that could result in the funding model being scrapped altogether in 2027. The cumulative effect of those announcements is to weaken the BBC and public broadcasting and to make it harder for them to do what they do best.

The BBC is not perfect, but we have to recognise its importance to Scotland in so many ways, including for the role that it plays in promoting the Gaelic language and successful Gaelic productions—such as “Bannan”—through BBC Alba, and in bringing communities together across Scotland with TV and local radio services.

Although we have been critical of the level of BBC spend in Scotland and of how that compares unfavourably to that in the other devolved nations, given the proportion of licence fee that is raised here, there are signs of improvement. Underpinned by a memorandum of understanding between Screen Scotland and the BBC, more new original content is being made in Scotland and Scotland-based talent is being developed. New series, such as the Scotland-written and Scotland-produced comedy “Guilt”, are being shown on network television. More content that is made in Scotland, by Scottish writers, directors and producers, is to come.

To be frank, the BBC should locate network commissioning in Scotland. We want it to do more, not less. However, the actions of the UK Government will make any improvements hard to sustain. BBC director general Tim Davie has warned that the licence fee freeze will leave the BBC with a shortfall of £285 million by 2027-28 and have a direct impact on output. Far from levelling up, it looks more like grinding down.

Returning to the motion, I reiterate my support for the BBC and public service broadcasting and recognise the importance of its original content and public service. I agree that its value stems from the principles of universality and diversity and that we should defend those. Although the landscape is changing for media, it is still fair to say that the public service broadcasters remain the cornerstones of creativity in our production sector. Audiences in Scotland are still spending, on average, eight hours and 44 minutes every week watching the BBC.

It is clear from the speeches from across the chamber what our renowned system of public service broadcasting means to so many people in Scotland. We have long argued that broadcasting policy should be devolved to ensure that we can take the right decisions for our creative economy and for Scottish viewers and listeners. The latest signs from the UK Government that it is prepared to put public service broadcasting and the BBC at risk of instability only strengthens my view that the future of public broadcasting would be much safer in Scotland’s hands.

Meeting closed at 18:13.