Seòmar agus comataidhean

Chiquita, do you have any thoughts that you can share with us on that?

I will stay with Chiquita Elvin. Walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure is—for the first time, I think—included as a national development in NPF4. Is the framework detailed enough? What about STPR2? Is it clear what the Government wants to develop? I think that most people will look at that part of the framework and think that it is talking about the national cycling network. However, we have the concept of active freeways, and different levels of aspiration could be applied to that. Is it clear to what extent development in that is required?

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.

So there is no real desire to look formally at the concordat or memorandum of understanding, and you are saying that we are very much led by practice on the ground, which appears to be working. Is that a fair summary? Is there any move to revisit formally those responsibilities and relationships?

Can you give me some practical examples of how the British Council works with the existing hub network, and also what your thoughts are on its expansion? A couple of weeks ago, the cabinet secretary indicated to us that the Copenhagen hub is already being developed—I believe that its director is being appointed at the moment. What do you see the opportunities being with that hub and with a future hub in Warsaw?

We certainly will.

When will the Scottish Government’s international framework be reviewed and updated?

I am talking about the UK international relations concordat, which, I presume, governs how the UK Government and the different UK nations work together—imagine that—on international relations.

There is a key role for small initiatives to be established, which have the potential to grow into bigger initiatives that could attract more funding. I am interested to know—maybe you could write to the committee about this—how you are going to continue to support the growth of grass-roots initiatives, which seem to attract such a huge amount of voluntary support and engagement across Scotland and in Malawi and have the potential to grow into bigger programmes over time. I will stop there.

Your submission focuses on soft power, which has been described slightly differently by some commentators—Pat Kane, for example, talks about the notion of “fizzy power”. It seems to be quite a fluid concept. Obviously, there are tangible benefits in that area, but how do we pin those down? Should Government set out some clear metrics and objectives in relation to how we measure and account for soft power? If we are talking about building relationships and trust, should it be more of a wellbeing indicator, which is valuable but is not the same thing as, for example, a country’s gross domestic product? How do we measure soft power and incorporate it into Government objectives?

I have a couple of quick questions for the cabinet secretary and his officials. The first is about the international relations concordat, which was drawn up in, I think, 2013, when we were in a very different world. Have there been discussions about revising that?