Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does Rosie Simpson want to come in on that before I move on to a different topic?

Would you expect that, in any consultation on the introduction of a workplace parking levy, the public would be consulted on their priorities? Would they be able to see that there are alternatives coming down the track and that they will not be lumped with paying the charges for ever, because there will be investment in alternatives?

My question is on the back of Liam Kerr’s comments on local government funding. We have seen dramatically increasing capital budgets for walking, cycling and wheeling infrastructure over a number of years now, but that is delivered via Sustrans to local authorities. It is ring fenced, and local authorities bid for it. This might be an unfair question, but is that the right balance or does more money need to go from those pots directly to local authorities to build the capacity to do the work to build out the plans? Is the current model of delivery via Sustrans the best approach? In effect, we rely on a national charity to deliver a national network.

That is perhaps a hard one for Chiquita Elvin, but I ask her and Caroline Brown whether they have any thoughts to share with us on that.

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.

That is good to hear. We took evidence a couple of weeks ago from the Scotland Malawi Partnership, and there was considerable concern about the pulling of the Malawi small grants scheme. There are concerns that the scheme was evaluated against objectives that were incorrectly written and that the full benefit of the scheme as it operated was not properly evaluated or reviewed. I recognise that that is quite a granular issue to hit you with this morning, but are you aware of those concerns? What commitment might you be able to give to ensure that they are properly addressed?

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?

Practically, what will the British Council be doing in relation to the Copenhagen hub? Where do you see the opportunities lying? Do they involve the creative sector and the screen sector, for example?

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?