Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. First, I want to acknowledge the gratitude and respect that not only I but, I am sure, many other people have for the work that is being done by people who are putting themselves in harm’s way in relation to their physical safety and their wider wellbeing. No discussion that we have can be adequate in the face of what is happening. We are sat here with fresh water on the table, we will all be fed and we will all sleep safely tonight. That is not true not only for Palestinians but for many humanitarian aid workers. Over the past years, a significant number of humanitarian aid workers have been killed during the assault on Gaza, and there is significant evidence that, in a number of incidents, humanitarian aid workers have been deliberately targeted by the Israel Defense Forces.

I want to further explore the issue of safety, which Jayne Crow has mentioned a couple of times. In particular, what impact is being felt in relation not only to the people who are doing work on the ground but to the effectiveness of the available resources to provide humanitarian relief? What impact has there been on the effectiveness of that work, given that you constantly have to consider the safety and wellbeing of your staff on the ground and, as Jayne Crow said, the locations where aid is provided? How are you able to do that effectively? What is the impact of having to address the safety of your operations?

I will start with Jayne Crow, because she has mentioned safety a couple of times, but others might want to respond, too.

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?

The power does not allow the accessing of data on devices of that kind. Would it allow the seizing or destroying of those devices?

I want to ask about the enforcement provisions. I apologise that I have not yet had time to compare the bill with the 2020 bill as introduced or as passed, but I am interested in the changes that were made to that bill during its passage through Parliament. In particular, there were discussions about the need to protect people against personal searches and searches of their electronic devices, the argument being that the police already have those powers and that, when they exercise them because they suspect that a crime has been committed, they have set procedures and safeguards to protect people. The expansion of those powers to council officers for the purposes of trading and advertising offences could have risked the unnecessary violation of privacy rights.

Has the Government modelled the bill on the 2020 bill as introduced or as passed? Have the changes that were discussed and agreed by Parliament been incorporated into the bill that we are discussing?

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?

That is helpful. Thank you very much.