 Good morning, and a warm welcome to the seventh meeting of the Constitution, Europe External Affairs and Culture Committee in 2023. Our first agenda item is a decision in taking business and private, our members' content to take agenda item 4 in private. Thank you. Our second agenda item is to begin to take evidence on our new inquiry, which is focused on how devolution is changing post-EU and how devolution should evolve to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the new constitutional landscape. We are joined virtually this morning by Hugh Irranca-Davies, MS, chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee at the Senate, William Rag, MP, chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons, and Baroness Drake, CBE, chair of the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords. We welcome you all this morning and a belated happy St David's date, our Welsh colleagues here today. Can I begin by opening a question, and then we'll move to questions from the committee. The view of the committee is that there are fundamental concerns that need to be addressed in relation to how devolution works outside of the EU, in particular with highlighted tensions between open trade and regulatory divergence within the UK internal market and tensions with the devolution settlement and tensions in the balance of power between executive and legislature in each of the four parliaments across the UK. I would like to gauge your views on what conventions and rules may need to evolve to meet those challenges and particularly to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of decisions going forward. I invite Hugh Irranca-Davies to open. Thank you very much, chair. It's a delight to be taking part in this inquiry along with other colleagues from other committees. I think we'd agree with your analysis that there is a tension, but it can be a positive tension. We're trying to work through some of the difficulties that are caused by the exit from the EU. That affects a range of issues in the devolution settlement. The balance between the powers of developed governments and the UK government is certainly that we have issues to work for. There are concerns because we've reflected them in our various reports, but the effective operation of intergovernmental relations, the issues around legislative consent, how the issues of divergence work, how effective common frameworks are and the impact of aspects such as the UK internal market on the operation of devolution post-leading in the EU. The retained EU law bill at the moment, which is currently said progressive, as we understand, causes us some great concerns, which I'm sure we will return to, but it's not simply the unknown aspects of the scope of this and the detail of it, but it's also the speed at which it's being taken through as well. We have other particular concerns in terms of Wales with the retained law bill as well. I have to say that one of the things that we've observed just in a concluding comment in my opening remarks is that overall lawmaking framework post-EU, we've seen increasing use of concurrent powers, Henry VIII powers, taken on the delegated powers to ministers and, in effect then, diminishing the rule of scrutiny by the Parliament of the UK. That is coinciding with the greater complexity of making law in the post-EU framework. All of those are immense challenges. I'm not saying that they're insurmountable, but it requires two things. It requires real goodwill between different partners within the UK Governments and legislatures, but it also requires formal mechanisms to make it work as well. It's a challenge in the environment at the moment. Good morning, everyone. Thanks very much for being invited. I think that there were three elements to your question. One, the strains on the devolution arrangements between government and the devolved administrations and legislation, the scrutiny issue and the trade. Taking the first one, I think that the Constitution Committee agrees with you that, certainly post-Brexit, one has started to see more strains in that relationship, and we've certainly been tracking that and looking at that more. One of the issues that comes up is the use of secondary legislation more and more in areas of devolved competence or legislation. We have made some quite strong observations on that point saying that it is constitutionally dubious to begin to use secondary legislation more and more to intervene in devolved legislation or change devolved legislation or devolve settlements, and that there should be some tougher rules around that, that where secondary legislation is used, there should still be consent sought. Where secondary legislation has got Henry VIII powers so that it can change devolved legislation, there may be a case for putting the requirement to consult or seek legislative consent in statutory form. We've said quite a bit about that, and we are monitoring it. It's not only in the context of the relationships between Westminster and the devolved legislative affairs and government. We're seeing generally a problem of using secondary legislation more and more by governments and taking scrutiny away. I think that we would see that as a UK problem as well. The other issue is scrutiny. As a general principle, it's good anyway, but because of the tensions that we've seen post Brexit, we have been asking, certainly at the Lord's, for more scrutiny on this whole area of relationships and use of powers by the UK Government and Parliament. We have asked if, in terms of Lord's procedures, there could be memorandums at the introduction of each bill into the House from the Government detailing issues around the relationship or the need to consult consent and what's happening. We've also asked, which has been agreed in principle, but not operationalised, whether we can tag every stage of a bill as it goes through the House committee days as well, get an update on what's happening around seeking consent or any devolved issues. The third area is trade. Trade is a reserved matter, but we've said that because of the interests of all the nations in the trade issues, there should be engagement and involvement in the negotiations and discussions on trade, but we do recognise that it's a reserved matter. I thank you for your kind invitation. It's nice to see you again, albeit virtually, after my committee's visit to the Scottish Parliament earlier this year. As you can see, I'm wearing the Scottish Parliamentary touches to ingratiate myself with margins, but, having said that, I will give a slightly different view to some of the things that we've heard so far. I have to think to myself. When I hear the phrase devolution settled, I think that it doesn't particularly settled to me. There was always an inherent tension. A lot of the issues that we've already started to discuss this morning come free from our leaving European Union. They've remained unaddressed, largely, since 1998. I have to say that that is the absence of effective and meaningful inter-planetal relationships and, indeed, inter-parliamentary relationships. A wider UK context, with England resonating 8 per cent of UK opulation, the absence of England on that devolution framework is quite striking. In terms of legislation and the balance of power between the executive, then, of course, as a confirmed backbecher in the House of Commons, I absolutely share that concern, the need for parliamentary scrutiny. I'm quite suspicious, often, of the increasing drive to secondary legislation and the introduction of framework bills, if I can turn that as primary legislation, to allow businesses down the line to do X, Y and Z. I would share that concern. I think that my riding sense is that we're never going to take enough politics out of politics, but we can hold very divergent views on constitutional matters. I am a unionist. It doesn't surprise anybody to hear that, I would hope, but that doesn't mean that it's not possible to have decent inter-governmental inter-parliament relations. I think that a lot of the more celebrated differences might be able to be nipped in the bud much earlier on. Thank you very much. I'm going to move to questions from committee members. I could invite first Dr Allan. Thank you very much. If I could first go to Mr Arancat Davis, we as a committee have been looking at the impact of the changing understanding of the Sewell Convention, if I can put it as diplomatically as that, on our own situation in Scotland. I know that that is something that the Welsh Government has commented on, but I wonder if you can say something about how the situation in Wales has developed from the Senate's point of view, particularly in light of the seven instances in which the UK has legislated without the Senate's consent. Yes, that's correct. We do have significant concerns in what has been referred to quite often by committee members of my own but also by other Senate members and even ministers as the dysfunctional of the Sewell Convention. I think that that is a common theme, not just by us but by other committees, including in the Nords and the Commons as well. We've seen a massive increase in the number of UK councils since the EU exit, including those that go greatly into devolved areas during the sixth tennis. Since 2016, the UK Parliament has legislated massively within areas of bulk confidence, but it's also legislated without the Senate's consent in the area of setting bills, including legislation that implemented the UK's departure from the EU and post-Brexit arrangements matters. The Welsh Government recommends that the Senate with no consent from all or part of five bills is currently being considered, so there's another tranche of those coming down the line, including the retained EU law bill. From our committee's perspective, our committee tends to run the rule across all of those bills coming down to Wales. We only express a view of consent in very racist circumstances. Normally, it's a very factual analysis that highlights issues for the Senate to consider, but we have occasionally expressed a view when we've seen it as such significance. We've seen more of this, unfortunately. I take, by the way, William's point, fellow committee chair, that there will always be political differences and there will be seven bills where there's almost a choice to be made to, if you like, lay down the law where the power lies. However, if you look over the history of dilution, that's been a very rare challenge, and often it's resulted in challenges to the Supreme Court. Now we're seeing almost as a matter of fact consent being bypassed. That is a real worry. If I can make a return on that point, again trying to compare notes here, much of the debate here has been, or some of the debate in this committee, has been about what the Sule convention actually means and what the words not normally might mean. In Wales, in the Senate, is the Sule convention viewed still as being in the realm of real things? I think that there's a high degree of scepticism now within the Senate and within Wales that the Sule convention is functioning properly. How can it be when the not normally now is becoming a regular matter of bypassing consent of the devolved registers? The not normal is now becoming almost normal. I should have said to our panel today, if you do want to come in on any of the questions, if a question has been directed to someone else, you could indicate in the chat function by putting an R in. I'm not sure what the R means, it might mean raise a hand, I don't know, but our clerks will be monitoring that and will bring you in as best as we can. If I can move to questions from Mr Golden. Thank you, convener, and welcome panel. I've got a question for the entire panel, but perhaps start with Hugh, if that's okay. I'm interested in what role that you see for committees in your respective institutions in addressing some of the challenges and issues with regards to devolution in a post-EU environment, and what, if anything, could be done to strengthen the role of committees with regard to that? Apologies, did you ask me to respond first? Yes, that would be great, thank you. One of the interesting facets of the post-EU landscape is that, from our perspective in Wales, it has ramped up into parliamentary engagement to a significant incentive. It was already there before, partly because of the transition towards Brexit that had started to happen. My perception is, from chatting with my predecessor in the previous size of the committee's role, that it's gone even further. It's both on a bilateral basis of correspondence and engagement between committees and officials to flag up issues of joint concern between devolved parliaments, but also with UK parliamentary committees and chairs of committees there. However, we also have a real belief that there is a need now to strengthen the mechanisms of inter-parliamentary work in a collective basis. We have the inter-parliamentary forum, and I think that there is great scope in that to develop more formal mechanisms beyond the coming together to discuss on a periodic basis broad issues of concern or opportunity, but to formalise them in a way that we scrutinise, because our view is that if inter-governmental mechanisms are being strengthened, we get to see them fully tested and fully buried in, but the mechanism is now being put in place for new inter-governmental machinery. We are pushing with success Welsh Government to be more transparent to us as committees and to the Senate as how they relay information on what is being discussed in those inter-governmental committees back to us, but we think that there is a higher level, strategic level, one where the parliamentary committees should be able to come together and the chairs should be able to come together at a UK basis, not least because of some of the issues that not only impact upon devolved competencies and four squarely within them, but also issues such as the role of parliaments in expressing a view from Wales or Scotland in Northern Ireland, recognising that it is a retained function, but within trade agreements and so on. There is something here about bringing together a much more formal structure at a UK level as well, so I am genuinely excited about the potential of that, but I think that we need to move now to match what has been done at an inter-governmental level. How might capacity for increased functions affect your ability to fully scrutinise? It is a very good question. We have expressed concerns as a committee over our capacity here in Wales, both within Welsh Government terms but also in terms of parliamentary scrutiny here. We recognise—I cannot evidence this in a quantitative way, but our peer perception has been, for one reason or another, our capacity here is stretched in Wales and it certainly does not match, by the way, the capacity that is in Whitehall either within Government or within the parliamentary structures within Westminster itself. We have very good people, but we are small in quanta, developing the level of expertise and the levels of expertise as well, that the quantum of expertise and the levels of expertise within our civil service in Government, but also within our committee research and our ability to analyse the committee as well. We wonder about that, and I think that that is something again to talk about, not just in a Welsh context, but we can have that discussion and that argument and push it for more resource because we are worried that otherwise we will be stretched too thin when things can be missed, particularly as we have things like the RUL bill coming forward, but generally with the number of LCMs that we have coming down with England and Wales legislation. However, we also have maybe that discussion to have at a higher UK level to say how do we make sure that across the UK we have sufficient capacity in Government and also, from my perspective, within the scrutiny functions as well. It is a concern of ours. We can see it being stretched. That is very helpful. If we move to William Rag next, I will ask for your reflections on the post-EU environment and how your committee is handling that. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Golden. There is always an element of a busman's holiday out of these discussions because we are key enthusiasts of discussing constitutional matters. Dare I say that it is necessary that enthusiasm is shared by all our colleagues in our respective ledgers, is it? There is an element of that. You take a horse to also be, you cannot necessarily make it drink. I found that particularly in the iterations of the common framework. I think that there is certainly a key role for the Interment and Parliamentary Forum. I look forward to playing host to that in a few weeks' time at Westminster. However, as she mentioned, an important aspect is the transparency of the in-governmental meeting. It was the case that my committee was able to do the little scrutiny, because we did not even manage to get out of the agendas before they had. We had to poach them from the Welsh Government's website for us to be informed of what might be just. Although that said, by hiding us with the communique at the end of the last one, welcome is what I didn't say a great deal, perhaps in the best tradition of communique. I think that there is a real importance of how individual Missile of our respective homes take an interest in showing that there is that real appetite for scrutiny. We cannot demand more scrutiny, but we are doing it in a meaningful and targeted way. Let's say that it can be absolutely pointless. I move on to Baroness Drake. Hi, thank you for that. I am conscious that the House of Lords is not an elected body. It has to recognise the primacy of the commons. Where we can contribute in this whole area is through the scrutiny that we bring and the transparency that we give to some of the issues and tensions. More and more, the House of Lords is focused on that issue across its different committees. I am only speaking for the Constitution Committee, but we will have the Common Frameworks Committee and the Trade Agreements Committee who will pick up on the issues of the relationships between the nations. That is where we can add value. For example, in our recent report on the retained EU law bill, we have drawn out the issue of the common frameworks and not undermining the common frameworks because of the approach that the Government has taken on retained EU law. That is another example. Our Trade Agreements Committee has been pushing the Government and seeking replies on a range of issues that would be of importance to the different nations. The scrutiny, and we do more of that. We are keen to raise those issues on the agenda. I take Williams' point on inter-government relations, because in the sense that you do not want to keep rushing to the courts to resolve issues, A, that is not my usual constitutional style, and B, it does not necessarily longer term lead to the best outcome. How inter-government relationships work in trying to mitigate some of the tension is quite important. We share the concerns that Williams expressed about the level of transparency that is being provided about how inter-government relations are working. Where is the opportunity to question and scrutinise? One area, for example, is how effective is the disputes resolution process within the inter-government relationship working. That is an important area that needs more transparency and more discussion. As has been mentioned, we have the inter-parliamentary forum as well. There are lots of opportunities. It is a question of how we leverage those issues efficiently to try to deal with some of the problems that we know we are facing. Thank you, Baroness Drake. Thank you, panel. Back to you, convener. It is a simple point to add to Baroness Drake's contribution. Some of those things rub up against each other in a way that did not have to happen. Our committee, and I suspect that the committee has set great store and the potential of the common frameworks procedures going forward. Let me give you one example here. They have great potential. They started to come forward. There are issues around the slight variance in quality of some of the common frameworks we see in coming forward, which have been picked up by House of Lords committee. For example, I mentioned the REUL, the retained EU law. When you look at dispute procedures and how they work and how the common frameworks work, when you have a piece of accelerated law coming through for whatever reason, there is a real question then about the sheer extent of retained EU law covered by that bill, the ability then of Governments to make full use of dispute avoidance, resolution processes, inter-governmental machinery and all of that, and the common frameworks. Sometimes we are in a strange situation here in this post-Brexit immediacy of these few years where some really good mechanisms have been put in place, but in some ways they are being challenged to work effectively because other things are trumping across them. I wanted to start by asking you whether you think that the SEAL convention should be more binding in its effect. We have had evidence to this committee that there might be a number of practical ways to achieve that. My colleagues have already mentioned the word normally, and it is definition within the Scotland act for example. There could be greater certainty over what conditions under which Westminster could override refusal of consent. There could be a body to consider a report on a justification for overriding or a requirement for affirmative support in both House of Commons and the House of Lords. Those are some of the ideas that have been put to us. I am wondering if this is something where you feel there needs to be greater attention and what your thoughts are on those types of reforms or any others that you are thinking about. Can I start with Mr Rancadavis, please? Yes, that is a very straightforward answer. The SEAL convention, as it currently is, is out of date because of the extent to which the not normal has now become normal. There is a feeling of impotence in some ways when the SEAL convention was always based to a large extent on the fact that it was genuinely not normal, but also on an understanding between Westminster institutions on the way that it would work. When it becomes more routine than developed institutions and particularly developed parliaments, what is the debate that we are having? Why are we sitting here saying that we are doing over consent and we have produced the evidence of why there should not be consent for this, but it is just bypassed? It is transpirant, but in effectual. We would like to see something more formal now put in place. I think that the House of Roads committees have certainly put forward some interesting proposals in this. For example, I will remember the full name of it now, but the Brown report, for one or another word, in a way that there would be some sort of not only transparency, but some sort of challenge within the second house that could say, no, you cannot just trample over consent, you have to take notice and pause significantly. We like that because at the moment we feel slightly important. Are you saying from the Welsh perspective that it would be useful to codify that into legislation, presumably into the Wales act? Yes, it could indeed be through the Wales act or through some other measures that have come us forward, but formalising it, codifying it, is the game in town now that we need to be in. This has gone beyond old fashioned agreements and assignments of conventions because that is not working. Thank you very much. Can I turn to Baroness Drake for the Lord's perspective? I think that you have picked up two issues. I mean, developing the point that Hugh has made about the not normally, we have been saying really that it should be exceptional that the Government proceeds without consent and they should make clear what are the circumstances and what has made it exceptional and why it has not been possible to get consent. Controlling that through accountability and scrutiny, we haven't proposed going beyond the constitutional settlement that exists, but accountability in the sense that it can only speak for the Lord's but introducing disciplines whereby ministers have to report on what effort is happening at each stage, the reasons why, and subjecting that to more scrutiny of having more formal procedural requirements, maybe looking at Cabinet Office manual and other documents that underpin the way in which things operate to get greater discipline around what has not normally been in practice, when can it be moved more to an exceptional situation? The other area is the secondary legislation. We are concerned that there isn't a perceived undermining of the sole convention by too readily resorting to secondary legislation and maybe the requirement to consult under the sole convention where there's Henry VIII power in secondary legislation is something that should be considered. Would you see the advantage of any kind of structural changes within Westminster committees? Are the committees set up in a way that would allow that type of scrutiny to take place of any kind of overriding the sole convention or was there to be a need for some innovation there? I think that the Lord's committee structure can, but we don't have the extra demands that MPs have on their time. Our committee could do it. What we need is the procedures and processes for handling business in the House of Lords to make sure that on every bill at every stage we have the visibility of the issue if there is an issue. Well, thank you, but we'll speak of demands on time. It's no demand by time to be here this morning, in fact I'm missing out on the parliamentary away date. I'm not sure if I'm grateful to the committee or not, but leaving that aside, where is it not normally? After question, how can we be living in normal political times? I have concerns that we haven't. Whatever your view on the album of the referendum, it's been seismic, and its constitutional implications are seismic. You have to look at it in that context. I also understand the context of the sole convention and the undertaking given on the law of the House of Lords during the passage of the Scotland Act, in that what followed was Labour administration and each of the constituent's administration's disregard on iron, of course, in the UK. I suspect that the practical human relationships were on the whole best, and they might be if you have administrators headed with different political parties. I personally, I can't speak for my committee, but I favour apoliticals to a resolutionary problem, rather than a legal situation. Wiserheads and mine have suggested different means of asking for a resolution process, but all those things do come down. If that review cannot be resolved, who will result? I think that that remains the unanswered question. Yes, I suppose that our institutions need to be resilient to whatever political circumstances that they find themselves in. I have one other question before I come back to the convener. I think that it was Roger Morgan who talked about the importance of devolution as a laboratory for policy innovation. I'd just be interested to get your perspectives on that. Do you feel the current state of affairs that we have in the UK is exerting a chilling effect on that policy innovation, given the ability of UK Government to override particular policy innovations, or do you think that things are in a healthy state? I'll maybe go back to Huran Cadebus for this, I think, for a Welsh perspective. I think that it would be unfair to say that it's having a chilling effect, because I think that devolved Governments and legislatures have the confidence now, and we certainly in Wales, after 21, 22 years of devolutions and five iterations of the Government of Wales legislation, we have the confidence now to have the proper engagement between Governments, but also to challenge where we think challenge is due, however there is a big however on this. If you look at some of the pieces of legislation that we've recently been considering, so two particular ones, single-use plastics and on agriculture, it's not that there's a chilling effect, but there are real tensions here between what we believe are firmly within devolved competences and what could be now impacted by, for example, the UK internal market act. So it's not a chilling effect, but it is testing. I think that if it was a UK Government minister here, they might say, yes, we think that this goes right up to the edge, because we're taking a slightly different approach in Wales to single-use plastics, but we're probably taking a different approach, as expressed in the agriculture bill coming forward to England as well, and this does test. I was talking about that complexity of post the year before. It tests some of those things, including how UKima works. Does it have a chilling effect? No, because a chilling effect would suggest that devolved Governments and Parliament are more cautious about what they put forward. I think that what it does mean is that we are going into ground that is new, and the complexity of post the year legislation means that we are going to be banging up against each other more regularly until we see where the boundaries do lie and where the devolved Governments and legislators can push the boundaries a little bit to establish where their competences fully lie. Single-use plastics is a great example. Absolutely. I take from that that we're in testing times, but there isn't a chilling effect there. Any perspectives from Mr Ragh or Baroness Drake on this? Well, I'm taken by the metal, but forgive the yes and another live comment from me. You know, it depends what you put in the test tube, doesn't it? In any laboratory, as to whether it's to date and everything else. I think that what needs to be explored further would be that there can be difference, but is that difference restylable within the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom? That is, ultimately, the conundrum posed to us and how we resolved that without the laboratory, as Mr Moore described it, probably nobisom. Okay. Baroness Drake? Yeah, it's just, again, developing on views, thoughts there. I mean, the Lord or certain constitution committee is sort of saying that the devolution to apply a positive attitude provides an opportunity for policy experimentation and shared learning in terms of intergovernmental structures, as opposed to a sort of command-and-control situation. If parties can come to the table with a kind of desire to work on the problems, look what works best, what innovative or best practice could be brought to bear, and begin to experiment, begin to look at what would be better intergovernmental structures. I know that we haven't thought too much on intergovernment relations, but it is an area where the constitution committee thinks that if there was more transparency and discussion on that and sharing it more openly of the experiences, you may be able to come through with more innovative structures that help a deal with some of the tensions that we've seen in the post-Brexit era, but also, of itself, use better practices and better progress. So, yes, I think that's what I would add. Thank you for those perspectives. Back to you, convener. Thank you. I've got a supplementary from Dr Allan. Thank you, convener. Just for Mr Ragh, you mentioned—I don't put words in your mouth—that the recent things happening with Sewell were a response to unusual political times that we're living through, and I don't disagree with the fact that we're living through unusual political times. Do you have any reaction to or comment on the fact that, in this Parliament, one of the concerns that we have is that the changes to Sewell are but one of the changes that are happening around us in terms of what many of us would see as a radically different view of the powers of the Scottish Parliament coming from the UK Government. For instance, this is all happening in the context of the UK Internal Market Act. It's happening in the context of the rule bill with implications on devolved law on an industrial scale, and it's happening in the context of—well, I think that the first time UK ministers have intercepted a bill before it got to the royal desk since the days of Queen Anne. So, I just wonder if you see that it's an impact of a slightly bigger context than just Sewell, the concerns that get expressed? I think it's the impact of political tensions and, frankly, political differences, and therefore, whether we're seeing it through the prism that's undertaken, given on the floorhouses of laws of the 1980s, any longer a visible way of viewing it, is that you think that the convention and the strain are completely redundant. That, I think, is open to debate. I think that, in all of this—and, on section 5—it is, I would say, constitutional, and it is a matter, therefore, for the Supreme Court on that particular issue that was mentioned. I think that, largely—obviously, the political events that are leaving the European Union, but, nonetheless, I would pretend that, despite the difference of political view that there is, it is highly constitutional. Thank you, Mr Cameron. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee—sorry, to the panel. Very nice to see some familiar faces. My question is again about Sewell, and to ask—I mean, it's the clear view of this committee that the Sewell convention is under strain, I think, are our words. However, it is also important to reflect that there are still many instances of the Scottish Parliament agreeing to consent. There are also, specifically, incidents of the Scottish Parliament consenting to what might be called Brexit or post-Brexit legislation around fisheries and farming. I suppose that what I am asking all of you is, to what extent is this about political differences, and also particularly due to the political pressures of Brexit, or are we simply seeing tensions arise over something that has been incubated, essentially, since the start of devolution, but is only now manifesting itself. Hugh, if I could start with you, because I am particularly interested in your experience of consent or not consenting and where that is happening. Your opening point about political differences is a valid one. From time to time, I recognise that, for the UK minister, there will be reasons why governments choose to take a different ground, and that will be reflected in the development of legislation and the way that it is taken through. I think that we all have to accept that. Your ancillary point of that was whether there is something specific going on about the post-DU operation of government. There is, because there are bills coming through at pace and are coming through because of the post-Brexit agenda and the government wants to do things that it has the entitlement to do, but it knocks up very hard then against not only devolved competencies, but against the ability of us to scrutinise effectively what is coming through. When, from a Welsh perspective or from a devolved perspective, we are doing this very often in legislation that has been done at a Gallup and that there has not been consultation between Governments effectively. It has come back to various traits points, sometimes good into governmental work and can actually resolve some of these issues before they happen. When they have been done at a Gallup and there has not been involvement, it similarly impairs the ability to do effective scrutiny as well. I refer you to the piece of work that we presented in my predecessor committee, to the Procedure Committee in the House of Commons, a look in the face, and it considered then the aspect on Sewell. I think that it has probably got more the tensions of exacerbated since then. However, one point that I wanted to raise in particular was that it is not simply the question of relationships between Governments. We cannot just say that there has to be informal procedures, but in this post-EU situation we do have more complexity. From a Welsh perspective, we are doing things more at a distance. We are doing things through either UK Parliament instigated legislation that are linked to post-EU matters or, alternatively, an increase in propensity to do England and Wales legislation. By the very fact of that, what we end up with then is less scrutiny here in Wales and very often less time to do scrutiny as well. For a member of the public or a stakeholder in Wales, it is not just for us as scrutinyers, it is for them as well. They get less grip, less opportunity to input into it. When the devolution settlement was made in one political environment and political environments evolve and change, that is not unique to the devolution settlement, which I can think about that aspect of our constitution and compulsions. That is of course stress and strife over the last few years. That is why in fact behaviours and culture and transparency and scrutiny are so important generally in moving things forward politically and constitutionally. However, one of the big issues that has put stress on the devolution settlement was that when that settlement was first concluded, secondary legislation was largely to implement EU laws and directives. Once Brexit happened and there was going to be a huge repatriation of powers back from the EU, you start to see the use of secondary legislation to do many more things. There may be where anticipated at the point of the devolution settlement. We are in a different situation of not being in the EU and having to operate in that environment. Some of the strains should ease, hopefully, as part of that repatriation is embedded and settled, and some of it will continue to be controversial. I think that that is a major source of the stress because it cuts right across areas that people thought were settled and leaving the EU, of course, as a new dynamic. However, it goes back to the constitution committee and not proposing a rewrite of the constitutional settlement around devolution, but it is saying that that change brings with it a need to raise the bar on transparency, scrutiny, how inter-governmental working operates and how the integrity around seeking consent operates. Thank you for that. Finally, Mr Ragh. Thank you very much, Mr Cammie. You have engaged from my answer so far. I probably agree premise of your question in that, whilst there may be a number of structural issues, I do think quite a lot of what we have been discussing is to do with the nature of politics, the nature of having different mandates perhaps within different parts of the United Kingdom, a debate over reserved matters, the necessity of legislation, given the repatriation of a whole raft of power and areas of influence following our departure from the European Union. All of that brings with it an inevitable tension. However, I think that much of the ranker that we then may have come through into more concrete views could be avoided on the basis of our engagement on the transparency to which Baroness Stryke alluded to. Above all, to behaviours of ministers, I have to wonder if some of the dispute that we have seen could be avoided. Of course, I am speaking across the board here. I am not just going to blame the ministers, but I think that some of those issues that we have seen boil over may well have been more easily settled, had there been since engagements earlier in processes. Thank you for those answers. This is a similar question, I suppose, but it is more about inter-governmental relations. Obviously, there has been a new system of IGR, the three-tiered approach that was set up. Anything can be learnt from the very recent agreement around the Northern Ireland protocol in terms of problem-solving. I appreciate that that is a very different situation that involves the UK and the EU negotiating, albeit around Northern Ireland. I wonder if any of the panel has reflections on the ability of personalities to drive an agreement and whether that is assisted by a mechanism around inter-governmental relations or not. If I could start with Baroness Stryke. Yes. It is in the nature of politics and the nature of moving forward that they will be heavily influenced by behaviours and cultures. I think that you have got to want and believe that you need to move on a consensus or consensual basis to solve fundamental issues for the country. If you do not have that in your armory, then it gets difficult. You need that cultural context that says that this is a problem for the UK, but that means that it is still a UK problem because every nation matters. We have to find and agree way forward. In a sense, that is very much a responsibility of Parliament as well, but it is something that is really important. If you can create a culture of constructive desire to move forward on a consensual basis on things that seriously matter, that is really important. Politics is politics and it is healthy politics and healthy democracy that people disagree, but I think that there are moments in time when you know for the wellbeing for nations and the country that you have to try and proceed on a more constructive and consensual basis. Can I turn to Huw Arranca-Davies, please? Yes. I would absolutely agree that when inter-governmental relations are working well, it leads to far better proposals for legislation, far better scrutiny. We have seen good examples of this. You mentioned another protocol that may indeed be one, but even in the existing situation in Wales and the UK, we are trying to make the UK the whole function very effectively and have that collaboration and co-operation. When it does work well, it can work really well. That has to be an official title, but also in relation to ministers. However, it cannot simply be on that understanding. It also has to be fully transparent. That is the thing that we need to drive at collectively is increasingly transparent. When is it being discussed? What are the outcomes of those discussions and how can we as scrutinyers engage with it? There are good examples of how that can work. However, when it goes wrong, it provides a couple of significant problems for us. When we are pouring together what we are working in and we have seen examples of where it has been impaired, then once the Government is in a position to answer the questions that we put to it with sufficient timeliness and clarity and to the satisfaction of the Senate. The additional issue is that when there is not good, timely, effective in the Government or relations, it is more likely that we have seen to end up in provisions that will be of concern to Welsh Government and to the Senate when we do get to scrutiny. The simple answer is that good into Governmental working really helps to mitigate some of the problems that we are currently seeing. The question is, how do we make that call rather than some more work and some more poor? Thank you. I do not know if Mr Ragh wants to add anything to that. I just said my observations of recent negotiations with the Government of Ireland. Probably, it is an outcome of hard work for respect and trust. Consentant politics is the most exciting thing quite often, but it is probably one of the most necessary. I think that we live in age where everything seems to have to be entirely binary in the argument. There has to be winners and there has to be losers. I am afraid that, in the context of devolution, that is not going to be a wing formula. I think that there probably are lessons to be learned on the recent negotiations regarding Ireland. Thank you, convener, and thank you, panel, for coming. Mr Cameron trumped me there in his final question. I was going to be asking about any lessons that have been learned from the recent engagements between the UK Parliament, Europe and Northern Ireland. I would like to bring it back to one of the points that Mr Anca-Davies raised about how we can ensure that we get the right scrutiny in a timely manner. Clearly, all parliaments have different timetables, and as Mr Golden highlighted in his question, each parliament has different resources. I am interested to hear about how we can ensure in the devolved parliaments that we are able to feed in properly in a reasonable manner and we have the respect from the UK Government about that. I suppose that one thing has just struck me as I have been listening to the panel's responses as well. I am wondering if there is something about the fact that the newer parliaments in the UK are pushing for change, but how do we get over perhaps a feeling that Westminster might be less willing for the change? I might be wrong in that perception, but I would be interested to know the panel's thoughts. Mr Anca-Davies, if I can start with you. I think that on some of the issues of transparency and better mechanism, we are not alone. We do not have to push as committees, not just in devolved institutions, but also harnessing the collaboration with House of Lords and House of Commons committees, and we are pushing at also the issues of transparency, timeliness and good intergovernmental work. We need to keep on pushing at that, and we need to see where the balance is between the informality of what the First Minister in Wales referred to in a different context. There is that regular, reliable rhythm of meetings and engagement and a ministerial level, as well as an official level. We also need to push that out into the public domain so that our stakeholders, as well as our committees and our legislators can see it. I think that we also have a rule to push out some of the trippier things that we have been discussing this morning, the way in which you came in practice on devolved legislatures. Even the Northern Ireland protocol, funnily enough, because we are waiting to see how that works its way through now, the recent negotiations. We are pushing so that we get full transparency about the devolved within aspects of that or trade agreements. The reason I raised the Northern Ireland issue at the moment is that we took an interest in this committee because of the impacts on, for example, Welsh ports and hollyheads and trade through Wales of it. The Welsh Government requested to attend the joint committee to discuss that, and we would have asked all of them to tell us what they want to discuss and tell us what the outcomes were, but they would decline the opportunity to be on that joint committee discussion. I think that what we need to do is to keep on pushing for greater transparency and greater accountability. That is a service to government as well, but there is a will to do it. We just need to work together as chairs and committees to make sure that the maximum amount of transparency is in the public domain. The other thing that I would say is that, from a devolved context, we are just really concerned about the amount of England and Wales legislation and secondary legislation that is taking place. Sometimes, I have to say, I am going to point the finger at the Welsh Government as well, seemingly with the willingness of the Welsh Government to do it, but what that means is that it does bypass. We sometimes have a difficulty with the Government in explaining this to them. Yes, but we bring it back as an LCM. We say that an LCM is not the same as a consultation with stakeholders in Wales or the ability to run it through committees here in Wales. We have this in-principle point that it is better to do stuff that is significantly in the devolved competencies in the devolved legislatures. Thank you for that. I would agree with your final statement there. From our perspective, when we have been getting evidence from stakeholders in Scotland, they have said that it is an important way for them to get the Scottish perspective—in your case, the Welsh perspective—through it. The next point is also leading on to a transparency with the people of our respective nations and getting them to make sure that they understand what changes could be happening to them and how they get their say in doing that. Banas Drake, is there anything that you would like to add to that? Yes, led by the Speaker of the Lords. There is a focus in the Lords on wanting the Lords' gender to embrace devolution issues more. Capture understands and applies scrutiny responsibilities issues in each of the four nations. That is very much a sort of thought process, led by the Lord Speaker in what we are trying to do. More and more, the committees at the House are picking up or seeking to look at the implications for the different nations of agendas that fall on their tables—certainly the Constitution Committee does that. Therefore, anything that improves engagement is important. We have the inter-parliamentary forum. Obviously, it starts gently, people feel their way, but, hopefully, that can build up into a more effective body. That is really important. Actually, wanting that engagement, putting it high up, recognising that we need to look from a Lord's point of view at the four nation perspective of things that we are seeking to do more and more. I have to say for my colleagues on the Common Frameworks Committee that they are quite ferocious—I think that they are quite impressed on their focus on this issue—and also on how we approach scrutiny and transparency. We are not the commons, but to the extent that we scrutinise, to the extent that we can, through what we do, increase transparency, that has to be a positive. If I may, Barnas Drake, you have touched on that in previous answers, but I wonder if you can again, just for the record, give your thoughts on how it might be made a bit more difficult for the UK Government—maybe I haven't paraphrased that correctly—to avoid seeking devolved consent. Well, the issue that we have been airing is the use of secondary legislation to change issues or matters in areas of devolved competence, particularly when that secondary legislation has Henry VIII powers. Strictly speaking, the soil convention does not apply to secondary legislation. The way in which secondary legislation is now applied partly has a consequence of coming out of Brexit, but for other reasons there needs to be consideration of applying that convention in practice or in spirit or whatever to elements of secondary legislation, particularly when there is Henry VIII powers, and not just rest on a secondary legislation that we do not need to, because that is not of constitutional good order. It is a reflection on the importance of devolved Government in those nations in the actual kingdom that have it and the understanding that comes with that. However, that understanding is shared throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, i England, and there is part of it that wonders whether it is. That is not a malign thought, but it is just a matter of fact in reality every day at a political life, such as permeating through to people. I think that there is something around UK ministers when they are wearing their UK hats and when they are acting in their his hat on, if I can call their English Welsh hat on, if I can put it that way, an element of learning around that. In terms of enthusiasm change, I might gently crack on that. Infusers and vachets are very positive that everybody can get high, but it can also simply be the difference of political opinion, and I wouldn't want the two of them to conflate it in that way. Can I just come back on that question to William Ragh there? I think that that's really interesting in terms of what is party political and what is constitutional in the crossovers. You mentioned the issue of respect and trust, and it's thinking about how you embed that in the process. Thinking about your committee, to what extent would you be looking at legislative consent motions when there are devolved concerns expressed at a parliamentary level? Rather than just an inter-governmental level? Just wondering to what extent that's on your radar, and to what extent the MPs in your committee would challenge the government looking at an issue in the round. Rwyntgen i'r Llywodraeth Cymru, it's very controversial on one level, but the stakeholder input that we've had is on a different scale for us in terms of people being unhappy. How would you handle something like that? I would certainly say that we will consider it, and I never want to give the impression that I would recommend you a red line and dictate which way to go. Certainly, look at the members of my committee, whether it's Ronnie Owens or it's the last of John McDonnell. I have some quite key interrogators of the policy. It's certainly that we would be open. I'd also frankly want to have that conversation with yourselves and with counter-parts in devolved issues, because it's very well that I embark on my commission marks upon scrutiny. However, there could be a risk then at a committee level. We would be accused of what's done to accuse the UK Government of interfering, overstepping our remit, so I think that that would require quite significant—whether it's collaboration or notary's consultation with committees such as the one that you said. I'm thinking here about, to what extent, when it's something that clearly is a devolved issue, you would actively consult with committees in the devolved legislatures to actually try and get that inter-parliamentary, not just the politics of it but the inter-parliamentary awareness, so that committee members could see what the devolved tensions were and do it in a formal way? I'm open to decisions of how that might best work. I don't have them in mind. A session such as this is an example of that engagement of elective chairs or committee members' appearance before one of us committees. We at PAKAC have been grateful to have that opportunity as well. Later this month, with the inter-parliamentary reform, that could be discussed at that, but I think that it requires discussion and consultation rather than me simply suggesting the model of how we might do it. That's very helpful. Maybe I'll leave that with you and your committee to think about it, because when you look at the report that our committee did and then I was comparing it with the Synod's report, there's lots of crossovers and there's quite a range of people on our committee. I'd like to follow that question up with Hugh or Anca Davis. I was very interested in looking at the report that your committee has done because of the crossovers in terms of our committee's thoughts. I'd like to get your comments on solutions both on inter-parliamentary and on inter-governmental. Can I start off with inter-parliamentary relations? You've talked about your committee engaging directly with other counterpart committees. What are the key lessons there in terms of how do we develop solutions in terms of respect of devolution across the UK? It's a really good question. I think that this is really fertile ground in the post-EU landscape that we're now in. I mentioned in my opening remarks that one of the things that this has led to is an increase in propensity for committees like ours, and yours I know as well, to the areas with other committees across the UK, where there's common ground, but also in our various reports, to actively seek to make those reports available to other committees with interest in Westminster, including where relevant Baroness Greggs and William Rang's committee. We also take the opportunity directly to ministers to make them aware as well because I think that it was a point picked up by one of the other colleagues giving evidence today that sometimes there's a difference across white-horn about how aware they are of the impact of various proposals, legislative proposals, on the developed Governments and their decisions. We definitely have a role, and we're trying to step up to the mark within the resources that we have on every piece of work that we do, on every report that we do, to think where should we now be presenting this in order that it has the biggest leverage it possibly can. We don't have, in a sense, a formal mechanism to do that, and Baroness Gregg's comments, as I've echoed as well, on the future of the parliamentary forum and how that work can be strengthened, is a good one on that high-level basis, but meanwhile, we just try to actively think on everything that we do, whose desk do we land in on, so that they can actually use the powers that they have, the platforms that they have, to bring us to the attention of the UK Government. That's very helpful and very interesting in terms of our report so far. Can I ask you about the intergovernmental solutions that you've suggested in your report, and particularly the dispute resolution issue, the need for something formal there, and an independent secretariat, as two potential solutions that would strengthen intergovernmental work. Was that something that was agreed cross-party in your committee? Yes, it is. With credit to my committee, they genuinely are, which is a small committee, it reflects the size of the centre of the whole, it's a four-person committee, but they genuinely park their politics outside the door, they listen to the evidence, and they take a genuine approach that says what is right for making the UK function as an entity, but also what is right for the accountability that we try to deliver in the Senate. So those proposals are all signed off by the whole of the committee. We welcome, really do welcome, the potential of the new intergovernmental machinery, including the moves to provide an independent secretariat, the dispute resolution procedure, but although we have yet to see the dispute resolution procedure being tested, and it's one of the challenges we've put to Welsh Government Ministers is, well, we are having now not infrequent disputes that are presented in the public domain between UK Government and Welsh Government. Why aren't these being tested through the committee structures that have now been set up with intergovernmental machinery all through the dispute resolution? When will they be tested? Because we might have some significant ones coming forward. I mentioned the single-use plastics one. I don't know if that will be one, but there might be others. But we do think that there needs to be something powerful behind the dispute resolution process. Ideally, in good intergovernmental work-in with the machinery that's now being put in place yet yet to be fully tested, but it's there, you wouldn't want things to be escalated to dispute procedures. But it's there for a good reason and that needs to be good and strong in binding. Our report makes clear our thoughts on that and its cross-party consensus on that. Yeah, that's very useful. I kind of wanted that kind of clarified because it's given the tensions we've got working out where people agree with each other is actually really significant in terms of recommendations going forward. Your other comment about transparency, do you want to say a bit more about how we would deliver that in the different legislatures, but also across UK to make that work? I'm conscious of the retained EU law makes it particularly challenging for all of us, but what would be your key recommendation as a committee? Yeah, there are particularly challenges on the retained EU law, so I've put that almost to one side of them. That's creating some real challenges on transparency and accountability and legislative workload and competence of all gamut, so I'm going to put that to one side. In terms of generally the interministerial work and how we deal with that as parliamentarians and committees, we have had some breakthroughs with the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government have been very good now by and large at increasing the amount of information that it provides to us in advance of meetings, what they're going to be discussing, what they've got on the agenda, even to the extent on one occasion where we've actually grabbed the opportunity and made our own submission to the Government to say, well, you've seen our report on X, Y and Z. We'd like it to raise these particular issues, to do with legislative competence and so on and so forth. Fair play, that was discussed, but I think that we need to keep on pushing because I know that has not been shared by other committees universally, that level of transparency. The challenge would be, though, that there's the one challenge for the devolved Senate committees and the parliamentary committees and the Parliamentary Committees themselves in getting hold of this material and about the agendas before and what's being discussed and what the outcomes are. There's the other aspect of how we do this at the high level and that, as yet, isn't resolved. How do the combined chairs and Baroness Drake touch on this, some of the work that is going on, I understand some discussions with the speakers conventions and so on around this? How do we strengthen those high-level UK-wide fora so that we have the opportunity to test that jointly as to what you're being told in Scotland, what we're being told down here in Wales, what Williams committee is being told and so on, and then to sit together and scrutinise witnesses. I don't know what the exact mechanism might be, but I suspect that we need to go into that space now and see if we have UK mechanisms for transparency as well. That's really useful. That's a really nice link to my last question, which is to Baroness Drake to talk about that issue, about how you have that scrutiny and what you think the role of your committee is in terms of that to ensure that the concerns that are expressed by devolved legislatures are actually taken on board when the House of Lords is doing scrutiny. Do you like any thoughts on that, how to make the system work more effectively and transparently? We are on record putting forward a series of recommendations through different reports that we're working through and we've achieved them all. In terms of the scrutiny, we basically said three things. One, in terms of the Lord, any bill that engages the soil convention, and of course there's the question mark about whether it's secondary legislation, it strictly doesn't, but we would want it to do that in situations that have significance, but the Government should submit a memorandum with that bill about retrospectively reading what our recommendations are, about how the devolution implications and the engagement with the devolved administrations is going. We get a memorandum that details what is the state of play on that issue when the bill is introduced into the House. That might address some of the issues, but where is the point of disagreement? What are the tensions? The second one is what we've asked for, and it's agreed in principle, but it's not yet implemented, that our procedures in the House give granting or refusal of consent greater prominence in our business so that if a bill comes forward at each stage, at second reading each committee day, of course, there's a tag to get an update on what's happening around consent issues, so what we're trying to do if it's implemented is embed having in front of us an awareness of these issues that are impacting the other nations. Obviously not all bills would trigger that, but where it does. The other thing that we have said in terms of maximising what could come out of inter-governmental frameworks is that going back to things like the devolution guidance notes, the cabinet manual guide to making legislation, that those operational documents reflect what the inter-governmental framework is trying to achieve, so there's a consistency, so it's not just one group of people sitting in a room, it actually flows through culturally to the other areas. I think that we would be interested in understanding more how the dispute resolution process is working. From what I understand it's not been that tested yet, I'm not quite sure why, but that's another area. Those are the sort of things that we're pursuing. What kind of feedback have you had from the different Governments on those issues in terms of to what extent are Governments prepared to do that inter-governmental discussions, negotiations and transparency? I'd put it down as discussions in progress, I think, really. We've had some response back, but obviously these things, you've moved them forward. I mean the sense in our committee is that these are major challenges that have not really been experienced and it's particularly post-Brexit, but it's in terms of the safeguards and going back to sole and not normally principle. It's just to ask to the extent to which there's an awareness of the significance of sole regularly being overridden. What the view is in your committee about that? It certainly is in the House because, in a sense, the issue of using Secretary Legislation to term in policy and therefore taking away from Parliament that scrutiny is quite a big issue in the House of Lords at the moment, but it doesn't just apply to the Evolutions that there's a general feel that that's an issue. We have been engaging with the Government and asking for more discussion on that particular issue as a general theme, as well as its application to the devolved Administrations. We also take the chance of every bill to reiterate points. For example, on the EU retained law bill, we've spent some time talking about the implications for the common framework settlements. We try to stay with those themes and follow them through in each bill. We'll continue with engagement. The Cabinet Manual is an issue that we're interested in generally. Evolution would be a part of that, but we have had quite a few exchanges and there should be a new draft of the Cabinet Manual coming up soon. I think that that would be something that we'd be interested to see, but I'm very interested in that point that you make about the retained EU law bill. Was there awareness of witnesses from different parts of the UK in terms of the work that you were doing on that, as a committee? We don't take evidence on every bill that we're dealing with because, in a sense, the blow of bills—and we have to get our view out quite quickly before committee stage. However, we have legal advisers, so we would expect our legal advisers to pull out or highlight any implications for the nations as well as the UK. When we're looking at what we may comment in constitutional terms on a bill, that will be for us. It may be that there isn't any or that there is what to consider there. We would try to mainstream it into our thinking when looking at a bill. Can we do that more and more? That's very helpful. Thank you very much. I'm afraid that we're tight for time this morning, so I think that we're going to have to draw our session to an end. I thank all of you for your attendance and say that the Deputy Secretary for Communities and I are looking forward to our next meeting with Interpartner Mentor Forum in the coming weeks. I'm going to suspend briefly to change over witnesses for a second panel. Thank you very much. Welcome back. We're moving to our third agenda item this morning, which is an evidence session on the proposed schedule changes to Radio Scotland's music programmes within the context of the impact of the BBC's digital first agenda on broadcasting output in Scotland. We're joined this morning by Steve Carson, director of the BBC Scotland and Louise Thornton, head of commissioning for BBC Scotland. I give Mr Carson to make an opening statement. Thank you and good morning, convener and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to speak to this committee of the Scottish Parliament this morning. I'm pleased to be here alongside Louise Thornton, as you say, head of commissioning for BBC Scotland. If we can give you just a brief overview of our music strategy to bring you up to date before inviting questions, the context on our music strategy is that on-demand or so-called digital listening to music has tripled in the last five years, while live radio listening across the board has decreased over the same time period. More and more people are listening to on-demand audio and the podcast market is seeing significant growth. In fact, according to Ofcom Research last year, music streaming in Scotland has now become as popular as listening to live radio on a radio set. This is across the industry, of course, our live radio services are crucial to us and will remain crucial, but audience patterns are changing and the BBC, we need to change with them to stay relevant. The good news is that audiences are coming to us on new services like BBC Signs as well as on Radio Scotland. Last quarter, more than 4.7 million plays of BBC Scotland originated content on Signs and BBC Radio Scotland remains the second most listened to station in this nation. Keeping in line with audience behaviour requires change. The financial context is that we can't move to where our audiences are moving and at the same time do all that we currently do in exactly the same way. We recognise the privileged position that we are in with the licence fee, but, since 2010, the BBC's income in real terms has fallen by 30 per cent and, of course, like every business in Scotland and every creative and cultural institution, we are facing limitations on our income against a background of high inflation. However, I also want to make it clear that allowing the financial background is there and challenging. There is real ambition behind this strategy. We are passionate about showcasing Scotland's music and finding, backing and promoting Scottish talent to audiences here and around the world. We now have a range of services from Signs, iPlayer, Scotland channel, BBC Alba, alongside our traditional live radio services, with which to do that. The headlines around our strategy have focused on us making changes to the team that makes our piping programme, changes to the format of classical music on Radio Scotland alongside the decision to decommission jazz nights. That is part of the story, but within the context of this outline, the story also includes some of the following factors that I would like to brief the committee on. There will still be a classical music programme on Radio Scotland every week. We invest £5 million of licence fee pairs money in our BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra every year. We are proud to do so. It is a world-class orchestra. Going forward, we will hear many more of their concerts on Radio Scotland. We are also looking at working with other orchestras in Scotland to share their music more widely on our new classics programme on Sunday evenings, which will now be focused entirely on Scottish orchestras. We are launching two new national competitions, one for classical and one for jazz musicians, along the lines of the extremely successful BBC Radio Scotland young traditional musician of the year. Our strategy is ambitious about our role in developing new talent in Scotland. Something that Louise, our head of commissioning, is particularly passionate about. We will now have four targeted development programmes for Scottish musical talent alone. That is in addition to all the other work that we do in other genres to find and support Scottish talent. We are expanding the remit of the afternoon show to include interviews about the jazz sector. Jazz music will be part of the mix of live music on the key sessions. I would point out as well that the afternoon show itself is exceptional across the BBC in putting art and culture content every weekday on peak time, daytime radio. In addition to the radio offer, we are launching a new culture podcast. We are securing a commission to make a new series on jazz for BBC Radio 2. We will have a piping programme in the current slot on Radio Scotland that will be made in collaboration with our Gaelic service, Radio and then Gael. We are also commissioning a new piping podcast, which will take Scotland's music to your wider and potentially global audience. We of course understand the passion, the loyalty that people feel towards programmes that value and love, but we believe that we can creatively deliver for classical jazz and piping audiences in new ways, which will help our content and Scottish talent to reach as wide an audience as possible. Louise and I look forward to discussing this in more detail with the committee this morning. I am sure that you have heard our session and have seen the session that we had last week with some of the artists and institutions involved in raising their concerns about the changes. The question that I asked them was about when I guess the last big discussion that we had about the charter renewal. Fiona Hyslop made clear that it was important that creative talent was supported in Scotland and that the unique culture of Scotland was reflected in and was expected by the BBC to support that. Given the status of our Royal Conservatoire now in international recognition of that and the fact that jazz is a big part of that and recognises how successful the young traditional musician programme is, I am glad to hear that that has been replicated across to other areas. Do you feel that you are meeting the charter objectives of that uniquely Scottish provision for a Scottish audience in what is happening going forward? Yes, we absolutely do. We remain absolutely committed to broadcasting the best of Scottish culture and looking at the budgets that we have and making sure that we really add value. We are part of the wider BBC portfolio but in Scotland it is so important that we offer distinctive output that really celebrates the talent that we have and also working in partnership with organisations such as the Conservatoire, where we have a really healthy dialogue. We understand the passion and we understand that change is difficult. Those decisions are not easy but we have to go where the audience is and we have to reflect the changes in consumption and we have to have the budget to be able to spend in an efficient way. We have looked across a wider raft of changes and we have looked at each of those programmes and genres and thought really hard about how we can continue to offer distinctive content and a uniquely Scottish offer. In terms of jazz, we are really excited about this competition. I think for BBC Scotland to have that relationship with new talent coming through and for BBC Scotland to really own that as a competition throughout its services, Radio Scotland will be the home of that competition but in the way that we have seen with young trad it will come through all our platforms and services and that talent will be able to be exposed in lots of different ways. We also feel really excited about the direction of travel with the afternoon show and launching a new culture podcast for Scotland. We should be doing these things. The easiest thing in commissioning is to do nothing really. We could sit here and do the same programmes as we always have done but we must look at the data and we must look at how audiences are changing and what audiences expect of us. Moving into the podcast space, BBC Sounds, where we see growth. We have our own rail on sounds now for Scotland. Being able to offer a podcast that really celebrates culture in Scotland. We will hear those stories of talented musicians from jazz and all the other genres but be able to hear those performances come through as well. The third part of that really is what we are doing with our live output. Key sessions is a really good brand for us and it is getting audience recognition. We feel that this is a great place for us to start bringing through some more live performance from jazz musicians where we can get more exposure and use our platforms in the best way and the budget that we have. Mr Carson, do you want to comment? I think just to echo what Louisa said. We are confident that we go well beyond our charter obligations but I would stress that we do this out of passion because we want to do this and not purely from a regulatory point of view. Overall, what we are trying to do here is to use the range of services that we now have, that we know audiences want and to use the whole portfolio in Scotland to make our content more widely available to more people. If you look at putting some musical genres in the afternoon show, that is a really big audience proposition in the afternoon show, we are very proud to have it. There is more chance of audiences finding jazz and other music on that show. At the moment, the nature of broadcasting is that if there is a specific show to cover that genre, other shows tend to back away from that. What we are trying to do here is to integrate that much more across our portfolio. Just to pick up on what you said, Ms Thornton, you said that we have to go for the audience scores. Is it the audience numbers that are the main drivers to the decision making? It is not just audience data, it is trends, it is a qualitative response from audiences saying that they expect Radio Scotland to be a modern service that is linear and very strong. However, how are we moving across platforms? It is also a challenging financial backdrop, and we need to be spending efficiently. Yes, we look at audience data, we look at verbatims, but we also, as a general part of commissioning practice, we look at how we are spending money and we always think that we are getting the best value for the licence fee. I heard recently that a German national radio station has commissioned a series of programmes about the Scottish jazz scene. They are showcasing Scottish jazz talent and they are very excited about it. Do you not think that it is pretty shameful that our own national radio broadcaster is not creating that space for Scottish talent, but the German national radio broadcaster is? I would say that, with those changes, we are trying to give jazz more prominence because we are moving those stories into our fantastic afternoon show. As I said before, we are really excited about this cultural podcast for Scotland, and that is exactly where those stories and that celebration of talent will be able to happen. Jazz nights have 60 per cent of the artists that are on jazz nights, and 60 per cent of the track listings are from Scottish artists and emerging artists. There is no way that you can get that kind of coverage in the afternoon show. There is no way that you can get that kind of coverage within the formats of linear programmes on radio 2 or radio 3 that end up on BBC sounds. It simply cannot be done. You are constraining that genre, the creativity and the talent of that genre into tiny little slots within mainstream programmes. Are you not? It is a fair point. We will not have the volume that we used to have in terms of a show that played out in a certain part of the schedule. You acknowledge that that is about getting more exposure and investing in bigger brands as a strategy and looking at audience behaviours. We have a fantastic digital team in Scotland who would be creating content to support the podcast and key sessions in terms of what the afternoon show is doing and the competition itself. We are trying to lean into bigger moments and bigger brands and use our money more effectively to get more exposure. If you want to reinforce that, that is a possible, Mr Ruskell. There is a twofold strategy here. We are talking exactly, as you say, this is a vibrant Scottish jazz scene. We are having to take a question, how do we best serve that, and how do we best reflect that. There is one option to say as we are and have a specialist programme every week, but on linear radio, despite Scotland being incredibly popular and diverse, it is likely to decline in audience listening. Are we allowing for that audience to decline for Scottish jazz? If we do things as Louise is proposing to put jazz music at the heart of bigger things, bear in mind that we are having a new talent competition for jazz musicians, it is really focusing hard on what we can do in Scotland, as you say, that other BBC stations will not be able to do. What we can do is help to nurture, identify and find Scottish jazz talent. That is exactly the initiative that Louise is behind. Your linear programme, Jazz Nights, which is a long-standing slot, has been there for years, influenced Tommy Smith and many others. That is on BBC sounds, so it is available. I would imagine that you could do more to actually promote that, but let us just take, imagine that you are an aspiring young jazz musician. You have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours, thousands of hours improving your skills and you are about to make that breakthrough. You could enter the competition that you intend to set up. You could get some exposure through that, but where do you go then? If there is not anywhere to then go on and play your music, if you are restricted to one tiny slot within the afternoon show, there is no specialist Scottish Jazz programme any more on the BBC. Your ability to get on to programmes on the BBC, Radio 2 and Radio 3 are highly constrained. Where do you take that? I can see at one point that you are nurturing talent up to a certain level and then you are cutting away the platform where they can get exposure, where they can then get profile and they can go on to develop their careers. Where is the progression? If you are a young Scottish jazz artist, where is the progression? Part of our strategy about having a relationship with talent is also about how we can get them into different parts of the schedule as well. We have just had a really successful Hogmanay programme where we have celebrated lots of different artists. We have moments in the cultural calendar like Burns, for example, where we would like to do more. We feel that having moments where we can bring through musical talent that we have a relationship with, we can do more on our schedule and on our platforms in that way. Let's get this clear. Will that be more airtime for young Scottish emerging talent in that jazz scene as a result of you cutting jazz nights or will it be less? More or less? It's new ways of doing the same thing. You are quite right to point out with a talent competition. It's a potentially very significant thing that young trad is an enormous moment in the schedules across the services, but you are right to go beyond that. Jazz musicians can feature in the key sessions. Traditionally, they have not the new strategies that they will. There are very stepping stones there through the services. Of course, we are linked into the wider BBC portfolio. We think our job is to help nurture not just young talent but new and emerging talent, established talent, and provide pathways within our services and then on to other BBC services. As I mentioned, we are making these jazz series really true. Can I ask a fundamental question? Will there be more or less airtime for Scottish jazz talent as a result of you cutting jazz nights and the reforms that you proposed? By volume, there is less airtime on Scottish jazz, but reaching potentially bigger audiences, yes. Right. Thank you. Less airtime for Scottish jazz as a result of that. Can I just finally ask about what expertise you have in terms of commissioning across the three genres that you are proposing to make changes and cuts to? What kind of musical expertise do you have in these areas as commissioners? We are broadcasters. We have a range of backgrounds and experiences within the team. We are held to the highest editorial standards. We work across a portfolio of genres and we have amazing skills and experience within the suppliers and the talent that we work with. We fully engage in creative conversations as part of our daily conversation. However, we are here for the audience ultimately. That is the skill that we bring. We look across a broad portfolio and we adhere to editorial excellence. You do not have specific skills in these musical genres. My question is, do you understand these musical genres and how important they are and the educational aspect in terms of the listening public as well, the importance of having a curated show that takes the listener through a journey in understanding that musical genre? We are not professors of music, nor would we be purported to be because we are broadcasters. I do not want you to be a professor. Do you have expertise in terms of commissioning? We are absolutely passionate about arts, music and culture in Scotland, and that is what we are here for. Across the entire range of our output, as we say, Scottish music in all genres, Scottish arts and culture are heavily featured throughout our entire output. It is a key part of what we do and we have expertise in commissioning that. I appreciate that we are all working in very difficult financial straits and my previous role in the BBC was involved in that side of things as well. I am interested to ask specifically about the archive and what we could be losing by not having live performances. I know when you are making radio programmes that the archive plays a large part in what you have, and we need to keep increasing that. You are custodians of a vast archive of Scottish cultural music. We are, and we have a huge production archive. Obviously, there are different rights issues in terms of what we can allow access to. We do not always hold rights and perpetuity for everything. I think that what we are really trying to do with this strategy is to make sure that we still have live performance coming through the schedule, so we are still adding to that archive. We are broadening out what key sessions do. We are creating a cultural podcast that will have performance on those elements. I think that we really add value within the piping community and we know that that was a concern. We feel that launching this new podcast really addresses that point. As I said, we know that it was a huge concern about where that piping archive lives. The podcast will give us that opportunity to have those original recordings in a prominent place on BBC sounds that can reach an audience wider than Scotland in the UK, because we know that there is an international market as well. You have watched the evidence last week. We got evidence from the musicians that those programmes were already reaching an international audience. I think that there was a concern reflecting on some of the questions that Mr Ruskell asked that that could be lost. I think that it is also a question about how that archive has grown, because all the musicians that came last week talked about the pleasure, the positive memories that they had recording for BBC Scotland. My colleague Sarah Boyack and I were at a very interesting cross-party group on culture in the community. That was one of the things that the panel last week commented on the fact the impact on community music and how you are going to continue to grow that. There was a quote that really struck me on Wednesday, Tuesday night's meeting, and it was the privilege of imagination and play. I have been thinking about that. I think that the BBC Scotland is in a very privileged position to enable that imagination and play to happen across Scotland, across Scottish communities and culture. I am very concerned that the solutions that you have put forward specifically in the jazz might not allow that imagination and play to continue in that musical genre, but also from the piping perspective. Finlay MacDonald gave us a really important view behind how different communities in Scotland view piping and the different stories behind that. I am concerned that that might be lost. I am interested in how you are going to mitigate, compensate for those concerns that were raised specifically by the musicians last week. First of all, we have an amazing outreach programme with our Scottish Symphony Orchestra, and we do amazing work with communities all year round. That will continue, and that won't change. As we said, we are bringing the SSO much more into Radio Scotland to get a much more coherent offer for the audience. In terms of the piping community, we will still have a piping programme on Radio Scotland in the same slot, so that won't change. The way we do the programme is changing because we need to spend money more efficiently and reflect audience changes and invest in digital. We get a great audience round about the World Pipe Band Championships, and it really is brilliant. It is a multi-platform offer, and I want to be able to invest and grow those moments where we can really celebrate piping, something uniquely Scottish that we can take to the rest of the world. Launching and having that podcast moment on sounds prominently as a marketing opportunity is where we see those moments that we can really engage audiences and bring through those community stories that you reference and bring through those live performances that has been mentioned in terms of a living archive. We really feel passionately about that. We are considering those points and thinking about the best and most audience-focused way of making sure that we still deliver on those aspects. You have talked a couple of times about the podcasts and using live recordings for that. You also mentioned briefly the issue around rights. If I understand it, there could be some issues around rights with regard to new music and how long you can play that on podcasts. My question is, is that going to then impact on the ability for you to grow the archive with new musicians playing across Scotland in different venues? That is a consideration for every programme, as you know, and that is an on-going conversation at the moment about how we do that. Do you have any discussions about the amount of time of music that you can play? Is it 30-second inserts that you are allowed to put into podcasts, or is it bigger? How are those discussions going? We have rights as a complicated business, as I am sure you know. It depends on the nature of the performance and lots of different things in terms of writing, talent. We have lots of music podcasts on BBC sounds where we are able to play differently. Do you want to comment on that? Classically, right restrictions such as you are citing them are for a non-UK audience. Globally, sometimes you can secure and sometimes you can't, but for a UK audience, it is funded by the licence fee. It is a different position in general. There is a question about where the audience is coming from, especially if your plan is to grow international audiences. If you have got this contrast of 30 seconds, which is international and what you can listen to locally, I am feeling that there is a bit of a challenge there. First and foremost, we are here for the UK licence fee pair. We want to get it right for our audience, in this situation in particular, in our audience in Scotland to make sure that we are giving value to them. It writes as a consideration in terms of how we go more internationally. The BBC SSO is mainly commissioned or its output is commissioned by radio 3. I know that the funding comes from BBC Scotland's budget. Are you working with radio 3 to commission a different type of output? How is that relationship going to work? What we are trying to do with the SSO is that we had a situation in which it did not appear very frequently on Radio Scotland. We spent £5 million on the orchestra and it is fantastic. This is about taking fantastic recorded concerts that they are playing weekly and building a programme for Radio Scotland to make sure that we still have classical music. That is the way we will work. We will absolutely work collaboratively with radio 3 on that. Even from a live radio point of view, that is an advantage that we are now going to have concerts every week. The Scottish Symphony Orchestra will feature very prominently in that in a way that we have not been able to do before. Our new classics offer in Radio Scotland will be entirely focused on Scottish orchestras. If I may just have my final question. Usual Thursday morning challenges. It was really useful to get your updates that you sent us in the 16th of January. It kicks off by talking about the BBC's income declining in real terms by 30 per cent before the 22 licence fee. Get the pressures on you. We have had that described by the head of Creative Scotland as a perfect storm for arts in the culture. The other key quote from Tuesday nights cross party group was, you can't eat art. It is that thing about careers for artists. It is to slot in where that fits with BBC Scotland. It is to try and explain it to us, because in terms of the BBC charter, I think, four of the five key charter principles, this is the live music in terms of pipe music, jazz and classical, totally fits with that. It is to explain it to us that you have got live performances. That was an issue that was mentioned. It is a massive loss last week by performers. Then you have talked about podcasts. You have talked about the reduced use of live radio. Is not there a way that you can use live broadcasts, put them on podcasts, put them on live radio and put them on BBC sounds? Where is the cut across in terms of the finance? Does not it make sense to reuse that content at all points and explain to us about the cut ring of the programming in terms of the finance of this? This is an opportunity that we welcome to explain that those musical genres and wider arts and culture in Scotland remain at the heart of our schedules and our offer. We have explained why we need to do some things in slightly different ways. There are three contexts there. Some of them are quite positive. One negative one is financial context, to do something new. We have to make some difficult decisions about what we currently do in some places. This is part of a wider piece of work that we are doing about changing how we spend our content budget. The second context is audiences are changing. If we remain as we are, we will not provide services, including jazz, piping and classical music, to how audiences are consuming, increasing unwanted consumer services. The third one, which is positive, is that since some of our weekly radio programmes were set up some decades ago, we now have a whole range of other services by which we can engage and reach Scottish audiences. As I mentioned to BBC Scotland channel, BBC Alba, BBC iPlayer and BBC Sound, it is exactly as you say, how we then make sure that the same content and we remain committed to live recording and our role in supporting practitioners as well as obviously focused on the audiences for those programmes. We are using all those services together. Louise's role within BBC Scotland is to have all the services from radio, TV, online and social together to get that integration. However, difficult as those changes are, we think that overall the audiences will benefit and they will find content, including jazz content and a wider range of services with larger audience potential. However, music, arts and culture, our role in helping to support and develop the Scottish creative industry is absolutely central to what we do. Where is the disconnect then? We got really strong representations last week in person in this committee, but it was also backed up by a huge number of people writing in and the campaigns being run. People are very worried about the loss of access to live performances. Where is the disconnect? I think that it is obvious when people hear, this is caught, that is caught, that is caught, they think that there is no more classical music, piping or jazz music on Scottish services or wider BBC services. I hope that we have been able to explain that. That is not the case. Live performance, live music is central to what we do and continues to be. We are talking about reaching audiences in ways in which they increasingly want to engage our services. Part of that strategy is about leaning into bigger brands as well and not spreading yourself too thin. Really leaning into parts of the schedule and across the platforms, not just in radio, but where we are getting a bigger, broader audience and where we can get more exposure. However, we understand the passion and the specialist music lens that your representatives bring. We hope that we understand the passion for arts and culture and the volume that we continue to deliver through BBC Scotland still remains. Tomi Smith, the distinguished jazz musician, was pointing out that a number of European countries, some of them are nearly sized, have a whole radio channel that will do jazz, a whole radio channel that will do traditional music, a whole radio channel, public service broadcasters, that will do classical music. Why are we still in Scotland arguing about a couple of hours here and there? We are questioning across a broad range of genres and we are looking at the reality of our financial position. The director general set the strategy for value for all, which means that we are pivoting to digital and investing in high-impact content. That is part of the strategy that we are enacting in Scotland. We are trying to make those decisions in the smartest, most effective way possible. They are part of a raft of changes, but we have really successful arts and culture output on Radio Scotland. We have a brilliant show in the middle of our schedule. I feel that it is right that genres such as jazz and stories from talent across Scotland should be celebrated more in that programme. We are launching a culture podcast, which is hopefully going to be brilliant and really successful. We will all listen to it and discover new forms of music and talent that we had not previously heard about. We are looking at the reality of our financial position and just trying to make the smartest decisions for the audience in Scotland. I have experienced working within the European Broadcasting Union. You are right that there are different approaches to public service broadcasting, and some European countries look at the approach of having a whole number of services at things. The BBC approach and other broadcasters that we would be familiar with is often like, let's have that content but put it in a bigger, more all-encompassing service. The evidence is that that can help those practitioners and that content break out of that niche. That is the overall overarching strategy that we are pursuing here. A weekly programme can do a lot, but we think that integrating a whole range of things into what we call brands but bigger shows and bigger services is a way to serve audiences better. My other questions, I will roll into one or two questions. The first one is that you have to translate for me what leaning into bigger brands means. I just don't know what that means. Who are the bigger brands in piping? Does leaning into bigger brands mean leaning out of diversity? What does that mean? The second question I had was again on the back of yesterday's last week, rather, evidence. Was it both from the piping point of view, Finlay MacDonald and from the jazz point of view, Tommy Smith, were asking does the new model that you are describing for Radio Scotland involve more of a DJ model for programmes? In other words, does it involve fewer live performances and less engagement with experts? First of all, apologies for BBC Dargan. Leaning into bigger brands to me means looking at where we have significant impact with the audience, so we have a bigger audience in the afternoon show. It should be doing more for us. The key sessions is an established programme brand, programme title. I would like to do more with that to support the genres. I want to come to your question about DJs. With piping on Radio Scotland, we had two teams making two separate programmes, so we will have one team making one programme, but what we have taken on board is that we want to keep the live performance aspect of piping. We know how important that is. That is where our podcast, which will give us a bigger moment of celebration and key moments in the calendar, such as the world championships, will continue to happen. Can I ask you about Pipeline specifically, given the particular connection that it has to the Highlands and Islands, which I represent? The petition to save it now has over 10,000 signatures. We heard last week about its importance locally, which is something that I know firsthand, and I am sure others on the committee do too. It provides a real local connection and local knowledge about upcoming new musicians. I cannot stress that and the importance of that, that someone might hear a young local music piper playing something from their own village or their own locality, and that that is heard and that someone has to be a bridge will be heard and is drawn away or whatever it might be. It is immense, and it means that I cannot overstate that enough. What is your response to that? As Louise touched on that, at the moment, we have two separate teams making piping programmes, one in English and one in Gaelic, and our proposal is that we will have a common team, and the Reading and Anguil programme is made from Inverness to be able to supply both Reading of Scotland and Reading and Anguil. In addition to that, the podcast, which will have live performance music in it as well, which can then be played out to Ms Boyack's point, will be played out within the piping programmes. They will remain rooted in the communities and piping will remain a very prominent feature of our linear schedules or live radio schedules as well as what we are pushing into now on demand services. More broadly, last week, I think that it was clear that there is a kind of educational and development aspect to all of these shows in terms of nurturing young musicians. We have touched on that a bit already, but I think that it is true to say that there are many well-established musicians who credit their career development to those three stand-alone shows, and that has been integral to their success. Without that, last week, it was clear that the future of young musicians in Scotland will be bleak if those shows are lost. What reassurance can you give us that that will not happen? Taking piping, we will still be celebrating young musical talent. Young Treads are absolutely fantastic during a brilliant job. We will still have piping on Radio Scotland, we will still be a piping show on Radio and Anguil and we will be making a podcast round about the world at another moment. We will still have moments to celebrate talent, and we will still exist. We genuinely feel excited about the new competitions that we are launching. That is a huge moment for young musical talent in Scotland. That is a moment where we broadcast on Radio Scotland. We will be looking at how we feature them across BBC Scotland's platforms more widely. We will be working in partnership with some of the fantastic organisations in Scotland. That should become a real moment all throughout the year, where we have competitions where we can form relationships with young talent and build an awareness of that as an opportunity for young talent as well. I was thinking of reflecting on the answers that you have just given. With the other competitions, there are clear pathways to continue broadcasting. I am concerned that there is not the same in the jazz. If you could comment on that. There is traditional music, you have travelling folk, you have other programmes, garrionists, all those programmes that you could come on. What is the pathway for a young up-and-coming jazz musician on Radio Scotland? I think that just to reiterate, key sessions is our live strand. That will be an opportunity for musicians to perform and play throughout our schedule. It is not just these particular programmes that celebrate our musical talent. We have fantastic documentaries and performance pieces on Radio Scotland TV, where musicians come together. We have a fantastic moment for COP26, called Changing Landscapes, where we have made a special composition and musicians perform the soundtrack. There will be a raft of opportunities throughout our schedules and our platforms, where musicians will come through, but key sessions will be an opportunity. That is just within our own services. We are obviously very focused on our services and Scottish audiences, but we can also play a part to help talent to progress through other BBC services, including in that specific genre. What we can do is to be here in Scotland to identify that talent, to work with partners such as the Conservatoire and to offer them not just their first start, but the second phase and then potentially on beyond that. As Mr Cameron said very eloquently, the connection that young musicians have with Radio Scotland came across palpable last week. I am concerned that I keep hearing the word moment, whereas previously it was an hour every week, and there just feels like, as I think Sarah used the word, a disconnect between what Radio Scotland as our national radio station is broadcasting, compared to what a huge volume of people that have signed petitions are looking for. How do you phrase this one? You used the free value for all earlier on when you were talking about some of the financial constraints and some of the competition for audience numbers in terms of commercial radio, and all those other areas to do that. However, if I look to traditional music, folk music, which is the genre that I follow most from the ones that are here, it seems that the launch of things like Transatlantic Session has built up to what is an incredibly strong offering in Scotland in terms of Celtic Connections, festivals and everything. As a public sector broadcaster, you can have a role that maybe some commercial stations cannot have in nurturing that talent. With the launch of the new competitions, do you see jazz growing in that way and the classical, reinforcement of the classical position as well? If I understood correctly, it is a Scottish classical competition that you are running as opposed to the BBC standing one that is a national one at the moment. I think that we all love the culture from Scotland, but there is concern out there that this could be diminished. What would you say is a successful outcome of the strategy year planning? We make a really good point about how we build into bigger things. First of all, we have to be really clear with the financial constraints and the changing audience about where we really add value in Scotland. Traditional music is a fantastic example and we should absolutely continue to invest and build. That is something uniquely Scottish that we can absolutely add. Also in the world of new talent and how the BBC has a relationship with new talent. Again, that is something that we will continue to invest in and own. Part of our job in the commissioning team in wider BBC Scotland is to connect through the industry and with our BBC network colleagues. To your point about their competitions, we have active conversations about who is coming through our pipeline and who our network colleagues should be aware of as well. That is something that we will be looking to do with those competitions. I appreciate that we are launching them in the financial year, so there is some work to be done, but I would imagine that building over the years, and it certainly would be an ambition. Mr Carson, do you want a final word? I think that the final thought is exactly as you say, our role as a public service broadcaster in finding, identifying, nurturing, promoting Scottish talent is actually something that we are doubling down on in this strategy. I mean, not without change, we accept that, but that really is at the heart of it. I think that that concludes our session this morning. Thank you very much for your attendance and I now move into private session.