Chamber and committees

Thanks very much. That is good because those are things that we can look at.

Philip Rycroft mentioned one or two of those things, as well as regions in England. Do you have any reflections on how we fix where we have got to after Brexit?

In your paper, you have given practical examples of how to do that parliamentary scrutiny. It is very much worth us looking at that.

What kind of feedback have you had from the different Governments on those issues? To what extent are Governments prepared to provide for intergovernmental discussions, negotiations and transparency?

That is very helpful.

It was really useful to get the update that you sent us on 16 January, which kicks off by talking about the BBC’s income declining in real terms by 30 per cent before the 2022 licence fee freeze. I get the pressure that is on you, and we have heard the head of Creative Scotland describe the situation as a “perfect storm” for arts and culture. Another key quote, which I took away from Tuesday night’s cross-party group meeting, is that “you cannot eat art”. It is about careers for artists and how to slot that into where it might fit in BBC Scotland. Please try to explain it to us, because four of the five key BBC charter principles totally fit with that when it comes to live music such as pipe music, jazz and classical. Performers mentioned to us last week that live performances are a massive loss.

You have talked about podcasts and the reduced use of live radio. Is there not a way in which you can use live broadcasts by putting them in podcasts, on live radio and on BBC Sounds? Where is the financial cut-across? Does it not make sense to reuse that content at all points? Please explain the cutting of programming to us in financial terms.

I want to come back to William Wragg on that question. The point about what is party political, what is constitutional and what the cross-overs are is really interesting. You mentioned the issue of respect and trust. How do you embed that in the process?

To what extent will your committee look at legislative consent motions when devolved concerns are expressed at a parliamentary rather than an intergovernmental level? To what extent is that on your radar? To what extent do MPs on your committee challenge the Government when looking at an issue in the round? I am thinking about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. On one level, that is very controversial, but our stakeholder input shows that people are unhappy on a different kind of scale. How would you handle something like that?

That is very useful. I wanted that clarified because, given the tensions, working out whether people agree with one another is significant when making recommendations.

Do you want to say a bit more about transparency? How would we deliver that or make it work in the different legislatures, as well as across the UK? I am conscious that the retained EU law issue makes that particularly challenging for us all, but what would be your key recommendation as a committee?

That is useful, and it provides a nice link to my final question, which is to Baroness Drake. Will you talk about how you are able to provide scrutiny? What is your committee’s role in ensuring that the concerns that devolved legislatures express are taken on board when the House of Lords provides scrutiny? Have you any thoughts on how the system could be made more effective and transparent?

The sense on our committee is that these major challenges, particularly following Brexit, have not really been experienced before. On the issue of safeguards, in relation to the Sewel convention and the “not normally” principle, to what extent is there an awareness of the significance of that convention regularly being overridden? What is your committee’s view on that?

We would be interested in seeing that. I am very interested in the point that you made about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Were witnesses from different parts of the UK involved in the work that your committee did on that bill?