���˿���

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.

From listening to the evidence and reading the submissions, it feels as though the decision cuts across four of the five key principles of the BBC charter. It seems to go in the opposite direction to the idea of the BBC working across the United Kingdom, which is meant to be one of the core principles of its operation. In addition, it does not deliver on the two high-level ambitions in the annual plan.

Do you think that the decision was not thought through? If there is no production on the ground, in communities in Scotland, it will not matter which radio programme the music is on: something will be lost. Has the BBC not thought through the detail? Is there any acknowledgement that the decision does not deliver what the BBC is meant to deliver as a public broadcasting company?

The BBC is also very big on digital and BBC Sounds. I am totally up for that, but there is still a need for productions that can be put on BBC Sounds. It feels as though the decision was not thought through.

You have talked about the impact on the core areas of education and accessibility. If the changes happen, it seems that there will be no pipeline through to live performance in pipe, classical and jazz, which are three key areas of Scottish musical culture. That is a critical disconnect. We will speak to the BBC next week. It would be useful to be able to reinforce the point that there will be a major impact on those three areas if that pipeline does not exist. Has that been acknowledged?

That is helpful.

I take it that everybody agrees with that.

That is helpful—thank you.

That would be very helpful, because there is a huge amount of concern about the issue. You mentioned issues such as local authority capacity, schools and people being able to get health support, aside from the welfare of people living in modular accommodation. We would be very keen to see any updates on that because there are real worries. That is why the focus on bringing existing homes back into use—homes that are safe and integrated in communities—is, as I said, potentially a win-win. In Edinburgh, we have people from Syria and Afghanistan who are still in temporary accommodation, so it has to be seen as an urgent issue that requires investment.

I would be very interested in the committee getting an update on the 16 recommendations from the review of the supersponsor scheme, which I think was put out in November last year, and an update on the £50 million scheme that was launched in September.

You mentioned repurposing and accessing homes. There are 43,000 empty homes in Scotland—there are more than 9,000 in Edinburgh. I think that there is huge interest in a cost-effective way of getting access to homes. I am thinking in particular about those who have been hosts, given that it has been almost one year since we began to recognise the devastation. Many houses and communities have been bombed and destroyed, so this is not now about the short term, as you have correctly acknowledged; it is about giving people that medium-term support.

Could we have an update on the £50 million scheme and the extent to which we can use it to repurpose existing empty homes, which would be cost effective? Could you also say something about continuing support for hosts? Many are over their six months. Are you bringing new hosts into play? Can you talk about what is happening now?

I come back to housing—and I direct members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in terms of my former employment.

I think that support to get empty homes back in use is very much seen as a win-win, because we have a housing crisis within a housing crisis. It will not be straightforward, but the £50 million fund could be really significant.

I am glad that you have put on the record your comments about the issues facing hosts, because constituents have told me of their worries about the money running out after six months. It may not be enough, but it is important to let people know that support is there.

You also mentioned modular housing in your introductory remarks. I think that most of us were assuming that that had now been ruled out, given the focus of the £50 million. There are a lot of concerns about that. Do you want to say anything more about it on the record?