Broadcasting (Football)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-858, in the name of Keith Brown, on Government powers to ensure terrestrial broadcast of sport. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament expresses displeasure about the ongoing lack of access for viewers in Ochil and across Scotland to the fixtures of the Scotland men's football team on terrestrial television, in particular the Scotland v Italy fixture scheduled for 17 November 2007; criticises the BBC for again scheduling in all parts of the United Kingdom the live England match on 21 November instead; notes that within the framework of the EU broadcasting directive (89/552/EC) the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport designates sporting events into three categories, corresponding to those which must be broadcast on terrestrial television (A), those for which highlights must be broadcast on terrestrial television (B) and the remainder for which no such requirements exist; further notes that the FIFA World Cup finals and UEFA European Championship finals come under category A while the qualifying matches for these tournaments do not even come under category B; observes that other countries such as Germany require that all national men's football team matches be made available under corresponding regulations; believes that all competitive participation in international men's football by Scotland should be made available to terrestrial broadcasters under these regulations, and considers that powers over broadcasting should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament so that the Scottish Government can take such action.
I thank all members who have stayed to discuss the motion. We may not have a capacity crowd, but we should have a good match. I also thank members who are not here but who supported the motion. In particular, I thank Hugh O'Donnell—without his support, I would not have secured tonight's debate. I know that he takes issue with the part of the motion that calls for the transfer of broadcasting powers to Scotland, so I am grateful that he was able to support it.
Before thanking the many people who have written to me since I first raised the issue, I should mention that Stuart McMillan raised the issue some time before I did. He previously lodged a petition with the Public Petitions Committee, which I am sure he will mention when he speaks.
I have received letters of thanks from, for example, pensioners in Sutherland who could not afford Sky television and who live in a village where no pub can afford Sky, either. I have been thanked for raising the issue by a person from Dundee whose back problem prevented him from standing for two hours in a crowded pub to watch the recent Scotland v Italy match. I was also contacted by someone from Glenrothes who, as a licence payer, simply objects to the fact that the BBC seems to be failing to fulfil its role of broadcasting in the public interest. Many other people have been in touch because they are concerned that they should be able to see their national team play their national sport, especially its most important matches. People are disappointed because they cannot do so. Many people feel that the BBC is failing on the issue.
Although the BBC is often mentioned, other terrestrial broadcasters could have purchased the rights to the matches, thereby ensuring that one of the criteria for designating events that are to be shown on terrestrial TV—provision of 95 per cent coverage—was met. However, the BBC exists to bring entertainment and political, cultural and sporting events of national importance into the homes of ordinary people the length and breadth of the country. The crucial Scotland matches at the end of the recent European championship qualifiers were two such events.
BBC Scotland is limited in what it can do. The core service of the BBC has a budget of about £90.3 million, out of a total United Kingdom-wide spend from the licence fee of more than £3.2 billion. It is hardly surprising that BBC Scotland was outbid by Sky and has been outbid for the remaining available world cup qualifiers by Setanta. To win the rights to televise the Scotland matches, the BBC would have had to break a very undersized bank. However, like many other members of the Scottish viewing public, I could not help but notice that the BBC managed to secure all England's matches on the same commercial basis. That is not anglophobia—I am happy to congratulate the BBC on having won the rights to televise those matches, but I wish that it had funded the BBC in Scotland adequately, so that it could have won the rights to televise Scotland's matches. I might also question the sensitivity of the decision to show England's matches throughout the UK when there was no broadcast of Scotland's games, although in the end I rather enjoyed the England v Croatia match.
I believe that there needs to be devolution of broadcasting because BBC Scotland, or the Scottish broadcasting corporation—or whatever name the marketing consultants come up with—would be able to respond to the Scottish viewing audience far better if it were independent. It would still be able to broadcast shows and events from down south, just as the BBC and other channels can broadcast shows and events from around the world.
In the meantime, there is another option available in respect of Scotland matches. Before the next round of rights—for the qualifiers for Euro 2012—is released, the Westminster Government could add those matches to the list of protected sporting events that must be made available to broadcasters that can reach 95 per cent of the population. That describes both the BBC and STV but would exclude Sky, to which fewer than one in three households subscribes, and it would totally block Setanta. The current list covers events such as the Olympics, Wimbledon, the Derby and the Scottish cup final. To be fair, it also includes all European championship and world cup finals matches, although not qualifying matches. It is unfortunate for Scotland, but often the qualifying matches are our finals. Far be it from me to go against the mood of optimism that is sweeping the nation, but as a long-suffering Scotland fan, I cannot help but notice that the current protection has not done us much good for the past 11 years.
When Scotland played Italy on 17 November, the match was watched by supporters in some homes and pubs in conditions in which it would probably be illegal to transport cattle, but in Italy the match could be watched in any home in the land. The Italian Government, unlike its Westminster counterpart, had added all of the national football team's fixtures to its protected list and had sensibly recognised the importance and popularity of the game throughout the country.
Designating matches in such a way comes at a cost. Recently, and rightly, the Scottish Football Association has pointed to the fact that it receives much-needed income from the rights that it has sold and has tied that income to provision of youth facilities and training in Scotland. However, at present less than a fifth of the SFA's income comes from television and radio, and most of that comes from the Scottish cup. It cannot be right that we should seek to fund youth involvement in our national sport by excluding vast numbers of people from watching our national team playing that sport. If BBC Scotland were run from Scotland and properly funded, the SFA would not have to lose out.
I have proposed the listing of European championship and world cup qualifying matches to James Purnell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. His response was not altogether dismissive. He accepted that crucial matches, such as those towards the end of the qualifying rounds, would meet the criteria. He also stated that his predecessor had planned to review the list in 2008-09. Even if the list is changed to include only the final matches of qualifying rounds, that will be a step forward.
The Scottish viewing public has a right to see all the international performances of their country at the nation's favourite sport. I hope that the members who follow me will agree with that fundamental principle. This is indisputably an issue that could—I think should—unite the nation. It is about our national sport and about our national team playing in international events. I encourage other members, and anyone else who becomes aware of the issue, to write to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the terms in which I have written to ensure that he takes the right decision.
I congratulate Keith Brown on securing this important debate. I am happy to agree with large sections of his motion, although I am not sure whether it is fair to criticise the BBC. Clearly, it can show only the games that it has rights to, so I do not think that we can criticise it for showing the England game instead of the Scotland game. It had a contract with the English FA and not, unfortunately, with the Scottish FA.
Having said that, I am a strong supporter of the games being shown on terrestrial television, not least because that is the only television to which I have access. Obviously, that is not the main point, apart from the fact that many people are in the same position and that it is important that major sporting events can be accessed by the population as a whole.
Clearly, the change can happen in one of two ways. The SFA can enter into a contract with the BBC or STV but, as Keith Brown has said, that may be financially difficult for it. The other route is for the UK Government to require the change, through the inclusion of Scottish—and presumably English—international matches on a protected list of sports events. I strongly support that, and I note that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will review the list of sporting events in the next few months. Keith Brown referred to that review, as did Margaret Hodge, the minister of state in the DCMS, in a debate in the House of Commons on 5 December.
I also note that material from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport states:
"A listed event is one which is generally felt to have special national resonance. It should contain an element which serves to unite the nation".
The particular football match to which Keith Brown referred would certainly be covered by that definition.
The suggestion that at least some of the international matches towards the end of a qualifying group should be listed seems reasonable. Keith Brown has raised that with James Purnell, and I undertake to do the same. Ideally, we would get all the qualifying matches, but getting the ones towards the end would be a fall-back position.
On the last sentence of the motion, I do not think that a debate on the devolution of broadcasting can be settled by reference to this one issue. However, as Keith Brown has not majored on that point today, I will not say any more about it—other than to say that the constitutional commission that is being set up should consider the issue appropriately.
First, I congratulate Keith Brown on securing the first members' business debate of 2008, and I thank him for his kind words earlier. There now appears to be a political consensus—except for Hugh O'Donnell—in favour of more powers for the Parliament, so the debate is timely in the current political climate.
I was only too happy to sign the motion, bearing in mind that it continues from where I left off when I became an elected member. I lodged a petition with the Public Petitions Committee during the previous session, and I had the privilege of attending my first meeting of any committee when I gave evidence to it. The petition was PE1026, and I know that it was discussed again at the Public Petitions Committee meeting on 23 October 2007.
On that matter, the committee convener Frank McAveety highlighted a couple of points that I would like to respond to, although unfortunately he is not present to hear it. First, yes—where am I now? Secondly, I am indeed a true believer. Over the years I have been to see some terrible football matches involving Scotland. I am sure that Frank McAveety will agree that it is good to see the national team do so well and the players play once again for the jersey—which I know Mr McAveety does when he plays for the parliamentary football team.
I was delighted that my petition was passed to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, and I am sure that it will take cognisance of the motion that we debate today.
I find it ridiculous that there is no guarantee that every Scotland match will be broadcast live, or even that there will be a highlights package for it. When I gave evidence to the Public Petitions Committee on 17 January 2007, I said that many people in Scotland do not have Sky TV, do not—for various reasons—want to go to a pub or cannot go to a pub because of a disability. Indeed, it might be argued, particularly in view of the last point, that the relevant bodies—the DCMS, the SFA and the BBC—are involved in some kind of social exclusion. That might sound like an attack on the UK Government, but it is not. I am simply highlighting the fact that the DCMS does not fully appreciate the cultural and sporting significance of football to Scotland.
Moreover, I am not suggesting for one minute that there is one rule for the English national team and another for Scotland. This is an area where the BBC must demonstrate its sense of responsibility. If it is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of pounds from its £3billion-plus budget to cover the progress of the English national team, that is fine, but it should also consider the Scottish national team's importance to the Scottish public.
I also accept that, as the major footballing power in Scotland, the SFA needs to get the best deal possible to ensure that money is invested in the grass roots of the game—as well as used to get us a new manager. I am sure that the association fights hard to secure the best deal, but the question is whether it could try harder.
I lodged my petition because in the recent Euro 2008 qualifying campaign, Scotland's match against Lithuania was shown neither live nor in a highlights package. On the other hand, Northern Ireland's match was shown live on BBC Northern Ireland, Wales's match was shown live on BBC Wales and England's match was shown live on BBC1. As a licence fee payer, I was somewhat annoyed by the situation and feel that the BBC, as the public sector broadcaster, has a duty to supply relevant programmes to relevant parts of the current UK.
It will come as no surprise, therefore, that I fully agree with Keith Brown's motion and I look forward to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's consideration of this issue and, I am sure, many others. I also agree that powers over broadcasting should be given to the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the Scottish Government of the day can act not only to safeguard the industry in Scotland but to create opportunities in it. By doing so, it would follow the German, French, Spanish and Swedish models of ensuring that national team matches are shown on national television.
I must beg the Presiding Officer's forbearance. I wish to leave before the end of the debate, because Blair Jenkins of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission is addressing a meeting at 5.30pm that I would like to attend.
As a long-standing supporter of the Scottish football team, no one has been happier than I have been with the squad's recent excellent run of form. However, as most fans will attest, that golden run was hardly expected. Although all of us saw our young squad's potential, few at the start of the recent European qualifying campaign would have given much for our chances in a group that included two of the world's best teams—Italy and France. So although I share the frustration of those who felt that the crunch game at Hampden against world champions Italy should have been on terrestrial television, the fact is that, as we have heard, the rights for live coverage of Scotland's home internationals are sold by the SFA.
As the SFA's job is to maximise income from such matches, they are sold to the highest bidder, and BBC Scotland's bid for Scotland's home internationals was well exceeded by that of Sky in a deal that runs to 2010. However, because the deal for away internationals is more complex, BBC Scotland was able to bid to a number of overseas football federations for live rights for world cup and European championship qualifiers.
The bottom line in a free market for TV sport is that the broadcaster with the deepest pockets usually prevails. Sky, and increasingly Setanta, which recently announced that it had raised another £90 million from private equity companies to bid for sports rights, can now easily outbid the terrestrial companies for the top games.
The Office of Communications has a list of fixtures—the so-called crown jewels—that, under its "Code on Sports and other Listed Events", must be available to all and may not be covered live on an exclusive basis. Those events include the Olympic games, FIFA world cup finals, the FA cup final, the grand national, the derby, Wimbledon and, in Scotland, the Scottish cup final. There is also a B group of fixtures, which includes the open golf championship, that may not be broadcast live on an exclusive basis unless adequate provision has been made for secondary coverage. As Malcolm Chisholm reminded us, the list is currently under review, and in a recent adjournment debate the minister of state Margaret Hodge said that an announcement on changes was imminent.
Keith Brown has argued that certain Scottish football internationals might be added to that list. However, given that the negotiations with broadcasters are conducted well in advance, how would the decision be taken on which games should be made available to all and which should be sold on an exclusive basis?
Will the member give way?
I would rather not. I have a lot to get in in four minutes.
In short, how many fans really believed that qualification for the finals of the European championships would come down to a home game at Hampden against the world champions? What is the view of the SFA on the subject? Would it be happy for broadcasting rights to plum Scotland games to be allocated instead of sold to the highest bidder? Somehow I doubt it.
The situation with the live broadcasting rights for the 2010 world cup looks no more encouraging. In a bid that was described as being "well in excess" of what the BBC and Sky put forward, Setanta has secured all the away games involving Scotland and England. As we have seen, Sky has bought Scotland's home international rights until 2010. Scotland's fans are not alone in being denied terrestrial coverage of the world cup: England's football team fans are in exactly the same boat.
I happened to be out of the country when Scotland played Italy, but I managed to get to a set to view the game. I imagine that most dedicated fans did likewise. We live in the age of pay-per-view. A devolved Scottish terrestrial broadcaster would find that marketplace even more challenging that the UK terrestrial broadcasters do.
It is interesting to note that, in his motion, Keith Brown criticises the BBC for screening live the England versus Croatia match on 21 November. I understand that the game attracted nearly a million viewers in Scotland. How many of them does Keith Brown think were Croatian? I suggest that most of them were, like me, Scots who had tuned in to cheer on our next-door neighbours, England.
I thank Keith Brown for bringing the debate to the chamber. I thank him in particular for mentioning the role that Hugh O'Donnell played. As Keith Brown rightly said, Hugh was not totally supportive of the motion, but he signed it and in doing so he gave the motion cross-party support, which allowed it to go forward for debate. Hugh O'Donnell also lodged an amendment to remove the phrase:
"and considers that powers over broadcasting should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament so that the Scottish Government can take such action."
I supported my colleague's amendment. Unfortunately, it was not accepted. The Scottish Liberal Democrats would welcome a serious debate on the future of broadcasting in Scotland and on the role of the Scottish Parliament in regulating broadcasting in Scotland.
In recent years, more people have been signing up to subscription television services and the access to sports broadcasts that such services provide. Over a similar period, the range of sports broadcasts on terrestrial television has reduced year on year. Currently, the UK Government intervenes in the sports broadcasting market only to ensure that all viewers, whatever their circumstances, have free-to-view access to the major sporting events that are known as listed events. Those are the significant events that serve to unite the nation, and which turn into viewers even those who do not normally follow the sport in question. Perhaps the time is right for an independent body to consider the listed events to see whether the list covers a fair range of national events. In doing so, perhaps it should also consider events that take place in other parts of the UK that are of interest to Scots.
The new constitutional commission that the Liberal Democrats, with Labour and the Conservatives, propose to establish will review the devolution settlement, looking to Scotland's future within the United Kingdom. Among other issues, this independent body plans to look at non-fiscal powers over broadcasting.
We have to remember that rights holders are free to sell their rights to whomever they please, subject—of course—to competition law. We also have to remember that, subject to listed events legislation, broadcasters are free to show events without restriction. Subscription and pay-per-view broadcasters often spend more on broadcasting rights than the free-to-view terrestrial broadcasters do. That is reflected in the amount of sport that they offer their customers.
As Keith Brown indicated, the cost of purchasing the rights to screen all Scotland's international men's football matches on terrestrial television is completely outwith the budget of BBC licence holders. A wide range of programmes to suit all tastes—not only those of sports fans—must be paid for. I understand the frustration of football fans, but we have to be fair to all.
In addition to programmes that the BBC and other UK-wide broadcasters screen nationally, a range of regional programmes are made available in Scotland. Although there is always the potential for improvement, the current balance that has been struck between regional and UK national programming is not a bad one. Any proposed changes should be considered in that context.
My colleague Iain Smith, who is the Liberal Democrat culture spokesperson, has called on the Government to clarify what powers it used to set up the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, where the money to pay for it will come from and who has authorised the expenditure. Mr Smith received unsatisfactory replies to his parliamentary questions and lodged further questions to find out more about the setting-up of the commission.
Any debate on this important subject should take account of all the relevant issues. Ultimately, it is for each sport to determine how to market itself and maximise the revenue that it commands. That will best ensure that football and other sports can invest in their futures.
I thank Keith Brown for lodging his important motion and for securing this timely debate. It is timely because never in my lifetime have I seen such a magnificent display by the Scottish international squad as during their ultimately unsuccessful campaign to secure a place in the Euro 2008 finals. The nation was behind the team, but alas the whole nation did not have equitable viewing access to witness Scotland's brave attempts to win a place in the Euro championships.
I want to refer to the response that Keith Brown received from James Purnell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. As members will recall, Keith Brown asked for Scotland's games to be added as listed events, which must be shown on terrestrial television, so that we can all enjoy them. I saw Mr Purnell's response, which was that, although the games meet the required criteria, they cannot be put on the list because that is impractical. If we all took that attitude, I am afraid that the entire world would come to a halt. Why is that too impractical for us, when Germany seems to manage and Italy has no problem getting round the impracticalities?
The bigger question is not why Mr Purnell, a member of the Westminster Parliament, takes that view; it is why the Westminster Parliament should have any say at all in whether the people of Scotland are allowed to watch their national football team play. Of course, in an independent Scotland, we would have control over everything, including broadcasting, and would not have to wait for the outcome of a Westminster review of which matches should be reserved to free-to-view TV. It is not just the national team that gets short shrift in the television coverage. Why is it that on a Saturday evening we can watch the highlights of English Football Association club games, but if we want to see Scottish Premier League highlights, we have to wait until late Monday night? For a St Johnstone fan such as me, and for fans of other clubs from the lower divisions, there really is no hope—I mean that there is no hope of getting TV coverage. As someone who used to play football for the University of Glasgow, I am well aware that women's football remains the very poor and far-distant relation of the men's game. If we want to encourage young girls to play football, we must also consider how we can better promote coverage of the women's game.
To return to Keith Brown's motion and the match to which it refers—the Scotland v Italy Euro qualifier last November—the fact that people could not watch that game unless they had Sky caused nothing short of a stushie. I will share with members some stories that show the way in which the current broadcasting of games impinges negatively on young people. One guy told me that, because he is not yet 18, he cannot normally get into pubs to watch Scotland games. However, he did once enter a pub to watch a qualifier. The kick-off was at 7.45, so he saw only the first 15 minutes of the match, because the pub's licence allowed him to stay in the pub only until 8 o'clock.
Another person told me that the Scotland v England play-off for Euro 2000 was live on Sky, but was to be aired straight after the game on the BBC. He was too young to go to the pub and tried his best not to hear the result. He was full of anticipation for a successful score, only to look out of his window and see a grown man in a kilt greetin as he walked past. Of course, the fact that he saw that man is by the by, but the point is that it is not very exciting for people to watch important games after they have been played. What kind of message does the situation send out to young people? Only in Scotland could it happen that, on the one hand, efforts are being made to make the population healthier and fitter while, on the other hand, people are being forced into the pub to watch sport.
I am willing to lobby Westminster and to seek to persuade it that our argument is the right one. I am happier still to argue that broadcasting powers should be transferred to the Parliament so that we can decide what is and is not practical. However, I will only really be satisfied when Scotland is a fully independent nation and has no need to ask for the right to watch our team play and no need to ask for more powers, because the decision will be ours and ours alone.
I congratulate my colleague Keith Brown on securing the debate. The topic obviously engages the interest of many members and many other people.
Members will note that another important motion relating to football has been lodged by Jack McConnell. It relates to the tragic death of Motherwell captain Phil O'Donnell. I am sure that all members of the Parliament will wish to join me in conveying our sympathies to the O'Donnell family at this very sad time.
I add my voice to all those that celebrated Scotland's very good performance in the qualifying campaign for the Euro 2008 finals. I do not know whether I was shocked that Aileen Campbell is so young that that was the best Scotland performance she can remember, or shocked that it has been so long since we had a performance that we could all celebrate.
As others have said, although we are all disappointed that we will not be in Austria and Switzerland later this year, our results in the qualifying games marked an important improvement in our position in international football. Congratulations should go to Alex McLeish, his predecessor Walter Smith, all the players picked for the squads and all those at the Scottish Football Association who worked so hard to put in place the groundwork for success.
I turn now to the motion. Keith Brown quite rightly highlights the disappointment that was felt by many people that they were not able to watch all the qualifying matches on terrestrial television. I was interested in the examples given—particularly those given by Keith—of why people could not watch the matches. In some cases, there was no availability; in some cases, affordability was an issue; and in some cases, principle was an issue. Stuart McMillan spoke about disability issues, and Aileen Campbell raised an issue that I had not considered before when she said that young people are not always able to see matches because they do not have access to licensed premises. That is an extremely important point.
If Scotland or one of the other home nations had made it to the finals of the tournament, its matches in the finals would have been broadcast live on terrestrial television. Unfortunately, none of the teams qualified.
As we have heard, the regime for the coverage of sport on television and the designation of listed events is—as we all know—a responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. As Keith Brown explained, the effect of listing is to require full live terrestrial coverage of category A events, or the provision of terrestrial recorded highlights of category B events. As well as the world cup and European championship finals, category A events include the Scottish cup final, the Olympic games, the grand national and the Derby. Category B events include the six nations rugby tournament, the open golf championship and the Commonwealth games. As Jim Tolson pointed out, we should ensure in our discussions that sports other than football are considered.
The arrangements for listing are provided for in the Broadcasting Act 1996. As we know, the list is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the regulations are enforced by Ofcom.
Does the minister agree that, because of the existence of the two categories, and because of what happens in Italy, Germany and other countries, it is clear that there is not a free market? It is for independent states to decide whether they want to favour their own particular cultural and sporting events.
I am especially interested in what I have heard about what happens in other countries. The obvious and widespread interest among people in Scotland suggests to me that we should consider such issues. There was a national resonance about the football ties last year. Good arguments have been made for a review of the listings and of the criteria used. We should consider the experience in other places. This Government will consider carefully what representations to make to the UK Government, reflecting on the views of members, of the wider public and of stakeholders in the events.
Government officials have already written to Gordon Smith, the chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, to seek the association's views about possible changes to the listing of events. It is understood that the sale of television broadcast rights for the national team's home matches is an important income stream for the association. I think that it was Ted Brocklebank who raised that issue. That income stream supports the SFA's many grass-roots events, although Keith Brown said that it is only 20 per cent of the SFA's income. I want to better understand the consequences of any change for the SFA, which can let us know how it views that issue when it responds to our letter.
My point is on an issue that was also raised by Keith Brown. I fully accept that, towards the end of a campaign, matches can be of great importance—that has been the case in the past two campaigns. However, sometimes campaigns are finished before they get to that stage. Surely it would be better to guarantee that every match is shown live—or at least that a highlights package is shown—as opposed to waiting until the end of campaign before saying, "Well, that's really important so that match must be shown."
I was interested to learn that Stuart McMillan's petition—which I had not known about—had been submitted to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. The commission has been asked to consider the cultural and democratic importance of broadcasting as well as its economic impact. All the arguments tonight show that the terrestrial broadcast of sport is an issue that merits consideration, and I very much hope that people who feel strongly about the issue will approach the commission. I look forward to considering what the commission has to say on that aspect of broadcasting in Scotland. Tonight has highlighted an intense interest in broadcasting regulation and its impact on Scotland. I am delighted to hear that Blair Jenkins is attending the cross-party group on culture and media tonight.
I repeat my congratulations to Keith Brown on securing the debate. The Government will take his arguments and those of all members into account when making representations to James Purnell and the UK Government about the revision of the list. We will of course reflect also on the views of the sporting bodies. Members can be assured that while the regulation of broadcasting remains the responsibility of the UK Government, the Scottish Government will act to ensure that the interests of viewers in Scotland are always protected.
Meeting closed at 17:42.