Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Thursday, March 3, 2022

Official Report 1192KB pdf

---

Public Service Broadcasting

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-03420, in the name of Angus Robertson, on the value to Scotland of public service broadcasting. I invite all members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now, or to enter R in the chat function.

15:55  

I am delighted to lead the debate on the value of public service broadcasting and its pivotal role in Scotland’s past, present and future.

It is no secret that public service broadcasting is close to my heart. I worked as a correspondent for the BBC World Service before I entered elected politics, so I know how valuable such services are in informing people throughout Scotland and across the world.

For me in particular, as the son of a world war two refugee, the devastating events of last week in Ukraine have underlined in a horrifying way the real-life importance of public service broadcasting. On Tuesday night, a Russian missile hit Kyiv’s television tower, which knocked out transmission for a short period. We need look no further than the image of that TV tower, bombed out by an illegal invading force, for a reminder of why public service broadcasting and freedom of speech are at the heart of democracy.

Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating the BBC on broadcasting transmissions on short-wave radio frequencies so that anyone in Ukraine who has a transistor can hear the truth about what is going on in the conflict?

I completely agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton’s congratulations. Should anybody who is following our proceedings not be aware of the strength of the short-wave signal across Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, I encourage anybody and everybody to listen to the authoritative and accurate reporting by the BBC of the conflict in Ukraine.

The principles behind our public service broadcasting systems matter more than ever, for reasons that we have just discussed, so this is exactly the right time to talk about why we need to come together to protect them. Although the BBC and other broadcasters are far from perfect, they offer value not just to our democracy but to our creative life and its economy. As cornerstones of our screen sector, broadcasters have been the training ground for our finest creative talent and will continue to support our creative economy and how we present ourselves to the world.

Although public service broadcasting is important for our international image, it is also crucial for local and minority communities. MG Alba, in partnership with BBC Alba, helps to sustain our Gaelic-speaking communities, while contributing to economic growth in the Highlands and Islands and to creative innovation, with new and original content that resonates with audiences.

I will take a moment to celebrate how far we have come as a film and television producing nation. If we look back even just 10 years, it is fair to say that our screen sector was underperforming. We have always had incredible talent, captivating stories and some of the world’s most beautiful locations, but we were far short of achieving critical mass. Beyond the BBC, we had no significant studios. We missed out on productions, and crew had to go elsewhere to work.

Today, our public service broadcasters have made new commitments to the United Kingdom nations and have stepped up production and commissioning in Scotland—as well they should, given the historical underinvestment in Scotland by the BBC and Channel 4.

In the past five years, Channel 4’s creative hub has opened in Glasgow, and the BBC launched a dedicated Scottish channel to be a platform into the industry. It has produced new and original content, including the acclaimed series “Guilt”. Drama series such as “Screw” are produced by STV Studios for Channel 4, and are filmed entirely on a set in Glasgow’s Kelvin hall. Our excellent factual TV sector has gone from strength to strength, with Scottish companies building a much wider range of content alongside the lasting success of series such as “Location, Location, Location”.

We need to recognise Channel 4’s role here. It has spent more than £200 million on Scottish productions since 2007, and its targeted equity investment and unique publisher-broadcaster model allows independent production companies to grow sustainably.

Recently, I have seen the changes for myself when visiting several of our studios. At the Kelvin hall, a state-of-the-art multicamera studio is being built. The studios at the Pyramids Business Park in Bathgate are now hosting “Good Omens 2”. FirstStage Studios in Leith has hosted Amazon’s “The Rig” and is now hosting “Anansi Boys”. There being productions of such calibre and scale is becoming habitual in Scotland. People in Glasgow can see “Batgirl” being filmed on its streets. At Wardpark Film and Television Studios in Cumbernauld, the successful “Outlander” series has been being filmed for nine years, with successive training schemes that have been backed by Screen Scotland producing dozens of excellent new crew.

The change is nothing short of transformational. Of course, the step change has not come without investment. I am proud that, five years ago, the Scottish Government took the bold step to significantly increase investment in screen, thereby enabling more support and, which is important, widening investment to television.

Already we can see the benefits. For instance, Screen Scotland estimates that the production growth fund, which has awarded just under £10 million since 2015, has generated direct economic spend in Scotland of more than £140 million over the period. Because the issue is not just about funding but about expertise, in 2018 we created Screen Scotland, which is our specialist creative partnership within Creative Scotland. Its creative passion and industry knowledge have been invaluable in growing the sector.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to list all of our recent achievements, nor can I set out all that we still want to do. It is a long list, and I know that this is only the start. We know that we need to increase skills training, and we have already started the long but essential job of nurturing the influential writers and showrunners of tomorrow. We are determined to keep creating the conditions that allow us to develop more creative projects and talent, so that even more production will take place in Scotland.

Although the rise of global demand for content and streaming companies is an important factor in our progress, future growth should continue to have our public service broadcasters at its heart. Initiatives such as the Screen Scotland partnership with the BBC will be crucial. We also expect the BBC’s contribution to our creative economy to be strengthened by a greater share of investment here in Scotland.

Broadcasting policy should be devolved so that budgets can be allocated and commissioning decisions can be taken here in Scotland. Short of that devolution, I will continue to press the BBC to spend in Scotland a proportion of the licence fee that is equitable with what is raised here, in order to put us on a par with the other nations.

I would like to return to how recent events have again shone a spotlight on the value of public service broadcasting. Given that value, it is astonishing that one of the biggest threats to our broadcasting system comes not from outside but from the United Kingdom Government itself. The UK Government has hobbled the BBC by freezing licence fees for two years and refusing to commit to stable funding in the future. The UK Government is refusing to back down on plans to privatise Channel 4 when there is no reason to put that unique public asset into private shareholder hands. We in Scotland have no such doubts about the value of public service broadcasting and its principles, so we are determined to protect them unequivocally.

I trust that members will agree with me and support the motion. I look forward to working with all members to ensure that Scotland’s views and needs are recognised, reflected and supported, and, more widely, to ensure that the essential principles behind public service broadcasting are upheld.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that public service broadcasting has a valuable role in society and provides vital platforms for the creative economy and cultural richness of the nation; recognises that substantial progress has been made in the last decade in increasing the volume of screen production made in Scotland, and welcomes Screen Scotland’s actions to continue to attract productions; notes that broadcasters and producers like the BBC and STV have a vital role in the Scottish screen sector to help develop talent both on and off screen; condemns any efforts to undermine the BBC and Channel 4’s operational independence by the UK Government; calls for BBC Scotland to receive a far fairer share of licence fee revenues raised in Scotland, and further calls for the Scottish Parliament’s role in BBC Charter Renewal to be respected.

Before I call the next speaker, I remind all members who are seeking to speak in the debate to make sure that they have pressed their request-to-speak button.

16:03  

I welcome the opportunity to have a sensible and level-headed debate on this important issue. I associate myself with the cabinet secretary’s remarks on Ukraine and the importance of freedom of speech. Interestingly, the BBC Russian language news site’s audience has increased from 3.1 million to 10.7 million in a week—an extraordinary statistic.

As I said in my remarks in Alex Cole-Hamilton’s members’ business debate a few weeks ago, it is vital that we have a discussion to determine how best we can continue to support high-quality public service output, while ensuring that the way in which we pay for it is fair and sustainable. I reiterate the support of members on these benches for the BBC as a national institution, alongside other public service broadcasters.

I am a little disappointed in the motion. There has, at least in part of the debate, been an attempt to pursue the issue as a dispute between Scotland’s two Governments: the Scottish Government and the UK Government. That is a shame, because there is a lot in what the cabinet secretary has just said, and indeed in the motion, that I whole-heartedly agree with. Like the cabinet secretary, I welcome the increase in screen production in Scotland. I acknowledge the role that his Government has played in boosting the sector, whether that is the announcement that Screen Scotland and the BBC are investing £3 million in the sector, or the recent report from the British Film Institute, which revealed

“the highest ever return on investment to the UK economy of £13.48 billion ... from the UK government’s screen tax reliefs from 2017-2019.”

We acknowledge the role that many broadcasters—the BBC, STV and Channel 4—play in supporting our screen sector, including the many freelancers who operate in that sector. The cabinet secretary mentioned MG Alba. When I visited its studio in Stornoway in 2018, I heard about its important relationship with screen sector freelancers across the Highlands and Islands and further afield, and the need to maintain that cohort of freelancers. Undoubtedly the pandemic has significantly harmed the sector, and we must continue to support its revitalisation and growth.

On the issue of BBC charter renewal, the Scottish Conservatives will always defend the role of this Parliament in carrying out its duties. That is why we agree with the motion where it says that the Parliament’s role in BBC charter renewal should be respected. Where we depart from the Scottish Government is the implication—which we contest—that the UK Government seeks to disrespect that role.

The motion states that UK Government seeks

“to undermine the BBC and Channel 4’s operational independence”.

We do not accept that charge for one moment. We do not accept the charge that the UK Government is interfering with the independence of the BBC, or Channel 4 for that matter. On these benches, we completely respect and will always respect the ability of public service broadcasters such as the BBC to make operational decisions internally. However, it is widely recognised that all of those organisations need to evolve with time. No institution, especially one that is publicly funded, can be set in stone; nor should it be seen as immune from scrutiny. We can do that scrutiny while, at the same time, acknowledging the need for operational independence.

The need for change has been recognised by Tim Davie, the director general of the BBC, who, in his first speech, said:

“We must make changes because it will harm the BBC if we don’t.”

He went on to say that the BBC

“needs to evolve now—and fast.”

I am quite encouraged by Mr Davie’s broad vision for a modern BBC.

Similarly, I note the comments of the current chief executive of Channel 4, who said:

“the Government is right to periodically review our ownership and business model.”

It was a Conservative Government that established Channel 4 back in the 1980s. As a party, we have a proud history of investing in new and innovative broadcasting, including—a subject dear to my heart—the establishment of the Gaelic Media Service, which was the precursor to BBC Alba.

It is right that we have a debate on how we fund the BBC. I note the comments that have been made about the UK Government and the licence, but the question that I wanted to ask the cabinet secretary—perhaps Mr Gray can return to it in closing—is this: what exactly is the SNP’s position on the freeze? Does it support the freeze, or would it prefer the licence fee to rise? I hope to get an answer to that.

Can I clarify that we are not in favour of the freeze on the licence fee—that is pretty simple.

I have a question for the member, if I may. On Channel 4 privatisation, what is the position of the Scottish Conservative Party on the lack of guarantees being sought for the retention of commissioning across the nations and regions? Does the Scottish Conservative Party believe that conditions should be set to protect those, or not?

It is rather like the BBC. We believe in a review. We believe that all of those things should at least be on the table to ensure that we have a sensible discussion about how we fund and arrange the model.

Returning to the BBC, I note that the existing licence fee model was devised in 1922, when the BBC was founded. It was the only radio station that existed at the time. The cabinet secretary made the point that the media landscape has altered radically. In 2022, we have streaming on demand and all sorts of things, as well as growing divides between age groups in how they consume media.

I see that my time is almost up. We recognise the critical importance of public service broadcasting in Scotland. We support the initiatives that invest in the array of talent in the sector. It cannot remain static but must evolve. We need an open, honest and candid debate about how to support public service broadcasting.

I move amendment S6M-03420.2, to leave out from “condemns any efforts” to “raised in Scotland” and insert:

“understands the need to review how public service broadcasting is funded so that it is able to continue delivering world-class content in a fair and sustainable way, and believes that all possible funding options should be considered as part of that review”.

16:10  

As has been said, earlier this month we debated the importance of public broadcasting—music, sport and drama, the BBC World Service—as well as the importance of campaigning to stop the privatisation of Channel 4, which would massively disrupt a hugely successful model of commissioning that delivers high-quality and diverse programmes. Scottish Labour will not support the Tory amendment as it calls for us to support “all possible funding options”.

We are keen to look at options to increase the accountability of the BBC and are interested in the Co-operative Party’s call for mutualisation of the BBC to increase the influence of viewers, but we are resolutely opposed to the privatisation of the BBC. The important principles that underline the accountable and impartial programmes that we can watch could not be more relevant today and we should be proud of them.

I echo the comments made by the cabinet secretary and Donald Cameron: news programmes covering events in Ukraine and Russia this week have brought home why we must defend our public broadcasting and the importance of accessing news online. That is demonstrated by the BBC News statistics that show that in the past week, viewing figures have increased by more than 250 per cent in Russia and by 154 per cent in Ukraine.

It has been inspiring but also moving to watch our journalists across Ukraine reporting on live events from bunkers or streets where there are weapons being fired, and then seeing our journalists in Russia asking tough questions of the regime—just as we would expect them to do of our Governments in the UK.

Our amendment calls on the UK Government to ensure that there is no support for broadcasting services that spread propaganda and disinformation—they are unacceptable both in Scotland and across the UK. Public broadcasting is also key to our culture and economy, but our amendment highlights that more needs to be done on that. Last year, we were made aware of the concerns about the proposals to privatise BBC Scotland’s studios. Points were made then about the importance of programmes being made in Scotland to provide decent jobs and create more programme-making capabilities in Scotland.

Covid has reinforced the need for jobs across the culture sector that are not short-term precarious contracts and has also exposed the vulnerability of freelancers. We also need to see fair rates for those jobs and workable hours, whether someone works in make-up or on camera teams. For example, someone could be on a 10-hour contract and have to travel a couple of hours just to get to and from work.

The Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union is clear that commissioning needs to be properly funded to deliver jobs in Scotland going forward. We need that investment in studios and staff across Scotland so that our news output and programme making is an attractive opportunity for all our TV broadcasting companies.

Our amendment also references the importance of parity of esteem for Gaelic broadcasting compared with Welsh language broadcasting. Last week saw the announcement of the winners of this year’s prestigious Gaelic short film competition, FilmG 2022, in a special awards ceremony on BBC Alba. We need to celebrate the quality of programming in Scotland and ensure that it gets the funding needed.

However, I question the line in the Scottish Government motion that says that we need a “far fairer share” of the licence fee paid in Scotland. We need investment and pipelines for new programming to be generated in Scotland, but we are also part of a wider network of productions. For example, the BBC World Service is something to be proud of, as is the sports coverage of international events, and the music, drama, comedy and documentary programmes that we are able to share not just within the UK but across the world. We also have new TV channels, such as BBC Three, which serves viewers across the UK—critically, those are new viewers who are young people who are increasingly watching on phones or laptops, rather than on TVs. Podcasts and apps are transforming how we consume radio and television programming and enabling people to get involved.

I agree that the Scottish Parliament’s role in the BBC charter needs to be respected. The voice of parliamentarians in holding Governments to account and representing our constituents is vital. The text of the charter says that the review

“will not look at the BBC’s mission, purpose or the method by which it is funded”.

However, we know that the Tory Government has already frozen BBC funding for the next two years and that will put massive pressure on programme budgets. There are other ways to enable everyone to afford to watch the BBC—we know that with over-75 passes.

Scottish Labour is not against change, but public broadcasting must be properly funded, accessible to every citizen, and not privatised. For 44p a day, it is a service that we should be protecting and enhancing. We should not destroy something that is part of who we are as a democracy and a society.

I move amendment S6M-03420.3, to leave out from “calls for BBC Scotland” to end and insert:

“further condemns those who seek to undermine trust in the impartiality of British public service broadcasting; supports parity of esteem for Gaelic broadcasting compared with Welsh language broadcasting; calls for funding allocations to prioritise fair funding for fair work, in terms of hours worked and salaries, to ensure that talent is supported in Scotland; encourages the Scottish Government to provide more comprehensive support for freelancers, who make up a significant part of the industry; calls on the UK Government to ensure that broadcasting services that spread propaganda and misinformation, against the principles of public service broadcasting that this nation should defend, are unwelcome in Scotland and the UK, and further calls for the Scottish Parliament’s role in BBC Charter Renewal to be respected.”

16:15  

I am pleased to speak for my party on a topic that is, as members will know, close to my heart. I thank Angus Robertson for making time for the debate this afternoon.

Our public sector broadcasters are vital to the health of our democracy. For the past two years, they have kept us informed and have even managed to create and foster a vital sense of togetherness in our darkest times in the pandemic, amid the isolation of Covid-19. Now, in the middle of one of the worst geopolitics crises that we have seen in our history, while the knot of war tightens around our world, our public broadcasters are on the front line in Ukraine, putting themselves in harm’s way and keeping us up to date with events as they unfold.

It is extraordinary to think that many journalists and camera crews have left the safety of these shores so that each of us can be kept updated in the comfort of our own homes. Their bravery is an example of public sector broadcasting at its finest. We owe them a debt of sincere gratitude for the work that they are doing—I have no doubt that we can all agree on that.

During the past week, we have also witnessed how the Russian state has weaponised disinformation. Make no mistake: that is a weapon that is deliberately used to influence any opposition to Russia’s activities. The kleptocrat tsar who occupies the Kremlin and his gangsters have used their own state-owned media to justify their unjustifiable actions and to spread lies about the Ukrainian leadership and, of course, the Ukrainian people. As the Harvard professor Jane Lytvynenko has said, Russia is preying on the “gaps in knowledge” of western audiences in the hope that a demotivated west will be much less likely to offer help to Ukraine.

Our public sector broadcasters have always played a vital role in holding the line in that battle for truth itself. In doing so, they have awakened us to the plight of the Ukrainian people and galvanised us to protest, donate and volunteer. That demonstrates once again their immeasurable value. Indeed, as I mentioned in my intervention on the cabinet secretary, the BBC took the decision just this week to transmit radio broadcasts on short-wave frequencies to keep everyone with a transistor in Ukraine informed, even as their TV towers are being bombed and internet services are being brought down. We do not get that level of service with a Netflix subscription.

It is simply not possible to achieve the calibre of journalism to which we in Scotland have become accustomed without public funding. Public funding shields our broadcasters from the influence of shareholders and other corporate interference. We must always legislate to protect that. That goes for the BBC and, of course, Channel 4 as well.

Over three weeks ago, I lodged a motion for a members’ business debate on the future of the BBC—that has already been mentioned in this debate. I was grateful that members from all parties came to speak in favour of what was widely acknowledged to be a crucial public service. That mirrored the reaction of many people across Scotland and the UK when they saw a much-treasured public institution come under threat from Nadine Dorries and the Conservative Party. Many people, regardless of their political stripes, spoke up in the BBC’s defence, including, I dare say, some Conservatives.

It is to our great shame that some of our journalists and broadcasters have not always been treated with the respect that they deserve. Two weeks ago, we learned of the abuse that was suffered by the former BBC Scotland editor Sarah Smith simply for doing her job and by virtue of who her father was. She was relentlessly harassed online and in person. She faced attacks that were often tainted with misogynistic bile, all of which culminated in an environment that was, as she said, so toxic that she made the decision to leave Scotland altogether. That is shameful.

Sadly, Sarah Smith is not alone. I could name a number of journalists at the BBC, Channel 4 and STV who have been subject to online abuse just for doing their job. Although we may not always enjoy being at the end of a line of questioning from a journalist, that does not mean that we should allow for them to be on the receiving end of a barrage of abuse from those who support us. We must publicly oppose that type of behaviour, regardless of from where it comes. I call on all parties to reflect on that.

All of us in the chamber recognise—

Mr Cole-Hamilton, could you please conclude your remarks?

I conclude by saying that only when we protect our public service broadcasting do we protect our politics, our culture and our free democracy.

We now move to the open debate.

16:20  

I wish to repeat the recognition of, respect for and thanks to the broadcasters, in front and behind camera, reporting from the war in Ukraine for their courage in pursuit of the truth to tell the world. Truth in war and the need for religious and education programmes in a pandemic should not have to remind us of the importance of public service broadcasting, but they have provided a stark and salutary reminder.

Following many meetings with the then director general, as well as representations to the UK Government, I helped to secure a role for this Parliament in a previous BBC charter renewal, and MSPs must scrutinise the BBC on its contribution to Scotland’s culture and economy. However, if MSPs do not recognise the potential for an existential threat to public service broadcasting from some UK politicians, they are being naive.

Scotland watches more news than any other part of the UK. For three years in a row, STV News has outperformed the BBC, securing 54 per cent of audiences for “STV News at Six”. The success that is MG Alba is an exemplar as to how PSBs are uniquely placed to help stimulate economic growth and promote cultural representation.

On the latest threat of the privatisation of Channel 4, the advertising market is not strong enough for other actors. Channel 4 sustains many domestic independent producers. Indeed, it is projected that 50 to 60 independent producers could be put at risk if Channel 4 is privatised. What would happen to the commitment to increase from 35 per cent to 50 per cent output from outside London in its “4 All the UK” strategy, which is worth up to £250 million more in total? Privatisation would drive a coach and horses through any concept of the UK Government’s levelling up agenda. It could see Leeds, Bristol, Manchester and the creative hub in Glasgow all suffer economically and culturally.

In an era when PSB content is delivered via an array of platforms, the term should be replaced by “public service media”. I agree with Ofcom’s call for a

“stronger system of public service media fit for the digital age”,

with a

“radical overhaul of laws”

to allow broadcasters to compete with largely unregulated global streaming services, and with a new objective to support the creative economy in individual nations.

Availability and prominence rules need to be updated to include digital platforms. STV must have digital prominence for audiences so that local news is not buried by global platforms. It is essential to have long-term licence renewal for channel 3 licence holders. STV is making a modern success in public service media, with its children’s appeal, by driving diversity through its expert voices workshops, and through its STV growth fund for small business advertising.

We need more returning drama for jobs and the economy. I am proud to have established Screen Scotland, to have helped finally secure the permanent film studio, First Stage Studios in Leith, and to have added to Cumbernauld’s Wardpark and the Pyramids in Bathgate in my constituency, where “T2 Trainspotting”, “Shetland” and Neil Gaiman’s “Good Omens” have been filmed. I previously committed Government funding for the Kelvin Hall film studio.

The creative economy is all linked, including skills, crew and talent off screen and on screen. Public service media has a huge role to play, and we need it. We must stand up for the principle, the practice, the value, the benefits and the future of public service media, and we must champion public service journalism in an age when the dark shadow of disinformation still looms large.

This is not about preserving the past of public service broadcasting in a nostalgic way; it could and should be about the future of the new public service media for the streaming, online, digital new age. I support the Government’s motion.

16:24  

It is a pleasure to follow Fiona Hyslop, who gave an excellent speech; I thank her for it. I hope that the whole chamber will join me in congratulating Kathryn Samson on her recent Royal Television Society award, along with the team at STV news.

We have a great deal to be proud of in this country in the creative industries and in public service broadcasting. I used the occasion of Alex Cole-Hamilton’s debate a few weeks ago to stress my personal belief that the BBC is one of Britain’s greatest institutions and one of the United Kingdom’s great forms of soft power, as has been illustrated by, and discussed in relation to, the events of the past week. Who will be able to forget the faces of the BBC correspondents and other journalists speaking to camera from Kyiv during this very difficult time for the whole of Europe? In particular, I think of the face of Clive Myrie. My wife has commented on the expressiveness of his face and eyes as he has been speaking live to camera on BBC News and standing up for truth, which at the end of the day is the hallmark of true journalistic reporting.

That is the BBC at its best. Nonetheless, we should occasionally take the opportunity—as my colleague Donald Cameron said—in particular in the 100th anniversary year of the BBC’s establishment, to examine and review the BBC and its business model, and to support the values that I think we are all united in wanting to support and protect.

In the time that I have, I will quickly mention one or two things. I am not being overtly critical of the BBC, but there is something to be said about the BBC in Scotland and how it covers the proceedings of this Parliament. It is 20 years since the devolution settlement, and I honestly believe that the BBC has not quite caught up with that in its coverage of the Scottish Parliament.

One example is the BBC’s coverage of Prime Minister’s questions in comparison with its coverage of First Minister’s questions. Prime Minister’s questions is live and is shown on BBC News, and it is also shown live on the home page of the BBC website. First Minister’s questions is live, but it is rarely shown on BBC News or on the BBC home page.

In my opinion, that is not right. I will expand on that. Some constituents tell me that the BBC’s radio coverage—that is, BBC Radio Scotland’s coverage—of First Minister’s questions sometimes includes only the questions from Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar. If the BBC’s radio coverage of Prime Minister’s questions did not include the questions from back benchers, there would be outrage. Why is there no similar outrage in Scotland?

Members: There is!

BBC Radio Scotland should be covering the proceedings of this Parliament. The BBC Scotland channel receives—[Interruption.]

I do not know what members are all shouting at.

Will the member take an intervention?

An intervention? Yes—I beg your pardon.

In the early days of this Parliament, there was also live coverage of general questions, leading into First Minister’s questions, and that was ditched.

I am sympathetic to what Christine Grahame says. There is no live stream on BBC Scotland of the proceedings of this chamber, and yet there are no programmes on BBC Scotland during the day. Why does the channel not show the live stream from this chamber?

I am not advocating that the whole of Scotland should be mesmerised by the rhetoric and speeches of members in this Parliament—

What about you?

It is very generous of the cabinet secretary to suggest that people would tune in just to listen to some of us and not to others. However, it is not right that the proceedings are not shown. It is so hard to find the live stream of this Parliament, and we ought to be concerned about that. The people of Scotland should be able to view the proceedings of this Parliament on the same basis that we can view the proceedings of Scotland’s other Parliament—the United Kingdom Parliament—on the BBC Parliament channel.

There is no “Today” or “Yesterday in Parliament” programme on BBC Radio Scotland. There is not even a podcast produced by the BBC to highlight the proceedings of this Parliament. It is not as if the BBC could not produce that coverage in Scotland—it could split its frequency, as it does for football all the time. Why can it not provide coverage of this Parliament on the same basis as the UK Parliament?

That is my feedback for BBC Scotland. Coverage and analysis of the debates that happen here are very important—

Mr Kerr, I have been generous and given you latitude because you took an intervention, but you now need to conclude your remarks.

You have been generous, Presiding Officer. I will conclude.

The Scottish Parliament deserves greater exposure through the platforms of our public service broadcaster. The Scottish Parliament is not the Nicola Sturgeon show or even the Douglas Ross show; there are 129 members—[Interruption.]

I thank Christine Grahame very much for her comments. The BBC must get on top of the remit that it has to provide coverage of the proceedings of this Parliament.

16:30  

Public service broadcasting, as the motion states, has a “valuable role in society” especially, as many members have said, given the horrific events in Ukraine and the robust but compassionate journalism from Channel 4 News and the BBC. The Scottish Parliament’s role in BBC charter renewal must be respected.

I spent 18 years working at BBC Scotland, supporting talented and creative programme makers in radio and television to produce programming that reflected public service broadcasting purposes across Radio Scotland, Radio nan Gàidheal, Gaelic television, education and the BBC Scottish symphony orchestra. Those were all departments of BBC Scotland whose clear remit was to inform, educate and entertain and to reflect Scotland’s cultural identity.

I thank Ealasaid MacDonald and Jeff Zycinski for sharing some of their thoughts on the importance of public sector broadcasting with me as I prepared for this debate.

One of my proudest moments at BBC Scotland was something that has been mentioned by others: the launch of BBC Alba. It was the accomplishment of many years of hard work and one that fulfilled the obligation to Gaelic television under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Gaelic broadcasting through BBC Alba and Radio nan Gàidheal is a public service broadcasting triumph. As Sarah Boyack said, it deserves the parity that is given to S4C.

The partnership between MG Alba and the BBC gives BBC Alba a prominence in access and status, which are powerful tools in revitalising the Gaelic language. It makes programmes such as “Dè a-nis?”, “Bannan”, “An Là” and “Eòrpa”. It is an important part of the Scottish broadcast ecology and commissions a large proportion of its output from independent production companies across Scotland.

My constituency of Argyll and Bute has provided the inspiration for many programmes. The wee picture house in Campbeltown played a starring role in “Cinema Gadelica”, which showcased films shot in iconic Scottish locations. That applies not only to the Gaelic language. Inveraray played a starring role in the BBC’s “A Very British Scandal” and, almost 60 years ago, was the location for Walt Disney’s film “The Three Lives of Thomasina”.

Gaelic language television output is complemented and enhanced by Radio nan Gàidheal, which provides a comprehensive news, speech and music service and is a voice to and for communities across the Gàidhealtachd.

Radio should not be viewed as a Cinderella service. The merger of commercial radio stations has arguably reduced the localness of the service that they provide. With those stations’ focus on music and news bulletins, there are gaps in comedy, drama, documentaries, sport and the arts and culture that public service radio can fill.

Radio Scotland has the brilliant “Off the Ball”, which bookends “Sportsound” and became a key message point during the Covid pandemic. I challenge what Mr Kerr said about Radio Scotland’s output regarding this Parliament. There is a podcast called “Podlitical” that covers output from this Parliament. “The Afternoon Show” covers all things arts in Scotland and the “Young Traditional Musician of the Year” promotes the wealth of talent in our traditional music scene.

Radio can be many things: a nursery for developing formats, writers and performers; a service that keeps us company on long journeys; a less intrusive way of getting personal stories told. Community radio stations also play a role here. Perhaps building in a defined public service remit with funding would help them to flourish. We must remember the important resource that they provided during the pandemic.

Within its charter, the BBC has a public purpose to invest in the creative economies of the United Kingdom’s nations and regions. I have raised this here before, but it is so important that it deserves to be highlighted again: there is no requirement for the BBC to invest to the same extent in each of the UK nations or regions. In the year 2020-21, £101 million of the licence fee raised in Scotland was spent by the BBC elsewhere in the UK. Scotland and its creative economy are consistently being short-changed.

The Scottish film, radio and television industry is booming. We have skilled and talented people who are building the foundations of an independent Scotland’s public broadcasting service. We should build on that success and be even more ambitious for the sector. Defending public service broadcasting is absolutely essential to supporting our creative industries.

16:34  

Public service broadcasting matters, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of its place in the dissemination of important stories and information. I agree with Jenni Minto about the importance of BBC Alba. In fact, I campaigned for it, because I believe that Gaelic broadcasting is very important, and it is an excellent channel.

As other speakers have said, we value public broadcasting now more than ever when we see the Russian state and other dictatorships control the freedom of their media. As Alex Cole-Hamilton said, the BBC World Service changed its frequency to the less used short wave, to let ordinary Russians hear the truth of the dangerous war in Ukraine, so it has indeed done the world a service.

In the UK, 91 per cent of adults use BBC television, radio or online services every week, and the BBC reaches half a billion people outside the UK every week, which is quite staggering. Many tune into the World Service and BBC World News, and the BBC operates in 42 languages, from Korean to Punjabi. I love the BBC Asian Network and Radio 6 Music. There is plenty of innovation, and it never stops. The BBC sets the bar internationally, and I believe that its existence means that, across the world, broadcasting overall is of a much higher standard.

With the growth of misinformation and the present huge propaganda war being waged by Russia, trustworthy news sources matter now more than ever. As Donald Cameron said earlier, the BBC Russian language news site has tripled its audience.

I agree with the First Minister when she said this week that journalists, such as Clive Myrie, who have been playing such an important role from Ukraine, are “unsung heroes”. That has always been the case for journalists across the stations. Lyse Doucet, the BBC’s chief international correspondent, has covered every conflict zone that I have ever followed.

Many years ago, along with Sarah Boyack, I had the privilege of meeting Alan Johnston, who was kidnapped in Gaza in the mid-2000s. I also had the opportunity to meet Rageh Omaar in Gaza, when he bravely replaced Alan Johnston. He now works for ITV.

It is also worth remembering that the BBC’s values are to inform, educate and entertain, and it has being doing just that during the pandemic. The BBC Scotland channel offered a daily range of programmes for primary and secondary learners, which focused on the curriculum for excellence.

I am proud of the work that BBC Scotland does and I am proud that it is based in Glasgow, the city that I represent. I agree with Jenni Minto on the importance of radio output. I take this opportunity to applaud the work of journalists Fiona Stalker and John Beattie for their incredible coverage of the current issues of violence and harassment against women. In my view, Sam Poling’s eight-part series “Disclosure” on BBC Scotland led to the arrest of a man who is believed to have murdered Emma Caldwell. Our broadcasting, including our drama and documentaries, is crucially important.

One thing on which I agree with Stephen Kerr is that BBC Scotland’s current affairs output and coverage of Parliament could be better. As Christine Grahame alluded to earlier, at one time, we had much better coverage. I would like to go back to those days.

At the start of the year, Nadine Dorries, the UK culture secretary, announced cuts to the BBC’s funding, as previous culture secretaries have done. She said that the current licence fee agreement between the UK Government and the corporation “will be the last”. I would really call on the Tories and the UK Government to settle their position on the BBC, instead of threatening it every time that they take office.

Let us not forget the UK Government’s recent attack on Channel 4, which is another publicly owned, non-profit organisation that invests in commissioning programmes. Last year, the UK Government launched a consultation into the ownership of Channel 4 and made it clear that it wants the station to be privatised. I believe that the flagship news programme at 7 pm on Channel 4 has the best news coverage—

Ms McNeill, please bring your remarks to a close, because you are well over your time.

[Inaudible.]—to everyone for listening to my contribution to this debate.

Thank you. We have absolutely no time in hand; we are well behind. I ask members to stick to their allotted time of four minutes.

16:39  

Presiding Officer, before I speak, can I check that the clock is correct?

The clock was wrong but is now correct. I had written down when Ms McNeill’s speech started.

Thank you for that clarity.

In war as in peace, the independence of our broadcast media must be protected from political interference. That independence presents, of course, a stark contrast to the sight and sound of what happens when the state has outright and unfettered control of public broadcasting, as it does in Russia as that country wages war on its innocent neighbour.

We know that Russia is using cluster bombs, that civilians are being targeted and that Ukrainians do not welcome the invaders but the vast majority of Russians do not know that. In Putinspeak, it is a special mission to rescue Russians living in Ukraine from Nazi-like persecution and from a predatory NATO, and that Russians are the victims. That is what happens, in extremis, when politicians censor and suppress a free press—which, even in a democracy, we must guard against. Independent broadcasters, such as the television channel Dozhd and its website, and radio station Ekho Moskvy, have been shut down as Russia eradicates non-state media. We must hope that, through social media, and especially through the eyes of the younger generations, the truth of the war is seen for what it is in all its barbarity.

The public purpose of the BBC is, inter alia,

“To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them”,

through

“accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming ... Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards.”

I want to address that last point.

We have wall-to-wall coverage of the invasion. We are seeing real-time reports, analysis, and political and international commentary. Twenty-four-hour rolling news means that there must not be any unfilled airtime; however, quantity does not always equate to quality.

Some questions for politicians are asked as if Russia were not monitoring every word for intelligence and propaganda purposes. Sometimes there is inappropriate reporting. It is true that an individual’s experience or an image brings us the human face of war but sometimes a line is crossed. Do we really need to see a microphone thrust into the distressed face of someone who is desperately trying to board a train and hear them asked, “How are you feeling?” It makes me uncomfortable.

Real-time reporting requires not only professional judgment but empathy. It also requires that such reporters do his or her own editing. It requires that they see that line, recognise it and do not cross it. Most reporters, particularly senior reporters, have skills and experience that they gained in other dreadful conflicts, and it shows. I commend all who are out in the field and reporting against a background of sirens and explosions.

However, even some on-camera questioning in studios has been unnecessarily intrusive, verging on the tasteless and even asinine. This is not a soap opera, and we must not let it turn into one. This is not entertainment to fill the lines of communication—it is for real. I suppose that I am getting angry and other people are not, and I know that we each have our own red lines, but I feel at times that such reporting crosses a line.

That said, it is in times of international crisis, such as the misery and murder in Ukraine, that our public broadcasting is most valued. I commend it, and I would make it clear that I wish not for editorial censorship but for editorial sensitivity.

Above all, I am glad that I am able to offer these public criticisms for consideration, because I live in a democracy. Minute by minute, the Ukrainians are fighting desperately to retain one.

16:43  

I associate myself with the comments that have been made about broadcasters reporting on and in Ukraine.

I will focus on an issue that I think is fundamental to any public service broadcaster. Underpinning any functioning democracy is information—good-quality information—and the effects of communicating that information. The public service element in those communications is vital. A healthy democracy is an informed democracy.

However, a central pillar of the effectiveness of communication is trust. People need to be able to trust the information that they receive, especially the information that comes through mass media channels. Therefore, they need to be able to trust the channels that communicate information. It follows that we, as a society, need to create the conditions in which trust in communications channels can be developed and sustained.

There are different elements to that. Independence is vital: public service broadcasters need to be independent of governmental and corporate influence and lobbying. Linked to that, broadcasters need to ensure that they understand, and communicate effectively, that different approaches might have different levels of trustworthiness. Information that is based on science or human rights is of a different quality to information that comes from a lobbying group. Broadcasters need to ask difficult questions, even if doing so threatens their own interests.

Being trustworthy means broadcasters must also reflect the reality that people live and the identities that make up our communities. In Scotland, I think that that means acknowledging the different languages that we speak as well as many other things. Gaelic media deserve the same status in statute as Welsh broadcasting and I hope that any legislation relating to broadcasting in Westminster—until broadcasting is devolved, of course—will seek to address that and ensure that indigenous minority language media are protected, including in the digital sphere.

Being trustworthy means that broadcasters must communicate in ways that are accessible but do not involve the watering down of content. They must not say one thing to one audience and something else to a different one. Audiences should be treated with respect and dignity and without pretending that complex issues are beyond people’s comprehension. Broadcasters must also understand the power of their media and the ways that information and ideas can be distorted, deliberately or otherwise, leading to exclusion, prejudice and even tragedy. People who have the privilege of being able to say whatever they like and courting deliberate controversy need to bear it in mind that there may be consequences from what they say and that it will be someone else who pays the price.

In short, trustworthy media should always be reaching up and out, not punching down; speaking truth to power, not propaganda to the powerless; and it should not be immune from criticism. It is that point that means that, although I agree with much in the Labour amendment, we cannot support it. A public broadcaster must be scrutinised, and criticised where appropriate, to ensure that it continues to serve the public interest, and it needs to be properly funded. I am sorry that Labour chose to remove the important point about fair funding for Scotland’s public broadcasting.

The point is that we are not getting fair funding anywhere in the BBC—£1 billion has been cut in every year from 2017 to this year. It is not the share that we get in Scotland but the pot that is diminishing as costs rocket during the pandemic. That is the point that we are getting across.

I do not disagree with that point, but that is not how the Labour amendment reads.

I will say one final thing about the value of trustworthy public service broadcasting. In addition to being a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, it is a linchpin of a society’s cultural identity. I look forward to enjoying many more broadcasts from Scotland’s public broadcasters, Screen Scotland and the wonderfully talented and creative artists, journalists, writers, musicians, technicians, and everyone else who makes public broadcasting possible. Long may it continue.

Kaukab Stewart is joining us remotely.

16:47  

In 1922, the inception of what would become the UK’s very first public service broadcaster marked an important epoch in our cultural history. The BBC, like all public service broadcasters, would produce content to serve the people, not commercial interests or the ruling party, operating under its commitment to “inform, educate and entertain”.

That commitment was exemplified when the BBC covered its first major news story: the 1926 UK general strike. Fearful amid the chaos, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin attempted to commandeer the broadcaster. During a series of exchanges with the BBC’s managing director, John Reith, it was argued by Mr Reith that such a move would destroy the company’s reputation for honesty and impartiality. Remarkably, the Prime Minister conceded; the BBC would remain independent.

There have been many significant milestones, from the moon landing to David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth” and gritty, pioneering dramas such as “Grange Hill”, in which difficult topics such as drug addiction could be explored and key messages provided to its teenage audience without sermonising or finger-wagging. Younger broadcasters, such as Channel 4, are also governed by their public service remit. Over the years, it too has brought us many ground-breaking series.

Programmes such as “Blue Peter”, which is the longest-running children’s TV show in the world and still airs today, and family favourites such as Balamory bring a nostalgic warmth for many. I also acknowledge the educational provision, most notably on BBC Bitesize Scotland. Students can listen to David Tennant explaining the importance of renewable energies with the help of a host of quirky characters including Snazzy Solar and Mighty Hydro. Many examples of what public service broadcasters have brought to us have been mentioned in the debate. However, under the Westminster Tories, they are now at risk.

The threat of privatisation is now dangled over the heads of those at Channel 4, the remit of which means that it is not reliant on Government funding, instead commissioning its content from more than 300 independent production companies.

As for the BBC, in one fell swoop, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport declared that BBC funding via licensing fees would be frozen for two years and that that funding’s future was “up for discussion”. That freeze represents real-terms cuts that are worth hundreds of millions of pounds and that will directly impact the ability to take creative risks and invest in quality programming.

The freeze undoubtedly came as a surprise to many, but perhaps less surprising was the lack of consultation with devolved nations. There are reviews to the BBC’s charter but, once again, we remain an afterthought.

In spite of the challenges of the pandemic, we have seen a much welcome increase in made-in-Scotland TV and film production, and in my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin, the Government has helped to fund additional studio infrastructure, investing £7.9 million in a new television studio in Kelvin Hall. I thank Fiona Hyslop for mentioning that in her speech.

We must do all that we can to protect those in Scotland who pay the price of Tory cuts to public service broadcasting. In a world of ever-growing fake news and uncertainty, we must defend those who act in the interests of the people, not of private shareholders.

Thank you, Ms Stewart. Jamie Greene will be the last speaker in the open debate. You have up to four minutes.

16:51  

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Four minutes is very little time to cover a hundred years of proud history of broadcast, or indeed a decade of my life spent in public and private television in a variety of roles. I started as a runner on the floor of a live TV show and ended up running the commercial arm of an international media conglomerate based in New York. TV has been kind to me, at least behind the camera—it certainly adds years and kilos in front of it.

I will make a few important points. I am afraid that the first one is non-consensual, because I am struck by the total irony in the Scottish National Party’s motion and its newfound unconditional love for Auntie. I am afraid that the 2014 referendum brought out the very worst in anti-BBC rhetoric—admittedly on all sides, but specifically from those who saw and heard the BBC, through venomous eyes and ears, as some form of UK establishment conspiracy theory. It strikes me as a little odd that those who claim that the BBC was rigged against them are now its apparent saviours.

Do not get me wrong. Although plenty of people out there say, “defund the BBC”, I am not one of them. I am equally clear that, after my 15 years of dealing with the BBC, I see its faults. I see what it does well, but I also see where its strategic commercial moves have erroneously encroached, leading to what is almost a market distortion.

Let us treasure what the BBC does well. We have spoken about BBC News already. We are reminded more than ever of its importance, whether it is broadcasting shortwave to Ukrainians, or Persian language content to the oppressed in Iran. The figures that we see night after night—Orla Guerin, Lyse Doucet, Clive Myrie, James Waterhouse—have families of their own, but they put on their backpacks and their North Face clothing and off they go, as near to the front line as the BBC risk assessment will let them. They are the true heroes of public service broadcasting.

The second success is radio. It is no secret that I am a closet “Archers” fan—I am sure that there are many in the chamber today. Helen Archer’s tragic domestic abuse story drew me in, as it drew many millions to the programme, and “The Archers’” gritty realities kept me on the hook: Philip Moss and his modern slavery story, gay fatherhood, and agricultural downturn. The BBC does well what it does well—continuity and comfort—and does it for free for those who need it most, and that service should never be at risk. That being said, it cannot be all things to all people.

The third success is specialist content. The BBC does that well and does it big—wildlife, history, the environment, religion—and it monetises it all handsomely through BBC Worldwide, just like in the real world.

The fourth success is that it does things that no one else does because they have neither the time nor the money. It supports our communities: the black, Asian and minority ethnic community; provides Welsh, Gaelic and Irish language output; and supports the LGBT community.

I now come to the not so good. The BBC distorts the market. BBC Maestro, iPlayer and BBC Sounds all compete head to head every day with commercial going concerns. The BBC has an endless, obsessive ratings war with ITV and Virgin Radio. None of those decisions was ever truly market assessed. If adverts were put on BBC Radio 2, the station would be self-sufficient without tax subsidies but, if the BBC did that, it would have to ditch the £1.3 million breakfast show presenter salary, which it does not want to do.

The SNP’s argument on fair funding is flawed. It is hard to imagine what we would get for just £400 million, if we divvied up licence fee money on a population-based formula. Just the same as anyone who is anywhere else in the UK, Scottish viewers and listeners benefit from multimillion pound productions and millions of hours of visual and audio content—Attenborough, Downton and “His Dark Materials”. Let us not stoke grievance for the sake of it.

I will fight for the BBC and its right to exist in free-to-air form, but it must grow with the times and it must remember its roots. For now, I say to those people in war zones who are listening to the voices and watching the faces of our BBC that I hope it brings you knowledge, comfort and, more importantly, friendship in the dark days that you will face ahead.

16:55  

Today, we have heard considerable support for the future of public service broadcasting. We have heard how it benefits the Scottish economy and Scottish culture. We have also heard criticisms—some of which were fairer than others—of the BBC and the state of public service broadcasting in this country.

The motion welcomes the increasing number of productions that are being made in Scotland and the on-going efforts of Screen Scotland to attract productions. Scottish Labour agrees with that. We also strongly agree with the sentiments in the motion on defence of the BBC and Channel 4 against threats to their “operational independence”.

The BBC is a national asset. Although it is not infallible, it is envied around the world for the quality of its productions and the reliability of its journalism.

The UK Government seems to be content to use the BBC and Channel 4 as red meat to throw to Tory back benchers in Westminster—no doubt, in order to keep them on side after recent scandals. However, what it proposes would be an act of cultural vandalism for only momentary political gain.

Where Scottish Labour cannot agree with the motion is in the demand that BBC Scotland receive a “far fairer” share of the licence fee income that is raised in Scotland. We do not believe that that compares like with like. The “BBC Group Annual Report and Accounts 2020/21” show that, in the most recent pre-pandemic year, 85 per cent of the licence fee that was raised in Scotland was spent in Scotland. Given the inevitable outside costs of its broadcast service, international journalism, sports coverage and global media monitoring, that seems to be reasonable. My colleague Sarah Boyack noted the incredible work of the BBC in covering Ukraine and Russia. We can be proud of those parts of the BBC without considering the spending on them to be anti-Scottish.

The share of the licence fee that is spent in Scotland has, of course, fallen during the pandemic, when the BBC has been forced to cut non-essential TV production. We must be patient and see whether investment returns to its pre-pandemic level before we make sweeping judgments about fairer funding for Scotland.

Will Foysol Choudhury take an intervention?

I have a lot to go through, so I will carry on.

Instead, the fairer funding issue that we should be considering is to do with working conditions in the screen industry. Sarah Boyack has already highlighted the difficulties that women and parents face in the industry because of the working conditions that are now common. Our amendment to the motion suggests that secure working conditions and support for talent in Scotland should be priorities.

Although we have a screen sector that we can be proud of, more can be done to maintain the sector and to support the people who work in it. Scottish Labour believes in a vibrant public service broadcasting sector, and our amendment seeks to preserve it into the future. I invite members to support it.

I call Sharon Dowey to wind up for the Scottish Conservatives.

17:00  

It is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. From across the chamber, we have heard about the great value of public service broadcasting to the Scottish people. As has been mentioned, platforms include the BBC, Channel 4 and STV, which continue to play a key role in educating, entertaining and informing audiences across Scotland.

During the debate, colleagues have raised key points about the value of public service broadcasting. For example, Donald Cameron highlighted the work of BBC Alba and MG Alba in promoting the Gaelic language, as did Jenni Minto, Pauline McNeill and Maggie Chapman.

Angus Robertson spoke about the value of reporting the conflict in Ukraine, as did Sarah Boyack. I would be interested to hear about the cabinet secretary’s future plans, which he was going to talk about in his speech, but his time was cut short.

Alex Cole-Hamilton said that public service broadcasting is vital to the health of our democracy. Among other things, Fiona Hyslop mentioned the success of Channel 4 and the number of producers that it supports.

Stephen Kerr spoke about the soft power of public broadcasting and the need to support and protect it, as well as the need for increased coverage of his speeches in Parliament—I am sorry; I should have said “our speeches”—which Pauline McNeill agreed with.

Christine Grahame spoke about editorial sensitivity, while Jamie Greene talked about his experience in the sector.

From Scottish independent production companies to Screen Scotland, many organisations benefit from public service broadcasting. For example, the renewed commitment between BBC Scotland and Screen Scotland will strengthen the production sector and raise its profile across the UK. In addition, various BBC-led initiatives have created opportunities for young individuals, including “Make it Digital”, which is a UK-wide initiative to inspire people to get creative with programming, coding and digital technology; “Ten Pieces”, which opens up the world of classical music to seven to 14-year-olds by offering a variety of films, lesson plans and live events; and the Scottish drama writers programme 2021, in which the BBC partnered Scotland-based writers with independent production companies to develop authentic network dramas.

Profound changes in the media landscape for local newspapers resulted in the creation by the BBC of the local democracy reporting service. Research by Press Gazette found that there had been a net loss of 265 newspapers in the UK since 2005. The local democracy reporting service has created up to 150 jobs across the UK to improve reporting on local democracy issues.

Channel 4 has spent more than £200 million on Scottish productions since 2007, and it annually invests around £20 million, which provides a boost to the Scottish screen industry.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry. I do not have enough time.

Channel 4 has supported the growth of businesses through its growth fund and its alpha fund, and its training schemes have benefited more than 10,000 people since 2015. It has funded 15 production trainees at Scottish independent production companies, as well as numerous apprentices.

I recently met the heads of several Scottish independent production companies, who strongly believe that there is positive momentum at present, which has been supported by the opening of Channel 4’s new creative hub in Glasgow. That will shift the production centre of gravity away from London, to Glasgow and beyond.

STV has also made a significant contribution, including through the work of STV Studios, which is Scotland’s biggest production company, and “STV News”, which is the most-watched news programme in Scotland.

Will the member take an intervention?

No—I will be out of time soon. I am sorry.

STV helps to fuel not only the creative industry but many businesses, through its growth fund, its green fund and its local lifeline campaigns.

I am happy that PSBs are now also benefiting from the transformation of the Kelvin hall in Glasgow into Scotland’s biggest film studio.

We have made a good start in moving away from centralisation, but we need to do more. It is vital that we have more initiatives across Scottish rural areas. We have a wealth of talent in our rural areas in fields such as music and theatre, and we need to capitalise on that.

The Scottish Conservatives continue to support public service broadcasting because it brings many benefits to Scotland. BBC Scotland, Channel 4 and STV create jobs, support countless roles in the freelance and creative economies, drive our creative sector and provide world-class programming that is made in Scotland. All members can agree that we want to see public service broadcasting succeeding in the 21st century.

I call Neil Gray to wind up the debate—for up to seven minutes, minister.

17:05  

It is a privilege to close what is an important debate on the value of public service broadcasting and its pivotal role in Scotland’s past, present and future. The variety of the contributions has illustrated just how much public service broadcasting and the development of our screen sector mean to colleagues as individuals and to the communities across Scotland that we represent.

My background, like the cabinet secretary’s, is in broadcasting. From a personal and professional standpoint, I fully endorse all that has been said about the essential value of public service broadcasting, free speech and freedom of information—particularly at what is a critical time for Ukraine. The public service part of our broadcasting system comes to the fore at times such as this. When people cannot rely on their broadcasters for truthful news, or when an invading power targets national broadcasters—as has happened in Kyiv, as we heard from the cabinet secretary—audiences turn to media such as the BBC World Service. We are reminded of the priceless value that the less commercial parts of our truly public broadcasting services offer at times such as this.

It is important to pay tribute, as others have done, to those journalists who are reporting from Ukraine. They include print journalists, of course; however, it has been striking to see the likes of Clive Myrie and Lyse Doucet reporting from the underground shelters in Kyiv. They are reporting for and with the brave people of Ukraine. In doing so, they face similar risks to those faced by the people they are sheltering alongside. I also pay tribute to the Ukrainian TV cameraman Yevheniy Sakun, who was killed by the disgraceful missile strike at Babyn Yar, which is a burial place for 30,000 Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Oppressive regimes and dictators target freedom of speech. It is critical that, as part of our support for democratic values, we fight to protect impartial journalism.

The debate is also a timely reminder that public service broadcasting is as valuable as ever to our democracy, to our creative economy and to our culture. Public service broadcasters—in particular, the BBC and Channel 4—have a pivotal role to play in supporting and continuing the growth of our screen sector through their renewed commitment to greater commissioning and spend in Scotland.

As has been alluded to by the cabinet secretary and others, we are seeing a transformation of our screen sector, with increased high-end and original production, a burgeoning range of studio spaces and more opportunities to showcase our talent on the world stage. Our efforts to increase funding and create the dedicated screen partnership Screen Scotland have helped to drive that change, which is delivering enormous benefits for our economy and our crews and for the sustainable growth of our companies. I pay tribute to Fiona Hyslop for the role that she has played in that success.

Despite the success of securing more studio space, exciting productions and new original content, much more needs to be done, particularly in skills and training, to develop Scotland-based talent, produce more authentically Scottish content and maintain a growing industry. We are already working to deliver that, and we are determined to continue that support.

I will reflect on some of the points that have been made in the debate. I agree with many points that were made by Donald Cameron in his reflections on the increased BBC readership in Russia and on the role of the Parliament in the BBC’s charter. That is welcome. However, I note that, when given the opportunity to demand the protection of commissioning by Channel 4 across nations and regions, he neglected to do so. In addition, his amendment would open the door to further cuts to the BBC and to the privatisation of Channel 4, putting at risk all the values and investments that we have spoken about.

I welcome Sarah Boyack’s explicit support for public service broadcasting, as exemplified by the events of this week, and I agree with much more of what she said—not least about the need for a greater share of spending by the BBC in Scotland. I also welcome her point that the UK Government’s freezing of the licence fee makes those aspirations much harder.

Alex Cole-Hamilton made another good speech, in which he talked about how public service broadcasting fostered togetherness throughout Covid but also gives us unbiased coverage—in stark contrast to Putin’s misinformation regime. I absolutely deplore the online abuse directed towards Sarah Smith and other journalists that he mentioned. We must all reflect on how we can do better in that regard.

Fiona Hyslop spoke about the existential threat to public service broadcasters from some UK politicians and reflected on the fact that more news is consumed in Scotland than is consumed elsewhere. Her knowledge and experience shone through in a very powerful and wide-ranging contribution.

Stephen Kerr congratulated Kathryn Samson, quite rightly, on her RTS award. Without breaking the consensus that there has been in the debate, I would just reflect on the fact that Kathryn became very well known for her interviewing of Boris Johnson on his cuts to universal credit. Stephen Kerr seemed to be surprised that there was support from SNP members for more coverage of this Parliament. We want to see that increased.

Jenni Minto, another former BBC employee, was absolutely right about the role that the Gaelic language plays and her constituency’s role in that.

Pauline McNeill was also absolutely right. What she said was short, sharp and to the point: public service broadcasting matters.

I enjoyed Christine Grahame’s speech and her reflections on political interference and the need to ensure that there is appropriate reporting of horrific events such as those that we are seeing in Ukraine.

Maggie Chapman was absolutely right about how trust is linked to editorial independence.

Kaukab Stewart gave wonderful reflections on the BBC’s history. Growing up, I, too, loved “Blue Peter” and “Grange Hill”.

Jamie Greene was another member who reflected on his broadcasting past. I would reflect that I was a radio journalist—I certainly have the face for it.

I heard contributions from across the chamber that supported our motion and celebrated the achievements of those who work in our film and TV companies, who play such an important role in presenting Scotland to the world. The progress is clear, but we cannot take it for granted. We have welcomed the renewed commitment from the BBC and other public service broadcasters to spend more in the nations, to commission more content and to increase their footprint of high-level decision-making posts to drive our sector. We welcome the progress that has been made so far, but we need to see that commitment fully delivered, with genuine development of projects conceived and made in Scotland. We also expect broadcasters to redress the historic underinvestment in Scotland and the BBC to start spending here the same proportion of the licence fee that is raised here as it spends in other nations.

We must recognise that recent moves by the UK Government to cut funding for the BBC—not just through freezing the licence fee, but through passing it responsibility for free TV licences for the over-75s without giving it resource—risk its output, just as the potential privatisation of Channel 4 risks its valuable support for our independent sector. At the very time when our sector is taking off, with the renewed support of the public service broadcasters, the UK Government looks set to undermine all that hard work.

One way to ensure that we maintain Scotland’s role in the charter process is by ensuring that the role of this Parliament is respected. I urge all members to support the motion and to work together for the continued success of Scotland’s screen industry.