The next item of business is a debate on motion 3420 in the name of Angus Robertson on the value of public service broadcasting to Scotland. I would invite all those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now or to enter R in the chat function. I call on Cabinet Secretary Angus Robertson to speak to and to move the motion up to nine minutes please, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm happy to move the motion which appears in my name and I'm delighted to lead this debate today on the value of public service broadcasting and its pivotal role in Scotland's past, present and future. It's no secret that public service broadcasting is close to my heart. I worked as a correspondent for the BBC World Service before entering elected politics and I know how valuable these services are to inform people across Scotland and across the world. For me particularly as the son of a World War 2 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 Caves television tower knocking out transmission for a short period. 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. I'd be happy to give way. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way. Will he join me in congratulating the BBC in broadcasting transmissions on shortwave radio frequencies so that anyone with a transistor in Ukraine can hear the truth about what is going on in the conflict? I completely agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton and should anybody be following these proceedings, not be aware of the strength of the shortwave signal across Russia, Belarus and Ukraine would encourage every and anybody to listen to the authoritative and accurate reporting of the BBC over the conflict in Ukraine. The principles behind our public service broadcasting systems matter more than ever today for reasons that we're just discussing, and this is exactly the right time to be talking about why we need to come together to protect them. While the BBC and other broadcasters are far from perfect, they offer value not just to our democracy but also 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. While public service broadcasting is important for our international image, it's also crucial for local and minority communities. MG Alipa in partnership with BBC Alipa helps to sustain our Gaelic-speaking communities while contributing to economic growth in the Highland and Islands and to creative innovation with new original content that resonates with audiences. I want to take a moment to celebrate how far we've come as a film and television producing nation. If we look back even just 10 years, it's fair to say that our screen sector was underperforming. We've always had incredible talent captivating stories, some of the world's most beautiful locations, but we're 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 nations, stepping up production and commissioning in Scotland, as well they should, given the historic underinvestment of the BBC and Channel 4 in Scotland. In the last 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, producing new original content like the acclaimed series, Guilt. We have drama series like Screw, produced by STV Studios for Channel 4 and filming 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 like Location, Location. We need to recognise Channel 4's role here. It has spent more than £200 million on Scottish production since 2007. Its targeted equity investment and unique publisher, broadcaster model, allows independent production companies to grow sustainably. Recently, I have seen the changes in myself visiting several of our studios. There's the Kelvin hall, where a state-of-the-art multi-camera studio is being built. Pyramid studios in Bathgate now hosting Good Omens 2 and First Stage Studios in Leith have hosted Amazons, The Rig and now Anansi Boys. Having productions of this calibre and scale is becoming habitual in Scotland. People in Glasgow can see Batgirl filming on its streets and at Ward Park Studios in Cumbernauld, the successful Outlander series, has filmed there for nine years with successive training schemes backed by Screen Scotland, producing dozens of excellent new crew. The change is nothing short of transformational. Of course, this step change has not come without investment and I'm proud that the Scottish Government took a bold step five years ago to significantly increase investment in Screen, enabling more support and, importantly, widening this 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 over £140 million over this period. Because it's not just about funding but expertise, in 2018 we created Screen Scotland, our specialist screen partnership within Creative Scotland. Their creative passion and industry knowledge has been invaluable in growing the sector. Unfortunately, I don't have time to list all of our recent achievements today nor can I set out all that we still want to do. It's a long list because I know that this is only the start. We know that we need to increase skills training and 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 of our production is from Scotland. While the rise of global demand for content and streaming companies are an important factor in our progress, future growth should continue to have our public service broadcasters at its heart. Initiatives like the Screen Scotland partnership with the BBC will be crucial. We also expect the contribution made by the BBC 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'll continue to press the BBC to spend within Scotland an equitable proportion of the licence fee that's raised here to put us on a par with other nations. In closing, Madam Deputy Presiding Officer, I'd like to return to how recent events have thrown a spotlight again on the value of public service broadcasting. Given this, it's astonishing that one of the biggest threats to our broadcasting system today comes not from outside but from the UK Government itself. The UK Government has hobbled the BBC by freezing the licence fee for two years and refusing to commit to stable funding in the future. It is refusing to back down on plans to privatise channel 4 when there is no reason to put this unique public asset into private shareholder hands. We in Scotland have no such doubts about the value of public service broadcasting and its principles, and we're determined to protect those unequivocally. I trust that you'll agree and will support that motion today. I look forward to working with you all to ensure Scotland's views and needs are recognised, reflected and supported, and more widely, the essential principles behind public service broadcasting are upheld. Thank you very much. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Before I call the next speaker, could I remind all members who are seeking to speak in this debate to make sure that they have pressed their request to speak buttons? I call Donald Cameron to speak to and to move amendment 3 for a 2-0.2. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I move that amendment in my name? I welcome the opportunity to have a sensible and level-headed debate on this important issue. I associate myself with the cabinet secretary and his remarks on the Ukraine and the importance of freedom of speech. Interestingly, I think that BBC Russian language news site audience has increased from £3.1 million to £10.7 million in a week, an extraordinary statistics. As I said in my remarks in Alex Cole-Hamilton's member's debate a few weeks ago, it's vital that we have a discussion to determine how best we can continue to support high-quality public service output while ensuring the way in which we pay for it is both fair and sustainable. Can I begin by reiterating the support of those benches for the BBC as a national institution alongside other public service broadcasters? I am a little disappointed in the Scottish Government's motion. It has been at least in part of this debate to pursue this as a dispute between 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 his motion, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I welcome the increase like he does in screen production in Scotland and acknowledge the role that his Government has played in boosting that sector, whether that be through the announcement that Screen Scotland and the BBC invested £3 million into the sector or the recent report from the BFI, which revealed the highest-ever return on investment to the UK economy of £13.48 billion from the UK Government's screen tax relief from 2017 to 2019. We recognise the role that many broadcasters, such as BBC, STV and Channel 4, play in supporting our screen sector, including the many freelancers who operate in that sector. That is particularly evident that the cabinet secretary mentioned MG Alibar when I visited their studio in Stonaway in 2018. I heard about the really important relationship that it has with screen sector freelancers across the Highlands and Islands and, indeed, further afield, and the need to maintain that cohort of freelancers. I doubt that the pandemic has significantly harmed the sector, but we must continue to support its revitalisation and growth. Let me be clear quickly 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 a certain aspect of the motion today—the role of this Parliament in the process of reviewing that charter renewal should be respected. Where we depart from the Scottish Government is the implication that we can test that it is the UK Government seeking to disrespect that role. Turning to a different point, the Scottish Government's motion states that the 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 and Channel 4 for that matter. We completely respect—we will always respect—on those benches, the ability for public service broadcasters, like the BBC, to make operational decisions internally. However, there is also a wide recognition that all 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 whilst at the same time recognising the need for operational independence. The need for change has been recognised by Tim Davies, the director-general, who, in his first speech, said that we must make changes because it will harm the BBC if we don't, and the BBC needs to evolve fast. I am personally encouraged by Mr Davies' broad vision for a modern BBC. I similarly note the comments of the current chief executive of Channel 4 who said that it is right to periodically review our ownership and business model. It was a Conservative Government that established Channel 4 back in the 1980s. We have also, as a party, a proud history of investing in new and innovative broadcasting, especially the subject dear to my heart establishment of a Gaelic media service, which was the precursor to BBC Alipa. A couple of other points to make in terms of funding. It is right that we have a debate as to how we fund the BBC. I note the comments made about the UK Government and the licence. My question that I wanted to ask the cabinet secretary was, perhaps Mr Gray can return to it in closing, what exactly is the SNP's position on the freeze? Do they support the freeze or would they prefer the licence fee to rise? I hope that perhaps an answer could be achieved to that. I find that we are not in favour of the freeze in the licence fee. That is pretty simple. Just a quick question back to him while 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? Rather like the BBC, we believe in a review and we believe that all these things should at least be on the table to ensure that we have a sensible discussion about how we both fund and arrange the model. Returning to the BBC, the existing licence fee model was devised in 1922 when it was founded. It was the only TV channel and radio station that existed at that time. The media landscape has altered radically in 2022. We have streaming on demand services, all sorts of things, and lots of growing divides in terms of age groups and how they consume media. Deputy Presiding Officer, I see my time isn't almost up, so in closing can I just make the point that we recognise the critical importance of public service broadcasting in Scotland. We support the initiatives that invest in the array of talents in the sector. It cannot remain static, it must evolve, and we need an honest, open and candid debate about how we support public service broadcasting. Thank you, Mr Cameron. I now call on Sarah Boyack to speak to and move amendment 3420.3. As has been commented, we debated the importance of public service broadcasting earlier this month, the importance of music, sport and drama, the BBC world service, and the importance of campaigning to stop the privatisation of channel 4, which would massively disrupt the hugely successful model of commissioning that delivers high-quality and diverse programmes. Scottish Labour will not support the Tory amendment today, which calls for us to support all possible funding options. We are keen to look at other options to increase accountability, and we are interested in the co-op parties' 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 accountability and impartiality of programmes that we can watch could not be more relevant today and is something that we should be proud of. I echo the comments of 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. The BBC news statistics of viewing figures increasing in Russia by 250 per cent in the last week alone and 154 per cent in Ukraine demonstrate that. It has been inspiring, but also moving, to watch our journalists across Ukraine reporting on live events from bunkers or streets with our weapons being fired, and then seeing our journalists in Russia asking tough questions of the regime just as they would do and we would expect them to do with 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, unacceptable in Scotland and the UK. Public broadcasting is also key to our culture and economy, but our amendment highlights the need to do more on that. Last year, we were made concerns about proposals to privatise BBC Scotland Studios and the points were made then of the importance of programming in Scotland, decent jobs and creating more programme-making capabilities, and Covid has reinforced the need for jobs across the culture sector that are not in short-term precarious contracts and it has exposed the vulnerability of freelancers. We need to see fair rates of pay for those jobs and workable hours, whether it is in make-up or the camera teams, especially when it can be a tenor contract with people having to travel a couple of hours just to get to and from work. Bechtu 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 our Gaelic broadcasting compared with Welsh language broadcasting. Last week, we saw the winners of this year's prestigious Gaelic short-term competition, Film G22, in a special awards ceremony on BBC Allopah, so we need to celebrate the quality of programming in Scotland but make sure that it gets the funding that it needs going forward. However, I would 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 do need investment, we need pipelines for new programming to be generated in Scotland, but we are also part of a wider network of productions. The BBC World Service, for example, is something to be proud of, sports coverage of international events, music, drama, comedy and documentary programmes that we are able to share not just within the UK but across the world. Then we have the new TV channels, like BBC Three, serving viewers across the UK but critically new viewers, young people, who increasingly are not watching on TVs but are watching on their phones or laptops, podcasts, apps, our transformation, transforming how we consume radio and TV programming and enabling people to get involved as well. Finally, I do wish to 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. If you look at the text, the charter 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. We are not against changes of Scottish Labour, 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, enhancing and not destroying something that is part of who we are as a democracy and a society. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much indeed. I am pleased to rise for my party to speak on a topic that the chamber will know is close to my heart. I thank Angus Robertson for making time for it 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 even managed to create and foster a vital sense of togetherness in our darkest times in the pandemic and amidst the isolation of Covid-19. In the middle of one of the worst crises that we have seen in our history in terms of geopolitics, while the knot of war tightens around our world, our public broadcasters are there on the front line in Ukraine, putting themselves in harm's way, 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. I believe that we owe them a debt of sincerity for the work they are doing, and I have no doubt that this is something that we can all agree on. During the last week, we have also witnessed how the Russian state has weaponised disinformation and make no mistake that this is a weapon deliberately used to influence any opposition to their activities. The kleptocratsar, who occupies the Kremlin and his gangsters, have used their state-owned media to justify their unjustifiable actions and to spread lies about the Ukrainian leadership and, of course, the Ukrainian people. As Harvard Professor Jane Litvinenko has said, Russia is praying on the gaps in knowledge of Western audiences in the hope that a demotivated West will be much less likely to offer hope to Ukraine. It is into this battle for truth that our public sector broadcasters have always played a vital role in holding the line. In doing so, they have awakened us to the plight of Ukrainian people and have galvanised us to protest, to donate, to volunteer, to demonstrate once again their immeasurable value. Indeed, just this week, the BBC took the decision, as I mentioned in my intervention to the cabinet secretary, to transmit radio broadcasts on shortwave frequencies, keeping everyone with the transistor in Ukraine informed, even as their TV towers are being bombed and internet services brought down. Presiding Officer, you do not get that level of service with the 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 shield 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. Presiding Officer, over three weeks ago, I tabled a member's debate, which has been mentioned already in this debate, on the future of the BBC. I was grateful that members from all parties came to speak in favour of what was widely acknowledged as a crucial public service. That mirrored the reaction of many people across Scotland and the UK when they saw this much treasured public institution come under threat from their dean Doris and the Conservative Party. Many people, regardless of their political stripes, spoke up in its defence, including, I dare say, some Conservatives. Presiding Officer, it is to our great shame that some of our journalists and broadcasters have not always been treated with the respect that they deserve. We know that, two weeks ago, we learned of the abuse suffered by former BBC Scotland editor Sarah Smith simply for doing her job and by virtue of who her father was, she was relentlessly harassed both online and in person. She faced attacks, often tainted with misogynistic bile, all of which culminated in an environment that, in her own words, was so toxic, 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 BBC, Channel 4 and SCV who have been subject to online abuse just for doing their job. Whilst we in this chamber 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 abuse from those who support us. We must publicly oppose that type of behaviour regardless of where it comes, and I call on all parties to reflect that. We, all of us in this chamber, recognise— Mr Cole-Hamilton, could you please conclude your remarks? I will conclude by saying that only when we protect our public service broadcasting do we protect our politics, our culture and our free democracy. Thank you. I now move to the open debate and I call Fiona Hyslop to be followed by Stephen Kerr up to four minutes please, Ms Hyslop. I want to repeat the recognition of and respect for and thank the broadcasters in front and behind camera reporting from the war in Ukraine and 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 and representatives of the UK Government, I helped to secure the role for this Parliament in a previous BBC charter. Renewal and MSPs must scrutinise the BBC on their contribution to Scotland's culture and economy. However, if MSPs do not recognise the potential of 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's. STV news has for three years in a row outperformed the BBC, securing 54 per cent of audiences for STV news at 6. The success that is MG Alba is an exemplar as to how PSPs are uniquely placed to help to stimulate economic growth and promote cultural representation. On the latest threat of 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 for all the UK strategy, worth up to £250 million more in total? Any 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. However, in an era when PSP 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 them to compete with largely unregulated global streaming services and a new objective to support the creative economy in individual nations. Availability and prominence rules need to be updated to include digital platforms and STV must have digital prominence for audiences so local news is not buried by global platforms. It is also essential that we see long-term licence renewal for channel 3 licence holders. STV is making a modern success in public service media with its children's appeal, its driving diversity, its expert voices and its STV growth fund for small business advertising. However, we need more returning drama for jobs and the economy. I am proud to have established Screen Scotland, helped to secure the permanent film studio finally by first stage studios in Leith, adding to Cumbernauld's ward park and the pyramids in Bathgate. In my own constituency, we are trained spotting two Shetland and Neil Gaiman's Good Omens have filmed, and I previously committed government funding for the Kelvin Hall film studio. The creative economy is all linked. Skills, crew, talent off-screen and on-screen, and public service media has a huge role to play and we need it. What we must do is to stand up for the principle, the practice, the value, the benefits and the future of public service media and champion public service journalism in an age where the dark shadow of disinformation still looms light. That 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 and a new digital new age. I support the Government's motion. Thank you, Ms Hyslop. I now call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Jenny Minto. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Kerr. It is a pleasure, Deputy Presiding Officer, to follow Fiona Hyslop, who gave an excellent speech, and I thank her for it. I hope that the whole chamber will join with me in congratulating Catherine 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 when it comes to the creative industries and, indeed, in terms of public service broadcasting. I took the occasion of Alex Cole-Hamilton's debate a few weeks ago to stress my own personal belief that the BBC is one of Britain's greatest institutions, and it is one of the United Kingdom's great forms of soft power that has been illustrated 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 Kiev during this very difficult time for the whole of Europe?  My wife in particular has commented on the expressiveness of Clive Meiery's face and his eyes as he has been speaking live to camera on BBC News. Standing up for truth, which, at the end of the day, is the hallmark of true journalistic reporting. That says the BBC at its best, but I think that we should take the opportunity, as my colleague Donald Cameron said, to occasionally, particularly in the 100th anniversary year of the BBC's establishment, to examine and review the BBC, its business model, and to support the values that we are all united in wanting to support and protect. Maybe I can just very quickly, in the time that I have mentioned, one or two things that I think perhaps—and this is not me being overly critical of the BBC—but I think that 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. I honestly believe that the BBC has not quite caught up with that in relation to its coverage of the Scottish Parliament. I will give you an example. The Prime Minister's questions, compared with First Minister's questions, are live. It is shown on BBC News and it is also shown live on the homepage of the BBC website. First Minister's questions are live, but it is rarely shown on BBC News and it is rarely shown on the homepage of the BBC website. That is not right, in my opinion. I will expand on that if I might. Some constituents also tell me that the BBC's radio coverage—that is the BBC Scotland's coverage of First Minister's questions—only sometimes includes the questions of Douglas Ross and Anasarwa. If the BBC's radio coverage of Prime Minister's questions, if it did not include questions from the backbenchers, there would be outrage. Why is there no similar outrage in Scotland? The BBC's radio Scotland should be covering the proceedings of this Parliament. The BBC Scotland channel receives—I do not know what they are all shouting at. It is just to say to the member that, in the early days, there was live coverage of general questions leading into First Minister's questions. That was ditched. Stephen Kerr. Well, I am very sympathetic to what Christine Grahame is saying. 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 are they not taking the live stream of this chamber? I am not here advocating that the whole of Scotland should be mesmerised by the rhetoric in the speeches of this Parliament. It is very generous of the cabinet secretary to suggest that the people tune in just to listen to some of us and not others. At the same time, it is not right that the procedure is so hard to find the live stream of this Parliament. We ought to be concerned that the people of Scotland should be able to view this Parliament on the same basis that we can view the proceedings of Scotland's other Parliament—the United Kingdom Parliament—on BBC Parliament. For example, there is no today or yesterday in Parliament 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 in Scotland that coverage. It could split its frequencies and do it for football all the time. Why cannot it provide parliamentary coverage on the same basis as the UK Parliament is giving that coverage? That is my feedback for BBC Scotland in relation to this Parliament. Coverage and analysis of the debates that happen here are very important. Mr Kerr, I have been generous and given you latitude to get intervention, but you will now need to conclude your work. I will conclude. Let me just conclude by saying this. The Scottish Parliament deserves greater exposure through the platforms of our public service broadcaster. The Scottish Parliament is not the Nicola Sturgeon show, it is not even the Douglas Roth show. There are 129 members—thank you very much, by the way, Christina. Let me just conclude by saying that the BBC must get on top of the remit that it has to provide coverage of the proceedings of this Parliament. I now call Jenny Minto to be followed by Pauline McNeill up to four minutes, please, Ms Minto. Public service broadcasting has as the motion states a valuable role in society, and 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. In my view, 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, Radian and Gail, Gaelic Television, Education and the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra. All departments of BBC whose clear remit was to inform, educate and entertain and also reflect the cultural identity of Scotland. I thank Yalysage MacDonald and Jess Zinske 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—this has been mentioned by others—was the launch of BBC Alaba, the accomplishment of many, many years of hard work, and one that fulfilled the obligation to Gaelic Television under the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages. Gaelic broadcasting through BBC Alaba and Radian and Gail is a public service broadcasting triumph, and, as Sarah Boyack said, it deserves the parity that it is giving to S4C. The partnership between MGA Alba and BBC gives it a prominence in access and status, powerful tools in revitalising the Gaelic language, programmes such as Janish, Bannon and La Yorpa. 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 own constituency of Argyll and Bute has provided the inspiration for many programmes. The We Picture House in Campbelltown played a starring role in Cinema Gadelica, which showcased films shot in iconic Scottish locations. Not just in the Gaelic language, Inverary 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 Tomasina. Gaelic language television output is complemented and enhanced by Radian and Gail, which provides a comprehensive news, speech and music service, a voice to and for communities across the Gael tax. 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 a focus on music and news bulletins, there are gaps that public service radio can fill. Gaps in comedy, drama, documentaries, sports and arts and culture. Radio Scotland has the brilliant On and Off the Ball, which bookends sports sound and became a key message point during the Covid pandemic. I would like to challenge Mr Kerr with regard to Radio Scotland's output of this Parliament. There is, in fact, a podcast called Political, which covers the output from this Parliament. The afternoon show covers all things arts in Scotland, as well as the young traditional musician of the year promoting 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 you company on long journeys, a less intrusive way of getting personal stories told. Community radio stations have a role to play here, too. Perhaps building in a defined public service remit with funding could help them flourish. We need to 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 that before in the chamber, but it is so important that it deserves to be highlighted again. There is no requirement that the BBC invests 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 is consistently being shortchanged. To close, the Scottish film, radio and television industry is booming. We have a skilled and talented people who are building the foundations of an independent Scotland's public broadcasting service. We should build on this success and be even more ambitious for this sector. Defending public service broadcasting is absolutely essential to supporting our creative industries. I now call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Christine Grahame. Up to four minutes, please, Ms McNeill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Public service broadcasting matters, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of its place in the dissemination of important stories and information. I agree with Jenny Mitchell, but the importance of BBC Alba, in fact, I can't pay for it, and I believe that Gallic broadcasting is very important, and I really think that it has been an excellent channel. We value public broadcasting probably more than ever, as other speakers have said, when we see the Russian state and other dictatorships control the freedom of its media. As a BBC World Service, as Alex Cole-Hamilton said, changed its frequency to the less well-used shortwave to let ordinary Russians hear the truth of the dangerous war in Ukraine, it has done the world-wide service indeed. 91 per cent of adults in the UK use BBC television, radio or online every week, and it reaches half a billion people outside the UK every week. It is really quite staggering. Many tuning into the world service and BBC World News operates in 42 languages from Korean to Punjabi. I actually love BBC Asian and BBC Six. There is plenty of innovation and there never stops. Indeed, the BBC is the bar internationally, and I believe that its existence means that, across the world, broadcasting overall is a much higher standard. With the gloss of misinformation and at present, the huge propaganda war between Russia and Russia, trustworthy news sources matter more than ever. As Donald Cameron said earlier, in fact, BBC Russia has tripled its audience. I agree with the First Minister when she said this week that journalists such as Clive Murray, who has been playing such an important role from Ukraine, are unsung heroes, but that has always been the case of journalists across the stations. In fact, Louise De Set has been covering every conflict zone that I have ever followed, the BBC's chief international correspondent. If I had the privilege of meeting Alan Johnson along with Sarah Boyack many years ago, Alan Johnson was kidnapped in Gaza in the mid-2000s, and I also had the opportunity to meet Raggy Omer, who I met in Gaza as he bravely replaced Alan Johnson and I know he now works for ITV. It is also worth remembering that the BBC's values are to inform, educate and to entertain, and it did that during the pandemic. The BBC Scotland channel is over the daily range of programmes for primary and secondary learners, focused on curriculum for excellence. I am proud of the work that BBC Scotland does. I am proud that it is based in Glasgow, as I represent it. I think that it is radio output, and I again agree with Jenny Minter on the importance of radio. I would take this opportunity to applaud the work of journalist Fiona Storfer and Johnny Beattie for the incredible coverage of the current issues of violence and harassment against women, and particularly some pooling of disclosure. In my view, due to her eight-part series, which led to the arresting of a man believed to have murdered Emma Hallwell, the importance of our broadcasting and our drama and our documentaries are crucially important. I agree with Stephen Kerr, and I think that the output of BBC Scotland's current affairs could be better, and the coverage of the Parliament, I think that Christine Grahame alluded to it earlier, that we did at one time have much better coverage. I would like to go back to those days. At the start of the year, culture secretary Nadine Torres continued announcing cuts to the BBC's funding, as previous culture secretaries have done so. She said that the current licence fee agreement between the UK Government and the corporation will be the last. I call on the Tories and the UK Government to settle their position on the BBC instead of constantly threatening it every time they take over us. Let us not forget that the UK Government's recent attack on channel 4 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 its station to be privatised. I believe that the flagship news programme at 7pm on channel 4— Ms McNeill, could you please bring your remarks to a close, please, Ms McNeill? I know very well over time, thank you. I would like to ask everyone to listen to my contribution to this debate. Thank you very much. I just would point out to members that we have absolutely no time in hand. We are well behind, and I would ask members please to stick to their allotted time, which is four minutes. I call Christine Grahame, too, followed by Maggie Chapman, up to four minutes, please. Before I speak to Secretary of State, can I just check that the clock is correct because the clock was wrong, and it is correct now, but I have written down the time of Ms McNeill. Thank you for that clarity. In war as in peace, the independence of our broadcast media must be protected from political interference and, of course, is in stark contrast to the sight and sound of what happens when the state has outright an unfettered control of public broadcasting, as in Russia is it wages war on its innocent neighbour. We know that it is using cluster bombs, civilians are being targeted, Ukrainians do not welcome the invaders, but the vast majority of the Russians do not. In Putin's speak, it is a special mission to rescue Russians living in Ukraine from Nazi-like persecution, and from a predatory NATO, Russians are the victims. That is what happens in extremists when politicians censor and suppress a free press, which even in democracy we must guard against. Independent broadcasters such as DORS TV's website and radio station Echo Mosque have been shut down, as Russia eradicates non-state media. We must hope that with social media, especially through the eyes of the younger generations, the truth of this war is seen in all its barbarity. The public purpose of the BBC is inter alia to provide impartial news and information to help people to understand and engage with the world around them with accurate and impartial news. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards, and that is what I want to address. We have wall-to-wall coverage of the invasion. We are seeing real-time reports, analysis, political and international comment. 24-hour rolling news means that there must not be any unfilled airtime, but quantity does not always equate to quality. Some questions to politicians are asked as if Russia was not monitoring every word for intelligence and propaganda purposes. Sometimes I would add that there is inappropriate reporting. Yes, an individual's experience and 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 desperately trying to board a train and ask them, how are you feeling? It makes me uncomfortable. Real-time reporting requires not only professional judgment but empathy. It also requires that report to do his or her own editing. To see that line, recognise it and not cross it, most particularly senior reporters have the skills experience of dreadful conflicts previously and it shows. I commend all who are out in the field who report against the background of sirens and explosives. Even some questioning on camera in studio has been unnecessarily intrusive, verging on the tasteless, even asinine. This is not a soap opera, we must not let it turn into that. This is not any kind of entertainment to fill the lines of communication. This is for real. I suppose that I am getting angry and other people aren't, but I do feel this at times that crosses the line. I know that we each have our own red lines. That said, in times of international crisis, when misery and murder in Ukraine are public broadcasting, it is most valued. I commend it and it makes it clear that I would not wish editorial censorship but editorial sensitivity. Above all, I am glad that I am able to offer these public criticisms for consideration because I live in a democracy in which, minute by minute, Ukrainians are fighting desperately to retain. I would like to associate myself with the comments made about broadcasters reporting on and in Ukraine. I want to focus in my contribution on an issue that I think is fundamental to any public service broadcaster. Underpinning any functioning democracy is information, good quality information, and the effect of communication of that information. A public service element in this communication is vital. A healthy democracy is an informed democracy, but a central pillar of the effectiveness of communication is trust. People need to be able to trust the information they receive, especially through mass media channels. They therefore need to be able to trust the channels that communicate that information. So it follows that we, as a society, need to create the conditions for that trust in the communications channels to be developed and sustained, and there are different elements to this. Independence is vital. Public service broadcasters need to be independent of governmental and corporate influencing and lobbying. Linked to this, broadcasters need to ensure that they understand and communicate effectively that different approaches might hold different levels of trustworthiness. Information 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 that threatens their own interests. Being trustworthy means that 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, but on language, Gaelic media deserves the same status in statute as Welsh broadcasting. I would hope that any legislation relating to broadcasting in Westminster until broadcasting is devolved, of course, will seek to address this issue and ensure that indigenous minority language media is protected, including in the digital sphere. Being trustworthy means that broadcasters must communicate in ways that are accessible, but not involve 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 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. Those who have the privilege of being able to say whatever they like, of courting deliberate controversy, need to bear in mind that there may be consequences of what they say, but 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. It should not be immune from criticism. 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. It needs to be properly funded. I am sorry that Labour tries 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, a billion cut every year 2017 to this year. It is not this year that we are getting Scotland, it is that the pot is diminishing as costs are rocketing during the pandemic. That is the point that we are getting across. I thank Sarah Boyack for that intervention. I do not disagree with that point, but that is not how the Labour amendment reads. In closing, I want to 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, the wonderfully talented and creative artists, journalists, writers, musicians, technicians and everyone else who makes public broadcasting in Scotland possible. Long may it continue. Thank you, Ms Chapman. I now call Kocab Stewart, who is joining us remotely, to be followed by Jamie Greene, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to four minutes, please, Ms Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. 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, to educate and to entertain. A commitment exemplified when the BBC covered its first major news story, the 1926 UK general strike. Fearful admits the chaos Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin attended to commandeer the broadcaster. During a series of exchanges with the BBC's general director, John Reef, it was argued by Mr Reef that such a move would destroy the company's reputation for honesty and impartiality. Remarkably, the Prime Minister conceded that the BBC would remain independent. Of course, there have been so many significant milestones, from the moon landing to David Attenborough's life on earth, to gritty pioneering dramas like Grange Hill, where difficult topics such as drug addiction could be explored, providing key messages to its teenage audience without sermonising or finger wagging. In addition, young broadcasters, such as Channel 4, are governed by its public service remit, and over the years it has also brought as many grand-breaking series. Programmes such as Blue Peter, the longest-running children's TV show in the world, still airs today, and family favourites such as Bala Moray bring a nostalgic warmth for many. I acknowledge the educational provision, most notably on BBC Bite Size Scotland. Students can listen to David Tennant explain the importance of renewable energies with the help of a host of quirky characters such as Snazzi Solar and Mighty Hydro. Many examples mentioned in the chamber today have been brought to us by public service broadcasters. However, under the Westminster Tories, they are now at risk. The threat of privatisation is now being dangled over the heads of those at Channel 4, whose remit means that they are not reliant on Government funding, instead commissioning their content from over 300 independent production companies. As for the BBC, in one fell swoop, the UK culture secretary declared that the BBC funding via licensing fees would be frozen for two years and the future of its funding was up for discussion. The freeze represents real-time cuts worth hundreds of millions of pounds and will directly impact the ability to take creative risks and invest in quality programming. That undoubtedly came as a surprise to many, but perhaps less surprising was the lack of consultation with devolved nations. The reviews of 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. Within my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin, the Government has helped to fund additional studio infrastructure, investing £7.9 million in a new television studio within Kelvin Hall, and thanks to 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 acting in the interests of the people and not in the interests of private shareholders. I now call Jamie Greene, who, as I said, will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to four minutes, please. Four minutes is very little time to cover off 100 years of proud history of broadcast, or indeed a decade of my own life spent in public and private television in a variety of roles. I started off as a runner on the floor of a live TV show and then ended up running the commercial arm of an international media conglomerate based in New York. TV has been very kind to me, at least behind the camera. It certainly adds years and kilos in front of it. I want to make a few important points today, and the first I'm afraid is non-consensual because I really am struck by the total irony in the SNP's motion today. It's this newfound unconditional love for anti that it appears. Now I'm afraid the 2014 referendum that we had in this country brought out the very worst in anti-BBC rhetoric, admittedly on all sides, but it was those specifically who saw the BBC some form of UK establishment conspiracy theory, saw it through venomous eyes and ears at the time, so it strikes me a little bit odd that those who claimed that it was rigged against them are now its apparent saviours. But don't get me wrong, Presiding Officer. There are plenty of people out there who say defund the BBC. I am not one of them, but I'm equally clear that, in my 15 years of dealing with them, I see it's false. I see what it does well, but I see also where strategic commercial moves have erroneously encroached into what I would say is almost market distortion. Let's treasure what it does well. We've spoken about this already, BBC News. We are reminded more than ever of the importance of that, whether it was broadcasting in shortwave to Ukrainians or in Persian language content to the oppressed in Iran. Those figures that we see night after night—Orla, Garen, Lee's Deset, Clive Myrie and James Waterhouse—they've all got families of their own, but they put their backpacks on, they get their north face on and off they go as near to the front line as the BBC risk assessment will let them go. They are the true heroes of public service broadcasting. The second is radio. No, it's no secret. I'm a closet archers fan. I'm sure there are many in the chamber today, but I was drawn in by the plot. I was drawn in by Helen Archers' tragic domestic abuse story, which drew many millions to the channel. I was kept on the hook by its gritty realities, Philip Moss and his modern slavery story, gay fatherhood, agricultural downturn. The BBC does well what it does well, continuity and comfort, and it does it for free to those who need it most. That should never be at risk, but that being said, it cannot be all things to all people. The third, I want to focus on, is specialist content. The BBC does that well to wildlife, history, the environment, religion. The BBC does it big and it does it well. Of course, it monetises it all very handsomely through BBC worldwide, just like in the real world. The fourth success is that which it does is things that no one else does, because they neither have the time or the money. It supports their communities, the BAME community, Welsh, Gaelic, Irish language output, the LGBT community. Now they're not so good. The BBC distorts the market, BBC maestros, iPlayers, sounds—these all compete head to head on a daily basis with commercial going concerns. It has an endless, obsessive ratings war with ITV and version radio. None of these decisions were ever truly market assessed. Radio 2, if it put ads on it, would be self-sufficient without tax subsidies, but, of course, if you did that, you'd have to ditch the £1.3 million breakfast presenter salary. It doesn't want to do that either. The SNP in my closing seconds, I want to point on this issue about fair funding, because it's a truly flawed argument. It's really hard to imagine what you would get for just £400 million if we divvied up a licence-free money purely on some sort of population-based formula. Scottish viewers and listeners benefit from multi-million-pound productions, millions of hours of visual and audio content—the same as anybody else anywhere else in the UK. Attenborough, Downton, and its dark materials, let's not stoke grievance for the sake of it. I will fight for the BBC and its right to exist and free to our form, but it must grow over the times. It must remember its roots. For now, I say to those in-war zones listening and watching the voices and faces of our BBC. I hope that it brings you knowledge, comfort and, more importantly, friendship in the dark days that you all face ahead. Today, we have heard considerable support for the future of public service broadcasting. We have heard how it benefits both the Scottish economy and the Scottish culture. We have also heard criticism—some fairer than others—of the BBC and the state of public service broadcasting, as it stands in this country. The motion before us welcomes the increasing number of production made in Scotland and the ongoing effort of Screen Scotland to attract production, and Scottish Labour agrees. We also strongly agree with the sentiment in the motion on the defence of the BBC and Channel 4 against threats to their operational independence. The BBC is a national asset, while it is not infallible. It is envied around the world for the quality of its production and reliability of its journalism. The UK Government seems content to use the BBC and Channel 4 as red meat throw to their backbenchers in Westminster. No doubt to keep them onside after other recent scandals. This would be an act of cultural vandalism for only momentarily political gain, where Scottish Labour cannot follow the motion as the demand that BBC Scotland received are far fairer share of the licence fee raised in Scotland. We do not believe that this is comparing like with like. The BBC annual report and account shows that, in the last pre-pandemic year, 85 per cent of the licence fee raised in Scotland was spent in Scotland. Given the inevitable outside cost of the broadcast service, international journalism, sports coverage and global media monitoring, this seems reasonable. My colleague Sarah Boyack noted the incredible work of the BBC in covering Ukraine and Russia. I think we can be proud of these parts of the BBC without considering spending on them to be anti-Scottish. The share of the licence fee 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 if this level of investment returns to its pre-pandemic level before making sweeping judgments about fairer funding for Scotland. I've got a lot to go through, so can I carry on? Sorry about that. We should be looking at fairer funding as the working condition in the screen industry. Sarah Boyack already highlighted the difficulties that women and parents face in the industry with the working conditions that are now common. Our amendment says that secure working conditions and support for talent in Scotland should be our priority. While we have a screen sector that we can be proud of, more can be done to maintain and support the people working within it. Scottish Labour believes in a vibrant public service broadcast sector, and our amendment seeks to preserve it into the future. I invite members to support it. It's a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Across the chamber, we've heard about the great value that public broadcasting brings to the Scottish people. As mentioned previously in the debate, those platforms include the BBC, Channel 4 and STV. They continue to play a key role in educating, entertaining and informing audiences across Scotland. Throughout the debate, colleagues have raised several 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, Jenny Minto, Pauline McNeill and Maggie Chapman. Angus Robertson spoke of the value in reporting the conflict in Ukraine, as did Sarah Boyack. I'm also interested in hearing his future plans as I realise his time was cut short. Alex Cole-Hamilton said how it was vital to the health of our democracy. Fiona Hyslop, among other things, mentioned the success of Channel 4 and the number of producers that it supports. Stephen Kerr spoke of the soft power of public broadcasting and the need to support and protect it, and the need for increased coverage of our speeches in Parliament, which was agreed to by Pauline McNeill. Christine Graham spoke of editorial sensitivity, and Jamie Greene spoke of his experience in the sector. From Scottish independent production companies to Screen Scotland, many organisations benefit from public broadcasting. For instance, the renewed commitment between the BBC Scotland and Screen Scotland will strengthen the production sector and raise the sector's profile across the UK. Different BBC-led initiatives have also created opportunities for young individuals. Some of those include BBC Make It Digital, which is a UK-wide initiative to inspire individuals to get creative with programming, coding and digital technology. BBC 10 pieces, which opens up the world of classical music to seven to 14-year-olds with a variety of films, lesson plans and live events. The Scottish drama writers programme 2021, where the BBC has partnered Scottish based writers with independent production companies to develop authentic network dramas. Profound changes in the media landscape for local newspapers resulted in the creation of the local democracy reporting service for the BBC. Research by the press has found that there had been a net loss of 265 newspapers in the UK since 2005. The BBC initiative has created up to 150 jobs across the UK to improve reporting and local democracy issues. Channel 4 has spent over £200 million on Scottish production since 2007 and annually invests around £20 million, which provides a boost to the Scottish screen industry. Channel 4 has supported the growth of businesses through their growth fund and alpha fund, and their training schemes have benefited more than 10,000 people since 2015. They have 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, and they feel that there really is positive momentum at present, 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 work of STV Studios, Scotland's biggest production company and STV News, the most-watched news programme in Scotland. Their work not only helps to fuel the creative industry, but also many businesses through their growth fund, green fund and local lifeline campaigns. I am happy to say that PSBs are now benefiting from the transformation of 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. More initiatives across Scottish rural areas are vitally needed. We have a wealth of talent in our rural areas and feels like music and theatre, and we need to capitalise on that. The Scottish Conservatives continue to support public service broadcasting as it brings many benefits to Scotland. BBC Scotland, Channel 4 and STV create jobs, support countless roles in the freelance and creative economy, drive our creative sector and provide world-class programming made in Scotland. All of us across the chamber can agree that what we want to see is public, we want to see public service broadcasting succeed in the 21st century. I call on Neil Gray to wind up up to seven minutes, minister. It is a privilege to close this important debate on the value of public service broadcasting, its pivotal role in Scotland's past, present and future. The variety of contributions in this chamber today have illustrated just how much public service broadcasting and the development of our screen sector mean to colleagues as individuals and the communities across Scotland we represent. Like the cabinet secretary, my background 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 this critical time for Ukraine. The public service part of our broadcasting system comes to the fore at times like this. When people cannot rely on their broadcasters for truthful news or when an invading power targets national broadcasters, as in Kyve, as we heard from the cabinet secretary, audiences turn to media like the BBC World Service. We are reminded of the price of value, the less commercial parts of our truly public service broadcasting system offer at times like this. I think that it is important at this stage, like others have done, that we pay tribute to those journalists who are reporting from Ukraine. Print journalists, of course, but how striking has it been to see the likes of Clyde Mayrae and Lise Dusset reporting from the underground shelters in Kyve? They are there reporting for and with the brave people of Ukraine and doing so facing similar risks as those they are sheltering alongside. I also want to pay tribute to the Ukrainian TV cameraman Yevgeny Sakum, who was killed at the disgraceful missile strike at Bakymjarr, which is, of course, a burial place for 30,000 Jews killed in the Holocaust. Oppressive regimes and dictators target freedom of speech. It is critically important, as part of our support for democratic values, that we fight to protect that impartial journalism. The debate is a timely reminder also that public service broadcasting is as valuable today as ever to our democracy, to our creative economy and to our culture. Public service broadcasters, particularly the BBC and Channel 4, have a pivotal role to play in supporting and continuing to the growth of our screen sector through the renewed commitment for greater commissioning and spending in Scotland. We are seeing a transformation of our screen sector, as has been alluded to by the Cabinet Secretary and others, with increased high-end and original production, a burgeoning range of studio space 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, our crew and the sustainable growth of our companies. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the role that Fiona Hyslop has played in that success. Despite the success of securing more studio space, existing productions and new original content much more needs to be done to develop Scottish-based talent, produce more authentically Scottish content and maintain a growing industry, particularly in skills and training. We are working to deliver that already and we are determined to continue our support. However, let me now turn to some of the contributions to reflect on some of the points that have been made today. First of all, Donald Cameron has many points that I agree with and his reflections on the increase in BBC readership in Russia and the role of this Parliament in the BBC charter. That is welcome. However, given the opportunity, I note, to demand protection of commissioning across nations and regions by Channel 4, Donald Cameron neglected to do so. Also, his amendment opens the door for further cuts to BBC and privatising Channel 4, putting all the values and investments that we have spoken about today at risk. We also heard from Sarah Boyack and I welcome her explicit support for public service broadcasting, exemplified by the events of this week. Much more of what she said I had to agree with, not least the need for greater share of spending by BBC in Scotland. I welcome her point there that how the UK Government freezing the licence fee makes those aspirations much, much harder. Alex Cole-Hamilton and other good speech on public service broadcasting fostered togetherness through Covid, but also given us unbiased coverage in stark contrast to Putin's misinformation regime. I absolutely deplore the online abuse that he mentioned towards Sarah Smith and other journalists. We must all reflect on how we can do better in that regard. Again, I reflect on Fiona Hyslop's speech that she spoke of the existential threat to public service broadcasters from some UK politicians and also reflected on the fact that there are more news consumed here in Scotland than elsewhere. Her knowledge and experience shone through in a very powerful and wide-ranging contribution.  I just reflect without breaking the consensus that there has been in this debate or the fact that Catherine became very well known for her interviewing of Boris Johnson and his cuts to universal credit. He seems surprised that there seems to be support for the SNP benches to see more coverage of the institution. We want to see that increased. Jenny Minn, to another former BBC employee, is absolutely right about the role that Gaelic language plays and her constituency role in that as well. Pauline McNeill was absolutely right, short, sharp and to the point, public service broadcasting matters. I also enjoyed Christine Grahame's speech and her reflection around political interference and also reflecting on ensuring that there is appropriate reporting of horrific events such as we are seeing in Ukraine. Maggie Chapman is absolutely right, trust and how that is linked to editorial independence. Cocab Stewart has wonderful reflections of the BBC's history. I also loved Blue Peter and Grange Hill growing up. Jamie Greene reflected on his broadcasting past. I would reflect that I was a radio journalist and I certainly have the face for it. Despite that, in conclusion, I have heard contributions from across the chamber that support our motion and celebrate 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 that for granted. We have welcomed the renewed commitment from the BBC and other public service broadcasters to spend more in the nations, commissioned more content and increased their footprint at a high level decision-making post to drive our sector. We welcome the progress so far, but we need to see that commitment fully delivered with genuine development of projects that are conceived and made in Scotland. We also expect them to redress the historic underinvestment in Scotland and for the BBC to start spending proportionately as much of the licence fee raised here as they do in other regions. Finally, we must recognise that recent moves by the UK Government to cut funding at the BBC, not just with the licence fee, but also passing responsibility for free licence fees for the over-75s without giving resource to it, risks their output, potentially privatising Channel 4, risks their valuable support for our independent sector and that has been put at risk. Just at the very time when our sector is taking off with the renewed support for 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 this motion and work together for the continued success of Scotland's screen industry. That concludes the debate on the value of public service broadcasting to Scotland. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Donald Cameron is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Sarah Boyack will fall. The first question is the amendment 3420.2 in the name of Donald Cameron, which seeks to amend motion 3420 in the name of Angus Robertson on the value of public service broadcasting to Scotland to be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.