 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 1828 in the name of Fiona Hyslop on the draft BBC charter. I would ask members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Fiona Hyslop to speak to and to move the motion. Presiding Officer, I move the motion in my name and welcome this opportunity to open this debate on the renewal of the BBC charter. The draft charter was published on 15 September and sets out the UK Government's expectations of the co-operation for the next 11 years. For the first time, the Scottish Government has had a consultive role in the charter's development, and I ensured that that would be throughout the process. The Scottish Government's approach has been to seek consensus and agree a vision that would bring the BBC up to date, making it more relevant to a devolved nation, and bring its governance and delivery much closer to Scotland's audiences. The process has seen a genuinely constructive dialogue between the many people who believe in public service broadcasting and believe that it can be better. That includes independent producers, other broadcasters, equality and diversity bodies, broadcast experts and, indeed, this Parliament in the motion passed on 23 February. During that time, I have met the former and current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reiterate our proposals and to suggest how they might be incorporated in the charter. I contributed to David Clemente's review of the BBC's governance and regulation. I have met Ofcom's chief executive. I have engaged with the BBC trust, the relevant parliamentary committees and a number of stakeholders whose expert views I have been keen to factor into our thinking. I have had meetings with the BBC director general and with BBC Scotland. I will now update the chamber on what we have achieved and where we think the charter could be improved. The draft charter is an improvement, but it does not fully deliver the BBC that we believe needs to be in place to properly serve the people of Scotland. Our vision for the BBC's future is rooted in three overarching objectives that are predicated on our commitment to the co-operation's on-going editorial independence. First, to empower BBC Scotland to address the concerns of audiences and deliver better outcomes, including more representative content across all outputs. Secondly, to ensure that the governance and structure of the BBC is more responsive, reflecting the devolved nature of the UK, being able to deliver similarly decentralised decision making. Thirdly, we expect that, through those structures, the BBC can deliver better outcomes for audiences and implement commissioning and editorial practices that will support the growth and sustainability of Scotland's creative industries. We have achieved the following, which are welcome improvements. An enforceable service licence for Scotland, the Secretary of State has confirmed that that will ensure that the commitments that are made by Lord Hall will flow through to Ofcom's new licensing regime. More importantly, the BBC will have to deliver for Scotland against tangible targets. A dedicated board member for Scotland, a commitment to continue support for Gaelic Broadcasting and MG Alba, and proposals for the BBC to report on its contribution to Scotland's creative economy for the very first time. Removing the charter from the election cycle and a new public purpose to reflect, represent and serve the nations and regions. I think that we have moved into a new era of accountability and scrutiny. This Parliament will have powers to scrutinise the BBC, to call it to appear before the relevant committee and to hold it to account. Indeed, this Parliament has already begun to scrutinise the charter through the work of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee. The new BBC board will have a non-executive member for Scotland and it will be their job to ensure that Scotland's interests are understood and taken seriously. The new industry board structure that is set out in the charter is consistent with part of our proposals. However, we believe that in order to deliver better outcomes and greater transparency that Scotland, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, should also have its own national boards. The cabinet secretary has a lot of forgiving way at that point. I notice in the letters that she has received from the UK culture minister or secretary of state, I should say. It says that, in regard to appointments to the Unitary Board, your involvement in the appointments process over the coming weeks will include asking you for your agreement to the final appointment. Is that indeed the case? Will the Scottish Government, in that sense, have what I might describe as a veto over the appointment itself? Similar to the fact that we currently have input to the BBC trust appointment, we would expect to have input constructively in what should be an open, fair and transparent public appointment to that position. We would have involvement, but, as we have in many areas in culture and heritage, we will do that on a constructive basis. I hope that the appointment would not only be able to serve Scotland but to have active input into a whole range of issues on a UK-wide basis. That person could be a link between the Unitary Board for the BBC and the Scottish Board that we think should still happen. We believe that, if the BBC is to remain relevant, it needs to keep pace with the realities of devolution and that it should decentralise its funds should be redistributed and editorial and commissioning decisions to be devolved. Gallic broadcasting is a good example of where a clear step change on one relatively small area of broadcasting would deliver improved outcomes across a number of areas, such as audience satisfaction and investment in our creative industries. The agreement sets out a commitment for the BBC to continue its partnership with MG Alba for the next 11 years, and we welcome that, but it does not go far enough and we must continue to press home that nothing short of a credible move towards parity with the funding model in place for S4C is acceptable. The ask is modest. Ten hours of original programming a week constitutes a relatively small investment from the BBC, but it would be a just and positive outcome that would have an enormously positive impact for audiences and for the creative sector. We have emphatically championed the BBC's editorial independence throughout. The BBC plays a crucial role in supporting the social, cultural and democratic life of our nation. Our policy position is to decouple the charter from the Westminster election cycle has been achieved and the 11-year cycle enshrined in the charter. The BBC must be empowered to ensure that it plays the best role that it can in terms of social, cultural and democratic experiences for audiences in Scotland. I am sure that we all look forward to a daily mail front page claiming that the charter blocks the creation of a Scottish Six, winning its author, a particularly uncovered prize from the Scottish Parliament's journalist association later this year. The fact that the Scottish TV may still march on the BBC with an STV7 shows what can be done. The draft charter sets out a stronger public purpose to reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of Scotland and the other nations and regions of the UK. I have continuously pressed for this and we have achieved this. What is more, in delivering this, the BBC must also invest in the creative economies of the nations and, for the first time, be accountable for that. For me, that means that we should and, indeed, we expect to increase and improve content and programming that is made in Scotland for the people of Scotland and for the wider network, which draws upon the technical and creative talent that we have in Scotland across all BBC services. That should deliver greater investment in our creative sector. It should also see strides being made in the representation and engagement of Scotland's diverse peoples with richer and more complex narratives emerging in the wake of greater visibility for stories from Scotland and participation for women, for minority ethnic people, for disabled people and for LGBT people across Scotland and across the UK. The BBC, as an institution, needs to have more diversity in its decision making arrangements and needs to draw on the diversity of talent and experience across the country. The public purpose, coupled with the promises made by the BBC's director general in May 2016, including additional funding for improving services for more dedicated content, marks a significant commitment to Scotland's people and a commitment that we must hold to the BBC too. The charter directs the BBC in its annual plan to set out how it will deliver upon its duties, including improving services for Scotland, and we welcome the moves to strengthen the BBC's requirement to report against its creative remit nation by nation. I would expect that that requirement would encourage the BBC to look at the big picture across Scotland and make a more strategic approach with an eye to the future, structured by ambition, vision and energy, instead of the current situation, where retrospectively the assess investment is simply to deliver for the quota and relying on snooker coverage, for example, to make up the quota numbers. Snooker from Sheffield, Presiding Officer, is hardly Scottish. In doing so, I would also urge the BBC to consider how it will take audience views into account. The BBC is now required to report in detail on how well it is delivering against its plans and off-com will act as regulator. A strong and well-resourced off-com is key in holding the BBC to account. I met off-com's chief executive on 23 August and gained her commitment to work with us in order to ensure that the needs of Scotland's people are properly served, specifically through a service licence, which makes clear the expectations that are placed upon the co-operation. However, as we have recently made clear, the regulator can only regulate effectively if properly resourced to do so, and it should not be through top slicing the BBC licence fee. I have committed to working with off-com to help to understand the shape and scope of the service licence, and I look forward to further discussions on the matter. Turning to radio, BBC Radio remains part of the fabric of life in Scotland, and I think that it is worth once again raising the question of just how the BBC really views BBC Radio Scotland. Do they see it as truly a national station, such as Radio 4, or do they view it as another regional station? Throughout the process, I have been clear that the BBC needs to invest more in radio in Scotland, both in commissioning for the wider BBC Radio Network and in the funding of Radio Scotland and BBC Radio Nangale. It must also acknowledge the appetite for the expansion of national radio provision. I welcome the Secretary of State's response to our requests and her co-operation and the meeting that I have had with her, but I would urge that she might go further. Scotland's ass has been simple, credible and supported by a wide range of organisations and individuals who agree that business as usual is not accessible. It is unjust, unfair and plain wrong that Scotland raises over £320 million in licence fee revenue to see only 55 per cent of that return on spend by the BBC to Scotland. Without full commissioning and editorial control of the licence fee raised here, the BBC in Scotland will not be all that it can and should be. A simple analysis of the BBC's account slays bear the misrepresentation that Scotland gets what it deserves and the remaining monies are invested in wider services, which Scotland's audiences enjoy. The investment that the BBC makes in the other nations is greater. Scotland has been losing out for years and that must be put right. We continue to press for change. The UK Government has, at times, taken a seemingly arbitrary view on what matters are policy decisions for the BBC and which are legitimate items for a charter. We continue to assert that it is not appropriate to leave such crucial matters to the commitment of individuals who come and go. Although the commitment is outlined in Lord Hall's letter of 12 May, such as setting portrayal objectives for commissioners and strengthening Scotland as a centre for excellence for factual production are welcome, those decisions of decentralisation need to be properly secured. It is only through anchoring decentralisation in the charter itself that the BBC can be held to account. Why is it that the views from Scotland are somehow seen as partial and self-interested compared to the views from the offices of BBC executives in London and Salford? A readjustment in that relationship will be good for all, will enhance decision making and accountability and provide a better offer for audiences. In closing my remarks, I want to say this. Now is the time for the BBC to be truly bold and ambitious for itself and in so doing be ambitious for Scotland. I urge the co-operation to seize this opportunity to deliver a step change in what it does and how it does it, to provide substantive quality public service broadcasting now and in the future. My goodness, the cabinet secretary finished off just as another speech did yesterday. Time for change seized the moment. Well, there we go. That, unlike my favourite children's television programme, is not a speech that I made earlier. I was very keen to hear what the cabinet secretary had to say in introduction. I agree with a great deal of it. I think that there is a considerable amount of consensus. There are a number of highlighted points that she made, which I think are challenges to the BBC. The analysis underpinning them I might not entirely share and I will touch on that in my speech. The Prime Minister yesterday actually put the BBC and the NHS together in the same bundle. I suppose in a sense that they are both cradle-to-grave services that we expect and enjoy. From myself it began with Andy Pandey and the Woodentops through Blue Peter and Animal Magic to Dr Who, from nationwide through Reporting Scotland, then with the formidable Mary Marquess, now with the equally formidable Sally Magdison, Coldits and Secret Army, I, Claudius, Tonight Manager and Warham Peace, Dad's Army and then on the radio junior choice with Ed Stewart to radio one to radio two. I sometimes feel a radio two and a half would probably suit me now. Drama, comedy and the archers that today's programme are all part of my daily life on radio four. I'm told that if I keep this analogy up long enough I will eventually revert back to Andy Pandey and the Woodentops when I get to later stage in life. No, because I know you probably were on all of these programmes at an earlier stage in your career, Mr Stevenson, and I'm not going to put myself through that. I was also somebody who benefited from the world service personally. My family was in Cyprus during the Turkish invasion in 1974, and it was to the world service that we turned for all the information upon which we relied. Perhaps that's why Kofi and Anne said that Britain's greatest gift to the world in the 20th century has been the BBC world service, and throughout my life the radio times itself has been a feature in terms of looking and cherishing all the different quality programmes that are produced. Of course I'm a friend of the BBC, I'm a fan of the BBC, I'm not uncritical of it, nor of course was the former First Minister who referred to their coverage of the referendum as being nothing short of Pravda, which of course came as a great surprise to Comrade Byrd and Comrade Taylor. What we have here is a charter for the next 11 years, which, as the cabinet secretary has alluded to, takes it out with the electoral cycle. In fact, the participation of the Scottish Government of the Scottish Parliament was one of the commitments that was made in the Smith commission, which I hope all parties feel has been fully vindicated and fully honoured. Not only has the Scottish Government been actively participating in this process, the other devolved nations have been too. The BBC will now present themselves two committees of this Parliament having laid their annual accounts open to us, and there is an opportunity halfway through this charter review for an interim review, which I think is especially important, because much of what potentially is available to us as a result of this charter will depend upon the spirit with which the BBC now seek to deliver it. The fact that there is an interim review at the midway point will allow us to test whether or not that has actually taken place. Yes, of course. I appreciate the arguments that he's making about interim review, but he should be aware that there are also concerns that there should be political wind change about the BBC so that an interim review might be seen as a threat rather than an opportunity. I understand the point that the cabinet secretary makes. However, the charter ought to give it the political guarantee that it needs, but I do think that there is a need, because the cabinet secretary herself has identified areas in which she wishes to see the BBC respond to the new charter that there has to be an opportunity for this Parliament, as much as any other, to interrogate, to ensure that it is taking place. Those come down, I think, to the whole question of editorial independence and commissioning here in Scotland. I am going to try to stay free of the jargon that many of us have picked up, so I won't, other than saying that I am not referring to lift and shift, refer to it again. However, clearly, in the last charter, where a percentage of programming was meant to be established here in Scotland, producers and others found that the convenient way to bypass that was simply to have established programmes that relocate to Scotland to fulfil the exercise of ticking a box, but without any sustained or permanent outcome for the creative industries here in Scotland. That policy underpins the 55 per cent figure that the cabinet secretary referred to, because the amount of spend is a function of the genuine commissioning that takes place in Scotland. Because Waterloo Road was cancelled, suddenly the share of that kind of expenditure led to a drop in what was being allocated to Scotland. That is not good enough, and that is why I welcomed the appointment of Ken Macquarie to a post that was abolished in 2009, and the appointment of drama and comedy commissioners here in Scotland. However, the key thing will not just be their existing in a desk at Pacific Key, but they are being able to genuinely influence the budget decisions that are made about the spend on programming here in Scotland. I do think that there is a challenge for the Government in that. When the BBC launched the charter, it also announced that a key number of programmes would now be available for tendering around the UK and from the independent sector, programmes such as whole be city and songs of praise, for example. The very same afternoon, the very same afternoon, Invest Northern Ireland were in touch with Northern Ireland's screen and all the independent sectors in Northern Ireland to see how they could work with them to secure those programmes in Northern Ireland. It is quite clear from talking to the independent sector here in Scotland that the Scottish enterprise does not have anything like the same enthusiasm for becoming involved in investing in the creative industries in Scotland. It is not just Creative Scotland with its small budget that we need to see. We need to see Scottish Enterprise, the equivalent of Invest Northern Ireland, work with Creative Scotland and the Government to make sure that the independent producers here in Scotland are able to take advantage of the new commissioning opportunities that now exist. Secondly, although programming is not just drama, although drama is hugely important, it can be documentary, which does not require studio facility. Although we do not just want programming that is all about Scotland but Scotland making programming about the world, it is important if we talk in drama capacity terms that we have the studio capacity here in Scotland to deliver that. We do not. I know that the Government has made investment in supporting the Cumbernauld facility, which is the home of the digital drama production outlander. However, there is a huge potential beyond that. That is why I hope that the proposal for a Pentland studio is one that is under active consideration, perhaps a little longer than many would like. However, I hope that it can succeed because if we are going to take advantage not just of the commissioning opportunities of the BBC to produce long-term series production here in Scotland but also to take advantage of the new international digital high-quality drama network production, both of which long-term drama series stimulate the tourist industry here in Scotland, as Visit Scotland is already found with Outlander, now producing an Outlander tourist map for the many people coming here, we have to have the studio capacity for the independence who want to take advantage of the BBC commissioning budget that could come to Scotland to actually produce the programmes here and create the infrastructure and nurture the talent that we want to see developed in Scotland. I think that there does have to be a degree of leadership from the BBC but also from the Government to ensure that we are able to capitalise on that. I think that there are huge challenges for the BBC. I agree with much of what they have said. I think that the editorial independence of the BBC is fundamental. I think that the charter gives us huge opportunities and we certainly, through the culture committee and with the Government, will work to ensure that we maximise the potential for Scotland in this new environment. Thank you, I call on Lewis MacDonald. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Scottish Labour welcomes this debate and progress, we believe, has been made in recent months. We believe that the draft charter and framework agreement now offer a more certain future for the BBC in general and public service broadcasting in Scotland in particular. A few months ago, there was real cause for concern. Changes proposed by Conservative ministers to the governance of the BBC appeared to call into question the editorial integrity and independence of the corporation. At the same time, the process of charter renewal in Scotland was in danger of getting drawn into the constitutional debate, which would have threatened the independence of the BBC from a different direction. Today, we appear to have moved on, at least in some very important respects. The UK Government has accepted that it should be the BBC and not ministers who appoint a majority of board members and that there should be a senior independent director, as well as a chair appointed by Government. The cabinet secretary's approach to today's debate confirms that S&P ministers also recognise the draft chapter and framework agreement as a basis for further progress, though she clearly has some continuing reservations, and not all of those might be addressed in the weeks ahead, we shall see. However, our focus now should not be on issues of constitution or governance, it should be on investment in creativity and adding economic value. I thank Liz McDonough for taking the intervention. He mentioned there regarding governance, but surely governance is absolutely crucial in any organisation going forward. Mr McMillan will agree with me that the changes to governance contained in the charter have indeed moved things forward and moved things in the right direction. I think that there is sufficient in that to now allow us to focus on the issues of creativity and of economic benefit that lie ahead. A year ago, we debated an economy committee report on the economic impact of television and other creative industries, in which I highlighted the importance of quotas under the BBC's existing charter for production outwith London and the stimulus that it already offered to Scottish production companies. That sector was well represented in giving evidence to last week's meeting of the culture committee, and the views of the draft charter are worth noting. David Smith of Matchlight said that this charter is a welcome step forward, but it is not the end of the journey by any stretch. David Strachan of Turn Television said that the charter offers a number of checks and balances that did not exist before that allow for scrutiny by this place and by other organisations. Rosina Robson of Pack The Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television said that we are pleased with the overall shape of the charter and the agreement. There will be more opportunities for production companies in Scotland and around the UK to pitch for it because the BBC will be that much more open. Those witnesses set the tone for the committee's evidence session last week, and I hope that it is that approach that sets the tone for our debate today. As well as improving the Government's proposals for the BBC as a whole, the draft charter builds on the existing charter and strengthens the BBC's focus on the nations and regions of the UK and its ability to further strengthen the independent production sector in Scotland. There are now very specific requirements based on the BBC, as has been mentioned and has already been welcomed. The accountability of the BBC to this Parliament and to the devolved Administrations here and elsewhere is central. We can look forward to many more opportunities to scrutinise the senior management of the BBC, as committee members did last week, and to hold them to account for delivery of their strategy and plans. The amended public purpose is very significant. The BBC must reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom's nations and regions. That, of course, does not just require representation of Scotland, as seen from Holyrood or from Pacific Key. Scotland's regions must be fully represented, too. Not only that, but meeting that duty, the BBC must also support the creative economy across the United Kingdom. That, again, is good news for all of our creative hubs, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Hebrides, as well as the central belt. The framework agreement commits the BBC to continued support for Gallag broadcasting in partnership with MGLIPA. That partnership is responsible for around half the total number of Irish commission from production companies in Scotland, so that commitment really matters. However, as Fiona Hyslop said, it is not enough on its own. BBC Allapag currently makes 4.2 hours of new Gallag language programmes each week compared with the BBC's equivalent, Welsh language commitment, of 10 hours a week. We, too, want to see a commitment to 10 hours a week to really secure the future of that service. We believe also that that should be funded centrally by the BBC across the UK and not simply diverted from the spend already undertaken by BBC Scotland. That would surely meet the spirit of the BBC's new purpose to represent the diversity of communities across the United Kingdom. Television is hugely important but, as I think Jackson Carlaw said, it is not the whole story. If real progress has been made through quotas for TV production outwith Greater London since 2006, we need to see real progress in radio and online content over the term of the next charter. The BBC itself, if it can so chooses, set targets for the share of network radio programming and online content made in the nations and regions. If it does so, Scotland stands to benefit accordingly. The new board of the BBC, we believe, should make that an early priority. The draft charter and agreement provide a framework for the work of the BBC over the next 11 years. By definition, a framework is not prescriptive, it does not tell the BBC what to do day by day or issue by issue, but it clearly indicates the direction of travel. It is for the BBC now to make its own decisions as a public service broadcaster, independent of government control, but I think that the appointment of Ken Macquarie as BBC director for nations and regions is to be welcomed as an indication of intent and the intention to appoint commissioners here in Scotland. For this Parliament, it is for us to use our new responsibilities to encourage those kind of decisions by the BBC that will move us further forward over the next 11 years. One of the things that the economy committee found last year was that Scotland had lost ground on film and TV relative to other nations and regions in the UK. Jackson Carlaw mentioned Northern Ireland, which has forged ahead with top-class studio facilities and a government agency dedicated to the film and TV sector. I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of the positive lessons to be drawn from that and seeking to address those. But Northern Ireland's success is also down to a culture of partnership working. Politicians there do not seem to see the BBC as a problem, they see it as a partner bringing in business and adding value. It is that culture that we should aim for over the next 11 years to work together to achieve sustained growth in programme production in Scotland and to realise the full potential that the draft charter now offers. Thank you. We now enter the open-part of the debate. I call on Joan McAlpine to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I welcome the consensual nature of the debate? In fact, it is so consensual that I find that many of the points that I was going to make have already been made by Jackson Carlaw and Lewis MacDonald, as well as the cabinet secretary, so that is a bit of a surprise. Last week, the Parliament's culture committee, as Lewis MacDonald, as Jackson Carlaw has mentioned, took evidence on the charter and we had witnesses from independent production sector and MGLBA and the BBC. As Lewis MacDonald has already mentioned, independent producers in Scotland have welcomed the charter as a step in the right direction. I congratulate the cabinet secretary and indeed the committees of this Parliament in the past, such as the Education and Cultural Committee, for the input that they have had towards the charter and the shape that the draft is in. The independent production companies in particular welcomed article 6 of the charter, which states that, in commissioning and delivering output, the BBC should invest in the creative economies of each of the nations and contribute to their development. The BBC must now report its creative remits on a nation-by-nation basis, and that is good. I would also like to draw attention to article 5 of the charter, which outlines five public purposes, one of which is to, quote, reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom's nations and regions. Articles 5 and 6 between them say that strengthening television production in Scotland has both a cultural and an economic purpose. Director General Tony Hall, as the cabinet secretary, has already alluded to, admitted in May that the corporation has not done enough to reflect Scotland itself and the rest of the UK so far. Obviously, there is a hope that the draft charter will address that. However, I have a concern that Lord Hall's deputy Ann Balford, in her oral evidence to the committee last week, did not appear to show the same understanding as her boss. That is worrying because Mrs Balford is in charge of the BBC's finances. The committee heard, as others have said, that only 5 per cent of the licence fee raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland, and that compares to 74 per cent in Northern Ireland and 95 per cent in Wales. Other people have quoted to David Strachan of the independent production company, Tern, who explained lift and shift this way. There are companies that move to Scotland temporarily, rent a desk or two, put up a brass nameplate, consume quota and then disappear again as soon as the commission is finished. In early examples of that of the weakest link and the Sheffield snooker, which is under review by Ofcom at the moment. That has a real impact on employment. The committee heard that, from 2012 to 2015, employment has fallen by 27 per cent in Scottish TV production, despite Ofcom's target for network production being met. That is because of lift and shift. This is not a new thing. It has been criticised for years. It was previously criticised by the inquiry into the creative industries conducted by the economy committee in the last session of this Parliament when industry witnesses told us that they had poor experience in gaining access to London-based commissioners to pitch their ideas. They spoke of phone calls, not being returned, emails requesting meetings, which were ignored. That inquiry report, published in March last year, recommended that commissioners abandon their reliance on lift and shift and invest in independent TV companies with a permanent base in Scotland. It set a deadline for late 2016 and in fairness that was addressed to channel 4 as well as the BBC. However, Ms Boulford, at the committee session last week, point blank denied that there was any evidence of a prejudice by commissioners against companies outside London. MSPs repeatedly asked Ms Boulford for assurances that the 55 per cent would not happen again, and she requested that she name a more ambitious target, but she failed to do that as well. Ms Boulford and other BBC witnesses fell back on the discredited excuses, such as asserting that Scotland gets access to prestigious network services in return for its licence fee. However, as David Smith from Matchlight said, Wales and Northern Ireland also benefit from those network productions and big sporting events such as the Olympic Games and Radio 4, but they still keep more of their licence fee. The committee also took evidence from Donald Campbell of M.G. Alba, who was pleased that the draft agreement stated that the BBC must support the provision of output in Gallic language in Scotland and provide a television service through partnership with M.G. Alba. However, Mr Campbell was concerned that there was no coherent policy towards minority languages. We are all agreed that the BBC Alba is extremely high quality and reaches 15 per cent of the national audience. It is important to make the point that there is no lift and shift in Gallic TV. Every penny allocated to Scotland is spent here. I note that Bannon, the M.G. Alba drama, is already being sold internationally, which puts them ahead of English language drama from Scotland. The economy committee, the witnesses that we spoke to from the industry, identified a lack of high-end drama from Scotland as a major failing in culture as well as the economy. The BBC made great play last week of a new drama commissioner in Scotland, but as the committee discovered, the commissioner will still have to defer to decision makers in London and will have no realistic budget. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that much of the drama made in Scotland till now, even when it makes a major economic contribution, has not necessarily reflected authentic Scottish experience. Waterloo Road is a very good example of that. It was a good idea if it had built up the infrastructure here that allowed us to do other things, but it is gone and does not seem to have built up the infrastructure here, so that is a really significant problem. I felt that Ms Bulford did not recognise the point that there could be stuff made in Scotland or very authentic stuff emanating from Scotland that was drama that would appeal across the UK. That ignores the fact that things like in the past that have gone back quite a way, but train spotting is something that is very vernacular, but it is one of our biggest cinematic successes. If you look at American dramas such as The Wire, which in the past have been very successful on television, they too are in the vernacular and they are very specific to the place that they come from, but they are still very popular. Can we speak up and move to a conclusion? Thank you very much. I certainly believe that the charter goes far in addressing some of the problems that have identified here in Scotland in the past. I would like to see toughened up and I would like to make sure that this Parliament, if the charter stays as it is at the moment, gives the opportunity to scrutinise what the BBC is doing and make sure that it is decentralised and delivers what I think everybody in this Parliament wants to see for both the economy and the culture of Scotland. Thank you very much. Rachael Hamilton, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. As a child, I was never allowed to watch Tiswas. For fear I would get out of hand, my parents banned ITV, believing that watching Chris Tarant and Sally Harris get pied and drenched in semolina, baked beans and custard was not a good example to set. Instead, when the door was open, I immediately set the big old TV to channel one, the good old beeb, swap shop with Noel Edmunds, suitably inoffensive and educational entertainment. Even if in recent times you have veered away to online streaming platforms, the BBC has always been reliable. That's why many of us, particularly Ruth Davidson, still sneaks a fix of Strictly or the Andrew Marshow. To give it its due, the BBC is central to the lives of so many people here in overseas and has a global audience of 348 million reaching across radio, BBC, World Service, BBC Global News, TV and online. However, to progress, reform is essential. Today, we debate the BBC's renewal charter because the current BBC charter expires, as everyone said, at the end of this year. We welcome the new draft charter and, in particular, the enhanced emphasis on the nations through the charter and the increased input from the devolved legislatures, including this Parliament and the commitment from the UK Government to listen carefully to the issues raised in our debates before submitting the final documents. Over 300 organisations and experts have engaged in the charter review process, and over 190,000 responses to the public consultation were received. 80,000 of consultation responses said that the BBC serves its audience well or very well. However, for its notable successes, the BBC faced questions about its governance, its distinctiveness, market impact, how it serves society, efficiency and value for money, and technology was also a key area of discussion. Further, the 2006 charter looked at digital switch-over but said nothing about BBC iPlayer, nor did it say anything about BBC Alba, two of the most successful TV content initiatives of the last decade. Throughout the charter review process, the UK Government consulted with the Scottish Government on the contents of the draft BBC charter and framework agreement, in particular on the areas that affect Scotland. Indeed, decisions on the forthcoming investment and commissioning decisions will further develop the BBC's offering in Scotland, and the BBC have affirmed their commitment to continue working with BBC Scotland to build Scotland's share of the network commissioning. Delivering evidence at the European and External Affairs Committee last week, the Deputy Director-General of the BBC, Ann Balford, announced the appointments of a new drama commissioner and a new comedy commissioner for Scotland. The new commissioners will set portrayal objectives so that all areas of network content will accurately and unauthentically reflect the lives of audiences across the whole of the UK. Also, a drama development fund will be set up and Scotland will be identified as a centre for excellence for the BBC in factual production. Those promises are meaningful, and here in Scotland we hope to see the intention that different cultures and alternative viewpoints will be represented. Additionally, the new draft charter ensures that a non-executive director for Scotland will sit on the BBC's new unitary board and become a link, as Fiona Hyslop said earlier. Across this chamber, we put our trust in the BBC to meet their commitment to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom, both in its output and services. Revisions have been made to reflect devolution and changes in our democracy in news and sports coverage by announcing a nation's edition of home pages for the BBC news sites and to follow a nation's edition for BBC iPlayer and a BBC sports website. Delivering accountability to the devolved nations, as stated in point 5 of article 6, is integral. As Joan McAlpine quoted, I quote too, to reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all the United Kingdom's nations and regions and, in doing so, support the creative economy across the United Kingdom. Those words, we hope, will be put into action by Ken Macquarie, the new director of nations and regions. Mr Macquarie has been appointed as a voice for Scotland. He said at the committee last week, how we invest in the nations and regions and the creative economy of the nations is absolutely at the top of the director general's priorities. The BBC charter will agree a new partnership with Creative Scotland, which will aim to match the partnership that we have with Northern Ireland's screen, as Jackson alluded to. His comments about commitment to Scottish production were underpinned by evidence taken at last week's committee from stakeholders, including Creative Scotland. The stakeholders want to see high quality production staged and managed in Scotland, ultimately contributing to Scotland's economy and avoiding the lift and shift concept, which has already been mentioned today. The new director of nations and regions also talked about encouraging new talent through Skills Development Scotland and setting up apprenticeships by further contributing to growing Scotland's creative economy. So I leave it with you, dear Bebe. We are willing you all the way to represent Scotland's stories of our hills, our locks and our people. You have listened and now it's time for action. One final parting observation, will the spirit of the new BBC charter entice the granny that everybody wants, Scots-loving, iconic baker Mary Berry and the quick-witted and satirical beloved bake-off duo Mellon Sue? Perhaps they could produce a new series set on Carbury hill in East Lothian, entitled Mary, Queen of Tarts. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's perhaps no surprise that, given that the first director general—that wouldn't have been his title then—of the BBC was a doer Presbyterian Scott Lord Reith, the original motto of the BBC was, nation shall speak peace unto nation, which is an adaptation from the book of Micah, chapter 4, verse 3. The BBC was innovative when it started and it remains innovative in the modern digital age. Jackson Carlaw wasn't entirely incorrect in his response to my attempted intervention. I appeared on the BBC on the shores of Lochern, when Jackson Carlaw was three years old. Of course, Jackson Carlaw missed some of the most spectacular and impressive pieces of broadcasting that the BBC used to do. The one in his failure to accept an intervention that he showed most deeply at that omission was, of course, on the Sunday afternoon, The Brain's Trust. If he had watched that, which was a wonderful programme, it was where Jacob Bronoski was first brought to the public attention, and he probably produced, wrote and was the inspiration of my absolutely peak BBC programme, which was The Ascent of Man. Part of it actually moves me to tears when he is standing in a concentration camp and he reaches down into a puddle and picks up the mud from the puddle and just looks at it and then looks at the camera and says, this is my family. There is no more stirring piece of television than Jacob Bronoski, who came to us via The Brain's Trust, which only the BBC, in all honesty, could have considered a brain. Of course, it may be that it is another member of The Brain's Trust that Jackson Carlaw is related to that Tory MP Gerald Nabarro. He will be hoping, if he remembers anything about him that he is not. The BBC also has the affection of people on these benches for a programme that was first broadcast on 24 November 1962. That was the week that was. It brought us David Frost for the first time. It brought us a wonderful cartoonist, Timothy Burdsaw. Fundamentally, what it brought us was a satirical venue in which it was possible to probe the declining strength of the then Conservative Government under Harold Macmillan and probably contributed quite significantly to the ending of that period of Tory rule. We have a lot to be grateful for to the BBC. Of course, that was the week that was. As a youngster, I was particularly grateful to because it was late on a Saturday night and I was allowed to stay up to watch it for the first time that late, so it was a wonderful programme for me. However, it also illustrated something that we have kind of lost in modern broadcasting. It actually was of a length that was appropriate to what was going on in the world that week. In other words, if there was more going on, the programme just kept going because it was live. Some of it was actually improvised during the course of the programme. I think that the rigid timetables that box off programmes today mean that we have lost some of the spontaneity and spark that we had from that programme. Let me just say a few general things. The BBC produces one of the best affairs programmes that comes from Scotland, and it is done so for some time, and that is YORPA. It is subtitled, but it is a Gaelic programme. Of course, it enables us to look through Scottish eyes at things that are going on elsewhere, particularly in Europe, but occasionally beyond. Only the BBC has the option to do that kind of programme. We really love the BBC for the things it is able to do. It is able to pick up difficult subjects, and it is able to bring them to us. I want to just make a couple of points, which I hope the BBC, who will be watching this, I am sure, will take on board. BBC Scotland's radio Scotland is the poor relation, not simply in terms of the funding and resources that are made available to us. It is actually a poor relation in terms of how it is delivered to us and the modern digital age. The DAB radio that BBC Scotland is on is not delivered via any of the BBC multiplexes. It is delivered on commercial multiplexes. There are two effects that stem from that. One of which is that if you are in a car with a DAB radio, it will not retune from multiplex to multiplex as you go across Scotland. Whereas all the London BBC radio channels, you can continue to listen across Scotland because of that. It also, because of that, does not have an FM fallback. If you lose the digital signal, there is not enough information provided to your radio set to allow it to fallback to FM, like radio 4 does. Radio 4 is one of the crowning glories of the BBC, and many of us in Scotland, like myself, listen to it. However, it has its failings in relation to Scotland and in relation to the rest of the UK. I give one example in the brief time that is left. I was listening to a piece on radio 4 about Sunday trading in England and comments that were being made and how the world would fall apart if shops were allowed to open ad-lib on Sundays. No reference was made to the fact for English audiences that, in Scotland, we had Sunday trading for many years and the world hadn't collapsed. However, even more fundamentally for Scots listeners, there was no explanation of what the situation in England was in relation to Sunday trading. I didn't quite understand it until I went home and looked it up. It both failed to represent Scotland in an English debate and failed to explain an English issue, which was of interest to us in a Scottish context. That is simply a metropolitan error that the BBC has to address. Let's hope that the BBC continues to reflect the world to Scotland, but also to reflect Scotland to the world. I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate. I welcome the focus of the Scottish Parliament on giving to the BBC and the greater engagement that we have with the BBC and the BBC Scotland. I think that we are developing a more mature and transparent relationship, and that is to be welcomed. Indeed, when George Adam and I hosted the BBC showing of the Doctor Who Christmas special in Parliament last year, even the most sceptical BBC grudging MSP rushed for tickets, so I am pleased that we can all recognise the value of the BBC when we are presented with a quality product. The BBC is a valued and trusted institution. Its origins are rooted in the aims of educating, entertaining and informing its audience, and generations have grown up watching and enjoying BBC content. Founded in 1922, it is now competing in a very much changed media environment and a more competitive and commercial market, presenting big challenges for the organisation and its audience. However, it is admired throughout the world as a public sector broadcaster, funded by all of us and one that produces quality programming with a depth and a breadth not matched by any other broadcaster. While the headlines this afternoon are all about the charter, we cannot forget that this is a very challenging financial settlement for the BBC. I do not agree that the BBC should fully cover the cost of the over 75 licence fee, which will be the primary factor in its budget reducing by almost 20 per cent by 2020-21. The BBC faces a decade of declining resources, and while I fully support their role as a public sector broadcaster and the continuing use of the licence fee model, we need to recognise the need for them to operate commercially and be able to generate income when appropriate. There is much to be welcomed in the BBC draft charter. I know that the cabinet secretary has raised a number of areas that she feels have not been delivered, but she should not sell herself short. At the start of the process, Ms Hyslop set out to get a good deal for Scotland, to get political consensus on the way forward and to champion the importance of BBC Scotland content. Any fair measure of the draft would say that she has achieved that. For example, a service licence agreement for Scotland, a commitment to continue to sport for our Gaelic, a dedicated board member for Scotland and a significant new public purpose to reflect, represent and serve the nations and the regions. The Scottish Government might not have got the full result that it wanted, but it is a result that I feel reflects the views of this Parliament. The recommendations of the previous Education and Culture Committee report are reflected in the draft charter, recommendations that grew the broadest support from the Parliament, and it is right for determining the direction of a public sector broadcaster. The level of Scottish content and spend will no doubt continue to be an issue of debate in Scotland—how much is commissioned in Scotland and how much is spent in Scotland. Those are figures that need to be available and fully discussed, but I would like to say a few things about those issues. Firstly, it is good news that a new drama commissioner and a new comedy commissioner have been announced for Scotland. A new drama development fund will be established, and Scotland will be identified as a BBC centre of excellence in factual production. Those are all to be welcomed and will make better use of the fantastic talent that we have, build experience, confidence and relationships, secure more Scottish productions and, crucially, more opportunities for network productions that are originating in Scotland. We have strengths in our current productions. A few weeks ago, I was at the recording of the Dolegate My Homework at Pacific Key. You can look out for me in the school disco section of that programme. It has a specific school disco section where parents and children have to stand up and dance. It is on the CBBC, so you should look out for it. The children's programme is a very good example of Scotland's strength in children's programming. It is an area in which BBC Scotland excels. We should all be very proud of the areas in which we are being successful and are taking a lead and have the confidence and the necessary investment to grow and go forward. It is welcome that the charter says that, in commissioning and delivering output, the BBC should invest in the creative economies of each of the nations and contribute to its development—a clear statement that will support its activity, and we all have a responsibility to make sure that that is delivered on. Secondly, I do not support the arguments around the share of the licence fee. It is an indicator of activity, but it does not tell the whole story. I think that we all agree that lift and shift is a system that needs to be addressed and that the quotas need to be filled in a more meaningful way, but the reliance on the interpretation of the licence fee is not the right way to do that. Comparing Scotland's share to Wales or Northern Ireland's share is not comparing like-with-like for a number of reasons, including population difference for a start. Also, the breadth of network programming is a strong argument against a percentage licence fee figure being calculated for BBC Scotland and as an attempt at federalisation of the BBC by the back door. That would be a blunt figure that does not reflect what we get in return for the licence fee. Full BBC programming, radio, iPlayer, website and it is right and fair that a proportion of our licence fee contributes towards that. To create an internal market for these services would be a disaster and not in the best interests of the licence fee pair, who is completely ignored in these discussions. Audiences should be at the heart of the debate. I look at any of the viewing figures for much of the day or for Strictly Come dancing, show that people in Scotland value those programmes as much as anywhere else and we all benefit from being part of the UK network. Thirdly, the BBC is built on shared values throughout the UK. Its funding model, its finding principles, its innovation and commitment to quality give all of us as a country a public sector broadcast that is rivaled, unrivaled around the world and that is to be very much valued. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Can I say that I entirely agreed with much of Claire Baker's remarks, although I have to confess that I am heartily relieved not to have to watch CBBCs any more. Although there will be a stage later on in life, no doubt when that may happen again, but at the moment I can happily see it far enough. I start by apologising for having to leave early this evening due to a number of transport-related challenges in my life, and therefore I apologise to the front benches for not being able to stay for the final contributions this afternoon. However, what I did want to do is reflect a number of points. First, I thought that the cabinet secretary set out a pretty fair assessment of the situation. I also want to genuinely say that I think that the tone of the Government front bench on this matter, on this really important issue of the BBC and the charter has improved greatly from my perspective. I thought Fiona Hyslop made a very constructive and sensible speech this afternoon, and that is to be welcomed, given the importance of the matter. However, Lewis MacDonald was right to set some context for this debate. I mean that no Government can ever resist the temptation to seek to interfere in the broadcaster who is funded by the licence fee payer and, by definition, therefore the voter. It happens all over the world, it happens regularly, and it has happened under successive Westminster Governments of all political persuasions. I do want to reflect the fact that Lewis MacDonald made a pretty fair point there about a number of Conservative Governments over the years that I've watched who have grotesquely interfered in the editorial importance of the BBC. I'm very glad to see that that's now not happening, and I hope that long may that continue, because if we are to allow a broadcaster, and for that matter the BBC does so much more than just broadcast, but to develop and flourish, and particularly, as Fiona Hyslop rightly said, to be a very important part of the creative industries, not just in Scotland but right around the UK, then it is an essential part of allowing that organisation to flourish, that it not be interfered with by any Government of any political persuasion. It is to the credit of the Scottish Government and of the UK Government now, if they do recognise that very important distinction that Fiona Hyslop rightly drew out of, of course, commenting on spend and on investment, and on how programmes come to be seen in different parts of the country, of course, making observations about all those things, and indeed pushing very hard for greater investment in the important aspects of the BBC's service across the country, but to separate that very, very clearly from the importance of editorial independence. Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, raised three important points, I think, in her introductory remarks. One around more representative content and about the creative industries, which I have very briefly touched on. The one that I would hesitate to suggest that the Government just needs to be a little reflective on is the calls for ever, ever greater decentralised decision making. That principle is admirable, but all of us who preach that approach of decentralisation need to carry it through into everything that we do. I have been on the end as a constituency member of lots of decisions being taken away from my part of the world by a Government who have centralised it. By all means, I make the argument for decentralisation within the BBC, but please also consistently do that in how Government operates as well. Would the member reflect, I think, on Lewis MacDonald's point, that it is all very well having commissioners on drama and on comedy, but the issue is would you have then decision making on budgets to help support that? I think that that is really the core of the test that we want to make, Tavish Scott. I would be happy to come back to that point. I thought that there was one additional point that I wanted to make, but, certainly, he or she who controls the budget, of course, has a major effect on the effectiveness of the roles that the cabinet secretary has outlined. The other point that I wanted to just make in the context of the creative industries is I think that it is a strength of Scottish broadcasting that STV is not only there, but it has pushed the BBC really hard, both in terms of news production. You are very well aware of this particular argument, as you memorably host breakfasts for STV in Parliament, and rightly so. Those are good events in which STV's own management team could be questioned. However, my point is that STV is good for the BBC because it pushed really hard. The point that has been made about the Scottish 7 is important in that context, although I think that surely the objective test that we always apply to that is the quality of that that will be with us on our screens next year, and also where it is good to be seen, because I understand that there is a fairly significant issue about that, too. However, so for radio too. The independent radio stations around Scotland are equally as important in pushing BBC radio and BBC radio Scotland in its quality, in its output and in its news-gathering abilities. Competition is important both in the broadcasting news and entertainment markets as well. I am grateful to those who have highlighted the role of the Smith commission in driving forward much of the principle of what needed to happen here in terms of governance and the role. I believe, as Joan McAlpine mentioned, that the previous culture committee in the last session of Parliament deserved much credit for a series of recommendations, which, as far as I can see, have broadly been encapsulated in the new charter. The Government has always played an important role in that, but it is occasionally important to recognise the role of a committee in terms of how it has brought things to pass. Fiona Hyslop rightly mentioned the drama commissioner and new comedy commissioner. In addition to the point that the Cabinet Secretary makes about the budget, it strikes me as important that those individuals will be there, because their jobs will depend on how much they can also get on to the network, how much they actually achieve within the BBC, and the fact that they are pushing a Scottish quality and a Scottish approach to both comedy and drama is a very positive development, as is the drama development fund that has been mentioned, too. One final point, if I may, by way of example. I believe that one of the big challenges of the BBC is to invest in news and the news gathering in Scotland to a greater extent, particularly in terms of the support for journalists. I graze news in the morning today—five live and a GMS—when the BBC brought Jim Nocti up to co-present GMS through the events of 2014. He was supported in the same way that he would be supported in the today programme. I would hope that, in future, the BBC Scotland would find the people, the resources and the research to put behind the excellent quality of broadcasts that we have, but to make sure that those programmes have more depth and reach than they currently do. Stuart McMillan, followed by Ross Greer. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. At the outset, I just want to touch upon the comments from Jackson Carlaw and Tabith Scott on his contribution. Jackson Carlaw spoke regarding the Smith commission proposals and the input that Scotland has in the BBC. Clearly, that is something that I warmly welcome, although I have thought for many years that, certainly since this Parliament was re-established, it should have had that level of input going back to 1999, as compared to just starting now. However, I warmly welcome the fact that we now have that input into the BBC. The BBC is a hugely important cultural institution, and it remains the single most important contributor to public service broadcasting in the UK. It plays an important role in supporting the wider creative economy both directly through commissioning from the independent production sector and also indirectly through investment, skills and training. I have heard examples of programmes across Scotland today, and John McAlpine is talking about Waterloo Road. I know that, although the programme was there, despite the fact that it was lifted and shifted very much in a false situation, it was based in Greenock in the old Greenock Academy School. It certainly had a positive effect on the Inverclyde economy, although, unfortunately, there has not been that longer-lasting effect in terms of jobs and increased training. Someone who comes from Greenock myself, I would want to endorse the points that you have just made and know that they would make a big effect on the economy, and that is really to be welcomed. However, does he agree with me that having a commissioner of drama with real power and a budget will perhaps ensure that we have a returnable drama series from Scotland that is not axed because the plot line is not particularly credible? Stuart McMillan was certainly a beneficial programme for the economy, but we need to have that longer-term vision and that longer-term planning, and having that commissioner, as John McAlpine discussed, would aid that going forward. In relation to audience streets, BBC Trust referred to data indicating that BBC Television Scotland is consumed by a higher proportion of the population than for the rest of the UK. We now have a new charter, which I do welcome, but I cannot help to feel that the proposals represent something of a missed opportunity, namely that they do not deliver fully for the Scottish audience. The Scottish Government supports the ambitions of BBC's Scotland staff to be a high-quality broadcaster for the people and the population of Scotland, but its ambitions will only be realised with increased investment and decentralisation of commissioning authority away from broadcasting house in London to Pacific Key. The UK has changed dramatically since devolution, but the BBC has yet to fully catch up with the impact of devolution and truly reflect the complex, varied and rich realities of our society. The independence referendum energised Scotland in 2014, prompting a record of 85 per cent turnout as our population engaged with politics on a level never previously seen. That consensual democratic process played out on the world stage with audiences and governments from far and wide taking interest in Scotland's future, our values and our culture. Through this and the global coverage of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, Scotland engaged extensively with the world. Scotland has clear and distinct needs and its vital requirements of our audiences and our production sector and those in our wider creative industries are also met. The Scottish Government's proposals lay out measures for increased transparency and accountability, which will help the corporation to listen to and reflect its audiences. My key concern raised by production companies is that the commissioning process for network television has too much of a London focus, and this has been heard today and also last week in committee. They have said that proximity is a crucial factor in that it can be difficult for Scottish companies to win commissions because the centralised model with ultimate decision making lying in London puts Scottish companies at a disadvantage. A federal structure would have empowered the BBC to better reflect the needs of the nations and regions it serves, giving BBC Scotland full control over decision making in terms of how revenue raised here is actually spent, but full control over commissioning and editorial decisions would have had an enormously positive impact. It is evident that substantial change is still required for the commissioning process to grow the strong, sustainable and competitive creative industry sector in Scotland that we seek. A greater degree of decentralisation of and accountability for commissioning and accompanying budgets across the nations and regions would certainly rebalance the concern that the BBC has a London bias. It should also benefit the creative industries in Scotland by interacting, developing and retaining talent, thus helping the sector to become strong, sustainable and also competitive. It is not just enough to improve access to commissioners welcome, although that may be. Implementing those improvements would not necessarily require the BBC to adopt a federal structure as such, but it would require even greater decentralisation of decision-making, commissioning and accompanying budgets. It would enable BBC Scotland to take that longer-term strategic approach to delivering sustainable, high-quality programming that benefits audiences, the global market and the creative sector. That could be a win-win for viewers both in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. A fairer share of the licence fee money raised in Scotland, being spent in Scotland, could also deliver up to an additional £100 million of investment, and supporting up to 1,500 jobs in contributing an additional £60 million to the Scottish economy. I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer, so I will conclude on that. I value the BBC and I want it to succeed. However, while I welcome the addition of the charter and its approach for better representation of Scotland's nation, the creative economy and provision of the Gaelic language, the charter needs to be at the starting point of the Gaelic language. I call on Ross Greer to be followed by Alexander Anderson. The BBC is regularly said to be far more than the sum of its parts. That is true. There really is no comparison anywhere else in the world, no other public service broadcaster, which offers such a variety of content across different mediums. To every corner of the world, Jackson Carlaw has already mentioned the service provided by the BBC World Service. It is a highly valued institution, up there with the NHS in the consciousness of people across the islands. Yet, here in Scotland, where support for public services and the principle of public service broadcasting is so high, there are some deep-seated dissatisfactions with the broadcaster. I am not referring to conspiracy theories or tilted weather maps. There are widespread and legitimate concerns in Scotland about both the nature of BBC content being delivered here and the commissioning and production process itself, which seems to not deliver for the production industry that we have here in Scotland. Only 48 per cent of people here believe that the BBC is good at representing their life in news and current affairs. That compares to 55 per cent in Wales and just over 60 per cent in England and Northern Ireland. Now, none of those numbers are as high as we want them to be, but it is notable that in Scotland that number has fallen below the halfway mark. Given the reach of the BBC in Scotland, more than half of adults watch its news and current affairs programmes each week. There is a responsibility to provide high-quality programming that reflects the world that the audience lives in and which the audience can have confidence in. I am concerned that, through the debate around BBC content in Scotland, we have focused quite narrowly on news and current affairs output. The breadth of what the BBC offers here goes far beyond reporting Scotland's GMS in Scotland 2016. Even within this narrow debate, as has already been mentioned, when debating BBC content, we get focused on news and current affairs and when we focus on news and current affairs, we too often focus on the idea of a Scottish Six, a comprehensive news programme in Scotland. I enthusiastically welcome a Scottish Six. We are a nation with our own distinct politics, legal system, education system, health service. We have come a long way since the evolution and we are clearly in need of our main broadcaster and our largest media organisation to reflect that. Scotland has come a long way, but the BBC has not seized this opportunity. It has fallen behind the curve in representing Scotland and our place in the world to audiences here and elsewhere. I should say that I do not hold any grudge against the network news. It naturally leads with stories that have a major impact on or a major interest from a significant majority of its audience, but that is where the problem lies. UK-wide evening news programmes will not often be leading with reports from what happens in this Parliament nor should they be, but viewers in Scotland deserve a service that reflects the reality of the world that they live in. With commercial rivals already announcing their intention, as Tavish Scott mentioned, to provide this fully rounded Scottish news service, I am sure that we would all welcome further progress from BBC Scotland. Progress is particularly needed on engaging with younger audiences. Given that the average age of a radio Scotland listener is 53 and more than half of BBC Scotland's news audience is over 55, there is clearly much work that we need to do to ensure that BBC services in Scotland are sustainable, that the audience is sustainable. Since the independence referendum, Scotland has seen a welcome rise in new media outlets such as common space, which have engaged very successfully with young people, particularly online. BBC Scotland has made a significant effort to expand its online presence, but much more is required for its reach to be sustainable over the coming years. The BBC in Scotland does not exist only to provide news and current affairs output, of course, as I have already mentioned. Nor would we expect all the content that is produced here for the BBC to be specifically or inherently Scottish. Although we have many notable successes, which are distinctly Scottish, including Shetland, which is airing everywhere from Finland to the United States at the moment, there are plenty of success stories here that have no intrinsic attachment to our nation. They are just quality programmes that are produced by the talented and vibrant creative industry that we have here. For example, robot wars in my own region or question time, which is now produced in Scotland. Although I would say that the quality of question time and audience satisfaction lie far more heavily with the guests invited than the production team behind the programme. However, the reality is that investment in Scotland is strikingly low, as Joan McAlpine has already mentioned. For every pound that is raised here through the licence fee, only £55 is spent here. That compares to £75 in Northern Ireland and £95 in Wales, if you exclude spending on S4C. I would not expect spending to reach 100 per cent. That is not how this works and Clearbreaker outlined that very well. It is true that spending varies from year to year. However, given that spending in 2014-15 was equivalent to £63 in the pound, in the year of so many major events happening in Scotland, it is clear that we are not close to what many of us would consider a satisfactory arrangement in Scotland. Often, those figures do not tell the full story. It has already been mentioned that, in evidence to the Culture and Europe Committee, we found that significant amounts of snooker being produced in Sheffield was going towards the Scottish production quota, simply due to a couple of desks at the BBC's headquarters in Pacific Key. It was also disappointing to hear during our evidence session that production companies in Scotland felt that companies from outside were being offered longer-term contracts to entice them into Scotland, whereas indigenous companies were not being offered those same opportunities. There are a huge number of ways that the BBC is already pledged to make significant improvements. The charter has a number of welcome steps and there are a number of other improvements that will be made outside the charter process. I really hope that an institution that we all deeply value can bring about the necessary changes to ensure that there is a secure future with satisfied audiences in Scotland and across those islands. The very understanding, Mr Stewart, to be followed by Emma Harper. I am delighted to participate in the debate today. It has been great to listen to many of the reflections of members in the chamber about their input from the BBC. The programmes and events that have taken part in their lives. Included in the BBC's remit of duty is the idea of looking at nations, regions and communities, and that reflects what happens across the United Kingdom. Prior to the review taking place, there was an acknowledgement that had somehow fallen short in the whole point of broadcasting in regard to Scotland. Scotland and the way in which it is governed has changed dramatically over the past 17 years since the advent of devolution. We must now look at the new powers that are coming to this Parliament, because it will give us even more responsibility on taxation and more responsibility on expenditure, and the BBC must adopt those new political dimensions and reflect them as they move forward. There is no doubt that debates on transforming schools south of the border or industrial action on junior doctors has little relevance to many people here within Scotland if that is appearing on the BBC. We must ensure that debates over the education system here in Scotland and the health service are ones that are being promoted on the BBC that are much more relevant to the listener or the person who is viewing them on the television. The issue of the charter renewal is, for those reasons, incredibly important as we move forward in the debate in Scotland. I was therefore very pleased to hear that the UK Government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport, had sought to consult widely during the review and particularly to take on aboard the accounts from what is happening within the devolved organisations and parliaments and assemblies. The fact that the charter enshrines the community and the memorandums of understanding that reflects between the Scottish Government, the BBC and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport is, I believe, a good example of positive intergovernmental co-operation. That is what we need, positive co-operation. That is the type of collaboration that everybody in Scotland wants to see more of because it does make a massive impact on all of us. The fact that the BBC will now have to lay its accounts before the Scottish Parliament can only be a good thing, because that increases the scrutiny and the effectiveness of what is taking place across the public sector here. Although the crucial parts of the BBC and the accounts that have been spent are large sums of money or public money are being spent, we need to ensure that that is being protected, and it cannot be allowed for editorial independence to be removed and for Government political infringements to take place. It was quite interesting, though, Deputy Presiding Officer. We had some of the consultations that there were some overtones from parts of that that verged on advocating that state control might be something that should be looked at. I felt that that was taking it a step far too far. The new charter will also give the BBC Scotland greater control over the budget and commissioning that it can produce more programmes specifically for Scottish audiences. Those programmes must reflect diversity, ethnic minorities and disabilities for people in Scotland. That is something that we do not see as much as we should see in the sector. It is important that that takes place. The new commissioning editors for both television, comedy and drama in Scotland, coupled with the new drama development fund, will help to promote new programmes for talent that we can see across the sector. Moreover, the BBC produces some of the best programmes, and many people today have touched on some of those fantastic programmes that take place. They are there to ensure that we are making the best of what we have for the licence fee that we are given. The television channels and radio stations that we have are quite remarkable in moving things forward, and that is very important to us. The world is changing, and as we move into a more digital age and the BBC in Scotland and the rest of the UK must adapt to create more wishes for the people and give them more access and more control. The BBC is able to compete across the sectors, and technology is a massive opportunity for us to ensure that we have high-quality performance and programmes that are renowned throughout the United Kingdom. Many have been discussed already today, that are real flagships of Scotland and show us to the UK, Europe and the world as to where we are. In moving forward, we need to look at how we balance that and ensure that we get the right balance so that we are reflecting what is being done within the process and moving forward. In conclusion, I am very much welcome to the provisions that have come forward today, and I look forward to reflecting to see that, in modern times, socially, digitally and politically, we need to be bold. We need to have that courage of moving forward and showing us that we have high regard for the BBC. Scotland has a big part to play, and we can all look forward to the months and years ahead, because they will be good, I have no doubt. The last of the closing speeches is Emma Harper. Many of the points that I will make are related to what others have said, but I have a wee bit of a different angle. It is worth reiterating a lot of the points, because it shows a consensus across the chamber. I am pleased to contribute today, and I welcome the Scottish Parliament's new, if not overdue, official role of the charter process. When our previous director of the BBC Scotland, Ken Macquarie, appeared before the European and External Relations Committee recently, he encouraged stakeholders to be robust in their critique of the BBC to ensure an open debate. It is in that spirit in which I will proceed today. The Scottish people and the Scottish Government value the vital role that the BBC plays as a public service broadcaster. However, for too long, the BBC has not been working for the people of Scotland. The total licence fee, the income in Scotland for 2014 and 2015, was approximately £323 million. I know that people have put that forward as a percentage, but it is £323 million, yet the BBC spend, attributed to Scotland for the same period, equaled only £190.5 million. As the budget falls in Scotland, so does viewer satisfaction. Figures from BBC Scotland's own annual report show satisfaction rates as low as 48 per cent, and Ross Greer has mentioned that already. However, the cuts continue. By the end of 2017, the BBC Scotland's only budget will have suffered a cut of £16 million in cash terms over five years. When disappointment is expressed in those figures, we are often told by the BBC management in London that Scottish audiences consume a high level of network programming like the Olympics, which has been mentioned of football, and that we must pay for this with some of our licence fee revenue. However, now that we have access to the information provided in the BBC accounts for the first time, that argument is easily dismantled. We now know that, in Wales, the BBC spends at least 95 per cent of the licence fee revenue at races from Welsh licence fee pairs. Northern Ireland spends 75 per cent of what it races, and it is estimated that England spends well over 100 per cent. In light of that, I put it to the BBC that one reason for high consumption of UK-wide network content in Scotland may be the lack of any alternative in the form of distinctive Scottish programming. There is a continuing hypocrisy represented by savage cuts taking place in Scotland, while budgets across many services in England and the rest of the UK are maintained. That was highlighted when budget cuts led to a substantial number of journalists being forced to take redundancy just months before Scotland's historic referendum. The end result was that, at a time when BBC Scotland should have been demanding more money from the BBC centrally, it was instead accepting less. Mr Macquarie is now the BBC's director of nations and regions. While I wish him well in his new role, I wonder how he will square presiding over Wales, England and Northern Ireland being allowed the privilege of spending the money that they raise, while his former colleagues at BBC Scotland continue under the spectre of further cuts and potential job losses. In terms of employment, commissioning, which was mentioned by Stuart McMillan, is another contentious issue that has been raised with the committee by independent production companies. I am going to say this really slowly so that I do not make a gaff. The use of lift and shift, as Joan McAlpine and Jackson Carlaw mentioned, the use of lift and shift to fulfil quotas is undoubtedly harming in the companies. Employment and production in Scotland fell by 27 per cent between 2012 and 2015 because network programming temporarily decamped to Scotland to meet quotas that does not provide sustainable employment, nor is it conducive to the creation of programming that nurtures and reflects our distinctive heritage and cultures. When we cannot provide an environment in which those who wish to work in creative sectors can find sustainable employment in Scotland, people will go elsewhere. I am sure that everyone across the chamber can agree that we do not want talented people to be forced to leave Scotland. People who want to live and work here should have the opportunity to do so. It is now clearer than ever that real change will only come when funding and commissioning authority come to BBC Scotland. Cabinet Minister mentioned creation of a Scottish board, so now is the time for the creation of a Scottish board, not just a BBC-appointed sub-committee, to allow BBC Scotland greater control over its budget to be given meaningful commissioning power. If Scotland's share of licence fee revenue raised here was in line with Wales, at least an additional £128 million per annum would be spent by the BBC in Scotland. Imagine what we would be capable of with the same resources available to us as our neighbours across the UK. Perhaps some of the extra revenue could be channeled into the draft charter's new public purpose. Again, I know that people have mentioned this already and Claire Baker said this as well as others. We are going to reflect and raise awareness of the different cultures throughout the nations and regions. The regions are really important. As current president of Dumfries Ladies' Burns club number one, I am all for this. Today is national poetry day, so we could be doing a lot more poetry events, so we will see more Scots poetry than that. It seems difficult to envisage how all of this is going to be achieved with current funding levels. BBC Alba is an excellent example of the standard of programming that can be achieved and has been achieved thus far on a shoestring budget. In the current financial year, BBC Alba received £0.9 million, and the BBC spends 10 times more than that on S4C in Wales. I hope that this chamber will support the number of sensible proposals. I am in my last sentence. The sensible proposal is a short one. It is contained within the Scottish Government's policy paper and that we can continue to work together to create a new and improved BBC Scotland. Thank you. We now move to the closing speeches, and I call Lewis MacDonald. Six minutes, please, Mr MacDonald. Thank you very much. We have heard a great deal today about the real issues that we should focus on over the term of the next BBC charter to 2027. There are plenty of challenges ahead for the BBC and challenges, too, for this Parliament in supporting the kind of developments that will enhance the cultural life and the creative economy of Scotland. Increased support for Gaelic Broadcasting, more Scottish content and radio online are just some of those that we have highlighted today. Fiona Hyslop began by saying that the Scottish Government has pursued a consensus approach, and I think that is broadly to be welcomed. Joan McAlpine also began by endorsing that, but it was disappointing that she did not find anything more positive to say about the BBC's evidence that the culture committee last week. Ann Balford made some important points that should be welcomed. For example, about how the pattern of BBC spending as we go through the 11-year charter will change, and how opening up the whole production base to competition over the course of the charter would create new opportunities, not least for independent production companies in Scotland, of course. Joan McAlpine? I think that I was clear that I did welcome the charter and the framework that it sets out, but does it not agree with me that there is certainly a belief that it is important to hold the senior management of the BBC to account to make sure that it abides by the spirit of the charter and that there are some doubts about that within the BBC and certainly within the independent production sector? Lewis Macdonald and Ken Macquarie in his evidence highlighted the achievements under the existing charter. He said that I take the criticism that has been offered in an open spirit and accept that there are areas where we have to do better. I agree that that open spirit and positive engagement will be very important for the Parliament scrutiny of the BBC in the period ahead, but I think that that open spirit has to come from both sides in that process. The context of the debate is that the BBC serves the whole of the United Kingdom. That is clear in the terms of the charter, but it is directed now to do so in a way that better reflects the diversity of our communities that is welcome. That does not mean moving away from a UK-wide network, and I do not accept, for example, the point that was made that a programme reporting, a sporting event in England, should not be counted somehow as a Scottish production, as long as the production company making that programme is substantially Scotland-based. What is important for our debate is that there are agreed criteria as to what constitutes Scottish contact and what constitutes a substantial base, and that those criteria are accepted and applied by all interested parties. It is not, I think, helpful to offer subjective judgments about degrees of Scottishness, as if some production companies based in Scotland are somehow more Scottish than others. There is no good reason why a Scottish company cannot make a programme in England, quite the contrary, nor is there any need for Scottish programming to be programmes only about Scotland. As David Smith told the committee last week, we want to make representational content, but we do not want to make only representational content. We want to make Lewis Grasic-Gibbon and Shakespeare all those things. It is wrong, too, to suggest, as we heard this afternoon, that BBC Scotland is suffering cuts while the rest of the BBC is not. As Claire Baker said, those reduced budgets apply across the board, and they are to be regretted wherever they are impacting upon the BBC. Lift and Shift has been controversial in the debate about meeting production quotas, and again we heard a number of comments about that this afternoon. It is important that those quotas deliver their ultimate objective of sustaining Scotland's creative economy, but it would be wrong to suggest that incentivising companies to move here from elsewhere in the UK is always somehow a failure. David Strachan did indeed give examples to the committee of where Lift and Shift did not work, but he also made the point that career paths had been created by some such programmes, for example, in the production of homes under the hammer. David Smith described how mentor media had lifted and shifted question time to Scotland, and in doing so, they had invested substantially here and created a genuinely Scottish business as a result. I was pleased to meet Ron Jones from that company at a recent conference. Stuart McMillan I am sure that Liz McDonough will agree that it is not so much the idea of Lift and Shift as a bad thing, but it is about when it does happen that there needs to be that proposed medium and longer term strategy that is put in place as well. Absolutely. Rather than seeing Lift and Shift as permanently in competition with Scottish-based production, we should see it as a transitional stage in enabling the Scottish production sector to grow and thrive. Of course, another issue that I highlighted today was whether a large enough share of the BBC's income from Scottish licence fees was being spent in Scotland. I think that it is, as Claire Baker said, fair to use that as our measurement, but it seems to me a mistake to use that as a target. The BBC is a single corporation serving the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. It is not a series of separate companies sharing only a common brand. There are, of course, many programmes that are made in Scotland that are not counted against those totals. The live screening of today's debate is paid from the budget of the BBC Parliament and is therefore neither output from BBC Scotland nor a Scottish production commissioned against the off-com criteria, but yet it is still programme-making from Scotland. We should be careful about not being too prescriptive about how those things are measured. We want the BBC to produce the best programmes, to support the greatest creativity and to promote the best talent. Those should be its targets to achieve quality production and not to aim for accountancy balances. The BBC, as has been said, plays a central role in the life of this country. It is as important to Scotland as to any other part of the United Kingdom and is highly valued. Like the United Kingdom itself, the BBC is evolving to reflect the increased role of the nations and regions of the UK in Britain's cultural life. That evolution is to be welcomed and supported. We believe that the way to do that is to work with the grain of the new draft charter and framework agreement to encourage and enable Scotland's independent production sector and to support those within the BBC who see promotion of the nations and regions as their task over the next 11 years. We have enjoyed a very interesting debate today with some excellent contributions from across the chamber highlighting the importance of the role of the BBC in Scotland's creative industries. Having worked for 13 years in television myself, including a stint at the BBC, I must share with the chamber that I was always struck by the dedication of the BBC staff in creating innovative programming for the whole of the UK. I think that there is a lot of consensus that we agree that the BBC output has a tremendous impact on our lives, on a daily basis. It entertains, it reports, it teaches and it informs. The BBC has gone through quite remarkable evolution from its first radio broadcast in the 1920s through to the £315 million iPlayer requests in just one month in 2016. Of course, a big part of what makes the BBC so appealing to so many is its diversity. That is my point today. It is my opinion that creative industries work best when there are a variety of cultures, traditions and opinions to draw from. We know that 88 per cent of BBC viewing in Scotland is of UK-wide network content from the archers to Dr Who. Scottish viewers and listeners, in my view, benefit from output that comes from across the UK, just as original production from Scotland is seen and sold the world over. I therefore welcome many of the charter's proposals, namely the proposal to introduce a non-executive board member for Scotland, the commitment to ensuring that Scotland is a centre of excellence for factual production and the introduction of new content commissioners that we have heard much about today in comedy and drama, and I am sure more will follow. Looking at some of the contributions that are made in the chamber today, now, Tiswasan and Dupandi were way before my time, but I do feel quite enlightened by the nostalgia in the chamber. I like the cabinet secretary. I do welcome—I remember that. I like the cabinet secretary welcome advances in this charter, such as the board member for Scotland, but having real tangible targets that we can monitor in this Parliament, the cabinet secretary made also some excellent and relevant points about the importance of and spend in regional radio in Scotland, as it compares to England, for example. My colleague Jackson Carlaw mentioned that we can be fans of the BBC, but we do need to be critical where appropriate. Like many colleagues, he noted the importance of the Smith commission commitments for the future, raising the important issue that independent production houses and studios in Scotland need to be supported and that the Government has a responsibility with that, too. Lewis MacDonald quoted an independent production company saying, it is not the end of the journey. This is a charter for 11 years, and I do agree with that. I also agree that all Scottish regions must be represented, not just the central belt. Joan McAlpine picked up the point of employment in the production sector. I was a freelance TV producer and I left Scotland to seek the gold pavements of London many years ago to find work. I appreciate how difficult it is to find work as a freelance television producer. I support any moves that come through to support more employment in the sector in Scotland and encouraging companies to set up shop here in Scotland. On the point of the licence fee and the talk of the 55 per cent spend, it is very important that the chamber remembers that it is commissioning that drives budget. I do not think that we are looking at this in the right way. It is part of a national licence fee scheme that overall benefits us from the viewing that we get to enjoy across BBC, television, radio and online. I totally agree that we benefit from the productions that are right across the UK. One of the points that was made at the committee was that those sorts of network productions that benefit the whole of the UK—too many of them are not made in the nations and regions—are focused on the south-east. We need to make sure that more of that production is made in the nations and regions. I thank the member for that point. The important thing, therefore, is to ensure that those commissioning commitments are honoured and that more commissioning is taken in Scotland. I am happy to agree with that point. Clare Baker made an interesting point that I think that the causes federalisation of the BBC does not work in the spirit of the concept of the licence fee. I am happy to associate myself with those comments. My colleague Rachel mentioned a good point about online that the BBC is developing nation homepages and there are some technical changes coming out in the near future on that. I think that that is important. The BBC online is an important place for news and entertainment. Stuart Stevenson has always made some interesting comments on his appearances at the BBC, but he made a very moving point about the assent of man. I wonder whether he qualifies for deviation on subject under the rules of just a minute in his speech. Tavish Scott made an interesting point about government control of the public broadcast sector. I would like to think that many improvements have been made in that respect. Ross Greer made an interesting point about satisfaction and output. It is important that the BBC takes note of survey results like that, and I am sure that it will strive to improve satisfaction results in the future. My colleague Alexander Stewart also reflected on the changing nature of Scottish politics and governance, and that that should be reflected in the BBC's output, especially in news. He also mentioned diversity, and diversity has been used a lot in this chamber today. I think that it is very important that we monitor diversity across various communities. Overall, I consider the current proposals to be very positive steps. The charter, in my view, represents progress in promoting Scottish interests across the BBC. Its proposals reflect the suggestions of this Parliament, and that is a testament to the constructive debates that we have had in this chamber many before I joined this place. I would like to acknowledge the BBC's commitment to appearing in front of and providing reports to the Parliament's committees. I welcome the fact that the BBC is working closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to improve its accountability and to provide more diverse content for diverse audiences. In closing, the BBC needs to ensure that its new targets on representation are met and that that is something that this Parliament should monitor closely. There is still a great deal that can be done to better represent Scottish culture and its impact on the wider world. I hope that further openness has been cultivated as a result of this process and today's debate. Ms Hyslop, I will need to cut you down to about eight and a half minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. When we first started the debate, I was desperately and frantically trying to think if there is any of the TV programmes that were important to Jackson Carlaw that I shared. I really struggled until he hit upon I, Claudius. Perhaps there is something when I was a teenager of the political skull-duggery and salacious storylines that I share with Jackson Carlaw. A number of very important points in the debate and I want to come back to try to address as much as possible. I think that this has been a very important debate. I think that it has shown the progress since the Smith commission looking at how we can work constructively across different jurisdictions and with the committees of this Parliament to get a real difference to what I think should be the outcome and the outputs for audiences and for our creative industries during this process. I have been struck by the depth of insight afforded, the passion and also the genuine commitment to deliver the kind of BBC that the people of Scotland deserve. I think that we can take this moment collectively working with all the partners, the UK Government on the actual charters. It finalises off-common the regulation and the BBC on delivery and their responsibilities to move the process forward. The Parliament's decision comes at a critical point in the process. The draft charter framework has delivered on some of the Scottish Government's proposition but not all of it. We stand here today looking at a real and tangible opportunity for the BBC in Scotland to deliver more and to deliver better, importantly for the creative sector and also for the culture. I think that the Parliament appears willing to continue to support the Scottish Government to push for the delivery that we have been discussing over many months and indeed in the last period of the Parliament and how we go forward with that. I want to see the BBC delivering better, be organisationally structured to do so, with decentralisation of decision making where possible, commissioning and budgets, and not just depending on the goodwill of the individuals within the BBC that they are at the time. As I have said at the outset, I have met and continued to meet with the UK Government, the BBC and off-com in order to set out that vision to reiterate the depth of feeling of Scotland behind the views that we are putting forward and the breadth of that across different sectors. I am addressing some of the points that have been made during the debate, particularly in relation to the fairest year of the licence fee. The points have been made about the disparity between Scotland at 55 per cent, Northern Ireland at 74 per cent and Wales at 95 per cent of the licence fee raised coming back to be spent in Scotland. However, I did take the point that I think Lewis MacDonald has made about it and Claire Baker about that being a measurement, not a target. I think that the scrutiny that we now have by the committees of this part will allow us to get underneath that and to identify what is actually being spent and why. Is it actually benefiting the creative industries? Remember that it was in the committee evidence of the last committee on 12 January that we also heard from Ms Bulford in relation to the spend that £35 million was spent on above the line commissioning for writers, directors, artists and production team talent. Additional spend was spent on production studios, outside broadcast rights, executive producers, et cetera. The point here is that we want to make sure that the investment by the BBC in Scotland is fair and just and that it tackles the proposals for improving the creative economy impact. The points that Lewis MacDonald has made about MG Alba and the need to improve the spend are two things. It would help in relation to the public service requirement on reflecting nations and regions, but it would also help in reflecting the impact and input on the creative economy, because its impact on independent producers is very strong. That was a point that was made particularly by Joan McAlpine in relation to the new public service aspects of serving Scotland. A very important aspect indeed. Rachael Hamilton has a very good speech, referred to the iPlayer requirements now, but also now that there is a home page for nations and websites. I think that the question might be asked why has it taken so long at times when technology is changing? The real challenge is how do we actually make sure that whatever is provided can be fit for purpose not just now but also in the future. Some of the other points that were made sure that Stevenson made a very important point about the Sunday trading in between references to the book of Micah, the Sunday trading aspect in relation to how you might see the same story but through a different lens and how it can be helpful to have that wider perspective and the importance of not having a metropolitan view. I am going to quote the Welsh Minister, of course, Wales and Northern Ireland are similarly having debates like this. The Welsh Minister, Alan Davies, on 27 September said, This is about how we change the culture within the BBC. I agree with the analysis from his friend from Leslie that there is a metropolitan culture within the BBC that believes that it knows best for the whole of the United Kingdom. Jamie Greene, in what I thought was an excellent speech, made the point that diversity is a strength and that creativity can benefit from that diversity. I think that that is the mindset that we are encouraging the BBC to adopt, organisationally and structurally, where at all possible. Ross Greer talked about and reminded us why we are where we are in terms of looking at the deep-seated dissatisfaction and the statistics of the reports from the BBC themselves about how they reflect Scotland to itself. He also made a very important point about there is much that needs to be progressed outside the charter process. We are here during the end game of the charter process but there is much to continue in discussions with off-com and BBC continuing. I can also say that I also find Robert War's strangely addictive when I watched it with my son. I had not realised in terms of the Scottish production value within that. Tawrish Scott made an important point on governance. One of the things that we would like to see, however, is a move to make sure that the Scotland and Scottish ministers did the appointment in relation to the member of the BBC board. The current proposal is that we would, as I said previously, take an opportunity to be involved clearly and that we have the key say. I do not think that there would be much difference for us leading it and then the UK then working to agree. Decentralisation, as I have said, would allow for a greater degree of autonomous decision-making at operational board level. The creation of a Scottish unitary board and not just a BBC's appointed sub-committee is important. I think that one of the lessons that Jackson Carlaw reported about the governance widely of the UK is that some kind of external aspects to the BBC, whether at UK-wide level or indeed at Scottish level, is something that we should consider as part of the developments moving forward. In terms of some of other contributions in particular, I was also very struck by a lot of the references to how Scotland sees itself. I saw Emma Harper reflect the opportunities that we have in taking that forward. In terms of what we have achieved—I think that Clare Baker was correct to identify—there are a number of things that we have managed to achieve. An enforceable Scottish Service licence for Scotland for the first time, a dedicated member of the board for Scotland, a commitment to continue supporting for Gallup broadcasting and MG Alba, but we need to go further. Proposals for the BBC to report on for the very first time on its contribution to Scotland's creative economy and removing the charter from the election cycle. As Joe McAlpine reflected, a very important new public purpose is to reflect, represent and serve the nations and regions. That has been a very good debate. In terms of what we can do and how we go forward, we have a few things to reflect on. Some of the aspects that I have not touched on at channel four is a strong feeling in Scotland that we need to make sure that it occupies a unique position and that we would be against any privatisation of channel four. That is something that perhaps we might come back to at another point. We have talked about governance, but it is an opportunity. If the BBC so grasps that, both at the UK and Scottish levels, as it appoints, it is the new director for Scotland to be bold and to be ambitious, to serve Scotland, to serve itself and to make sure that the way that Scotland sees itself through its public service broadcaster has a sustainable future of quality, not just for today but for many years to come. I thank the cabinet secretary for concluding that debate. The next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent motion. I would ask Michael Matheson to speak to and move motion number 1832 on the UK investigatory powers bill. The question of this decision will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. At lunchtime today, 15 minutes after FMQs had concluded, the Scottish Government published Audit Scotland's section 22 emergency report on NHS Tayside and NHS 24. The timing of laying section 22 reports is entirely within the Scottish Government's control, not Audit Scotland's. I do not see it as any coincidence that the Scottish Government chose to publish those reports safely after the last opportunity before recess for Parliament to ask questions of the Government. NHS Tayside's finances are in disarray. It will have to make nearly £60 million of cuts this year, double the cuts that it made last year. It still will not break even. It will not be able to pay back the ever-increasing loans from the Scottish Government, and it will still have to come back to the Government for the fourth year running to ask for more. Four years of loans, and it seems that the only solution that the Scottish Government has to this is to swallow up those debts and spiral in costs into larger health boards. Do you have any power in the interests of parliamentary scrutiny to compel the Government to lay reports so that Parliament has a chance to question ministers in a timely fashion and is not allowed to try to bury bad news over recess? Can I thank the member for advance notice of the point of order? I believe—wait a second—the member will know that, first of all, I cannot compel the Government on publication. I do not believe that this is a point of order. It is clearly a matter over which the member and other members will have a genuine interest and would wish to question the Government. I make no assumptions whatsoever about the timing of publication. I would simply ask the cabinet secretary and the Government to reflect on the timing of future publications. We now move on to the consideration of the next item of business, which is two parliamentary bureau of motions. I asked Joe FitzPatrick to move on block motion 1860 on the establishment of a sub-committee and motion 1861 on the sub-committee meeting. There are four questions today. The first question is that motion 1828, in the name of Fiona Hislop on the draft BBC charter, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is that motion 1832, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the UK investigatory powers bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is that motion 1860, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on the establishment of a sub-committee, is agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The final question is that motion 1861, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on the sub-committee meeting, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I thank members. I invite you to have an enjoyable recess and I close this meeting.