Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, everybody. I will address governance first. Some of the evidence that we have heard makes a strong case for a more decentralised model. To pick up on one of Hayley Valentine’s earlier comments, I do not think that the people who have made that case are bringing us specific instances where they think that the BBC in London has picked up the phone and told you to make an editorial decision differently. I do not think that they suggest that there is that level or nature of control. However, they do make the case that BBC Scotland would be stronger and better able to serve its specific audience if it had a more decentralised structure.

I do not think that it is just individuals. Even Screen Scotland, which is hardly likely to indulge in a conspiracist mindset, has made a case for stronger, effective governance involving the nations and regions throughout the UK, particularly Scotland—a more decentralised approach. I do not imagine that BBC Scotland will sit here and advocate for one particular model to come out of the charter review, but have you looked at what the options might be if this committee or the UK Government was to decide that charter renewal would involve some degree of greater decentralisation? What would work and what would not? Are there models that you have considered that would be more or less effective than others?

Yes, but there is a financial aspect to it.

Can I ask you to contrast some of the comments that you have just made with the pushback that has been received around changes to Radio Scotland’s late-night output? You will be well aware of some of the criticisms. The Scottish Music Industry Association has described the changes as

“a significant withdrawal of vital support for Scotland’s artists”

and

“the erosion of a dedicated, culturally rooted space in the schedule where Scottish artists ... can be discovered, contextualised and championed.”

The argument has been put to us that there is a shift to replace what is described as “discovery” music programming, which introduces audiences to something new and creative, with what is described as “easy listening”. Can you respond to that and say how it relates to your comment about wanting to be ambitious and risk taking in your output?

It is about giving emerging artists a platform and the opportunity to be found and to be heard.

Good morning. I, too, was going to ask about the lack of the appointment of an interim accountable officer. I agree that there seems to be a lack of clarity about what happened in that case, but I am also concerned about the lack of clarity about what is supposed to happen. Any public body might find that their accountable officer has to go on leave tomorrow for any number of reasons and, from what we have heard, what is supposed to happen then seems unclear to me.

You told the Public Audit Committee last week that it was your view that

“a clearer intervention ought to have happened at a far earlier date”.

You also said:

“It is the responsibility of the permanent secretary, as the principal accountable officer of the Scottish Administration, to appoint the accountable officers of public bodies”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 14 January 2026; c 9.]

The word “responsibility” might be open to interpretation. Obviously, the political responsibility rests with the cabinet secretary, but it is unclear to me where the decision is made.

Angus Robertson previously said:

“At various stages there have been interactions with the board to explore whether there should be an interim accountable officer in place, but given that it has not been clear … exactly when the chief executive might return to office … the progress of such a replacement has not been taken forward by the board of Historic Environment Scotland.”

Later in the same meeting, Kenneth Hogg told us that the board

“discussed the on-going situation with the chief executive’s absence”

and whether it

“could progress to appoint an interim chief executive, if that is what the board felt that it wanted to do.”

He said:

“I repeated that I had met with the candidate that they had put forward as a potential appointee for an interim or acting chief executive role. I confirmed that we had said that we were happy to appoint that person as the accountable officer, although the board subsequently did not appoint.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 6 November 2025; c 7, 24.]

In the broad sweep of things, the political responsibility obviously rests with the cabinet secretary, but does the decision rest with Scottish Government officials or with the board of the public body? On the absence of a decision, is it simply the case that no decision was made rather than there having been a positive decision not to appoint?

I know that it is a bit multidimensional.

I appreciate that and agree with it, but I am still keen to understand where the decision rests. You clearly said that the permanent secretary makes the appointment, but at what level is the decision taken about whether an appointment is to be made? In that circumstance, is it taken by the board of a public body or by officials in the Scottish Government? Is it made by ministers, or by the permanent secretary?

The comments in the previous meeting suggest that the decision was made by the board.

10:45

One of the issues that is being considered at the UK level is the politicisation of appointments, and I am quite open about the fact that I hope that politically appointed individuals are removed and that we do not have such a process in the future.

However, the point about decentralisation is slightly separate from that. If there was to be a move in the direction of some form of greater decentralisation, I would be a bit surprised if BBC Scotland did not have a view on how that could be made to work and what would be a successful model of delivering that, as opposed to an unsuccessful one.

I do not remember a second part either.

Essentially, the case is made that there is a degree of need for change, as there are long-standing criticisms, but there seems to be no consensus on a particular model or variation of change.

You would be open to working with a more ambitious set of quotas, if that is what was decided—