Seòmar agus comataidhean

You said earlier that you could not share your plans for what would happen if Ofcom were to reject the proposals. Naturally, we are keen to understand what your plan B would be in that event. In an earlier session the National Union of Journalists asked which options were considered before taking the decision about STV North programming. Can you share those?

You are reluctant to share the plans for what would happen if Ofcom rejects the proposal. I am not hearing much about the alternatives that you considered before making the decisions that you did. At the start of our discussion, we raised the fact that you had applied for a licence but then tried to change that licence. We have seen investment in Aberdeen studios, which will not now be fully utilised. We have heard about your plans to move into radio. However, we are not hearing what your plans are should Ofcom not approve your proposals. It seems that although many different things are changing, there is not much of an overall plan here.

We have rightly discussed the impact that this will have on the STV North area, but you have also alluded to the impact that this will have on other areas, such as Glasgow and the west, and Edinburgh and the east. Rightly, there will be huge concerns in Aberdeen about the impact there, but do you think that there is enough understanding about the impact that this will have on regional news in Glasgow and the west, and Edinburgh and the east? Under these proposals, we will lose a dedicated STV North programme, but the news in Glasgow and the west and in Edinburgh and the east will also be diluted as a result.

For example, in Renfrewshire last year, STV news ably covered a campaign by local parents who were campaigning to get the childcare policies of Renfrewshire Council reversed. It covered that before and after a council meeting. Those sorts of local news angles in Glasgow and the west are in jeopardy as well if we do not have a change of decision on what STV is planning. Do people understand the impact that this will have on the central belt and not just STV North?

STV produces news content for television, which is currently put online in a digital space on social media. That is already happening now, so, even if you change what you are doing in news, I do not see how you can provide more stories to more people with a head count of 10 per cent fewer people in your organisation. How will that be possible?

There is a great deal of concern that, on one hand, you are making redundancies and, on the other, investing in STV radio and hiring people on six-figure salaries. In the event of further redundancies in the years ahead, would the radio division be protected from cuts, on the basis that it would still be in its launch phase and not yet in profit?

Why not?

There is obviously concern about how STV is spending its money at the same time as making cuts that would threaten jobs. We have talked about STV radio. Earlier, Dr Allan asked about salaries and executive pay. You said that you could not comment on whether anyone at STV was being paid more than the director general of the BBC, because you did not know what the director general’s salary was. I have just checked, and it is around £545,000.

Thank you for that answer. I think that that illustrates all the more the importance of having a full Ofcom consultation, given the impact that it will have not just on STV North but on the whole of Scotland. I concur with everything that you said about that.

I do not have a further question, but I would like to thank our witnesses for their answers because the issue clearly presents a challenge for us. There are other policy areas, outside intergovernmental relations, when the Parliament needs to fight for transparency. Parliamentarians and committees need to be quite tenacious about those things. There is a role for us to ask more questions about what is coming through so that we can get the timing and clarity that you have mentioned.

This morning, we have heard a lot about Governments not telling us things—that they do not give the Parliament information and do not tell industry about matters that are being discussed. As an Opposition politician, I do not think that transparency is the Scottish Government’s strong point on matters quite apart from intergovernmental relations. Do not get me wrong—I think that Opposition politicians at Westminster would say the same about the UK Government, and Opposition parties in any Parliament would probably say that about the relevant Government. In general, it would be nice if Governments just told us things.

It is correct that we need to see transparency and to consider modifying the ways in which we run our processes. Within the current system, though, is this committee, and others in the Scottish Parliament, doing enough? Clearly, we are discussing the issue and have done some work on it—and we thank you for all your contributions to that—but to what extent do parliamentary committees need to up their game on transparency? I am sure that we will not take it personally if you think that we need to do more, through our current mechanisms and processes, to improve the scrutiny and transparency of intergovernmental relations.