Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a clear answer now, but I do not have a clear answer on the issues around transparency and the culture in HES. I think that there are more questions than answers, given what I also said about the lack of statements on the website. I will leave it there just now, convener.

Obviously, if the situation were to change, and we did not have free-to-air broadcasts, we would need to look at it again. This is the first time that the committee has taken oral evidence on the issue.

On the financial challenges that you mentioned earlier, the Scottish Government promised to double the sports budget more generally but that has not happened—in fact, there has been a real-terms cut. That is the wider context, which I think is important. Sport is not part of this committee’s remit, but broadcasting is, and we need to consider it in that context. The Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, has also said that the Scottish Government supports the men’s and women’s qualifiers being listed as category A events. Given the concerns that have been raised about funding, has the Scottish Government given an indication that, in principle, it would meet any shortfall that might arise from that listing?

Okay, that is helpful to know.

My last question seeks clarity on the process with UEFA. Obviously, we need to strike the correct balance, and the discussions that must take place have to take account of commercial sensitivities. However, let me put an example to you, for the sake of argument. If, in the bidding process, Sky Sports bid £5 million and the BBC bid £4.9 million—a £100,000 margin—then simply selecting the highest bidder could mean that you get the balance wrong. Is that factor taken into account, or can it be, to help achieve the right balance?

It did not answer the premise of my question.

People will reflect on the increase in numbers that you have had over the past few years and perhaps suggest that you now have the balance right.

I have questions about STV radio, which has come up a few times. Earlier, Mr Radcliffe mentioned that you are looking to make that profitable by 2027.

I understand what you are saying, but to what extent are you wedded to STV? If you have to make further redundancies in the coming years, before STV radio is profitable, will you protect it and maintain its budget or will the redundancies fall on other sides of the business?

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?

Mr Radcliffe, you started by saying that STV is iconic. I absolutely agree with you. I will go further and say that it is a much-valued and much-loved institution in Scotland.

Earlier, Mr Harvie mentioned that you had been getting a hard time. That is probably because the passion for ensuring that we have good-quality journalism in Scotland is one on which we can all agree. We might not always agree with STV’s coverage, but the role that it plays in informing the public about what is going on—not just in their local area, but across Scotland—is critical. That is why we are putting you under such scrutiny this morning. Of course, STV’s coverage is made possible only by the people who work there—the dedicated journalists and all the other staff who provide its much-valued news programming.

You said in your opening, and a few times since then, that you will provide more stories to more people. How can you do that but, at the same time, cut one in 10 people in the STV workforce—the very people who provide that much-valued and much-loved service to the people of Scotland?