Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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?

When you are trying to find a solution to any problem, you need to understand that problem first. I think that having that culture review and addressing the issues needs to happen as soon as possible.

I want to go back to the issue of transparency. This very much relates to the Parliament and scrutiny by the Parliament. In September, I put a question to Alison Turnbull from HES. I asked:

“I understand that, in June 2024, HES budgeted for a 2 per cent increase in pay despite the Scottish Government having set out a public sector pay policy just two months before that suggested an increase of 3 per cent in the public sector. Is that correct? Is that your understanding? What does it say about your organisation’s financial planning if it is not adhering to the Scottish Government’s pay policy?”

The response was:

“We do adhere to the Scottish Government’s pay policy. I am not aware of the instance that you mention. We will get back to you on that.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 11 September 2025; c 29.]

HES sent a letter after the meeting and gave us a one-line response on that. It said

“For 2025-26 HES budgeted a 3 per cent annual cost of living pay increase in line with Scottish Government pay policy.”

That may predate your time, Sir Mark. Mr Davis, did HES at any point budget for a 2 per cent pay increase in 2025-26?

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.

It did not answer the premise of my question.

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?

I just do not see how you can do that with a headcount that will be 10 per cent lower in your organisation.

You currently have the STV North output, but you also have excellent news coverage in Glasgow in the west and Edinburgh in the east. You cover issues of importance to people right across Scotland. That manifests itself in your results. For example, I understand that, last night, STV’s news programme had 330,000 viewers, which was 50,000 more than “Reporting Scotland”. The only programme that beat your news offering last night was “Celebrity Traitors”, which is quite unique. Do you not fear that diluting the regional news offering, by getting rid of STV’s news programme, will hasten the decline of STV as a brand? Given those figures, which represent a success story, will you not shoot yourselves in the foot by making the proposed changes?

I thought that I would just provide that information.

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?