Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

Well, I certainly cannot say why that happened.

I am here to ask questions on behalf of the committee. My original question was about financial management and financial strategies. Clearly, budgeting for 2 per cent and increasing it to 3 per cent suggests that the financial strategy that was in place was not sufficient, because the budget had to be increased to 3 per cent. That was my original question.

My subsequent question today is that there are not only financial management issues in that regard but transparency issues. Parliament is asking questions about the financial strategy and public sector pay, yet we are given one-line answers that do not go into what was clearly an increase in the budget in line with public sector pay policy, which was not originally budgeted for. You may not be able to comment on the specifics, but clearly there are concerns about financial management and transparency within the organisation. Would you agree?

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.

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?