Official Report 500KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00227, in the name of Jack Middleton, on save STV North news. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament condemns Ofcom’s reported decision to approve controversial plans to end STV’s dedicated news coverage for the North of Scotland; acknowledges that the plans were strongly opposed by the Scottish Government, MSPs from five political parties, STV workers and the general public; notes reports that a survey of viewers across North Scotland found that only 4% were in favour of the plans, and further notes the calls on television regulator, Ofcom, to urgently reconsider this decision.
18:27
I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on what is a hugely important issue for much of Scotland. I am passionate about the campaign to save STV North news, not only because the decision to end it has a profound effect on my constituents in terms of jobs, advertising and economic activity, but because it is no exaggeration for me, as an Aberdonian, to say that that decision is an attack on our identity and seeks to silence our distinct voice in Scotland’s national conversation—at a time, I might add, when the story of industrial vandalism in the north-east is more important than ever.
I know, however, that the decision impacts people far beyond the banks of the Dee and the Don—a fact that is reflected in the significant support that my motion has received from MSPs across Scotland and, importantly, across the chamber. Members from every party in Scotland’s Parliament agree not only that the decision is disappointing, but that it flies in the face of overwhelming public opinion, and we must recognise that at the outset of the debate. I assure members that, although we must acknowledge that broadcasting in Scotland is a matter that remains reserved to the United Kingdom Government, I will not politicise the debate—it is far too important for that. Our national Parliament will speak with a united voice on this front so that those in the boardrooms of STV and Ofcom hear, loudly and clearly, our voices and the voices of the constituents whom we represent.
The top brass at STV want to end the distinct news programme for the north that has existed for decades. Ofcom, the television regulator that is tasked with ensuring that STV sticks to its licensing obligations, is not only waving that through with minimal checks; it has actively helped STV to do it. It is a commercial decision that I strongly believe breaches the terms of STV’s channel 3 licence agreement.
How did we get here? In September, STV management announced plans to cut 60 jobs and axe the STV North edition of its flagship 6 o’clock news programme. Thanks to Holyrood’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, we know that Ofcom described a back-and-forth conversation that ensued between itself and STV management, but, sadly, public access to records and minutes of those conversations has been denied.
Nevertheless, whatever the content of those conversations, the plans were watered down in December 2025. STV chief executive Rufus Radcliffe accepted that a complete cull of the north’s distinct news coverage was unacceptable, but he felt that confining our regional news to less than a third of the bulletin and pre-recording that coverage from a studio on the banks of the River Clyde was acceptable. No clarity on the content of that regional news section, to be beamed from a studio in Glasgow and squeezed to less than 10 minutes, has been offered. However, Ofcom indicated that it aimed to accept the plans anyway, before the consultation was even launched. When it was launched, John Swinney led the charge, but I was heartened to see MSPs from all parties by his side.
It is my view that Ofcom seriously underestimated the strength of feeling on these proposals and that it has been taken aback by the number of responses that have been received—so much so that, in the run-up to a crunch election, it managed to unite all parties on a single issue. That is truly remarkable.
In a thinly veiled attempt to avoid scrutiny, Ofcom pushed back announcing its outcome until after the election. I think that that is cowardly and weak.
I thank Jack Middleton for giving way, because he is making important points about Ofcom. One of the bizarre things that came out in the evidence that Ofcom gave to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, on which I sat in the previous session, was that it felt responsible more for the profitability of STV than for enforcing the terms of the licence that STV had sought, and which Ofcom had granted, for channel 3 broadcasting in STV North.
I thank Stephen Kerr for that point—I will come to that very shortly; I could not agree more.
On 1 June, Ofcom finally announced that it would back STV’s plans. A total of 1,292 consultation responses were received—embarrassingly for STV, four of those responses were in favour of the plans, and one of them was from its own chief executive. It took Ofcom three months to consider those responses, and we have had no credible explanation as to why 99.7 per cent of them were simply ignored. That is on the back of a poll that found that only 4 per cent of viewers in the north were in favour of the plans. I find it difficult to understand how, in the face of such emphatic opposition, those views have simply been cast aside.
To rub salt in the wounds of STV staff, the chief exec said that he was delighted by the good news. That is an alarming level of disconnect that has led to 93 per cent of staff saying that they have no confidence in their senior management. A motion of no confidence in the chief exec and head of news has also passed. The strength of support for my motion demonstrates to me that the Parliament also has no confidence in the direction of the SNP’s—sorry, STV’s; I apologise—leadership team. [Laughter.]
Ultimately, I believe that this plan is a rebalancing of the books. At the same time as trying to axe newsrooms and an institution that we have trusted for decades, STV launched a commercial radio station at a cost of half a million quid. It is hard for anyone to argue that sucking money out of the existing business model while reneging on an obligation to deliver a distinct local news programme is anything other than a poor decision.
I am concerned that financial mismanagement, and a single set of financial results, can now become the driving force for a reduction in public sector broadcasting. That sets a dangerous precedent. The will of big money cannot be allowed to trample on the need to ensure that we have trusted local media. That is especially true in an era of widespread fake news and disinformation.
In closing, here is what I believe needs to happen to save STV North and protect the future of quality local news more widely. First, the Scottish Government needs to stick pressure on Ofcom regarding its conduct during the process and make it explain how STV can possibly be sticking to its original channel 3 licence obligations. Secondly, the Scottish Government must look at avenues to support and incentivise broadcasting in editorial jobs to be maintained in the north-east and across the wider north of Scotland. Thirdly, the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, led by Patrick Harvie, should ensure that one of its first acts is to haul in the senior leadership team at STV to answer a series of basic questions that they have so far simply failed to answer. Taking those measures forward together will ensure that we are in the best position to save STV North news.
18:35
I thank Jack Middleton for bringing the debate to the chamber. Its subject is of widespread concern, and will impact significantly on communities across the north of Scotland and in my North East Scotland region.
The ongoing situation at STV has been a farce that has been rolling on for months, causing untold stress to the staff at the station as uncertainty over jobs has continued. The worry about what that means for communities in the north of the country rolls on, too.
It is hard to think of a decision in recent times that has been more universally opposed. This Parliament, all parties, the National Union of Journalists, STV staff, the viewing public and many more have stood in opposition to the changes because we all know that quality local journalism matters. Indeed, the decline of quality local journalism that is embedded close to people is a tragedy. As many local newspapers face increasing issues with sustainability, it has become more, rather than less, important for the biggest companies and corporations to ensure that their journalism is rooted in communities. Such locally rooted journalism is, to be frank, the only route to sustainability for journalism, because it is unique and irreplaceable.
In my home city of Dundee, so rich in its history of journalism and its traditions that carry through to the excellent local and regional press that we still proudly host today, we will see the loss of our dedicated news from a national broadcaster in STV, and the opportunities that that creates.
Although it is a commercial decision from STV, backed by the regulator to this point, it is also the latest example of what is becoming an ever-growing list of services being centralised away from communities in Scotland. Those in the north-east and further afield have, over the years, seen the same situation before. On issues such as our core public services and where infrastructure spending is prioritised, it speaks to a worrying continuation of that recent story of devolution: that, while more powers are situated in Scotland, more power is taken out and too often centralised in the central belt instead.
The absence of regional journalism will only hasten that process, and whatever we might think, collectively, about the barrier and where the balance should sit, local people should have that accountability and the opportunity to make their case about where power is situated. We are talking about not merely the loss of a news bulletin in the evening news, but something that is deeper. It is about the identity of the communities that I represent: their ability to connect with what is going on in their areas, to tell their stories and express themselves and to understand what is happening where they are.
More broadly, I believe—Jack Middleton has touched on some of this—that the decision is an act of surrender to what is a wildfire of commoditised fear that is weaponised by tech oligarchs to purposely undermine real freedom in pursuit of power and profit. The locally trained ethical journalist in Aberdeen, Angus or Dundee will, in reality, be replaced not by a journalist in Glasgow but by an artificial intelligence server in orbit. That is the trend that we are seeing, and the direction that these processes are taking.
If the decision goes ahead, it seems a long way back to real local representation in the news. I therefore stand in solidarity with the journalists in Aberdeen and further afield. They are leading the news in our region, and I urge Ofcom and STV to think again and keep giving the communities in the north of Scotland the service that we need and deserve.
18:39
I congratulate my neighbouring MSP, Jack Middleton, on securing his first members’ business debate. He has chosen a very good subject: a topical one that matters to folk right across Aberdeen and the north of Scotland.
I grew up watching “North Tonight” on Grampian TV. When I was little, I would watch the news and learn what was happening around the world, followed by what was happening across the north-east. It made the news matter to me when I was a bairn. It was everything that local journalism should be: high quality, engaging and trusted. That is why I kept watching the programme under the various different names that it has been called over the years, and continue to do so. I am one of 277,000 folk across the north-east and the Highlands and Islands who tune in to STV to watch it. I imagine that the vast majority of those hundreds of thousands of viewers will be far from happy with the idea that their local news will no longer be local.
I know that I have given the viewing numbers already, but I want to emphasise how phenomenal they are for STV North news across the north of Scotland. There are 277,000 viewers—a 40 per cent viewing share—all tuning in to “STV news at Six”. In a world of myths and disinformation online, where folk are increasingly questioning news sources, there is something we can trust in the fact that we are able to turn on the television and watch the local news on STV, or, for that matter, walk into a shop and pick up a copy of The Press and Journal and the Evening Express. That trust and local connection resonates with folk in Aberdeen, and it means that they are more willing to trust those outlets on matters that are further away from home, too. That is why the decision by STV is disappointing.
Our local news is being taken away at the whim of a London-based chief executive, with the decision being rubber-stamped by London-based Ofcom. STV’s argument is that it wants to focus on digital output instead. It feels that it can try to address the lack of truth that exists online by leveraging the trust that folk have in its news output. The problem is that the foundation of that trust is built on STV’s local and regional news. I would love to see more STV content on social media, but STV will be able to retain the high level of trust that it enjoys only for as long as it continues to anchor itself in our local communities.
Aberdeen faces an uncertain future. We are an oil capital whose businesses have been battered by the energy profit levy. We are a coastal city during a climate crisis. We are home to critical national infrastructure, while Russia is becoming more of a threat. We are a cash cow whenever the UK Government cannot balance its books. Despite being surrounded by farms, wind farms, fishing boats and oil rigs, people are struggling with their food and energy bills. With all that going on, if folk cannot find news from a source that they can trust, some will turn to outlets that tell them what they want to hear instead. Local journalism builds trust, and the need for high-quality local journalism across every format is greater than ever. That includes TV coverage, and it includes STV North news.
STV and Ofcom are both in the wrong here, and I hope that one of them will see sense and reconsider before it is too late.
18:43
I thank Jack Middleton for securing this debate. I was pleased to support STV workers in the last session, when plans to cut STV North were first announced, and I remain as resolutely against these cuts and behind those workers now as I was then.
As others have said, high-quality local news is crucial to supporting local and regional identities, building communities and strengthening our democracy. That is especially important in our country, where so much focus is on Glasgow, Edinburgh and the central belt. Our TV coverage should reflect life in all parts of Scotland.
Based in Aberdeen, STV North—formerly Grampian Television—has been providing local news by and to the north of Scotland for just three months short of 65 years. It has covered the inspiring community campaign to save St Fittick’s park from development and the fight to highlight the miseries faced by residents affected by the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete situation.
STV North has served our Highland and Island communities well, too, with issues around ferries, depopulation, housing availability and the benefits and challenges of tourism being aired and discussed because of the journalists and camera crews in communities.
Maggie Chapman is making an important point about the distinctive nature of local news coverage. That was the whole point behind there being a separate licence for STV North. The decisions that Ofcom has made in support of the STV management have completely undercut all of that. Would it not have shown more honesty on the part of everybody involved if STV had simply surrendered the licence and allowed Ofcom to attract someone else to provide that service?
I agree with that point. The abrogation of duty under that licence agreement is a real concern, and I will say a little bit more about that in a moment.
We know that the north of Scotland, as such a diverse part of our country, needs dedicated local coverage that reflects the challenges of the communities to whom it broadcasts. My region, North East Scotland, is hugely dependent on oil and gas, and my constituents rightly want to be kept up to date on how the just transition to a net zero future is or is not going. That issue involves complicated, ongoing issues that require coverage from informed teams of journalists who are embedded in the region. With the best will in the world, TV news programmes with up to 70 per cent generic or shared content will just not be able to do justice to issues that are more local and, in some cases, more remote.
We know that jobs are on the line. Reducing coverage and moving production from Aberdeen to Glasgow will lead not only to an immediate loss of jobs but to an ongoing running down of jobs and training opportunities. People from privileged backgrounds are already overrepresented in the industry, so it is vital that we keep alive routes for underrepresented groups to get work experience in TV. Media and journalism students at Robert Gordon University and North East Scotland College, who have shown their commitment to the area by studying there, should be able to stay in that area for work. Moving production to Glasgow will lead to a loss of those opportunities, and it will be hard to re-establish them once they have gone. The NUJ ran a truly inspiring campaign on behalf of its members, exposing the price that current and future news workers may have to pay for the mistakes made by management, and I thank it for its incredible work.
Before closing, I want to say a few words about the role of Ofcom, which I think has been found wanting. Ofcom has correctly said that it has no role in imposing requirements on STV’s online content, yet it has repeatedly emphasised the mitigating role of online content in continuing to provide local coverage. Surely, if its role is only to regulate the TV element, it should not be taking the online element into account when ruling on varying the licence terms. That is also happening despite Ofcom’s 2025 report, “Online Nation” noting that one in five people in the UK aged 75 or above lacks home internet, and the fact that evidence from the Save STV North News campaign shows that the algorithms make local public service content hard to find online.
I question how genuine Ofcom’s consultation was. Well before the consultation finished, Ofcom wrote to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee saying that it was proposing to approve STV’s request. It sounds like it had already made up its mind.
Ofcom’s decision is worrying for the precedent that it sets. Local and regional journalism is already under threat, with Reach plc hollowing out Scottish local press. If Ofcom does not reverse its decision, it might pave the way for attacks on local TV coverage in other areas of Scotland, such as ITV Border.
Someone once said that all politics is local. That is true, but all news is local too. In many aspects of our life, we need a local news service that reflects the people, the environment, the society and the culture of our local areas.
18:49
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this important debate on the future of STV North. I commend my colleague Jack Middleton for leading the discussion.
As other speakers have eloquently set out, for people in my Moray constituency and across the north of Scotland, STV North news is more than just a television programme, and that is what I will focus my remarks on today.
STV North news tells the story of our communities. It puts a spotlight on local and regional issues and ensures that voices from across the north of Scotland are heard. In my constituency, STV North has been a powerful voice for our communities in the good times and the bad. When the UK Government threatened to close RAF Lossiemouth, when the Moray community came together to campaign for our maternity service and when people in Lossiemouth united after the collapse of the Lossie bridge, the team at STV North was there, just as those trusted reporters at STV North are there when severe weather hits, when businesses are innovating and creating jobs in our communities, and when our young people in schools are achieving great things. STV North is always there to tell our stories.
The communities that I represent deserve to hear their dialect and to see their lives, concerns and successes reflected in the media. They deserve a news programme packed with first-class journalism—journalism that, for many years, has been provided to my Moray constituents by well-known and well-respected reporters such as Nicola McAlley and Iain Ramage, journalists who have taken great time and great care to know our communities.
I hear all the time how people in rural communities such as Moray can often feel disconnected from national conversations. That is a key point. Cutting our regional news output means fewer opportunities for people across the north of Scotland to have their experiences, their culture and their way of life represented on screen, and to be part of the conversation. Decisions about the future of regional news in Scotland must recognise its unique public value. As the motion sets out, STV North news is deeply valued, with only 4 per cent of viewers in the north of Scotland being supportive of the proposed cuts.
Like Jackie Dunbar, I am old enough that I grew up on the OG news in the north, “Grampian Tonight”, and I know the affection that my Moray constituents have for the presenters and reporters who have, over many years, beamed into their homes to tell their stories each night. Local news cannot simply be replaced by national coverage. Stories from the north of Scotland deserve to be told by people who know the north of Scotland.
Opposition to STV’s plans comes from all quarters: viewers, trade unions, businesses and politicians. As Jack Middleton has pointed out, it is an issue that has united MSPs across the chamber, and that is no mean feat. Ofcom’s decision to rubber-stamp these unpopular central belt-focused plans is a travesty. As has already been said, the decision-making process is not only deeply flawed, but it ignores the strong views of the people in our unique corner of the world.
It is not too late for Ofcom to admit that it has got this wrong, hold its hands up, reverse its decision and do the right thing, and to protect the future of quality local news coverage in the north of Scotland.
18:53
I thank Jack Middleton for securing this debate and congratulate him on his powerful speech.
I cannot understand, and I deeply regret, not only STV’s decision to cut its dedicated north of Scotland news programme, but Ofcom’s decision to approve it. It is appalling, short-sighted and hugely detrimental to the people of the north and the north-east of Scotland. What makes it even more frustrating is that it appears to have been rubber-stamped, despite reports that only 4 per cent of viewers in the north and the north-east supported the proposals. Yet again, our communities are not being listened to.
I well remember when STV announced plans last September to axe the north news bulletin and merge it into a single programme broadcast from Glasgow. At the time, I joined my Scottish Conservative colleagues in raising serious concerns about the impact that that would have on our constituents. As Laura Mitchell pointed out, that was not—and is not—a party-political point. Perhaps uniquely, we were—and are—united.
I remember that STV suggested that the proposal would save £2.5 million or so. However, given that, at the same time, it launched a £500,000 commercial radio station, I find that claim rather difficult to stand up. However, even should those changes save £2.5 million, the question is, at what cost?
There is a very real human cost. Some 10 per cent of the workforce is being cut, with a disproportionate impact on jobs in the north of Scotland. Further, there is a huge cost to news. For more than 65 years, the STV North news programme has done far more than simply report the news. As Maggie Chapman said, it has given a voice to rural and regional communities. It has reflected local priorities and provided scrutiny, balance and accountability at every level of Government and public life.
In my view, the provision of regional bulletins remains one of the most important public service broadcasting commitments, particularly for rural communities, which are too often overlooked. The proposals risk silencing the voice of the north-east.
I want to pick up on something that Michael Marra set out. Issues that matter deeply to our communities will, inevitably, receive less prominence and a lower depth of coverage in a centralised programme, where the focus will, as usual, gravitate to the central belt. That matters, because the reduction in regional output represents a substantial weakening of the service, of democratic scrutiny, of accountability and of representation for communities that already feel distant from decision makers. A single centralised programme cannot adequately provide the prominence, the continuity and the depth of coverage that are needed to reflect the distinct priorities and concerns of the north-east and the Highlands and Islands.
Jackie Dunbar made an important point. At a time when trust in mainstream media is under pressure and people are increasingly turning elsewhere for information, reducing trusted local journalism is exactly the wrong direction of travel, because, when local reporting disappears, misinformation, disinformation and fake news will all too readily fill the gap.
I am pleased that Jack Middleton lodged the motion so that we, as a Parliament, can come together to support regional journalism, stand up for the dedicated staff who are affected by these decisions, stand up for the communities that they serve and condemn the plans in the strongest possible terms. The fact is that public service broadcasting obligations must be judged by outcomes for audiences, not by operational convenience or corporate cost saving. That is why I support the calls in the motion. If public service broadcasting means anything, it means ensuring that every part of Scotland is seen, heard and represented.
Due to the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Jack Middleton to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jack Middleton]
Motion agreed to.
18:57
I thank my friend and colleague Jack Middleton for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I will carry on with the love-a-thon that seems to be going on among members from across the parties. Liam Kerr and Jack Middleton are correct that this is not a party-political issue. In the previous session, on the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, Stephen Kerr and I regularly disagreed on the time of the day and what day of the week it was, but we agreed on this issue when we had a discussion on it.
We have lost our voices in Scottish broadcasting. Who will be the voices of the future in Scotland? Where will people go to learn their trade as broadcasters if organisations cut back on independent radio and TV? There is nowhere for those who want a career in broadcasting to go, other than the old trip down south. That is why the issue is important.
It is not just about STV North and the STV North news programme. There will be an effect on me and my constituents, because a centralised news programme will have less time for Paisley and greater Paisley. Sport and news from the whole of Scotland will end up being crammed into half an hour. That will not work, and it will cause problems as people will not hear their voices and their stories. Why does that matter?
George Adam makes good points about the importance of these media outlets in relation to career opportunity, talent development and all the rest of it. The reality is—I am sure he will talk a bit more about this, because I know that he is a passionate believer, as I am, in the medium of radio—that we see that in radio as well, where there is a consolidation of ownership. There are more radio stations than ever before, but there seems to be more of the same content and less opportunity for young Scots to make their way in their careers as presenters, engineers and all those other vital jobs.
Stephen Kerr is correct. The first independent radio station outwith London in the 1970s was Radio Clyde. That was the first time that people could go and ply their trade as a Scottish person in an independent radio station, and other stations ended up coming from that. We have more radio stations than ever, but our problem is that they are owned by centralised networks, in effect. It is brave and challenging at best for STV to start a radio station in a market that we are constantly told is overcrowded for advertising and everything else.
The real issue, which everybody has brought up, is the fact that Ofcom is the bad guy in this scenario. If STV had used the system to its advantage in relation to Ofcom, it would know that Ofcom is a toothless tiger.
Ofcom exists to regulate, to protect public service broadcasting and to protect plurality—if I can even say it. Yet, every time Scottish broadcasting is weakened, Ofcom appears to wave it through, and that is the problem. Every time this issue comes up, Ofcom waves it through and says that there is another reason for it. Its job is not to talk about the sustainability of a company, although that is extremely important. STV has a proud role and history. It is proud of its regional roots and of knowing where it came from and what is important, but it will lose that because of this situation.
However, the threat is even bigger than that—anybody in broadcasting will tell you that. Tastes are changing and broadcasting is changing, and there is a centralisation of international groups of broadcasting companies. Recently, we have had Sky taken over by Comcast, which is a multibillion-pound American organisation. Sky in turn is going to do a £1.6 billion takeover of ITV.
The bizarre situation that we could be in is that that is small potatoes compared with everything that could happen. We could be talking about the fact that, all of a sudden, £100 million for STV would not seem difficult for a company of that size. We would not be talking about the STV news at 6pm being a problem—we would be talking about whether STV would provide news for us at all.
I will finish on a simple point. The people of Scotland are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fair treatment. They ask for their communities to be seen and heard, because those stories matter. That is why this decision matters. I say to STV, remember where your strength came from. It came from serving communities throughout Scotland, not from reducing them to an afterthought. I say to Ofcom, start doing your job. Stop congratulating yourself on managing decline and start doing the job that the UK Parliament created you to do. A regulator that watches regional broadcasting shrink, local journalism weaken and media ownership become concentrated is not protecting public service broadcasting; it is presiding over disaster.
Scotland and our communities deserve better than that. If Ofcom will not stand up for Scottish broadcasting, this Parliament must do so and make its voice heard.
19:03
I congratulate Jack Middleton on securing the debate. He has been a strong advocate for the save STV North news campaign, and I am grateful that he has given members the opportunity to come together and coalesce around the issue.
Like many members, I am concerned about the centralisation of STV North. It is not simply a staffing decision but a cost-saving measure. It represents a fundamental change in how the north of Scotland is represented on television, and it risks weakening one of the few remaining sources of consistent, dedicated regional journalism for our part of the country.
Let us not forget that, for more than 60 years, STV North has provided coverage across the north of Scotland, including for my constituents across Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. As members from across the chamber have highlighted, it has not only delivered news bulletins but provided scrutiny of local decision making and ensured that issues affecting our communities are visible beyond the immediate area.
For those of us who represent sparsely populated communities in the north of Scotland and who are all too familiar with the challenge of ensuring that those voices are heard by Governments of all colours, which can all too often feel too distant, that role has been crucial.
The concerns about the proposals were strongly reflected in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. Nick McGowan-Lowe of the National Union of Journalists warned that they represented not a minor restructuring but a significant downgrading of regional journalism. He argued that moving production to Glasgow would undermine journalists’ ability to cover breaking news in real time. He suggested that output would increasingly rely on pre-recorded material, which would mean that events in the north could be missed or coverage of them could be delayed as a result of the erosion of the very journalism that we need in our communities. As he put it, we
“would see the cultural centre of Scotland shifted down towards the M80.”
I also share the concerns that have been echoed across the political spectrum tonight about not only the job losses that have been announced but the loss of opportunities for aspiring young journalists of the future. As a former student at the University of Aberdeen, I know how important it is that training routes and long-term career pathways outside the central belt are not only protected but strengthened.
Given the economic pressures that the broadcasting sector faces, I recognise the challenges that are involved, so I welcome the confirmation that STV’s current bases in the north region will be maintained. Nonetheless, if skilled jobs and training pipelines are removed from places such as Aberdeen and Inverness, they will be extremely difficult to rebuild. Therefore, the Parliament has a wider responsibility in that regard. I welcome what Jack Middleton called for in his speech. I assure him that, as part of this morning’s discussion in public of its work programme, the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee considered calling in STV bosses to hold them to account. I hope that we will do so, and I am sure that I will be able to speak to Jack Middleton about that beforehand.
I am sure that the rest of us will have questions for the Scottish Government about what assurances the wider creative industries sector will need. I have no doubt that the issue will need to be seen through the lens of the upcoming Screen Scotland reforms.
It is hard to come to any conclusion other than that the centralisation of STV North lets down not only staff—who, as we will all be aware, are reporting serious concerns about wellbeing that must be addressed by STV bosses—but our communities right across the north. I fear that trust has been lost, and it will be difficult to rebuild it.
19:07
I did not enjoy Jack Middleton’s previous speech from the back of the chamber, but I did enjoy the speech that he gave this evening, because I think that he captured the essence of the debate. All the speakers who have followed have been excellent in airing the issue.
I am not sure that I will say anything that is terribly original compared with what has already been said, but I will say that, in my many years of observing these matters, I have not yet seen a regulator that is any good. In my experience, they all seem to be toothless wonders. They have to be prodded, nudged and jabbed to do anything. This is a case in point.
If we have to have monopolistic arrangements for the provision of public services such as public service broadcasting, we need to have regulators that are prepared to do their job. What is the point of Ofcom awarding licences, as it did to STV, only for the announcements such as those that we are discussing to be made only months later? Frankly, it is disgraceful that more integrity was not shown.
I mentioned the word “honesty” in my intervention on Maggie Chapman. Would it not have been more honest for STV to surrender the licence? I genuinely mean that. I am sorry, but I have a real problem with STV making commitments to local communities, applying for and obtaining an extension of the existing licence to provide local broadcasting and then very quickly undoing all of that. I genuinely believe—I think that this was put to Ofcom—that Ofcom should have taken the licence back and had another go at finding someone who would meet its requirements.
I also have wider concerns. George Adam was right—this is a most unholy alliance, but he and I agree on the issue. I am genuinely concerned about the pattern of consolidation of ownership, which might result in there being very few UK-owned domestic broadcasters.
It is all going the way of international global streamers and huge American conglomerates. I am not happy about that, which is why I have changed my mind a lot—for example, about the BBC. At one time, I was quite a critic of the BBC, but now I think of myself as a number 1 supporter. As a number of members have said, we need to retain UK and Scotland-based operations, for the sake of reflecting who we are to the world, let alone to ourselves.
I grew up watching Grampian Television. That is why I am speaking in the debate and am passionate about the issue. I come from Angus, and I grew up with the great names of Grampian TV. I am one of the oldest members now, and I am replying to a debate secured by one of the youngest, so I do not expect Jack Middleton ever to have heard of Jimmy Spankie. There was Ron Thompson, the music of Calum Kennedy, and George Kidd, who was a celebrity in many ways in Dundee. I remember going to my grandparents for the weekend, and on a Friday night they always watched “Bothy Nichts” when it was on. Those of us who are old enough will know it—it was a celebration of our culture in that part of Scotland. They were much more than programmes; they were a shared experience.
To create a cohesive society, we need more shared, local, identifiable experiences. That is why members from across Parliament and from all parties, I think—we have yet to hear from Helen McDade, but I am sure that she will be broadly supportive—support the retention of the licences as they have been awarded.
I have very little that is positive to say about Ofcom. Maggie Chapman mentioned STV’s online content. Ofcom has regulatory responsibilities for online content, which is a huge issue for this country, as it is globally. I worry that Ofcom will be as toothless in enforcing online safety, as per the Online Safety Act 2023, as it is in relation to broadcasting. I have a range of concerns about the current state of broadcasting, but I will not exercise your patience, Presiding Officer, or that of my colleagues, by detailing those. I will say, though, that although ignoring viewers and communities is one thing, it completely bamboozles me that Ofcom has ignored the very licence conditions under which a licence was awarded.
Michael Marra spoke well, as he always does, in my experience, even when I disagree with him. He talked about the importance of local news journalism, as did a number of other colleagues. I am running out of time, but I want to say how important that issue is. I find the state of local journalism heartbreaking. I pick up my local newspaper, and it is largely national news that has been stuck in to fill out the pages. Local news is increasingly relegated to a few columns and a couple of pages, which is not good for our democracy.
We need good information to be available to the people of our country so that they can make good judgments and decisions. If information increasingly comes from tainted sources online—often sponsored by foreign bad actors, with a clear political agenda to create division and distrust between us in this country—we should wake up. I and my Conservative colleagues are delighted to support all the other parties and their voices in relation to this vital issue for our country’s national security.
19:13
I thank Jack Middleton for securing the debate.
Other members have talked about the process regarding Ofcom and STV. I do not know about that, but Jack Middleton said he was surprised that 99.7 per cent of responses to the consultation were ignored. All I can say is that we probably get more cynical with age, because I am not surprised. As has been mentioned, there will be big money behind the decision and people who think that these communities are not important. Once these things have started down a certain road, it is hard to roll back. It is a really retrograde action.
Geographically, Scotland is a large country that is sparsely populated, and STV North supplies a huge area. I have lived in Thurso, Aberdeenshire, north-east Fife and now north Perthshire, and I have been served by STV North in all those areas. It covers a huge area, but we never feel, “Oh well, that’s about up there—the far north,” or, “That’s about Aberdeen,” because we have all watched the same thing. I grew up in Thurso, and there is something about bringing together rural north Scotland.
David Green mentioned that breaking news will be lost, which is an important point. Sometimes, something important is on STV North but, if I watch the other side—because I have to know what is going on—there is nothing about it, which is because they have nobody up there. Nowadays, when broadcasters want to interview, they will say, “We’ll do it online.” I might say, “Why don’t you come to Perth and interview me there?” It is just Perth; it is not Thurso. However, they are not interested.
Sadly, that is what we face. When I watch the other STV, occasionally, when I am in Edinburgh—it can also be watched online—it does not even mention really major things. To go back quite a long way, to a significant anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, the news on STV North looked at the ceremony but it was virtually not mentioned on the national broadcasts. That is an important point.
The journalists are trained and embedded in the area. I remember being interviewed about pollution in the Ythan, and STV North turned up with about five Gaelic trainees. That was when it was starting the Gaelic programme.
We need to fight for STV North. It is very difficult to see how to roll back such decisions once they have been made. It has been pointed out that the Scottish Government has an advertising revenue. Can that have some weight? We need to fight at national and UK levels to continue to get STV North, because—members should make no mistake—once it goes, they will come for ITV Border. I am therefore delighted to have had the opportunity to speak.
19:17
I thank Jack Middleton for securing the debate. I was very pleased, recently, to meet him along with the Minister for Business and Fair Work. He and others are absolutely right to reflect both the cross-party consensus on the issue and the support across civic society. I add the Scottish Government’s voice to that support by being absolutely clear that STV’s choice to reduce news coverage in the north-east and Ofcom’s decision to approve that are completely unacceptable for not just the audiences who are directly affected but the people across Scotland who are experiencing the erosion of their right to access relevant, reliable and trustworthy news, which—as has, rightly, been reflected on tonight—is absolutely fundamental to local democracy and accountability.
Scotland’s areas and regions are distinctive. We are made up of different communities with different interests, different needs and, as both Laura Mitchell and Helen McDade have reflected, different emerging news stories. The issues that are important to people in Glasgow will not always be the same as those that are important to the people of Aberdeen, and we all have a right to be informed about our local area, our local interests and our local people. It resonated with me when Jackie Dunbar said that that local voice is what fosters trust—and trust in our news and public service broadcasting is under threat like never before.
It is simply not good enough that STV can just decide that it no longer wishes to fulfil its public service broadcasting obligations. There is huge opposition to that from audiences. Liam Kerr was right to say that only 4 per cent of audiences have demonstrated support for the plans. It is also not good enough that the regulator, Ofcom, can approve those plans with apparently no regard for the interests of the audiences that it is supposed to protect. That is exactly why broadcasting has to be devolved to Scotland. It is clear, not just from that decision but from decisions across the piece, that our priorities will not be best served by public service broadcasting that is organised on a UK level—or, crucially, by a regulator with a UK-wide remit.
The Government and I believe that the people of Scotland—both audiences and the creative professionals, whose interests we have been right to reflect on here tonight—have a right to a broadcasting ecosystem that reflects and represents us not only in news but in entertainment, sport and the cultural programmes that we watch. We deserve services that meet a proper public service broadcasting obligation, not only in letter or spirit but also in fact.
If broadcasting were devolved, the Scottish Government could ensure that television and radio truly met the needs of the people who live and work here, including by ensuring that Gaelic broadcasting was properly supported. Members of this Parliament would be able to hold us directly to account on that. We will continue to press for the devolution of broadcasting; however, until that happens, we will use every avenue to advocate for our creative workforce and our audiences across Scotland. I assure members that we will not stand by and accept any more steps backward in reporting and coverage, whether of Scottish, UK or global news.
We have rightly focused our comments on STV, but last week the BBC announced deep cuts across its services, which so far represent a disproportionate impact on Scotland. I understand that the BBC and other public service broadcasters are facing significant financial challenges, but it is incumbent on them to provide comprehensive coverage for all nations of the UK. Of course, the BBC is funded by the licence payer, and those considerations should be paramount for it. Any further reduction of Scotland-specific content across the BBC’s output, as in STV’s, puts audiences and our broadcasting workforce at risk and is unacceptable.
The cabinet secretary will understand that I do not agree with everything that she has said, but I understand why she has said it. At the same time, it is important that we take a moment to celebrate the fact that we have some fantastic Scottish content and that fantastic things are happening in this sector. We had a debate last week to celebrate what is being done on screens small and large—I think that Alyn Smith lodged the motion. It would be wrong not to celebrate some of the achievements of, for example, STV Studios, which is part of the STV world, and some of the tremendous productions that have been commissioned from the BBC and independent companies. We do have things to celebrate—it is not all doom and gloom. However, we need to be real about this particular issue, which relates to the channel 3 licence in the north of Scotland, don’t we?
I do not think that anything I said would contradict the fact that excellent output exists across Scotland. I responded to the debate on Screen Scotland. In fact, when we talked about the freezing effect on opportunities and job creation that STV’s decision is likely to have in the north-east, I reflected on the fact that we celebrated the opposite last week in relation to Screen Scotland’s work and the opportunities that it creates for training across the board. Unfortunately, tonight’s debate reflects the opposite trend.
I want to say a word about Ofcom. Its first priority must always be to protect audiences and ensure that they have access to the information that they need and the cultural representation that they deserve. I will meet Ofcom, the BBC and other relevant partners to ensure that they closely understand Scotland’s requirements.
I reflect again that the value of public service broadcasting has never been more important. As many members have reflected, as misinformation and disinformation become pervasive in our society, public service broadcasters must step up and be the trusted voice of impartiality on which we can rely.
I hope that Mr Middleton, along with everyone in the chamber, is clear that the Scottish Government joins him in absolutely condemning STV’s plans and Ofcom’s decision to approve them. The First Minister has made that point in written exchanges with those organisations, and I reiterate it.
I have sincerely welcomed the passion across the chamber in putting the case for local news and the creation of culturally relevant content close to home. I assure members that I will reflect their views vigorously when I meet Ofcom in the coming weeks.
Meeting closed at 19:24.
Previous
Decision Time