Chamber and committees

I was not at last week’s evidence session with HES; I was away on parliamentary duties. Therefore, I suppose that I come at this from a different angle.

I was surprised by some of the discussion about meetings with the board, to be honest, because I think that most people know how these things work. The meetings that you have said that you have had, cabinet secretary, were with the chair and the chief executive. That is pretty standard when you are sponsoring an organisation. I think that there was an attempt to wilfully misrepresent the proper relationship with the board and chair for other reasons, which I am sure will become evident in due course.

Have members of the board expressed any concern either to yourself or to the Government, saying that there were issues that they would like to discuss with you or the Government officials who are involved?

To get this clear, because I think that it has become confused by some earlier questioning, the proper processes were followed in terms of the relevant minister meeting with the relevant individuals—the chair and the chief executive. You could say that the person with whom the buck stops—that would be you, as cabinet secretary—talked to the people with whom the buck stops in the organisation, as should happen. There was no clamour from the board asking for a meeting with you.

I am grateful for that answer. Given what the cabinet secretary has said, this may have happened already but, to me, that will require a mindset change and imagination, an entrepreneurial spirit and dedicated people. For example, you may be aware of a place up in the north of Scotland called Badbea, where all the highlanders were pushed to the edge of a cliff when the clearances happened, as is commemorated by some people. It is virtually a ruin, as it is on the edge of a cliff. However, the diaspora—especially in Australia and New Zealand—will be very interested in that. In fact, they are the only ones who have contributed to the upkeep of the monument. We need someone to be thinking about what the connections are and how they can be exploited, for want of a better word.

This my final point. If HES can do all that, it will have to keep its eye on its core business, as you have mentioned, cabinet secretary. One example of a place where it has not done that is very close to my constituency, in Stirling. An application to build an Asda and various other buildings on the site of the battle of Bannockburn was approved, with no representations made by Historic Environment Scotland. I cannot think of any other country in the world that would allow such a development or have nothing to say about it. There are still parts of the battlefield that are subject to potential development, and they should be protected. Rather than saying that it has no representations to make and nothing to say about such things, HES must concentrate on its core business, make those representations and defend our historic heritage. I just wanted to make that point.

That is all that I want to ask about that.

My other question harks back to an earlier session that we had with Historic Environment Scotland, which I found very unsatisfactory. I will take the chance to raise the issue now. My question stems from my view that Historic Environment Scotland sits on a huge number of extremely valuable and important assets in Scotland and, in my view, fails to make the proper return on those assets. That may be for reasons to do with budgeting and capital investment, and I accept that there are budget constraints. However, I am looking for reassurance that, with the new chairperson, whom I have not met, we will see more entrepreneurial activity. For example, I asked about a particular property. HES had said that properties were open, but it turns out that they were not open to the public. HES had just finished doing the work that it thought that it had to do. The particular example was Clackmannan tower.

These things can be potentially extremely valuable if they are tied into particular, discrete interests from the Scottish diaspora around the world, for example, and that is not happening. I hope that the new chairperson—at your behest, I hope, cabinet secretary—will take such opportunities very seriously. At a previous meeting, we discussed the huge upsurge in festival attendance and in the vibrancy of festivals. We should capitalise on these assets as well. I look for reassurance from you in that regard.

It is for Sir Mark to ask. I have said to him that we will support anything that he deems as necessary for him to deal with the challenges at root in Historic Environment Scotland. I will leave it for him to ask for what he thinks he requires, but where he has made clear what he needs in capacity and support, we have made that happen. I will look sympathetically on any suggestion that he might have, and I have ruled nothing out.

I should tell the witnesses that we recently had the BBC before the committee to discuss its decision to cut back at “River City”, and the loss of back-office jobs and skills was an issue that was raised then.

The 10-year licence was applied for only last year and started only this year, so in the same year that STV pitched for the licence, it wants to make these radical changes and cuts. Do you think that there is some bad faith going on here, such that it applied for the licence, knowing it was not going to see through its terms, but, in getting the licence, it fended off competition and is now moving forward to make these cuts? Do you think that that is what is going on here?

Do you see Scotland as a region?

I am not sure that you are grasping the point that the public looking at this will just think that the licensing process was a complete sham.

I turn to my final question. You have said—for good reason, I am sure—that you are not able to break down the £3 million of savings and where those might come from. Will you put a figure on what it will cost you to establish the radio station, and will you put a figure on bonuses for senior executives, just to give us an idea of the context?

It will appear odd to people, and to Ofcom, too, that you said that you are trying to protect regional news gathering but that you are doing that by getting rid of the infrastructure to deliver it. That was not a question, just a comment, convener. Thanks.

I hope that someone else will cover the digital exclusion angle.

Your evidence mentions the European football championships and the world cup. Of course I am going to the match tonight. If Scotland were to win that and to qualify, you can imagine that the viewing figures will go right up. It would be interesting to know the difference in the reporting from Aberdeen from the reporting in the central belt of Aberdeen’s victory in the Scottish cup last year. You will not get that distinctive coverage. Do you think that, for those or other reasons, the company could generate substantially more income in the next year? It is not just a change in direction; the company has done a U-turn, and it will have to do a U-turn again. That is not the sign of a stable board that is taking a longer-term view.