Chamber and committees

Good morning. I, too, draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am an associate member of the NUJ.

Several members have touched on issues that I was keen to explore, but I do not want to go over ground that we have gone over already. You have mentioned the contrast between STV and ITV. ITV does not hold a single licence for all regions; it holds a clutch of licences, but those licences involve similar commitments to regionality. Are you aware of ITV seeking permission, in a similar way in which STV is seeking permission, from Ofcom to reduce the commitment to regional output that its licences require? Have there been similar examples of that elsewhere? If Ofcom were to approve such a request, could that open the flood gates and lead to a dramatic reduction in regionality, not just in Scotland but across all ITV regions?

I take the point that there might have been a change to where one programme was produced, but I am not aware of anything on the scale that we are talking about—in effect, a region would be abandoned, with two regions being merged. That would certainly be the viewers’ perception of what they would be served with.

Do you share my concern that, if Ofcom were to say yes to STV’s proposal, it would be very difficult for it to say no to ITV if it wanted to cut its costs in similar ways and reduce regional commitments? This is not about just one region; it is about the fundamental principle of regionality throughout the channel 3 service.

I will start by acknowledging, at a human level, that answering questions of this kind in a pretty charged atmosphere will be a personally uncomfortable experience for you.

I turn to how the decision was handled, as opposed to the substance of the decision. You have suggested that there is misreporting about the online meeting and whether someone was in a holiday villa and whether another senior manager was in a hotel room very close to the studio rather than meeting people face to face. I do not know how it has been reported, but I can tell you that some of the people directly affected by that experience found it pretty insulting.

I would add to that our experience here in Parliament, when you came—as you do every year, which we value—to brief MSPs about the business and its future. I think that that was about a week before the announcement was made. We had already reached the point at which MSPs were hearing rumours that something bad was coming. We sought reassurances about your commitment to news and regional coverage and got those reassurances.

Would it not have been a bit more open, transparent and trustworthy to do that the other way around, and for you to come in after the announcement had been made and be willing to have those difficult conversations? I suggest that, overall, the situation has not been handled well.

During that period when you recognised that something dramatic had changed and you needed to respond to it, what level of dialogue did you have with your workforce, on whom you depend for everything that you do? What level of dialogue did you have with them about how to face the challenge and what the options were?

Your senior team looked at the options.

I am asking what level of dialogue you had with your workforce.

Good morning. I will follow up on the same themes. I have come to the inquiry quite aware of how much I do not know about this topic. I have been trying to read as much as I can from the evidence that has been submitted. However, I do not know whether the severe delay in getting a diagnosis is purely down to capacity, or is the result of people wanting a diagnosis where the criteria are marginal, the judgement is difficult and they have to be seen many times, or whether it is purely down to the variation in practice in different health boards.

We are being told by a great many people that diagnosis is an extremely important part of not just understanding their own experience but addressing it. I do not know whether diagnosis is clinically necessary. We have been told that these are not disorders, diseases or things to be cured in any sense, but normal diversity. Is diagnosis clinically necessary or is it merely that support is not available without it, so it is therefore a necessary hoop to jump through, rather than clinically required? Can you answer those questions? The evidence that we have seen so far leaves me none the wiser.

Forgive me, but I am aware that we are short of time. I do not mean to push back too strongly, but it feels as though you are describing the current state of affairs rather than a path forward. Is there a potential for a change that GPs would accept and would result in there being a consistent approach to dealing with those who have perhaps gone to the voluntary sector, and a clear sense of what standard would require to be met in order to have acceptance by GPs in a more consistent way?

Does anyone else want to come in and react to what we have heard on that idea of building on good practice? Is that a reasonable phrase to use when practice is so widely varied? Some health boards simply do not provide adult assessments at all, for example, whereas others do.

Were you looking to come back in, Dr Malone?