Chamber and committees

But there is nothing on the website.

Thank you.

One of the issues that I will come back to in a minute is the need for openness and transparency, and the need to address the very many issues that there are. As has been said, we have seen allegations of racism and other impropriety, concerns about financial mismanagement, and concerns about a culture of fear, a culture of spin and a culture of secrecy. We have used the word “culture” a lot, and it is clear to me that we need a review of the culture in HES, which, as Mr Kerr said, should be an independent review.

You mentioned earlier that a culture review would not take place until the individual processes were resolved. When do you expect those processes to be resolved?

The next couple of months—okay.

Now that there is an intervention from Audit Scotland, which is doing its section 22 report, and Parliament is asking questions, do you not think that HES should be ordering its own independent culture review?

I have a couple of follow-up questions on that. My understanding was that a presentation was given to senior managers in August of this year referencing that 2 per cent increase and the 3 per cent increase in public sector pay policy. When I asked that question and we got a follow-up letter, why did we not get the response that you just gave me? Why did the committee just get a one-liner that said, “We always adhered to the 3 per cent policy,” and which did not talk about the financial strategy being 2 per cent—

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?

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?