Scottish Affairs Committee
Wednesday 9th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:31
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
And welcome to this meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee, where we would like to discuss with our colleagues from Ofcom issues relating to STV and also probably a little bit about Gaelic broadcasting as well. So I'm very grateful to you for coming along this morning and giving us your time. Could you just briefly introduce yourselves and say what your role is? Thank you.
09:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'm Glen Preston. Thank you very much for having us. I'm Glen Preston, Ofcom's Scotland director. So I head the Ofcom Scotland team, which is based up in our Edinburgh office, where we represent Ofcom right across our regulatory responsibilities and Ofcom's senior leader in Scotland, we have about 130 colleagues based in Edinburgh. Now, who do a whole range of jobs across Ofcom's regulatory responsibilities.
09:31
09:32
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
Thank you both very much. If I can just start by asking a couple of questions about Gaelic broadcasting. The first of them is that it appears to us that there are several bodies involved in Gaelic broadcasting in between Ofcom and Talpa and BBC. And of course, the Scottish Government have an interest too. So to what extent does that complexity create governance challenges or does it create governance challenges? And would there be a risk that because that responsibility is shared among so many organisations that no single body has ownership of the long term future of broadcasting in Gaelic?
09:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think it's an interesting question that so I was I was watching the session that you did with Jalapa and the BBC last week and kind of reflecting, because I've been in this job for about ten years. So I find the kind of clarity of roles and what we have to do relatively straightforward. But I think that might be a kind of passage of time point rather than necessarily if you were looking at it, I think from the outside, you could understand that it's a fairly complicated picture, as you say.
It does. It runs pretty smoothly to be, to be honest with you. So we would describe Ofcom's duties as largely kind of fiduciary in nature. So you will you will likely already know that we make appointments to the board or we certainly make recommendations for appointments to the board. It's Scottish ministers that take those recommendations and are kind of formally responsible for the appointments. And we hold the Gaelic Media Fund.
So the grant in aid that's paid by the Scottish Government to PA comes via Ofcom, and then draw that down for both the operational and the kind of content sides of of their business. And there's an MoU that exists between the Scottish Government and between MG Alba. That's a matter for them. We have no involvement in the kind of preparation of that, but we do meet the executive quarterly just to look at performance issues and how they're performing against the kind of obligations that the Scottish Government place on them under the MOU that they have.
So that that all works relatively smoothly. It's quite well oiled. Lots of people that have been involved have been doing it for a long time. And then obviously, the UK government and UK Parliament has the responsibility for the overarching framework. And I think that's where those kind of questions that you were discussing in last week's session around the adequacy of funding, for example, or the the kind of statutory nature of Gaelic broadcasting sits. So those aren't matters that we kind of engage directly with as the regulator.
We don't have kind of responsibilities for funding decisions, for example, or its status on the statute book. But, you know, for us, it works relatively well.
It does. It runs pretty smoothly to be, to be honest with you. So we would describe Ofcom's duties as largely kind of fiduciary in nature. So you will you will likely already know that we make appointments to the board or we certainly make recommendations for appointments to the board. It's Scottish ministers that take those recommendations and are kind of formally responsible for the appointments. And we hold the Gaelic Media Fund.
So the grant in aid that's paid by the Scottish Government to PA comes via Ofcom, and then draw that down for both the operational and the kind of content sides of of their business. And there's an MoU that exists between the Scottish Government and between MG Alba. That's a matter for them. We have no involvement in the kind of preparation of that, but we do meet the executive quarterly just to look at performance issues and how they're performing against the kind of obligations that the Scottish Government place on them under the MOU that they have.
So that that all works relatively smoothly. It's quite well oiled. Lots of people that have been involved have been doing it for a long time. And then obviously, the UK government and UK Parliament has the responsibility for the overarching framework. And I think that's where those kind of questions that you were discussing in last week's session around the adequacy of funding, for example, or the the kind of statutory nature of Gaelic broadcasting sits. So those aren't matters that we kind of engage directly with as the regulator.
We don't have kind of responsibilities for funding decisions, for example, or its status on the statute book. But, you know, for us, it works relatively well.
09:34
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
Sort of leads me on nicely to my second question, which is around the BBC operating licence, because we understand from the evidence we were given, that the broadcasting Gaelic broadcasting largely operates through that prism of the BBC operating licence. And I wonder whether you think that's, I suppose, sufficient from a regulatory and a policy perspective.
09:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. I saw the comments that the chief executive made about the sort of number of lines that that Gaelic broadcasting gets in our annual report on the BBC. I think that was that was a fair it was a fair comment, but the whole point of, of what we do with our annual kind of reporting on the BBC is a kind of holistic view of how the BBC is performing against the specific conditions in the operating licence, across all of its services, and how it's kind of fulfilling the mission and public purposes.
So we don't tend to do kind of deep dive stuff into individual services like BBC as as part of that. So not no service really gets kind of particular treatment in the annual reports that we do. I do, I do think it probably underplays the amount of work that we do with MGM on kind of questions of performance. And we do do other analysis of developments in the market. So we've just published in the last few weeks, for example, our annual Media Nations Scotland report.
And there are there are 2 or 3 different sections in that. Looking at what has happened in Gaelic broadcasting over the last year. So there's a bit of analysis, for example, of the brilliant Live Free to air Gaelic language coverage of the Commonwealth Games that was done through the partnership. We look at all the kind of first run origination data, so the hours and spend and so on, and do some analysis of that. And this year we had stuff in there, for example, about the quality of Gaelic podcasting that was going on, including through radio angle as well.
So it's, you could look at that kind of report on the BBC or BBC annual report in isolation. And I think legitimately say there's not a huge amount in there. If you look at it set against the other things that we publish and all the other work that we do with the board and executive. There's a lot more going on there.
So we don't tend to do kind of deep dive stuff into individual services like BBC as as part of that. So not no service really gets kind of particular treatment in the annual reports that we do. I do, I do think it probably underplays the amount of work that we do with MGM on kind of questions of performance. And we do do other analysis of developments in the market. So we've just published in the last few weeks, for example, our annual Media Nations Scotland report.
And there are there are 2 or 3 different sections in that. Looking at what has happened in Gaelic broadcasting over the last year. So there's a bit of analysis, for example, of the brilliant Live Free to air Gaelic language coverage of the Commonwealth Games that was done through the partnership. We look at all the kind of first run origination data, so the hours and spend and so on, and do some analysis of that. And this year we had stuff in there, for example, about the quality of Gaelic podcasting that was going on, including through radio angle as well.
So it's, you could look at that kind of report on the BBC or BBC annual report in isolation. And I think legitimately say there's not a huge amount in there. If you look at it set against the other things that we publish and all the other work that we do with the board and executive. There's a lot more going on there.
09:36
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
Yeah. And I suppose really the question comes back to the point that. BBC Alba is not explicitly mentioned in the operating licence. So the question would probably be, you know, does that current framework. Well, is it sufficient to give both visibility and proper regulation to the organisation? And if not, what changes would you like to see?
09:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah, I think so. I know that's a well, so I should say the operating licence does contain specific provisions about hours and spend, for example, that you'd have to have on the BBC as a service. But you're right that that would be an assessment of the BBC's performance against its kind of mission and public purposes, and particularly kind of public purpose for which is the one that would be relevant for for BBC Alba. I do I think it's an interesting question, actually, about whether the kind of governance and operation of MG itself has that adequate scrutiny.
I think we fulfill the fiduciary duties that are quite narrow in the Broadcasting Act and the Communications Act from 2003, and I think we would say we're content with the way those are working. I think there is a legitimate question about, for example, what the scrutiny is of the MoU arrangements between the Scottish Government and MG, which is something that this committee might be interested in, or the committee the culture committee at Holyrood might be interested in. And there doesn't tend to be, for example, an annual assessment of MG performance against things like that.
And they do lay their annual report and accounts, and that's actually something that has to come via Ofcom. They do that here and they do that at Holyrood as well. We notify the ministers and the parliaments that that's happening. So there's a there's an opportunity there, I guess, to look at the performance of MG Alba specifically through through that lens.
I think we fulfill the fiduciary duties that are quite narrow in the Broadcasting Act and the Communications Act from 2003, and I think we would say we're content with the way those are working. I think there is a legitimate question about, for example, what the scrutiny is of the MoU arrangements between the Scottish Government and MG, which is something that this committee might be interested in, or the committee the culture committee at Holyrood might be interested in. And there doesn't tend to be, for example, an annual assessment of MG performance against things like that.
And they do lay their annual report and accounts, and that's actually something that has to come via Ofcom. They do that here and they do that at Holyrood as well. We notify the ministers and the parliaments that that's happening. So there's a there's an opportunity there, I guess, to look at the performance of MG Alba specifically through through that lens.
09:38
09:38
Kirsteen Sullivan
-
-
Kirsteen Sullivan
On to Ofcom's decision about the STV changes. So as you know, Ofcom was due to announce its decision on Stv's proposals before Easter earlier this year, but it was delayed until after the Scottish Parliament elections. And you'll understand this caused quite a bit of consternation, with the National Union of Journalists calling it astonishing. Can you explain why that decision was taken, please?
09:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes. Look, this was a difficult decision to make and we wanted to give it full consideration. We did have a lot of public response, quite a bit of it generated by AI, which was a novelty for as a regulator that we're all getting used to. And so we needed to make sure we went through the consultation responses carefully and gave it the fullest consideration. There was no other reasoning behind the delay.
09:39
09:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
We knew. We knew we knew that there would be a lot of responses. And we knew what how people felt because there was a lot of been expressed. But we have to go through each individual consultation response. And if I'm right, I think it was the first time we had such a volume that had been generated by artificial intelligence, which was something we wanted to be very careful, again, how we handled that. And we were just we were very keen to make sure that this was a consideration that was given full deliberation and analysis, and that we didn't want to rush into it.
09:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Okay. If I just add maybe some supplementary remarks to that, I think I'm struck by the point you make about what the NUJ said. So at the beginning of the process, which was about mid-October last year, we actually had representations from a number of organisations, including the NUJ, that we shouldn't rush the decision because it was too important. And then when we reached the point just before the election period where we would not typically publish anything actually, that had political ramifications, we were told we were too slow.
So at the beginning of the beginning of the process, we were being told to slow down, and then we were being told we were too slow. Towards the end of the end of the process, I would observe that we. So we got our first submission. We might get into this in the kind of questioning from STV in mid-October last year. We did have engagement with them about that and they sent us a second submission towards the end of November last year.
We published the consultation before Christmas. So just I think about December the 19th, I think it was 16th, was it? Thank you. Being corrected by honourable members. And that concluded in mid-February. And we published then on the 1st of June, the as Christina was saying, we've never had an AI assisted campaign response like we did for that particular consultation. So 90% of the the of the consultation responses, just over 1100 came to us in the form of an AI through an AI assisted tool.
So there was a campaign called save STV North, and people were able to pick from a menu of possible responses and send stuff to us. And we hadn't had something like that before. It also included kind of free text capability for people, and what it did was generated an email to Ofcom from an individual's account. So it gave us all sorts of kind of personal data for people as well, which we had to manage quite carefully. And what we, what we undertook to do was go through all of those 1100 responses in addition to the to those that we got individually to make sure that we weren't missing any of the kind of free text responses to make sure there was a proper full analysis of the evidence that was available to us.
And that's what took us the additional time. So we had wanted to conclude this prior to the Scottish election period, so that there was certainty for STV about who and how and where they would be broadcasting from. But we were still going through those 1100 responses during that period, which is why it took us that additional period of time.
So at the beginning of the beginning of the process, we were being told to slow down, and then we were being told we were too slow. Towards the end of the end of the process, I would observe that we. So we got our first submission. We might get into this in the kind of questioning from STV in mid-October last year. We did have engagement with them about that and they sent us a second submission towards the end of November last year.
We published the consultation before Christmas. So just I think about December the 19th, I think it was 16th, was it? Thank you. Being corrected by honourable members. And that concluded in mid-February. And we published then on the 1st of June, the as Christina was saying, we've never had an AI assisted campaign response like we did for that particular consultation. So 90% of the the of the consultation responses, just over 1100 came to us in the form of an AI through an AI assisted tool.
So there was a campaign called save STV North, and people were able to pick from a menu of possible responses and send stuff to us. And we hadn't had something like that before. It also included kind of free text capability for people, and what it did was generated an email to Ofcom from an individual's account. So it gave us all sorts of kind of personal data for people as well, which we had to manage quite carefully. And what we, what we undertook to do was go through all of those 1100 responses in addition to the to those that we got individually to make sure that we weren't missing any of the kind of free text responses to make sure there was a proper full analysis of the evidence that was available to us.
And that's what took us the additional time. So we had wanted to conclude this prior to the Scottish election period, so that there was certainty for STV about who and how and where they would be broadcasting from. But we were still going through those 1100 responses during that period, which is why it took us that additional period of time.
09:42
Kirsteen Sullivan
-
-
Kirsteen Sullivan
Okay. If I can just say on that point, MPs are well used to dealing with campaign emails, so I do appreciate the volume. However, I think those concerns about the time taken and the delay are are well-founded. I think people did expect a quicker response, particularly given the level of concern. And I'm really struck by the point you just made, Mr. Preston, about. You wouldn't publish anything that had political ramifications.
So are we to take from that, that the election or the level of political opposition to the changes influenced the timing of the decision?
So are we to take from that, that the election or the level of political opposition to the changes influenced the timing of the decision?
09:43
09:43
09:43
09:43
09:43
09:44
09:44
09:44
09:44
Kirsteen Sullivan
-
-
Kirsteen Sullivan
I understand that, but the point still remains that that election was already on the calendar, and you had made the announcement that you would delay the decision. Sorry, that the initial you initially said the decision would be out before Easter, when that election was already on the calendar. So the two things don't really match up for me.
09:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I would add is that we hoped to publish before Easter. That was before we realised that we were getting. We didn't have. At that point, the volume of AI assisted responses. We publish our responses afterwards. So we had as. As Glenn said, we had to remove all the personal data. There's an awful lot. And we had to go through each individual one. So at the point when we said we would publish it , Easter, we did not know the volume and the manner of which the consultation responses had been delayed.
And as, as as Glenn said, across Ofcom, we don't publish anything actually during an election period because most things have a, you know, can be taken as an issue. So that's what the data that was.
And as, as as Glenn said, across Ofcom, we don't publish anything actually during an election period because most things have a, you know, can be taken as an issue. So that's what the data that was.
09:45
09:45
09:45
09:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. So it's so the point for us was that we closed our consultation in February and we would , we'd hope to conclude the analysis of all of the responses that we got between the period of closure and then when the election period would normally start. We didn't know the election period, I think, until slightly closer to the time, what the specific date would be. But in that period, that window that we had, we did not get through all the election responses or sorry, all the consultation responses.
09:46
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
To go back to Miss Sullivan's Point, Scottish elections are fixed. We know when they are and we know how long the election period is. We know when Parliament will dissolve. So I find it difficult to understand why, if you have a rule or a guidance that says you won't publish documents during an election period, that that calculation could not have been made, how many consultation responses were received in total? I think you said it was 90%.
09:47
09:47
09:47
09:47
09:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Sorry, can I just I mean, I would it's an interesting this was a really interesting experience for us because it wasn't AI generated what the STV nor save STV North campaign and website did was give people a kind of list of options that they could choose from in relation to the different areas of the consultation, as well as free text options. And that's different from a kind of AI generation, which might be kind of coming up with the arguments itself.
And it sent to us individual responses from individuals. You know, it could have been me, it could have been it could have been you. So named individuals with named email addresses and so on. So we treated them as individual responses. Now when you when you look at them, people almost exclusively didn't use the free text option. They only used the kind of pre-generated list options. So it's, it's, you can start to be able to look at it thematically, for example, but it was still necessary for us to go through each individual response.
And it sent to us individual responses from individuals. You know, it could have been me, it could have been it could have been you. So named individuals with named email addresses and so on. So we treated them as individual responses. Now when you when you look at them, people almost exclusively didn't use the free text option. They only used the kind of pre-generated list options. So it's, it's, you can start to be able to look at it thematically, for example, but it was still necessary for us to go through each individual response.
09:48
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
Okay. As Mr. Sullivan says, I think we'd all well used to those kinds of campaigns. So I don't think any of us would be surprised by that. But can I ask then if this was new and it was unexpected, what mechanisms have you put in place to make sure that in future you're able to cope with those in the time frames that you have established?
09:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. So we're doing quite a lot of work on this at the moment. We're not unique in this regard. I think, as you say, both MPs, local authorities and other public bodies are increasingly seeing consultation responses and complaints either through AI generation or AI assisted tools. So we are looking at our own technology options to be able to filter through those sorts of numbers of responses that were going to likely be getting for consultations in the future as well.
There are a few kind of market on the market tools at the moment that you can put these things through to be able to allow you to work out whether they've been AI generated or whether in this, as in this case, it's kind of AI assisted, but still an individual response. So we're confident, I think, that we'll be in a better position if something like this happens again.
There are a few kind of market on the market tools at the moment that you can put these things through to be able to allow you to work out whether they've been AI generated or whether in this, as in this case, it's kind of AI assisted, but still an individual response. So we're confident, I think, that we'll be in a better position if something like this happens again.
09:49
09:49
Dave Doogan
-
-
Dave Doogan
You slightly beat me to the punch there chair. Having listened very carefully to both of your responses to these questions, it seems quite clear, which I'm sure you'll dispute, but it's nevertheless very clear that you dropped the ball with the phasing of your publication of the consultation. You clearly didn't get the date and the phasing of that right, which then apparently because you got 1200 AI responses, which would not faze a single MP around this table, and their staff of 5 or 6 people to process , and apparently put a spanner in the works of Ofcom.
That Office of Communication was caught on the hop by getting some AI responses. There is a vicious irony there that does not reflect well on your organisation. Or am I being unfair?
That Office of Communication was caught on the hop by getting some AI responses. There is a vicious irony there that does not reflect well on your organisation. Or am I being unfair?
09:50
09:51
09:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
what we weren't we weren't, I wouldn't say surprised. It was the first time that we had had such an enormous amount. You know, 90% of the responses had been generated by II. It was the first time in all of our consultations that had happened. And as an organisation, we needed to work out how we do, not only how we do that, but also the, the sort of the the cleansing of that data by removing all the personal information was something that we hadn't had to do before.
09:52
09:52
09:53
09:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
How many? We I wasn't surprised by the by the sheer volume, but it was the nature in which they'd been delivered, which was. And, you know, maybe we were ambitious when we said we'd publish before Easter. Maybe we were overambitious and maybe we should have been a bit more cautious in our timeline. I don't
09:53
09:53
09:53
09:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So we've so we have treated them as part of the analysis of the evidence as individual responses. I think when there's a whole section in the statement that we've done on how we've how we've handled all of these sorts of things as part of this process, I think I will need to double check this for you. I'm happy to come back on it. I don't know that we've published every individual response, and that's partly because they've come to us with personal data on it as well, and people have given their permission.
Sorry, just people have not given us permission to publish them.
Sorry, just people have not given us permission to publish them.
09:55
09:55
09:55
09:55
09:55
09:56
09:56
09:56
09:56
09:56
09:56
09:56
09:57
09:57
09:57
09:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
many we actually published on the website? I'm afraid I don't know the number. I can I can write that to the committee, but I think it's important to weigh up, you know, how the how we responded to the, to to the, the consultation response. People's individuals, whether they're generated by AI or assisted by AI, is part of our decision making. And we we use a number of different factors, including economic issues, impact assessments.
You know, sentiment is. And public opinion is a very important part of it. But there are other measures as well that we have to weigh up.
You know, sentiment is. And public opinion is a very important part of it. But there are other measures as well that we have to weigh up.
09:58
09:58
09:58
09:58
09:58
09:59
Kirsteen Sullivan
-
-
Kirsteen Sullivan
Yes. Just to keep on with the AI assisted responses, you've put quite a lot of weight on the fact that it was AI volume of AI assisted responses that delayed your self-imposed deadline of before Easter. Can I ask what difference an AI assisted response made in the consideration of the responses? Because for me, 1300 responses in total isn't a great number given the importance of the subject.
So I would easily have anticipated at least that, if not more. And I don't see why it takes longer to go through the the AI assisted ones as opposed to individual responses. Can you help me understand that.
So I would easily have anticipated at least that, if not more. And I don't see why it takes longer to go through the the AI assisted ones as opposed to individual responses. Can you help me understand that.
10:00
10:00
10:01
Kirsteen Sullivan
-
-
Kirsteen Sullivan
, we on to the fact that the AI assisted responses extended past the original. Easter deadline. So I do not understand what additional complexity those added or why it it took the whole process beyond that original deadline. But other than that, you know, did you not expect to get at least 1300 responses?
10:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, I don't think we knew how many we were going to get before the before the consultation closed. Clearly, a significant proportion of them, 90% of them did come through that campaign tool. So what we did is we read every single response, whether it was through that campaign tool or whether it was sent directly to us formally as part of the the normal consultation method of just submitting to, you know, an Ofcom address so that it took us that period of time to go through all of the responses, not just the 1100 AI assisted.
10:02
10:03
10:03
Kirsteen Sullivan
-
-
Kirsteen Sullivan
which case you didn't expect at least 1300, if not more responses for changes that were so contentious. And I say that as an MP. you literally get hundreds and hundreds of campaign emails on particular topics. None of this is unfamiliar to anyone sitting around the table. So I struggle to understand why an organisation like Ofcom could not deal with 1300 responses within its self-imposed deadline.
10:04
10:04
10:04
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It was the end despite the handling, as I said, with the AI thing, there was a lot of data in there that wouldn't normally be. As I understand it, there was a lot of data in there that wouldn't normally have been provided had people taken the more traditional route. And it was it was the treating of that data that was that was an issue.
10:05
10:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It differs. They are asked to certainly with the tools that they provide. But there's also then an opportunity for them to say whether or not they want the response to be published, or they want personal data to be removed. And none of that happened with the AI assisted tool, because it had come directly via the website. So an Ofcom pro forma, for example, would have your name, your email address, for example, and then an option as to whether it would be published or an option whether you wanted the personal data removed.
And if that happened with the assisted.
And if that happened with the assisted.
10:06
10:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There was not when people filled out their options from the site and it generated an email from them, there was nothing that was provided by the campaign tool that allowed them to say that they either wanted it to be published or not published, or that they wanted personal data to be removed, for example.
10:07
10:07
10:07
10:07
10:07
10:07
Lillian Jones
-
-
Lillian Jones
You seem to be reading my mind this morning, chair, but I mean, it is concerning that an organisation, Ofcom, has taken so long to read such a or deal with such a small number of responses to your consultation. Given that in this digital age, people are turning to other methods to share their views, and that it's concerning that those with the campaign were not contacted to ask whether or not they were for or against.
I think that really concerning. AM I right to be concerned?
I think that really concerning. AM I right to be concerned?
10:09
10:09
10:09
10:09
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
Douglas McAllister
-
-
Douglas McAllister
Sorry, just on this point again, the explanation that Ofcom gave for delaying the decision and correct me if I'm wrong, your quote that you wanted time to engage with representations we have received throughout the process. That was the explanation given by Ofcom for the extension and the delay to allow you to publish in June, but you've now told the committee that you did not engage with those representations.
10:11
10:11
10:11
10:11
Douglas McAllister
-
-
Douglas McAllister
Did you engage with the audiences during this consultation process? Because to my mind, those over 1000 would be the audience. How did you engage with the audience you asked to continue publication to allow you to engage with representations received. You received over 1100 from individual audience members. You're telling us that you did not make any contact with them. How did you engage with audiences before reaching your decision.
10:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Or reaching our decision? We did a number of engagements directly with a wide range of different organisations from the newsrooms affected. audiences in terms of audiences, we do a large amount of research. The evidence shows us, I mean, if the if the amount of passion felt by this programme was kind of, you know, you would have expected it to have much larger audiences than it does the, the actual the figures show us that that, that that programme has been in decline in terms of audience numbers over the last five years.
The audience numbers have gone down quite significantly. And I think in the last year it was 14%, 14% share. So the in terms of actually this programme wasn't being watched by people. It's audiences have been continually going down over the last five years in line with a lot of public service broadcasting news programmes. We know that audiences are going down and what they're actually doing is they're fragmenting and they're going in different ways.
We engage with audiences very much through a very a lot of research that we do, which continues throughout the year. Glenn mentioned Media Nations was published a couple of weeks ago. We've got our news consumption survey that comes out next week, I think it is, which obviously we can make sure you all have copies of. And it shows us that people are increasingly turning to social media to get their news, and they're getting their news from digital resources.
And that's not just a young people thing, actually. It's also older generations are turning to that as well. And I think it's important if we look at what's happened in the six weeks since the changes were made to these programmes, the audiences have stayed roughly the same. They haven't gone down, they haven't gone up, but they haven't gone down. And the digital video views. So one of the reasons why we made this decision was so that STV would make would be able to make sure they were delivering the news where people are consuming it.
So the digital video views was before these changes was about 64 million a month has now gone up to about 80 million in the last couple of months. So I think it's really important to look at it in the context of in terms of the audience. Yes, the existing audience, obviously there was there was a lot of people who felt very strongly against about these changes, but they weren't watching the programme. The programme's audiences were declining and continued to do so.
Now, that's not because the programme was no good or the content was no good. It's because audience habits are very much changing and we are seeing a fragmentation, and we're seeing it right across all public service broadcasters. People are consuming the news in different ways, and when we made this decision, we were very mindful of the fact that we had called public service broadcasters to make sure they're delivering news in the form that people are getting to it.
I hope that gives you some sort of context in terms of how we engage with audiences in terms of our research, but also the the evidence that the numbers of audiences that were watching the programmes and still are.
The audience numbers have gone down quite significantly. And I think in the last year it was 14%, 14% share. So the in terms of actually this programme wasn't being watched by people. It's audiences have been continually going down over the last five years in line with a lot of public service broadcasting news programmes. We know that audiences are going down and what they're actually doing is they're fragmenting and they're going in different ways.
We engage with audiences very much through a very a lot of research that we do, which continues throughout the year. Glenn mentioned Media Nations was published a couple of weeks ago. We've got our news consumption survey that comes out next week, I think it is, which obviously we can make sure you all have copies of. And it shows us that people are increasingly turning to social media to get their news, and they're getting their news from digital resources.
And that's not just a young people thing, actually. It's also older generations are turning to that as well. And I think it's important if we look at what's happened in the six weeks since the changes were made to these programmes, the audiences have stayed roughly the same. They haven't gone down, they haven't gone up, but they haven't gone down. And the digital video views. So one of the reasons why we made this decision was so that STV would make would be able to make sure they were delivering the news where people are consuming it.
So the digital video views was before these changes was about 64 million a month has now gone up to about 80 million in the last couple of months. So I think it's really important to look at it in the context of in terms of the audience. Yes, the existing audience, obviously there was there was a lot of people who felt very strongly against about these changes, but they weren't watching the programme. The programme's audiences were declining and continued to do so.
Now, that's not because the programme was no good or the content was no good. It's because audience habits are very much changing and we are seeing a fragmentation, and we're seeing it right across all public service broadcasters. People are consuming the news in different ways, and when we made this decision, we were very mindful of the fact that we had called public service broadcasters to make sure they're delivering news in the form that people are getting to it.
I hope that gives you some sort of context in terms of how we engage with audiences in terms of our research, but also the the evidence that the numbers of audiences that were watching the programmes and still are.
10:18
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
We're going to move on to another question, but I'll just make a slight comment, which is that I think you're making quite a sweeping assumption to assume that the 12,300 people who responded were not part of the audience, or were not the audience, I would have thought. they were. Well, you suggested they weren't watching.
10:19
10:19
10:19
10:19
10:19
10:20
Douglas Lumsden
-
-
Douglas Lumsden
Thank you. Thank you, chair. And just in listening that I was looking, you know, 1340 responses, but you're actually seem to be using the data on the sort of audience figures going down to make the decision. So I guess a lot of people will be thinking for the consultation, what's the point? You know, 1340 responses. The vast majority of them were against the changes that were were proposed and the decision's been made anyway.
So I guess for future responses, is there any point in people actually submitting anything at all?
So I guess for future responses, is there any point in people actually submitting anything at all?
10:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Absolutely there is. I think it's important to remember that we, as part of all of this process, we moved STV from the original position, which was what, you know, the, the, the, what we've ended up with is not what they proposed originally. So we were able to use that sentiment. And the, you know, as I said, audience response and people's response to our consultations is really important. But there are some there amongst other factors.
And again, I think it's important to take this perhaps sort of from a again, in context, public service broadcasting, as we've sort of said publicly, is, is struggling financially. Stv's revenue, I think, was published last week, and it's gone down by 27% over the last year. Channel four this morning, all later on today will be announcing a reorganisation , excuse me, in which there are reports that their considerable jobs are going to be going.
The BBC has got another £500 million to to save broadcasting and and and regional and local news and national news is a is public service broadcasting is in a very difficult place. And so we were very mindful that we wanted to make sure that STV continues to to we want it to flourish and to thrive. I don't want to see STV not delivering to audiences at all. And so we had a very careful balance between the sustainability of, of, of public service broadcasting in Scotland and the manner in which it's dealt.
And look, I, I've been in journalism for 35 years. I started in local news. I'm passionate about these. That's why I've come to Ofcom because I want to keep preserving it. And I want people to be able to get an accurate, accurate, impartial news wherever they are. And so I personally believe in that. But the long term sustainability of that service was part of the factor of our decision making.
And again, I think it's important to take this perhaps sort of from a again, in context, public service broadcasting, as we've sort of said publicly, is, is struggling financially. Stv's revenue, I think, was published last week, and it's gone down by 27% over the last year. Channel four this morning, all later on today will be announcing a reorganisation , excuse me, in which there are reports that their considerable jobs are going to be going.
The BBC has got another £500 million to to save broadcasting and and and regional and local news and national news is a is public service broadcasting is in a very difficult place. And so we were very mindful that we wanted to make sure that STV continues to to we want it to flourish and to thrive. I don't want to see STV not delivering to audiences at all. And so we had a very careful balance between the sustainability of, of, of public service broadcasting in Scotland and the manner in which it's dealt.
And look, I, I've been in journalism for 35 years. I started in local news. I'm passionate about these. That's why I've come to Ofcom because I want to keep preserving it. And I want people to be able to get an accurate, accurate, impartial news wherever they are. And so I personally believe in that. But the long term sustainability of that service was part of the factor of our decision making.
10:24
10:25
10:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I just want is it okay if I add just one supplemental point to that? So. I think one of one of the challenges, I guess, was, and that was particularly through the large number that were generated online as well, is there wasn't as much engagement with the actual questions that were in the consultation either. And these broader contextual issues that Christina was just describing as well. So people really kind of countering the evidence that we'd been presenting, that Christina's just kind of articulated.
And what we. I think there's a real concern for us about waiting to kind of point of crisis for having to, to have to act . With STV, the situation is quite difficult for both the STV News at six across central and North, the numbers are quite similar because I think sometimes we think about this only as STV North licence issue. It's not. It's STV North and Central one where we've seen that decline in linear across central Scotland successively over five years with the share.
As Christina said, at 14%, and that's concerning for us and I think we have. We know that the costs of running the news service for STV are always likely to be outweigh the amount of money that they're making. We said that in analysis back to 2022. So it's a very, very precarious position, not just for STV but the other public service broadcasters in the provision of news. And we would not want to be sitting here in a years time, for example, and you saying to us, you've been asleep at the wheel and not been making changes that should have been should have been made.
And what we. I think there's a real concern for us about waiting to kind of point of crisis for having to, to have to act . With STV, the situation is quite difficult for both the STV News at six across central and North, the numbers are quite similar because I think sometimes we think about this only as STV North licence issue. It's not. It's STV North and Central one where we've seen that decline in linear across central Scotland successively over five years with the share.
As Christina said, at 14%, and that's concerning for us and I think we have. We know that the costs of running the news service for STV are always likely to be outweigh the amount of money that they're making. We said that in analysis back to 2022. So it's a very, very precarious position, not just for STV but the other public service broadcasters in the provision of news. And we would not want to be sitting here in a years time, for example, and you saying to us, you've been asleep at the wheel and not been making changes that should have been should have been made.
10:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
But going back to your point about the consultation responses being ignored, the point of a consultation is not just to get people's sentiment, but it's also to to look at the evidence. And I think it was clear that in the consultation responses, nobody had come to come up with different evidence. That kind of changed the story. Nobody was there was no there was sentiment and there was feeling, but there was no actual evidence.
And we have to make decisions based on evidence.
And we have to make decisions based on evidence.
10:29
10:29
10:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
that was currently available? I don't I mean, you would expect me to say that. I think what as I said, if you only judge it through the narrow lens of a 6 p.m. programme. Then you. I wouldn't say it was weaker. I would say that, you know, as. So far they seem to be overindexing on the 30% of bespoke content for that particular area.
But they have. increased their provision of news digitally. So which is which is where people are getting their news from. So, you know, all I want, all I want is for people to get impartial, accurate news where they are consuming it. And yeah, it would be, it would be fantastic if, you know, if they didn't have to make any financial savings and they didn't have to make any, nobody had to make any cuts.
And we could, we could continue. But, you know, people are getting their news in different ways. And this has given STV the ability and I'll be honest. And they we kind of the the work we did with STV was to make sure that they were delivering digital news because they, you know, and I met, you know, I met a very nice woman in Aberdeen who said to me, you know, I'm a journalist. I want to carry on being a journalist.
I don't want to move to Glasgow and I want to be able to I want to be able to deliver news as well as on the linear program. I want to be able to do more digital stuff. She actually said that to me, and that has enabled to do that. So I don't think it's a weaker proposition. I think it's a different proposition. And and I and I wish, you know, I wish STV well, in in continuing to do this, we will be very carefully making sure that they they stick to the requirements that we've given them for this.
And as I said, the numbers speak for themselves. The linear audiences haven't gone down. So people are getting obviously feel it's worth watching and the digital engagement has gone up. So I . Think the
But they have. increased their provision of news digitally. So which is which is where people are getting their news from. So, you know, all I want, all I want is for people to get impartial, accurate news where they are consuming it. And yeah, it would be, it would be fantastic if, you know, if they didn't have to make any financial savings and they didn't have to make any, nobody had to make any cuts.
And we could, we could continue. But, you know, people are getting their news in different ways. And this has given STV the ability and I'll be honest. And they we kind of the the work we did with STV was to make sure that they were delivering digital news because they, you know, and I met, you know, I met a very nice woman in Aberdeen who said to me, you know, I'm a journalist. I want to carry on being a journalist.
I don't want to move to Glasgow and I want to be able to I want to be able to deliver news as well as on the linear program. I want to be able to do more digital stuff. She actually said that to me, and that has enabled to do that. So I don't think it's a weaker proposition. I think it's a different proposition. And and I and I wish, you know, I wish STV well, in in continuing to do this, we will be very carefully making sure that they they stick to the requirements that we've given them for this.
And as I said, the numbers speak for themselves. The linear audiences haven't gone down. So people are getting obviously feel it's worth watching and the digital engagement has gone up. So I . Think the
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:35
10:35
10:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think, in terms of engagement. I mean, we went to . we we gave evidence in Holyrood. When was that? January. In January. I've been since the public since the decision was published. I've been to meet the culture minister in Holyrood to kind of try and explain and unpack a bit of the thinking behind it and kind of, as I said, give a bit more . Context
10:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
to the decision we'd made. And we we did also have quite extensive engagement with the previous culture Secretary and the Scottish Government prior to the election period. So I think Christina met with our chief executive and ourselves had met them. We meet Scottish Government officials regularly just to kind of talk through what we're proposing to do. As Christina was mentioning earlier, ahead of or during the consultation period.
Actually, we were in Dundee, we were in Aberdeen. We were particularly. interested to hear from Stv's own staff. So we saw the newsroom in Dundee. Christina and other colleagues saw the newsroom in Aberdeen and there was engagement actually online, not in person with the newsroom that's in Inverness. And it's worth saying about that, that the licence obligations that STV are under now, post the changes that we announced in June, still require that kind of regional diversification.
Actually, we were in Dundee, we were in Aberdeen. We were particularly. interested to hear from Stv's own staff. So we saw the newsroom in Dundee. Christina and other colleagues saw the newsroom in Aberdeen and there was engagement actually online, not in person with the newsroom that's in Inverness. And it's worth saying about that, that the licence obligations that STV are under now, post the changes that we announced in June, still require that kind of regional diversification.
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
political spectrum? I mean, I accept that is a decision that. politically people, people haven't supported. And as you know, as was said to me when I was in Edinburgh a few weeks ago, it was a decision that we've made that that people don't agree with. The decision was made because I think it's really, really important that that STV is able to continue to.
10:37
10:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Frankly, and I think it's really important that Scottish audiences have a. commercial PSB as well as as well as the BBC. And I think it's really important that, you know, ITV, which STV isn't a part of, but ITV feels it can't survive. Well, it wants to. It wants to be bought by Sky. I wouldn't be able to do everything I can to, to ensure the long term.
existence of STV and its provision of news to. audiences right across Scotland, wherever they are and whoever they are and however they consume their news. So it was maybe it was a.
existence of STV and its provision of news to. audiences right across Scotland, wherever they are and whoever they are and however they consume their news. So it was maybe it was a.
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
Angus MacDonald
-
-
Angus MacDonald
I very much hope so. Complimentary for Angus MacDonald. Mr. president, can I ask a specific question? I would say that. centralisation of. services and providing less good services for people in rural Scotland is my number one issue. I am I got a memo yesterday from somebody in the BBC two outlining the cuts of in in Inverness and , and and and Stornoway.
I don't know if you know about that, but my concern reading this and hearing about the BBC is that we are seeing a. centralisation of news. services which. disadvantaged the Highlands. And just as a little amendment to that, and you may know better than me, but I believe that Westminster government gives funding to the regional press in England. But that same funding or any funding is not available in Scotland, which would.
I don't know if you know about that, but my concern reading this and hearing about the BBC is that we are seeing a. centralisation of news. services which. disadvantaged the Highlands. And just as a little amendment to that, and you may know better than me, but I believe that Westminster government gives funding to the regional press in England. But that same funding or any funding is not available in Scotland, which would.
10:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Disadvantage rural press. Do you have any comment on those two things? I would say sorry, I'll go first. I would say that obviously questions of funding from Westminster government are for Westminster government, not for us. I think in terms we know, I don't know the details of the BBC cuts. I. We haven't had them communicated to us, but as I said, the BBC has got has said it's got.
£500 million worth of cuts to make. I think it's very important. You know, you you talk about the centralisation. I wouldn't necessarily say that was what's happened with STV, because, yes, the production of the programme has gone to one place in Glasgow, but the.
£500 million worth of cuts to make. I think it's very important. You know, you you talk about the centralisation. I wouldn't necessarily say that was what's happened with STV, because, yes, the production of the programme has gone to one place in Glasgow, but the.
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Whether it's in an Instagram post or whether it's a package for for the 6:00 news. They're still there. They're not being centralised. They're not. You know, STV hasn't to my knowledge. And I, I think I would be aware of this. They haven't said right. The Inverness Aberdeen newsroom is open. It's still there. The people are still working in it.
They're just delivering in a different way. So I wouldn't say so. Yes, the production has been.
They're just delivering in a different way. So I wouldn't say so. Yes, the production has been.
10:38
10:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The sort of physical place where the programme is transmitted from. But but the actual content that's going into that hasn't been necessarily I wouldn't characterize it as centralisation. In terms of your question about the BBC, I mean, that's a question for the BBC. I don't know what their long term plans are. There's been speculation in the press that I've . Read about, but
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
issue. If they reduce their staff significantly, that's also an issue for you. I would it would have to be would have to be a regulatory process in any of these things, I'm sure. And we would take it, you know, we would we would look at it as we do all of these things. I don't really want to speculate on something that hasn't actually come to us yet as to but, you know, the closure, the removal of news.
You know, I think journalism is more important now than it ever has been. So the the amount of people doing . The
You know, I think journalism is more important now than it ever has been. So the the amount of people doing . The
10:39
10:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
difficult thing. Thank you. Chair, is it okay? Just one if I had one quick supplement on it is STV specific, but I think it does go to your point about centralisation. I was watching I watched North and Central last night and both both editions of it last night, just to get a feel for ahead of coming today. What what it was looking and feeling like these just few weeks after since since they've made the changes.
And I mean, there were there were two stories in particular on the mail inquiry and on spaceport funding for Sexy Fjord announced, which were run from from both through both licences. So you could see that in central last night as well as you could see it in the north. It was incredibly high quality journalism, I think, as I understand it done , from the staff that are in the North Region, but presented across the whole of Scotland because of the kind of national interest.
And then when they went to do some of the more local stuff, again, some brilliant quality journalism done from the North that was specific. In that case, I think it was to Dundee on one of the stories, but which had broader application because it was about, ironically, the use of AI in the creative sector. So the evidence at the moment, and I get that it's not been long. So, you know, I think that we're going to have to be assessing kind of STV are performing over the course of the next year is positive.
And it is important to emphasise that kind of quite quick shift that we've seen to digital news that Christina mentioned. So STV seem to be. overindexing on the kind of regional news online, with more people engaging with their regional news. online year on year .
And I mean, there were there were two stories in particular on the mail inquiry and on spaceport funding for Sexy Fjord announced, which were run from from both through both licences. So you could see that in central last night as well as you could see it in the north. It was incredibly high quality journalism, I think, as I understand it done , from the staff that are in the North Region, but presented across the whole of Scotland because of the kind of national interest.
And then when they went to do some of the more local stuff, again, some brilliant quality journalism done from the North that was specific. In that case, I think it was to Dundee on one of the stories, but which had broader application because it was about, ironically, the use of AI in the creative sector. So the evidence at the moment, and I get that it's not been long. So, you know, I think that we're going to have to be assessing kind of STV are performing over the course of the next year is positive.
And it is important to emphasise that kind of quite quick shift that we've seen to digital news that Christina mentioned. So STV seem to be. overindexing on the kind of regional news online, with more people engaging with their regional news. online year on year .
10:39
10:39
10:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Regional news actually having more eyeballs on it than it has had previously. And that's and that's, that's really what we that's what Ofcom wants to see. We want people to get access to accurate, impartial, trusted news. We know that people who engage with their local and regional news and their you know, their their nations news have stronger links to to. democracy and feel more supportive of their institutions.
And in a world where people and it's nothing, nothing. I'm not I'm not being negative about people who don't get . Don't watch regional news anymore, don't watch a 6:00 programme anymore. For whatever reason, the ability of them to get that news wherever they are consuming, it is really important. And that's what this decision has done. And as I said, the, the the evidence so far and it is early days, but we made it very clear to STV, didn't we.
We would be really on on them at at this, you know the viewing figures haven't gone down for those programmes. They've stayed the same and more people or more content is being. consumed of high . Quality
And in a world where people and it's nothing, nothing. I'm not I'm not being negative about people who don't get . Don't watch regional news anymore, don't watch a 6:00 programme anymore. For whatever reason, the ability of them to get that news wherever they are consuming, it is really important. And that's what this decision has done. And as I said, the, the the evidence so far and it is early days, but we made it very clear to STV, didn't we.
We would be really on on them at at this, you know the viewing figures haven't gone down for those programmes. They've stayed the same and more people or more content is being. consumed of high . Quality
10:39
10:39
Dave Doogan
-
-
Dave Doogan
different format. Yes. Thank you chair, thank you. I'm concerned with two things. I'm concerned that with a consultation whereby the Public sector broadcasting licence was issued to STV on the basis that they provided this service. They've come to you and said, we can no longer provide this service. And you say, well, we'll need to have a consultation in order to find out how we go forward.
And everybody, the entire political spectrum in Scotland and very little unites them, is, is against this. Everybody who's affected by it is against this. And incidentally, if your job moves 150 miles away from where you live, it might not say compulsory redundancy on your letter, but it is in effect, compulsory redundancy. Everybody who works there was against it, and everybody or the vast majority of people who responded to your consultation was against it, and yet it went ahead anyway.
So if something similar was to happen to a region in a broadcast region in England, what would be the point of engaging with Ofcom's consultation?
And everybody, the entire political spectrum in Scotland and very little unites them, is, is against this. Everybody who's affected by it is against this. And incidentally, if your job moves 150 miles away from where you live, it might not say compulsory redundancy on your letter, but it is in effect, compulsory redundancy. Everybody who works there was against it, and everybody or the vast majority of people who responded to your consultation was against it, and yet it went ahead anyway.
So if something similar was to happen to a region in a broadcast region in England, what would be the point of engaging with Ofcom's consultation?
10:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Because you're just going to do what the broadcaster says anyway? Well, I think it's really important to make the point that in this first case, in this particular case, we did not do what the broadcasters initially suggested. We did not. We there was an original submission from STV and we told them that we would not approve it. And where we landed has actually given more than they originally proposed.
So again, there is evidence to show because we're evidence based, but we we don't do what the broadcasters tell us to do automatically. Absolutely not. And yeah, I would would I be surprised if if if somebody if one of, you know, if ITV decide to kind of come and ask us and they will and I and I expect people to again, we don't ignore the consultations.
We look for new evidence. That's the point of consultation is to look at new evidence for people to bring up some evidence that we haven't perhaps perhaps. considered or weren't aware of. And so, you know, I would say to.
So again, there is evidence to show because we're evidence based, but we we don't do what the broadcasters tell us to do automatically. Absolutely not. And yeah, I would would I be surprised if if if somebody if one of, you know, if ITV decide to kind of come and ask us and they will and I and I expect people to again, we don't ignore the consultations.
We look for new evidence. That's the point of consultation is to look at new evidence for people to bring up some evidence that we haven't perhaps perhaps. considered or weren't aware of. And so, you know, I would say to.
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
different evidence. What could I sorry, I mean, a couple of points surely. One, you talked about the kind of financial. situation and we. So we did. We have to do this under statute. We did an assessment of the kind of. sustainability of the news provisions for for the channel three licence holders back in 2020, 2022. Sorry. And even at that point, we thought that would likely result in a net cost for STV.
Now that has come to pass. And if anything, that net net cost has been higher, as we've seen programming costs go up over the course of the last few years. So that's a driver for them to come to us and say, actually, you already recognize this was going to come at a net cost to us. That's coming at a greater net cost. That's why we want to talk about.
changing the obligations in the licence. It is it's really important to stress that when they and we've published both of these, when they sent us the first case for change, what they were proposing was. 100% worth of sharing. So there would be no sort of regional distinction at all between the North and Central licences. Now we don't we could not read the licences in that way.
So we went back to them and explicitly said, that isn't going to work with your licence commitments. You need to come up with an alternative that still allows us to see that regional distinction between the two, the two places, and they have done that, and certainly the early signs are that they've done it to to a good standard. One of the other things about the consultation responses that were and we've touched on this, I guess, in some of the other questions that people were specific about was that.
requirement to have journalistic. resource still located in those particular places in the North licence, so in Inverness and Aberdeen and Dundee, and that is a licence obligation for STV as well. So that has been .
Now that has come to pass. And if anything, that net net cost has been higher, as we've seen programming costs go up over the course of the last few years. So that's a driver for them to come to us and say, actually, you already recognize this was going to come at a net cost to us. That's coming at a greater net cost. That's why we want to talk about.
changing the obligations in the licence. It is it's really important to stress that when they and we've published both of these, when they sent us the first case for change, what they were proposing was. 100% worth of sharing. So there would be no sort of regional distinction at all between the North and Central licences. Now we don't we could not read the licences in that way.
So we went back to them and explicitly said, that isn't going to work with your licence commitments. You need to come up with an alternative that still allows us to see that regional distinction between the two, the two places, and they have done that, and certainly the early signs are that they've done it to to a good standard. One of the other things about the consultation responses that were and we've touched on this, I guess, in some of the other questions that people were specific about was that.
requirement to have journalistic. resource still located in those particular places in the North licence, so in Inverness and Aberdeen and Dundee, and that is a licence obligation for STV as well. So that has been .
10:41
10:41
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
Relocated unless they particularly asked. I suspect I'm going to move on to something else, but can I just leave you with a point that perhaps you can come back to before the end of this session? And that is if you're. expecting people to take part in the consultation, you're going to expect that to be predominantly members of the public, I would imagine. How does Ofcom expect members of the public to come up with.
evidence that is new, and that counters the evidence given to you by a large broadcaster? I'll just leave you to think about that one till the end of . The meeting
evidence that is new, and that counters the evidence given to you by a large broadcaster? I'll just leave you to think about that one till the end of . The meeting
10:41
10:41
10:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
proposals. I think yeah, yeah. I think the public it's published. So both of these were they were we actually they actually. published or sorry they sent to us the the initial submission and suggestion for I think I've just mentioned this 100% of new sharing in the middle of October last year. We weren't happy that that would mean that we were compliant with the licences.
So we asked them to rethink it. And then they came back to us in November. And then when we published the. consultation in.
So we asked them to rethink it. And then they came back to us in November. And then when we published the. consultation in.
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Increasing delivery on digital news. And the one other the one other point I would make about this, and I don't this is a kind of recency bias thing because I was watching the North and central stuff last night. But what that doesn't stop them from doing is having stories from the North that might be of national interest or particular interest to people in Scotland from being used on the central programme as well.
And the two examples that I just gave you on inquiry and the the Saxavord spaceport funding last night, are a really good example of the type of content that we are seeing. That is both particular to the north, but which also . Has that
And the two examples that I just gave you on inquiry and the the Saxavord spaceport funding last night, are a really good example of the type of content that we are seeing. That is both particular to the north, but which also . Has that
10:42
10:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
With STV to come up with a revised set of proposals? No, we we did talk to them about the first thing that they submitted to us and said, we want you to go away and think, you know, internally within STV about what it is you think would actually meet the obligations in the licence, which require that regional distinction. And then they came back to us . In
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
suggest anything that they should include within their proposals. Well, what what what we said was that when they submitted to us the first one, I say all of this is publicly available to you, was that it did not meet the obligations that are in their licence around that regional distinctive distinctiveness. So we need we need you to go back and come to us with a. proposition that. specifically demonstrates that you're able to still do things that are particular to the central region and to the north region, and that's what they did.
But that internal process for them, because it's a kind of editorial choice about the way in which you deliver news and is not for us as the regulator. They worked on themselves and . Came back to us
But that internal process for them, because it's a kind of editorial choice about the way in which you deliver news and is not for us as the regulator. They worked on themselves and . Came back to us
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
approve the revised proposals? So the yeah, the consultation that we put out had a had a minded to approve proposal in it. Yes. Because predominantly because it met the conditions that were in the licence for that regional distinctiveness that I was talking about. And then we were getting these additional.
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
consultation when the consultation went out. Yeah, that's I mean that's common for Ofcom across all different types of consultation that we do to give people a steer on what we're thinking in relation to the evidence. And then, as Christina says, if we are getting evidence and we may come back to your question, chair, about . That,
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
to the Scottish Parliament during the consultation process? The same way. So the consultation had been published prior to our evidence session in Holyrood in January. So they had that kind of published consultation that included the minded to approve proposal, plus the two STV submissions that had been sent to us in October and November.
10:43
Douglas Lumsden
-
-
Douglas Lumsden
Thank you, Chair Lumsden. Yeah, thank you chair. I'm just going to look at the timescales a little bit. about some of this decision making. So Ofcom renewed all 50 licences for a ten year term starting the 1st of January 2025. STV were amongst that. And then just a few months later, nine months, ten months. They're asking for that to be looked at again in trying to change the terms of that licence, Ofcom feel a bit duped that STV signed up to that and then were almost.
10:43
10:43
10:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
the licence, tried to change things. I wouldn't characterize it as duped. I think that there was a lot of talk from them about, about. I think what the timescale was. There was there was conversations from them before we got actually the firm proposal from them that they wanted to various licence. There was talk of. There had been that. But that wasn't that was well before the the well, after the licence had been agreed by us, I think it's I mean, I don't think we ever wanted to turn around and go, we're not going to grant this licence because we don't think that, you know, you're financially sustainable.
And so we were, you know, we were we were at the time, we were happy that STV had the finances to continue delivering on the licence obligations that they had. I think that the changes in audience and the things that we've mentioned have probably moved faster than we thought. I think for Stv's. financial position has changed quite considerably quite recently, actually. That's been a recent thing. You know more about the timescale of the actual .
Awarding the
And so we were, you know, we were we were at the time, we were happy that STV had the finances to continue delivering on the licence obligations that they had. I think that the changes in audience and the things that we've mentioned have probably moved faster than we thought. I think for Stv's. financial position has changed quite considerably quite recently, actually. That's been a recent thing. You know more about the timescale of the actual .
Awarding the
10:43
10:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
decision was made before the licence quite before several years. So I did refer to this, but it is probably worth. repeating in answer to your question. So we. So there's a statutory obligation on Ofcom. before the ten year licence period ends to give advice to the UK government about the. sustainability of the.
10:43
10:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
You know, and then the UK government has to kind of make decisions about what the kind of whether the framework needs to be changed. That process went back to 2122. So we did the financial. sustainability testing, which I've mentioned, already identified that there were likely to be net costs for STV in running their two licences in. Scotland in.
10:43
10:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And that was the basis on which the the Secretary of State made the decision that the licence would be renewed on the same terms and. But what it meant was that there was three and a half or four years, nearly three years, actually three and a half years, I think, between when we'd done the original financial assessment, the Secretary of State's decision, and then the issuing of the new ten year licence. And as Christina says, the picture changed quite dramatically during that period of time, including the kind of costs of production, for example, including the cost of production for news going up quite dramatically, I think higher even than we or even some of the.
broadcasters had thought they would. So the part of the case for STV that STV brought to us was that those likely net costs that we had identified 3 or 4 years before were actually higher still, and that was very difficult for them to be able to deliver a sustainable news service as a consequence. The other thing I would say is there is there is nothing to stop any broadcaster, whether it's STV, whether it's ITV or the BBC coming to us at any point to say we would like to change conditions in our licence.
because it might be a financial .
broadcasters had thought they would. So the part of the case for STV that STV brought to us was that those likely net costs that we had identified 3 or 4 years before were actually higher still, and that was very difficult for them to be able to deliver a sustainable news service as a consequence. The other thing I would say is there is there is nothing to stop any broadcaster, whether it's STV, whether it's ITV or the BBC coming to us at any point to say we would like to change conditions in our licence.
because it might be a financial .
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
What they're going to deliver obviously has been has would have been changed. Well I think I think this is this is the the the sort of important point about the process is we, we give advice to the UK government or Secretary of State about the sustainability of the licence, and they have to make the decision about whether or not there should be. changes to the terms of licence for channel three. operators and. But that dates back 3 or 4 years prior to STV coming to us to talk about these changes.
So we can only issue reissue the licence on the basis that's been agreed by following the advice we have given to the Secretary of State. So there's no there's no kind of option, I . Guess, to go
So we can only issue reissue the licence on the basis that's been agreed by following the advice we have given to the Secretary of State. So there's no there's no kind of option, I . Guess, to go
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
Douglas Lumsden
-
-
Douglas Lumsden
and potentially ask for changes to to their licences. So it's only STV because I'm hit by when the were granted the licence we. Well, this is what STV said. We welcome the renewal of their licence, which provides us with a certainty to continue to invest in our business for the long term while ensuring continued delivery of valued public service broadcasting. And then a few months later they want to renege on the licence.
10:44
10:44
Angus MacDonald
-
-
Angus MacDonald
Thank you. Okay. Angus MacDonald. And this will be quite a quick question because we have covered a large extent. We're less than halfway through our list of questions. But STV will maintain newsgathering resources across all its bases, which we've discussed. And what do you think that means in practice? Do you know how many journalists they had and how many they do have now? For example, and coming back to the BBC one again, do you have an idea of how many journalists they have?
10:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And, you know, do you keep do you keep a track of journalists? It's not really about well, it's about I mean, having. experienced a huge changes in journalism myself when I first started in local news to go out and do a story for TV, there would be four of you, sometimes five. Now, very often a regional news. organisation will send one person to do all of it. So the numbers of. people have really changed as technology has changed, whether that's good or bad.
You know, I go into but the ability, the creation of journalism has has become much more efficient. So I don't know if it's if it's about sort of hard numbers. And as far as I'm aware, as I said, there were no compulsory. redundancies in in STV North . And the same number of journalists. Again, journalism is, is, is, you know, is the person who operates the vision mixer in the gallery, in the production gallery. Journalist in pure terms, no, because they're not, you know, they're not going out and telling people's stories.
But as I understand it from the in terms of the numbers of. journalists going . Out and
You know, I go into but the ability, the creation of journalism has has become much more efficient. So I don't know if it's if it's about sort of hard numbers. And as far as I'm aware, as I said, there were no compulsory. redundancies in in STV North . And the same number of journalists. Again, journalism is, is, is, you know, is the person who operates the vision mixer in the gallery, in the production gallery. Journalist in pure terms, no, because they're not, you know, they're not going out and telling people's stories.
But as I understand it from the in terms of the numbers of. journalists going . Out and
10:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
doing. newsgathering and telling stories, that hasn't changed. I mean, can I maybe just add one other one other thing? So, I mean, we don't the answer to your question about do we kind of track numbers of journalists as we don't track numbers of journalists? We see that as a kind of strategic or. editorial choice for the broadcasters themselves to decide who they need to have where, albeit with the STV, we have provisions in the licence that requires them to have journalistic resource, but the decision about what the shape of that looks like and the numbers of people, I think is rightly for them.
I certainly don't think we want it to be a kind of regulatory choice for a commercial business. They did, they announced STV. announced the total number of jobs that they were looking to reduce as part of their wider savings.
I certainly don't think we want it to be a kind of regulatory choice for a commercial business. They did, they announced STV. announced the total number of jobs that they were looking to reduce as part of their wider savings.
10:45
10:45
10:45
Angus MacDonald
-
-
Angus MacDonald
news journalists were of that 60. It was certainly a smaller proportion, as I understand it. You can you can see where I'm coming from. I'm worried that the North is losing or North and West is losing its journalists. And I was also I touched on the fact that Westminster is giving money to help the regional.
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
the answer about the kind of funding. Funding might be more devolved to the Scottish Government. One would have thought potentially. But the one the one thing that we do know about and there has been is through the BBC. You probably know this, Mr. MacDonald, is that they had a pot for local democracy. reporters that was essentially funded through the BBC, who did have numbers of people. And the whole point of this was a kind of regional. representation .
Piece, who
Piece, who
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That it was possible that they would be affected detrimentally affected by having less local news available on the linear STV news at six service. What we countered that with was the actually increasing. availability of things like fixed. broadband and fixed wireless broadband and so on, where it's possible for people to be able to then access regional news, for example, digitally and online. And some of the early evidence that we're seeing from STV over the course of the last couple of months is that even those older audiences are beginning to shift to be able to access regional news online as well.
But I think we need to continue to . Look at
But I think we need to continue to . Look at
10:46
10:46
10:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
that. But if you're saying that you're going forward with that to give that support. Yeah, I think it's when it bleeds into a wider conversation about other things that Ofcom is responsible for, about trying to promote, for example, more competition and more. availability and take up of, of internet.
10:46
10:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
that's through fixed broadband, mobile, satellite and so on. The numbers we publish these actually specifically for Scotland separately and very happy to share them with the committee if it would be useful to do so. There's a there's a positive upward trajectory here. And then you do begin to see as a consequence that that audience behaviour change in older audiences now beginning to access more news content and actually other content online. So it does look like it's travelling in the right direction.
But I think you're right to ask the question that we do need to continue to look at it and make sure that we're not got a group of . People, whether
But I think you're right to ask the question that we do need to continue to look at it and make sure that we're not got a group of . People, whether
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The financial pressures are hard on all these public service broadcasters. And, you know, I. ITV is in discussions with Sky to to be have half of its business bought by Sky because it feels that will be more sustainable like that. As I said, the BBC is facing big cuts. Channel four is cutting some of its some of its roles as well. So are they an outlier? I don't know, I don't know, we haven't had any other proposals.
No one else has come to us yet in the past. The BBC has asked for various operating licence changes, but I don't I'm I, I think I think at the moment ITV is is obviously focused on on the acquisition. So I don't know what their plans are for the future, but . I
No one else has come to us yet in the past. The BBC has asked for various operating licence changes, but I don't I'm I, I think I think at the moment ITV is is obviously focused on on the acquisition. So I don't know what their plans are for the future, but . I
10:47
10:47
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I understand those pressures, but I'm confused why it's only STV that's keen to change that. So we certainly haven't. So ITV are obviously the holders of the channel three licences across the rest of the UK, including in Northern Ireland and Wales, for example. I mean, Christina mentioned the BBC, we have made licence changes for the BBC, specifically in relation to their news provision in Scotland over the last 2 or 3 years. So you will know, I think, that they had that kind of centrepiece.
9:00 news that they were showing on the BBC Scotland Service , and they came to us because it wasn't getting the audiences that they had hoped it would get and asked to do. 7:00 half hour to reduce the amount of news that was on that service, and we agreed to to that as well. So there is . An
9:00 news that they were showing on the BBC Scotland Service , and they came to us because it wasn't getting the audiences that they had hoped it would get and asked to do. 7:00 half hour to reduce the amount of news that was on that service, and we agreed to to that as well. So there is . An
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Further local news content. I can't imagine a. situation where we would. Well, I can certainly say we wouldn't accept a proposal without very serious consideration. Consultation . , evidence from stakeholders. I don't ever want to say never, but and, you know, they have the right to come back to us at any point. As I said, they could turn around next week and say, we don't want to have a licence to the north anymore, handing it back.
So and we can't prevent that. So I can't say that I can't sit here categorically and say, we won't accept anything they propose to us, but I really hope they don't. And again, the reason why we made the decision we did, and we ended up with them doing more than they originally wanted to do, was to make sure that they're sustainable and able to continue to deliver for audiences across Scotland. and in whatever .
Manner that
So and we can't prevent that. So I can't say that I can't sit here categorically and say, we won't accept anything they propose to us, but I really hope they don't. And again, the reason why we made the decision we did, and we ended up with them doing more than they originally wanted to do, was to make sure that they're sustainable and able to continue to deliver for audiences across Scotland. and in whatever .
Manner that
10:48
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
Both points have been covered already in previous answers. So the next question will be from me then. So. We know that viewing habits are changing. And we've we've referenced that already. Is there a risk that an increased focus on digital news could. disadvantage some viewers? You mentioned earlier that you you have evidence that older people are beginning to catch up. Perhaps, but technology continues to move on.
So, you know, can that be considered . To be
So, you know, can that be considered . To be
10:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
something that's. problematic for you going forward? Look, at the end of the day, we're here to make sure that all. audiences get the content that they need and want. And so, you know, and, and across the Ofcom remit, you know, we're seeing obviously changes in the way delivery is. Way content is delivered. And, you know, we don't want to leave any audiences behind. There is a there there is a risk.
I suppose there is a risk for people who don't, you know, who don't want to. We need to make we need to make sure that the people who do not get their news from social media, the 20% of the population that doesn't are catered for and supplied with good quality information. And so we're very . Cognizant of
I suppose there is a risk for people who don't, you know, who don't want to. We need to make we need to make sure that the people who do not get their news from social media, the 20% of the population that doesn't are catered for and supplied with good quality information. And so we're very . Cognizant of
10:50
10:50
10:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Exclusively get their content from the news? I think it's the I think I'm going back to our research figures, which show that 80% of people get their news mainly from social media. So one assumes the other. 20% don't. That's my explanation of that. I think most people, a lot of people do get get it from both. But as, as the as the numbers show, fewer and fewer people are .
Choosing to
Choosing to
10:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
watch, choosing to watch a news program. I think the other the other thing to acknowledge is the current consultation by the UK government on its Green Paper, which actually covers your. Specifically, I think your question in quite a lot of detail. So I think I think there are some. decisions then for the UK government that that might manifest in our regulatory duties about, you know, prominence of public service broadcast news on particular platforms, for example, which .
Might be
Might be
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:52
10:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
watching it than were five years ago. That hasn't changed. Yeah, that audience share point is quite important. I think, as you rightly say, it's the percentage of the percentage. suggests that the numbers watching it could be higher. They've not they've been declining year on year successively over five, possibly even slightly more than five years now. Yeah.
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Did you look at the mix? I think for the purposes of this decision, it's about actually stv's licence. obligations and and stv's news provision, rather than balancing out with other other organizations. There are lots of very good. organisations in Scotland provide news. I don't think we unless unless I misunderstood that. I think we factored in. Well, I mean, because the BBC does doesn't do separate programmes, does it? It does.
It does one program. So we didn't we didn't sort of . We didn't
It does one program. So we didn't we didn't sort of . We didn't
10:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
necessarily use that as as evidence when we came to making this decision. Yeah, I think, I mean, the other important thing is the, the STV commitment was also that they would be pushing more regional news to the digital platforms where their audiences were going to be watching, were going to be watching or viewing or being able to access it. And Christina mentioned the fact that they, we asked them to come back with a much more kind of well thought through digital strategy for how they would deal with this, making sure that there was still that kind of regional news provision that was available to people, not just in the North, but in the in the central licence region as well.
And there is some evidence now that that is working. We are we are starting to see and it's too .
And there is some evidence now that that is working. We are we are starting to see and it's too .
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Six weeks, I think, when they formally. started the news sharing provisions. But there are. encouraging early. signs that regional news is is performing better for them than it ever has done. And we want to see that trend to continue. But and we will report against that when we when they reach the licence at the . End of
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:55
10:55
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So there is a wider context here. Would you agree? There is. And we you know, we we recognise that in the consultation for STV. And then, you know. yesterday I think we did an update on something called transmission Critical Work, which is looking at the. sustainability of public service broadcasters and public service media more generally, which which absolutely do highlight the sorts of issues that you've just asked about as well.
So it's as, as a kind of as an exercise, we are required to consider stv's licence changes against the obligations that they've got. But it's not the only piece of work we've got going on. There's all sorts of other work that we're doing and the government is doing. For example, in the Green Paper that I've already mentioned, that might result in further legislative . Changes that
So it's as, as a kind of as an exercise, we are required to consider stv's licence changes against the obligations that they've got. But it's not the only piece of work we've got going on. There's all sorts of other work that we're doing and the government is doing. For example, in the Green Paper that I've already mentioned, that might result in further legislative . Changes that
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
sustainably provide news and regional news and high quality in the in this wider context of the kind of really serious financial headwinds, for example, that they are, they are facing. And I think we've reached a balanced. position that still requires them to have distinctive news in the two licence areas that still requires them to have journalistic resource in those areas as well, but which gives them sufficient kind of financial headroom . So that
10:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
they can sustainably continue to function in the next few years. I think another point, and I don't know whether this helps in this or not, but I think I remember we were. discussing the differences. We were quite surprised that the audience behaviour, the audiences for the northern programme and for the central programme were not hugely different. So we kind of I kind of, I sort of sort of naively assumed that actually, you know, with the audience be much bigger in the, in, in one or other.
And actually there were very they were very similar, weren't they? So there was, there was there's the proportion of. people in sort of in the, in the northern belt who are watching that programme wasn't very different from the proportion of people who were watching it in the central . Belt,
And actually there were very they were very similar, weren't they? So there was, there was there's the proportion of. people in sort of in the, in the northern belt who are watching that programme wasn't very different from the proportion of people who were watching it in the central . Belt,
10:57
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Decision to approve the changes? I think it is important. You know, I think public service broadcasters, we've said this publicly in our transmission critical report last year. People need to, you know, these broadcasters need to take take news content, in particular public service broadcasting content to where audiences are. So I don't know, you know, I've worked in a number of newsrooms over the last few years, and all of them had digital. strategies and were pivoting to become digital first newsrooms.
And so I think, I think it was really important that STV were having a sort of a clearer path to, to making sure that digital news was available . To
And so I think, I think it was really important that STV were having a sort of a clearer path to, to making sure that digital news was available . To
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Television news? To what extent they are, but they are, but they are. But but but the digital content is locally produced. The you know, the journalist who so, you know, the journalist who was making a piece for the audience of the 6:00 news was the same person and is the same person that is. producing the Instagram reel or the written content. So it is still being locally produced. It's still locally produced journalism.
It's still telling people stories from the. areas in which they are and where they're based.
It's still telling people stories from the. areas in which they are and where they're based.
11:00
Douglas Lumsden
-
-
Douglas Lumsden
Douglas Lumsden, thank you, chair. You know someone who lives in Aberdeen? I missed the STV North news. programme and I knew many of the the SNP North team . And something that really sticks in their throat is that there's been changes. It sounds like STV has been pleading poverty and that's why they can't, you know, they can't produce the regional news that they've done in the past. But at the same time they're seeing half a million spent for STV to set up a radio station, for example.
And you know that rightly they feel quite hacked off by that. So did you work with STV to look at other ways where they could save money.
And you know that rightly they feel quite hacked off by that. So did you work with STV to look at other ways where they could save money.
11:01
11:01
11:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
is is down to them in terms of, you know, it's not really it's part of the licence. No part. But but in terms of the broader thing, you know, they've created a radio station which wasn't terribly expensive to do and it's doing quite well. So people are getting news in a different way from that. We don't we don't have a we don't sit down with any organisation. We don't have. I mean, I would want to, as a regulator, be involved in working out how they finance things.
That's
That's
11:01
11:01
11:01
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
that obligation you've allowed them but you've allowed them to break. We've allowed them we've allowed them to change the way some of the content is, is yeah, we've allowed them to change the way they deliver their news at. 6:00 on weekdays, again, at weekends. They've been sharing content for, for many years. So, so what, what we've allowed was, well, originally was it was they wanted to just do it across the entire week and have completely shared content.
But what we've, what we've landed at is some bespoke content on a Monday to Friday when there isn't any at weekends. So we haven't stopped them doing regional news. We've stopped them. We've allowed them to deliver it in a different way and to vary the licence in that respect.
But what we've, what we've landed at is some bespoke content on a Monday to Friday when there isn't any at weekends. So we haven't stopped them doing regional news. We've stopped them. We've allowed them to deliver it in a different way and to vary the licence in that respect.
11:02
11:02
11:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
We're not saying to them, you can do whatever you want, and it's quite important just to pick up on the point that you just made around. We're going to spend, you know, half a million, wasn't it, that they said on the on the creation of the new radio station? And then you said, we're not we're going to stop spending money on news. That's not the conversation that we have with any broadcaster. We don't say you have to spend this amount on the production of news.
What we say is these are the licence conditions that require you. Yeah, exactly.
What we say is these are the licence conditions that require you. Yeah, exactly.
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It seemed the. It seems the. The overall. Yes, they have a financial challenge and the cost of news is going up. How they how they whether they start a different service. And that does deliver news on the radio. And it's doing quite well . Whether that's you know, that was that was a proposal that they wanted to do that that didn't come to us for for regulatory approval.
How as as Glenn said, how they spend their money and, and is is entirely up to them. I don't think that the if they hadn't done the radio station, would it have would it have. basically enabled them to, to,
How as as Glenn said, how they spend their money and, and is is entirely up to them. I don't think that the if they hadn't done the radio station, would it have would it have. basically enabled them to, to,
11:05
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
that they agreed to just a year beforehand. Yeah, no, I understand, I understand the point you're making. I think what we're saying over the longer term is that, you know, the cost of news was going up quite dramatically for them. And the way in which people are consuming it is completely different. And it is it was reasonable for them to come to us and say, we think that we're going to have to change the provision of our news as a .
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:08
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, I think I mean, my job is not not to let them. Yeah. I think if you look at I mean, I mentioned this already, I mean , the STV savings program or efficiencies programme was across the entirety of the business. I don't think it was unique to news. I think there was areas of studios and other operations. The, the I think the total number of jobs that was due to go over the business was 60.
I don't know what the final number is, but the smaller proportion of that, as I understand it, was from news. So other bits of the business were cut . More
I don't know what the final number is, but the smaller proportion of that, as I understand it, was from news. So other bits of the business were cut . More
11:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
significantly than the news provision. And then again, you, you. We will see, won't we? The BBC have said they need to make. £500 million worth of cuts where that lands. We don't know. But I don't think, I think I don't think it's politically easy for anyone to be cutting regional news and I'm not sure it's a.
11:11
11:12
11:12
Patricia Ferguson
-
-
Patricia Ferguson
there. Thank you. That comes to the end of our formal questioning session. I did mention earlier on that I was really intrigued by the idea that there seemed to be, from what you were saying, an. expectation that people responding to the. consultation would bring new evidence that would almost refute the evidence given by STV and therefore influence your decision making.
And I genuinely am intrigued to know how you think members of . The
And I genuinely am intrigued to know how you think members of . The
11:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
public would be able to do that in their responses. Or do you? But we take responses from everybody. I mean, the First Minister's. response is as is as relevant as a as a as, you know, a viewer from from the Hebrides. So I don't think we, you know, we there was the ability for a lot of people to, to, to, to bring us evidence to show that this was the wrong, the wrong decision or not the right decision.
And there wasn't there wasn't any, you know, it wasn't only members of the public who could have done that. There were, you know, no one else came to us with with evidence. I take your point. I take your point. What you're always saying we're expecting members of the public. I think that's if you don't mind me saying so. I think that's probably not really what we're expecting from members of the public.
We welcome. consultation responses from everybody in whatever guise they are, and whether it's from a chamber of commerce or whether it's from the Aberdeen Council or whether it's from individuals. I don't think there's a there's a sort of. expectation that individual members of the public are. But if they have it, then, then that's great. And that's just a principle across all all regulation really, people might unearth something that we .
Might not have
And there wasn't there wasn't any, you know, it wasn't only members of the public who could have done that. There were, you know, no one else came to us with with evidence. I take your point. I take your point. What you're always saying we're expecting members of the public. I think that's if you don't mind me saying so. I think that's probably not really what we're expecting from members of the public.
We welcome. consultation responses from everybody in whatever guise they are, and whether it's from a chamber of commerce or whether it's from the Aberdeen Council or whether it's from individuals. I don't think there's a there's a sort of. expectation that individual members of the public are. But if they have it, then, then that's great. And that's just a principle across all all regulation really, people might unearth something that we .
Might not have
11:12
11:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you both very much. That's really been very helpful to us today, and thank you for having us and giving us the opportunity to. explain some of the thinking behind what was a difficult decision. You know, I didn't come to Ofcom to stop people getting regional news, and I'm here to make sure they continue to . Get it
11:12
11:12