Procedures Committee, 23 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001

Official Report 93KB pdf

---

Committee Papers (Press Access)

That takes us to the sixth item on the agenda, which is consideration of a paper on press access to committee papers. Andrew Slorance might like to come to the table to make some comments on this item before the committee discusses it.

I do not have too much to add to the paper that is before the committee. Before coming to the meeting, I spoke to members of the media, in particular members of the Parliamentary Journalists Association, which represents most of the journalists at the media offices on Lawnmarket. They endorse the paper's conclusions that paper copies are extremely useful and are certainly well used in most cases. Unfortunately, the information technology that most members of individual organisations have at Lawnmarket means that it is likely that they will be unable to make much use of electronic provision of documents until we move to Holyrood, when they will probably lobby their own organisations for better IT facilities.

Apart from members of the Parliamentary Journalists Association, the few specialists that attend committee meetings are able to get papers from the web, as they are usually looking for only one set of papers and are based at their headquarters. Furthermore, as no pattern for web input has yet emerged, it is difficult to know when papers will appear. However, that gives journalists the opportunity to decide which committees they will cover.

The committee has discussed the frequency of meetings. However, it is still the case that three or four meetings take place at the same time and, although the agenda gives a fair idea of the content of a meeting, reading the papers for the meeting in detail might just sway a journalist's decision about which committee to attend.

We have managed to reduce the number of newspapers and broadcasters who require hard copies from about 20 to 15. Although I am not overly confident that we can reduce that figure further, we will monitor the situation through surveys and by checking mail in pigeonholes to find out what the uptake of documents is and whether members of the media are picking up their papers. We will also keep at them about whether they want papers for all committees, or whether there are some committees for which they do not need the papers regularly. Unfortunately, that might mean that the papers for some committees might be sent to a dozen people instead of to 16—although that might be fortunate as far as the clerks are concerned. I invite members to note the paper's conclusion that the system works well for the media and the committees.

I was struck by paragraph 7 of the paper, which says that the annual cost of the exercise is estimated at about £30,000. In almost any other circumstances, the press would be howling about profligacy. It is certainly a damned sight more expensive than giving annual medals to MSPs or the cost of any of their other popular causes over the past couple of years.

That will be on the front page.

Only the Press Association is present at today's meeting—I would not worry about it.

Famous last words.

That amounts to a fairly substantial investment by the Parliament in media good will and it reflects our understanding of the level of IT awareness and familiarity among journalists. MSPs are learning fast how to cope with new technology and we hope that, by the time we are in the new Parliament building, the media will be similarly comfortable with those developments and that we might in future be able to dispense with paper copies. The proposal is that we continue to provide paper copies and to keep the matter under review. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a brief question. Is there a hierarchy of members of the media who have access to IT and new technology? Perhaps we should raise the issue with the media and ask whether that might help them as much as it might cut down the Parliament's costs.

I see the point about whether we could lobby on behalf of the journalists to improve their facilities. Every organisation in Lawnmarket has different facilities. For example, some of them have good computers, but do not have Adobe Acrobat, through which they would be able to read committee papers. Others have computers that are two or three years out of date that have been handed down from their headquarters and, although they can get access to committee papers, they cannot print them because the printers are so slow.

Media people really need the papers to be able to follow a committee meeting, which means that they might have a pile of papers that is two or three inches thick. The situation is therefore something of a mixed bag. With an average of a dozen committees meeting each week, many organisations feel that they need to receive all 12 sets of papers so that they can decide which committees they will attend. Although we have encouraged journalists and broadcasters to ask their organisations to improve their facilities, many of them see the move to Holyrood as the point when they will be able to make progress on the issue. Although the media will still supply their own equipment, the groups that are involved in the move to Holyrood are helping us to ensure that the media have the best facilities, such as ISDN lines, so that they can move on in step with the Parliament.

It is interesting to read in paragraph 15 of the earlier SPCB paper that was provided with your report that the largest local authority—Glasgow City Council—is trying to put information on-line. A partial lobby system seems to operate in Glasgow City Council, but the journalists' pigeonholes were jam-packed with unread committee reports. Curiously enough, most of the stories from those reports did not emerge. The question is how we make the transition from paper copies to on-line availability more quickly.

The paper that you referred to was discussed at a committee meeting last February and I am not sure that Glasgow City Council has moved too much in that direction. However, you mentioned the pigeonholes; we monitor the pigeonholes at Lawnmarket regularly and have found that some are not emptied for two or three weeks. On one or two occasions, we have decided to stop sending committee papers on the basis that, if the media complained, we would review the situation. However, on those occasions, we did not receive any complaints.

I appreciate Andrew Slorance's point that the move to Holyrood will make a difference—I hope that it will—and I understand that these things can prove to be a watershed. It is appropriate to ensure that ISDN links will be up to the required standard when Holyrood opens. However, I wonder whether we can do anything to encourage newspapers and media organisations to provide the necessary equipment for their staff, instead of giving them hand-me-downs. If the cost of providing paper copies is £30,000 a year, it would probably be cheaper for the Parliament to pay for the computers. I hope that there is some way that we can ensure that the press and media organisations will supply that technology when they move into Holyrood.

We are raising those issues with a media end-users group and a broadcasters end-user group. Although we cannot guarantee what will happen, any member who has visited the media offices at Lawnmarket will know that the they are fairly sparse. There is also a security worry about putting in top-of-the-range equipment. The easiest solution now is to give them the computer equipment that is available. However, I hope that the organisations are focusing on the long-term issue of Holyrood—we will keep monitoring that.

We should reasonably expect the various newspapers and their journalists to invest in good news coverage to complement the public's considerable investment in the provision of the Parliament building. If newspaper journalists are not adequately equipped at the moment, their editors should consider equipping them adequately as a priority for 2002, or whenever things become fully operational at Holyrood.

As we have broadly agreed that issue, that takes us to the end of our public business. I invite members of the public and the press to leave, as we will now discuss confidential business.

Meeting continued in private until 11:07.