Good morning. Unusually for us, we have managed to start at 9.30 am. I think that everyone whom we are expecting is here. We continue our inquiry into the consultative steering group principles.
In general, the view of the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society editors committee is that the Parliament is open and accessible and that information is more or less readily to hand. We do not have many complaints about the way in which the Parliament has operated. In fact, from your side of the argument, some would say that it is too open and accessible.
Does Mr Raeburn have anything to add?
I have nothing to add.
We have taken evidence on committee privacy from a number of parties. I would like to probe the nature of your objection. In addition to handling sensitive or vulnerable witnesses and commercial confidentiality in private, committees tend to discuss in private their lines of questioning for witnesses. Perhaps it can be debated whether that is always necessary, but some conveners have argued that it is necessary in certain circumstances.
It is understandable, but it does not answer the point, which more than one correspondent makes, that those procedures should be more open than they are. The difference between us and the parliamentary committees is that we are not a parliamentary committee. We are not elected; you are. We would like to be able to report on the debates that happen in committees as much as possible. It would be helpful if the process by which decisions are arrived at were available for public scrutiny.
If committees opened up so that the discussion process that led to a report being finally agreed was open, would the media report that in a sensible fashion and not merely say, "Row between Susan Deacon and Donald Gorrie. Susan Deacon said X and Donald Gorrie said Y"? That is a slightly rude question. If we got the Parliament to make that big concession, could you react sensibly?
That would depend on how sensible the discussion was.
On a slightly related point, the CSG and many of us hoped that the Parliament would be less yah-booish than Westminster. It is a little less so, but it is still pretty yah-booish. I ask the various media representatives from their different perspectives: if most of us went about seeking consensus more than we do, would that make life difficult for you? Does exciting reporting of Parliament depend on conflict?
Clearly, conflict makes coverage more exciting, but effective coverage of the Parliament does not rely on conflict. If there is conflict, we will report it and do so, no doubt, with some glee. Ultimately, it is the decisions that count and that will be reported.
Do any of the other witnesses want to reply or will each have a shot in turn?
If you are happy for now, Donald, I will let Gil Paterson in.
I note that you say:
Looking at the committee papers, I think that Mr Paterson is quoting from the written submission from the Society of Editors. We are the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society, which is a quite different body. However, we subscribe to the same view. The distinction between the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament is well understood within the media, but not among the public.
Have you any views on why that should be the case?
I do not think that the situation is unique to the Scottish Parliament. In relation to the UK Parliament, my impression is that many members of the public equate the Government with the party in power; I am not sure that the average member of the public necessarily sees the difference between the Labour party and the Government.
On Donald Gorrie's point, the parliamentarians seem to think that, on the whole, we are doing a good job, whereas there is little doubt that the Parliament or Executive—or the combination—receives a fairly bad press. Is that perhaps because of the simple equation that good news equals bad copy?
I do not necessarily agree that the Parliament gets bad press all the time. There has been a lot to write about over the lifetime of the Parliament and there has been a considerable amount of conflict and many areas of controversy, to which Donald Gorrie referred. It would be strange if we did not mention that. The good things are reported as well.
I will ask you a more positive question: is there something that the Parliament should be doing to expose the good things that we do? Most of the submissions that we have received highlight the fact that the committee system seems to be working extremely well and is a good news story. Does the Parliament, as opposed the Executive, need to employ its own spin doctor?
You mean that you do not already? I do not know what you would term "good news", or how you would project it. It is true that the headline "Committee System Works Well" would not sell many papers, but I believe that the good things that come out of the Parliament are being reported, by and large. The bad things may well be sticking in the public consciousness, but the crises that have been faced over the past few months have been considerable. It is difficult to think of the positive things that could outdo the negativity, but those negative things have come about by nobody's design; they have happened and they have had to be reported. The events of the past few months would have been astonishingly dramatic under any circumstances and are not something that the Parliament itself can be blamed for. The Parliament, however, has to live with the consequences.
My first question takes up the point about committees meeting in secret—or in private, or however we might want to describe it. Let us take the example of a subject as controversial as the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. If there are several drafts of a committee report about it and the final draft, following discussion, goes in the opposite direction from that taken in the first draft, do not you think that the first draft—if the meeting to discuss it was open—would get more publicity and newspaper coverage than the final draft? Would that not give out the wrong signals and information to the public and perhaps be viewed as irresponsible, given that it is the final report that matters in the end and that will get actioned?
That would depend on the difference between the first draft and the last draft; it would depend on what they contained. I cannot throw a blanket over every scenario involving differences between first and last drafts of a report. If a first draft was felt, by and large, to have represented a committee's position but the final draft ended up being dramatically different, the differences would be reported. If the final draft was much the same as the first, there would be nothing new to report.
That is the dilemma that we are in and it cuts to the heart of the issues about committees meeting in private. Is what matters the finished result—which, if approved through a motion and debate, will be the will of Parliament—or the deliberations and the nuances of the debate that take place as we go along? From the point of view of the democracy of the people, the final decision is the most important, but the nuances of debate are perhaps more important for interest, copy and coverage. Do you see that dilemma?
I see what you are saying, but I argue that, in the interests of openness and accountability, the process is as important as the end result.
That is an interesting observation, on which we will reflect in our report.
Did you say 10 pm?
I asked whether 5 pm is a more convenient time for copy.
Not if I am wearing my old hat as editor of the Edinburgh Evening News.
There is obviously an issue for evening papers, but what is the general view?
The issue is on-going for evening newspapers and broadcasters. It is less of a problem for morning papers, although the amount of time that they have to react to unfolding events is reduced. It does not matter for Sunday newspapers.
There has been some debate about whether we should, on some occasions and for certain issues, have a midday decision time.
The facility exists should the Presiding Officer decide that an earlier vote is necessary, but that does not often happen.
We made a presentation to the Procedures Committee on a previous occasion, asking that our message on decision time be reinforced. The occasions on which there has been a lunch-time vote have been few and far between. The vote is held over until 5 o'clock, which is of no value to evening newspapers.
If we had a 12 noon vote, your argument that, in having a 5 pm vote, we are not working as hard as Westminster defeats itself.
I am sorry—could you say that again?
You made the point that the fact that we have a 5 pm decision time makes it appear that we were not working the same hours as Westminster.
We did not say that; I think that the point was that quite a number of MSPs have been absent from the chamber and have not taken part in the debate, yet have been present for the vote on it at 5 o'clock.
Let me break in at this point. We will hear from the BBC Scotland representatives shortly, but I think that it would be appropriate to invite them to comment on the issue now. It has been suggested that the 5 o'clock decision time creates difficulties for the broadcasting media.
I see heads shaking: perhaps somebody could give the broadcasting perspective.
From the perspective of someone who covers the Parliament regularly, 5 pm is not a fatal problem; we are a 24-hour news broadcaster and will take the result when it comes.
So the problem is specific to the evening newspapers. That is understood.
John, do you think that there is a difference between how the print media have reported the Parliament and how broadcasters have reported it?
I do not know; it is difficult for me to comment on what the broadcasters have done. If you are thinking about the sharp focus on the big issues that you may feel have distracted people from the work of the Parliament, I would answer no—the media in general have shown a fairly united front, applying the same news values.
What is the difference between the words "recess" and "holiday"?
Do you want me to give you a definition?
I would like the dictionary definition first; your interpretation as a journalist may be helpful as well.
I think that everybody understands that "holiday" means that somebody is off on holiday and that "recess" means that they are doing other work.
So why, when the Parliament is in recess, is it reported that we are on holiday, although many of us are at work?
I do not know, I cannot speak for individual—
Is it journalistic licence or inaccurate reporting?
That depends on how you want to look at it. Some people might be on holiday and some people might be working—I do not know.
Mr Raeburn referred to attendance in the chamber. Have you ever done a percentage analysis of the number of members in the House of Commons chamber during debates and compared that figure to what happens at the Scottish Parliament?
I hear what you say, but two wrongs do not make a right, if indeed you are suggesting that one is wrong.
I am simply making an observation—you drew that conclusion.
I take your point, but it does not follow from what I said that MSPs who are absent from the chamber are not working elsewhere on other duties.
On another issue that was raised, do I, as an MSP, receive an income of £100,000 or the standard parliamentary salary?
Off the top of my head, I do not know what you receive.
I have read reports in the print media that, as an MSP, I receive £100,000 in personal income. I am interested in that, as I need to explain such things when I go home.
I do not know about those reports. I do not have a cuttings file on Frank McAveety in front of me.
I do not want to be picked out as a result of media interest—you can refer to any MSP.
I cannot think of any of our members who does not strive to be fair and accurate.
I have read press cuttings—such allegations have been made in the press in the past two and a half years. I accept that the political narrative of the past few months had to be reported in the way that it was. However, some reporting has not been factual. I do not mind opinions and opinion pages, but I worry about newspapers' front pages. Your members should be concerned about factual accuracy, too. Do newspaper editors review statements?
I can only repeat what I said: I do not know of any editor who does not strive to be as accurate and fair as possible.
If an MSP was concerned and wrote to an editor, what would the editor do? Would they say, as one or two have in the past, "Tough luck—that's politics. It's a hard game. Go away and don't annoy me"?
I am not speaking for editors as individuals. I have a track record of correcting mistakes as they arise. If something is wrong, we will correct it. Individual editors will respond according to the case in front of them.
Has there been an overemphasis on political journalism—if I can call it that—since the establishment of the Parliament? Is coverage of the Parliament often the preserve of the political correspondent rather than the specialist correspondent?
Not in my experience. Specialists have covered affairs in their specialisms as they have arisen. In the two newspapers with which I have had direct contact, I do not think that coverage has been too ring-fenced. Specialists are involved as much as parliamentary correspondents.
I would like to explore that further. When I was Minister for Health and Community Care, I had conversations with health correspondents from a number of publications. Attempts were made to encourage them to attend the chamber and listen to full debates on health. Often, they said that they did not have accreditation or that going to the chamber would not be appropriate, as the political correspondent was the registered journalist with the Parliament. The political journalist would therefore come along. I found that disappointing, as the health correspondents often had insights into issues that were discussed and did not focus on political knockabout. Is that anecdotal account typical? If so, is there scope for a different approach?
Accreditation is not a problem. Floating accreditations are available. A specialist is more likely to be unable to attend the chamber for practical reasons. They will have other things to do—other stories to write or books to fill—and therefore will not have the time to sit in the chamber. Pressure is on the reporter to produce material on a broad spectrum of issues, not all of which will be related to what is happening in the chamber on a particular day. If a specialist has a particular need to be in the chamber to listen to a debate, that can be arranged. There is no reason why it cannot, other than the practical demands of daily news diaries.
Reporters said to me that their paper's practice was for the political correspondent rather than the specialist correspondent to cover such debates, but you are saying that that is their perception and interpretation and that such practices are not laid down at editorial level.
In all probability. It is astonishing how often messages get mixed and reporters think that an edict has been issued from the top when that is not the case.
You have clarified that point. Would it make a difference to the coverage of major debates in the Parliament if specialist correspondents, rather than political correspondents, reported them where appropriate? I say that with the greatest respect to political correspondents, who also have an important role. Would that make a difference in specific subject debates?
If a specialist could listen to debates, I am sure that that would help coverage of particular issues, but I do not know whether it would make a difference in a wider sense. It might make a difference to those who are closely involved with the subject, but I am not sure that it would make a big difference to readers.
I am grateful for your answers to my questions. I would like to move to an unrelated issue. There is at least a perception—I have seen evidence of this—that in recent years there has been a gradual drift in this country, and in Scotland in particular, towards newspaper reporting that is based on unnamed sources. Sometimes entire news stories and front-page splashes are constructed without any named quotes in them. Of course, politicians as well as journalists comply in that process, but is that a healthy development? Does it give the public meaningful insights into the political process or, between us, should we attempt to have a more self-denying ordinance and shift away from that practice?
It is inevitable that unnamed sources will be quoted in newspapers no matter what position we agree. There are always ways around systems.
I would not demur from that—such quotes are inevitable. However, from an editorial viewpoint, is it good journalism to construct entire stories based on unnamed sources and without named quotes and attributions?
If stories are based on unreliable sources and information, that is bad journalism. It is inevitable that people will seek to protect their positions and not to be exposed as sources of information—that is simply the nature of the game.
Am I in injury time yet, convener, or may I ask another question?
You may ask another question.
I am conscious that we have one opportunity to speak to representatives of the newspaper industry and that other members want to speak.
The only thing that I can say is that, after close study of those two issues, Susan Deacon found under-reporting of the decisions. As members know, we are talking about a disparate body of individuals. The newspapers are all different, as are the personalities of the editors. There may be low-key reporting of a decision but, if the newspapers all come up with a common position, a newsworthy issue is at play.
I will round up this session. As Frank McAveety posed his question about his salary, I was thinking that mine is higher than his. The question might be more pertinent in my case. I can see the tabloids running the story under the headline "Numpties Strike Back" or "Revenge of the Numpties".
Speak for yourself.
We get a lot of that sort of treatment. I suspect that the headline writers feel freer than the journalists to kick the living daylights out of us. Should we care about that? Are we hypersensitive or are we a bit more sensitive because we are newer than are our colleagues in other Parliaments?
Members are entitled to act in whatever way they want and we are entitled to report your actions. The point about headlines is raised time and again. It is difficult to see how a story can be put across in six words in any way other than as a broad summary of the issue.
If you think of a six-word headline for this morning's exchanges, you can leave it with one of the security staff. We would be pleased to read it. Thank you for your evidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to help the committee's inquiry. As our paper to the committee made clear, we will confine our remarks and observations from a broadcasting perspective to how the Parliament has operated in relation to the principles of openness and accessibility.
Do either of your colleagues wish to say something?
We will leave it at that for now.
Your paper states that the broadcasting media rarely get access to briefings—Blair Jenkins alluded to that. However, which event are you referring to? You give one instance, but it is clear that that does not relate to the presentation of a report. It may be that when we examine the event, we will find that it was untypical, but that we should reflect on it. Has that happened on other occasions? Is it a more serious problem than it appears to be from your submission?
As we set out in our submission, the example was isolated. In any case, formal briefings by the Parliament and its committees are fairly rare events. By and large, they have been open and on camera. We had access to some early briefings on the Holyrood project, which have now become more formal sessions in the chamber.
One reason for being so sensitive about what appears to be an isolated incident is that we have a longer-term campaign to get Executive briefings on the record and on camera. At present, those briefings, which are along the lines of the Parliament's twice-daily briefings, are on the record but exclude cameras and broadcasting equipment. As we have campaigned regularly and persistently to have camera access to those briefings, we were concerned to see an apparent derogation from the Parliament's negotiated position of full openness. I am aware that the Procedures Committee cannot instruct or guide the Executive, but we were concerned that a principle that had been hard fought for and won in the case of parliamentary briefings had slipped at an early stage, just as we were trying to extend the principle to the Executive.
Thank you. I understand the significance of what is being said. I am not in a position to state why the briefing was held in that way or whether that was done accidentally or deliberately. We can examine that point. Blair Jenkins referred to the establishment of another committee to examine upgrading the rules. Are there other examples of difficulties in working practices that we need to examine quickly, to bring them into line with how things are happening as opposed to how things were envisaged?
I will defer to my colleagues on the detail of that question, as they work in the Parliament daily. In our submission, we highlight examples of dubiety regarding what may or may not be filmed in the public gallery. That is an important point for us.
This brings us back to the expert panel's report and the principle of the surrogate gallery, which underlies filming in the chamber. The report suggested that the viewer's experience at home should be similar to the experience of the viewer in the public gallery in the chamber, in so far as that is possible. If something is happening either on the floor of the chamber or in the surrounding galleries, people should be able to see it. The rules of coverage that are appended to the expert panel's report make provision for that. Clearly, there are issues that need to be addressed relating to demonstrations and so on. We have highlighted the case of the Trident demonstration, when we did not have as many pictures as we would have liked as early as we would have liked, although subsequently we had access to some pictures of the incident. I am confident that our use of those pictures was responsible and fell within the original spirit—and, indeed, the letter—of the expert panel's deliberations.
I would like to make two points. First, I should point out that we have very good daily relations with both the media relations office and the broadcasting office of the Parliament. We work extremely well with them.
I ask Alan Smart, who is our head of broadcasting, to comment on the Trident incident in the context of general policy. Obviously, the representatives of the BBC feel that the existing guidelines were not followed in that case. The BBC's submission indicates that, following representations, the line was relaxed a little. It would be helpful for the committee to hear about the process that led to that.
We have a very good relationship with the BBC, but we are involved in a learning process. We have guidelines.
Frank McAveety has suggested that we should consider having our proceedings broadcast by Sky Television, because of its more generous camera provision.
To keep the discussion on a positive note, I would like to add one point. In our submission, we say that the broadcasting arrangements at Westminster have been relaxed in direct response to the more open broadcasting arrangements in this Parliament. That is an important, positive point.
Our correspondents, who previously had to stand shivering on the green outside the Palace of Westminster, are now occasionally admitted to the lobbies of the Houses of Parliament.
I would like to pursue that point. Both of the incidents on which the BBC submission comments related to causes that I support politically. The problem is that both incidents took place at question time, which is covered live. Would the net effect of always broadcasting such incidents live not be that every week some sort of demonstration would take place in the chamber, with people throwing themselves off the verandas to bring their cause to the nation's attention? I have already qualified my question by saying that I supported the campaigns behind the two incidents that have been mentioned.
There are two aspects to my reply. First, as yet there is no evidence that the incidents that have taken place so far—which received some coverage—have triggered the kind of response that Gil Paterson anticipates or fears. I have forgotten the other point that I wanted to make.
Gallery security is expertly handled by staff in the chamber. It is in their interests to prevent demonstrations and disruption of that nature. There may be others who wish to demonstrate on particular points of view but who have neither felt the need to follow the example of the Trident demonstration nor been permitted to do so. We do not seek circus-style coverage; we want to cover the Parliament. We wish simply to adhere to the principle of the surrogate gallery—if something happens, we want to be able to show it. There is also a news value aspect. One demonstration is news, but the next is not. We do not seek to turn the Parliament into a show—far from it.
I appreciate that. I have been involved in campaigns for 35 years and have considered what would happen if free licence were given. It would mean that a message could be sent quickly throughout the nation. Is it not the case that those two incidents were not broadly—and certainly not instantly—publicised on live television? The net effect was that no publicity about the two incidents ever really materialised. I am concerned that if we give such incidents a bit of oxygen, before we know it we will have a flame.
Brief pictures of the Trident demonstration were shown live, after a delay. Following helpful discussion with the broadcasting office, we obtained a tape of the demonstration, a substantial part of which was shown on the 6.30 news. The coverage included a rather charming shot of a policeman helping one woman—a demonstrator—into the van, saying, "Mind your head there." I thought that that was excellent. There has been no repetition of any sort of that incident, which happened between a year and 18 months ago. I would say, "Just show the things. Publish, publish, publish."
I thank Brian Taylor for rescuing my second point.
What was the net effect on the broadcasting media of being excluded from the MMR briefings? Do you feel that you were discriminated against? Did that have an impact on your duty to broadcast?
To be fair, I think that we were not hugely disadvantaged. We were able to show pictures from the opening statement of the press conference and, obviously, there were many other elements in our report. However, because the cameras had to leave before the rest of the briefing and the question-and-answer session, we were unable to show any of the subsequent debate in the currency of broadcasting—pictures and sound—whereas our colleagues from the print media were able to report it in their currency, which is the printed word.
I hope that, as we speak, my secretary is typing a letter to ask for monitors in the public gallery. Supporters of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats can see only the backs of our heads. Despite our lack of handsomeness, it would be nice for our supporters to see our fronts. Westminster does that better—the monitors in the public gallery are very good.
I would like to think that we cover the constructive things that the Parliament does. If we consider our total output, beyond the news programmes, there are programmes such as "Holyrood Live", and "Politics Tonight", which is on the radio every night, majors on the Parliament and covers the committee work in a degree of depth. It is difficult to cover that work in great depth because of time constraints.
As Brian Taylor perhaps sees us more than the rest of you do, I ask him in particular what we should be doing to present ourselves better to the public. On the whole the public hate us. How can we make them love us?
I know that you feel that you have endured trial by media for the past two and a half years and it is perhaps understandable that you would seek to turn the tables on us at a session of this nature. However, I am slightly leery of giving guidance to politicians on how to conduct themselves in public. As a neutral, dispassionate journalist, I will take what is coming and report it as it is.
How far should we go with access? We have to bear in mind the role and legitimate activity of the Parliament and the role of the public in understanding and participating in the Parliament's work. If the Parliament becomes like "Match of the Day" or any event or occasion where people can be on camera, will that not work against the boring day-to-day process of any Parliament dealing with legislation?
That is an interesting question. We will always be in favour of the maximum degree of openness. However, that does not mean that everything and everybody must always operate in a broadcasting environment, which might be rather an intolerable restriction. It is very important for journalists—and perhaps for parliamentarians—to bear it in mind that the electorate is primarily concerned with the outcome of the Parliament's decisions and the impact on people's lives. Although the process of political debate and division is of interest and is followed in our programmes, it is not of great significance to the mass of the population or the electorate. People are concerned with the impact on their lives of what the Parliament does. It is important to focus on that, rather than on the minutiae of procedure and process.
Perhaps Alan Smart can help. He said that our rules of coverage probably go much further than those of any equivalent legislature. Are they still not enough?
We are not far off the principle of a surrogate gallery that was adduced at the beginning. We are not bleating. Trust me—I am a journalist. The concern is that there might be a move to lodge caveats and to back away from that principle. The initial report of the CSG's expert panel on media issues said that there would be rules on access to MSPs' offices in the temporary premises because they were shared and open-plan offices. We could not go in to see one MSP in case we disrupted someone else. However, it was envisaged that those rules would be liberalised in the new building and I hope that that is the case. The initial principle of liberalisation was for improving public access, not to make it sweet for the BBC. It was intended to make the Parliament seem open and accessible. I hope that that liberalisation of rules is carried through to the new building and that there is no further derogation and no further caveats.
Would that mean that you would have the opportunity to buy me lunch for the first time?
Absolutely. Take it as a date, Frank.
That would be possibly the worst date that I have ever had.
In talking about openness within the chamber and committee rooms and, indeed, in the black and white corridor, we take seriously our public service remit to report what goes on in the Parliament as widely as we can—not just the controversies and sensation. At the same time, we have a duty to make that coverage as interesting as possible to the viewer. That is why things like the liberal rules of coverage and the ability to speak live to MSPs immediately outside the chamber on programmes such as "Holyrood Live" are important. Being able to speak to politicians directly while a debate is still going on gives the viewer the feeling that the Parliament is open and accessible.
Before Susan Deacon asks her questions, I have another question for Alan Smart about the Holyrood project. Presumably pre-planning is being done for media issues. Could you tell us what is happening? Are or will the media be actively involved in working out practices in the new premises? Perhaps that would be a better question for Eric MacLeod, but whoever is willing may answer.
Rather than catch Eric on the hop, I will say that my office's responsibility is for the televising of Parliament along with the BBC. The broader question is about the media relations office. As I have indicated, an area of broadcasting that we are considering proactively is how to make it easier technically to cover the public gallery and other nooks and crannies, although that does not resolve the inherent dilemma.
Alan has talked me up slightly. The issue has not arisen as yet, but I was interested in Brian Taylor's earlier comments that he sees the current arrangements as being the minimum. I agree with that. From my office's point of view, it is important that the media have as much access as possible. We have good working arrangements and I would like those to continue at Holyrood. At the moment, there are no plans to meet the media to discuss the issue, but I would happily consider that further with our security staff and the Presiding Officer.
I am pleased that a number of people have noted how liberal the broadcasting arrangements in the Parliament are already. Having been seen with a face like fizz in cutaways that would never have been permitted at Westminster on the news on both Scottish networks during not one but two significant First Minister's statements, I testify to that. I do not think that that is necessarily a bad thing.
While my colleagues gather their thoughts on that, it is quite important to say that, as I understand it, the remit of the committee and the evidence that we are giving is primarily concerned with how the Parliament has implemented its principles of openness and accountability. I do not think we want to stray too far into a discussion about how the media have covered the Parliament. I do not think that that is part of the terms of the inquiry.
The metaphor that I would use is that the relationship between the media and politicians is like the relationship between the dog and the lamp post. I dissent from that slightly. There should be a healthy, creative tension between the media and the political process. It has been intense in Scotland during the first two and a half years of the post-devolution settlement. That is just a factor of novelty and of substance and because the Parliament is a big league Parliament that has deserved substantial coverage. Like Blair Jenkins, I would draw a line under whether the coverage has been fair or unfair. That is for our viewers and your voters to judge.
I am beginning to wonder who the politicians are, given some of the careful sidestepping of the questions that is going on here.
Looking back to the days of the expert panel and the relatively liberal situation that we have now, it seems as if we had an extraordinary struggle to get the minimum access that we did. The atmosphere then was post-Westminster where television cameras and broadcasting had been admitted on sufferance as a necessary nuisance of the 20th century. When it came to the Scottish Parliament, we had a little residue of that legacy. Television was something to be suffered, endured and allowed to sneak in the back door as an unwelcome guest.
That was certainly a missed opportunity.
The kind of group that we envisage would focus purely on broadcasting issues. We would separate that from any other issues that you have in relation to the media. We see it as being a working group that examines the details of the arrangements, what could be improved and how we could make progress, to prevent any misunderstandings and to allow for the most generous interpretation of the Parliament's principles of openness and accountability, subject to any reservations that members may have. We see it as a practical, sleeves-rolled-up working group, which would deal with issues as and when they come up. We have an open mind as to the exact membership or composition of that group and the frequency with which it should meet. We would be happy to discuss that offline, as it were.
In a private briefing?
Indeed. As I said earlier, that would benefit us not only in the current arrangements but, critically, in the way forward.
We already have a very useful committee that meets a couple of times a year, which is chaired by Alan Smart. The broadcasters who have a stake in the broadcasting of the Parliament are represented. I sit on the committee, along with representatives of Scottish Media Group and other broadcasters. It is quite helpful to discuss issues beyond the day-to-day operational level, such as changes in the way in which the committees are covered, the introduction of a new camera unit to cover an extra committee room and so on. However, there is no forum at the strategic level where we can exchange views with members as well as with officials and the other broadcasters. We would welcome something at that level. Such a forum was envisaged in the early days, but has never come about. We look forward to being able to have that exchange of views.
Why has the expert panel not met if that is what the CSG recommended? It makes sense that it should meet. What happened? Did it get lost in the early days of the Parliament?
I cannot answer that, except to say that we have the forum that allows us to carry out the week-to-week business. There is no disadvantage to the way things work at that level. Beyond that level, it simply has not happened.
It is such a sensible idea that it seems strange that it has not happened. It is perhaps a case of making it happen, rather than reflecting on why it has not.
I was not resisting talking about how the BBC covers Parliament. I thought that I was being invited to comment more broadly on how other media conduct themselves in relation to Parliament. It is not my business to get into that area.
There are two reasons why the emphasis in "Holyrood Live" on Wednesdays and Thursdays is on the chamber. First, chamber business is live at that time and the committees are not. Nevertheless, we carry reports from committees fairly regularly in Wednesday's programme. Secondly, there is a practical problem that relates to the grammar of television. The nature of committee business makes it difficult to boil down to a short report whilst maintaining the essence of the discussion. If there were live committees during our transmission time, we would probably carry more.
Can I ask about your concern about the formal briefing to which you did not have access? Having read the CSG recommendations, one would expect broadcast to be available on that. How often have you attempted to broadcast such briefings, or was it an odd occasion because of the issue under discussion?
It was not a live broadcast; it was recorded for news purposes. Such briefings are fairly few and far between. That is the only example that I can think of where broadcasters were excluded.
Have you asked to cover something similar or was it a one-off?
It was a one-off with regard to the Parliament. Our concern relates to the Executive. We are routinely excluded from the briefings that are held in the building by the Executive. The reason we are given for that is that they are not televisual events that lend themselves to coverage. If we did have camera access, we would probably broadcast them relatively infrequently. We might find that they provide elementary back-up knowledge, whereas we have pictures of the events themselves or the debate in the chamber.
Anything to do with this building is governed by the Parliament rather than by the Executive. Clearly, it is up to the Executive what it chooses to do at Victoria Quay or St Andrew's House. In the locus of the Parliament, including meeting rooms, parliamentary rules govern rather than Executive rules. I assume that any briefings by the Executive within the environs of the Parliament as controlled by the Presiding Officer—
I do not think that that is a sound distinction. The distinction is between the Executive and the Parliament. The Executive's practices exist wherever the Executive is operating. I would not like the discussion to be used to explore a line of attack on the Executive as opposed to exploring issues of the Parliament and the media.
This would cover the new building at Holyrood as well. Are the rules determined by the physical environs within which you are operating or by the organisation with which you are dealing? From what you have said, it is obvious that the rules are determined by the organisation with which you are dealing—the Executive–as opposed to the physical environs.
I make the same point as the convener: that is not a line that I seek to go down. The rules are governed by the Executive, which holds and invites us to the briefings. That is not a line of attack on the Executive.
I was not suggesting that you were using a line of attack on the Executive.
We have a business-like and cordial relationship with the Executive's news staff. That is on the same basis as the relationship that we have with the broadcasting office, which we were praising happily earlier. I am simply saying that we have argued the point of principle that on the record should mean on camera. We have failed to convince others of that for some time, but we are pressing on undaunted.
Can I ask another question?
Is it a different question?
I will move off the subject.
The political correspondents and reporters provide the bulk of our coverage of the Parliament and its business. A substantial staff is based in the Lawnmarket and Broadcasting House to cover the Parliament specifically.
The environment correspondent is heavily involved in covering committee work and talking to politicians on camera in a way that perhaps the local government and health correspondents do not. Is that a reflection of individual aptitude? Is it an editorial policy or does it just happen?
It is probably a matter of convenience if anything. The environment correspondent is based in Edinburgh and it is easier for her to pop along. Some of our other correspondents are based in Glasgow. The correspondents are comfortable with coming along and including parliamentary business in what they do.
We undoubtedly have a strong team of parliamentary journalists based here on behalf of BBC Scotland. Our specialist correspondents are one of our journalistic strengths. As the committee is aware, their specialisms more or less correspond to the devolved responsibilities of the Parliament. A complementary approach is taken whereby, as my colleagues have said, a large part of the parliamentary reporting resides with the political specialists. How that translates into what happens outside this place moves into the domain of those specialist correspondents.
Although the correspondent in a specialist area may not have come to the Parliament on a given day, it is common for them to have gone to a hospital or school and asked us to obtain parliamentary input to a story that they are preparing. That is virtually a daily occurrence. Although the correspondent herself may not come here, there will be parliamentary coverage.
Thank you. That concludes our interest. I should have said at the beginning that when we review the exchanges, something might come up that we want further information on or clarification of. We might write to sort out one or two points. Other than that, thank you for your attendance and contribution. I hope that you do not go away feeling that any of the questions have been hostile. They were meant to be exploratory and to show you different sides of what we think about our coverage and your part in it.
Thank you. It was tempting to interrupt some of the questions that the previous guests were asked, to have an input. My view is, perhaps, slightly different from theirs. We have more of an overview of the media. The largest percentage of journalists in Scotland is in the NUJ. We have 100 per cent membership in lots of places, particularly the BBC, The Herald and The Times.
You commented on the needs of the local press. When we listen to the questions that are asked, the speeches that are given and the interventions that are made in the Parliament, we can tell that a huge proportion of what is said is destined for local media coverage. However, I have not given much thought to the needs of the local news media, although our officials might have. Are the local news media adequately served, or are there areas in which improvements could be made, not least in order to validate some of the items that are thrust their way as press releases?
I noticed that the Society of Editors raised the issue of press releases in its submission. A lot of blanket press releases end up in the bin. A more strategic approach is needed to target individuals and attach human interest stories to some of the work of the Parliament. That is a basic journalistic method and there is no doubt that work needs to be done in that area.
I hope that it is acceptable to quiz a member of the NUJ about a submission from the Society of Editors. The submission says:
I must say that I found some ambiguity and contradiction in the Society of Editors' position. I did not agree with a lot of the submission, particularly what it said about constituency MSPs and list MSPs. Frank McAveety will be well aware of a list MSP in his area who has no trouble getting into the local press because she has a media background.
Everyone agrees that training and the acquiring of skills are undoubtedly good things. It is almost never a bad thing for people to gain better mutual understanding. I am interested in the work that you said the NUJ has undertaken in this area and I would like you to be more specific, if that is possible. What can be done to ensure that the training and development that is available is taken advantage of by all MSPs and their staff rather than only by those who know about it? How can effective media relations be built into the way in which MSPs and their staff work?
I do not know how much more specific I can be. Many of my members would say that we should keep our distance from the Parliament and should not tell MSPs and staff how to behave. I disagree. The press and the Parliament are both parts of the democratic structure of this country. For both of them to function properly, there must be closer understanding and closer work between them. If we fall out occasionally, we must understand that that is the nature of the game.
Since the Parliament was set up, I have noticed that journalists have moved between papers quite a lot and I have been interested to see how the stories that they write and the way in which they cover certain issues change as they do so. Is that because of the editor or because the journalists are weak?
Yes.
Both?
Yes. There is a clear correlation between the driving down of the unions' influence and the ability of editors to drive through changes in copy and in the direction of papers. The editor has to have the final say, of course, but there is less of an ability among journalists in lots of papers—
Are you aware of any examples of the factual accuracy of and the use of phraseology in a story that was written by an NUJ member being less than they should have been?
You have to remember that it is possible for a journalist on a paper such as the Daily Record to have their story rewritten three times before it appears in the paper. The editor can dictate the angle that the paper is taking. A lot of journalists become nervous about their contacts, because the story that they have been given in good faith might bear no resemblance to the published version. One of the biggest problems that I have to deal with relates to industrial relations between editors and staff, not just to editorial matters. Editors have no management skills and that permeates the way in which they run their newspapers.
Have your members raised issues about parliamentary coverage being amended by editors? It would be a shocking revelation if what they alleged was the case.
People have constantly raised that issue.
That conflicts dramatically with the submission that we received from newspaper editors.
That is no surprise.
So when editors say that they have reported matters as accurately as possible and that they would be surprised to find inaccuracy—
I would believe everything that people such as John McLellan have to say about that. Some newspapers report straight; the stories that they carry reflect that. However, some newspaper editors have their own agenda.
Do you believe that, since the creation of the Parliament, there has been an agenda not to report things as fairly or accurately as they should be reported?
Absolutely. That is not just true of the reporting of the Parliament. Coverage of issues such as refugees and asylum seekers has been distorted. The public sometimes seem to think that the NUJ is responsible for what appears in the newspapers. Members of the public phone us and complain about editorials. I think that there is a problem, which also reflects standards in journalism.
You mentioned that it is important for politicians, the media and the PR media specialists who have proliferated in the past decade to share experience. Has that been healthy? In the past week, there has been an interesting development in which a former employee of the Executive had three days of coverage but did not necessarily reveal anything new or interesting. He is now going to feature as a regular columnist. Is that a healthy two-way process? Should there be a period of modest reflection between leaving one post and taking up another?
That is an interesting debate, which has to continue. For example, we are in the process of signing an agreement with the SNP staff group. We have about 50 members—mostly researchers and PR people—and we are finalising a recognition agreement that contains a clause dealing with confidentiality and what someone who leaves their post should do. The issue is delicate and difficult to manage and control. I do not think that someone can be sued for breach of contract under such an agreement. I do not think that Peter McMahon's stuff has caused too much damage. We are talking about a breach of faith—that is how the issue is put in the SNP agreement. However, any such behaviour does not reflect well on the journalists.
I will come back with more questions.
I return to a point that you raised earlier and that we covered with previous witnesses. Do you think that there is a requirement to counterbalance the welter of PR in the hands of the Executive and the political parties? As the general view is that the committees seem to be a particularly successful part of the Parliament's work, do you think that there is a need for committees to have PR or should there be PR for the Parliament through the Presiding Officer or another office?
The term "PR" has been muddied over the years because of the way in which people see spin doctors. We need to get away from that. A lot of any success in PR comes down to who is recruited, how they are trained and how they interact with the press, but that is a different issue. PR people from all parties will put a spin on things. It is more important that the Scottish Parliament has good public relations and good links with the media that reflect the positive things that are happening.
Do you think that it would be worth our having someone to sit in Procedures Committee meetings while members are deliberating who would be ready to talk to the media after members came to decisions? Other committees, such as the Local Government Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee, could have someone—rather than individual MSPs—to do some of the spade work.
That comes down to accountability. We are not involved in many disputes these days, but when we are we always pick a spokesperson, so that there is some consistency. If they say something that is out of line, they are held accountable. That is a reasonably healthy approach to take.
I introduce Ann Galbraith to the committee. She is the chairman of the Society of Editors in Scotland. A couple of points about the local press have been raised, although there might be more. One was the adequacy of services to local newspapers—whether enough information is coming through and is presented in the right way and whether you are overly reliant on individual MSPs as opposed to the output of the Parliament. The other point, which has just been made, is that much of the Parliament's work could be made relevant and interesting locally if it were fed in from a human-interest, exemplar point of view rather than as news stories. I invite you to respond to that and to make any other point that you think is pertinent to the experience of the local press.
Thank you. I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute. I was sitting in the gallery and realised that I could add to what was being said, particularly when Paul Holleran mentioned local newspapers.
Do you get much material provided directly from the Parliament and do you use it?
Yes. We still get the old-fashioned faxes and phone calls, but we are also starting to use the internet. However, that tends to involve general information, on which we have to put a local spin. Again, we rely on local MSPs to tell us what is coming up that is particularly relevant to the local area. We have to keep local guys involved in local newspapers; the process is a two-way thing. We want to carry that information. We want the minutiae that the national press and broadcasters do not want so, in a sense, we offer a better service and should be used. We are being used quite well; a good relationship is building up. To the detriment of Westminster coverage in the local papers, it is the Scottish Parliament that people want to know about.
I should say in the interests of balance that Adam Ingram gets a fair amount of coverage, too.
Yes. He is very good. The MSPs for my area are particularly good. Who could ask for a better man for stirring up public interest than Phil Gallie? I have four very good guys in my area who produce stories for me. All local newspapers can offer MSPs the same service. We can provide a bit of education for MSPs. Those who are not using their local newspapers should be encouraged to do so. People from local newspapers could come to Parliament and talk to groups of members about how to use their local media. We may not always give free newspapers the same credit as we do those that we pay for, but those free newspapers also have a readership. Members can use local newspapers to get some of the coverage that they complain about missing out on.
Your submission contains fairly strong criticism about the alleged invisibility of members who are not constituency members. However, a number of contributions, including yours, suggest that those members are not so invisible. It strikes me that that depends on the individual member.
That is right. As I said, the MSPs who are not coming forward to their local papers need a bit of education. That would help them, as Paul Holleran said. There is a two-way education process. We obviously cannot come to Edinburgh from our local newspaper offices except for a special occasion, when we might arrange to send a reporter to cover a specific debate. We are limited in our reporting presence, but that does not mean that we are not interested. We need a different means of receiving the information that we want to publish.
Has the establishment of the Parliament created a greater interest than existed before? Is there the potential to generate more stories for local papers to cover? A major criticism is that newspapers across the board have diminished their coverage of parliamentary activities and decision making. Paul Holleran talked about humanising stories to link them to localities and to people's experiences. How do we do that? One of our key problems is getting across the message that the Parliament is genuinely for the people of Scotland wherever they are. Local papers should reflect that.
That is where MSPs should be used. They can translate stories for their local offices and get picture opportunities. Newspaper editors will help them. I carry political columns. I started with Cathy Jamieson and John Scott. Unfortunately, I have had to follow up with Sandra Osborne and George Foulkes, because they felt that they were not being represented, so I now carry one column from an MP followed by one from an MSP. Struan Stevenson MEP also gets a look-in occasionally, so I now carry a political column every week. I encourage the contributing members to make their column chatty and not too heavily politicised. That has been quite successful and satisfies a reader interest, so I am now carrying more parliamentary material than I ever did before the Scottish Parliament was established.
I, too, am a member of the Ayrshire Mafia, as I am from Ayr and frequently read the Ayr Advertiser when I go down to visit my family.
She does not necessarily get a mention this week, however.
It has been interesting to observe the change that has taken place over the years in the political content of the Ayrshire papers. Your paper and its competitor contain a great deal of coverage of MSPs, including Adam Ingram and the others whom you mentioned. However, the situation is different in other parts of the country. Some local newspapers are very local in focus. The Carrick Street halls petition came from your neck of the woods, but it had an impact here. Petitions are one of the areas in which the Parliament has been able to make a connection with people and to capture the human element that Paul Holleran was talking about. To what extent is your coverage of petitions derived from MSPs who may be helping the organisations concerned? How much of it comes from the Scottish Parliament media centre? The Parliament's head of media relations may be able to help us with that.
Our information is sourced locally. Because of distance, we do not have much interaction with the media centre. Local newspapers are coming late to using the internet and e-mail, so we have been slow to catch up. Now that we have an e-mail facility, we will probably receive more information from the media centre. However, our starting point tends to be information from local MSPs.
I want to ask about the idea of public relations for the Parliament. Paul Holleran may also want to comment on that. One could take the view that every MSP is an ambassador for the Parliament as a whole, rather than just for their own political views. To what extent do you think that we need to raise the standards of coverage of this democratic institution, instead of concentrating on popular stories? Has your organisation been involved in seeking to build up a good relationship between local newspapers across Scotland and the Parliament, so that the variability of coverage that I mentioned can be avoided, or has that not happened because people are too busy getting on with producing copy?
People are focused on producing copy. I do not know about PR for the Parliament, but each MSP can carry out PR for his area. If a meeting is taking place between broadcasters and the Parliament, an invitation to local newspaper editors to meet members to discuss the needs of their area might not go amiss. Our needs are different from those of the national media. I understand that the Parliament is focused on the national media and that we are the poor relations. However, the service that we provide is more valuable. I do not know whether that has answered your question.
Does Paul Holleran see a role for the NUJ as part of an expert panel on broadcasting, the aim of which would be to build up standards of coverage of the Parliament? Does Ann Galbraith think that the local media would like to contribute to the work of such a body?
Last night I looked at the list of those who were members of the original expert panel. Apart from colleagues in the BBC, most of the members have moved on to other jobs. The panel should be updated and broadened; its membership was too narrow. Meetings should take place on at least a quarterly basis.
To wrap up this evidence-taking session, I ask Eric MacLeod to offer the view of the Scottish Parliament media office on the points that have arisen. Can you identify areas of on-going work and initiatives that we might usefully pursue?
We have covered the two main issues, the first of which is the role of MSPs as ambassadors for their local paper. We cannot stress highly enough how important that role is.
That was a skilful bid for more resources.
I am pleased to say that the additional staff have been budgeted for already.
You said that to deflect hostile press stories about the Parliament's recruitment of more staff.
I will present a short paper. There is a risk of repetition, but anything that has already been said may reinforce the points that I am likely to make. I thank the committee for asking me to give evidence.
Will you develop the point that you made about scheduling? Some live coverage of the Parliament happens during the day, but many of the political programmes are broadcast in late evening slots. Broadcasts that deal with the Parliament seem to come on after the Gaelic programmes—we had complaints about that earlier. Is there a realistic prospect of the television companies moving the relevant programmes to slots that are more attractive and accessible to the public? If the companies did that, would it make a difference and would people watch those programmes? Are you asking for things that cannot happen?
I was not necessarily asking for that to happen—I was simply noting the time at which such programmes are broadcast. It is for the broadcasters to say what they would do. I come hotfoot from an interesting discussion about political participation broadcasting that was held at Stirling University yesterday. It is clear that broadcasters are under increasing commercial pressure to marginalise certain kinds of participation. Political broadcasting is no doubt under pressure—people are holding the line as best they can and trying to think about new ways of going about it.
You referred to webcasting, which is limited by the number of people who can take advantage of it—perhaps more people can take advantage of the website. Although you have noted recent improvements to our website, you have left the impression that significant improvements could still be made. What changes should we consider?
You have to consider what the website is really for and who is accessing it. According to our research, the vast majority of people who access it are actively connected to the political process—they are a part of the policy community. That is the website's prime audience. On the basis not only of our work for the Parliament, but of the literature on the interactive society and other research, we are somewhat sceptical about the claim that the internet will be a major way in which interaction will take place between electorates—or publics—and the political world. There has been a tendency to oversell the availability of technology and the level of interest among the public. People have to be motivated to want to know things about politics if they are to make use of such a facility. The website is an incredible research tool and a good way of demonstrating that the Parliament is available and accountable to the public. I do not wish to knock its existence—like many other people who do research, I find it very useful. It is just that perhaps one needs a sense of the inherent limitations of the technology, despite its universal potential.
When you said that the Parliament has an identity problem, you were raising a point that has been raised time and again by witnesses. Could you expand on that?
The point came up in earlier evidence-taking sessions. It is still not easy for many members of the Scottish public to distinguish between the Parliament and the Executive. That might be for a variety of reasons, but at the core of the identity problem is the fact that the Parliament is a young institution. How an institution acquires an identity over and above the identities of the people who are making it work is complicated. On the whole, politics is presented as the activities of the Government, conflicts between political parties and arguments about legislation and so on. Behind that is an institution that tends to be overshadowed by rows and by the fact that government—as opposed to legislature—is what is massive in politics. That is not a new problem, nor is it singular to Scotland or the United Kingdom.
Would the Scottish Parliament—not the Scottish Executive—have a higher rating if, from the start, a clearer separation had been made in the public's mind between who makes up the Government and who makes up the Parliament? Even at this late stage, should we be more proactive in letting the public know who is in the Government, who makes decisions, who gets the credit and so on? That is what happens elsewhere.
Given the constitutional set-up, the matter is complicated. The term "Government" is a rather contentious term in Scotland. The Executive is both a civil service and a Cabinet that is recognisably similar to the UK Government but with different competencies. The way in which the institutions were developed was inherently confusing and we have not yet overcome that problem. I am not sure how the Government could be separated from the Parliament as the Government sits in the Parliament and, in the UK system, is accountable to it—it is not a separate institution. Some sort of effort needs to be made to familiarise the public with the political geography. The situation is complicated further by the existence of the Scotland Office as a legatee of the Scottish Office. All that is extremely familiar to people in this room and the specialists who cover this institution but—as you will have discovered in the course of discussions with members of the public—people on the street do not make those distinctions easily.
Are people influenced much by what newspapers write?
Yes, and they are influenced by the broadcast media.
As institutions go, would you say that the Parliament has had a fair wind in that mediated perspective?
Blowing in which direction?
In the direction of factual accuracy.
I do not know about factual accuracy, but in terms of overall portrayal, the Parliament got off to a pretty bad start. I do not need to go through the whole sorry set of stories. Much of that has persisted. Some of the problems of the former First Minister were loaded onto the Parliament, partly because of the confusion between the Parliament and the Executive. If one takes the view that most people are not fantastically politically interested—that is not to say that they are ignorant, but that politics is not the be-all and end-all of their lives—things tend to get blurred. If the predominant image is negative and critical, that is what people will accept.
Has it surprised you to hear this morning that editors might have a disproportionate influence on the final outcome?
Not at all. That is what editors exist for—they are hired to sell papers. Some newspaper proprietors have a particular political line and that is part of the package. There is nothing uncommon about that.
Do you understand the scepticism of individuals who doubt whether a more open and pluralist approach to media involvement would be reciprocated by certain sections of the media?
If I put myself in your position, I would understand why one would feel that that would be risky.
Do you have any suggestions as to what course of action I should take?
I do not know—perhaps a steadying wee swally?
I have a funny feeling that the Official Report of this meeting might get me in greater difficulty with certain sections of the media.
I am sure that it will not.
How does one reconcile the general perception—mainly anecdotal—that the Parliament has not been successful in the eyes of the public, with the considerable survey evidence from commercial opinion polls and systematic surveys, that people are actually quite happy with the Parliament? There is a dislocation—that is very interesting for academics to argue about between—the doom and gloom and the results of the surveys. Is there something wrong with the surveys? What kind of evidence do we need in order to reconcile those two ideas?
Professor McCrone is the social surveys expert. It is possible for people to hold quite contradictory views. The creation of a Parliament was very important and popular—we know that it had a lot of support.
How do we know that that is true? What evidence do we have that people see things that way?
I am not suggesting anything other than what people say to me. The claims that I have just made are not based on survey evidence. However, the way in which Professor McCrone framed his question suggested that he knows that the survey evidence does not tell us everything. The anecdotal evidence is not to be dismissed; it is what circulates. Survey evidence is based on what people say for the purposes of a survey, and people might sometimes tell researchers what they want to hear.
At this point I would like Janet Seaton to come in. Our own research and information staff have been doing work in that.
The research and information group is developing an external communications strategy, the main theme of which is to make the Parliament more meaningful to the people of Scotland. As Philip Schlesinger said, we believe that people's perceptions of the Parliament are related directly to having direct experience of it. One of the main themes on which we intend to concentrate is that of supporting members to be local ambassadors, however they wish to do that. We also want to ensure that we are able to promote the work of committees, particularly when they go out and about, because that makes a local connection. I reassure everyone present that we will take on board all the comments that have been made today, which have been very helpful.
Professor Schlesinger has made some very important comments that we would all do well to dwell on for a moment. You have spoken about the importance of each of us being ambassadors for the institution and the wider political process, and about the urgency of the need for us to do that. In your introductory remarks, you said:
Susan Deacon puts things very well. The principles that we are discussing today—a little indirectly—were aimed at setting up a new kind of relationship with the electorate and new forms of accountability. That is incredibly difficult to do in an institution that must move very quickly to establish its procedures and to deal with what is thrown at it. For that reason, having an opportunity to reflect in an inquiry such as this is very useful.
I want to test a little further how we might make such a trade-off and ask you to make comments based on your research and insights.
There is definitely common ground and it has nothing to do with parties. The common ground is that we do not want to set up new institutions and see them not work. There is a common and public interest in institutions working well and credibly. That is an interest of politicians and of the wider public. I would therefore have to say yes to the question whether there is common ground.
I want to build on the theme of identity. One point about the Scottish Parliament is that its identity is not connected only to the six political parties that sit in the Parliament or to individual MSPs—it is bigger and wider than that. Given that I introduced the phrase "ambassador of the Parliament", I would be sincerely worried if public relations for the Parliament depended only on members.
The communications strategy will not be grounded solely in helping MSPs to become local ambassadors, but we can support MSPs in their areas by providing materials. Fiona Hyslop is right that the strategy must involve presenting the Parliament as an institution. We have a range of methods of doing that, which are based on the belief—which Professor Schlesinger mentioned—that if people interact with the Parliament, they will understand it better and take a more positive view of it.
In the early days of the Parliament, was there a deficiency in the outreach work of connecting to Scotland?
We have been too cautious and too reactive, but some of that is a resourcing problem. We made an early commitment to setting up a visitor centre, which Westminster is only now considering. Perhaps we must redress the balance and put more effort than we have in the past into proactive work.
I do not have much to add because Janet Seaton's comments sum up much of what our audit discovered. We were tasked with considering the variety of ways in which the Parliament relates to the outside world and how well it is organised to do that. We made specific recommendations. Only so much work can be done on the matter. From what I have heard and from other information, some of our recommendations are being taken on board.
I think that members are happy, or at least satisfied, with that. I would not like to overestimate the happiness of members on any occasion.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—