Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 03 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 3, 2002

Official Report 215KB pdf

---

Scottish Media Group

For item 3 on the agenda, members have a copy of our correspondence with the Scottish Media Group. The clerk sent a letter and we received an interesting reply. Before I open up the discussion to members, I will make a number of comments.

I accept points 1 and 2 of SMG's response, which relate to confidential transactions and company law, but I am concerned about point 3, which is about the locus of the Parliament and the committee in the matter. The committee has been very clear on all occasions that the conduct of the sale is very much a matter for the United Kingdom Government to determine, under the newspaper media regime.

However, given the importance of the print media to Scotland, we have a clear locus in trying to establish and maintain the plurality and diversity of the Scottish media. That is where our concerns emanate from, so it is entirely appropriate for this committee, and indeed this Parliament, to consider that issue and make its view known. I hope that the Parliament will do that in due course. Eighty-six members have signed a motion in my name on the matter.

If members are agreeable, it would be useful for us to seek meetings with the First Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the junior minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, Melanie Johnson, to make our views clear. That would not be done in a partisan way, but in the interests of Scotland as a whole, which would be entirely appropriate. Members will be interested to know that, as we speak, an adjournment debate on the issue is taking place in Westminster Hall.

I concur with the convener's views. I find the letter to be wholly unacceptable. Certainly, there are legal requirements of which we were entirely aware, as Mr Flanagan was aware, and questioning on those matters would have been by agreement. To say that the committee has no role or function in the matter and to make no reference, for example, to the considerable interests of employees, or the diversity and plurality of the Scottish press, leaves me fairly staggered.

The letter is unacceptably dismissive. I recall that first world war soldiers were described as "lions led by donkeys". With SMG, one could say that, for the very senior management, the same situation is developing. I hope that the senior management will think long and hard before committing themselves to paper in that way again.

I support absolutely an all-party group from this committee meeting relevant Westminster ministers. I also support an attempt to have the matter debated in the Scottish Parliament at an appropriate time. I think that other members are of the same view—indeed, many have signed the motion in the convener's name.

The tone and terms of the letter from SMG do not surprise me. The letter is entirely predictable because the group is entirely correct in what it says, certainly in points 1 and 2. It is fair to expect this committee to consider cultural issues, but we cannot divorce ourselves from the fact that there are 72 Scottish members of the House of Commons. In the sense of takeover policy, the matter is reserved. One would expect those MPs to raise certain points with regard to plurality and cultural matters. I am not saying that the committee has no locus, but we must recognise that final decisions rest in Westminster.

We can add little to the decision-making process. We can raise members' concerns or concerns that the public make known to MSPs. That is entirely appropriate. However, in the final analysis, it is members of the Westminster Parliament who should raise points that should be taken into consideration when the final decisions are made at Westminster. If the committee decides to proceed with seeking a meeting, I will happily string along because it is important that, in the interests of plurality, a different view is put. The committee has pointed out that there is no such difficulty with regard to plurality of provision in the Scottish media, both in the sense of sales and editorial opinion.

I support the convener's suggestion. I remind the committee that, from year one, we have debated media-related issues as regards culture in Scotland. We have had representations from trade unions and from several organisations regarding SMG. The subject is not new to the committee and it makes sense that we move things forward.

I accept Brian Monteith's point that there are 72 members in Westminster representing Scotland, but the issue is about employment, news and news coverage from Scotland and Scottish culture. All those issues are important to the committee and to the Parliament. I suggest that we proceed with the convener's proposal.

I agree with what Cathy Peattie said, with what the convener said and with what Michael Russell said but not quite with everything that Brian Monteith said.

Why not just say that you disagree with what Brian said?

I disagree with some elements of what he said, but he is quite right about the legal points.

This is a matter of great interest to the Scottish people and the voice of the Scottish Parliament must be heard. If we can try to influence Westminster in this regard, we should do so. The suggestions that have been made would allow us to do that as strongly as possible.

I am in no doubt about the fact that Scotland has 72 MPs at Westminster, as Brian Monteith pointed out. I am a unionist and I know what the role and responsibilities of those MPs are. I have no doubt that they are doing their job well—at least the ones who represent my party, although Michael Russell, as a nationalist, might have another view.

Even so, there is a role for us to play in making our voice heard. For me, the issue is not about where broadcasting—

It is about Andrew Neil.

It is not about Andrew Neil. If you check my comments carefully, you will see that I have never mentioned any individual editor. I have expressed concern that Scotland might be left with one broadsheet covering central Scotland.

Would your concern also apply if the person who bought the SMG titles were in a position to bid for The Scotsman? I ask that question because the answer has not been made clear.

My concern would definitely apply in such a situation. For me, the issue is not about either The Scotsman or The Herald, but about the diversity of the Scottish media. The points that have been raised would be pertinent regardless of whom SMG chooses to sell the titles to. I hope that due consideration will be given by the minister to all potential purchasers and that anyone who seeks to purchase the papers makes commitments to ensure that the diversity of the Scottish media is maintained. All potential purchasers should be examined by the minister, not just the one who has been identified as the potential highest bidder.

The diversity of the Scottish media should be not maintained but increased. For the avoidance of doubt, I will echo what the convener has said: I would oppose The Herald buying The Scotsman, just as I oppose The Scotsman buying The Herald. I would like there to be more Scottish ownership of the media but, in the present circumstances, this debate illustrates why it would have been useful to have had the owners of the titles around to discuss what they thought their future should be in Scotland, rather than simply getting this letter from Mr Flanagan.

Will we proceed on that basis and seek appropriate meetings with the First Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and Melanie Johnson?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 15:43.