Scottish Media and Broadcasting
Item 4 is on the Scottish media and broadcasting industry. A Scottish Parliament information centre briefing paper has been circulated. Members may remember that in January we agreed to commission the paper, which is a very informative one, from SPICe. Our purpose was to get a hold on what is happening across the broadcasting and print media in Scotland, with a view to deciding whether we want to take matters further.
We should probably have the discussion in two parts. First, members should comment on the paper and mention any gaps if they think that there are matters on which we could do with additional information. Secondly, we can decide whether we want to pursue the matter and, if so, in what form.
The briefing paper is very good. It has thrown up a number of interesting facts and figures that I was not aware of, in particular the newspaper circulation figures and the employment figures on page 13. The employment figures seem to suggest that we are, as we probably thought, under-represented in the sector in comparison to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not a surprise, given that the media tend to be centred in London.
I will take comments on the paper first and then we can discuss whether we want to take matters further and, if so, in what way.
Stephen Herbert, the author of the paper, is here to take the blame. More seriously, I welcome Stephen, who is here to answer any questions.
I am grateful to Stephen Herbert for the paper, which is very informative. The media love to discuss themselves. Such a discussion took place on the radio this morning in an item from Seattle, in which the future of newspapers and what they might look like was discussed.
The issue has a number of strands and we have an interest in them all, but I suspect that we have very little influence over many of them because they relate to commercial decisions taken by commercial organisations in pursuit of their bottom line. For example, developments in technology mean that other sources of information are now available to people who previously bought newspapers. That has led to significant changes in the newspaper industry, which have largely been driven by the lack of advertising revenue as new forms of information have become available.
I was interested in the section of the briefing on the potential of local television and local radio and in what Glasgow City Council and other local authorities are doing; I think that North Lanarkshire Council has also used local TV as a means of disseminating information.
I was struck by the concluding comments in the final paragraph of the briefing and I took the opportunity to speak to Stephen Herbert about the issue earlier. The paragraph suggests that stakeholders want the committee to become involved, but I wondered to what end they want us to become involved. If folk feel neglected or unloved that is regrettable, but I am not sure that it is the business of the committee to stroke egos. If we are going to do anything with the broad range of media, cultural and broadcasting organisations, I would want to be very clear about our purpose. Although ego stroking is good and very nice for everybody, it is not necessarily a productive use of the committee's time. If we were to do anything—and I am not convinced at this stage that we have the time or that we should—I would want to be clear about why we were doing it, what aspects we would examine and for what purpose.
I join others in commending the paper for providing an informative overview of the key issues. I am grateful for it. To my mind, the paper confirms the correctness of our previous decision not to initiate a formal committee inquiry. We previously agreed that we should certainly not have an inquiry into matters that are essentially about the restructuring of the industry and internal industrial relations issues, as the original request asked of us. However, on the wider strategic issues, it is questionable whether we have a peg on which to hang an inquiry into the what, why and when of the strategic developments that are taking place within the sector.
On the issue of debate and discussion, I will pick up where Christine May left off. As the paper's concluding comments suggest, there may be other ways of fostering discussion and so on. If we can in any way use the SPICe paper to inform debate and discussion within the Parliament, that would be perfectly proper. For example, if the two or three cross-party groups with an interest in the issue are not already aware of the paper, we could and should readily bring it to their attention.
As far as wider discussion is concerned, ample opportunities have been available in and around the Parliament for discussions with other bodies. For example, not just through the prism of the committee but at various stages more generally, the Office of Communications has held parliamentary briefings, in which some of us have taken part, on issues such as digital switchover. I for one believe that we should send the message that it is right and proper that the sector continues to find ways of engaging with parliamentarians. However, I am of the view that there is no specific reason for initiating—we have, if you like, no peg on which to hang—a formal committee inquiry.
Is that the committee's generally held view?
Members indicated agreement.
We have already agreed that we will meet Ofcom from time to time to update ourselves on public sector broadcasting, which is the one area in which we have influence but no power as such. To be fair, Ofcom has been good at keeping the committee informed as developments take place and it has been keen to consult the committee at each stage.
Given its interest in how the media influences the economy and reports on it, the cross-party group on the Scottish economy might wish to consider some aspects of the paper. A number of committee members are also members of that cross-party group. Equally, other cross-party groups might also have an interest. Perhaps we could circulate the paper to those interested groups—the clerks can advise on what the most efficient form of circulation would be—so that folks with an interest can discuss the paper.
Three of the five co-conveners of the cross-party group on the Scottish economy are present at the table. Perhaps we can encourage that group to hold a seminar on the future of the industry.
I agree with everything that has been said but I ask that, through its dialogue with Ofcom, the committee keep a watching brief on some of the developing situations. For example, although we have already taken evidence on the BBC situation, the way in which the Grampian Television brand has been dropped following Grampian's merger with Scottish Media Group has also raised local concerns. Wider social issues are involved. As Stephen Herbert's excellent paper mentions, the lack of regulation of digital broadcasting, to which the traditional TV licence does not apply, will have an impact on the general cultural services that people across the country receive. Given all those on-going activities, it is an excellent idea that we should keep a watching brief on matters. As the convener suggested, we could perhaps invite Ofcom to speak to us at a later stage as developments unfold.
A practical consideration is that we have a full work programme up until the summer recess, after which we will consider the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. That will take us right up to the Christmas recess, so we probably could not squeeze in much more. In practical terms, the chances of our being able to carry out an extensive inquiry are not great anyway.
We appear to have reached a consensus on that matter. We will keep a watching brief on things. I thank Stephen Herbert for his very helpful paper and we will encourage the cross-party group on the economy to discuss the issue.
We should not be prescriptive and say that the issue will be of interest only to the cross-party group on the economy. As I have said, a number of cross-party groups, particularly some on cultural issues, will also be interested in discussing it. We should simply alert parliamentarians to the matter.
Fine.