Newsquest (Herald and Times) Ltd (Job Cuts)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-3038, in the name of Sandra White, on devastating cuts at The Herald and the Evening Times. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament condemns the announcement that all staff at The Herald and Evening Times in Glasgow will be made redundant and have to re-apply for their jobs under new terms and conditions, which it believes will inevitably leave them worse off, and further believes that this reorganisation will have a damaging effect on editorial independence among the titles and should be re-evaluated.
Since its inception in 1783 as the Glasgow Advertiser, The Herald has always been held in high regard for the quality of its journalism and its proud editorial independence. It is one of the oldest newspapers in the world and has come a long way from its humble beginnings. In 1876, it was joined by its sister paper, the Evening Times; more recently, it was joined by the Sunday Herald, which was launched in 1999.
Despite fears over the continuation of those proud traditions, the titles were sold off after the Competition Commission received assurances from Gannett. The commission stated:
"Gannett said that it was committed to maintaining the autonomy of local editors, and planned to manage the titles locally in Scotland … In our view, commercial considerations were also likely to deter any attempt to adopt a different approach for the titles … As a final safeguard, we also believed that Gannett would not wish to risk its reputation (especially among competition authorities) with regard to any future inquiries into newspaper acquisitions by Gannett. We did not therefore expect the transfer adversely to affect the editorial freedom, editorial stance, content or quality of the SMG titles, accurate presentation of news, or freedom of expression."
In my view, the takeover of the newspapers has affected all of the aforementioned and put in jeopardy the hard-earned reputation of the titles for fairness, justice and freedom of expression. Indeed, I believe that when those issues were raised with John Hutton MP, he agreed that that was the case.
The draconian antics of management, which have resulted in journalists on all three titles being made redundant and invited to reapply for jobs in the new structure, call into question the assurances that were given to the Competition Commission and raise some serious points.
First, I ask the minister to consider making representations to the Competition Commission on the matter. Secondly, I ask Gannett's management to pay close attention to the commission's final safeguard, which was that
"Gannett would not wish to risk its reputation (especially among competition authorities) with regard to any future inquiries into newspaper acquisitions by Gannett."
Although it seems that Gannett has paid little or no attention to the workforce or politicians on the matter, I hope that, as a successful business, it will pause, consider its future business prospects and re-evaluate the whole process. Let us be clear that the process will undoubtedly result in worse pay and conditions for staff, which is clearly unacceptable given that Newsquest made a profit of more than £23 million in 2007, bringing its total profit since 2004 close to £100 million.
The conditions under which staff find themselves working will also undoubtedly deteriorate under the new structure that is being proposed. That is particularly worrying given that a recent survey that was undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive revealed that, even before the current plans were announced, alarming levels of stress among production staff were being recorded in all areas, including demands, control, manager support, roles and the threat of change—not surprisingly, that was seen to be producing the most stress. Indeed, the survey indicated that, for six of the seven markers, urgent action was required to reduce stress levels.
It is wholly unacceptable that management are pressing ahead with changes that have not been thought through and which will lead to more stress among the staff. I therefore ask that the minister also consider asking the HSE to look into these deeply worrying proposals, which are clearly having a detrimental effect on staff health. We cannot expect staff not to be suffering under these terrible conditions—they were doing so even before they were told that they would have to reapply for their jobs, which they do not even know whether they will get.
The problem has been compounded by the lack of information given to staff. We learn that Donald Martin has set deadlines for staff to reapply for jobs without even giving them information about the jobs for which they are applying. Frankly, that beggars belief.
How staff have been and are being treated is unacceptable and, as has been noted, possibly illegal. I would be interested to know whether the issue of the legality of the group's approach to staff was raised at the minister's recent meeting with Tim Blott and Donald Martin, and, if so, exactly what was said. If the issue was not raised, I would ask the minister to raise it.
Let us be in no doubt that the titles and coverage will be affected. It seems that there are already plans to scrap the third edition of the Evening Times, which means that there will be only one edition available to the public to buy on the streets—the early morning edition; the second edition is for home delivery only. I understand that an edition of The Herald has also been scrapped. These are worrying times, not only for staff but for the readership.
It might seem strange to hear politicians standing up for the press, as we do not always agree with it. However, all of us truly value a vibrant and diverse press, even if it does not always write what we would like it to. There must be a completely democratic and independent press.
It struck me as strange that coverage of this important event has been somewhat muted. I urge all members of the media to stand together to highlight the owners' unacceptable approach and, by supporting the workers at the titles, ensure that other journalists and broadcasters do not suffer the same fate.
The process must be halted until the Competition Commission and the HSE are given an opportunity to deliberate on the matter and meaningful consultation is entered into with all parties, including the workforce of the titles and the National Union of Journalists.
There will be four-minute speeches, and there will be no one-minute warning.
I should declare an interest, as I have been a member of the NUJ for more than 30 years and am a former official of the union.
I am astounded by what is happening at The Herald and the Evening Times. It reminds me of an experience that I had when I was employed by the Daily Record almost 20 years ago, when the late Robert Maxwell tried to introduce changes there. He did not mess about; he just sent a letter to people's houses telling them that they were sacked. The man who delivered that letter to my house was chased down the driveway by a very irate Mrs Whitton.
Even so, I am astounded. Many of my constituents work on the papers. One of them happens to be someone whom I worked with many years ago. A few days ago, I wrote to him to ask what was happening. He sent me back an e-mail to tell me that the original deadline for applications had been put back from January 5 to January 12. He went on to say:
"many people are worried about their chances of retaining their jobs, and some - graphic artists and imaging, for example - feel there is no role for them: ie, their jobs are actually redundant but they are not being excused the charade of an interview and just being allowed to go with NewsQuest redundancy terms (two weeks for each year's service, capped at 20 years)."
I should point out that many of the staff at The Herald have 30 or even 40 years of service.
My constituent continued:
"Salary-wise, if you land the job that is closest to what you have been doing you will retain your current salary. If you are offered a lesser job, you retain your salary but it will be frozen until the rest catch up.
There has been a slight cut in holidays … but the biggest downside is the new working conditions: production comes into line with content provision and loses the nine-day fortnight; there will be seven-day working and an arduous rotating shift pattern".
That shift pattern will involve shifts starting at 10 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon and also a late shift.
My constituent continued:
"Everyone will work for all three titles, the web and edit videos. In effect, all three papers cease to exist as separate entities and … the quality will plummet to the lowest common denominator … the daily arts page in The Herald will cease and … the ABC section will be taken from The Herald to boost the Sunday Herald … staff on the business section were cut long ago on the understanding that they could top-up with casuals. Now the desk has been told: no more casuals."
That is happening at a time when, as Sandra White mentioned, stress levels among the workforce are disgracefully high. The fact that there will be no more casuals will probably mean that the stress levels will go through the roof.
My constituent continued:
"the editor is on record as saying that we were all being made redundant because we were obstructing change."
That language has been changed, and the people are now "at risk of redundancy". However, there is a caveat, as my constituent explains:
"If you leave now, you are deemed to have quit and will receive nothing. If you are ‘lucky' enough to be offered a job but want to leave, they say you will not qualify for redundancy."
I wrote to Mr Martin, the new group editor, to complain about the bully-boy tactics, and he wrote back to me a few days ago. He said:
"I can assure you there are no bully-boy tactics. We are in close, at times daily, discussion with the NUJ Scottish Organiser from whom we are happy to take feedback and constructive input."
I spoke to the NUJ organiser, Paul Holleran, today, and he told me that he has not met Donald Martin personally for six months. However, if Mr Martin is looking for some constructive input, I suggest that he sit down and negotiate properly with the NUJ and announce a decent redundancy package from the £23 million profit that the group made last year. That way, he might just get a decent workforce and maintain a paper that has a proud and long record in Scotland.
I thank Sandra White for bringing the debate to the chamber. As has been said, it is really a debate on workers' rights and the relationships between owners and management, and employees.
Happily, it is fairly rare these days for a company to ride roughshod over a loyal workforce to the extent that Gannett and Newsquest are doing in this dispute. It is obvious that they do things differently in America. The legality of making workers apply for their own jobs is dubious, but the morality is simply contemptible. The Evening Times, Herald and Sunday Herald stable is profitable to the tune of £23.4 million per annum, and awards have been won by all three newspapers and by their journalistic and editorial staff. There is, therefore, no business basis for the undermining of editorial staff morale.
The staff are dedicated professionals who produce a high-quality product, but it is clear that they are undervalued by owners for whom squeezing out the last penny of profit is more important than the quality of their newspapers or, indeed, the quality of life of their employees. The suggestion that editorial staff at these three nationally important newspapers should float between titles, with a lesser status than they have at present and with correspondingly poorer wages and conditions, will inevitably result in a lessening of the quality of the newspapers. It is a bean-counter mentality of cutting margins and knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
As has been said, the suggestion breaches the commitment that the group made to the Competition Commission in 2003 when it acquired the titles to develop and properly invest in the newspapers. The staff at the Evening Times, The Herald and the Sunday Herald were employed at levels of wages and conditions of service for which they had applied and which suited their levels of qualification, expertise and lifestyles. It is entirely false to suggest, as management have, that those jobs at those levels have in reality been made redundant, so Newsquest is on the shakiest of ground in issuing redundancy notices. It must speak to the unions seriously and address the concerns that its actions have raised among its staff.
I for one am willing to call for a boycott of all Newsquest titles and products—one is already in progress among growing numbers of Scotland's discerning newspaper-buying public—should the obduracy and intransigence of the owners and management continue. That appears to be the only form of action that they will understand.
I understand the point that the member makes, but surely a boycott would be counterproductive.
I have spoken to the unions about it, and they believe that the public are already carrying out a boycott. A boycott would only be counterproductive if it continued over a long period. It seems that the company wants only to make as much money as it can in as short a time as possible.
I thank Sandra White for lodging the motion and for signing my own motion on the same issue.
Such is the outrage at the actions of the new editor in chief of Newsquest (Herald and Times), Donald Martin, that about 60 MSPs signed one or more of the three motions that were lodged when it was announced that Sunday Herald, Herald and Evening Times staff would be made redundant. As we have heard, the deadline for people to apply for their own jobs is Monday 12 January. They have not done so, because there is still no information, which is appalling. Some senior journalists would lose up to £15,000 to £20,000 a year. This is no way to treat the press in Scotland.
Newsquest does not seem to care about the widespread opposition and concern. The group is refusing to negotiate and seems determined to impose a settlement. It does not seem to care about industrial relations and the agreements that it made with the unions, and it does not seem to care about the quality and diversity of the Scottish media, having shown little regard for the assurances that it gave the Competition Commission. What it does seem to care about is money. The group is not in financial difficulty. It makes massive profits, but it clearly feels that it does not make enough. It is difficult not to conclude that the cuts are the result of greed and not need.
If the group goes ahead with its plan to merge the titles, it is likely that 30 to 40 jobs will be lost. Those who remain are likely to be on reduced pay and conditions, including lower holiday entitlement and new, enforced shift patterns. Added to the existing concerns about stress and other health and safety issues, that cannot be good for the staff or the quality of the newspapers.
On the adoption of new production technology, the NUJ notes:
"every other media employer in Scotland is working with the union to try to handle these changes in a civilised manner."
I believe that the group's actions are unwarranted and unacceptable. Its plans represent a significant threat to the health of the newspaper industry in Scotland, and we in the Scottish Parliament must oppose them. The plans might increase the group's short-term profitability, but downgrading the quality of its product is not a recipe for sustainability. For the sake of Scotland and its media, the Herald group should take a step back, rethink its strategy, and work with the NUJ to achieve sustainable, long-term success.
I congratulate Sandra White on securing this important debate, and all the MSPs who signed the motion.
I am not surprised by the support for the Newsquest staff. For a democracy to flourish, it needs a few key components, one of which is a vibrant media. At present, Scotland has a vibrant media—albeit that there are signs of contraction—but the threat against the three Newsquest titles will surely send shock waves through all media organisations in Scotland. The Herald and the Evening Times are institutions in Scotland, and the Sunday Herald has proved in the past decade to be a quality addition to the newspaper stands. The more quality publications we have, the better, as far as I am concerned.
There is another vital issue, which I suggest is probably the most important thing to be considered—the staff. Other members have already touched on that. The threat to the workers in the Newsquest organisation is appalling. They will be wondering what will happen to them in the coming weeks and months—they have already had a few weeks of uncertainty. Some will be lucky enough to get their jobs back, albeit on worse conditions, but what will be their fate in the medium term, never mind the long term?
From what I have been led to believe, communication from management to the staff has been practically non-existent, which has created even more uncertainty and apprehension among the staff. I have been informed that those who are taken back will work for all three titles. As the publications have different sets of working hours, will that mean that the staff will work from 6 am to 12 midnight in order to cover shifts? David Whitton said that the shift will probably start at 10 am, but I have been informed that it will start at 6 am, which just emphasises the lack of information and communication from management to staff. Also, will the staff work six or seven days a week to ensure that the publications are covered? Those questions might seem ridiculous, but I assure members that they are legitimate concerns that have been put to me by staff who do not have a clue about what the future holds for them at Newsquest. It could be said that those questions are not exclusive to Newsquest and the three titles—I accept that—but as this evening's debate is about the future of the titles and the staff, it is legitimate to highlight the questions.
As things stand, it might seem to the naked eye that the management's actions are the actions of a drive to cut costs and increase profits. I do not know whether that is the case, and I am not suggesting that it is, but it could be suggested that such a strategy is under way. I hope that a profit maximisation strategy is not under way. The Newsquest products are quality products that target different markets and have the right to an equal place in the competitive media.
In various sectors of the industry, competition can occasionally be positive, stimulating improvements and leading to better products. Scotland's written media is one such sector; the greater the range of available written publications, the better served Scotland will be. Indeed, the more that interest in on-line versions of newspapers increases, the wider the range of publications that will be available throughout the world.
Newsquest has three different quality products that provide huge benefits to Scotland and ensure competition in the industry. The threat to the future of the titles and the staff is worrying and will concern everyone involved in the Scottish media. I urge Newsquest management to think again about its proposals, to communicate with its staff, to provide genuine assurances about the future of the publications and to invest in the publications. Increased investment will reap greater moral and financial rewards, while short-term cuts will simply devastate morale, the quality of the product, their readership, advertising and—ultimately—the publications themselves.
I congratulate Sandra White on securing the debate. However, although her motion refers specifically to the Herald group, I point out that the whole Scottish newspaper sector faces a bleak new year.
I happen to know a bit about Scottish daily newspapers. My first job on leaving school was with the Dundee Courier and Advertiser group, and the girl I married was a newspaper journalist who worked for a number of Scottish dailies, including The Herald. One of our sons is a writer for a Scottish national daily and—until she saw which way the wind was blowing—his wife held a senior editorial position with the Evening Times.
There is a 1960s pop song that tells us that "Even the Bad Times Are Good". In the half century or so that I have known the Scottish newspaper industry, even the good times have, all too often, been bad. Periods of relatively healthy profits failed to silence the constant calls for belt-tightening and rumours of job cuts. When the old hot-metal days gave way to a bewildering array of cheaper and faster printing methods, typesetters and compositors were the first victims. We journalists kidded ourselves that wordsmiths would always be needed, but not quite believing our own bluster, some of us moved into broadcasting, while others even went into politics. Now journos who once pontificated about so-called luddite print unions are seeing an army of unpaid bloggers threatening their livelihoods.
The Herald group has been caught up in a tsunami that is sweeping through the world-wide newspaper industry. This is not just a Scottish or United Kingdom phenomenon; the American owners of The Herald are applying cost-cutting methods to their titles all over the US. It is no secret that every Scottish newspaper publisher is seeking to cut costs. Sadly, that is going to mean job losses and, eventually, the probable loss of Scottish newspaper titles. The credit crunch is just the latest blow to hit newspapers, which have seen circulation and advertising collapse as electronic publishing comes of age.
Was the Gannett group, which owns The Herald, right to fire its staff and require them to reapply for fewer jobs with less favourable conditions of employment? By normal UK labour relations standards, it was absolutely not right. Gannett will discover that, when newspapers dispense with those who gather news, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise. Either newspapers are about breaking news or they are about nothing.
However, checking the share price of any Scottish newspaper group is like a glimpse at Armageddon. Newspapers survive not on circulation, but on advertising. Circulation is important only in as much as it justifies the price that the newspaper charges to carry ads. With circulation and advertising both in free-fall, we are witnessing the newspaper version of the perfect storm.
That is not the end of the bad news. Until now, national and local newspapers have been able to rely on councils and the Government advertising recruitment opportunities, and publishing public and statutory notices. However, local authorities and the Government are turning to the electronic media. Today, I have asked written questions about the amount that is spent by the Scottish Government on local and national press advertising per annum, and I have requested similar figures from the councils. Clearly, government at all levels must seek to save costs. As the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism will no doubt confirm, the Scottish Government is in five different areas of Scotland trialling the publication of public and statutory notices on the web. If the trials are successful, it could mean a massive loss of advertising revenue for the Scottish press, and newspapers going to the wall.
We can sit here deploring Gannett's heavy-handed labour relations—which, I add, I do not condone—but the fact is that Scotland's newspaper industry is in deep crisis. Although we should be grateful to Sandra White for lodging her motion, the issues go beyond the fates of individual Herald journalists, important though they are. I believe that Parliament is in the very near future bound to return to the wider debate about newspapers.
I also congratulate Sandra White on securing this evening's debate on an important issue. I know that her motion and other motions have received a lot of support.
I declare an interest as a former National Union of Journalists member and a former union official. Some people might not know that many people who work for trade unions, as well as people who work in the media, opt for the NUJ as their union of choice. I should also mention my background as someone who has been on the well-trodden path of having worked on the other side—the management side—of industrial relations. In my time there, I felt that good management of industrial relations is at the centre of any successful business. Having a good relationship with trade unions makes a real difference in workplaces.
Of course we must recognise that the industry is changing and faces other pressures, but lessons can be learned from looking at other industries. The approach that has been taken by the management of The Herald and the Evening Times is not what is needed when an industry is changing. Management needs to engage positively with the workforce and with its trade union representatives. The manufacturing sector provides recent examples of how to face global pressures. That sector has managed to come through those pressures and to sustain its workers through positive industrial relations and positive engagement. People in the media industries that are now facing pressures should look to that as an example.
If we reach the stage where people on The Herald and the Evening Times end up being forced out the door, we will be offering an open invitation to other titles to conclude that, if those newspapers can get away with it, other employers can, too.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Sorry—I must make progress.
We need to send a clear message from Parliament that that is not the case.
Sandra White asked questions about the legality of recent moves by the group's senior management. If those moves are not illegal, they are certainly immoral. Again, we need to send a clear message that, in 21st century Scotland, it is not acceptable to do business in that way. Changes cannot be simply imposed in a modern workplace.
There is an old saying that, if a management approaches things in a certain way, it will get the unions that it deserves. However, to be honest, I do not know who deserves the sort of management approach that we have seen. My understanding of how the NUJ has done its business in the challenging times of recent years and on this issue is that it has dealt with matters sensibly by engaging with and representing its members properly. It has also engaged with management to try to make a difference and to find a solution. At the end of the day, people want the same solution. The union might have ideas that are different from management's about how to get there, but negotiation and discussion are needed to find that common ground and to move forward.
I hope that the minister will join Parliament in sending a clear message that the approach that has been taken by the group's management is completely unacceptable—it is out of kilter with Scotland's approach to doing business in 2009. That important message should also be given by the Scottish Government alongside Parliament.
We also need to keep in mind that we are talking about individual workers who will have been worried over Christmas and who will be worrying now. At a difficult economic time, when everyone is facing many different concerns, worry about one's job, which is such a big part of a person's life, makes a real difference to family life and, to my mind, adds unnecessary stress. In thinking about those people, I hope that we can send a clear message tonight that we are fully behind the workers at The Herald and the Evening Times.
I add my thanks to Sandra White for lodging the motion.
Sandra White and other members have mentioned the sometimes love-hate relationship that exists between politicians and the media. The mutual respect between the two is not always entirely evident on every page of every newspaper or in every political diary, but that mutual respect exists. For a properly functioning democracy, a free and high-quality press is vital. Its importance is far greater than that of, for example, the blogosphere, although I would certainly defend the freedom of both.
High-quality journalism is necessary for high-quality press. High-quality journalism is not the same as reporting and it is not just copy or text. It depends not only on journalists themselves, but on the many other professionals who make the end product possible. Decent treatment of employees is essential not only for justice but for a high-quality, professional product.
Ted Brocklebank urges us to recognise the reality that the industry faces. I agreed with many of his comments, but I disagreed with some of them. Newspapers around the world are recognising that people have more choices of where to go for their news these days—where to go for their immediate coverage. However, journalism is something different. It is not just coverage or reporting. The thing that will make me carry on buying a high-quality newspaper, as well as going to the blogs, the BBC website and so on, is high-quality journalism—the kind of thing that we know we will get when we buy the paper.
What should Newsquest/Gannett or any other owner of a newspaper do to ensure that they can carry on safeguarding the product for the future? It should certainly not do what it is doing at the moment. How would we feel about MSPs who decided to treat their staff in a similar way by announcing sudden cuts just before Christmas, with mass redundancy and rerecruitment? How would we feel if we learned that one of our colleagues was scrapping an agreement that had been reached through collective negotiation through the unions; reducing working conditions in relation to sick pay, hours and shift patterns; cutting key posts and redefining hours; and causing increased stress among the remaining employees and a feeling that those who remained were working for a less-valued organisation, which was being not nurtured but neglected by its management? We would be ashamed of colleagues who treated their employees like that. If they were doing it at a time when our allowances for paying staff were being increased, we would be rightly outraged.
That scenario is analogous to what Newsquest/Gannett is doing. The resources that it has available and its profits are increasing and yet that is how it is treating its staff. That kind of behaviour will lead to a denuded and diminished product, not to a product that will have a future in the new reality, which Ted Brocklebank described accurately, in which people have many more choices of where to go for coverage.
If a public sector agency of the Scottish Government was treating its staff in this way in similar circumstances, we would not be debating it at 5 o'clock in a members' business debate; it would be the subject of anger and outrage every Thursday afternoon at 12 o'clock until it stopped. That is what should happen in the case of Newsquest/Gannett. Its behaviour should stop. That should be the clear message from the Parliament tonight.
I declare an interest as a loyal, long-standing reader—notwithstanding my geographical location—of The Herald and the Sunday Herald, both of which I value.
Other members have dealt with employment rights. I, too, attended the NUJ briefing. I am absolutely astonished at what appears to be a rather large coach and horses being driven straight through employment legislation—in effect, people are being sacked. A coach and horses is also being driven through equality legislation, given the proposed changes in work shift patterns.
I say to Patrick Harvie that if any of us did something similar in the Parliament, we would be before an industrial tribunal—and all over the newspapers—without our feet touching the ground. There are some laws for the newspaper proprietors and others for politicians. As John Park said, if the newspaper proprietors are not breaking the letter of the law—which I dispute—they are certainly breaking the spirit of the law.
At a human level, we have to consider the abysmal treatment of employees, especially, but not exclusively, those who are long serving and who have probably worked beyond the call of duty. Like others, I would call a halt while unions and management discuss the position that lies before them.
I appreciate what Ted Brocklebank said. We all know that these are hard times for newspapers—although they are not so hard for The Herald stable, given the money that it is making—but their owners should not be acting in this bludgeoning way. I say to David Whitton that if Mr Martin says that such behaviour is not bullying, I do not want to meet him on a darkened stairheid at night.
A broader issue is the loss of diversity in journalism, to which Patrick Harvie referred. Scotland has four broadsheets, which are geographically based: The Press and Journal, The Courier—I am obliged to Ted Brocklebank for reminding me of that—The Scotsman and The Herald. All have served and some currently serve their readerships in a good old-fashioned fashion and some of them are surviving. They reflect the Scottish geographical loyalty to newspapers and I do not want that to end.
I mention in passing the absolute uselessness—at least previously—of the Competition Commission. I understand that the rules have now changed, so it can reopen and review the decision that was made in 2003, when Newsquest and Gannett gave undertakings from which they have walked away. There is no point in having a Competition Commission whose rules do not have to be paid attention to.
Where is the management behaviour leading? The individual journalists experience injustice. The protection of employment rights is disregarded. Broadsheet news coverage in Scotland is eroded. There is further erosion of quality journalism—on which I agree with Patrick Harvie—such as specialist and informed reporting and investigative journalism, which sometimes takes time but can dig out nuggets of information. Democracy is diminished by the enfeebling of what is called—rightly—the fourth estate. That is the broader picture.
It is said that the relationship between the politician and the journalist is like that between the dog and the lamp post—I forget which is which. I have far more regard for the political journalists whom we in the chamber know. They do not just do our bidding; they put us to the test.
We need quality journalism to shine a keen light on the actions not only of the Parliament, but of Westminster and of the wider world. We need it to expose those who buy power and influence; to expose charlatans, whether large or small; and to bring to our comfortable breakfast table—reading a paper is different from surfing the internet—the harshest reports and comments on our man-made disasters, whether they are in Iraq or Gaza.
The effect of the proposed demise of the staff and the papers in the stable goes beyond the readership, so I support Ted Brocklebank's proposal for a wider review of the service that newspapers do Scotland.
Given the number of members who are still waiting to speak, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders to extend the debate to allow the remaining two back-bench speakers four minutes each, before the minister speaks.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 5.57 pm.—[Sandra White.]
Motion agreed to.
I am pleased that Sandra White secured the debate: the action of Newsquest's management in the past few months should be exposed because of how it has attempted to achieve modernisation. As John Park said, if Newsquest gets away with it, I am afraid that some employers will think that that is how to do business.
The issue is not change itself—everyone understands that modernisation of the newspaper industry is inevitable; the question is how the industry chooses to change. When change occurs, people must be carried with it and be allowed to embrace it.
By all accounts, the management's view even of how it will run the three newspapers is misguided. As Christine Grahame said, each has a different character, but the management intends to roll up the new contract of employment for journalists so that they write articles not for specific papers, but for a general pot. That denies the fundamental and important relationship that has always existed between journalists and their sources. That is certainly the school of thought from which I come.
A serious discussion is needed with the trade union—the workforce knows as much as the management about how the industry works. Only by sitting down together can a constructive way forward be found.
The debate is helpful, because it gives the Parliament another opportunity to express the view that such behaviour is not expected from Scotland-based companies. Sacking the workforce to create an atmosphere of change by fear is wrong and we should say so, as we are doing tonight.
The Herald was one of the newspapers that lobbied the Parliament to stop the BBC spending £68 million to free up the way for online development. If I had known then that The Herald would go down the route that its owners have taken, I would not have lobbied the BBC on the point.
When I raised this issue with the First Minister at First Minister's question time on 4 December, he rightly said that it is one that The Herald would have featured in an editorial. I hope that the debate is reported. I believe that the Press Association is covering it. I hope that it gets the attention it deserves in the newspapers that should cover it.
As the Herald group is based in my constituency, I have taken a special interest in this issue as an MSP but also as a Labour spokesperson, trade unionist and human being. The way in which the company sacked its staff and revised job descriptions to introduce lesser terms and conditions is fundamentally wrong. I cannot agree more with Patrick Harvie on the need to maintain standards, including in contracts of employment. That is the only way in which to retain the best people for our industry. Poorer terms and conditions make for unhappy workforces, and unhappy workforces are never a part of high-quality industries.
The situation has exposed flaws in employment law when it comes to redundancy. That is a matter for Westminster to decide upon, but anyone with even some knowledge of the law would surely believe that what has happened is fundamentally illegal given that it has weakened the position of the workforce. It seems that management can override redundancy law. The sanctions against such employers appear not to be strong enough. The law on redundancy should be clearer cut. I have for many years considered that revision of our redundancy laws is needed. I hope that Westminster will look into the matter.
It is right for the Parliament to speak out on the subject. All members agree on that. We all know that change is inevitable—times are hard and the industry faces serious challenges in the years ahead—but we must keep up the pressure on the company, as what it has done will affect standards. The people we represent want high-quality news. They will not get it if this situation is allowed to continue.
I will try to be brief in picking up where Pauline McNeill left off.
Sandra White has done the workers in the Herald group a service by securing the debate, but in doing so she has also opened a can of worms. There is a great deal that we in this Parliament cannot do. Ted Brocklebank was the first to analyse properly the fact that we are talking not about a little Scottish problem, but about a national one. Although each of us can feel heart sorry for all the Scottish families that are represented in the workforce across the three titles, they form part of a much wider movement.
As Pauline McNeill and other members correctly said, the important issue in the debate is the way in which the situation was handled. The textbook case in front of us, which David Whitton will recollect, as do I, is that once Rupert Murdoch had gone to Wapping and done it—as the headlines said, it was The Sun what done it—the way was open for Robert Maxwell to copy him. I remember the razor wire that was put up around the perimeter of The Record offices. People questioned why it had been done, but the tsunami had started and was carrying all before it. Given the current economic climate, I doubt very much whether this or any other Government will take on any employer who behaves as Newsquest is behaving.
I think that there is a piece of legislation before Westminster that will place wider civic and public-spirited duties on shareholders. We could investigate that. Perhaps we could also encourage Scottish shareholders of the Herald group to exercise more care over their stewardship as shareholders—it is possible.
This Parliament cannot sort the situation out, but we could agree to host a seminar to examine the future of mass-media communication along the lines of those that we have held in the past, such as the event in which Bill Gates was involved. It is essential for a democracy to have mass-media communication. If anyone thinks that the blogosphere will take the place of the responsible journalism of the past that helped to build democracy, civil liberties and natural justice in this country, they are out of their minds and ignoring the patently obvious. There is a role that we can play: we cannot sort out industrial relations, but we can take the side of the workers. In this situation, they are in the right.
Circulation is falling, as Newsquest knows. It also knows that advertising is vanishing like snow off a dyke and that the situation will get even worse over the next year—but it also has responsibilities as management. I am not on its side, but I am willing to help it behave better, just as I am willing, as part of the Parliament, to help with the bigger picture. We might be able to bring people together to establish how to manage mass communications of information. If we do not, people who are less well intentioned might well do so.
I congratulate Sandra White on securing the debate and voicing her concerns for the staff, legacy and editorial independence of the Herald titles. I acknowledge the strong and unanimous views that have been expressed. This is probably the best members' business debate that I have attended. The quality has been terrific, and I can assure Sandra White that we will keep all representation options open.
Members will know that I cannot intervene directly in an industrial dispute, but this case is significant on several levels, which is why I have made a point of meeting representatives of the unions and Newsquest over the past few weeks. I have urged both sides in the dispute to come together for the benefit of all involved. We stand willing to take part in any follow-up meetings if it is deemed helpful. We want to help the titles endure and grow and protect Scottish values and cohesion in the workplace.
Polarisation and drastic action are always a matter of regret, as they always result in suboptimal outcomes. As John Park mentioned, better positive engagement is being achieved elsewhere. I understand that there is an example in Wales of Newsquest and the NUJ doing something similar to what JCB has done recently—showing that the two sides can work together. I have always favoured a better way. It is clear to me from conversations that I have had that such an option still exists in this case and that both sides want the titles to endure and grow in the long term. It is a matter of regret that we are where we are; I am determined that we should learn and propagate a lesson from what is happening.
Will the minister give way?
I am keen to get as constructive a statement as possible on the record and to send a clear message in relation to what John Park said. If I have time at the end, I will gladly take Mr Whitton's intervention.
Unfortunately, the approach that is currently being taken is legal, although it sits very uncomfortably with Scottish values and Scottish standards and aspirations for industrial cohesion in what are challenging times. I am sure that, in their heart of hearts, the local management of Newsquest know that such drastic actions play badly in Scotland. I sense both their embarrassment and a desire to find a better way.
Meanwhile, there are some real questions that must be answered by those who are responsible for framing employment law in Scotland. The point needs to be reinforced that, as long as the UK Government retains responsibility for that, it must place the needs, concerns and values of the Scottish people at the heart of what it does. That has been shown tonight in members' speeches. Scots do not want the approach that has been adopted at The Herald and the Evening Times to be taken elsewhere in the newspaper industry or in other sectors.
Like Ted Brocklebank and Margo MacDonald, we recognise the challenge that the sector faces as new players with lower overheads and lower marginal costs move into the field. Competition is tough. Not only that, but people are accessing news media differently and are becoming more reluctant to pay for it. News and commentary are no longer static products. Consumers expect a more immediate and interactive service, so the business and business models are rapidly changing.
Undoubtedly, however, there are opportunities for established players such as The Herald and the Evening Times. Consumer trust is a critical element in the sector, especially in this electronic age, and those titles have that. The Herald has been building trust with the people of Scotland for more than 200 years, and that is a huge asset. Large monolithic websites do not necessarily attract customer loyalty and love, so there is space to develop something innovative and challenging in Scotland. This country has a tradition of large, voracious newspaper readerships. There is every reason to believe that modern, younger Scots will respond positively to modern services that are produced here in Scotland. That is a legacy that we have an obligation to honour and develop.
Any Scotland-based service that is to be successful must have the interests and concerns of Scots at the heart of its activity, or Scots will not use it. That point is registering with the staff and unions in question.
There is a business case for a better way forward. The experience of the 21st century tells us that most successful businesses increasingly operate in partnership with their employees. In all truly successful and long-living companies, success is based on a worthy, unifying purpose that is to do with developing mutual respect and building in customer dependence. That is the only way of guaranteeing the future that everyone wants and delivering sustainable growth that is meaningful at corporate level to employees, managers and shareholders.
Most management teams think that people resist change, but my experience tells me that people resist change when it is imposed on them—if change is not imposed, it is not resisted.
I am sure that the minister knows that The Scotsman Publications Ltd is engaged in negotiations with staff. I use the word "negotiations" in its proper sense, because management has sat down with the unions to discuss the proper way forward. I am sure that the minister welcomes that approach as opposed to the approach of Newsquest management, which has been to impose change on staff.
I do indeed.
Staff at the Newsquest titles are committed to helping to grow the titles over the long term. The shareholders need such growth, without which there is no longer any shareholder value. We know that if a business is to endure and grow it must adapt, innovate and continue to do better, which requires cohesion and win-win deals for everyone who is involved.
Will the minister give way?
I want to make key points in my final minute.
The company has survived over the years, and previous generations of staff have shown great flexibility—there is no reason to believe that that cannot happen again. The company must win hearts and minds, as its predecessors must have done, and I urge it to make a final attempt to do so. I understand that the company is between a rock and a hard place, but what it is doing is no way to win hearts and minds.
Will the minister give way?
I want to get a key point on the record.
Margo MacDonald suggested that a seminar be held. I have persuaded Tim Blott, in his role as president of the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society, to bring together a wide range of people who have a stake in the sector's future success in Scotland. Tim Blott and Paul Holleran have both confirmed that they will come together for that. The approach matches what we have done with 46 other sectoral groups in Scotland and can help us to find a better way forward. By bringing the right people together in a single room we can begin to unleash the potential for collaboration and achieve the outcome to which I think Margo MacDonald was alluding.
Meeting closed at 17:57.