Scottish Media Group (Sale of Titles)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3589 in the name of Karen Gillon, on the sale of The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the proposed sale by Scottish Media Group of the titles The Herald, Sunday Herald and Evening Times; recognises the contribution these titles make in providing Scotland with diverse media, and therefore considers that the Scottish Executive should make representations to Her Majesty's Government to ensure that any sale does not lead to a monopoly situation.
I thank the members from all parties who have put their names to the motion over the past few weeks. From the large number of members who signed the motion—84 in total, including one Tory—it is clear that there is considerable strength of feeling in the Parliament about the issue. Members were particularly concerned about the potential purchase of The Herald by the owners of The Scotsman. Yesterday, we heard that the owners of Scottish Media Group have decided to reject that bid and to accept a bid from Gannett Company, which is a worldwide organisation. I welcome that news.
We should not underestimate the impact that the strength of feeling of members of both this Parliament and the UK Parliament has had on the owners of SMG. It was gratifying to note that members of this Parliament and our counterparts in the UK Parliament spoke with one voice. We said that, whatever happened with the sale of the SMG titles, any takeover bid should be subject to the closest scrutiny and should be referred to the Competition Commission. That is exactly what has happened.
The referral of Gannett's bid to the Competition Commission is an important development, because central to the motion that we are debating is the question of competition and plurality in the Scottish newspaper industry. A vibrant and diversified press is essential for healthy, democratic debate, especially in a nation such as Scotland, which has its own concerns, rich traditions and cultures, even though it shares many interests with the rest of the United Kingdom. For me, the issue is not constitutional; it is about what is best for the Scottish press.
As I indicated, Gannett's preferred bid has been referred to the Competition Commission. I hope that the minister will consider and make representations to the UK Government on a number of issues. The first is employment. The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times employ a significant number of staff on a number of sites. The staff are renowned for their journalistic ability and I hope that, whatever happens, their jobs can be safeguarded.
The key to the debate is the fact that Gannett is recognised as a regional and local newspaper publisher. I will provide circulation figures for some of Gannett's other publications: for the Daily Echo, which circulates in Bournemouth, the figure is more than 38,000; for the Dorset Echo, the figure is 20,000; and for Worcester's Evening News, the figure is 21,000. The circulation figure for The Herald is more than 91,000. Clearly, The Herald is not in the same league as those papers. It has worked hard to ensure that it is perceived as a national newspaper in Scotland.
The member says that The Herald has achieved its aim of becoming a national newspaper. Does she believe that it outsells The Press and Journal in Aberdeen and The Courier and Advertiser in Dundee? If not, does she agree that The Herald still has difficulty in demonstrating that it is a national newspaper, just as The Scotsman has difficulty in showing that it is a national newspaper?
The Herald definitely has circulation issues in the north-east of Scotland. No one can deny the significant input that The Press and Journal and The Courier and Advertiser make to their respective markets. However, the member is mistaken if he is seriously trying to tell me that The Herald and The Scotsman are not thought to reflect the national news in Scotland. Those publications have moved away from interpreting only the news in the west of Scotland or the east of Scotland. They have tried hard to develop a national profile and to report all facets of what happens in the Parliament in a national way. Although progress still has to be made and people will continue to make choices on the basis of what they want from a newspaper, it would be wrong to say that The Herald and The Scotsman have not tried hard to become national, as opposed to regional, newspapers.
If Gannett becomes the owner of the SMG titles, the minister, along with Gannett, should consider trade union recognition. All Labour members would welcome trade union recognition, which has a positive impact—membership of a trade union is a positive part of being a journalist in Scotland. I hope that the minister will ensure that Gannett acknowledges the valuable role that trade unions play. They have been part of the SMG titles for some considerable time.
The debate has moved on since we expressed our initial concerns. I should have said at the beginning of my speech that the issue is not about one title taking over another, although that was an obvious concern. The most important point to stress is that The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times should be able to maintain individual editorial control. Editorial control of newspapers in Scotland is vital. I hope that the minister will continue to make representations to the UK Government to ensure that all the issues relating to the diversity and plurality of the Scottish media, which are so dear to us, are identified and borne in mind in the Competition Commission's inquiry. Jobs are another important issue and the employment pattern across Scotland must also be taken into account.
I pay tribute to Karen Gillon for securing the debate and for being an important voice in the discussions about the issue since the initial threat was revealed some months ago. At the outset, I should declare an interest as a columnist for The Herald.
When media ownership in Scotland is considered, it is important to look not just at the specifics of one case but at the more general question of how ownership of the media should be approached in any country. Three criteria had to apply to the SMG situation; those three criteria should apply to all such situations.
First, there should be more rather than fewer media owners in Scotland. Secondly, all newspapers are entitled to their editorial independence. That independence should be sacred—it should not be possible for passing owners to interfere with it. Thirdly, there is a great need for investment in newspapers in Scotland, rather than for a reduction in the number of jobs and in the scope of newspapers. There has been an increasing tendency to take money out of newspapers in Scotland to increase profitability, rather than to invest in them to increase their long-term profitability.
It is some relief that the first criterion has been met—the number of owners after 10 March next year is likely to be no fewer than the number before the process started. However, we must put a slight caveat on that. Any large company—including that of the Barclay brothers—will still be able to make a hostile bid for the entire company and seek the Independent Television Commission's approval to sell the television interests. I hope that that will not happen, but the possibility remains. I understand that, if that happened, the bid would be referred not only to the ITC, but to a body under competition legislation. The threat still exists, but it grows smaller with every day that passes.
We must ensure that the other two criteria—editorial independence and investment in the newspapers—are also met. I hope that the chamber will send a message to Gannett as it considers its options for Scotland. The first message is a welcome to Scotland for a company that has not invested here before and that has a large international media empire worth several billion dollars. The second message should be that we expect the company to value our national press as we value it, which means investing in the Herald group—The Herald, the Sunday Herald, the Evening Times and the magazines—and ensuring that the quality of the papers is maintained and that editorial independence is preserved.
We want to take a wider view than has been taken in recent weeks. I agree with Karen Gillon that it is right that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Parliament have spoken largely with one voice. The past few weeks have taught the Scottish Parliament a valuable lesson. We can speak with one voice on such issues, but we should be able to act with one voice and influence what is taking place with the Parliament's powers, instead of being bystanders. I know that I shall lose some support from members of other parties on that issue, but that is a profoundly important lesson to learn, because other battles are coming.
I will give one example. Members might have seen that Trinity Mirror appointed a new chief executive today. As part of her strategy, she might consider whether the company's ownership of the Daily Record has a long-term future. That ties in with the circulation figures that were published in this week's media section of The Guardian, which showed a year-on-year circulation fall for the Daily Record. If the Daily Record were under threat from an existing tabloid in Scotland or an existing media owner—some of the arguments that applied in relation to the Barclay brothers might also apply here—the Parliament should be able to act on that, rather than sitting as a bystander and trying to influence others. I am certain that, if the circumstances that I described arose, the voices in the chamber would be unified, which would have an influence, but we could not make a difference. We must make that difference legislatively, as is happening at Westminster with the Communications Bill.
The threats to the Scottish media—print and broadcast—are great. An American company such as Gannett could come into Scotland and buy television companies, but it would be impossible for a Scottish company, such as a healthy SMG, to buy into television in America. That is wrong. We must protect the cultural market in Scotland as much as the media market, because they are inextricably linked.
I am glad that Karen Gillon lodged the motion, which the SNP supports whole-heartedly. We want to ensure that the Scottish media flourish. For the long term, we must learn the important lessons for the Parliament. The Parliament has still to complete the powers that it needs in relation to the media, to culture and to most other matters.
I declare that I am a columnist with the Edinburgh Evening News and a former columnist with The Herald.
I thank Karen Gillon for lodging the motion and explaining the rationale behind it. There has been much talk this evening and previously about the Parliament speaking with one voice. That talk comes from people who say that they believe in a diverse editorial approach. Opinion about the assorted bids for the Herald titles is diverse, yet we hear that we talk with one voice. I am sorry, but we do not talk with one voice. If we had a vote—we cannot vote in a members' business debate—we might have one result, but a plurality of views about the issue exists.
Competition policy in our great union that is the United Kingdom is, properly, reserved, so I wondered why Karen Gillon had lodged the motion. Was it because of her concern about economic monopoly? No. The rules are quite clear about what is reserved in that respect. Was it because of the possibility of job losses and other difficulties arising from the change of ownership that might result from the merger? No. Karen Gillon has made it clear in previous statements that competition policy deals properly with those issues. It must, therefore, be the threat to the cultural monopoly—Karen Gillon is seeking to champion the diversity of editorial approach. It is a good thing that editorial approach should be championed, but what is the diversity—
Will the member take an intervention?
I must go on. I will be happy to take an intervention in a little while.
Not so long ago, The Herald and The Scotsman were very alike in their views. Indeed, one could not pass a piece of toilet paper between their views on Europe, foreign policy, home rule or the Conservative party.
Will the member take an intervention?
Certainly, Dorothy.
My question—
Thank you. I can assure Brian Monteith, having worked on the Glasgow Herald, man and boy, in earlier times, that it was a high Tory paper. I had special dispensation from the editor not to write the Tory leaders.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is clear that Mr Monteith intended to take Dr Ewing and that she had started to speak.
Mr Monteith made it clear that he was giving way to Dorothy-Grace Elder, although he indicated earlier that he would take Dr Ewing's intervention.
And I still will.
Please take Dr Ewing as well.
Are you taking Dr Ewing now or will you answer Dorothy-Grace Elder?
I will give my answer first. It was always my intention to take Dr Ewing, but it was clear that Dorothy-Grace Elder wanted to come in at that point.
I agree that many journalists make contributions to papers. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, however, it is clear that the editorial policies of The Scotsman and The Herald were very much the same and that both papers reflected what was then the establishment view in Scotland.
My question, which I have raised with the First Minister, is about the reserved nature of the debate. Competition law in respect of the newspaper industry should differentiate between the Scottish dimension, in which people read different newspapers, and the English one. I received a sympathetic answer from the First Minister. We should go along that line.
I have no difficulty in looking at the issue of monopoly in respect of economic competition policy. I believe that that can be resolved easily at Westminster. After all, 72 members represent Scotland at Westminster. They can make representations on the matter. From time to time in the past, Scottish members have held the ministerial position in that area.
I wish to return to cultural matters. From time to time, papers have been diverse in their editorial policy and, at other times, they have said the same thing. That has nothing to do with ownership. I challenge the idea that a change in ownership would necessarily bring about an end to a diverse approach.
Karen Gillon's intervention must be the last one.
Does the member believe that it would have been in the interests of Scotland and the Scottish press for The Scotsman to have purchased The Herald?
As I have said many times before, I take no economic view on whether it would have been in their best interests.
That is not what Karen Gillon asked.
Is it not? I am not in command of all the business facts. As someone who has worked in business and with newspapers, I would have preferred to see a strong Scottish media group formed than to have an American multinational come to Scotland and begin to operate in the Scottish market. I say that for the simple reason that I have explained before. I would like to see Scottish business expand and go forth beyond our borders rather than to see Scottish businesses taken over by companies from other countries. If we believe in a strong Scottish economy, surely that is what we should seek to do.
The current bid from the owners of USA Today, which is a paper that has a wide reputation for using wire copy, might mean that we have to say farewell in future to our colleagues Robbie Dinwoodie, Murray Ritchie and Frances Horsburgh—[Members: "No."]—and have Joe Quinn writing his copy and wiring it to The Herald.
There is no certainty in the new bid. We have to reflect on it and wait for the discussion about the competition aspects and the reports to be published in March. That would be the time for a proper debate in the chamber, on which I hope that we could have a vote.
I, too, thank Karen Gillon for initiating the debate.
As others have said, there is a sense in which some elements of the motion are shifting as we speak. I welcome the developments and support many of the comments that were made by Michael Russell. I also agree with Dr Ewing that the competition authorities should take account of the Scottish dimension.
I do not know enough about the commercial aspects of the various deals to go into the detail of that, so I will confine myself to some remarks about the papers in question and the importance of diversity in the press.
I remember going to Rothesay pier to buy the Saturday sports papers, the Pink Times and the Green Citizen. We used to get them in time for the half-time results and come back for another edition later. I am old enough to remember the then Glasgow Herald when it had only classified adverts on the front page. I have read the Sunday Herald since its inception, and I think that it is a colourful and stylish addition to the Sunday press, with high production values and quality journalism. Those papers are part of a kaleidoscopic picture of newspapers in Scotland, the diversity of which is hugely important.
At a recent meeting, a London journalist told me that Scotland—with its tremendous variety of local papers and the intense rivalry between the dailies that are available to the Scottish reading public—was more wedded to newspapers than any other part of the UK. That diversity is important. Arthur Miller said that
"A good newspaper is a nation talking to itself",
and we can see what he means with the news, editorials, letters and features. However, a nation would be the poorer if it talked to itself in only a single tone of voice. If we consider The Scotsman and The Herald, we can see that listening to two voices is better than hearing only one. A series of voices, expressing varied views, exploring different topics and speaking in different tones of voice, can make us wiser and better informed as individuals and as a nation.
As was noted earlier, in Scotland we have, perhaps uniquely, a variety of quality papers that are rooted originally in a regional base, with a loyal readership that comes from those roots. However, those papers aspire to see the world not only in parochial or regional terms, but in national and international terms. They have made great strides to be seen as national papers. When issues such as the sale of a group of newspapers arise, we worry if the number of voices is to be reduced.
Even in each quality newspaper, we want and expect to hear a variety of voices. C P Scott, the great editor of The Manchester Guardian, said that a newspaper is, of necessity, something of a monopoly and that its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Although I would frequently quarrel with the editorial line of The Scotsman, I must acknowledge that in the variety of its feature writers, it avoids the temptations of monopoly to which C P Scott referred. That is a great commendation of that paper.
In all those ways, the free press helps to drive and maintain democracy by informing and shaping opinion. There are times when, as politicians and others, we do not always see that as a blessing. There is a moment in a Tom Stoppard play when one character asserts the benefits of a free press. He says:
"No matter how imperfect things are, if you've got a free press, everything is correctable, and without it, everything is concealable."
The person to whom he is speaking replies:
"I'm with you on the free press – it's the newspapers I can't stand."
We know that some politicians, and their wives, must know what he meant.
No matter how much we would like to do so, it is not our business to tell a newspaper proprietor what his political stance should be. However, I hope that whoever ends up owning The Herald and the other papers recognises that a distinct voice is valuable, avoids the temptations of monopoly and ensures editorial independence. I hope that they can also be convinced that such an approach makes commercial sense.
I congratulate Karen Gillon on securing this debate. Unlike Mr Monteith, I share the worries of the staff of The Herald, the Evening Times and the Sunday Herald. They have been in limbo for the past couple of months and have wished for an end to the situation. Obviously, they are frightened about what will happen with their jobs.
I share the member's concern about the future of the staff. However, I am merely pointing out that the successful bidder—no matter whether they come from within or outwith Scotland—is likely to reduce the number of people employed at the titles. All the bidders have records of reducing staff.
That might be the member's recollection of what he said; my recollection is that he said that we should be having this debate not now but later on. However, I feel that, as far as the staff on the newspapers are concerned, the debate should perhaps have been held sooner than this. I again congratulate Karen Gillon on securing it.
I am a Glaswegian who grew up with The Herald and the Evening Times, and I certainly remember the Green Citizen, which is no longer with us. Indeed, I remember The Herald when it was the Glasgow Herald. Since it lost "Glasgow" from its title, the newspaper has gone on to become one of the best newspapers—if not the best—in Scotland. I know that Mr Monteith will challenge that point.
The Herald has become one of the best Scottish broadsheets because it consistently prints unbiased news, which is not something that many newspapers in this country do. That is why we must fight very hard to ensure that whoever takes over The Herald and the Evening Times lets the editorial staff and journalists speak with their current voice, not only for the people of Glasgow but for the people of Scotland. We must watch the sale closely to ensure that the independence of the newspapers is not compromised in any way. I am sure that the Parliament will take that issue into account.
In Glasgow, the Evening Times is an institution. As Ian Jenkins pointed out, it was something to roll up in your pocket on a Saturday night, or to read on the subway or the bus. It was also handy for giving children a wee clip round the ear, which is something that I experienced. It is a much-loved newspaper in Glasgow and beyond, because it speaks with the voice of the Glasgow people. People do not simply read the Evening Times; they also contribute to it. The fact that it is such a campaigning newspaper is another reason why I am worried about the sale, and why I ask the minister to take a careful look at it. I believe that Gannett is up front and honest and hope that the company will maintain the newspapers' independence. However, I will be watching what happens very carefully.
I should point out that Maggie's Centre was started through an Evening Times campaign. That shows that the editorial staff of the newspapers give their journalists the freedom to be unbiased, which is very difficult to find and very unusual in this day and age. Diversity is very precious to a democracy, and if we do not hold on to freedom, democracy and diversity in Scotland, we will have nothing at all.
Although I congratulate Gannett and hope that it takes over the newspaper, I must echo Karen Gillon's comments about the unions. Like most members, I have received letters from journalists on The Scotsman about the appalling practices that are used against them. All members in the chamber know exactly what I am talking about. As a result, we need to keep an eye on things and ensure that good work practices are adhered to. Moreover, we must look after the uniqueness, the independence and the voice of these newspapers for the people of Glasgow and of Scotland.
I thank Karen Gillon for taking the initiative in securing the debate and pay particular tribute to Andrew Jaspan, the editor of the Sunday Herald. He is a brave man who has fought very bravely for his newspaper. I remember Andrew when he first came up to Scotland; he is now—and has long been—a better Scot than almost any of us.
Brian Monteith referred to The Herald's past. It was a truly Tory paper for a very long time, but it still retained an independent core and allowed freedom of expression. It was not easy for me as a nationalist to be on such a paper in those days. Nevertheless I was on The Herald—or the Glasgow Herald as it was then—for seven years. First I was a reporter and then I was a leader writer excused from doing the high Tory leaders—never, never. I founded the paper's first investigative team, which was called the insiders—I think that it was probably the paper's last investigative team, too. It is a tragedy that there is now very little investigation in any paper. The big difference was that, even in those Torified times, there was a benign proprietor, no matter what his politics were. In my time, it was Sir Hugh Fraser, who was much underrated.
I give members an example of what it was like to work for a Scot who had Scotland's best interests at heart. I remember bumping into Sir Hugh Fraser in the corridor one day when I was just a spotty youth. I am still spotty, but no longer a youth. He said to me, "Well done, these investigations are putting the circulation up." I used my advantage to say, "Yes, but I don't have an office." He said, "You don't have an office? I'll get you an office." A few days later, he came back to me and said, "I've got you an office. Here it is." He opened a door, which I expected to be the door to the smallest cupboard in the building, but it was the luxurious boardroom of the old Charles Rennie Mackintosh building. I said, "That's your boardroom!" He said, "Yes, it is, but I don't use it much. It's only for showing off, so the journalists might as well have it." So, for a long period, Charlie Gillies, the crime man, and I moved in to inhabit the boardroom—with its glorious rosewood table and beautiful deep-pile carpets—where we parked our suitcases, our chips, our horrible, disgusting, scratchy old typewriters and our ashtrays. There are no benign proprietors today and journalists are at the bottom of the heap.
There is wider concern than with the sale of The Herald and its sister papers—like Sandra White, I pay tribute to the Evening Times for marvellous campaigning for the city of Glasgow. The Communications Bill is going through Westminster. It will have major implications for the control of the Scottish media, as we have heard. We are told that there is nothing that the Scottish Parliament can do about it because it is another of those reserved powers. There are 161 reserved powers, which is about 150 too many. The campaign for press and broadcasting freedom says:
"Labour has accepted even more enthusiastically than the Tories, the argument that the market should be allowed to drive the media industry."
That cannot be. We must have a voice in the Scottish Parliament in a debate where we have a vote.
I am glad that the bid by the USA newspaper chain Gannett has been referred to the Competition Commission. The commission will report by 10 March 2003, which is rather a long time away. Gannett is offering £215 million. The Barclay brothers—owners of the Scotsman Publications Ltd—withdrew from the bidding recently and I am sure that a nation mourns.
We seem to be on a sounder footing with the Herald titles and we wish them well in the future, but we must be extremely vigilant in Parliament.
Dorothy-Grace Elder's ability to conjure up offices for herself continues to impress to this day.
I congratulate Karen Gillon on securing a debate on such an important question for the Scottish newspaper industry. As has been made clear, the future of The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times is of great interest to many people. There has been great concern about whether their prospective sale might result in the compromising of their editorial independence or in a reduction in editorial diversity in Scotland. As a result of those concerns, a great deal of debate has taken place, not least in the chamber a couple of weeks ago and within the Scottish media.
As it happens, the timing of the debate could not be more opportune. Melanie Johnson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers and Markets in the Department of Trade and Industry, announced that the proposed acquisition by Gannett UK of the titles is to be referred to the Competition Commission following the company's application for consent under the special newspaper merger regime. The Competition Commission will be directed to report on whether the proposed transfers might be expected to operate against the public interest. It will consider in particular the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion. As has been said, the Competition Commission will report back to DTI ministers by 10 March next year.
The importance of the sale of the titles was also recognised in a debate at Westminster last week. That is as it should be, given that policy on competition, including competition in the media industry, rests with the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament.
Can the minister reassure Dr Ewing that the process will take account of Scotland's interests, be they cultural or economic?
I can indeed assure members that the terms of reference of the Competition Commission allow it to make a judgment on what is the appropriate market to be considered. In one case that might be the United Kingdom, in another case it might be Scotland, and in a third case it might be a region within Scotland or within another part of the UK. That is one of the considerations that the Competition Commission must address.
Although responsibility for policy and legislation on competition lies with the UK Government, the Scottish Executive clearly has a number of interests in the matter. First and foremost, we have an interest in a healthy future for key Scottish businesses. It is important to say that the business that is selling The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times is itself an important part of the Scottish media world and of the Scottish economy. The newspaper and publishing business within SMG has, like SMG as a whole, achieved significant growth over a number of years. Members will be aware that, besides the three titles, the newspaper and publishing business that is up for sale includes a number of magazines and an online business, and accounts for some 800 jobs.
The issue is clearly significant, simply in economic and employment terms. SMG is the 12th largest Scotland-based company and a major player in the economy with its radio, television and advertising businesses. It has recently invested significantly in its corporate headquarters and, on the newspaper side, in a state-of-the-art printing plant at Cambuslang. SMG's decision to sell its publishing arm is a commercial judgment for it to make. If the sale goes ahead, we would wish to see not only the newspaper business continuing to thrive but SMG continuing to play a major and positive role in broadcasting and in the economy in general.
It is not for the Scottish Executive to pass judgment on the details of Gannett's application for consent, or indeed on the interests of any other potential buyer. Those are highly sensitive commercial matters and it is for DTI ministers to make judgments on them and to consider the acceptability of proposals under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.
It might be useful to set out some of the processes by which the sale of the business falls to be considered under merger control provisions. In the situation that has now been referred to the Competition Commission, the bidder for SMG's newspapers is already a player in the UK newspaper market. A circulation threshold has been met and the bid is therefore being referred to the Competition Commission under the special newspaper merger regime. The threshold is that the total circulation, both of the newspapers already owned and of those being purchased, exceeds 500,000 a day. Because the bidder's circulation falls within the terms of that regime, the transfer would require the written consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. When a formal application for consent is made, details are published for consultation and an opportunity is offered very widely inviting comment. That is why the process will take three months. We should welcome the opportunity for people to respond to the consultation process.
Except in specific circumstances, the secretary of state cannot give such consent without a Competition Commission inquiry. The commission has therefore been directed to report on the public interest aspects of the bid. As I said in response to Brian Monteith's intervention, one of the decisions that the Competition Commission must make in that regard relates to the part of the market that is being considered, whether that be the UK, Scotland or a smaller area.
If the minister's optimistic statements turned out to be wrong, what would the Scottish Executive do?
Perhaps the member has heard something that I have not said. I have attempted to lay out the facts of the case rather than predict the likely judgment of the Competition Commission. The Competition Commission will make a judgment on the matter and DTI ministers will consider it in due course. The Scottish Executive or Scottish ministers should not second-guess the judgments of our colleagues south of the border, but I would expect the secretary of state to have regard to the commission's report in deciding whether to consent to the proposed transfers.
I do not accept the view that competition issues should be addressed only with reference to Scotland. If that were the case, it would have been less likely that the Gannett bid for the Herald titles would have been referred, given that Gannett does not have an existing portfolio of titles in Scotland. There is indeed a distinctive Scottish media, but that operates in a UK context. For that reason, the competition laws and procedures that govern ownership of the Scottish media operate within a UK context.
We look forward to the updating of UK merger control provisions by the UK Government and we regard such updating as significant. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, which reforms UK merger control and which is likely to come into force next spring, the vast majority of mergers will be assessed only on a competition basis, but with retained recognition that a plurality of views in the press is vital to the public interest.
I welcome the conversion of the minister and his party to plurality. Perhaps he will reflect on how welcome that conversion will be to The Herald newspaper, which, as Murray Ritchie's book reveals, was threatened by the Labour party during the 1999 election. The Labour party withheld advertising to try to make the paper change its editorial position. The fact that things have changed is wonderful and I hope that the Labour party will continue to hold such views during the forthcoming election campaign.
Far from there being a conversion, as Michael Russell suggests, a key role in the debate has been played by my colleague Karen Gillon, as he acknowledged. That reflects the Labour party's historic commitment to a diverse and democratic press in this country. I support that commitment and welcome the support of the SNP and other parties for it. We have been proud of that commitment throughout our history.
On the amendment to the newspaper merger regime, we welcome the commitment of UK ministers to maintaining a plurality of views in the press. The Enterprise Act 2002 and reforms in the Communications Bill provide for the means to ensure that that plurality of views is protected and maintained. The reforms in the Communications Bill will simplify those procedures and make them more transparent for the general public. We should welcome such moves.
Every member is aware of the importance of our diverse newspaper and broadcasting media in Scotland. Many views have been expressed and Brian Monteith was correct to say that unanimity does not exist, as has been clear in the debate.
For reasons that I have explained, it is not for the Scottish Executive to comment on individual merger cases. However, the debate has provided a useful opportunity for views to be recorded in the Official Report. The Executive will continue to follow the issue closely and I will ensure that a report of the debate is passed to those who are considering the matter. I am glad that we have had such a timely opportunity to discuss the issue.
Meeting closed at 17:44.