Newspaper Industry
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3947, in the name of David Whitton, on the Scottish newspaper industry. I inform members that we are very tight for time in both this morning's debates.
I declare an interest. I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for more than 30 years, and I am a former employee of Johnston Press, Trinity Mirror and Scottish Television.
Labour will not support either amendment to my motion, as we are totally opposed to the compulsory redundancies that are being imposed at the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail.
In Scotland, we have enjoyed for many years the benefits of our distinctive media outlets, our strong regional daily and weekly newspapers and our distinctive broadcasting voice on radio and television. Collectively, the media have an important role to play in the Scottish economy. Around 27,000 people are currently employed in the creative industries in Scotland, which is roughly 6 per cent of the United Kingdom total. We should include animation, computer games and film in the creative industries as well as newspapers, radio and television.
These are difficult days for the Scottish economy. All sectors, including the media, must consider how they can make savings to remain competitive. My colleague Ken Macintosh will cover the effects on the broadcasting sector; I will confine my remarks to what is happening in Scotland's newspaper industry.
Unfortunately, three of the major players in Scotland are engaged in redundancy programmes as they restructure their editorial capacity in the face of falling sales and advertising revenues. Earlier this year, we debated what was happening at The Herald, the Evening Times and the Sunday Herald as 37 volunteers for redundancy were sought. New contracts have now been introduced, journalists now work longer hours and their holiday entitlement has been cut. The Health and Safety Executive has been asked to intervene.
That was just the prelude for management action elsewhere. Johnston Press, which owns The Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday and the Edinburgh Evening News, wants to shed around a dozen jobs in addition to the five that have already gone at smaller titles in Glasgow and Ayrshire, but at least it was willing to negotiate with the unions. That has not been the case with the management at Trinity Mirror, which owns the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail. It is merging the workforces of the two profit-making titles, it wants to cut the workforce by 60, and it has already declared 19 compulsory redundancies. All of those people have been told to go by the end of this month. That has triggered industrial action, which will mean a three-day stoppage beginning at midnight tonight.
The situation is made worse by the fact that Trinity Mirror is trying to get redundancies on the cheap. It has withdrawn enhanced pension provision for those with long service, which was always paid in previous redundancy situations, and it seems to have selected candidates for redundancy on the basis of who is cheapest to get rid of. A young photographer constituent of mine is included in that number. He will lose his job next week despite having been nominated for three national awards. Another candidate is a man with 30 years of service who would have qualified for an enhanced pension. He will see his lump sum cut by around 30 per cent and his pension entitlement cut by around 40 per cent. As a former industrial editor of the Daily Record, I confess that I am appalled by the current management's attitude to its workforce.
Does the member agree that employment law regarding the redundancy situation must also be looked at?
I accept what Sandra White says, but it is really a case of management and union sitting down together.
Altogether, around 200 jobs are being taken out of the media industry in Scotland. Those are good, well-paid jobs that contribute to the Scottish economy, not only in Glasgow, which is regarded as the media centre, but in Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh. Other jobs are under threat.
We might have expected to hear from Jim Mather, who is the minister responsible for the media, while all that has been happening, but what has his reaction been? Silence. I am concerned by his lack of action. I hope that he will tell us that he has written to or spoken with the management of all the media companies about their prospects and their plans for their workers. If he has not done so, there is still time for him to pick up the phone. At the very least, the offer of partnership action for continuing employment teams should have been made, as the workers in question have skills that could be used elsewhere. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland, Jim Murphy, has expressed his strong views to the Scottish management of the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, as I and other elected representatives have done with constituents who are employed at those newspapers.
The Trinity Mirror titles, like the owner of The Herald titles, Newsquest, and the owner of The Scotsman titles, Johnston Press, are still in profit, despite their current difficulties. In 2007, Trinity Mirror made an operating profit of £196 million—the profit margin was more than 20 per cent. The Scottish titles were responsible for around £28 million of that. I understand that the profits for 2008 are around £145 million and that the contribution from the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail is around £20 million. All of the 60 journalists who are now facing redundancy made their contribution to those profits, but their reward is to be shown the door on the most minimum terms that the company can get away with. I would have thought that the minister for the media should take an interest if one of the largest companies in the sector is seeking to shed a quarter of its editorial staff. It is still not too late for him to do so.
The NUJ is not opposed to change at The Herald, The Scotsman or the Daily Record. It was and is willing to engage with management to bring the changes that are needed to compete through negotiation, not confrontation. I have corresponded with the chief executive of Trinity Mirror, Sly Bailey, to complain about how the company is treating its staff. In her reply, Ms Bailey, whose remuneration in 2007 was more than £1.7 million, said that the company was facing the worst trading conditions that it had ever seen and that it could not afford to continue the enhanced discretionary payments. I confess to thinking that it is perhaps Ms Bailey's enhanced payments that need to be trimmed, not someone's pension payment after 30 years of service to what was Scotland's newspaper of the year last year. If quality journalism is cut at The Herald, The Scotsman and the Daily Record, the product will be damaged. That will damage sales, and there will also be the risk of damaging democracy.
As a politician who is a former journalist, I firmly believe that the activities of the Government and the Opposition should be kept under scrutiny by a lively media, as should other areas of public life. As I stated earlier, the media industry makes a valuable contribution to Scotland's economy. It will change and adapt, as it always has done, but that must happen through negotiation and—dare I say—some Government help.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the threat to the Scottish economy from the current crisis facing Scotland's newspaper and media industries; notes that local newspapers are facing particular difficulties in the current economic climate; opposes any moves towards compulsory redundancies such as those imposed by Trinity Mirror at the Daily Record and Sunday Mail; calls for all newspaper and media organisations considering restructuring, reorganisation or redundancy to engage in meaningful negotiations with the relevant workforce representatives in order to minimise the economic impact of any job cuts, and calls on the Scottish Government to hold urgent talks with Trinity Mirror management in order to prevent compulsory job cuts.
I, too, declare an interest as a shareholder in Scottish Television.
For once, I find myself speaking in a parliamentary debate about a topic that I know something about. David Whitton and I are possibly the only MSPs who began our careers as print journalists. It is a sad day to find myself standing in the chamber trying to find words that might help to save the jobs of friends and former colleagues.
In a recent members' business debate on a motion that was lodged by Sandra White, I referred to the tsunami that was about to overwhelm Scotland's newspaper industry. I described the media version of the perfect storm, with circulation and advertising revenue in freefall, increased competition from the web and the credit crunch set to get worse. It did not take a genius to see that jobs were going and that famous newspaper titles were under threat. So things have turned out.
Jim Mather responded to that debate by holding a stakeholders seminar at Glasgow Caledonian University, which Sandra White and I attended. I am glad that Labour has also recognised the gravity of the situation by proposing this debate, albeit in a sadly truncated timespan. I am sure that Ken Gibson accepts that it is pure coincidence that Labour has in effect trumped his members' business debate this evening on the Trinity Mirror situation.
At the outset, I say that it is not the job of Parliament or politicians to tell people in the newspaper business how to run their business. Therefore, we will not be able to support the motion. However, the Government has a role in working with all newspaper and media groups to safeguard as many of the Scottish jobs that are at risk as possible and to do all that it can to help media owners to buy time in adjusting to new communication technology.
Does Mr Brocklebank agree that it is Parliament's job to take an interest if a major company is sacking a quarter of its workforce and is pushing people out of the door by making compulsory redundancies rather than negotiating with their unions?
Compulsory redundancies are certainly always to be regretted, but we are living in extremely difficult times. The Conservatives are no luddites. We recognise that massive technological changes are under way and that local and national newspapers must embrace them. What we seek is managed change in fraught economic circumstances—and that is where we believe that the Government can help. We accept that, increasingly, governmental recruitment will be done via the net. For many employers, computer literacy is vital. It would be absurd not to use the net for recruitment purposes. However, we suggest that public notices fall into a different category. In a recent letter, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism told me that the proposed removal of public notices from newspapers to online portals could make huge savings in the estimated £10 million per annum that is currently spent on such notices. The minister claimed that he was seeking a more useful format for the intended audience. With respect, I suggest that many people among that intended audience are not quite as computer literate as Mr Mather demonstrated that he was during the event at Glasgow Caledonian University.
I am of a generation that, to be frank, has no interest in blogging. Nor do I twitter—at least, not when I am bored at dinner parties. However, I do read newspapers—avidly—and so do a great many of us who would no more think of hunting down local planning applications, road closures and the like on a personal computer than we would think of phoning up the local library, as John Swinney has suggested, if we wanted to know which Government decisions might be about to affect our communities.
The Government's Scottish household survey found that nine out of 10 pensioners, and nearly half of single parents and single adults, as well as 77 per cent of couples of non-pensionable age, have no access to the internet, in or outside the house. In my view, a vital aspect of freedom of information is the freedom to have information available for those who have no interest in the net.
It seems that Ed Balls, Gordon Brown's Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, agrees. He has rejected Labour's own Killian Pretty review, which said that councils should not have to publish planning statutory notices. At a recent newspaper conference, Mr Balls said:
"Local newspapers provide a vital service."
He went on to add that removing the obligation to place public notices in local newspapers would be
"a retrograde thing to do."
It will be interesting to hear whether Andy Burnham agrees with him as Labour launches its local media summit in the next few days.
I believe that the loss of every newspaper and every newspaper job is a loss to the democratic process, and I look forward to hearing from other speakers in the debate how our democratic rights will be upheld and how these newspaper jobs might be saved.
Because I have so little time for this initial presentation, I will leave it until my summing up—when members will hear me again—to flesh out Conservative plans to encourage new industry models to emerge, including media investment in local online services and new local television companies.
I move amendment S3M-3947.2, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:
"calls for all newspaper and media organisations considering restructuring, reorganisation or redundancy to engage in meaningful negotiations with the relevant workforce representatives in order to minimise the economic impact of any job cuts, and calls on the Scottish Government to hold urgent talks with Trinity Mirror and to work with all media groups to allow new industry models to emerge that will encourage investment not just in local newspapers but in local online services and new local TV companies."
I am pleased to be able to speak in this morning's debate. I do not think that anyone in the chamber will disagree on the need for a vibrant, free and varied press in Scotland. It is a key democratic factor. We need newspapers and other media sources of good quality in order to inform the public about what is happening in society, to encourage debate on the key issues, to inquire into what has been happening and give out the information, and to hold politicians to account. All of those are key roles for our newspaper industry, and I believe that they are under threat from the many changes that are taking place in the industry.
Of course, there is a symbiotic relationship between politicians and journalists. I do not think that we can live with them, but we certainly could not live without them. I think that that is true the other way round as well. We also have one thing in common: the level of affection for us among the general public is shared. I am not sure what that says about politicians and journalists in general, but those among us who were journalists before becoming politicians are in a particularly interesting situation. However, at least we can all thank the bankers for their contribution to such discussions.
Scotland has been blessed with a strong national, regional and local newspaper industry. Titles such as The Scotsman, The Herald and the Daily Record have long and distinguished histories. They have served Scotland well and helped to promote debate in Scotland. That has helped to create the place in which we are speaking today; without the support and help of the newspaper industry, with titles such as The Scotsman and The Herald fighting alongside us, we would not have a Scottish Parliament today.
Regional titles such as The Press and Journal and The Courier still have deep penetration into the communities that they serve. They provide an excellent service to their communities. For me, personally, The Courier is a particularly important title.
Also providing valuable information and different services to communities are local newspapers, whether they are daily evening newspapers or, more usually, weekly journals.
Dave Whitton was right to highlight the potential loss of jobs in the newspaper industry and other media industries. Job losses have been threatened at The Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday, The Herald and the Sunday Herald. The BBC has already shed some jobs, and the loss of circulation and advertising revenue will have serious financial implications for local newspapers. The job losses among journalists have a cumulative effect. The loss of years' worth of the experience, knowledge and judgment of many senior journalists cannot easily be replaced. I am afraid that it will devalue the quality of newspapers and the quality of debate and democratic scrutiny that newspapers help to provide.
Ted Brocklebank was right to highlight public notice advertising. It is all very well to put information on the internet, but not everyone has access to it and not everyone will be flicking through the internet to come across a public notice. One of the points of having public notices in local newspapers is that people do flick through them and can spot things that might affect them and of which they might otherwise have been unaware. It is important that the public are kept informed of things such as planning applications. Also, people who are looking for jobs can be made aware of them through job advertisements in newspapers.
Advertising income is essential to our local newspapers. I therefore hope that the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will look carefully at their current policies on those issues.
I will end by talking briefly about the Liberal Democrat amendment. It is worded as it is partly to cover broader issues that affect the newspaper industry in Scotland and partly because we share Ted Brocklebank's view that it is not for the Scottish Parliament to say no to compulsory redundancies. We can certainly express our concerns, but we are not here to manage the newspaper industry.
I move amendment S3M-3947.1, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:
"expresses concern at moves towards compulsory redundancies such as those imposed by Trinity Mirror at the Daily Record and Sunday Mail; notes the importance of a viable and diverse national, regional and local newspaper industry to Scotland's culture; recognises the need to retain talent in Scotland's creative media industries, and calls for all newspaper and media organisations considering restructuring, reorganisation or redundancy to engage in meaningful negotiations with the relevant workforce representatives in order to minimise the economic impact of any job cuts and the need for compulsory redundancies."
The debate follows on from the members' business debate that was secured by Sandra White back in January, which was preceded by Government engagement with the industry and unions, which gave us a clear understanding of the issues, the implications and the views that were held. Further meetings followed, and there was a major workshop at Glasgow Caledonian University, which triggered further follow-up meetings and the involvement of the First Minister. Today, there will be a further members' business debate, secured by Kenneth Gibson, on this very issue. As we are seeing again today, there has been clear evidence that the Parliament and the Government deeply regret the developments that are unfolding in the print media sector in Scotland.
In changing circumstances, there is a clear need to transform the print industry and its fortunes. Other industries and companies have made such transformations in the past. We acknowledge that attempts have been made in the newspaper industry. However, the challenge is immense and complex, and it has yet to be comprehensively answered, although there are signs of new models emerging in Finland and the United States of America.
It is clear from the motion and amendments that most of us regret the spectre of compulsory redundancy and regret the polarisation of positions. However, we can all understand how the situation has arisen, because we appreciate both the concerns about jobs, job security and employment conditions, and the concerns about the very survival of the titles and businesses involved. That is why the Parliament and the Government are giving so much time to the issue.
Government ministers cannot intervene directly in industrial disputes, but we can try to broker a climate of maximum engagement, to help to produce an imaginative transformation. We have done that and we will continue to do that. I accept the motion and will be engaging with all the parties involved, as the motion suggests that we should. However, we will also point out the benefits of internal co-operation and cohesion, and will highlight examples of companies that have pioneered such approaches and benefited from them. Benefits accrue from there being a unifying, worthy and sound altruistic purpose behind newspapers and what they are trying to achieve as well as ambitious goals for their commercial success. Such an approach repeatedly triggers ingenuity, good will and engagement from staff, unions, suppliers, readers and other allies.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will come on to discuss Mr Whitton's earlier attempts to apportion blame. I have only four minutes, and will need all that time.
This is the stuff of positive transformation and it is the stuff of allowing us to endure and grow. As David Whitton says, in the long term the industry will change and adapt. However, Mr Whitton pointed blame in my direction and the Government's direction. That, to say the least, was unfortunate. I prefer an approach in which all parties see themselves as part of the solution. That may include parties that have yet to come to the table, such as generation Y, who may indeed have the solution as we attempt to create media for them and their children. They, too, will need news and quality analysis.
The blame culture is worrying because there are dangers within it. People are liable to defend their position, stick to and gold plate their original strategy, disengage and avoid risk. All of that adds no value and reduces the chances of any of the existing players being part of the successful transformation solution that will occur. Others will fill the vacated positions as, in Mr Whitton's words, the change and adaptation come through.
We stand ready to engage and assist in the knowledge that there are opportunities. The internet and newspapers are not mutually exclusive—they can come together. Modern Scots need a positive, modern service, and the business model will adapt to provide that. By learning from elsewhere and evolving new ideas here, this cohesive, tightly measured Scotland can come together to achieve that end.
I look forward to further debate on the subject this evening, in Kenneth Gibson's members' business debate.
One of the issues underpinning the debate, which should not focus only on the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, is the need for quality journalism in our society. For generations, events have shown that journalists who ferret out the truth and information play a significant role for the public in holding those in power to account. In political circles, that means those in power at both national and local levels. They also hold businesses to account, focus on damage that is caused to the environment and local communities and expose criminality in communities up and down the country. To enhance and develop that quality journalism, our society needs investment in that type of service.
I am profoundly worried about what is happening at the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail because it is a harbinger of what might well happen throughout the rest of the industry and the rest of the country, which will leave us so much poorer in the future. The only people who will sit comfortably with newspapers being destroyed and their quality being eroded are those in power and those who have something to hide.
The Daily Record and the Sunday Mail have made a significant contribution to Scottish civic life over many years. They have exposed criminality and scams affecting old people, and they have fought for children who have been the victims of abuse. Notwithstanding the fact that they are part of the same stable, they have competed with each other for stories and neither has been constrained in what it has said because the other has reported a story first. I fear that what is being proposed will eliminate much of the internal competition in that newspaper group. We will also see not just the erosion but the elimination of years of the experience that is necessary to develop good-quality stories.
Other newspapers in the Trinity Mirror group will be watching what is happening anxiously. I suspect that the group is trying it on in Scotland knowing that, if it succeeds here, it will find it much easier to impose similar cuts elsewhere. I also suspect that many other newspapers are watching what is happening because they intend to follow suit. Our society stands to lose significantly if this ill-judged management proposal goes ahead.
I have been struck by the willingness of the trade unions and the workforce to co-operate. They are not seeking confrontation; they are willing to engage with the management. As David Whitton has said, an extremely profitable company that is led by a well-paid chief executive is refusing to talk to the people who deliver the profits for that organisation. It needs to think again.
I urge the Government, ministers and local councils such as Renfrewshire Council to reconsider their willingness to move away from the placing of public notices in newspapers. The internet may well be used in addition, but it should not be a substitute, as many people rely on newspapers for such information. Not only is the approach that is proposed socially damaging; it will be economically damaging for newspapers as well.
I am surprised that the motion focuses so heavily on the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, given that I have secured a members' business debate on the crisis at those newspapers for later today. However, I am pleased that the Opposition has chosen the subject for debate, given the lack of enthusiasm among Labour members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee for my suggested review of the newspaper industry. The Scottish National Party stands fully behind the workers of both Newsquest and Trinity Mirror. Nevertheless, as I have only four minutes in which to speak now and given that my members' business debate will take place later today, I will focus on the wider issues relating to print media.
We are all aware that the newspaper industry must adapt in order to reflect the changing social environment. However, newspapers can survive in the long term only by investing in quality and in staff, not by slashing costs and laying off workers. The circulation of many local and national newspapers is falling year on year yet, paradoxically, newspapers have never been so popular, especially among young people. The problem is that fewer news consumers are paying anything for the information that they obtain, as much of it comes from the web.
Newspapers traditionally earn their revenue from three sources: news-stand sales, subscriptions and advertising. However, by putting all their eggs in the one basket of advertising, focusing particularly on web-based advertising that is unlikely to be profitable in the short to medium term, many publications have cut their own throats, especially in the current recession. In addition, traditional ads have tailed off due to the property and vehicle sectors being hit hardest by the credit crunch. A few newspapers currently charge for their online content, but it is possible to do so only if a publication has content of sufficient quality and interest to attract online subscribers who are willing to pay for what they read, whether through micro-payments—say, 5p for an article and 20p for a full day's edition—or by paying £4 for a month's web access. Such a system can be used for every medium, from magazines to cookbooks, and offers increased revenue for traditional newspapers.
The key to all of this is, obviously, good-quality journalism. The short-sighted, short-term approach of Newsquest and the Trinity Mirror group is ultimately self-defeating. The industry cannot be turned around by relentless cost cutting, by increasing the stress under which journalists work and by giving them an uncertain future. Where does the solution that I am suggesting work? Everywhere from Europe to Japan. The number of daily newspaper sales is higher in Japan than in the United States, which has almost three times Japan's population, despite similar levels of internet penetration. Innovation and journalistic quality and creativity are fundamental to the success in Japan.
By March 2006, Rotterdam-based newspaper NRC Handelsblad, an old-fashioned afternoon daily, faced rapidly declining year-on-year sales. Rather than go under, it launched nrc.next—a flashy, vibrant morning edition of the afternoon newspaper's best content along with analysis and features written by young journalists and aimed at prosperous young readers. At €1 it is not cheap, but it looks and feels cool. Despite competing against four free dailies, it now sells 90,000 copies a day in Rotterdam—exceeding by 10,000 its launch target—and makes €3.3 million in profit on sales of €25 million.
Last year, 60 of the United Kingdom's 1,300 local and regional newspapers went bust. What is the answer there? Ensuring that a newspaper that purports to represent a locality does just that. Such newspapers should be based in the communities, should not cover too wide an area and should keep their stories interesting and a must for local news. In my constituency, Arran, with a population of 5,000, has two weekly newspapers. The Arran Banner has an astonishing circulation of 3,500 copies on the island—the highest circulation per capita of any newspaper in the world—and The Arran Voice has a circulation of just under half that figure. Both newspapers are lively and completely different, addressing different sectors of the island's population. The Arran Voice, which was launched less than two years ago, stimulated The Arran Banner to improve its content dramatically. The Arran Banner subsequently invested in new technology and took on an extra journalist.
Local newspapers are a vital community resource, and they allow many journalists and others in the industry their start. Print media journalism has a bright future in this country if it is allowed to be innovative and creative—and trusted to be so—by the newspaper proprietors.
As my party's rural affairs spokesman, I am pleased, if a little surprised, to close the debate this morning. Unlike Ted Brocklebank, who modestly admitted that he does not twitter, I must say that this is not my specialist subject. However, that is not to say that I do not have a genuine interest in it. In fact, I declare an interest as the son of somebody who still earns the occasional crust from scribbling political cartoons for The Herald. Members can imagine my father's joy on hearing that his son was standing for election—a satirist's equivalent of ordering a home delivery.
Of course, there is a wider context to the debate. In a week that confirmed the worst-kept secret of all—that Scotland is officially in recession—we have also had confirmation that the jobless total in Scotland has risen by 15,000 over the past year—15,000 more people who are facing the harsh reality of the economic downturn.
Although there are sectors of the economy that are faring worse than the newspaper industry, at least in terms of total job losses, there has been a certain brutality about what is happening in the world of print media. It has been suggested that this process is in effect Scotland's Wapping and, as Hugh Henry suggested, it seems to have a whiff of the final reckoning about it.
No one would dispute that these are difficult times for newspaper and media organisations. Advertising revenues have taken a brutal hit, which comes on the back of the longer-term trend of increasing competition from online and other sources of news content. Those factors demanded a response from traditional print media organisations and some element of restructuring and reorganisation was unavoidable—a fact not disputed, and even embraced, by the workforce. However, it is how that appears to be being carried out that raises concerns.
David Whitton was right to point out the lack of consultation and the seeking of redundancies on the cheap. That said, we need to take care in how we express our concern. It is absolutely right that we send out a clear message that a greater commitment to meaningful negotiation with workforce representatives is not only desirable but required. An active and engaged Government is essential in these circumstances, but it is another thing entirely for the Scottish Parliament to suggest that Scottish ministers should in effect prevent compulsory redundancies.
Like others, notably the public, I am growing tired of hearing Scottish ministers blame their inaction or incompetence on a lack of power or resources. However, I certainly see little to be gained in investing these—or any other—Scottish ministers with the power to veto private companies' decisions about the direction of their businesses. It is one thing to be opposed to compulsory redundancies, but it is quite another to suggest, as David Whitton seemed to do, that Government can prevent or veto them. As employment law is reserved to Westminster, as Sandra White said, it would seem that such a power should be wielded, if at all, by UK ministers.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
What is not in dispute is the effect that this process and how it is being handled will have on the viability and diversity of our national, regional and local media. Members have rightly pointed out the danger of undermining the quality of our newspapers, as that can only launch us ever faster down a spiral that threatens the vitality of our public life and the quality of our political debate.
Iain Smith highlighted the challenge function of our national and local newspapers and the loyalty to and penetration of papers such as The Press and Journal and The Courier in certain parts of the country. In my constituency of Orkney, the number of local papers has doubled, with Orkney Today joining The Orcadian in recent years, albeit now under a single management structure. However, the short-term cost-cutting approach that is being adopted by some newspaper owners puts all of that at risk. The Parliament and the Government must get engaged and be persuasive, but we must not falsely raise expectations about the powers that are at our disposal.
I support the amendment in the name of Iain Smith.
There have been some sound contributions to this debate. Although there has been more wringing of hands than provision of actual solutions, perhaps that is not surprising—media groups worldwide have found it difficult to cope with the sheer speed with which the net has usurped the role of traditional newspapers, and few could have predicted the scale of the collapse in circulation and advertising revenue.
David Whitton spent some time detailing the problems at Trinity Mirror, but we remain unconvinced that the Government should get into the nuts and bolts of individual cases. Iain Smith was right to say that journalists and politicians ought to be grateful for the current unpopularity of bankers. I was interested in the minister's claim that there are examples in the USA of newspapers finding ways of engaging profitably with the web. Hugh Henry was absolutely right that investment needs to be made in quality journalism and reportage, not only in financial terms but in terms of support from politicians of all parties.
In my opening speech, I suggested ways in which the Scottish Government might be able to help prop up advertising revenues in the short to medium term, but there is no doubt that the Westminster Government's support will also be required. In that regard, I welcome Labour's forthcoming summit, announced by Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, into the future of the industry.
I was one of those who wrote to the BBC trust arguing strongly against the BBC competing with local press on news websites. It seemed totally wrong that a publicly funded body should be competing with an ailing private media sector in that potentially profitable business, and I believe that the BBC trust was right to abandon its plans.
I welcome Andy Burnham's ideas about the BBC providing sound and images for local newspaper websites, but Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative shadow culture secretary, and David Cameron have gone much further. Conservatives propose that bureaucratic regulations around the ownership of local newspapers should be swept away entirely to allow newspapers to consolidate both with one another and across platforms, into the internet, television and radio. The removal of those regulations would allow local newspapers in particular to adapt to the digital age.
Scottish Conservatives were among the first to propose a new Scottish digital network. We believe that its introduction could provide an invaluable vehicle for reinvigorating our beleaguered local newspaper sector through the development of local or city TV.
It has been estimated that Scotland could support up to 16 local TV channels covering major cities and regions. Local TV works in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and all over Europe. Why has the UK alone failed so miserably to develop it? Detroit, a city the size of Glasgow, has eight local TV stations, and Bangor, Maine, which is smaller than Perth, has three. Of course, however, Glasgow and Perth have no local TV stations.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I do not have time.
Local TV channels in Scotland could be part of the proposed digital network, opting out of its core schedule to provide coverage of local news, current affairs and politics. There is no reason why local newspaper groups should not be the major investors in local TV, selling local advertising across media sectors.
To those who ask where the advertising revenue would come from to support those new stations, my response is that it would come from the same carriers that are currently pillaging local newspaper advertising: the web and other online portals. There is also the fact that we will not always be in economic crisis. It is no secret that Scottish Television, which would be among those fighting for advertising revenue, would welcome the opportunity to invest in genuinely local TV, possibly in partnership with newspaper investors. That is how it works elsewhere in the world. Why would it not work here?
Although there are genuine fears about the future of local newspapers, there are also real opportunities if our media groups have the courage to grasp them. We on this side of the chamber are committed to working with the Government, newspaper owners, the NUJ and all political parties to chart a more secure way ahead for a vital Scottish industry.
Much as we talk about economics, the bottom line, of course, is that any reduction in a free and responsible press could bring losses to the democratic process that would be truly incalculable.
I declare an interest, in that I am a former member of the NUJ, a contributor over many years to many papers and broadcasting outlets—I think that Ted Brocklebank has on one occasion commissioned work from me, although Mr Whitton has never done so—and a former director of a media company. Perhaps my most relevant interest is that, after having been a Herald columnist for more than six years, I was fired by second-class mail by an editor whom I had never met. That says something about the culture of newspapers today. That was bad practice, which is what we are talking about today. Good practice requires consultation and discussion with employees and involves respect for their skills and abilities. Bad practice dispenses with all of that in the interests of the profitability—and, perhaps, more—of a single company.
The examples that David Whitton gave are important, and I am aware of similar cases, such as that of a photographer with 29 years' service to a newspaper who has just been made redundant in order to diminish his pension. That is a shameful thing for a company to do to an individual who has given long and distinguished service. We should condemn such practices unreservedly, which is why the Government will be supporting the Labour motion and abstaining on the amendments. It is right to say that what is going on is bad practice. Of course, it is not our place to tell companies how to run themselves, but we can say that they should run themselves to the highest standards, and we should say when they are not doing so.
I hope that that message will be reported by the newspapers. I take strongly Hugh Henry's point that the purpose of newspapers is to hold people to account. However, newspaper owners have to be held to account as well. The purpose of this debate is to perform what Kelvin MacKenzie used to call a reverse ferret, as we are holding to account the owners of those newspapers. I hope that they will report that and reflect on their actions.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
In the past, my party and I have been critical of the ownership structure of Scottish newspapers. The criticism that too much of the ownership is based outwith Scotland and focuses too much on areas other than Scottish economic and newspaper interests has turned out to be true.
We must also reflect on the rapidly changing paradigm of the newspaper. That is an important context for this debate. I have to disagree strongly with Ted Brocklebank, as I think that the reality of the situation is that technology is part of the solution. It is not the enemy of change, but something that can produce change. The failures in the newspaper industry—particularly in Scotland, but also more widely in these islands—are due to the fact that the embracing of technology by newspapers has been haphazard and often plain wrong. Some of them have given away their most valuable product, while others have not known how to maximise income from their product using new technology. My colleague Jim Mather gave some good examples of that, as did Kenny Gibson.
Three things need to be said in this debate. First, bad practice in management, wherever it exists—in newspapers or elsewhere—should be condemned. We need to send the message that short-sighted management that diminishes the quality of the product and constantly goes on cutting the costs will be completely self-defeating in the end.
Secondly, although newspapers have traditionally been read more intently in Scotland than almost anywhere else in Europe, that is no longer the case. That is partly due to a drop in the quality of newspapers, as the experienced people who work on them have been thrown out of the door—a practice that needs to stop.
Thirdly, the workforce, by working together and collaborating with management, can invent the new paradigms that can take forward a distinctive Scottish media with an ownership structure that is based in Scotland. Although I understand Ted Brocklebank's fondness for a solution that involves local television, that could bleed out more advertising and run the risk of damaging Scotland's local newspaper sector in particular, so we must be careful about that.
I believe that Scotland, as a centre of excellence for newspapers and the media, should celebrate what has taken place in the past—it has been a distinctive part of our national culture—but should regret what is taking place, which is largely driven by companies that have very little focus on Scotland. We should try to find a structure that will take us forward and ensure that modernised, renewed and refreshed Scottish media that take advantage of new technology can once again become among the best in the world. More important, we as a nation would be better served by our media than we are now.
Twice in the past month I have been interviewed by young student journalists who are putting together stories for their degree paper—a scenario with which I am sure many members will be familiar. It is usually encouraging to see the bright, enthusiastic and enquiring minds with which journalists—like politicians—begin what could be a very fulfilling career. However, over the past month, I have been filled with anxiety. Journalism has always been a difficult profession to enter, but I am anxious about the prospects of those young students.
Over the past few weeks, I have—like David Whitton and other members—spoken to constituents who have 10, 20 or even 30 years' experience in journalism and who have been thrown out of their jobs and had their pensions threatened or cut by the same employers with whom those young students are seeking to work. These are difficult times and different forces are at work, affecting the newspaper and media industries. However, it is the employers' response to those difficulties that I find most depressing, and it clearly angers most members in the chamber today.
Turning to print media first, there are certainly few in the industry and beyond who are not acutely aware of falling circulation across the board. The apparent decline in readership has been accompanied by an equally worrying fall in advertising revenue. The impact of the credit crunch on the motor and property markets, and hence on the revenue of the motor and property pages, has merely added to a pretty dismal economic backdrop.
It is difficult to imagine that there will not be a reduction in the number of Scottish titles, although I do not believe that it is inevitable. It was pretty grim news when the Herald group recently cut and merged its production teams, but the way in which that process was handled verged on the scandalous. There seems to have been a return to old-style macho management by newspaper owners, who are using the wider economic uncertainty and the lack of job security to flex their management muscles. That is the "bad practice" that the minister mentioned, and I welcome his condemnation of such behaviour.
There have been cuts in production staff to the point at which I am amazed that some papers make it off the presses every week. If it has been tough for staff at The Herald and the Evening Times, the Trinity Mirror group's attitude to journalists and workers at the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail has set a new low. Those are not failing newspapers; they are high-circulation, highly profitable titles that almost certainly subsidise other papers in the Trinity Mirror group and thereby help to post large profits for the parent group—yet compulsory redundancies are now being introduced. If that was happening in another industry, it would be headline news in those very papers. It is shameful for the owners and managers of long-established Scottish titles to trade on the loyalty of readers and journalists but show no such loyalty in return.
Will the member give way?
Sorry, but I do not have enough time in this limited debate.
What is happening in the broadcast industries is also of deep concern. In a recent parliamentary debate, many of us expressed our fears over the future of STV. I do not wish to repeat what I said then, other than to note that while independent networks share journalists and cut back on news services, ITV made £311 million in profit in 2007, spending £3.8 million on executive pay.
The recent job losses in the BBC could not have come at a worse time. It is entirely counterproductive for the BBC to be shedding so many staff in Scotland at the very time when the corporation is trying to boost production here.
Most of us in Parliament have been encouraged by the BBC's public commitment to Scotland, and recently we have seen an obvious difference in national news coverage of Scottish affairs. I am sure that I am not alone in being concerned about how the BBC in Scotland will take advantage of that policy commitment as it cuts its production teams.
Despite a few misplaced remarks, I broadly welcome the speeches from all sides of the chamber. It is clear that what happens to the Scottish newspaper and broadcast industries matters to all of us. Tony Blair once famously described the Scottish press pack as "unreconstructed"—I forget the whole of his pithy quote. That was probably the high point of my party's relationship with the press. However, none of us in any party—none of us in the chamber—has any doubt about the importance of a robust press, a well-read public and a reliable, objective broadcast media.
I am disappointed that some of the other parties have tried to water down Labour's motion. However, I am encouraged by the otherwise shared concern and common agenda to resist any threat to a healthy and strong newspaper and media industry in Scotland.
In recent days, what has been of most concern is the attitude and approach of the owners and managers of media companies. As Hugh Henry put it, they are "trying it on". The Parliament needs to unite around one strong, clear message: we need to say no to compulsory redundancies. The companies should rethink their confrontational approach and get around the table with the NUJ and others. I urge members to support Labour's motion.