Daily Record and Sunday Mail
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-3559, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on the future of the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with deep concern the decision of Trinity Mirror to merge the editorial content of the Daily Record and Sunday Mail with the loss of up to 30% of journalistic staff, based primarily in Glasgow and the west of Scotland; recognises that both newspapers are an integral part of Scottish culture and that to diminish their individual identities would be a serious blow to the diversity, vibrancy and quality of the Scottish media; believes that the loss of their separate identities would undoubtedly lead to the erosion of circulation at both titles, leading inevitably to further job losses; considers that Trinity Mirror is highly profitable and that there is no need to undertake such drastic restructuring, and therefore very much hopes that good sense may prevail over the future of two of Scotland's leading titles.
As members are aware, Trinity Mirror management in London is seeking, in effect, to merge the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, with the loss of a quarter or more of their journalistic workforce in Scotland. On 24 February, Trinity Mirror announced a 30-day consultation on up to 70 redundancies among editorial positions at the Daily Record and Sunday Mail newspapers, with 60 people immediately affected. There are 276 editorial staff at the Daily Record, the Sunday Mail and their sister titles The Glaswegian and Business7. Thirty-six people applied for voluntary redundancy and a further 24 were at risk of compulsory redundancy on 8 April. Others who may have been interested—particularly older, longer-serving employees—have been told that their pensions will be cut by between 30 and 50 per cent. One person who has been with the company for 48 years, man and boy, is expected to accept a 52 per cent cut in his pension. Such action can surely be considered not only reprehensible, but a breach of contract.
The Daily Record and Sunday Mail are still highly profitable. Those iconic Scottish titles contributed greatly and disproportionately to the £145 million profits that Trinity Mirror enjoyed last year, being responsible for more than £23 million between them. There is, therefore, no pressing need for any redundancies, and one must conclude that the recession is being used as cover for far-reaching and unnecessary action by the company.
Such a drastic reduction in the number of journalists, with the loss of some of the newer members of staff who are the cheapest to sack—journalists who thought that they had a good career in front of them—can only be to the detriment of both titles, reducing their quality and circulation and, ultimately, their independence and sustainability, and diminishing their ability to cover important Scottish matters, including those that are debated here in the Scottish Parliament.
I grew up with the Sunday Mail and, indeed, the Sunday Post, both of which are fundamental to Scotland's identity and culture. When I was a boy, my father faithfully bought the Daily Record and my mother bought the Sunday Mail. When my father passed away, my mother continued to buy the Sunday Mail but never the Record. Why? Because, although they are superficially similar in style, both papers are quite different, have different features and writers and focus on different issues. Although considerable overlap undoubtedly exists in readership, any thoughts that Trinity Mirror might have of creating synergies by effectively merging the titles is misplaced and is likely to lead to fewer and fewer readers, which will, in the long run, undermine their viability.
Shoehorning the staff into one team, despite the different cultures, could also cause difficulties, at least in the short to medium-term. Management proposals include the introduction of a new editorial production system immediately following the redundancies. Of course, there has been only a minimum consultation period for the staff. The new software will require the greatly reduced number of staff members to undertake extensive training; that guarantees a major increase in stress levels, as we have seen following the introduction of similar models at The Herald, BBC Scotland and in regional and local newspapers.
The National Union of Journalists submitted alternative proposals to management, which included savings through a reduction of around 50 posts—all by voluntary means—and suggested that it would co-operate with the introduction of the new system and negotiate over new shift patterns to meet production needs. The proposal would allow the company to review the situation once the system is up and running and seek further genuine redundancies that might be created by the supposed efficiencies of the new software.
The NUJ chapel at the titles believe that this is a worthwhile and sensible compromise to avoid further industrial action and allow a partnership approach to the changes that are required by the business. However, nobody can possibly support the withdrawal of enhanced pension provision from some employees or the intransigent, bully-boy tactics of management.
The Scottish National Party stands fully behind the journalists of the Sunday Mail and Daily Record, and my colleague Sandra White and I addressed a public meeting of staff and journalists at the Broomielaw last Friday. On Saturday, the SNP's spring conference supported the journalists. In response, Jeremy Dear, the NUJ general secretary, said:
"I thank the SNP, other Scottish politicians, the Scottish TUC and trade unionists across Britain and Ireland for the magnificent support they have already given to this dispute."
The dispute, I should add, is unnecessary and has been brought about exclusively by management.
The expressions of support for the staff seem almost to have fallen on deaf ears, with the company taking a hard line against its staff. Originally, it opposed arbitration and, after meeting the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, it budged not one iota. That has forced an escalation of the dispute, with a 72-hour strike beginning at midnight.
We are all aware that the newspaper industry must adapt to reflect the changing environment, as I said in my speech this morning. However, newspapers can survive in the long term only by investing in quality and staff, not by slashing costs and laying off employees whose hard work brings in the readers, the advertising and the profits.
The Scottish Government has demonstrated its willingness to mediate. That was confirmed again this morning by Jim Mather—who held a newspaper summit in February at Glasgow Caledonian University, which brought together editors, owners, academics and trade unionists—and by Mike Russell in question time this afternoon.
Paul Holleran, the Scotland organiser for the NUJ, who is with us in the gallery, told Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee on 31 March that 250 journalistic jobs were lost last year in Scotland, with a further 190 being lost so far this year. Should the journalists lose this dispute, Scotland will be the poorer, with other companies taking it as a green light to impose ever more stringent cuts in staff numbers and to create poorer working conditions that will result in increased stress on the remaining workers.
Journalism has a proud tradition in Scotland, providing desirable, well-paid jobs that make a significant contribution to the Scottish economy and a lively contribution to our culture and our politics. We in the SNP have never been big fans of the editorial policy of the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, but we defend their right to have a view that digresses from ours. Government and Opposition should be kept under scrutiny by our media, and influenced by them in taking up campaigns and raising important issues.
The erosion of employment and autonomy is a deeply regrettable loss to Scotland and to the democratic process. Politicians can be held to account only by newspapers that have experienced and knowledgeable staff, who have the time to work on stories and to get to know politicians and what we do. Devaluing the quality of newspapers that are as significant to Scottish life and as important to our national fabric as the Daily Record and Sunday Mail will only diminish Scotland and all of us. I urge Trinity Mirror group to think again.
I congratulate Kenny Gibson on securing tonight's debate and precipitating the groundhog effect whereby I find myself speaking three times in the same day on the same subject.
I believe that it was Voltaire who said:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I am not sure why the Daily Record springs to mind when I consider that quotation. Indeed, many in the Parliament have reason to disapprove of the treatment that is meted out by sections of the popular press, but I hope that we all agree that in a democracy, it is entirely appropriate that politicians and others in the public gaze should be subject to robust press scrutiny.
There are many reasons why I view with dismay the crisis that faces the Scottish press. As I mentioned this morning, I began my career as a print journalist, and close family members of mine still work in journalism. Their jobs, along with many others in Scotland, could be on the line.
Perhaps even more important than the jobs issue is the democratic deficit that we all face when newspapers close and those whose job it is to hold Governments and politicians to account are thrown on to the dole. Newspaper advertising is collapsing, and jobs are being lost throughout the western world; Scotland is no exception. Earlier this month, as we have heard, journalists of the Daily Record and Sunday Mail went on strike after the company announced 70 job losses and a merging of the editorial content of the two titles.
Many will agree with the view expressed in Kenny Gibson's motion that the loss of the separate identities of the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail could lead to further erosion of circulation at both titles. However, I have seen a memo that was sent today by Mark Hollinshead, the managing director of Trinity Mirror group, to David Whitton, which strenuously denies claims that Mr Whitton made about the group's actions in this morning's debate. I have no idea who is right, but the fact is that we as MSPs cannot have all the facts about the internal workings of individual newspapers.
It is not the job of politicians to micromanage businesses. Instead, we should find ways of helping them to retain as many employees as possible as they cope with unprecedented technological change, which I accept that many newspaper publishers could have moved far more quickly to embrace.
Does the member accept that some of us are unfortunately old enough to remember the time when Robert Maxwell watched the way in which Rupert Murdoch went about restructuring his company, and then used that as a template for the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail in Glasgow? He had razor wire round the place. That is what everyone is concerned about now.
I accept and understand the member's point, but I restate that we cannot possibly know of all the internal machinations that are going on in any business. It is not for us to judge based on what we have heard from one or other of the sides.
The Government should adopt two approaches. In the short term, it must think hard before it switches public notices to the web. Those are worth more than £10 million in advertising to Scottish newspapers, and I am not convinced that switching them from the local press is democratic or logical, given the huge numbers of Scots—particularly older Scots—who have no internet access.
In a recent letter, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism told me that the Government was trialling the use of the web for public notices in five Scottish areas in the hope that it would provide a more useful format for the intended audience. Certainly, those in my age group with whom I have discussed those matters are far from convinced that any electronic format will replace the reliability and ease of access of the local paper. There are also real concerns that if Government news sheets are used to supplement notices on the web, all that the public will be told is what the Government agencies want to tell them—that is clearly wrong.
As I said in this morning's debate, I think that in the longer term the Westminster Government will scrap the regulations relating to the ownership of local newspapers and allow them to consolidate with one another and across borders into television, radio and online entities. As members will recall, the Scottish Conservatives were among the first to recommend a digital network, which, of course, was a central recommendation of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. As I made clear this morning, that could be the perfect vehicle for reinvigorating our beleaguered regional press sector through participation in local or city TV, which itself could be adapted as an opt-out to the new network.
BBC Scotland should work with the local press to provide pictures and sound to the websites of the local papers in exchange for the detailed local news coverage that it could get in return. Change is inevitable in newspaper operations and the nature of the work that journalists do. For our part, we in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party are committed to working with all parties, including the NUJ and others, to try to manage the current crisis, save jobs and maintain the profile of the Scottish press in its historical role of democratic scrutiny.
I, too, congratulate Mr Gibson on securing this debate. I should explain that I initiated a debate on the same subject this morning only because, in the period between the lodging of his motion and now, the compulsory redundancies were announced and I felt that it was important for this side of the chamber to use its time to debate the issue. In any case, I do not think that it has done any harm to air the issues three times today; it shows that the Parliament takes the issue very seriously.
Mr Brocklebank talked about trying to micromanage companies—[Interruption.] I am sorry; that was my phone. I thought that I had switched it off.
We are not trying to micromanage company affairs. Indeed, the motion in this morning's debate, which has just been agreed to by 82 votes to 13, asks
"the Scottish Government to hold urgent talks with Trinity Mirror management in order to prevent compulsory job cuts."
We will hear from the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism later, but I believe that his office has been trying to get in touch with Trinity Mirror management to hold those very talks. I congratulate Mr Mather on doing so.
Mr Brocklebank also mentioned Mr Hollinshead's e-mail. If nothing else, we have in the course of the day provoked a response from Mr Hollinshead and I guess that, in the interests of fairness, I should read a little bit of it. He says that he has read the transcript of my comments and wants to correct a point that he believes is "totally misleading". He then says:
"To say that management have ‘selected candidates for redundancy on the basis of who is cheapest to get rid of' is wrong. It is clear from that comment that you have not been correctly briefed on how the selection process for those positions, at risk of compulsory redundancy, has been formulated."
He then invites me to talk to him about the matter if I want to. That is fine.
In my response to Mr Hollinshead, I said:
"I believe I am correct in stating that halfway through negotiations you withdrew the offer of enhanced pension provision"—
which Mr Gibson referred to. I then pointed out that this was the
"first time this has happened and it is my interpretation you are doing this to get redundancies on the cheap."
Mr Hollinshead knows as well as I do that if he paid the enhanced pension to the handful of remaining people who actually qualify for it there would be no need for compulsory redundancies; all those individuals would volunteer to go and younger journalists who are facing the loss of their jobs would be offered jobs to stay. That is why I think that Trinity Mirror management are trying to get redundancies on the cheap. I stand by what I said this morning and if Mr Hollinshead does not like it, that is just too bad.
I also pointed out to Mr Hollinshead:
"It is not clear to anyone what the selection criteria was for those selected for compulsory redundancy, least of all those affected by it".
This morning, I highlighted the case of a young constituent, a photographer who went through the process and faces losing his job next week. He was told, "We're getting rid of you because of your poor disciplinary record." He has no disciplinary record. He was then told, "We're getting rid of you because of your poor attendance." He has had six days off in six years; some of his more senior colleagues have had more time off in the past month. He was then told, "We're getting rid of you because of your lack of technical ability." This young man is the only person to have gone through the NUJ course as well as all the Daily Record courses and, being of a younger generation, he is probably more technically literate than some of his more—shall we say—senior colleagues. He was then told, "Ah well, it must be about your technical ability." As I pointed out this morning, that young man is currently up for three national awards for the photographs that he has taken on behalf of the newspaper.
I make no apology for outlining that case. As I said this morning, I am appalled at the actions of the Trinity Mirror management with regard to the workers at the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail. As Kenny Gibson rightly pointed out, those papers have been the cash cow for Trinity Mirror for many years. They regularly make profits and the workers who are facing redundancy are the people who have contributed to those profits.
As Mr Gibson pointed out, the trade union is not against change. The NUJ is willing to sit down and negotiate with the Trinity Mirror management about the way forward, but not when it has a gun pointed at its head in relation to compulsory redundancies. I hope that when the minister and Mr Hollinshead get together they can work something out, so that the compulsory redundancies do not have to take place. The redundancies do not have to take place; if people are willing to negotiate, they can plot the way forward and the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail can continue to serve the Scottish public in the way that they have done for years.
Like others, I have spoken at great length on this issue and on the issue of job cuts at The Herald and the Evening Times, on which I had a members' business debate. It is with great sorrow that we are back here talking about job losses and about people getting sacked. I am sure that the management of Trinity Mirror will correct me if I am wrong, but I agree with Kenny Gibson and David Whitton that the group has used the Glasgow part of the operation, which made a profit of £20 million to £23 million, as a cash cow—a similar thing is happening in many other parts of the newspaper industry. Trinity Mirror is now using the present economic crisis as a reason to say that it cannot keep going and that there will be compulsory redundancies for various journalists—24 in the case of the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail. I have a real fear about that, which is why I am back here talking about it with great sadness.
I congratulate Kenny Gibson on securing the debate, because it is important that the issue is debated, whether three times—as has happened today—or 30 times, to ensure that the message gets across to the management that all parties in the Scottish Parliament are absolutely sickened and disgusted by its actions. I hope that the minister can get around the table with the management of Trinity Mirror and do something, although I have my doubts about the management.
I want to look at some practical things that I hope the Scottish Parliament can do. I said this morning that we have to look at employment law but, unfortunately, that is not part of our remit. Perhaps the minister in this Parliament could talk to the relevant minister in the Westminster Parliament about that; I would like that to happen if it is at all possible. We really have to look at employment law, because what is happening here would not happen in countries with decent employment laws.
We got the Health and Safety Executive involved in the situation at The Herald and the Evening Times—no conclusion was reached, but at least people spoke to each other—because of the practices at the titles and the stress that journalists were under. I wonder whether we could get the Health and Safety Executive involved in the situation at the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, too.
I want to pick up Ted Brocklebank's point about advertising. Given the record—excuse the pun—of the management and the profits that it has made from the two titles, if we gave it advertising money, perhaps it would just take the money and run. It might still end up paying off workers. I think that that is what would happen, so we should be careful about giving it the money. That is a great worry to me.
I know a lot of the people involved. It is not a conflict of interest to say that I have worked in newspaper advertising. Over the years, every politician develops a rapport—whether good or bad—with journalists. We get to know journalists. When they phone us on a Friday night at 10 o'clock we are almost certain that they will want us to say something off the record, and when they phone at a decent time during the day we know that they are phoning for a decent story.
The investigative journalism at the Sunday Mail is second to none. As Hugh Henry said in this morning's debate, it has been paramount in bringing down some of the worst excesses of gangsterism, drug dealing and so on, particularly in Glasgow. Without those investigative journalists, such criminals would virtually get away with murder.
My big worry is that we are losing excellent journalists. The journalists must be worried sick because they are losing their jobs and, like all of us, they have mortgages to pay for and families to keep, but when Kenny Gibson and I have spoken to them—last Friday and at other times—their big worry has been that journalistic expertise will be lost from the country. Once that is lost, we will not get it back.
We all know that the debate follows Sandra White's members' business debate back in January and the Labour Party debate this morning. I commend Kenny Gibson for securing the debate and for championing the issues, and I commend all the members who spoke this morning and this evening, who made the issue clear and vivid in a Scottish context.
The Scottish Government has had material engagement with the industry and unions. Before the first debate, we took the time to understand the issues and the implications of developments by engaging with and listening to all strands of opinion. It is sad that Mr Whitton did not support that view this morning or in his press release, despite ample evidence, but I feel that he properly understood what we are about when he and I spoke on the margins of the debate. I hope that we can now focus more on common cause.
The Government had an important further meeting when we held a workshop at Glasgow Caledonian University. I commend Sandra White and Ted Brocklebank not only for attending that workshop but for contributing materially to the dialogue and encouraging more contributions from the floor. I also commend the university for widening the attendee list to students and academics, which created a constructive environment. Many challenges and opportunities were identified and we produced many ideas, which triggered follow-up meetings and the First Minister's involvement. I have also made a commitment today to have further direct contact with the NUJ and Trinity Mirror.
We have considerable evidence that the Parliament and the Government deeply regret the unfolding developments in the print media sector and that we have channelled that feeling into action and engagement, which will continue. We recognise that the industry is in a difficult position, that it must transform if its fortunes are to improve and that it must address changing circumstances. Other industries and countries have undertaken that evolutionary process. We appreciate the attempts that have been made here and we acknowledge that the challenge is immense and complex, but there are signs from the States, Finland, Rotterdam—which Kenneth Gibson mentioned—and even Arran that such a situation can be challenged. That applies particularly if everyone—the unions, staff, the readership and advertisers, as well as management and editorial staff—is involved.
It is clear from the motion, and from the motion and amendments from the earlier debate, that most of us regret the spectre of compulsory redundancy. When we have looked at the data, that regret has developed. We also regret the polarisation of positions when much constructive flexibility has been forthcoming from the unions and staff. The duality of positions that might drive people is understandable. On one side, people are worried about their jobs, job security and terms and conditions while, on the other, concerns are about the survival of the titles and the material share-price reduction, but that is no excuse for not coming together. The union and the staff are willing to engage, and we applaud that: we want the sides to come together more constructively.
The Parliament giving much time to the issue is evidence of its importance and of the necessity of having a successful press in Scotland. That message emerged from what various members said. Concern is felt about the possibility of a democratic deficit, on which Hugh Henry was strong this morning. His point about the press making the Government and people in positions of authority more accountable is important. That raises the question of how we ensure that the press is vivid, viable, moving forward and taking on new technologies. Getting there involves talking to staff and unions to achieve more imaginative and acceptable solutions.
Kenny Gibson highlighted the impact of investment, competition and internal collaboration that has created vibrancy in the newspaper sector on Arran. He also spoke about new emulatable models in Rotterdam, which not only are profitable but allow people to use profit in an intelligent way. We are talking about oiling the wheels, fulfilling purpose, enduring and growing, and doing the right thing by readers, advertisers and the communities within which titles work. As we all know, no business can shrink its way to greatness. The loss of talented people and their good will is no basis for a robust recovery.
This morning, Ken Macintosh pinpointed the inappropriateness of macho management. That management style is inappropriate at any time but especially in the newspaper industry and at this time. I was very taken with his focus on the core benefits that accrue from a robust press and a well-informed population. Again, the point reinforces the risk of democratic deficit that we face. I commend David Whitton for augmenting Ken Macintosh's point in the earlier debate on the sheer scale of humanity that is involved. I refer to the impact on those who have long careers in the industry, including in terms of their pensions. There is also the human resources angle.
More in sadness than in anger, Michael Russell made the excellent point in this morning's debate that Trinity Mirror's approach is likely to be self-defeating. It risks closing down the potential of inventing new business models that could flourish and meet the needs of future generations. I share that sadness: for Trinity Mirror to deny itself the chance of playing a part in that evolution and its chemistry is indeed sad, as is its denial of proper engagement with internal stakeholders. I hope that Trinity Mirror will take advantage of the work that we have started to widen the stakeholder group, thereby bringing in yet more allies to get a better discussion of the issues.
I am a great fan of the biochemist Leslie Orgel, whose second rule is:
"Evolution is cleverer than you are".
If we are to maximise the evolutionary chances of our newspapers in future, we need to talk to one another in the first instance and learn from elsewhere. If we do both those things, we can face down the digital revolution.
Will the minister make it clear whether Trinity Mirror has agreed to meet him to discuss the issues?
That is a work in progress. I have been working on that today, and I think that Mr Whitton was a witness to the work that took place immediately after this morning's debate. We intend to ensure that we balance our books by talking both to Trinity Mirror and the unions, including the NUJ, and we will do that.
Meeting closed at 17:38.