NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY

Speech delivered on Thu 28th Jan 2010

It is difficult to imagine a more boring-sounding subject for debate than a statutory instrument on public notices in newspapers but, in fact, it is of significant-perhaps fundamental-importance to our democracy and how it operates. There are two strands to that, as the debate has illustrated: first, the public's right to important information that affects them and to access that information; and, secondly, the role of local and national newspapers in keeping us informed.

When the SNP Government came to power, it was regarded as having a certain talent for identifying with public sentiment. It was, people said, much better at mood music than the previous lot. I can only observe that its spin doctors seem to be playing a little bit off tune these days. The SNP ministers are becoming rather notorious for paying too little attention to the details: its Cabinet Secretary for Justice had a bit of difficulty counting to a thousand police officers; its education ministers rather carelessly mislaid a couple of thousand teachers; its Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth clearly does not like airport railway links; and now the Scottish Government has decided that the public right to know about local planning or licensing matters, changes in refuse collections or the like is not terribly important.

Ian McKee: Will the member give way?

Robert Brown: Let me make a bit of progress.

The SNP Government has made its move with exquisite timing, given that the newspaper industry, like many other sectors, has been hammered by the recession, with sales down 5 per cent year on year and advertising revenues down 20 per cent and more in some sectors.

The minister said-five times, I think, with increasing desperation-that, with this Administration, consultation means consultation. I hope that that gives him a face-saving way of getting out of the dilemma and cul-de-sac into which he has got, but the fact remains that we have before us a Government proposal and, as many members have said, proposals are made not for the joy of it or to spend public money in processing them but with the objective of taking them through the Parliament.

No one denies that Governments have to keep pace with changing technology or that the availability on websites of Government consultations, planning applications, and central and local government information of all kinds has been extremely helpful to the public. Information is power, and placing those things on the internet was about making a lot of information readily accessible, whereas the SNP proposals to take away the requirement on local authorities-a legal requirement, as the motion points out-is about taking away information and limiting power.

A point that has not come out in the debate as strongly as it might is that many public notices are time sensitive. That means that the public need to know about the information at the right time if they are to take action and mount a campaign on a planning notice, licensing notice or school closure, for example. Bob Doris and I stood shoulder to shoulder in opposition to Labour council proposals to close schools in Glasgow. It was important to have the information on them early not late and to avoid the difficulty of people not knowing about them. The daily or weekly paper, but not the web, serves that function.

The point has been made that the people most committed to voting, serving on community groups and raising local issues tend to be older people. Perhaps they have a little bit more time because they are retired but, the older somebody is, the less likely they are to have access to the internet; 89 per cent of people over 75 have never used the internet, although the figures are lesser earlier on. It is not surprising that internet access is also an equalities issue, as a third to a half of those on lower incomes never use the internet.

The other side of the coin is the revenue to newspapers from public information notices. Some people have said that it is not the job of Government to subsidise the media. Neither it is, but one would think that the long and bitter experience of post office closures following the

withdrawal of services might have taught us some lessons. If the Government proposal goes ahead, the loss of revenue could be equivalent to about 300 jobs. We have already seen major restructuring and job losses. It was pointed out to us at the NUJ briefing yesterday that the local newspapers train many of the journalists of the future. I was impressed to see the number of journalists who are employed in some of the Fife newspapers about which we were told yesterday.

In my area, the Rutherglen Reformer recently closed its local office and moved its operation into the offices of the Hamilton Advertiser and other assorted local papers in Hamilton. I recently had the opportunity to go and visit them to see the operation, which is quite significant. It provides local news to many communities across Lanarkshire, but the loss of public notice revenue would be a significant blow to that organisation, as to many others throughout Scotland.

Many of our local newspapers go back to the early or mid-19th century and have provided a service over those many years. I know of many young journalists in the Rutherglen Reformer who went on to become well known, including Ken Smith of The Herald and Paul Holleran of NUJ Scotland.

Bob Doris: As a list MSP for Glasgow, like Robert Brown, I rely on the Rutherglen Reformer to keep me updated on what has happened in the area. Research shows that only 2 per cent of planning notices and public information notices are read. That might not be a reason to take them out of the Rutherglen Reformer, but it could be a reason to review how to make them more attractive.

Robert Brown: Hugh Henry made the point well, in regard to the Paisley newspapers, that the readership of local newspapers is one thing and their circulation and access are another. They retain an important role in putting out public information. We should recall that point. Another important point, which Cathy Jamieson made, is that editors and journalists know their local area.

The motion is important. It deserves the unanimous support of the chamber and, indeed, some thought from SNP back benchers. If I may adapt a phrase known to the minister's party, it is time to send him homeward to think again.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below:

Related Link:

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY.