Regional Newspapers

Jim Hood Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Members will have noticed the new clock displays in the Chamber. As before, the top display is the current time and the bottom display, when a speech is not being timed, will show the time it started. If it becomes necessary to introduce a speech limit, the bottom display will change, to show the time remaining to the Member who currently has the Floor. As in the main Chamber, the display can now award an extra minute for the first two interventions in a speech.

The first debate this afternoon is on the future of regional newspapers. I call Andrew Griffiths.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hood. It is a great pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship today.

I welcome all those colleagues who have taken the time and trouble to take part in this important debate on this busy day. I think that is because we all recognise the importance of our local newspapers in the communities that we represent. We recognise the value and contribution that a daily or weekly newspaper makes to the lives of the people we seek to serve.

The debate is topical because of two important developments in the past few days. First, as colleagues understand, this week the House has been debating the consequences of the Leveson report. None of us can fail to be appalled by the revelations that came out of the phone-hacking inquiries and by the disreputable activities of some members of the journalist profession. It is only right for us to consider the future implications for our free press. What was clear from the report, however, was that the one sector of the media industry that was free from blame was our regional and local newspapers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some newspapers have diversified, such as the Kent Messenger, which has an internet page that receives 292,000 clicks a month? KMFM radio is also available, and if local newspapers are to survive in the long term, they must diversify and attract different audiences. Some are not doing that.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. Will hon. Members make their interventions shorter?

[Andrew Griffiths]

Thank you, Mr Hood, for that advice. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Newspapers are businesses, and are run by business people. They recognise that they must diversify, and they are looking for alternative income and revenue streams. All our newspapers now have internet sites, and are looking at how to spread their contents on as many platforms as possible. I hope that the Local World venture will help in that objective, but the reality is that advertising revenue through the internet is much lower than what can be expected through the printed medium, and that is disappointing for the many newspapers that have invested heavily in their online presence and advertising. They are competing with a whole host of different bodies, and competing with advertising on Google, Yahoo and other providers. It is difficult for them to compete.

The problem is not a UK phenomenon. The Newspaper Association of America says that industry losses account for some £500 million in a half year, which is offset by only a £20 million increase in online revenue. That shows the position that our newspapers are in. They are trying to be good businesses, and looking for new markets, but those new markets have much smaller margins and revenue income. We must look at what we can do.

I touched briefly on democracy. We all recognise how much more difficult it would be to communicate with our constituents without a local newspaper to get our message across. It is a case of, “If it didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it.” We must look at the implications for us as politicians and as the Government if we lose this important communication tool. I have a hardy band of deliverers in Burton, but my ability to communicate with my constituents would be vastly reduced if I lost my local newspapers, and I would be remiss if I did not mention the Burton Mail. I am lucky to have such a great newspaper. It is a daily newspaper, and run by a fantastic editor, Mr Kevin Booth. I am also lucky to have three weekly newspapers, the Uttoxeter Post and Times, the Uttoxeter Echo and the Uttoxeter Advertiser. Strangely, they all serve Uttoxeter in my constituency.

Those newspapers, particularly the Burton Mail, serve another purpose. They are local campaigning tools. They are the voice for the local community. They do not just transmit information to my constituents; they take up causes on their behalf. The Burton Mail has run a whole host of campaigns on issues such as knife crime, making the town centre safer, and keeping the Margaret Stanhope mental health centre in my constituency open. A plethora of great campaigns have galvanised the community in the way that a Facebook page simply cannot. If we lose our newspapers’ campaigning ability, the voice of our communities will be diminished, and we should care deeply about that if we care about our constituents.

Our local newspapers are the first point of call for people to find information. Although my local councils—East Staffordshire borough council and Staffordshire county council—have fantastic websites, Twitter feeds and Facebook accounts, to try to communicate with the people who pay council tax, those people do not visit the websites daily to look for information, whereas local newspapers are such a repository of information. I said earlier that if we did not have them, we would have to reinvent them.

The Government must realise the importance of our local newspapers in communicating messages to the country. The Government advertising budget is under pressure. We recognise that we must make serious savings, and the Government are looking at communicating through new media, but many of my constituents are older people. Although we have a large number of silver surfers in Burton, many people still do not use the internet, Twitter, or Facebook, and turn to local newspapers for information. If we lose that, it will be to all our detriment.

The Government need to look at what more we can do. I have come up with the phrase “community capital”, and I think there is some community value in what our local newspapers do. In the same way that we support post offices through Government initiatives for the provision of services, and the voluntary sector through the Big Society Bank and investment in voluntary services, we should look at supporting our local newspapers to ensure that that community capital is not lost.

I point to two things. First, I recognise that the Government have taken some steps on tackling the issue of council newspapers. We have all seen the growth of free local council newspapers that go through doors at quite some expense, and my right hon. Friend and chum the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has done a great deal to try and rein in the worst excesses of those councils. However, we are still seeing some councils, such as Cardiff city council, spend huge amounts of money. A newspaper is produced there 13 times a year at a cost of some £33 million to the taxpayer. Is that a good use of council tax payers’ money, or should we be looking at what we can do to support our local newspapers?

Secondly, I touch on the issue of Department for Transport notices. A consultation ended earlier this year, as the Minister will know, on the DFT and its use of advertising notices in our local newspapers to ensure that local residents understand properly what is going on with the transport network in our constituencies. Were that important income revenue to be lost to local newspapers, I have absolutely no doubt that it would lead to the loss of journalists and tip some of our weaker local newspapers, which might disappear for ever, over the edge.

I am fast coming to the end of the time that I have to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) on securing the debate and on the way in which he has introduced it. He referred to Leveson, and it is worth repeating that Leveson said that local papers’

“contribution to local life is truly without parallel…their demise would be a huge setback for communities

and

“a real loss for our democracy”.

Their demise has taken place before our eyes—that is the problem.

Let me give the figures from the National Union of Journalists—I am the secretary of the NUJ parliamentary group and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) is the chair. We have been engaged in debates such as this for some time and things have got worse, not better. Over the past seven years, since we had one of our earliest debates, 20% of the UK’s local newspapers have closed. We have lost 240 titles and at the moment, we are fighting on a range of fronts. The Press Association has been closing its regional lobby service and making journalists redundant. We have tabled early-day motion 715, which exposes what is happening at the Press Association, and I invite Members to sign it.

At the moment, Johnston Press is trawling for redundancies of more than 50 posts, and the NUJ has been denied collective consultation on the cuts so far. That is not the sort of commitment we were given by some proprietors last year, who said that there would at least be a dialogue with their staff about what was happening in their companies. Trinity Mirror has just announced 75 job cuts, amounting to an 18.75% cut of its editorial work force. Interestingly enough, the company, while it is sacking its own staff, has bought a 20% stake in David Montgomery’s Local World, but it will not be putting its regional or local papers into that operation. The Daily Mail and General Trust has shed about a quarter of its work force of 3,000 since 2010 and it has announced a further 13% cut in regional editorial costs this year. The number of people employed at Northcliffe stood at 2,450 in 2012, compared with 3,130 in October 2010.

The jobs are going. We have been tabling early-day motions and have been engaged in discussions with the Minister and the previous Government about how we tackle the issue. The main concern is that the service is being degraded at a local level. We have done a survey of local NUJ representatives on the ground, and I will quote some of the things that have come back. From the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, the NUJ representative reported:

“Each reporter was supposed to spend half a day on their patch looking for stories. The idea was abandoned two years ago owing to staff shortages.”

The rep from Birmingham Post and Mail said:

“Staff are increasingly going for easy stories—those which can be filed and concluded as quickly and with little fuss as possible, from press releases and announcements”.

That is not the nature of the local press that we have come to admire. The rep from the Coventry Telegraph said:

“Loss of staff photographers and their replacement with freelancers and heavier reliance on reporter-supplied photos and submitted pictures likely to lead to deterioration in quality of pictures. Fewer reporters for all titles will also affect content and quality.”

A survey of NUJ members at Newsquest Essex north found that staff had worked an extra day a fortnight voluntarily. A letter to the management said:

“Editorial staff has been cut by a third in the past three years and the remaining staff have undertaken more work than ever.”

An NUJ rep from the north-west said:

“Reporters are less likely to get out of the office to see contacts and have less time on individual stories, developing and investigating them. Subs have less time to check stories, design pages and have less time spent on proofing pages.”

That is what we have witnessed, and that is the report back from the front about the seriousness of the cuts that have taken place. What is galling for staff is that in addition to the cuts, they have had pay cuts and pay freezes during the past 10 years, but at the same time some of the management wages have been astounding.

Let me give some examples. Paul Davidson, chief executive of the Newsquest newspaper group, received £598,441 in salary last year. The figures, for 2011, show that directors of Newsquest were awarded an additional £881,000 in “share-based payments”. It just goes on. Craig Dubow, head of the US parent company Gannett Company, Inc., resigned in 2011 and walked off with a £23 million golden handshake. It is not that the money is not there. What has happened over a long period is that there has been profiteering in the industry, which has resulted in the cutbacks that we are suffering now. That has put in jeopardy these community assets—that is what they are. The hon. Member for Burton is right about that. I wish they had been so designated so in the Localism Act 2011, because they are community assets that we all value.

Other activities need to be put on the record. There have been tax scams in the industry. A tax tribunal relating to Iliffe News and Media was told how that group had drawn up a tax avoidance scheme by assigning to its parent company the unregistered newspaper mastheads used by its subsidiaries, which were then charged as a lump sum payment, to downplay its successful financial position. That was exposed at a tribunal. The company lost the case. It was exposed that it sought a tax deduction for payments amounting to £51.5 million. That is an absolute scandal. In many ways, the management of the industry has brought about its own demise. That needs to be put on the record and made straight.

We now need to look to the future. Montgomery has bought out Northcliffe Media and Iliffe News and Media in what amounted, I think, to a fire sale of those assets, but the staff of those groups are seeking to ensure that there is a long-term plan for security. Unfortunately, the negotiations on the TUPE transfer are being conducted at the moment at breakneck pace and it is very difficult for the staff to obtain clear answers to the many questions that are being put about contractual terms, long-term security and, in particular, the fate of their pension entitlements. What could be seen as a good initiative could falter because of the failure to engage with other stakeholders and, in particular, with the staff via the NUJ.

We can report similar experiences elsewhere. There is the outsourcing from Media Scotland-Trinity Mirror. Two thousand jobs have gone from the Welsh media industry in the past decade. In Northern Ireland, Johnston Press has made cutbacks overall. That is the bleak picture, but we could have confidence. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Burton: this is not about subsidising, but about supporting and investing for the long term.

The Minister has taken a particular interest in this issue in opposition and since he has transferred into the ministerial car. As a result, I think, of one of these debates, he convened a meeting of proprietors and editors to have a discussion on getting a long-term strategy developed. I was really disappointed that only one turned up. That showed disrespect not just to the Government and the Minister but to all the other stakeholders in the industry. I would follow the path recommended by the hon. Member for Burton. I urge us to reconvene the meeting. It can be called a seminar, brainstorming session or whatever. We need to get the proprietors and editors round a table. We would want to ensure that the representatives of the employees—the NUJ—were there, as well as any others who had an interest in the matter. It would be useful to have representatives of other Departments at the table to consider what role they can play in investing in, not subsidising, the industry in the long term. We can tap into the creativity that is out there.

Let us say that we do convene the meeting and it is hosted by the Government. I hope that it would be on a cross-party basis, because that was the nature of the attempts that the previous Government made. That would not just demonstrate seriousness but show that there would be a long-term approach to the issue, whoever is in government. We need to make it clear in the debate today and other sources that if that meeting is convened, we expect the owners and proprietors to attend and to take it seriously. Otherwise, they do not just disrespect Government and the parties in this House, they also let down whole communities that rely on their local newspaper for the reporting of local news and, as the hon. Member for Burton said, for the holding to account of those in power. I therefore urge the Minister to try again. Let us try again on a cross-party basis to get people round a table to develop a longer-term strategy for the industry, which we all desperately want to succeed.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. I will start calling the Front-Bench speakers at 3.40 pm. I have four hon. Members on my list of speakers. If hon. Members are reasonable with their time, we should be able to manage that. The next speaker is Glyn Davies.