Regional Newspapers

Debate between Jim Hood and Andrew Griffiths

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 ---

[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.

Late Payments (SMEs)

Debate between Jim Hood and Andrew Griffiths

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this important debate. I have tried unsuccessfully on several occasions to secure a similar debate, so I must talk to you afterwards to find out how you were so successful, while I failed miserably.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady may have applied for such a debate, but I did not.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Thank you, Mr Hood.

The hon. Lady had all of us in the Chamber nodding in agreement and support. We all—from all the parties, and all the nations represented here—want to do more to support small and medium-sized businesses, but such businesses in my constituency, and, I am sure, in the hon. Lady’s, do not want us to engage in party politics. They want us to work together and not to make party points.

I know that time is short and others want to speak, but I want to focus on an issue that has been raised with me in my constituency several times. We all go and talk to people who run small businesses, who tell us that things are tough, but that they are surviving. They tell us about difficulties with finance and the banks, and they have faced difficulties with late payments for many years. My family had a small engineering business and had to endure the “cheque in the post” argument when we chased payment of invoices after waiting a long time. However, a new phenomenon has begun to hit businesses in my constituency, and elsewhere. Large companies are arbitrarily extending their supplier payment terms. In recent months some larger businesses have decided to extend their normal payment terms of 30 days to 60, 90 or, in some cases, 120 days. Small businesses, which are desperate for the contract and do not want to lose the potential for future business, must live with having to finance an extra two or three months while they wait for payment.

I pay tribute to the Federation of Small Businesses, which has done a great deal of work on the issue.