Scottish Parliament, 28 January 2010

388 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Official Report 28 January 2010

Newspaper Industry

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business today is a debate on motion S3M-5620, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on the Scottish newspaper industry.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Scotland's newspaper industry is unique, dynamic and diverse, with 17 daily newspapers and countless weeklies. Whether we love or hate our local newspapers, they are vital to the communities that they serve. They are generally trusted by local people and carry information that is relevant to the lives of their readerships, enabling them to influence decisions that affect them where they live. Indeed, all members of the Scottish Parliament rely on local newspapers, and some get a wee bit upset if they do not feature regularly in them.

The article about the application of a new pub licence is linked to the publication of the notice about that licence in the same source, and it is an essential part of our democratic process that people can access information about things that affect them. The death of our newspaper industry would, therefore, be a serious blow to our democracy.

"Every time a newspaper dies, even a bad one, the country moves a little closer to authoritarianism; when a great one goes, like the New York Herald Tribune, history itself is denied a devoted witness."

That is a quotation from Richard Kluger, who was the last literary editor of the New York Herald Tribune.

The Scottish Government's proposal to remove the legal duty to inform the public of certain notices, such as planning applications and road closures, in local newspapers is an assault on knowledge and information. The Government misses the point that everyone else is making—that a switch to the internet as a means of informing the public of a road closure or of a change in bin collections or pub licensing will disfranchise the hundreds of ordinary people who do not yet have access to the internet. I wonder whether the Government is aware of the fact that Scotland has the lowest level of uptake of broadband in the United Kingdom, and I ask the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism whether he is content that he is standing up for the Scottish interest. The UK Government has already withdrawn the proposal and he should do likewise. Interestingly, the consultation on the proposal is posted on the internet.

The minister will argue that the Government is simply allowing local authorities to make a choice, but let us be clear that it is a choice with consequences. We know that the previous decision to advertise jobs on the internet has not been without its problems. One criticism has been that those who apply for the jobs are the ones who are already sitting at desks with access to the internet, which narrows the field of applicants. If we remove the legal requirement, fewer notices—if any—will be published in our local newspapers. Even those who are addicted to computers will have to seek out a specific web page and trawl for notices. Let us make no mistake: fewer people will see the notices than see them at present, there will be fewer objectors, and the public will be less informed. That is not exactly in the spirit of open government, and I am sure that we will still have the same number of spin doctors to deal with the press.

Our concern for the newspaper industry should be seen in the context of the democratic world in which we live—at least, the one that we strive for. The collateral damage that the proposal will bring in lost revenue will be felt in many different ways, which are interlinked. If any other industry were facing job losses because of a Government decision, there would be an outcry. As we know, the industry has faced troubled times in the past, and there will be more ahead. There is a cyclical downturn and, as we have debated in Parliament many times, there are job losses across the world as newspapers merge in a changing industry. The National Union of Journalists estimates that there have been 2,000 job losses from regional newspapers across the UK since the start of the current financial crisis.

We are witnessing a period of enormous political, economic and social change—20 years ago, there was no internet—and public opinion matters, as it determines how people think and vote. The media industry and all those who deliver news face the challenge of a lifetime as we see the first pilot for Scottish news to protect public service broadcasting. Many newspapers have adapted their business for online publication and, so far, there have been relatively few closures, but that could change. Only 4 per cent of people get their news from the internet, 28 per cent get their news from newspapers, and the majority get it from television. It is important that the greatest number of people see the public notices.

Quality journalism and content are key to a good newspaper industry, and it is self-evident that newsgathering is expensive. Some say that the most truthful part of a newspaper is the advertising, and I am sure that we all have our criticisms of the press. However, we have seen huge job losses in the industry, and many of us have been on the picket lines with the NUJ, arguing the case for jobs.

Yesterday, on a joint platform of journalists, editors and MSPs, we all agreed that the Government's plans would be deeply damaging to the industry—fatal, in fact, to the democracy for which we strive. As the editors said openly in yesterday's meeting, the first thing to suffer when there are cuts is the number of journalists.

The absence of anyone from the Scottish National Party group was noted. SNP members cannot seriously sign up to other motions and then vote with the Government this evening. They have a chance to influence the course of the proposed order, and nothing short of that will do.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I was not at that meeting because our group meeting was scheduled for exactly the same time. That was not our choice. I hope that you will use the consultation process to raise some of your concerns; I will use the consultation process and my speech to raise my concerns. I would have been at that meeting had it been scheduled at a time when I could have made it—it is important to put that on the record.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Some of us saw SNP members attending that group meeting when we came out of our meeting. I say to Bob Doris: if you really think that the issue is important, you should have been at the meeting with journalists yesterday. I do not think that that is a good enough excuse.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind members to speak through the chair rather than directly to each other.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Yes, of course. Tonight, SNP members have a chance to show which side of the argument they are on.

It is staggering that the Government states that its aim is to make the information accessible; it is purely a money-saving venture. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities argues that the proposed order allows local authorities only to ensure that there is a mix of notifications in newspapers and online. I think that that will be more confusing for the public, as they will not know where to look for their notices—on the internet or in newspapers.

The most important issue is equality of access. There is no equality of access to the internet in Scotland—any examination of the facts would lead the Government to that conclusion. According to the Office of Communications, only 60 per cent of Scots have access to broadband and 70 per cent of those who are aged over 65 have never used the internet. I wonder what the minister with responsibility for older people thinks of that—I hope that he will make representations to the Scottish ministers. In Glasgow, only 39 per cent of people have broadband and many people in rural communities do not have the high-speed broadband that they desire. It is important to recognise that people will not read a newspaper online if they have a slow connection—that is the most frustrating thing in the world and they simply will not do it.

Call me old-fashioned, but I do not think that the concept is the same: surfing the internet for notices is not the same as coming across a notice while reading about the issue in a local newspaper. We are told that public information notices will still be available in libraries and all local authority buildings, but I do not think that older people who have never used the internet will suddenly start turning up at their libraries and surfing the internet to see whether there are any notices. I do not think that someone in Scotstoun or Partick will turn up at the city chambers just to see whether there are any notices that might affect them. Notices are much more accessible to people if they can read them in their local newspapers.

The sources for the Government's position on the issue are critical. The case that it has made for the removal of the notices from local newspapers is poorly researched. The Minister for Culture and External Affairs claims that only 2 per cent of the public read notices in their newspapers. That figure was also used by the Cabinet Office in 2007, and the only source that we could find for it—I will stand corrected if I am wrong—was a survey that was carried out by Camden Council. It is very difficult to see where the figure comes from. I can only presume that it is in light of that figure that the UK Government dropped its plans.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Indeed, the member asked that question of me in the chamber previously, and I quoted the figures provided by the Westminster Government and the Cabinet Office. If the member thinks that Westminster wants to pursue the matter further as part of its digital research, I will gladly take representations.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Perhaps the minister did not hear me and is unaware of the situation, but I have said twice in this debate that, in light of its research, the UK Government has dropped its plan. I call on the minister to do likewise today.

The Scottish Government says that it has a duty to provide value for money. That is true, but it also has a duty to protect properly the interests of the public who rely on the information provided in public notices. The proposed order is a money-saving venture and does nothing to improve public services. Claims that removing the legal requirement on local authorities to publish public notices in newspapers will improve the quality of information to the public are unfounded. Changes are needed to improve the quality of public notices—we do not argue that the position is perfect, as Robert Brown said in yesterday's meeting—and further work is required to make public notices more accessible and readable. When the Government considers the matter I ask it to go in that direction.

Labour has called for imaginative ideas about how to save the newspaper industry. We argue that a subscription for every 18-year-old to a newspaper of their choice is a good scheme to develop a reading habit and promote access to a genuine mix of reading in a newspaper and on the internet. We want investment in our local newspaper industry, particularly to make it attractive for young people to work in. We call on the industry to make changes. If the Government were to rethink its plan, we would want some of the revenue to go towards training young journalists.

I call on the Government to rethink its plan so that we have a better-informed public and a sustainable newspaper industry and protect the democratic process. We come to the chamber today to make the case that it is fundamental to the democratic process to protect our newspaper industry and allow the public access to quality information. As I said, the UK Government has dropped its plans based on research that shows that they would be detrimental to the public. I call on the Scottish Government to do the right thing today, drop its plans and withdraw the order.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the important role played by local newspapers in Scotland; believes that, in the current economic climate, it is more important than ever to recognise the importance and value of community newspapers; notes that local newspapers provide a forum for expression that enables local people to deliberate on issues affecting their community; notes with concern the Scottish Government proposals to remove the legal requirement for local authorities to advertise public information notices in newspapers; believes that, if this proposal succeeds, it will deny the 38% of Scots who do not have internet access vital information currently available to them in newspapers, will create a democratic deficit and damage the local and national newspaper industry at a critical time; fears that a smaller newspaper industry will dilute quality journalism and training opportunities for young journalists, and calls on the Scottish Government to withdraw the draft Local Authority Public Information Notices (Electronic Publication) (Scotland) Order 2010.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing this debate to the chamber. The issue that she has chosen to address is timely and important. It is appropriate that members should have an opportunity to discuss it and, in so doing, augment the consultation process that is currently under way and continue the same approach that we took when taking the Arbitration (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament.

In my contribution, I will address three issues. First, I will outline the reason why the Government is currently consulting on regulations relating to public information notices; secondly, I will restate our commitment to retaining and developing a resilient, vibrant and viable local press; and finally, I will outline some of the steps that the Government has taken and will take to help local newspapers thrive as secure and sustainable businesses.

We recognise, as many people have commented, that the proposed regulations would have direct impact on local newspaper income. Of course, we all know that local newspapers fulfil a vital role in our communities. Indeed, some of the evidence heard recently by the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee has made that clear. Professor Neil Blain of the University of Stirling stated last week, for example, that local newspapers are "part of local history". He went on to say that

"'Invaluable' is not a strong enough word: local newspapers are unique resources."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 20 January 2010; c 3092.]

Yet we all know that local newspapers are going through difficult times. Existing business models are rapidly becoming outmoded as new technology and changing consumer tastes all impact directly. Partly as a result of that, local newspaper circulation has been in steady decline over the past two decades, although the picture varies greatly across different titles.

In addition, advertising revenues are being hit hard by the economic downturn and the growth of online advertising. Therefore, the difficulties facing local newspapers go far beyond the possible reduction in revenue from displaying public information notices.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

My point is a simple one—surely at a time of recession, on which the minister is concentrating in his speech, this is the worst possible point to introduce the regulations.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

What we have introduced is consultation, and consultation is consultation with this Administration.

Let me return to putting the matter in context. The Scottish Government acknowledges that the loss of revenue is a real and pressing concern for local titles, but it is important to make it clear that the future of local newspapers cannot and should not be dependent on their receiving indirect subsidies from local authorities. If advertising is not cost effective, it represents a bad deal for taxpayers. Furthermore, dependence on public sector advertising potentially jeopardises the independence that people value so highly in their local press.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Quite frankly, the issue is not the subsidy. In my constituency, although there is a high level of internet access, people still read the Deeside Piper and the Donside Piper . They want to make sure that they get information from their weekly newspapers; it is not the subsidy that is important. Does the minister not recognise that members right across the chamber will not pass the order? It would save a lot of time, money and angst if the minister just dropped it now.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I note what the member says. We are in a process and, as I said, consultation means consultation with this Administration. We all come from local areas where local newspapers thrive and play the role that the member has just outlined. We know that many of them are struggling and we must help them to develop new sustainable business models. Most newspapers are doing exactly that.

For example, myjobscotland, the public sector recruitment portal, has announced media partnerships with six newspaper and online recruitment groups. There is also potential for local newspapers to sell online subscriptions and electronic editions for handheld devices, as many of the major players in the United States and the UK now do. Just this week, the launch of the Caledonian Mercury has shown the potential that the web offers for people to develop a new model of newspaper provision. Therefore, we must encourage the continuing evolution and development of newspapers.

New technology provides an opportunity for newspapers not just to survive but to prosper and find new ways of connecting with their readership, widen their readership base demographically, geographically and economically and, in so doing, reaffirm their position at the very hub of their local communities. That is what I am working on in Argyll and Bute—bringing active citizens, proactive communities and sectors of the economy together with local media in the interest of building the local economy together.

The first point to make about public information notices is that the steps that we are consulting on were requested by local authorities—indeed, they have already been debated and approved by COSLA. The reason is that the Scottish Government and local authorities have a shared duty to provide value for money in public service delivery.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am concerned about what John Swinney has said:

"The changes we are consulting on will mean councils can use a new public information notice portal instead of advertising in local papers."

He also pointed out that it would be for local councils to decide. Is the SNP taking a decision that will damage our local newspapers and then leaving councils to take the blame if there is any effect?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The councils want it. As I said, consultation means consultation with this Administration. We cannot get away from the fact that migrating to an online platform is expected to reduce expenditure by at least 50 per cent, saving councils an estimated £3 million a year. Any such savings would, of course, have an impact on local newspapers, which is a point to which I shall return.

Changing to an online platform would also allow local authorities to spend more money on front-line services, which would bring direct benefits to local communities. Members received a reinforcement of that proposition yesterday in a letter and briefing note from Pat Watters, the president of COSLA. The briefing note restates COSLA's case that the existing system is not perfect at providing information to the public.

Under the draft regulations on which we are currently consulting, local authorities would still be able to use local newspapers for public information notices. The proposed regulations would leave them free to choose the best mix of media to reach people in their local communities, which would include local newspapers, the internet, digital television and registering to receive e-mails and text messages. Critically, that latter medium would allow information to be targeted and delivered directly to the citizen without their having to search for it.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister protests that under his proposals local authorities will have a choice about whether to publish public information notices in newspapers. The problem is that if local newspapers do not survive that choice will not exist. Does the minister acknowledge that that is the key to the argument?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We are determined to ensure that newspapers continue to exist. I am really keen not to polarise this debate. Intelligent political discussion is about appreciating the complexities of different perspectives rather than assuming that a single idea is right. [Interruption.] Labour members can polarise away, and lock horns if they will, but we intend to take the issue forward. In this Government, consultation means consultation, and we stick with that.

I will outline the Government's next steps with regard to the local press, but first I suggest with respect to my friend Ted Brocklebank, who turned up at the newspaper summit, that he might consider voting against his own amendment before affirming his view that there appears to be little dialogue between the Scottish Government and the sector. He should be aware that I have met representatives from the sector to discuss these and other national issues on six occasions. The First Minister has also been involved.

I intend to hold a summit for local newspapers in order to explore how they can best remain profitable through the digital revolution. The consultation session that I held with national newspapers last February provided useful insights into how those newspapers might adapt, and I now want to engage fully with the concerns of the local press. I will draw on the work that we have done in Argyll and Bute on heightening the appetite of communities and the industry to work together with community planning partnerships. There is potential for local media to help fuel that cohesion with news stories, features, and advertorials that align ever more closely with the local economy to encourage more growth, a larger readership, more advertising and a wider reach.

Today's debate raises issues that are of great concern to the Government, and to all members and our constituents. Local news matters to local communities. However, the future of local newspapers should not depend on an indirect public subsidy that is controlled by politicians. It should depend on newspapers' own business models and, ultimately, on their ability to attract readers and advertisers. The fact that so many local newspapers are still managing to do that in the face of the deepest recession of the post-war period is testament to their resilience and to the potential to carve out a new digital beginning.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am in my last minute.

I want to help newspapers to build on those strengths, which is why I intend to engage with the sector during the months ahead. We all know that our local newspapers can prosper in the internet age by continuously adapting, innovating, copying what works elsewhere and taking advantage of technological change, and we intend to help them to do so. In the meantime, we will listen to the consultation responses and to what is said in the chamber today.

I move amendment S3M-5620.2, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"that the Scottish Government is currently consulting on the future of public information notices; further notes that this consultation is being run at the request of Scottish local authorities and does not close until 12 February 2010, and acknowledges that, as part of the consultation, the Scottish Government is committed to listening to all views and, in particular, those expressed by the Scottish Parliament."

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I declare an interest as a shareholder of STV, albeit an increasingly impecunious one. I was also a member of the NUJ for many years.

As someone who began his career as a print journalist, I find it particularly ironic that such an invaluable journalistic tool as the web, which gives access to information on a global scale, should now be largely responsible for the disappearance of the jobs of many of the newspaper men and women who stood to benefit the most from it.

As Jim Mather indicated, he hosted a conference this time last year at Glasgow Caledonian University that involved key players in the newspaper industry. As usual, he did a masterly job with his laptop and big screen, noting the views of those who spoke and plotting a narrative that highlighted the many difficulties that face the sector. I believe Sandra White and I were the only MSPs to attend.

Following that conference, Sandra White and David Whitton secured debates on the plight of the industry. However, despite sympathetic noises such as those that we have heard from Mr Mather this morning, what positive action have we seen from the Scottish Government? Holding six meetings during the course of a year sounds like precious little to me.

The Government's recent moves to make it legal for local authorities not to advertise public notices in the press have exacerbated the situation. At a recent meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, Scottish newspaper proprietors spelled out the stark figures of the double whammy that has hit their industry. For the Scottish and Universal Newspapers titles, including the Daily Record and Sunday Mail, there has been a year-on-year circulation drop of 6 per cent and drops of 30 per cent and more in some areas of advertising.

The managing director of Johnston Press, which publishes the Scotsman group of newspapers as well as more than 50 local titles throughout Scotland, conceded that circulation figures had slumped and that his company's Scottish advertising revenue was nearly £12 million down on the half year, which is 38 per cent down year on year.

All Scottish newspaper groups have identified the importance of public sector advertising, given Scotland's exposure to the public sector. Local authorities spend around £6 million a year on public sector advertising, a figure which goes up to around £10 million if we include the sums that are spent by the Scottish Government.

We on the Conservative side of the chamber deplore any moves on the Government's part to deprive people of the vital public information that is currently advertised in newspapers. Of course we must embrace new technology and new advertising opportunities, but change must be carefully managed. We recognise that governmental recruitment advertising is likely to move to the net, but public notices are quite different.

Many people, especially the elderly, still look naturally to newspapers for public information, ranging from planning applications to road closures and so on. The Scottish Government says that councils will be able to use a new public information notice portal that will improve communication and dialogue with the public. I do not see how that can possibly be the case when, according to the Government's own Scottish household survey, 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 home.

Even if people have internet access, how will they stumble across a notice that is relevant to them on a portal that would be carrying a bewildering array of such notices? The proposals have not been properly thought through, and it is clear that they have everything to do with Government cost cutting and little or nothing to do with keeping all sectors of the public informed.

Along with the problems relating to advertising and circulation cuts—which, of course, have largely been caused by Labour's recession—the withdrawal of public sector advertising could mean that Scottish newspapers will go to the wall and journalists and other employees will face going on the dole. Given the real threat to the existence of vital local newspapers, and the resultant loss in democratic accountability, we will support Pauline McNeill's motion today.

However, as someone who has been involved in communications of one kind or another throughout my whole working life, I have been underwhelmed by the industry's communications on its own behalf in these difficult times. I have met all sectors of the newspaper industry in Scotland since I took on this portfolio, and I have tried, through parliamentary and written questions as well as chamber debates, to highlight the problems that newspapers face. Members on all sides of the chamber have raised similar fears. Until recently, however, politicians raising questions about the looming press crisis scarcely made a line in the columns of the very newspapers that they were seeking to save. It was almost as if the newspaper industry believed that, if it did not mention those problems, they would somehow go away.

I sympathise with the NUJ's views that newspaper groups, in getting to grips with the many challenges that they face, have reacted with all the resolution of rabbits caught in headlights. How could their readers and political representatives help them if they were not prepared to help themselves?

To be fair, the situation has changed in recent weeks, and I particularly congratulate The Courier and Advertiser in Dundee on its campaign to raise public awareness of the democratic deficit that will arise if local and regional newspapers are denied public sector advertising. In my part of the world, the Fife Herald titles, which are part of Johnston Press, have also launched campaigns to raise public awareness on these issues. They come not a moment too soon if we are to bring home to the public—and thus to the Government—the reality of the crisis that is facing Scottish newspapers.

I believe that the media sector in Scotland is at a crossroads. I will briefly address the additional threat that, in the view of newspapers, will arise from the provision of public subsidies to allow independently financed news consortia to provide the public service content on channels such as STV. In my view, the arguments that newspaper groups have put forward against the further subsidising of broadcast news have considerable merit. Nonetheless, the Labour Government plans to trial a number of publicly financed new consortia, including one in Scotland. STV, which, as I have indicated, is under heavy financial siege, will be one of at least three bidders. It is thought that two newspaper consortia will compete against STV for a subsidy of approximately £5 million a year.

Broadcasting is, of course, a reserved matter, and those members who follow such things will note that Ed Vaizey, the Conservative culture shadow, has warned that if a Conservative Government is elected on 6 May—or whenever Gordon Brown can be dragged kicking and screaming to the polls—it will seek to overturn Labour's further steps to subsidise public service broadcasting. We believe that subsidised broadcasting is more than adequately represented by the BBC, and we do not believe that the commercial media sector should have to face more subsidised competition.

Conservatives believe that the future of regional local broadcasting, and part of the solution to the local press problem, should be a raft of local and city television companies. We were the first to propose a new digital channel—an idea that became the central recommendation of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission—and we believe that that new channel could become the core channel for a range of local and city TV companies. In the meantime, I ask members to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S3M-5620.1, to insert after second "community":

"; regrets that almost a year after the Glasgow Caledonian University seminar on 4 February 2009 on the newspaper industry, organised by the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and involving newspaper proprietors, journalists, trade unionists and other stakeholders, there appears to have been little further dialogue between the Scottish Government and the sector".

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Those of my generation—and there are a few here—will recall the cult radio series "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", and the opening scene, in which Arthur Dent is in his dressing gown, lying in front of a bulldozer that has turned up to demolish his house to make way for a bypass. Standing over him is Mr Prosser from the planning department.

"'But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the planning office for the last nine months'",

says Mr Prosser. Arthur responds:

"'Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.'

'But the plans were on display ...'

'On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'

'That's the display department.'

'With a torch.'

'Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'

'So had the stairs.'

'But look, you found the notice, didn't you?'

'Yes,'"

said Arthur,

"'yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.'"

That may be a rather extreme example, but it highlights a key issue at the heart of the debate.

Making information available is not the same as making it accessible.

As the motion says, as many as 38 per cent of Scots do not have internet access. For them, putting a public notice on the internet is as good as putting it in that locked cabinet in the disused lavatory in the cellar. Even for those who do use the internet, and who could navigate their way to the information if they knew that it was there, the question remains how exactly they are meant to know that it is there—is it, as it was for Arthur Dent, when the bulldozers turn up? The concept of a public notice is surely that it is something that the public will notice.

Although the internet is a great source of information, we have to know what we are looking for. People do not browse the internet in the way that they turn the pages of a newspaper. With a newspaper, we might happen across something of interest to us when flicking through the pages, or a friend or neighbour might spot it and bring it to our attention.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

What percentage of the population reads newspapers?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That is not exactly the point that I am trying to make. The point that I am trying to make is that people who read newspapers or whose friends read newspapers might come across information in a way that they would not do on the internet.

I cannot think of anyone—well, perhaps one or two—who will routinely check the council website just in case a public notice about something that might affect them has been posted. Local authorities rightly have a duty to publish public notices to inform the public about those issues that might affect them, such as compulsory purchase of land; road traffic orders, including stopping up and temporary restrictions; designation of houses in multiple occupation; environmental impact assessments; planning notices, including the publication of local development plans; and even school closures. Those are not trivial matters, but they are among the things that the Government is proposing will no longer have to be published in the local paper. Instead, they will need to appear for as little as seven days on a council web portal.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I share the member's views about the requirement to publish public notices by councils. Does he agree that it is important that councils publish details of councillors' surgeries, which are also a public issue?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That is a valid point.

There is a huge difference between ensuring that information is available by, for example, putting it on the web, and ensuring that the public are aware of it. I have no objection to a requirement for councils to put copies of public information notices on their websites. It is a good idea. However, irrespective of the implications for local newspapers, the proposals in the order are misconceived, undemocratic and—frankly—wrong. The order should be withdrawn.

Much of the focus of the debate has been and will be on the implications for local newspapers of the loss of income from public notices if the order is passed. Local newspapers are facing the perfect storm. The recession has caused a decline in advertising revenue, especially from property and car ads. Circulation is in decline, partly because of the availability of news from other sources such as the internet and local radio. Costs, such as that of newsprint, are rising. Local newspapers have already been hit by the loss of income from public sector job advertising. They now face a further loss of income from public notices. For many, that will be the death knell. Indeed, a number of titles have already gone and there have been cuts and redundancies in many more.

We are fortunate in Scotland to have a vibrant regional and local newspaper industry. Daily titles such as The Courier, The Press and Journal, the Greenock Telegraph, the Edinburgh Evening News and the Glasgow Evening Times play an important role in reflecting national and local issues relevant to the communities that they serve. In rural communities throughout Scotland, weekly newspapers such as the Fife Herald, the St Andrews Citizen and the East Fife Mail, which serve my constituency, are an essential source of community news and information.

Local newspapers are also central to the democratic process. It is often only through their pages that there is any debate about how a local council is performing. Often, they are the only place where community views on things such as local planning issues can be aired. The unconvincing briefing note that we have received from COSLA for today's debate talks about making it easier for the press to

"quickly and comprehensively know about and scrutinise what is going on".

It fails to recognise that if the proposals go ahead, there will be no local press to scrutinise anything. No one objects to councils developing a range of alternative ways to inform the public about what is going on in their area, nor do we object to making public notices more comprehensible—in fact, that should happen—but it is not an either/or. Those things can be done without removing the requirement to publish in a relevant local newspaper. That is what will provide value for money, because value for money is about councils making better decisions, and councils will make better decisions if they ensure that the public are fully informed and able to participate in a way that informs those decisions.

I urge members to support the motion and, once again, I ask the minister to withdraw this ill-conceived order.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

As members will be aware, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee has recently been undertaking an inquiry into the state of the local newspaper industry in Scotland. Committee members have been made aware of the serious concerns of those involved in the industry about the future of local newspapers. Those concerns focus on three main and interrelated issues, namely the decline in readership evident throughout Scotland; the impact of web-based news, advertising and selling; and the significant decline in advertising revenue.

With that in mind, it is easy to understand the concerns expressed by those running our local newspapers about the Government's intention to remove the legal requirement for local authorities to advertise public information notices in newspapers. Evidence that was given to the committee highlights the serious impact that losing that income stream would have. Scottish and Universal Newspapers estimates that 7 per cent of its advertising revenue comes from those notices, while Johnston Press receives 12.5 per cent—a critical potential reduction in income when they are already experiencing a substantial decline in their advertising revenue.

That is worrying for a number of reasons. Local newspapers are important local employers, often providing a vital step for journalists who want to go on to work in our national media. That point was highlighted by Michael Johnston, during his evidence to the committee, when he observed:

"The local press is of fundamental importance. The committee may have different views on this, but where would we have been without an Andrew Marr, a Jim Naughtie or a Magnus Magnusson, who all came through the Scottish newspaper scene? We have a fundamental role as trainers and developers of journalists; we are the entry point to the profession."

In addition, it should be remembered that local papers employ more than just journalists. Printers, distributors and administration and finance staff are all affected and threatened by the continued fall in the readership of our local press.

However, although employment issues are important to the local economy and to the individuals concerned, even more fundamental is the issue of democratic accountability and access to information. That point was made clearly by Michael Johnston, who stated:

"We think that a fundamental democratic issue is involved. ... What happened when the regulations that affect licensing notices were changed provides an alarming taste of what might happen in Scotland."

The minister should note that point. He might be giving local authorities discretion, but the reality of what is happening in Scotland today is as Michael Johnston stated:

"Licensing notices were traditionally advertised in local newspapers. They got good coverage and were well read. There was a change about 18 months ago and all licensing notices were lost to the local press—councils immediately withdrew them. I find that an interesting development in Scotland at a time when the Parliament is concerned about alcohol abuse and the Government has said that that is a key policy area. The concerns are focused on availability of alcohol, who is providing it and where the outlets are, yet it is nigh on impossible for most people in Scotland to know whether a pub is opening next door to them within the next three weeks, because the licensing notices are simply not in the public domain any more."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 13 January 2010; c 3030, 3018.]

I do not object to Government proposals to use websites to advertise public information notices, but the web alone is not sufficient. By their very nature, such websites will be viewed only by those actively seeking information. At present, information about planning is accessed by people who buy their local paper for a variety of reasons and who may stumble across a planning notice, a road closure notice or a proposal to close a school while looking, as my granny avidly does every week, at the hatches, matches and dispatches. That may seem a trivial point, but it is not. By advertising that information in a local newspaper, councils ensure that a far greater number of people will view it and have the option of acting on it, and not just those people who actively seek such information.

In future, councils might want to consider advertising public notices only on the web, but that time has not yet come. Ofcom's James Thickett told the committee that only 3 per cent of people in Scotland use the internet as their main source of news, whereas 28 per cent of our population use local newspapers. That is despite the fact that most web-based news is currently free, while people still have to pay for their newspapers. Labour's position today therefore rests on a fundamental point of democracy and accountability.

Some may be surprised to hear me arguing in favour of steps to protect our local newspapers. Like many in the chamber, I have suffered from the occasional piece of bad press in our local papers. In fact, I seem to remember that it was more than just occasional around the time of the Monklands accident and emergency campaign.

There is no doubt that that kind of thing is an uncomfortable experience for all of us. However, that is as it should be. Local newspapers are not there to give politicians of any persuasion an easy time. Good local newspapers are there to campaign on the issues that matter most to their readership and to the communities that they work in and serve. I support them in that. I ask the Government to withdraw its plans for the Scottish statutory instrument and to work with us to secure the future of local papers and enable easy access to vital public information.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I echo Pauline McNeill's view that local newspapers are of great importance and value to the people and present an opportunity to discuss and champion issues that affect local people—all members who have spoken so far have indicated that. However, my view is that the debate is not about whether we support local newspapers but about how local authorities spend their money. The motion makes it clear that Labour would prevent local authorities from deciding what is appropriate for their area in terms of public notices; in my view, the motion is therefore fundamentally undemocratic. Should the Scottish Government succeed in allowing councils to decide, do any Opposition members seriously dispute that Opposition-controlled councils would be among the first to reduce their usage of printed public notices? Opposition MSPs are in danger of being isolated from their local authority colleagues on this issue.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I will maybe let the member in in a minute, but I want to move on first.

Let us look at the COSLA briefing paper that members received from COSLA president Councillor Pat Watters, who is of course a Labour member. He writes:

"COSLA unequivocally supports the Government's proposed legislation and the consultation process that precedes it. ... The current legislation is 50 or 60 years old and relates to a time when the printed media was by and large the only method of ensuring general public access to such notices. ... COSLA is simply seeking to ensure that the full range of media opportunities can be explored in order to ensure the greatest possible public access to public information notices. ... 'the primary focus in the provision of information is ease of access for the intended recipients'. It would seem unlikely that this objective can be achieved if only one source of media is supported by legislation as is currently the case. ... Local authorities have a duty of 'Best Value' imposed on them by the Scottish Parliament. ... We believe that by using a mix of media outlets, both printed and digital, a saving of £3-5m across local government is achievable."

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

rose

—

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose

—

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I will let members in in just a wee second or two, if they just let me move on. I will take interventions.

Pat Watters writes:

"The legislation means that councils will no longer be required to use only the printed media and enables the use of online publication. The legislation does not require that councils only publish online. ... One example is from Glasgow Gorbals library where there were more than 2500 internet bookings a week compared with 1500 book issues. ... Any older person ... who wants a weekly print out of public information relating to their area, will be able to get that service."

I give way to Hugh O'Donnell.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I thought that you were going to take me.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Well, you thought wrong.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I accept what Mr Gibson said about the use of the internet, but does he recognise the internet offers additionality, not sole provision, and that, if the newspapers do not have that opportunity, we will end up with only the web, which is not readily accessible, as many members have said?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The point is that no one is going to prevent public information notices from being put in newspapers.

I have been advised that some newspapers charge premium rates for statutory notices, because they know that the local authority must use them. They therefore charge higher than normal rates for PINs. For example, a huge proportion of election budgets is used by small local authorities to publish PINs rather than to run the elections. One thing that will surely come out of this is that local authorities will get more competitive rates for PINs.

We have talked about the decline in newspaper circulation, but evidence to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee showed that one of the main reasons for the decline is that some newspapers are more lively, exciting and interesting than others. Some newspapers have therefore declined by only 1 per cent in recent years, while others have declined by some 24 per cent. The public notices issue will not change that.

I received an e-mail yesterday from Mr Bruce Skivington, who is publishing director of LRE Media Ltd. He said:

"I think this is important in that what is going to decide on local newspapers is the amount of general advertising which presently is on the floor due to Gordon Brown's recession. ... The Scottish Government is under severe spending restrictions and any saving on public notices could be used more efficiently elsewhere. ... The newspaper industry has done very well over the years, my editors have earnings well above MSPs ... Local newspapers are not going to survive on public notices ... The Scottish Government has a responsibility to the taxpayers".

David Hutchison, who is a professor of media studies, told the committee that newspapers still make profits of around 10 per cent gross, although that was disputed by some proprietors. Professor Hutchison made the important point that, if we do not approve the measure that the Scottish Government has proposed and the notices continue, the Parliament should at least seek

"some kind of reciprocal understanding"

from newspapers, such that we receive

"undertakings on the number of journalists employed ... undertakings on the range of journalists employed"

and, as in Sweden, agreement that at least half of

"editorial content must be unique to the newspaper"

and that

"editorial content must amount to at least 1000 column meters per annum".

He suggests that, if we decide not to progress the measure, we should at least look at what we will get as a Parliament and a society for our money.

On access, if jobs, for example, are advertised in a specific local paper, clearly people other than that paper's readers will not see them. However, through the pilot project, North Ayrshire Council was able to cut its recruitment advertising spend by 65 per cent; Perth and Kinross Council reduced the time taken to hire by almost half; and 90 per cent of surveyed candidates rated the application process as very good.

We are not saying that PINs must be on the net; we are saying that local authorities must have the choice. Local authorities are saying that they will still provide information in libraries and public buildings.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member is just finishing.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Last week, I went to Saltcoats community council and discussed this matter. About 25 people were present and, with one exception, they all thought that the measure was a good one. We should certainly explore the idea. It is about choice.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The press is at the heart of our democratic process. In the constituency that I represent, the Cumbernauld News and the Kilsyth Chronicle provide a weekly account of the stories that affect local people, and they do so 52 weeks of the year. As we have heard this morning, they and other local newspapers are already under threat from a drop in job, car and property advertising. When news is shifting from the page to the screen, newspapers have to move with the times and technology.

Newspapers are now facing a new threat in the form of the SNP Government and its quest to remove public information notices from the papers and to publish them on the internet instead. We should make it clear that, at the moment, local authorities are free to publish their information notices on the internet—many do. There is nothing to prevent that from happening at the moment.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This has to be a broad debate about the future of newspapers. However, does the member acknowledge that Labour-led North Lanarkshire Council is part of local government's request to the Government to consider and debate this issue in Parliament?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Labour-led North Lanarkshire Council is very important to the people whom I represent, but I represent the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, and it is more important to me that the people whom I represent get access to what is happening in Scotland and in their communities. In that respect, I am unlike some ministers and back-bench SNP members who sit on their hands time and again, sooking up to the party line and not representing the people.

Public information notices remain vital to people from across our respective communities, because they inform the public about council and Government plans and provide revenue for the papers. There is no doubt that local newspapers are already facing challenges, but now the Government is planning to take even more revenue away from them. It is neglectful and foolish to follow a path that will damage an industry that scrutinises our democracy.

Removing PINs from local newspapers will reduce the amount of information that the public have knowledge of. In the committee, one SNP MSP used the argument that few young people read the newspapers. That might be correct, but it is not the young people I am particularly concerned about when it comes to the democratic deficit; it is the older residents of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. I am sure that my younger constituents use the internet frequently and get much information from it, but what about those who do not have access to the internet? We have heard the figures this morning. What about the pensioner who is living on a restricted income and does not have the same resource or access to the internet? Those people look forward to travelling for their newspaper on a Wednesday.

One person at yesterday's briefing for MSPs indicated that reading the local newspaper is a form of recreation, but for many people it is a way of keeping up with what is happening in their local community. Bob Doris's excuse that he was not able to attend yesterday's briefing because he had to attend an SNP group meeting shows that, for SNP members, the party comes before the people they represent.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member said that she does not care about young readers of the newspapers. The people who gave evidence to the committee said that newspapers cannot take it for granted that young people will go on to read the newspapers. We have to look at people who are potential readers of newspapers.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I refer the member to the Official Report . I did not say that I do not care about young people. It is interesting that no one has jumped to their feet to defend themselves from my accusation that they owe their allegiance to their party rather than to the people.

We must ensure that our communities have access to the local print media, and we must protect the interests of local journalism. Karen Whitefield talked about the training of journalists, and the many journalists who have made their way from local newspapers to the national press.

I firmly believe that my constituents deserve to get the information that affects the communities in which they live. By removing public information notices to the web, many of my constituents will be cut off, and major local issues might be implemented with little public debate. Iain Smith's example in his little play this morning showed us exactly what can happen. It might have sounded a bit drastic, but that is what we are all fearful of.

As other members have said, there are times when we are displeased with the coverage that we receive in our local press. Sometimes on a Wednesday or Thursday, I am tearing my hair out, saying, "I didn't say that," and I am sure that we have all had that experience from time to time. We do not like the slant that the newspapers have put on a story, or perhaps they have not run with a story that we think is important to the constituency. Surely, though, it would not be logical for any of us to advocate the demise of local newspapers. They are integral to our localities and they chronicle the decisions of local councils and of elected members of the Parliament.

The threat to local newspapers is real. The Government's policy is unfair to journalists who are facing job cuts and to those in my constituency who get a lot of information and pleasure from their local newspapers. Unfortunately, I have already lost a local newspaper office. The office of the Kilsyth Chronicle was centralised by Johnston Press in Cumbernauld. I understand the difficulties that local newspapers face, and I am grateful that Johnston Press chose to relocate the office rather than close the title.

The Government is trying to save a cheap buck and, as a consequence, it is endangering the public's right to know. I strongly urge a rethink of the policy and I urge SNP back benchers to get off their hands and vote in the public interest.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The contraction of the newspaper industry, particularly the local newspaper industry, concerns me deeply. I have previously raised in the chamber the threat of public information notices being published solely online.

Iain Smith made one of the most important points to be made so far: access to information is the important thing, not its availability.

Everyone in the chamber agrees that the Scottish Government and local authorities should advertise on the internet, but that must only be as a supplement to advertising in print. As Pauline McNeill's amendment states, losing the print publication of public information notices

"will create a democratic deficit".

We have heard plenty of figures on that in the debate so far. It is simply a matter of fact that the internet is a less effective communication channel than the local paper. Removing the publication of PINs from the papers will undermine the public's right to know, and many important local issues will pass under the radar without proper consultation or debate. It is that problem of reducing the scrutiny of government that I want to focus on in my contribution to the debate.

Many local papers survive on very narrow margins, and the margins of our national papers are also ever decreasing. As the industry continues to tighten its belt, certain things will, nevertheless, remain: the standard reporting from the wire and verbatim reprints of press releases, comments and blogs—all of the less time-consuming, cheaper stories that can easily fill a few column inches. What could be lost, and is certainly under threat or on the wane in some newspapers, is the art of proper investigative journalism. We are losing journalists. They are paid to question, research, dig out the gory details, and hold government and public authorities to account.

Let us take last year's expenses scandal. If Telegraph journalists had not devoted hundreds of hours to acquiring and analysing claim forms, MPs, secretaries of state and senior politicians of long standing would not have been publicly held to account for their—to be frank—unforgivable abuse of public finances and the nation's trust.

Slightly closer to home, without the investigative journalism by Rob Edwards for an article that was published in the Sunday Herald in June last year, we might still be talking about the replacement Forth crossing and not the twin-crossing strategy that we now discuss. His article said that he obtained internal documents that showed that Transport Scotland was being deliberately misleading about retaining the original bridge, to protect "political sensitivities". His tenacity brought that information into the public domain. Such stories are what journalism should be about, but they are labour intensive and therefore comparatively expensive. They will be the first items to be cut when a paper is forced to tighten its belt.

We can all empathise with journalists on occasion—their profession often vies with ours to top the table of people whom the public trust the least. More is the pity for, just like politicians, journalists provide a public good—they can hold public figures to account and shed light on malpractice. By allowing local authorities not to publish PINs in print, the Government places the newspaper industry under additional pressure, which will result in less investigative journalism and therefore less scrutiny of elected officials.

I have time to reflect on a few of the speeches. I congratulate Ted Brocklebank on giving us extremely persuasive figures. Iain Smith's light-hearted but effective speech on the fact that making information available is not the same as making it accessible has been referred to. He also talked about newspapers holding local politicians to account. I was not impressed by the comment from a politician who shall remain nameless that, for our judgment on the debate, we should rely on the evidence of 25 Saltcoats residents.

The minister says that he wishes to support newspapers and that doing so is incredibly important. He says that we should lead them on the way to taking advantage of everything that modern technology offers us, but that is part of the future. To ca the feet from under the newspaper industry when it is under severe threat would be a bizarre misjudgment.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I do not support Labour's motion or the Opposition amendment, as they misrepresent—deliberately or otherwise—the continuing consultation on public information notices. However, I genuinely thank Pauline McNeill for giving the Scottish Parliament a platform for debating several issues that relate to the consultation process.

The motion describes the debate about public information notices simplistically at best and polarises the debate between two opposing positions. First, it suggests that the current public information notices arrangement is adequate and should be preserved—at least, that was the suggestion until about 10 and a half minutes into Pauline McNeill's speech, when she mentioned one or two things that could perhaps change. No other Labour member has made a telling contribution in that respect. The second form of polarisation is the suggestion that scrapping the current PINs system would have dire consequences. That is a false polarisation that does not help the debate.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I want to be clear about the position, so that we know where we stand. Has or has not the Government proposed to change the legal duty on local authorities so that they need not put PINs in newspapers?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Government is consulting on that option on the basis of representations that local government has made to it. That is what we are debating.

The public sector should always seek to account for every penny that it spends and it should spend as wisely as possible. Needless to say, that has never been so true as it is in the current economic climate, in which the UK Government has slashed hundreds of millions of pounds from Scottish budgets. I therefore understand why local authorities seek ways to divert about £6 million in cash a year from paying to advertise public information notices to protecting front-line services. I also understand why the newspaper industry is concerned about the financial impact that that could have on it.

As an MSP, I would want to ensure that any shift of public information notices from newspaper advertising to an online portal did not exclude several groups in society. For instance, elderly people are less likely to use the internet than are others. Whereas 80 per cent of working-age people use the internet, only 33 per cent of people aged between 60 and 75 use it. Disparities in internet usage also apply to people who are disabled, who are in ill health and who are from deprived areas. However, those figures are improving. I should point out that such disparities also exist in the readership of the published press.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Given that 39 per cent of people in Glasgow have broadband access, does that not make the case that we are not ready to switch to advertising on the internet, even with improved figures? The draft order says that switching to the internet should be "no less satisfactory" a way of communication. Does Bob Doris seriously think that local authorities can achieve that?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is reasonable to consult on whether local authorities should be given the choice, and that is what we are doing. I will give members more details on that later.

I will contrast the internet usage figures with those for newspaper readership. Of the Scottish population, 67 per cent use the internet. In 2008, Scottish Government research showed that 77 per cent of people use newspapers as a source of local news. However, the staggering point is that only 2 per cent of the public who read newspapers read public information notices—[Interruption.] More than anything else, that figure should be a wake-up call on how any level of government attempts to meet its statutory obligation to inform the public about certain matters of public interest. It should also make every MSP wonder about how best to use Scottish taxpayers' money when we try to meet our obligation to inform them.

I hear muttering about the 2 per cent figure, but that is the figure that I have been given—[Interruption.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That figure is ridiculously low and we must take steps to address it—[ Laughter .] I hear Opposition members laughing—I thought that they wanted a serious debate. Their heckling will not achieve that and will demean their argument.

I will give an example of where things could be going wrong. If a public information notice that said that a pub in Springburn had applied for a licence extension from 11 pm to 1 am was read by only 2 per cent of readers, would that notice be the best use of public money? No, it would not. As a regional MSP for Glasgow, I rely on several local newspapers and I am well served by the Springburn Herald for that purpose in north Glasgow. I would not want such adverts to be placed in that publication to be read by only 2 per cent of its readership.

We need to become more imaginative. Perhaps a newspaper could use spot colour but less space. Perhaps it could advertise a link to an internet site with more information or a telephone number that people could call to ask the local authority to send a leaflet with more information.

Not enough people use, study or access public information notices—the situation must change. The consultation is shining a light on that. I thought that I was here today for a constructive debate, but—to be honest—the Labour Party has let the Parliament down.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Karen Whitefield and Cathie Craigie mentioned the double edge of local newspapers, which can certainly be difficult outlets for many politicians. As a public representative for many years, I have been on the receiving end of withering criticism from local and national papers, but that is healthy—it is a fundamental of the democratic process. Politicians should not seek to use only the outlets that are favourable to them; they need to recognise that local papers play a vital role in keeping the public informed and giving access to information, as Iain Smith and others have said. Anything that damages that function should be opposed. The change has the potential to be a financial dagger to the heart of many of Scotland's newspapers. The people who will be the beneficiaries will be those in power at the local or national level. The danger is that no one will be left to scrutinise and criticise the decisions that are being made. I will come back to that point.

Ian McKee asked who reads newspapers. I have spoken to my local newspapers on the subject—The Gazette, a weekly newspaper, and the Paisley Daily Express, a campaigning daily newspaper. Anne Dalrymple, the editor of the Paisley Daily Express told me that, over the course of a year, over 60 per cent of local people read her paper—a significant number. Indeed, in any one week, something like 55 per cent of local adults read the Paisley Daily Express.

What would the loss of revenue mean to such local papers? Scottish and Universal Newspapers has estimated that its group could lose up to £1 million. That is equivalent to the annual revenue of the Paisley Daily Express—a staggering and significant amount. Amanda Ramsden, the editor of The Gazette and the Barrhead News said:

"I can say categorically the plans for changing the law to allow Public Information Notices to be advertised electronically in place of newspapers would be a devastating blow to our titles."

The debate is not only about what newspapers and politicians are saying but, as Cathie Craigie indicated, the duty and responsibility that politicians have to the people whom we represent. What are members of the public saying on the subject? To its credit, the Paisley Daily Express took time to go out on the streets and ask. A woman from Glenburn in my constituency is quoted as saying:

"I get all my information from the Express, I read it every day. They've already stopped advertising councillors surgeries in the papers so I had to go down to the library to ask the staff there how I could find out about contacting my councillor".

Renfrewshire Council has stopped advertising councillor surgeries; its councillors are now hiding from their public, which is a disgrace. The paper also quoted Paisley worker Carolan Forbes, who had not heard about the Government plans. She said:

"I think it sounds like a very bad idea ... not everyone has access to the internet or uses the internet."

Gordon Barr from Paisley told the paper that he uses the internet easily but that his parents would struggle if the Government's plans went ahead. He said:

"My parents are both well into their 70s and they don't use the internet at all."

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Mr Henry rightly mentions the importance of consultation. Does he feel that it is wrong for the Scottish Government to consult on whether to end the automatic right for public information notices to be put in the press, when it was asked to do so by COSLA, which represents all local authorities?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

It is a farce to consult on an issue to which there is such overwhelming opposition.

Another of my constituents, who lives in the west end of Paisley, is quoted in the paper as saying:

"We feel it's the thin end for the wedge. They could push through all sorts of planning things without anyone knowing."

That is the critical issue. As well as the financial blow to local newspapers, a huge democratic issue is involved. Those in power, whether councillors or Government ministers, will take decisions and no one will know what is happening. In essence, the Government case is based on cost savings; little consideration has been given to what many believe should be a fundamental part of the democratic process, which is that the information that legislation requires to be communicated to the public should be targeted to give maximum visibility on a cost-effective basis.

Yesterday, I spoke to a journalist who told me of decisions that are being taken "under the radar". In other words, decisions are being pushed through and no one knows about them. If it were not for local newspapers, how would my constituents, whose children are having their school transport removed, know about the decision? The council did not tell them in advance of its decision. Local newspapers were the only ones to highlight the issue.

Without local newspapers, how could my constituents campaign to save libraries that the council is attempting to close in Elderslie and Johnstone? Those local papers are the only means that people in our communities have of reading about what is going on in the council and of expressing their outrage. The suggestion challenges democracy, which will be under threat if the proposal goes ahead. We need healthy, campaigning and functional newspapers.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Like many members in the chamber, I grew up having a local newspaper in the house and I still do. In Inverclyde, where I stay, the Greenock Telegraph is an institution. It has a large daily readership; the Tele is the main oracle in the area. Over the years, other papers have tried unsuccessfully to break into the Inverclyde market, but times have changed. We now have an online publication, inverclydenow.com. It is popular with those who read it, particularly those who commute to work outside Inverclyde, as it gives them a chance to read the news online before returning home.

The national picture mirrors Inverclyde but, obviously, on a larger scale. Times have changed, for better or for worse. For journalists, information gathering is vastly different from what it was even 10 years ago. Similarly, the way in which we receive our news has also changed. Studies have repeatedly shown that newspaper circulation figures are in decline. Indeed, the trends state that they have been in decline for some years.

Let us take the example of our main daily newspapers here in Scotland. Between 2008 and 2009, The Herald and The Scotsman circulation decreased almost by 10 per cent. The once staple newspaper diet—the Sunday papers—is also in decline. In the same period, the Sunday Herald circulation dipped over 12 per cent. Quite a few people tell me that they no longer buy any national paper—daily or Sunday—because they no longer trust anything that is written in them. They say that, although they are sceptical about their local papers, more often than not they buy them.

Karen Whitefield spoke about the declining newspaper readership. Surely that means that fewer people have the opportunity to read public information notices.

During its term in office, the Scottish Government has engaged consistently with all areas of the print media industry. In line with the concordat, that engagement involves consulting the local authorities. Indeed, it was COSLA that requested that ministers introduce the consultation that is the subject of the debate. Yesterday, every member received the letter from councillor Pat Watters, the COSLA president, in which he stated that COSLA supports the proposals. COSLA recognises that there is a potential saving of at least £2.5 million to the taxpayer that can be invested in front-line services. COSLA also recognises that the consultation—and it is merely a consultation—will not prohibit councils from advertising in their local newspapers. I would be astonished if any council across Scotland stopped all public information notices from going into their local media.

If the end result of the consultation is that the proposal proceeds, the local authorities that spend the money and that have the final say would then make a decision on what they advertise and where. Ultimately, we are talking about devolving more responsibility to local authorities. Local authorities want that; that is why the concordat has been a success.

I have two points to highlight. First, research on public attitudes to broadcasting, undertaken by the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, found that fewer than 50 per cent of Scots trust their local newspaper. Secondly, if the figure is looked at alongside the Directgov figure that 50 per cent of people prefer to access Government and local authority information online, we see a much broader picture than that proposed by new Labour. Indeed, new Labour members have said much this morning to dismiss the proposal. I am glad that Ken Macintosh is in the chamber, as I want to quote a question that he put at the meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on 20 January. He said:

"For example, Trinity Mirror paid substantial sums of money to its top executives at the same time as it laid off dozens of journalists. The real dilemma for people in the public sector is this: we want to retain the journalists' jobs and local papers, but—

and this is the key point—

"should local authorities not be allowed to make savings? Should public policy be skewed in a way that boosts the profits of big companies?"—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 20 January 2010; c 3076.]

Those were legitimate questions; I am glad that the member asked them.

I am afraid to say that not all members of the public are totally interested in the work of government—local, national, UK or European. Election turnouts prove that. Not everyone reads public information notices—the figure of 2 per cent has already been cited. People who buy newspapers say that they do so to find out about a range of issues, not to read public information notices.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am pleased that Mr McMillan liked my line of questioning in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. Was he also pleased to hear the answers that we received from witnesses, which suggested—the committee will draw its own conclusions—that this is not the time for the SNP Government to withdrawal PINs from our local newspapers? Does he agree with those answers?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The evidence that the committee heard was interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the Official Report of its meeting.

As the next and future generations grow up, the way in which they receive news and do research will change. We must be willing to incorporate those generations in any decisions that are made about the future of public information notices. Many of us complain about the seemingly widening gap between the generations. On issues such as this, we must be flexible and willing to adapt to accommodate new technologies and preferred methods of social and informative interaction.

I fully support my local newspaper, the Greenock Telegraph. Tonight I will do what I usually do—when I go home, I will read this week's editions—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am about to finish—I have spoken for more than six minutes.

I also enjoy using new media outlets such inverclydenow.com, which has a different perspective on some issues that can be refreshing. I fully understand but am disappointed by the political nature of this morning's debate. I urge the Opposition parties to contribute to the consultation, to propose their alternatives and to take matters forward from there.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Out of interest, I have been keeping a note of the number of name checks for local newspapers that members have made; thus far, we are up to 21. I can see all the press releases that will come out. Such name checks are not illegitimate; nor will be the complaints from those of us whose press releases are not published.

In Scotland, there is a tradition of reading newspapers. Newspaper readership has always been higher here than in the rest of the UK. That applies equally to national and local titles. However, we must reinforce the message that many members have already given: we are talking about access to public, statutory information. SNP members, who have been so supportive of the proposal, may review their support if their nomination and candidacy for various elections is published online, rather than in local newspapers.

It is true that the availability of net and web-based media has increased. However, as Pauline McNeill said in her opening speech—other members have made the same point—it is also true that the majority of the population do not use those media. How many of us would rely on Wikipedia as a legitimate information source, as opposed to the Oxford printed version of that information? That is the sort of situation that we face.

By and large, local newspapers do not transfer the statutory notices that they publish in their printed versions to their websites. Even if someone reads a local newspaper online, they will not necessarily get the same information. To get access to notices, they will have to navigate all the single portals that are proposed. With 32 local authorities, it will be impossible for people to find their way through, unless they are avid internet nerds. We have heard the statistics that show that the majority of the population, especially the older population, are not that.

Another point occurs to me from listening to the proposals and the speeches that have been made. This may be slightly unkind to our local authorities, but many of us will remember the famous phrase, "a good day to bury bad news". If a local authority is looking to minimise local campaigns and opposition to school closures and is obliged to publish information only on the internet, through the single portal, how much more comfortable will it be for officials and, probably, the governing party to sneak notices out on the single portal, to minimise the opportunities for parents and campaigners to take action in legitimate, democratic opposition to the proposals? That would increasingly be the case. Frankly, it is a democratic deficit.

There is also potential for people to miss a road closure. I live in Cumbernauld. Notifications about speed restrictions and average speed cameras along the A80 were published in local newspapers all the way along that route. That not only provides information but has a positive impact on driving behaviour and reduces the opportunity for accidents and other unforeseen events. Councils can put statutory notices on their websites, in addition to publishing them in hard copy. However, giving councils leave not to publish notices in hard copy could have serious implications for public safety, especially in relation to the matters to which I have referred.

Based on those principles alone, it is clear from members' speeches that a majority of members are opposed to the proposal. The minister should take heed of the points that have been made, withdraw the order and drop this dead donkey, because it really is dead.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

That was a thoughtful speech by Hugh O'Donnell. He said that he had counted 21 name checks. I can give him a few more in my speech, but I will start with one that I doubt any other member will mention— The Himalayan Times , which I adopted on my trip to Nepal and in which I even managed to get a front-page story.

I return to more local issues. A number of local newspapers cover my constituency. In alphabetical order, they are the Ayr Advertiser, the Ayrshire Post, the Carrick Gazette, the Carrick Herald, the Cumnock Chronicle and the Kilmarnock Standard. Each of those local newspapers has its own identity—they are all different and take different views on issues. That is absolutely right and proper. If we read the papers, we get a sense of the different communities that they serve. The Cumnock Chronicle and the Carrick Gazette provide the best coverage of junior football anywhere in Scotland. The Ayrshire Post and the Ayr Advertiser have taken up a number of campaigning issues, especially around the Gaiety Theatre in Ayr and the closure of Pets Corner.

It is important to note that all the local newspapers that I have mentioned have a skilled workforce and local editors who understand and have built relationships with their communities and are able to work to give local groups and organisations the opportunity to get their message across in the papers. Members have suggested that young people are more used to using electronic media than to reading local newspapers, but yipworld.com, which is a youth project in Cumnock, regularly has a column in the Cumnock Chronicle. Information about what is happening is getting out not only to other young people but to the wider community. The Ayrshire Post and the Kilmarnock Standard have church and school news. Not everyone will trawl for such news online. People are much less likely to have a cup of coffee and relax while sitting at the computer than while reading their local newspaper. As they flick from page to page, they will find things that are of interest and importance to them. We must not lose that.

As Hugh Henry said, local newspapers are also important because they take up issues and campaign on behalf of local communities. It is a real pity that, only this week, South Ayrshire Council did not take account of the call by the Carrick Gazette to do the decent thing and hand over ownership of Girvan swimming pool to the local community. Where would residents in East Ayrshire be if it were not for the Kilmarnock Standard outlining what the council's proposed budget cuts would mean for them? Not everyone would have trawled through East Ayrshire Council's web pages to find the cabinet papers and go through every budget line proposal, one by one.

As Pauline McNeill and other members have said, the debate is not just about the content of local newspapers. It is also about the democratic deficit, and about people living in disadvantaged areas: they, too, have the right to information. I was interested to listen to and read the material that COSLA provided. There are many constituents who do not get access to high broadband speeds, or even to broadband at all. That includes at least one editor of a local newspaper in my constituency, who lives in a rural area and is still on a dial-up connection—he cannot even read his own paper online very easily. There are other people in rural communities who do not have easy access to the local library either, because of the lack of a decent bus service, and they might not have broadband access in their homes.

COSLA's written submission suggested that more people are now using mobile phones, so they can get access to information via text messages and so on. That is fine, but it means somebody else deciding what information people might want. That is not good enough. In a community such as mine, many people do not have the latest iPhone with web access—they are not constantly using their phones to look at what is going on via they web; they are on pay-as-you-go systems, to be used for emergencies, because that is what they can afford and budget for. It is important to continue to support our local newspapers and to ensure that information is made available to people from a variety of sources.

I gently say, to the minister and all those on the SNP back benches who have said that the process is only a consultation, that consultations are published with a purpose. I have yet to see a consultation about the possibility of doing nothing. The consultation exists because of a proposed change, and it is clear from the debate that the majority of members do not believe that the proposed change is right. I add my weight to the calls to stop the consultation, reject the proposal, and consider other ways of getting information out to the majority of people who need it.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I state my whole-hearted support for the local newspaper industry in Scotland and my firm belief in the important contribution that local papers make to our democracy and society. It is perhaps disingenuous of the Labour Party to present its motion in a way that suggests that the entire future of our newspapers rests on a consultation by the Scottish Government. Labour members are wrong to suggest that those of us who do not support their motion somehow also do not support our local newspapers.

We support our newspapers and will always continue to do so. I was happy to attend yesterday's NUJ briefing. I make my comments from a point of view where I completely understand the peaks and troughs of being a journalist, as I was made redundant from a newspaper that could not survive in a very crowded market. That situation was awful, and I know that it was tough for many of my colleagues to find alternative employment, as there simply were not the same number of journalism jobs available.

I am one of the thousands of regular readers of the Carluke and Lanark Gazette and the Lanark & Carluke Advertiser, where I can find out about what is happening in the part of the South of Scotland region where I live. I also pay particular attention to the Irvine Times and The Irvine Herald and Kilwinning Chronicle, as I hold surgeries in the towns of Irvine, Kilwinning and Stevenston. Both papers are an excellent source of information about goings-on in North Ayrshire.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

If the member was at yesterday's meeting, I wonder whether she indeed thinks that the Labour motion is "disingenuous". Did she hear the words of the editors and journalists, who said that the proposal that has been made will be damaging to the industry?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is not a question of "If" I was at the meeting yesterday—I was at the meeting yesterday. The consultation is being conducted by the Scottish Government, and I hope that they feel free to contribute to it.

The best way for us all to support our local newspapers is to buy those that are available. Local newspapers are about more than just public information notices. To be honest, I am not entirely surprised that only about 2 per cent of people get their public information from such notices. People buy their local newspapers for a variety of reasons: to get the football results and local sports round-ups, to find out about their local groups and organisations, to see who has been in court and, generally, to find out what the craic is in the towns and villages that they live in. However, there is absolutely no denying that the newspapers' relative decline is worthy of discussion, investigation and concern.

The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee thought the same, and took evidence on the issue just last week. The session was illuminating and I encourage members to have a look at the Official Report. The evidence painted a picture that was much broader than the stark terms of associating the potential folding of local titles with a decline in advertising money from public information notices. Of particular note was the evidence from David Hutchison, visiting professor in media policy at Glasgow Caledonian University, who told us:

"even in these difficult times, if you look at the percentage of revenue that goes to profits, you will see that the chain newspaper companies are doing not too badly. Only a few years ago, 30 per cent of revenue was profit. Marks and Spencer had a very good year three years ago when 9 per cent of its revenue was profit. Even today, the latest figures that I have seen suggest that some of the companies, some of whose representatives you have spoken to, are still making rather good returns."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 20 January 2010; c 3064.]

Newspaper sales might be declining, but it seems that a healthy profit can still be made. Stuart McMillan mentioned the dilemma that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee faced following questions from Ken Macintosh. We heard about profits, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, about the desperate need for local efficiency savings. That is a valid point. While newspapers are still in receipt of advertising revenues at the moment, journalists are being laid off, journalist posts are being scaled back and sales are still declining. [Interruption.]

We might disagree on some issues this morning, but there can be no argument that the nature of the media and of how we get our news and information is changing. We need to find the trick of dealing with that rationally and to identify ways in which local and national newspapers can respond and react to this rapidly changing climate. The internet will never uninvent itself. It is fast becoming the first port of call for anyone looking for information.

One success of 21st century communicative technology has been myjobscotland, which contains information about more than 12,000 vacancies. It is instantly available to people who are looking for work in these difficult economic times. Furthermore, anyone who looks up a job advert in a local paper is almost always directed to a website anyway. Caledonian Mercury, an online newspaper, was launched recently. [Interruption.] It aims to provide quality reporting and analysis—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order. I am sure that the member does not have an electronic device near her. However, if she does, could she—or one of her colleagues—move that non-existent device?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is interesting that the journalists involved felt that there was a gap in analysis and quality reporting. Why is that? The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee heard from the NUJ about the strain and frustration that journalists have been under as they are given more and more tasks, with more copy to deliver, more instances of cut-and-paste stories, more desk-based research and less time to develop properly constructed, analysed and considered stories that engage with the readership.

That is where the real democratic deficit lies. If the high heid yins in the newspapers are putting their dividends and bonuses before the quality of their product, it means that the people who have been loyal to their local and national titles are not being adequately served with balanced and accurate reporting. Those people are simply not getting the information that they deserve and if they are not being provided with the facts, their ability to make informed decisions for themselves is being eroded. Perhaps some companies need to consider the emphasis that is being put on staffing arrangements. They should perhaps help their journalists, sub-editors and designers piece together newspapers that are vibrant, fresh, responsive and, importantly, relevant to 21st century Scotland.

There is a practical side to the debate that Pauline McNeill's motion does not wholly reflect. For a start, the Government is still consulting on the draft order that Labour is calling on it to scrap. The order itself is not a death knell for some local newspapers. It is a response to requests from local government, and it is the continuation of a policy process that began under the previous Administration to streamline and to provide choices about the way in which public information is communicated in the 21st century.

I have faith in Scotland's journalists and newspapers to survive and adapt to the changing local, national and global media environment. If PINs remain with newspapers, I hope that there is some way in which the big chain companies can demonstrate that they will invest in journalism and that they can show us just how much they value the papers that they own and the staff who do so much for them.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists. My membership of that union, for more than 30 years now, and my previous life as a journalist on weekly, evening, daily and national newspapers give me a reasonable insight into the role of newspapers in Scotland.

We have heard the figures from members. The Scots like their newspapers, and we have a distinctive Scottish press. In particular, the Scots like their local newspapers. There are more than 150 titles of weekly papers in Scotland. That is where people get their local news and—this is important—where a large number of people get their information about what is going on in their community, through council notices about meetings, planning applications, licensing board applications and proposed road closures. There are even notices about when elections are taking place and who is standing. In short, a local newspaper provides a vital local service.

Two paid-for weekly titles cover my constituency: the Kirkintilloch Herald and the Milngavie & Bearsden Herald—two more to add to Mr O'Donnell's list. They are both owned by Johnston Press, which is a former employer of mine. The Kirkintilloch Herald sells almost 11,000 copies every week, with over half of sales in Kirkintilloch itself. However, the readership figure—a key to local newspapers—is actually three times that, at just over 30,000. That means that in Kirkintilloch just under 70 per cent of the population sees the paper. The age profile tells another story.

We have heard much about broadband use and how people get the news from the internet. I am pretty sure that in my constituency a majority of the electorate probably has access to a personal computer. However, it is interesting that the age profile of the Kirkintilloch Herald's readership shows that 26 per cent of readers are in the 15 to 34 age group, 36 per cent are between 35 and 54 and 29 per cent are between 55 and 74. The position is much the same for the sister paper, which covers the western side of Strathkelvin and Bearsden. Total sales of the Milngavie & Bearsden Herald are just under 6,000, and sales are almost evenly split between the two towns. However, the readership is 16,500. The largest percentage of readers—36 per cent—are in the 35 to 54 age bracket, and 33 per cent of readers are in the 55 to 74 age group. The statistics show the importance of the two local papers to the areas that they cover. They also demonstrate that even when people have internet access they still have a keen desire to read the paper.

Of course, there is a cost to the local authority, which has to place the public notices that I mentioned. It is true that in these difficult economic times the cost of placing adverts has been steadily increasing, as Mr Gibson said and as every member who places an advert for local surgeries in their local paper knows. I agree that local authorities must look carefully at ways of saving money, but I fundamentally do not agree that stopping placing adverts in local papers is the way to do that.

As we heard, the local weekly newspaper is the democratic heart of the community. Local papers are also a trusted source of information, much more so than their daily or national companions. Indeed, the only other media outlet that comes close to matching the weekly paper on trust for reliable and factual information is the local radio station.

It is in the nature of the media business to be in a constant state of change. We live in the era of 24-hour news on television, free newspapers, hundreds of local radio stations and the internet. Journalists work in all those media and some file daily blogs. That includes many people who started out in journalism at the same time as I did, when all we had was a notebook and pen and a decent shorthand note to ensure that we took down the details accurately.

However, one thing has not changed: advertising remains the lifeblood of the commercial media. When I worked on local weekly papers, the ratio of advertising to editorial copy was about 60:40, and I recall many arguments when the advertising sales people wanted more pages because they had demand for advertising space. Those days have gone, as have many paid-for titles. As Aileen Campbell said, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee heard that there has been a decline of 20 per cent in local newspapers.

Public information notices take up a large part of the advertising space. In this week's Kirkintilloch Herald there are notices about a planning application for a new house, the dates for the next meetings of council education and social work committees and details of surgeries for councillors from North Lanarkshire Council and East Dunbartonshire Council. I was surprised to see that there was even an advert for Bob Doris MSP, which gives his surgery details, to warn people about when he will turn up in their locality. Given that Mr Doris is a consumer, I am sure that he will support our motion—I was surprised to hear him say that he would not support it. Let us hope that the people who turn up at his surgeries tell him to get John Swinney to reinstate the Glasgow airport rail link project—but I digress.

As members said, a person would not necessarily know that a planning application had been made to build a house in a particular location unless the application had been advertised in the local press. People who might be affected by the application that is advertised in the Kirkintilloch Herald have 21 days to make representations. If there was no such advertisement in the local press, what would happen if someone who was affected by a proposal and wanted to object to the application did not have access to a computer and had no interest in owning one or in looking up public notices on a PC? They might hear about the application by accident, but they might miss their opportunity to protest. That is undemocratic and cannot be right.

The SNP Government has made much play of its consultation on its plan. We do not have the results yet, but the minister cannot say that he has not been warned. I fear that if the idea goes ahead, the law of unintended consequences will kick in and many of Scotland's local weekly titles could go to the wall. That, too, will lead to a democratic deficit. I like to believe that there will always be a place for newspapers in our media mix. If the SNP wants to contribute to making that the case, it should change its plan now.

Christopher Harvie (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I declare an interest, as a member of the board of the Scottish Review of Books and, I suppose, as a member of a journalistic family that goes back about 100 years. My grandfather ran a paper called the Motherwell Speaker and almost went bust as a result of a libel action. I have never quite fathomed what Motherwell politics were like at the time, but they seem to have been lively. It is 50-odd years since, as Kipling said, I sold my heart

"to the old Black Art we call the daily Press",

with my first articles as a freelance on The Scotsman.

I apologise for my late arrival in the chamber, the circumstances of which suggest that we might learn a bit from local newspapers in other countries, notably in Europe—the area that lies on the other side of the Conservative solar system. My local paper in Tübingen, the Schwäbisches Tagblatt, publishes local bus and train timetables as they change, as part of a public service. The boundaries between public information notices and the ways in which newspapers can use them to increase circulation are fluid.

I welcome the consultation, because many interesting ideas are coming forward as a result of it, as is clear from the debate. However, even orthodox newspaper coverage is threatened. Long before the proposal that we are debating came up, people were lamenting that notices in local newspapers about local politics and coverage of council meetings were dying out. There have been developments, such as the freesheet, but we do not necessarily want to read about the private life of Jordan every day of the week. There has been a drift from the use of the newspaper as a means of reflecting the freelance world. The Herald in Glasgow publishes hardly any articles by freelance journalists.

Speakers from all parties have talked a lot of sense. We are in difficult times, and I would like the issue to be moved forward in some respects. The notion of a portal is significant and has been welcomed by Governments, and not just by the current Government. I am a user of the internet, which will have more and more readers as time goes on. However, I am aware of the disadvantages of purely visual forms of communication. Members should recollect that a recent report showed that about 25 per cent of the Scottish population has reading difficulties. Among the elderly—a group that I am about to enter—there is considerable need for some sort of oral internet from which we can get information.

At the same time, the funding stream of our printed press has been under constant attack.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I said earlier that 70 per cent of people aged over 65 have never used the internet. In view of that figure, does Christopher Harvie think that this is not the time to convert public information notices to the internet?

Christopher Harvie (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will suggest ways in which one can combine internet coverage and partnership with local newspapers. In Germany, there is a public official gazette that the local newspapers can pick up and use as part of their funding. Something like that could be of use here.

As I suggested, we are not simply dealing with print media. We may be overestimating the impact of print media and underestimating the need to use other forms to reach people who are socially disadvantaged or elderly and lack expertise in handling new media. We could also spend a lot more time ensuring that our senior citizens—I stand more or less in the middle of that age group—are helped by back-up from younger people who have the hang of the media. We should always remember Groucho Marx's famous remark on trying to break into a safe. He turns to Chico and says:

"This is easy. A child of three could do it"

and then, about five minutes later, says:

"Bring me a child of three!"

We require an army of children of three that will make our older people capable of handling new media.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the member give way?

Christopher Harvie (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Not at the moment; I am about to wind up.

There is a wider point: we should think through a strategy for the Scottish press as a whole. In papers such as The Courier or The Press and Journal, we have something much closer to the continental regional paper with its local editions. Something like that will be the way ahead. We can no longer have a tabloid estate in Scotland that, let us face it, is more or less inferior to the German Bildzeitung—that is a bit of an insult, I am afraid—and a situation in which, even in our broadsheets, we do not have the coverage that we require on matters such as the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's inquiry into the banking crisis. If any members have been following the coverage of that inquiry in the media, they will know that it is restricted to the statements of the big bankers and that even the aggressive questioning from my colleague Wendy Alexander does not appear.

Let us consider continental examples. Another thing that I would like to be almost enfolded into our newspapers—

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Say "Germany".

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Christopher Harvie (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We should consider the enormous number of well-produced freesheets from quangos, museums, universities and the like that lack any sort of contested editorial content. Can some of the money that is used for them not be channelled into our public free press and act as a subsidy to effective and percussive journalism?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

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 (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

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 (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

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.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been an engaging and entertaining debate, not least because of the overwhelming support that has been expressed for the newspaper industry in all its diversity and its ability to speak up on behalf of all communities across Scotland—even in the Himalayas. Cathy Jamieson may be surprised to know that I, too, was once in The Himalayan Times, although I am afraid that I was confined to the back pages.

As Pauline McNeill said at the beginning of the debate, we do not always like what newspapers say about us, but they are crucial to our lives and to the lives of everyone in this country. I will dwell on that point in summing up for the Conservative party, because I believe that the core argument is very much about the democratic process and allowing communities to find both a strong voice and a reliable and regular source of information and news. As many members, including Robert Brown, Robin Harper, Hugh Henry and David Whitton, have eloquently said, this is not an easy age, when the communication process is so sophisticated and highly competitive, but we must address that situation.

When the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee took extensive evidence on two occasions, various witnesses made a very powerful and cogent case for concentrating much of the debate on sources of revenue and the fact that there have been significant falls in advertising for jobs, retail, property and motor cars. For a large newspaper that can mean a reduction in revenue of up to £11 million or £12 million, and for a smaller local paper it can mean a reduction of anything up to £1 million, so it is not rocket science to work out the resulting effect on journalism and jobs in the industry. It is an encouraging aspect of the undergraduate job market that many students aspire to a career in journalism, but that will not be the case if there are far fewer jobs for them to go to because of the collapse of the local newspaper industry, which is often the essential training ground for young novice journalists.

The current squeeze on newspapers' revenue has resulted in staff cuts and reduced resources across the industry, but much of the brunt has been borne by local newspapers, which means that it is often very difficult for them to retain their photographers or part-time contributors and, in many cases, to maintain their premises. I would like to think that that trend can be reversed when the economy finally picks up, but it will not be easy to breathe new life into the industry, especially when there are further worries about the effect of competition from community newspapers and a growing number of local authority publications, which overlap on certain aspects of news and information.

Journalists are, in many cases, having to become experts at a multimedia role, with the inevitable pressure that that brings in respect of training costs and the time that they have to devote to acquiring new skills rather than being out developing stories. As Robin Harper said, the knock-on effect is that fewer journalists feel that they have time to develop an in-depth knowledge of their local area and to attend local events or court hearings. They therefore have less time for investigative journalism. It would be a huge pity if, as a result of local newspapers losing some of their local identity, there were an even greater collapse in their circulation. That is why the revenue return from advertising is so crucial to the sustainability of the industry, especially for the smaller newspapers, for which, frankly, it can be a matter of being in print or not.

The debate is also about the process of how we receive information and news. As many members have said, it is important to remember that people in different age groups and from different backgrounds will have different preferences. Labour's motion makes the important point that 40 per cent of people do not have access to the internet, and therefore removing the legal requirement for local newspapers to print PINs will cause huge difficulty for many people and be a way of disenfranchising them. That point was fully debated at UK level, including at the Scottish Affairs Committee, and it was decided that there should not be a policy of publishing such notices solely online. Having to make a conscious effort to search the internet, and not always starting from a well-informed position, is not the same as being provided with a news sheet on which the general information pertaining to one subject is put in front of the reader—a point that has been made time and again by those who have provided evidence to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee.

Johnston Press made the strong remark that the Scottish Government could become

"more secretive"

and

"less open"

to

"consultation or debate."

That is a strong criticism, but nonetheless we have to be mindful of it, because one of the unintended consequences could be that we become less democratic. As Ted Brocklebank said, we have listened carefully to the arguments on all sides, including those of the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism in his opening speech, in which he identified the three principles that he believes underpin his policy. Frankly, I cannot accept that the proposal would work and that it would in any way improve the democratic process in this country.

I again stress that public information notices are a different situation. It is not enough for the Scottish Government to say that local authorities will be able to use a new PIN portal, because that will bring no benefit to a high percentage of households—often very vulnerable ones—who will not be in a position to access the information.

We firmly believe that the Scottish Government's proposals have not been properly thought through. Like the other Opposition parties, we ask it to have a major rethink. We will be happy to support the Labour motion, and I hope that others will be prepared to support Ted Brocklebank's amendment.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I thank Pauline McNeill for giving us the opportunity to discuss this topic. Local newspapers in Scotland have been and continue to be the source of much-needed and appreciated news and information. As David Whitton pointed out, their content is trusted and they are vital to ensuring that the cohesive fabric of our communities is maintained, as they reflect life in each and every distinctive community in Scotland. In many regards, local newspapers are local institutions, but if we see them simply as heritage to be preserved by state subsidy, we do them a disservice. They must be considered as vibrant, independent, private companies competing successfully in a modern market. It is that changing modern market and the new challenges and opportunities of the digital age that must be addressed in the round.

As many members have noted, the challenges facing local newspapers did not just appear in December when the PINs consultation took place. We know, because local newspapers have told us, that the circulation decline has taken place over decades, and that the biggest pressures most recently have been the recession and, of course, access to the internet and digital television, which were on the march well before December 2009.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the minister give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I want to develop my point.

It is the core of that decline that must be addressed. That is why I am pleased that Jim Mather will hold a summit with local newspapers to follow on from the discussions that he has been having at national level, and that is why I supported Scottish Enterprise's proposal to focus on publishing when we met earlier this month at the Scottish creative industries partnership meeting, which was chaired by Creative Scotland 2009. It is also why I look forward to the conclusions and, I hope, constructive suggestions later this year from the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee's inquiry. I urge MSPs to accept the invitation from Pat Watters of COSLA to work with local government and the Scottish Government to support local newspapers.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

For the minister's information, I work with local government on a day-to-day basis as part of this job. Given that she has eloquently outlined the problems that newspapers face, does she believe that it is right for her Government to put extra pressure on them and to have this useless and probably meaningless consultation process?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It is far from being a useless consultation; it has flushed out many issues that have to be addressed. Government, at national and local level, has a duty to provide value for money in public service delivery. It is right that we consider steps that local authorities want to take to secure value for money and to release money for front-line services, perhaps to support home helps for the elderly people whom Cathie Craigie is so concerned about.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way on that point?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No, I want to continue.

Local government has asked national Government to consult on proposals to allow local authorities to have the flexibility to advertise public information notices online rather than just in newspapers. As we have seen, the consultation has provoked strong views. I encourage as many people as possible to respond formally before the consultation closes.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the minister recognise that the concern is not that local authorities can publish information online, but that the draft regulations that the Government has published would remove the requirement on councils to publish that information in newspapers? That is the key issue, not whether councils can use other methods.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That is exactly why engagement with local councils, which also have not only a responsibility but a desire to help and support local newspapers, is vital. I will come on to the either/or argument in analysing how the debate has developed.

We want to take account of the many issues that have been raised in this debate, so let me highlight just a number of the questions that have been raised. One question is the degree to which restricting public notices to print-only formats could limit democratic participation. A counter-question, perhaps, is whether continuing with a single format monopoly is correct, or indeed defensible, in a multimedia age. I am not sure whether Labour's argument is that the current system is perfect and cannot be improved.

In giving us an intergalactic perspective, Iain Smith highlighted an important distinction between availability and accessibility, which is a crucial issue in the debate. One suggestion is that text messages could be sent to registered people to draw their attention to any area of interest that they are focused on. In contrast, Karen Whitefield suggested that it is preferable for people to stumble across information rather than have it targeted to them.

An important question is how democracy should work as we migrate to a multimedia and digital age. Given that television can be a far more reliable way of reaching people, issues of access and availability might be addressed by exploring whether PINs might be advertised using digital television. Take-up of digital television is at 91 per cent, which perhaps introduces a different dimension to the debate.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am sure that the minister will address this point, but I want to emphasise that Labour members' greatest concern is about equality of access. I will not rehearse the figures on that. Is she not concerned at all about the impact that the draft order would have on people who do not, and will not, have access to the internet?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That is a vital issue, which the consultation must address. The member is absolutely right to raise the issue of inclusion and access—[ Interruption. ]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

However, the consultation will also consider some other fundamental questions. Is it healthy for an independent newspaper sector to be overly dependent on state funding? Does overreliance on council advertising compromise criticism of local councils? Yes, some great campaigning journalism exists, but so does quiet compliance.

Cathy Jamieson confused news stories with public notices, which is very dangerous indeed. Ken Macintosh's line of questioning in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee was very pertinent: should privately owned newspapers of large profitable companies be subsidised by taxpayers at a time of public sector constraint? Can that be reasonably justified? Kenny Gibson and Aileen Campbell made a strong case that large profitable companies should support and invest in their journalists, in particular trainee journalists, in a climate in which newspapers are still making profits.

Ted Brocklebank made the important point that change needs to be carefully managed. That reflects Pauline McNeill's point that access to the internet—which is perhaps not at the levels that we might expect—is crucial. We all acknowledge that we are in a situation in which change needs to be managed, so we need to concentrate on the pace of change and the activity involved. In dealing with change, we cannot stand idle in the wings, perhaps paralysed by the norms of the past. We need to work together to manage change and to position ourselves for the future. That is the strongest message from today's debate.

Ultimately, we need a viable future for our newspapers, and we intend to support the newspaper industry to achieve that. We have been criticised for responding to the desire of Labour, Tory, Lib Dem and SNP local authorities to consult on the PINs order, but the proposals are out to consultation. As David Whitton said, we do not yet have the results of the consultation. The consultation finishes on 12 February, so I urge members to ensure that they respond to it.

Ultimately, we need to strive to help local newspapers to develop sustainable business models. Technological change represents a real opportunity to newspapers—and their readers—as well as a threat. Newspapers that provide quality content will still find an audience for both their print and online editions. In doing so, they will be able to remain where they have always been—at the heart of local communities. We want to work with local newspapers to take advantage of the opportunities that they face, but we will serve the Parliament and the people best if we address those challenges collectively by working with the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, COSLA and the creative industries partnership to secure that.

Important issues have been raised in this debate. I reassure all members that, if they read our amendment carefully, they will see that we will listen to the views that are expressed today. I support the amendment in the name of Jim Mather.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

It is fair to say that most recent debates in the Parliament have been conducted in the context of the difficult financial circumstances facing the country. It is not surprising, therefore, that this debate on issues facing local newspapers has also been contextualised by the wider economic climate. Now more than ever, it is important to remind ourselves of the value of local newspapers to our local communities, as members have done in abundance throughout this morning's deliberations.

Local newspapers boost the local economy, both through their advertising and their news coverage. They showcase communities, local issues, local people and local businesses. They are needed now more than ever, at a time when our local areas need to retain shops and investment in communities that protects local jobs.

Our local newspapers provide a forum for expression, allow readers to make their voices heard and enable ordinary citizens to deliberate on the future of their community. They encourage civil issue-orientated discourse and they often set the stage for it. Many community newspapers serve as watchdogs that hold elected representatives accountable. They shine a light on local government and keep the local electorate informed.

Throughout this debate, members have duly recognised the publications in their own areas as examples of how that activity is conducted. I certainly know that the Bellshill Speaker, Motherwell Times and Hamilton Advertiser perform that role in my area, where they are ably assisted by the freesheet Lanarkshire Extra and The HUB. I know that Hugh O'Donnell will be familiar with those titles, so he might want to add those to the tally that—in his thoughtful speech—he said he was keeping.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Those bring the total number of titles mentioned to 43.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Perhaps the strangest thing about this debate was that Christopher Harvie's meanderings through Germany were trumped by Cathy Jamieson's perusal of The Himalayan Times . That probably does not happen very often. I might add that Mr Harvie's grandfather's Motherwell Speaker title might not have continued for very long because the Bellshill Speaker and Motherwell Times already existed.

It is worth noting that most journalists who work on local newspapers live in the communities that they cover. They understand the community that they write for because they are part of it.

With Scotland facing a never-ending stream of bad economic news, it is right for us to recognise the decline in newspaper circulation across the country. Local newspapers have been taking a financial beating. They tell us that these are dark days for their industry, as we heard at yesterday's lobbying event. Amid uncertainty over the economy, the role that local newspapers play is more important than ever, so we must do what we can to address that situation when we make decisions that directly affect them, such as when we consider a Scottish statutory instrument that will result in local government turning off the tap that allows local papers to benefit from the advertising revenue that accrues from public information notices.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Does the member agree that it is appalling to hear the cabinet secretary refer to public service advertising as a form of public subsidy? Does not that demonstrate that the Government has a closed mind on the issue?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I concur. Many SNP members' speeches this morning have suggested that the Government has a closed mind. Clearly, in pursuit of ensuring that the despicable con act—sorry, the historic concordat—is kept in place, SNP members have insisted that they are acting on behalf of COSLA. However, I think that COSLA will be disappointed when the draft order falls. The Government will need to explain to its back benchers why it has let down local government if SNP members genuinely believe what they have said in their speeches this morning.

The newspaper is one of the oldest forms of mass media and it holds a number of distinct advantages over other types of media. A newspaper can be read by nearly everyone and in almost every type of condition or location. Although we are undoubtedly moving towards a situation in which the majority—if not almost everyone—have access to their media electronically or digitally, we are not there yet. The vast majority of people in this country still look to their local printed newspaper as the source of local information. Their number far outweighs the number of those who access their information via the internet.

The world of technology is undoubtedly changing the newspaper industry, and will continue to do so. Increasingly, newspapers are moving their services online and are slowly moving to integrate the internet into every aspect of their operations, as many members have noted. Local newspapers may have been slower in doing that than some of their national counterparts, but they are doing so, and some newspapers are preparing for the day when they will publish their work only online.

We can even start to consider seriously the endless amount of news blogs on the web. It is a pity that Mike Russell, who has just joined us, is no longer responsible for the media portfolio, given his expertise in developing networks of bloggers, but Fiona Hyslop will just have to fill his shoes as best she can. She may share her predecessor's enthusiasm for the internet as a vehicle for information dissemination, but she must reconsider her Government's reckless rush to use the web for public information notices. Her failure to do so will have disastrous consequences for our local newspaper network.

I am quite sure that the people who attended the conference at Glasgow Caledonian University that is mentioned in the Conservatives' amendment did not expect that, a year on, they would be offered a summit. They want action. Jim Mather gave us yet more of his PowerPoint and gobbledegook expertise and very little in the way of action.

The argument that if local papers go bust there will be no coverage of what happens in local government is not scaremongering. A vast amount of academic research points to the importance of an independent local press in disseminating hard-to-get information, mobilising the public and putting pressure on government and business for the public good. That point was made by Iain Smith in an unusually entertaining speech and was rightly highlighted by Robin Harper.

It appears from this debate that the Scottish Government wishes to ignore the important role that an independent local press must play in scrutinising our democratic institutions. There are some who argue that the internet will empower ordinary people to do the task themselves and do it better, but I and my Labour colleagues are not so sure. Even if we recognise that it is inevitable that that day will come, it has not come yet, and the Government's draft order is far too premature.

Our local papers are virtually the only media that scrutinise local politics. Putting their existence in jeopardy in the belief that the internet will enable citizens to become better informed is too high a risk to take in pursuit of the relatively small amount of money that can be saved from local government coffers.

I believe that local papers are a civic asset and that our democracy needs the local information that we get from them. As Hugh Henry and David Whitton correctly said, the pursuit of cost savings cannot be allowed to undermine our local democracy. Today's economic climate demands that political leaders work with the media to help create economically viable ways for local journalism to prosper. That should just make us more determined to ensure that come 5 o'clock, Parliament, by supporting Labour's motion and the Conservatives' amendment, sends out the signal that we know what the right thing to do by our local papers is, even if the Government does not. People will look back to 11:38 and 34 seconds on the morning of Thursday 28 January, when I predicted that the Government's proposal would not come to fruition.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes the debate on the Scottish newspaper industry. We have finished a few seconds early, but everyone who is required to be here to allow us to commence general question time is present.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to promote Scottish produce. (S3O-9343)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Through the work of Scotland Food and Drink and our enterprise agencies, we actively support the marketing and development of Scottish food and drink at home and abroad. Only yesterday, I launched a campaign that has been designed to make the consumer think about the factors that affect their food choices. In particular, it highlights the importance of fresh and seasonal produce, which, of course, we excel in producing.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The cabinet secretary will be aware from his recent visit to Malcolm Allan Ltd—a food production company in my constituency that has been highly successful in expanding its business over recent years and which has benefited from Government support, for which I know that it is grateful—of the potential that exists for that company to grow even further. I am sure that the same is true of other Scottish food producers.

Is the Scottish Government looking at taking further measures to help to support greater expansion of such companies so that we ensure that we continue to develop them to the economic benefit of the communities in which they are based?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government is taking a range of measures to support the development of Scotland's food sector through our successful food policy, which is the first such policy for Scotland.

I greatly enjoyed my visit to Malcolm Allan Ltd in Falkirk, at which Michael Matheson was present. It was a particular privilege to meet Mr Malcolm Allan, who I understand celebrates his 91st birthday in a few days, and the rest of the family who run that highly successful business, which is indeed growing and becoming more successful.

Malcolm Allan Ltd and other companies in Scotland can apply to the Scottish Government's successful food processing and marketing scheme, which helps such businesses to expand, and can take advantage of the many other measures that the is taking.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Although supermarkets in Scotland are making some attempts to sell Scottish produce, there is no doubt that if we could encourage them to do more, for example by selling Caithness produce in a Thurso supermarket or Western Isles produce in the Western Isles—which might seem to be a strange idea to some people—it would make a huge difference to our local farmers and food producers.

Will the Scottish Government consider methods of persuading the supermarkets to go further down the local produce road, which could include tweaking the planning legislation at some future date?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Jamie Stone highlights the importance of our retail sector and our supermarket chains in supporting local produce by stocking more of it on their shelves. That is why we are delighted that there has been, since this Scottish Government took office, a 21 per cent increase in the sale of Scottish brands, not only in Scotland but in England and Wales.

We hold regular dialogue with the supermarket chains in Scotland. Although they now stock record levels of Scottish local produce, they could do a lot more, and we will continue to work with them to ensure that that happens.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to make decisions on the future development of forensic and fingerprint services. (S3O-9293)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The Scottish Police Services Authority is currently engaging with its customers and stakeholders on the future delivery of police forensic services. I expect the SPSA to present final recommendations for my consideration in the summer.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The cabinet secretary will accept that it is now more than two years since the forensic lab in Aberdeen was first threatened with closure. Why will no conclusions be made public before the summer, given that the SPSA made a commitment as recently as November to produce an options paper by the end of last year? Does the cabinet secretary accept his responsibility for removing as soon as possible the continuing uncertainty that forensics and fingerprint staff in Aberdeen and across Scotland face?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am extremely surprised by Mr Macdonald's attitude. The previous criticism was that there had been a rush to make a judgment and that a decision had been taken without proper consultation. We are now in a position in which a process of full consultation and discussion—with Mr Macdonald or anyone else—is under way. The member is a victim of his own success. He wished there to be consultation; consultation is taking place and we will not rush to make a judgment. He should welcome that—after all, it is what he asked for.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Can the cabinet secretary assure the public and the staff that the final decision on the provision of forensic science and fingerprint services to the police forces of Scotland will be based on the need to ensure efficacy in crime fighting locally and not on a desire to reduce costs centrally?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Absolutely. Account must be taken of those factors. It is clear that financial matters must be considered—we must achieve best value—but the need to protect our communities by ensuring that we prosecute the people who perpetrate crime is at the root of the current process. In addition to Mr Macdonald and the people who work in the labs, another major stakeholder, as Mr Adam well knows, is the chief constable of Grampian Police, which is why we will take on board his views, which clearly have great significance.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am surprised at the minister's apparent insouciance and lack of awareness of the damage that his Government's lack of transparency on the process is causing to staff at bureaux in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and elsewhere. Can he guarantee that the planned move of the Glasgow office to the forensic services supercampus at Gartcosh will not be used as an excuse to close one of Scotland's fingerprint bureaux or to radically reduce the number of staff?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We are intent on creating the Scottish crime campus. I am surprised by Mr Macintosh's view; his colleague Mr Baker seems to criticise us for not yet having it constructed. Planning permission has been granted, work is on-going and it is expected that the campus, which will obviously be the state of the art, will be opened in 2012. The Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, the chief constable of Strathclyde Police and others have welcomed it. We want to ensure that communities throughout Scotland—not only in Grampian—are safe, especially those in Strathclyde, where we have significant problems.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 4 was lodged by Margaret Smith, but she is not in the chamber. The sad thing about that is that I cannot call Ian McKee to ask a perfectly good supplementary question.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support is available for colleges to cope with additional demand for places. (S3O-9320)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

In June, we announced an extra £28.1 million to help colleges to offer more places, particularly to young people. That was on top of a 2009-10 budget of nearly £650 million. Over the period 2007-08 to 2010-11, we plan to spend more than £2.5 billion, which is an increase of nearly 20 per cent on the previous four years. That is significant investment that recognises that colleges are central to supporting people and businesses that have been affected by the recession.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sure that the minister would like to join me in congratulating Andy Murray, who has just made it into the final of the Australian open.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister will be aware that none of the extra £28 million that he mentioned went to rural colleges such as Elmwood College in north-east Fife, which have been coping with a considerable increase in student numbers. Elmwood College has had to spread its educational resources more thinly, and it has reduced bursaries to 90 per cent, which means that students are making direct contributions in order to meet the funding shortfall. Will the minister review college funding to remove the current discrimination against rural colleges, which are also trying to cope with youth unemployment?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

While the minister is answering that question, perhaps Mr Smith might consider turning off his BlackBerry. I assume that he got the information about Andy Murray from that.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I congratulate Andy Murray, who is a product of a good Scottish education, although perhaps not a college education. However, I am sure that colleges will take the lesson on teaching tennis skills, if not on switching-off-BlackBerry skills.

Iain Smith's concern for rural colleges certainly strikes a chord with me. Tomorrow, I will be at Barony College to discuss issues that it faces. I commend the rural colleges for focusing—as all colleges in Scotland have done—on the requirements of the recession, for developing new offerings and for ensuring that, although they are under additional pressures, as every college has been, they are doing their best to cope. We hope to support every college in Scotland to the limit of our ability: we are trying to do that.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister agree that, with colleges such as Adam Smith College and Carnegie College receiving less than half the money they said they would need to support new students, there will be increased pressure on discretionary funds? Will he therefore commit to ensuring that discretionary funds, such as those for hardship and child care, do not run dry?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am always astonished by the ability of Labour Party representatives to demand more expenditure when the Scottish Government's budget is being cut by their party at Westminster. Their performance is astonishing.

I am aware of the pressures on students, which we do everything we can to address. This year, we were able to go even further than we went the year before. We could go further still if the consequences of the recession were not being made worse by the cuts that are coming from Westminster. That is regrettable.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what impact it considers a supermarket ombudsman will have on farmers and consumers. (S3O-9352)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government believes that a supermarket ombudsman will deliver fair prices and a fair deal for all in the food supply chain, including farmers and consumers.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The fact that the United Kingdom Government has at last accepted the need for the creation of a supermarket ombudsman is a welcome development, but that development will be meaningless if the body is not given the powers that it needs effectively to police the food supply chain. Will the cabinet secretary undertake to make the strongest possible representations to the UK Government to ensure that the body is given all the powers it needs to ensure a fair deal for everyone who is involved in putting food on our tables?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Maureen Watt has made a number of good points. I welcome the belated commitment that UK Government has made. It may have taken it 12 years, and it has announced it just a few months before a UK general election, but we have finally got there—it has agreed to the principle of establishing an ombudsman. I understand that there will be further consultation, and we are waiting to hear more details about the form that the body will take, but it will certainly play a key role. Since it took office, the Scottish Government has made a number of strong representations to the UK Government on the matter; indeed, on Tuesday this week, I wrote to once again the responsible minister in the UK Government to press the case for action to be taken as soon as possible.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the use of naloxone for problem drug users. (S3O-9345)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I have asked the national forum on drug-related deaths to develop a national protocol and guidelines on naloxone provision. A short-life working group has been established to take forward that work under the leadership of Carole Hunter, who is lead pharmacist for Glasgow addiction services. The working group aims to have the draft protocol presented for consideration at the next full forum meeting, on 3 February 2010. I will consider the matter further once the forum has delivered the protocol and any recommendations for roll-out.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware that, if a person is addicted to heroin, for example, their mind will be on getting their next fix, not on a training session on how to use naloxone, and that, if a person is overdosing, it is physically impossible for them to self-administer that life-saving antidote. When the minister is considering the draft protocol in the next few weeks, will he consider finding a way, either by legislative changes or by letters of comfort, to enable friends and families of drug users to access naloxone—which is, after all, non-toxic—and the training that could mean the difference between life and death for their loved one?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Anne McLaughlin has made exactly the right point. Naloxone is used to reverse the effects of opiate overdoses; therefore, we believe that it has the potential to save lives. The member is also correct to say that, for obvious reasons, those who may be subject to overdoses are often not in a position to administer naloxone to themselves to save their life. Under the Medicines Act 1968, no one but individual patients in receipt of a prescription is allowed to administer injectable prescription-only medicines, but there is support for extending the existing schemes. We very much want to consider that matter to try to find a way to save lives where possible.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the minister's response to the issue generally, and particularly his response to the cross-party group on drug and alcohol misuse, which I chair.

On pursuing the provision of naloxone, does the minister agree that deaths following discharges from prisons remain a significant concern, despite the Scottish Prison Service's efforts to educate people? Will he invite the SPS to ensure that every prisoner who has a history of addiction receives information about overdoses before their discharge, and that the SPS will apply any naloxone programme to prisoners on discharge?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I entirely agree with Dr Richard Simpson. We wish to deal with the matter as he specifically suggests. We believe that naloxone has the potential to save lives, which is why I have asked the national forum on drug-related deaths to work on a national protocol. It is important to ensure that prisoners who have been released are given high priority. The statistics show that they are at very high risk of death, perhaps as a result of taking drugs that are much stronger than those that they have been accustomed to during their incarceration. I thank members of all parties for their support for the drugs strategy, which is now being implemented. The work that we are discussing is a key supplement to that work.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is giving to help landscape partnerships access rural priority funding. (S3O-9256)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Rural priorities is a competitive grant scheme that is available to a wide range of different groups, including landscape partnerships. So far, more than a quarter of a billion pounds has been approved under rural priorities to support around 3,600 projects in rural Scotland. Detailed eligibility guidance is available to all rural priorities applicants, and all applicants will have the additional support of rural priorities case officers in their regions.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware of the many collaborative bracken-control projects in which several landowners are involved, including the Ochils landscape partnership in my region. Those projects often face difficulties when they apply for Scottish rural development programme and LEADER funding. Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet the Ochils landscape partnership and look into how the application process can be reformed and simplified?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I have, of course, taken an interest in the proposals that have been made by the Ochils landscape partnership, which states that it

"aims to increase access to the hills and wooded glens of the Ochils, improve the quality of our rivers, restore significant buildings"

and carry out a range of other projects. Because of the diversity of the projects that it has proposed, it is clear that a bit of work has to be done to ensure that it is tapping into the right schemes that are available.

I would be pleased for my senior officials to meet the partnership to discuss how it can do that, and I understand that these conversations have already begun.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 is being applied effectively. (S3O-9325)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that children are protected from sexual abuse. We will continue to work with police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure that those who commit sexual offences against children are brought to justice.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

There is considerable confusion arising from the fact that only a small number of people are being prosecuted under the 2005 act, with most offenders being prosecuted under earlier legislation. Given the lack of clarity surrounding the number of children in Scotland who are experiencing sexual exploitation, will the Government commit to funding research to identify whether the paucity of convictions under the 2005 act is due to the situation that I have just outlined, to a lack of offences occurring or even—as Barnardo's Scotland suspects—to a lack of priority?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I do not think that the priority should necessarily be further research. I would be happy to meet Robin Harper to explain the position and I explain to the chamber that we believe that it is not simply about the number of convictions—there is a variety of matters to consider.

Operation algebra was remarkably successful and was testimony to the effectiveness of the prosecution service and the police, in particular. Through it, offenders were charged with serious sexual offences—and rightly so. The Crown Office made that judgment on the basis of the heinous nature of the offences. It is not necessarily the case that action is not being taken; it is simply that sometimes a more serious charge is recorded, which does not necessarily mean that the offenders are not also charged with the specific statutory offences to which Robin Harper referred. Action is taken, but sometimes the more serious charge is what is recorded.

We always monitor the situation to ensure that the legislation is being used as effectively as possible. However, if it would be of assistance, I would be happy to meet Robin Harper to explain the rationale behind the Crown Office's decisions and how they are recorded. Although the number of prosecutions under the 2005 act is not great, action is continuously being taken to protect our children. After all, that is one of the major raisons d'être of any government of any political colour.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be aware of the offences that were committed by Ryan Yates, who sought to attack two children in Aberdeen just two days into a sexual offences prevention order. Does he agree that there should be an investigation into that shocking incident to see what more could have been done to restrict Mr Yates's behaviour and whether, in the light of the incident, there should be a review of procedures?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Those matters are, fundamentally, for the Crown Office and the police. We are delighted that Mr Yates has been brought to justice. It will be for the court to decide what sentence is imposed. Orders for lifelong restriction now exist: we believe that they are an important tool. We do not comment on individual cases, but judges who impose orders for lifelong restriction because they feel that that is appropriate will have the full support of the Government. I understand that orders for lifelong restriction did not exist when Mr Yates's previous sentence was imposed. It is now for the judiciary to decide what to do in his case.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it supports housing co-operatives. (S3O-9334)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Government supports the work of housing co-ops by investing in the provision of new affordable housing. My recent visit to Easthall Park Housing Co-operative in Easterhouse highlighted the good work of such organisations in their communities. The housing co-operative sector is part of the registered social landlord sector, and individual organisations within the sector establish their own vision and business plan to suit their specific needs.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister share my dismay that, since the introduction of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, the number of Scottish housing co-operatives has dropped from 45 to 18? Will he confirm that the Government endorses the housing co-operative as a sustainable and valuable community ownership model and that he will continue to offer support for it?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We estimate that there are only 14, rather than 18, housing co-operatives in Scotland. The massive reduction in their number is a direct result of the Labour-Lib Dem Administration's efforts in 2001. However, the SNP Government is committed to the principle of co-operation and is encouraging housing co-operatives by giving record support to them and to the whole social housing sector in order to complete the construction of a record number of social houses in Scotland this year.

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2164)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have a range of engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

With the Presiding Officer's permission, I am sure that the whole chamber will want to congratulate Andy Murray on reaching the Australian open final. [Applause.]

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Good news, indeed, which is certainly welcomed across the chamber. There is still difficult news for Scotland on the economy, however. There is hope that we are moving from recession to recovery, but our unemployment rate is still too high. This year, more than any year, the Scottish budget has to be about jobs and the economy. The capital budget is crucial; thousands of jobs depend on it. Will the First Minister publish the full details of current spending plans on capital projects?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The capital projects spending plans are published as part of the budget. We have an extensive capital programme. The difficulty as we look forward is that, when we look at what has been published at Westminster, we see a projected decline in capital spending on public projects of up to 50 per cent. I hope that those are not really the plans of the Labour Government at Westminster. I hope that Iain Gray has made submissions and representations to his colleagues and ex-boss at Westminster and that those have more success than the submission that he made in favour of accelerated capital spending.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

On page 38 of the published infrastructure investment plan is the Glasgow airport rail link. The First Minister has torn 1,300 jobs out of the programme by cancelling GARL. Why will he not show us those figures? Andy Kerr has written twice to John Swinney asking for them, the Finance Committee has asked for them, and we have waited four months for answers to parliamentary questions and have had to resort to making freedom of information requests.

This week, a joint letter was sent by all Opposition parties asking for the figures. Even the Tory budget buddies, who always support the SNP budget, think that it should be a requirement that current capital budget plans be shared. Why the secrecy? Why will the First Minister not show us the figures?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray's memory seems to have deserted him. Does he not remember that he ended up supporting the budget for this year and that he was one of our budget buddies? Of course, it took him two attempts to get over the hurdle, but we were delighted to have his support for the budget that we put forward for this year to fight Labour's recession. "Better one sinner that repenteth," is what I say to Iain Gray.

John Swinney will reply in detail to the submission from the other parties. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let us not try to release the Labour Party from its obligation to have a look at the budget plans and the infrastructure plans and, above all, to come to the realisation that its Westminster colleagues are planning to slash capital spending by 50 per cent over the coming years.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

We are desperate to look at the capital project plans, but the First Minister will not give them to us because his capital spending programme is a shambles. The Scottish Futures Trust was supposed to fix all that.

The SNP manifesto said that it would build schools, hospitals and bridges with patriotic bonds. Now, even the First Minister's favourite economists, Jim and Margaret Cuthbert, are telling him that the SFT is a disaster. It has not raised a penny; it has not laid a brick. We are paying that Futures Trust £28 million to have meetings about selling off Scottish Water, while building firms are paying off Scottish workers. Will the First Minister just admit that time is up for his Futures Trust?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I agree with Iain Gray—he is desperate, and he gets more desperate every single week.

As far as Scottish Water is concerned, it is our declared intention to have the water industry in the public sector in Scotland. Iain Gray confuses us with an Administration in London that seems content for the public sector not to be involved in the water industry, resulting in higher bills for consumers in England.

Iain Gray mentions the Scottish Futures Trust. Let us take a look at its involvement in the schools programme, the hub partnership, innovations in tax increment financing, Borders rail, the Forth replacement crossing and the non-profit distribution initiative that resulted in my being able to open the new Cults academy in Aberdeen earlier this week.

Jim and Margaret Cuthbert's criticism is that we have not moved far enough away from Labour's disastrous private finance initiative. I rather liked the comment from Ron Hewitt, the chief executive of Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, who—if I remember correctly—has been quoted by Iain Gray on several occasions in these exchanges. Ron Hewitt said:

"The SFT has ... a good team of experienced people. It ... is absolutely the right thing to do. It will save public money."

As we know, Labour is interested in cutting Scotland's finance, but rejects proposals to save public money.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

If the First Minister has no intention of selling off Scottish Water, why is he spending £1 million on wages for 21 people in the Scottish Futures Trust to discuss it? It is even more of a waste of money than we thought.

As for the First Minister's schools, I have a list of them here: two thirds of the schools were under construction before he was ever First Minister. If I look at my own constituency to see which schools he is claiming, I find that Dunbar primary school was completed in 2008. My constituents will be a bit surprised at that: the last time I looked, there was an access road, and building that school had not even started. It was planned under Labour, and the SNP has failed to build it.

The truth is that we cannot get details of the First Minister's capital budget because it is a mess. Low Moss prison, the Aberdeen bypass and the Southern general hospital have all been delayed for two years. Scottish companies have been frozen out of the contracts, 1,300 jobs on GARL have been cancelled and 28,000 construction jobs have been destroyed by the Scottish Futures Trust.

Will the First Minister get a grip and take the Scottish Futures Trust out of the budget and put GARL back in?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray's question wandered over so many subjects, which gives me so much opportunity for correction. In the interests of time, I will deal with three of them.

Iain Gray argues, despite my previous answer—perhaps he did not adapt his question—that there is a water privatisation agenda. I will quote from the Scottish Futures Trust business plan, which was published in May 2009. On page 18, it states that

"In collaboration with other interested parties"

we will

"work-up, and assess options to increase the efficiency of funding for Scottish Water, whilst retaining public ownership, that could be considered by Scottish Ministers".

What is the point of Iain Gray asking for more information on our capital plan when he will not even read the information that is already openly available to him?

I know that it causes Iain Gray great angst that 251 schools have now opened under this SNP Government. We are heading towards 300, and—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. That is enough noise.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I know that Mary Mulligan forecast that no more schools would be built in West Lothian and opened by SNP ministers, and that Iain Gray was once concerned that Ellon academy would not be rebuilt. Those are in the new plan, as are schools the length and breadth of Scotland. Facts are chiels that winna ding—and 251 schools is more than Labour achieved in any term of office during the past 10 years.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2165)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The Scottish National Party manifesto could not have been clearer. It promised that every pupil would get

"2 hours of quality PE each week".

I shall repeat that: every pupil, in every school, every week, would receive two hours of quality physical education. Nearly three years on, the First Minister's Government has failed to deliver that pledge. Two out of three primary schools and five out of six secondary schools are still waiting—abject failure, because the commitment was clear, cast iron and categorical. It was made by the First Minister, so why has he not delivered it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Annabel Goldie probably knows, the PE commitment is being delivered through the curriculum for excellence, which is being introduced this year. The Tory survey covered last year. She should not belittle the progress that is being made throughout Scotland. We know that in 2005, when the Labour and Liberal coalition was in power, 5 per cent of primary schools and 7 per cent of secondary schools were achieving two hours of PE. The Tories' survey found that 33 per cent of primary schools and 16 per cent of secondary schools were providing two hours of quality PE. I accept that that is not the end destination of what we are doing through the curriculum for excellence, but even Annabel Goldie would consider that a substantial improvement on what was achieved back in 2005.

As we move forward, Annabel Goldie should join me in commending what has already been done and in looking forward to the achievement of two hours of quality PE for every child the length and breadth of Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Unfortunately for the First Minister, patting himself on the back does not count as PE. [ Laughter. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I wish that the First Minister's reply to my question had been even half as clear as his manifesto commitment.

Gavin Hastings has said that we must give every kid an opportunity. He feels that two hours of PE is not too much to ask. With the British Olympics and the Glasgow Commonwealth games just around the corner, this is a golden opportunity to inspire our children. As Andy Murray thrills the nation at the Australian open, it is such a shame that there are no tennis courts at 40 per cent of our councils' secondary schools. I leave it to the First Minister to explain his Government's failings, but will he join Gavin Hastings in supporting a Scottish Conservative initiative to set up a new sporting trust—a charity specifically intended to give more children more sporting chances?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I support initiatives that improve children's life chances, and I consider all constructive suggestions, regardless of where they come from. However, there seems to be something of an inconsistency between Annabel Goldie's attitude to public spending and her attitude to facilities being provided for children. There are many initiatives, and many of them are extremely positive and good, but she will have to accept at some point that there is a correlation between the amount of public money that is spent on services and what we can achieve in schools, hospitals and the range of public services. It is somewhat ambiguous, therefore, for the Conservative and Unionist Party to say, "Cut public spending," on the one hand, but, "Deliver more public services," on the other.

The achievements that have been made are not my achievements or those of this Administration; they are achievements that are already taking place across Scotland, where the situation is incomparably better, as far as quality PE is concerned, than it was just a few years ago. I hope Annabel Goldie will accept that, in the curriculum for excellence, part of the commitment is to deliver two hours of PE. I hope she has already noticed that one of the preparations for that is a substantial increase in the number of qualified teachers to deliver that quality PE. Progress is being made. That is the result across Scotland on our report card.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of his Cabinet. (S3F-2166)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

There has been a dramatic increase this year in the number of people who have been turned away from Scottish colleges because there are not enough places. Figures that the Liberal Democrats are publishing today show that many colleges are turning away four times as many applicants as last year and that some colleges have had to reject people for the first time. Many young people's career plans have therefore been dashed. They are being hit twice: with record unemployment, they cannot get a job, and now they cannot get a college place. The First Minister knows that we raised the issue with his Government in November. Today's figures show why action in the area matters for Scotland's future. Will he ensure that next week's budget addresses the growing gap between the number of people who want to learn and the number of places available?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is a very constructive suggestion. As the member will accept, college funding is increasing in real terms and, in our attempt to address the recession, we targeted additional funding over and above that increase at colleges in areas that were particularly badly hit by the recession. Despite that, as the member identified, there is still the huge danger in the recession that young people are deprived of opportunity. The member knows as well as I do that, although statistics for both youth unemployment and graduate unemployment are extremely serious, those for Scotland are better than those for elsewhere in these islands. However, I agree that one of the focal points and challenges for the budget that we are presenting, even in these straitened economic circumstances, is to identify how we can increase life opportunities for our young people.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is clear that people are trying to get themselves the skills and qualifications that they need. However, North Highland College in Thurso said that it was unprecedented to turn students away because of capacity limits; Oatridge College said that it had never refused admission before, but has had to reject 300 applications this year; Angus College was in the same position; and Carnegie College in Dunfermline has increased the number that it turned away by 800 per cent, from 120 to 904. Does the First Minister agree that action taken by his Government in this budget must increase the number of college places right across Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The number of college places is increasing across Scotland, as Tavish Scott well knows. However, in a recession, the increase in the number of applicants is even greater than the increase in the number of college places. I believe that this is an excellent point for us to concentrate on in looking at achievements over the past year. [ Interruption. ] I see that members on the Labour benches do not like the idea that people can make a constructive suggestion and get a constructive answer. If they just occasionally made a constructive suggestion, I would be able to give them a constructive answer.

Tavish Scott has made a constructive suggestion and he can be assured that it will be a key priority in relation to increasing even further the number of places and the life chances that are available to our young people in this time of recession.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

The First Minister will be aware of the disturbance at HMP Addiewell in my constituency earlier this week, which resulted in injury to two prison officers. I am sure that the he will join me in paying tribute to all the staff at HMP Addiewell. However, we can only minimise, not eliminate, the risk to prison officers, given their very difficult and, at times, dangerous job. Therefore, will he state how the Government will ensure that prison staff, irrespective of whether they work in the public sector or the private sector, continue to receive the support and resources that they need for the job that they do on our behalf?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As the constituency member knows, a disturbance occurred in the Douglas wing of Addiewell in the early evening of Monday 25 January during which two prison officers were injured. The officers were taken to hospital with the injuries that they sustained in the disturbance. Fortunately, neither appears to have sustained serious injuries and both have been released from hospital—indeed, they were released within a few hours. Prison officers quickly brought the wing under control and the disturbance was over by midnight. Approximately 10 inmates were actively involved, and the police investigation is under way. The damage to the prison was minor.

The constituency member can be absolutely assured that this Administration will give total support to our prison officers in maintaining order in our prisons. The fact that the number of such incidents has decreased dramatically over the past few years does not belie the inevitable fact that one incident is one too many. In order to deal with all incidents, this Administration will give our prison officers the maximum support and backing.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what efforts the Scottish Government is making to reduce the levels of self-harming among children. (S3F-2176)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are aware of the extent of the issue and its importance, and we are taking a number of measures to tackle it. We are improving access to both community and in-patient mental health services, and we see increasing the specialist child and adolescent mental health services workforce as key to that. We will be investing £5.5 million more per year in the area by 2011-12, which means an increase in the CAMHS workforce of about 15 per cent.

Prior to 2007, there were no waiting time targets for mental health. We have now taken steps to speed up access to specialist services for those who need it by setting a referral-to-treatment access time target for specialist CAMHS. We have also established a new self-harm working group with our partners to take work forward, in particular on improving training and on issuing guidance on effective measures of prevention and treatment.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for his detailed answer and welcome that progress. I refer him to last year's Health and Sport Committee report "Inquiry into child and adolescent mental health and well-being". We recognised that some progress had been made towards the Government's commitment to halve the number of admissions of children and adolescents to adult hospital beds. Following that report, what progress is the Government making towards meeting that target, given that the Mental Welfare Commission says that the practice is usually inappropriate?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We expect—I am sure that all members expect—that children and young people who need in-patient mental health care will be looked after in specialist facilities. However, in some cases, young people need to be admitted as an emergency because they are in crisis and their life might be at risk, and sometimes they are admitted to an adult ward. We are working to reduce the number of such admissions. As Christine Grahame rightly notes, the number has been cut by more than 20 per cent since 2007. That figure will fall further with the new investment that is being made in mental health psychologists and other specialist staff, which will rise to an additional £5.5 million per year by 2012. The issue is extremely serious. I note that Christine Grahame acknowledges that progress is being made—and further progress will be made.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that more than 7,000 people in Scotland are treated in hospital each year following episodes of non-fatal deliberate self-harm, does the First Minister agree that access to a universal health-visiting service with regular health and development checks for young children will help to ensure that, where possible, mental health and wellbeing issues are identified in the early years?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is a very positive suggestion, and I know that Mary Scanlon will support increased access to the range of specialist services, which is supported by the new investment in psychologists and other specialists. I will make sure that she is given a specific reply on her specific suggestion.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Is the First Minister aware of yesterday's announcement that Lanarkshire NHS Board will not be going ahead with the 130-bed mental health facility in our area, following the budget restrictions that have been imposed on the health board by the Scottish Government? Is he aware that the facility is desperately needed in our area, which has an above-average incidence of mental health problems? Is he further aware that the facility was included in the original picture of health proposals for Lanarkshire, and in the revised budget following the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing's decision to retain facilities at Monklands hospital? Will he investigate yesterday's announcement and instruct the health secretary to instruct Lanarkshire NHS Board to review the decision immediately?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am certainly not going back to the disastrous proposals to close the accident and emergency unit at Monklands hospital, which was the mark of the previous Administration.

Jack McConnell makes a specific point about the capital programme in Lanarkshire, and I will give him a specific and detailed answer to that point in writing.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on Scottish Enterprise's decision to bring to an end the graduates for business scheme. (S3F-2170)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise are committed to providing the right support for graduates to help them into work. Scottish Enterprise commissioned an independent report into the graduates for business scheme, which highlighted concerns about the geographic coverage and consistency of the programme. We therefore welcome Scottish Enterprise's plans to have an alternative programme in place by the end of June. That will address the issues and deliver even better value for money. That initiative comes on top of the £3.5 million we are spending through the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council in the current academic year to support skills and employability initiatives that focus on work-related learning and placements, entrepreneurship and workforce development.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

As the First Minister seeks constructive proposals from Labour members, I will offer some. He said that the report expressed concerns, but the graduates for business programme is successful. It exceeded the targets for companies involved and for participating graduates, more than two thirds of whom went on to take jobs with the companies that employed them under the programme.

The Federation of Small Businesses has written to Mr Russell and Mr Mather to express concern and I have written to Mr Swinney. Do I take it from what the First Minister just said about having an alternative programme in June that the graduates for business programme will continue under the guise of Scottish Enterprise?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

David Whitton can take it from my answer that a more cost-effective programme will be introduced by June. He has singled himself out from the rest of the Labour members by making a constructive point. If an independent assessment into a programme's performance suggests that the programme can be improved and that even better value for money can be achieved, is he really saying that that should be ignored and that we should not consider that or try to increase the programme's efficiency? If so, the incredible disconnect between the massive cuts by the Labour Party at Westminster—more cuts are forecast—and Labour's resistance of every attempt by public authorities to obtain better value for money is becoming a yawning gulf that will undermine the credibility of the entire Labour Party in Scotland, despite his attempt to be constructive with his question.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that, given continuing pressure on the economy, the size of government should be getting smaller rather than bigger. (S3F-2174)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Mr Purvis is well aware of the Government's efforts to deliver smaller and more effective government. We already have fewer ministers and departments and we are working to simplify and rationalise other parts of the public sector and to obtain value for money. The Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill includes a £14 million—or 5 per cent—reduction in our planned spending next year on core administration costs, which are largely made up of civil service salaries. In that context, it is unfortunate that he and his party are trying to block our efforts through the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Our efficiency programme is enabling us to direct resources to front-line staff. That is one reason why, since we replaced the Labour-Liberal Administration and despite the financial restrictions under which we operate, there are 1,336 more nurses, 197 more dentists and 983 more police officers in Scotland.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The First Minister is aware of the trend for the pay bill for the most senior executives in public service in Scotland to grow. On 5 June last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth wrote to ask the chairs of 28 public bodies and Government agencies, including Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, to invite their chief executives not to take their bonuses this year. On 10 November, I lodged a parliamentary question to ask what response the Government received to that letter. I was due to receive a reply on 24 November, but to date I have not received one. How many of those bodies will not pay their chief executives bonuses this year? Why has it taken more than two months to answer my question?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The central reason why answering the question takes time is that Mr Swinney has no power to instruct people not to take their bonuses. He has no power to instruct and can only request because the contracts were signed by a Government that had Liberal participation.

I and Mr Swinney accept—it is why we have frozen ministerial salaries and the salaries of senior civil servants who are directly under the Scottish Government's control—that asking people in the upper echelons to bear the heaviest burden is exactly the right policy to pursue. The reason why we must ask rather than rule is that the contracts were signed by Mr Purvis's party. Unless the Liberals suggest that we should break those contracts, he will have to wait for his answer until chief executives are kind enough to furnish Mr Swinney with answers to Mr Swinney's request.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I return to what the First Minister said earlier about constructive suggestions. I suggest that he should not back himself into a corner as regards the size of government. We should be talking about effective government and what is needed at the time. What we need right now is a full-time finance minister. That should be the focus of everyone's attention. I urge him—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question please, Ms MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

It is a helpful suggestion, Presiding Officer.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

It is meant to be a question.