This morning we have two short debates, the first of which is on motion S1M-3507, in the name of Michael Russell, on broadcasting and the media in Scotland, and two amendments to that motion. I invite members who want to take part in the debate to press their request buttons, and I call Michael Russell to speak.

At the outset, I declare an interest in journalism and broadcasting, as outlined in my entry in the register of members' interests. That includes working for The Herald newspaper.

This morning's debate gives an unusual opportunity for the chamber to consider media and broadcasting issues. I anticipate that, once again, there will be the regular complaints from members on the variety of unionist benches that are always arrayed against us that the SNP is concentrating on matters that do not and should not concern us. Indeed, that is part of the burden of the ideological amendment lodged by Mr Monteith. However, it is worth noting that there has not been a full-scale debate on media and broadcasting issues in the chamber since the Parliament was established.

Taken together, those industries employ tens of thousands of people in Scotland, and they are key forces in shaping our society. They inform and influence everyone who lives in the nation, and they carry forward many aspects of our shared cultures. They are, in short, central to our economic, cultural and social well-being as a nation. Not only is it appropriate that we discuss those issues in the chamber; it is essential. It is particularly essential at the moment, because a variety of problems and possibilities need resolution and can be helped to a resolution by the intelligent interest of this chamber.

The SNP motion expresses a frustration that we in this Parliament cannot yet legislate to help and support our media industries. I say "yet" because it will come. Although we are deprived of power— [Interruption.] I can see that Mr Monteith is excited already.

Although we are deprived of power, quite deliberately, we can use our influence. Accordingly, I hope that this morning's debate will influence in the interests of Scottish culture, Scottish society and the Scottish economy.

I want to address three specific issues that require resolution. The first is the present situation concerning the Scottish Media Group. We are all familiar with the bidding process, which is now under way, but we may not be familiar with the rules in relation to the public interest under which the process will be conducted. Those rules are laid out in fair trading legislation, but unless a total circulation of 500,000 newspapers is involved in any bid—on the side of the bidder and the purchaser—there is no automatic referral under the newspapers section of the legislation. However, under normal competition powers there can be a referral if there is an issue of overdominance in the market. As anyone who purchases The Herald, the Evening Times and the Sunday Herald will have a considerable slice of the quality market in Scotland, there would be considerable overdominance if the final purchaser already had a strong stake in that market.

The Herald has justifiable claims to be the oldest continuously published daily newspaper in the English-speaking world. It carries the date 1783 on its masthead. The claim is historical, but the paper has strong present-day claims to be a distinctive and authoritative voice on Scottish and international affairs. Anything that is done to weaken or distort that voice must be avoided.

The responsibility for avoiding that lies in several places. It lies, first of all, with the present owners. They cannot just abrogate their responsibilities in return for the largest, fattest cheque that they can attract. They must realise that they have a duty of care to the papers, the staff, the readers and the respective future of all those groupings. That duty of care extends to ensuring that the papers are sold not to an organisation that will asset strip and run them down, but to an organisation that will build them up. Responsibility also lies with the purchasers. We need to know what they intend and how they intend to operate. Responsibility lies with the United Kingdom Government, which can inquire into that purchase and, if it chooses to do so, block it.

Responsibility also lies here. The people of Scotland expect us to show an interest. I renew my call for an inquiry by a Scottish Parliament committee, preferably the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, to take place as soon as the shortlist of the three final candidates is known. I commend the work that Karen Gillon and others have done on the issue. I know that a lot of work has been done, particularly in making it clear to Westminster that there must be an inquiry. I hope that Karen and other members of the committee— several of whom are here this morning, including me—will go the extra mile to allow the committee to act on behalf of the people of Scotland. We must allow the people to hear in open session from those who are selling the titles and those who want to buy them. We must hear the reality of the situation, so that, even though the people of Scotland may not decide, they may judge.

We have rules about the care of precious national assets and we forbid demolition of parts of our heritage that are valuable. How much more important to us are assets such as The Herald? We need to show equal care and extend our effort equally for their future.

The second issue that I want to touch on is the Scottish Six, about which there is a new urgency. We know that the BBC is considering the future of its news and current affairs plans in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament election. We also now know that, when the issue was considered before, Scotland was lied to. We know that, because John Birt has confirmed it in his memoirs. I take that personally, because the then chairman of the BBC board of governors, Sir Christopher Bland, told Alex Salmond and me at a meeting in London in October 1998, without any doubt or equivocation, that the decision on the Scottish Six would be taken for broadcasting reasons and broadcasting reasons alone.

Sir Christopher may have been a dupe. He may have known nothing about what was going on behind the scenes, although I would find that surprising. However, we now know that John Birt was working with Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and others to stop the Scottish Six. That fact has tarnished the BBC, just as it has tarnished the new Labour Government. As usual, the less subtle members of the Parliament have put it in less subtle ways. In a radio interview, Kenneth Macintosh described the Scottish Six as a nationalist plot.

We need action on the matter. A Scottish Six is overdue. In fact, all news and current affairs for Scotland that reflect on the world should come from Scotland. That is the norm in every other country and it should be the norm here. The BBC has it in its hands to rectify the situation. It could apologise for what has taken place and for the actions of its former director general, and it could announce the intention to repatriate the scheduling powers for news and current affairs that should exist and to create the production abilities. To introduce with early effect a Scottish news service that comes from Scotland but covers the world would be a fine act in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections. We have an influence on that and we should make that influence felt.

Finally, I want to turn to a third issue: the communications bill. Scotland's powerlessness in the face of the changes that the world is undergoing in media and communications is shown by the Westminster communications bill. That issue will not even be addressed in this chamber by the much-loved device of a Sewel motion, which the Executive uses at the drop of a hat. The whole matter of broadcasting and media ownership and regulation will be decided at Westminster without reference to this Parliament. Unlike the situation in Wales, where the National Assembly for Wales has already spoken on the issue, it looks as if the Scottish Executive does not even intend to consult the members of this Parliament.

The communications bill as drafted is, to put it simply, an inappropriate approach to broadcasting and media regulation for a small nation of 5 million people that has a distinctive culture and media ecology. As even the joint Westminster committee under Lord Puttnam saw, the communications bill is a naked attempt to allow the big business media friends of new Labour to dominate the increasingly profitable communications market. It will lead to a dumbing down of broadcasting in Scotland and to the pursuit of short-term profit at the expense of long-term cultural development, and it will damage attempts to build production and media skills in our country.

Worst of all, it will take away from Scotland the ability to be heard at the top level of the regulatory process. The sops of a presence on the content and consumer boards of the Office of Communications are meaningless if they are not accompanied by membership of the main board itself. They are ex post facto positions, commenting on what has happened rather than making things happen.

No Scottish Government, even one of Mr Monteith's hue—fortunately we shall all be spared that—would choose to regulate the media in the way that the communications bill proposes. No Scottish Government would want to regulate in such a way that cultural issues are ignored and the Scottish media is sold to the highest bidder. However, that is what the communications bill will mean and so it will damage Scotland.

Key decisions are about to be made about newspaper ownership, television news and current affairs and regulation of the media and such decisions should be taken in the chamber. Until the chamber has the right to make such decisions, they will be made for reasons that do not take into account Scotland's interests and they will have effects that can only be harmful to Scotland. All of us should support the transfer of full media and broadcasting regulatory powers to the chamber rather than the mealy-mouthed, second-best solution that is repeated in the Executive's amendment.

We should not support the rampant ideology in Brian Monteith's amendment. I am glad to see that he is enjoying what I am saying—I did not enjoy reading his amendment. Both amendments are based on the know-your-place attitude of the unionist parties. The attitude is that there are matters about which Scots cannot speak. However, it is vital that we discuss our media and the way in which our media works for us.

Without a transfer of powers, all that we will be able to do is to pick up the pieces after every difficulty and job loss and bemoan what is happening from the sidelines. If there is a transfer, we can make a difference. Pending that transfer, we should be active in opening up the secrecy and potential damage that could be caused by the sale of the Scottish Media Group titles. For the avoidance of doubt, the Barclay brothers and their destructive Svengali, Andrew Neil, are some of the wrong bidders—in fact, they are the really wrong bidders. We should campaign for BBC news and current affairs in Scotland to be controlled and run by BBC Scotland and we should expose the disgraceful actions of Labour figures and the former director general, which have made progress so difficult. We should be steadfast in our determination to ensure that any communications bill in the immediate future includes rather than excludes Scotland.

The motion expresses the majority view of Scots on such matters. I commend it to the chamber and to those who are not too blind to see its truth.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the vital importance of broadcasting and the print media to the cultural, social and economic life of Scotland and expresses its concern that the present devolution settlement prevents it from legislating in order to secure diversity of ownership and appropriate modern broadcasting regulation in Scotland.

My amendment basically seeks to remove the rather downbeat outlook that we have heard Mr Russell espouse and replace it with a more positive outlook. It seeks to highlight what we can do and what we are doing.

The debate takes place at a crucial stage in the development of broadcasting in the UK. The many aspects of our cultural, social, economic and political lives, in which broadcasting and the print media play an important part, are self-evident. We are discussing reserved matters, but they impinge on our lives in so many ways that it is understandable that members—and not only SNP members—should be concerned with the debate around current issues.

Broadcasting and other forms of media provide an infrastructure and cultural and information networks that form the core knowledge that we need and use daily. From the Executive's point of view, they are the major channel for communicating our progress in delivering on the key priorities of education, health, crime, transport and jobs. Therefore, we appreciate their value and the need to be aware of and influence developments.

The sector's contribution to our economy is significant in a number of ways. It contributes quality jobs, develops creative talent and tourism and sustains specialist suppliers of services. It is no exaggeration to say that the democratic process itself is dependent on a healthy, diverse and appropriately regulated media sector and I have no doubt that that matter will be prominent in the debate. I strongly believe that ensuring editorial independence and diversity of opinion as well as diversity of ownership in Scotland's media are important.

Therefore, the forthcoming communications bill, which will introduce changes to reinvigorate the sector and equip it better for the future, is important for Scotland, as it is for other countries and regions of the UK. That is why the Executive has actively promoted Scotland's interests in respect of the bill, which is expected to go before the Westminster Parliament shortly.

Protecting the interests of the Scottish communications industry and securing a strong influence for Scotland within the structure of the new regulator were central to the Executive's response to the consultation on the draft bill. To maximise Scotland's influence within the new framework, our preference has been for a distinctive Scottish committee within the Ofcom structure, as an alternative to securing a single Scottish seat on the main board. We made that point in our submission to the consultation process, but the First Minister also made it directly to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, in the summer.

Mike Russell referred to our "powerlessness", but I am pleased to say that our proposals have been accepted in principle and, as a result, there will be a Scottish committee, which will support the Scottish representative who will be appointed to the consumer panel. It is interesting that when we obtain more influence, there are sniggers and sneers from the SNP benches. It would be nice if, just once, the SNP welcomed progress on an issue, even if that progress does not go as far as it wants to go. However, that seems to be beyond SNP members.

The appointment of a Scottish representative to the consumer panel will be made by Ofcom following consultation with Scottish ministers. Indeed, there may be a further strengthening of Scotland's influence when Ofcom, when it is established, agrees the mechanisms that it will need to ensure that Scotland's interests are properly represented and articulated. Scottish ministers are seeking an early meeting with the chair of Ofcom to take that matter forward.

The new measure that I have been able to confirm today will increase the number of people who will have a direct role on behalf of Scotland within the new Ofcom structure from the number that was originally proposed. That major concession shows the efficacy of our representations at UK level and demonstrates that, where we make our case convincingly, it is listened to and, most important, acted on. The concession is additional to the measures that we had already secured through our negotiations, which include the establishment of an office in Scotland and a section on Scottish interests in the Ofcom annual report.

Will the minister make it clear whether the position that he has described gives us more or less influence than there was in the Independent Television Commission structure? How can there be more influence with no presence on the main board? By definition, there must be less influence.

I mentioned more influence than was originally proposed. We are moving to a new regulatory structure and it is important that there is a strong Scottish influence and presence—we have argued for that, the First Minister has argued for it and it has been agreed. It has not been agreed without strongly stating the Scottish case. We have had some success and that should not be looked upon lightly.

I mentioned the section on Scottish interests in the Ofcom annual report. There will also be a statutory requirement for Ofcom's content board—which, with the consumer panel, will be an important regulatory mechanism—to reserve membership for Scottish representation.

Those are important indicators of the Westminster Government's recognition of the importance of the communications bill's provisions for Scotland and of Scotland's distinctiveness—other ministers and I regularly stress that in our contacts with Westminster ministers. The record must be examined before dismissing such recognition. I will not be drawn into the trap of trying to satisfy the SNP's demands. Apart from anything else, it would be utterly impossible to satisfy them. If one demand is met, another demand will immediately come behind it. We must look upon things in a positive vein. We know what the devolution settlement is and the people of Scotland know what it is. They, like most parties in the chamber, want that settlement to work, which is what the Executive, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are trying to do.

In the time that is left to me, I want briefly to discuss the implications of the communications bill for the Gaelic language. I am pleased to say that discussions on the future of Gaelic broadcasting are taking place in conjunction with the Scotland Office. Recently, I met Anne McGuire MP, who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office, to discuss various issues. A Gaelic working group has been established, which involves the Scotland Office, the Executive, broadcasters, the ITC and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The group will prepare an amendment to the communications bill, including a provision to enable a Gaelic television service to be set up on digital television. Further work will be needed once the bill is passed to develop new arrangements, and the aim is to build on the strengths and experience of the Gaelic broadcasting committee to create a secure basis for the future of Gaelic broadcasting.

I ask members to take what I have said as reassurance that the Executive is fully committed to ensuring that Scotland's interests will be secured in respect of changes to communications and media structures throughout the UK. In the context of such a commitment, I invite members to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S1M-3507.1, to leave out from "and expresses" to end and insert:

"; recognises the importance to Scotland of UK, Scottish and regional television programming and production; believes that these interests are enhanced by diversity in media ownership, and believes that it is vital that the relevant regulatory bodies reflect those Scottish interests in respect of UK broadcasting regulations and other media matters."

I am pleased to participate in the debate. I declare my interest as a columnist for The Scotsman Publications Ltd and a past columnist with The Herald newspaper.

It is interesting that the SNP has called for the recall of the Parliament three times, but when it has the opportunity to secure a debate, it does not choose to debate Iraq, the recession or the First Minister's interest in expenses in his constituency; it chooses fishing and broadcasting. That highlights the type of opposition—

Will Mr Monteith give way?

No. I have just started. I am happy to outline what I think of the SNP.

There were opportunities to talk about fishing in the statement on fisheries yesterday, and for the opening debate today the SNP has chosen broadcasting rather than any of the three issues on which it wanted to recall Parliament.

Mike Russell's motion and his speech are revealing. There is an issue of overdominance in relation to the purchase of the Herald newspapers—The Herald, the Sunday Herald, and the Evening Times—but that is what it is: an issue. However, in his speech, Mike Russell made it clear that, for him, it is not so much an issue as a closed issue. He suggested that there should be no possibility of the Barclay brothers or any of their companies owning the Herald newspapers. That reveals that the Scottish National Party does not understand business.

The Herald and The Scotsman both claim to be national Scottish papers and have made attempts to emphasise that. The reality is different. The newspapers have a strong regional bias. The readership of The Herald in Strathclyde is 200,000 and its readership in Lothian and the Borders is about 11,000. The readership of The Scotsman newspaper is about 23,000 in Strathclyde and is 107,000 in Lothian and the Borders. The two newspapers have strong regional sales and readerships. That is reflected in the north. In Grampian and the Highlands, neither paper does as well because of the strength of The Press and Journal. In Tayside, Perthshire and Fife the papers do not do so well because of The Courier and Advertiser. We must also take into account the impact that has been made by the Daily Mail, which is eating not only into tabloid sales but into broadsheet sales. We must also consider the growth in the readerships of The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent.

It is a competitive market. No group can say that it has a monopoly position in the broadsheet market. No group, even The Scotsman Publications, would be able to say with any certainty that it would have market dominance if it joined with the Herald group. The issue is certainty. That is why we should have referrals and institutions to make checks and balances. However, that is not what Mike Russell says. He says that the issue is closed.

I believe that the way to success in Scottish business is to have an open market. The way to success is to accept that if we want the Royal Bank of Scotland to play the game and be able to take over NatWest, we must accept that it might be possible for the Halifax to merge with or possibly take over the Bank of Scotland. That is how the market works in Britain. As a unionist, I defend that, because it allows Scottish business to have the strength and power for our Scottish companies to go forward. The SNP would rather do them down. The SNP does not understand Scottish business one jot.

Will Mr Monteith take an intervention?

No. I am beginning to enjoy this, so I shall carry on.

I am a journalist.

I know that Dorothy-Grace Elder is a journalist, but I will carry on.

Mr Monteith is in his last minute.

If the Barclay brothers or any of their companies were to take over the Herald papers, there would be a possibility of creating a strong media group that could begin to progress beyond the Scottish Borders. I like the idea of a Scottish company spreading itself and beginning to have market dominance. I say well done to Freddie Johnston—what a great champion of Scottish business. Not only did he clean up in buying lots of titles in Scotland, but he has gone down south and is buying titles in England. That is the sort of Scottish business that we want. I have no difficulty with that, so long as the companies perform within the competition rules that the House of Commons has set.

I will pose one other question about the purchase of the Herald newspapers. According to Mike Russell's speech, venture capitalists are preferable to the possibility of the rapacious Barclay brothers buying the Herald newspapers. It seems more likely that venture capitalists would asset strip and break up the company than that proven publishers, who have an interest in maintaining the regional diversity that exists between The Herald and The Scotsman, would.

I suspect that there is a lot more behind the SNP's position than a misunderstanding of business in Scotland. The SNP fears Andrew Neil, because it believes that, somehow, that arch-unionist will change the nature of The Herald. I remind members of the sort of people who write for The Scotsman: Joyce Macmillan, that well-known Tory; Kirsty Milne, another well-known Tory; Jimmy Reid, an evacuee from The Herald; and George Kerevan, a well-known supporter of the Scottish National Party.

If there are to be new owners of the Herald newspapers, as there have been many times, it is clear that they must strike their own marketplace. They must show what makes them different. I have no doubt that the future of Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald and The Herald will be assured, because that shows the paper to be different and to have a different editorial tone. That is what makes people want to buy it, not just its regional content.

I must ask the member to close.

I am closing, Presiding Officer.

My colleague, Murdo Fraser, will take up the issues about broadcasting.

What does the SNP's motion say about Scottish business? What does it say to successful Scottish businessmen? What does the SNP want from Scottish business, other than its money and donations? What we have in the debate today is a complete misunderstanding and a denial of all the good work that Andrew Wilson has been doing. The SNP has expressed the belief that Scottish business is there only to be run and organised in a fortress Scotland—that is what independence would mean. I have no confidence in the fortress Scotland that the SNP wants to bring in and I have no confidence in its motion.

I move amendment S1M-3507.2, to leave out from "and expresses" to end and insert:

"; believes that the public interest is best protected by maximising competition and liberalising the current strict laws that apply to the media; supports the principle that such matters are dealt with at a UK level but considers that the current regulatory structure is detrimental to the growth and prosperity of the sector, and supports the right of broadcasters and publishers to make their own commercial decisions with the minimum possible interference from the state."

I wonder whether it is significant that we are having this debate on Halloween, when the good guys are supposed to get together to ward off evil spirits.

I was in a supermarket the other day and I saw a wee chap trying on Halloween masks. There was one of Homer Simpson, one of Maggie Thatcher and one that looked terribly like Andrew Neil.

That was the scary one.

Absolutely. It gave me quite a turn.

At Halloween, there are shadowy figures in the background who do not want to identify themselves or come out in the open. Those issues surround the SMG sale, which we might come back to later.

The motion is a funny mixture—on the surface it deals with broadcasting and the media, but it has a constitutional element. I worry about that because, although Michael Russell wants to open up the debate in some regards, when the SNP includes such a constitutional element in the debate it always makes the debate more difficult. In addition, issues arise that are about competition law and not really about broadcasting.

The Liberal Democrats have expressed disappointment at the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 with regard to broadcasting regulations and worries remain. However, the issues are complex and it is not helpful for us to indulge in constitutional navel-gazing every time that we come to such debates.

We want the integrity of the Scottish press and broadcasting organisations to be protected. In a policy document that will be presented to our party conference on Saturday, we suggest that there will be a time and place for re-examining the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 that need to be amended. We want to engage the Scottish community in that debate. I hope that at that time the SNP will engage in discussions in a constructive and gradualist, instead of in a fundamentally obstructive and destructive, manner. In the meantime, we should work with the grain of the powers that we have under the devolution settlement. We should work together to protect Scottish interests. The important point is not which jurisdiction protects those interests, but the fact that protections exist.

We all agree with the motion's assertion that broadcasting and the media are of vital importance

"to the cultural, social and economic life" of our nation. It is important that we should be able to discuss matters in those terms, without always being hung up on the constitutional issue. I broadly support the cultural strategy, but because of the constitutional issue it does not deal with broadcasting and the media in their proper place. We ought to be able to discuss such matters constructively and to examine the contribution that broadcasting and the media make to our cultural and social life without having constantly to deal with the claim that constitutional changes are necessary.

The SMG sale is in the minds of all members. We all agree that the sale of the titles to a buyer who would insist on editorial compliance with a particular political bias would diminish the scope for discussion of and debate about our political, social and artistic life. It would be desperately bad for democracy if the pluralism and diversity of opinion that are expressed in our media were to be diminished.

From time to time, the SMG has been criticised in the chamber for some of its policies. However, it is to be commended for its actions as proprietor of The Herald and the Sunday Herald. It has offered those papers editorial freedom, which has allowed them to develop into journals that have strength in both style and substance. Like Michael Russell, I believe that the SMG has a responsibility to consider the merits of those to whom it sells the titles. However, it should be commended on allowing them to develop in the way in which they have.

Much of the Scottish press adopts a jaundiced and potentially destructive attitude to many aspects of Scottish life. It would be sad if further inroads were made into the freedom of expression and diversity of opinion that are available to Scottish readers. It would be particularly sad if some of the titles that have, on the whole, been able to take a balanced and reasonable view of Scottish life were to be hampered.

Members will know that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has written to Melanie Johnson to express its concern about issues surrounding the purchase of the newspapers. We will write again with the aim of ensuring that the arbiters in this case recognise that, although from a United Kingdom perspective the competition issues that it raises are not huge, in Scotland decisions about who owns The Herald and the Sunday Herald are significant and could have a profound effect on our democracy.

We must make representations in every possible way—through the First Minister; through Mike Watson; through the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, as Mike Russell suggested; and through the Secretary of State for Scotland. We must act in every possible way to ensure that the issues are understood by those in Westminster who have the power to make decisions on this matter. The Scottish perspective must be clear and must have a strong influence on their thinking when they make those decisions.

I look forward to a time when we can discuss these matters more regularly. It is not right that broadcasting and the media as they affect the culture and life of Scotland should not be debated in the chamber. We should debate such matters more often, both here and in committee. At the moment there is no need to dwell on the constitutional issue. However, no decision should be made in this case until those who are responsible for making it have a full understanding of how the Parliament feels about the issues that the case raises.

I do not support Mr Monteith's amendment.

I welcome this debate, which is sponsored by the SNP. Mike Russell's opening speech was excellent.

Most people to whom I speak in Scotland are fascinated by the fact that the Parliament does not have responsibility for broadcasting, although we have responsibility for matters such as education, culture and economic development. Members from all parties believe that we should have legislative responsibility for broadcasting and media issues in Scotland. In 2000 we debated the future of Grampian Television and regional identity in Scotland. That debate was well attended by members from all parties, who are keen to make use of any opportunity to discuss broadcasting issues in the Parliament.

The history of Grampian Television, which plays a crucial role in maintaining regional identity in the north and north-east of Scotland, is very pertinent to today's debate. Regulation of the media and broadcasting industry is a key issue for Grampian Television, which plays a distinct role and has produced award-winning programmes. However, the history of Grampian Television illustrates some of the challenges that regional identity in Scotland faces. In the 1960s, the station had 300 employees, but now it has only 100. Unfortunately, the station's regional programming time has been cut again, to seven hours a week. That happened despite the fact that the former Deputy Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture, Allan Wilson, told the chamber that he supported an increase in the regional quota for Scottish television stations. Scottish Executive ministers do not have the power to influence decisions on these important issues.

We live in competitive times, and Scotland faces the challenge of protecting not only its regional identities but its national identity. The media sector plays a crucial role in promoting culture, identity and democracy in Scotland. It helps to hold the Parliament and our other politicians to account. For that reason, it must be protected.

The communications bill is on the horizon. That includes a proposal to relax restrictions on non-European Union ownership of broadcasting companies in the United Kingdom. It also promotes light-touch regulations, which entail a further relaxation of the safeguards that are currently in place. It is no wonder that Philip Schlesinger of the University of Stirling wrote recently:

"Opening the door further to overseas multi-media corporations will not make regulation easier. Any distance between owner and media market is likely to diminish the sensitivity to questions about Scottish content."

That is a very important statement. This debate is all about the issue that Philip Schlesinger raises.

The Parliament needs to do more to address the challenges that face our identity and culture in Scotland. The communications bill raises the prospect of one owner buying the whole ITV network. If Grampian Television had to fight to maintain its identity within the SMG, what will happen to Scottish Television, Grampian Television and the SMG if they have to fight within a large multinational corporation, such as Disney or Microsoft, which may buy the entire ITV network? That is the seriousness of the challenge that we face. Scottish broadcasting needs a strong regulatory framework. For that reason, we should campaign to have a voice on the board of the office of communications.

Twice during First Minister's questions, the First Minister told me that he was fighting to get a place on the board of Ofcom. Unfortunately, he lost that battle. I have received a letter from the Deputy Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, in which she states:

"OFCOM itself is designed to be a small strategic body ... It is proposed that there should a Contents Board, which would have many of the functions of the existing broadcasting regulators, and a Consumer Panel."

That is backtracking. The Executive is settling for second best, which is not good enough for Scotland. The ministers are telling the Parliament that they fought for Scotland, but failed completely. By accepting this decision, Jack McConnell is admitting that he has lost and has no power or influence to secure a good deal for Scotland.

I challenge members of the other parties represented in the Parliament to contact their Westminster counterparts. MPs do not want to promote Scottish broadcasting, because they think that that will result in their having less time on our TV screens. That is why they are busy setting up all-party groups at Westminster to promote "Coronation Street", rather than fighting for the Scottish broadcasting industry. We remember the Falkirk West MP who said that there is too much Scottish news in Scotland. We know what the MPs' agenda is. I ask MSPs from other parties to fight to get a good deal for Scotland in the communications bill and to persuade their Westminster colleagues to see sense and to fight for Scotland.

Most of the people to whom I speak want to talk about the health service, crime on our streets, jobs and education. They do not want to talk about broadcasting. Richard Lochhead may be speaking to the wrong people.

There are issues of concern relating to broadcasting. I have no problem with making my views known in the Parliament and to the UK Government. I have done that and will continue to do that. I have no problem with raising issues of concern in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I have a record of doing so, to which I will return later.

I welcome the positive progress that the Scottish Executive has made in relation to the draft communications bill, which shows what can be done when the Executive and the Scotland Office work together in pressing such issues. However, there is an opportunity for further progress to be made and I hope that the minister will indicate in summing up that negotiations are continuing and that progress can be made. I believe that a seat on the Ofcom board is not beyond the realms of possibility and that we should continue to press for it.

I also welcome the progress that has been made in relation to Gaelic broadcasting. In particular, I welcome the way in which the draft communications bill has picked up some of the points that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee made in its recent report on Gaelic broadcasting, which are to be considered further.

I will focus my remarks on the takeover of SMG publications. I have made my views on that known in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and I will reiterate them now. I say to Brian Monteith that if the business transaction were open, transparent and above board, I would have no problem with its progressing in the normal manner. However, Scotsman Publications Ltd has not bid to buy the Herald titles; a Barclay brothers subsidiary company—Ellerman Investments—has bid to buy the Herald titles. If the transaction were open, honest and transparent, Scotsman Publications Ltd would have bid openly to buy the SMG's titles, The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times. Everybody in the chamber would then have to accept that that transaction would have to follow the proper procedures.

My view is that something underhand is taking place. I say to Brian Monteith that the bid is predatory.

I agree with the member.

Order. There should be no sedentary interruptions.

The bid is predatory and it should be dealt with under the special newspaper mergers regime. There is a view in Scotland that the bid can be dealt with outwith that regime, by dealing only with circulation figures. If that happens, it would be detrimental to the plurality and diversity of the Scottish media. There might be regional bases to The Herald and The Scotsman , but the two papers also take different editorial lines, which reflect the diversity and plurality that exist within Scotland. If that editorial difference were to be lost, it would be detrimental to Scottish culture and broadcasting and to the way in which the Parliament is reported.

There are clear economic issues. A merger of two newspapers would have benefits, such as the reduction of costs, which might centre on print works. We know that The Herald has lovely new print works, and that The Scotsman lost its print works through fire and that they will have to be rebuilt. We know that there are more journalists than will be required to support the two newspapers, should they be merged. We know that ancillary staff would lose their jobs. There are real economic issues around the merger that need to be discussed. The right and proper place for those issues to be discussed at this point in time is within the UK Government.

Melanie Johnson is fully aware of the issues, because the Education, Culture and Sport Committee made the points to her. I am not yet convinced that we should undertake a full inquiry. If Mike Russell wishes to bring evidence to the committee at a later date, I would be perfectly prepared to listen to it and the committee would make a decision on that at the appropriate time. However, on the basis of the current evidence, I do not think that holding a full inquiry would do anything to further the case. We can make the points that we need to make in the manner in which we have done already. I will consider that in the future. I conclude on those points and look forward to the minister's response on the issue of the Ofcom board.

I was becoming reluctant to speak, because I have to attend a funeral and I did not wish to seem discourteous by bolting after I had spoken. In my lifetime, which has been spent man and boy in the newspaper and television industry, I have thought many times that I was about to attend the funeral of the media industry, especially the printing side of it. However, each and every time, something happened to lift a group or newspaper out of the fire just in time and no more, although there have been far too many mergers.

I remember the dreadfully sad night of the closure of the Scottish Daily Mail, which was a flourishing newspaper at Tanfield in Edinburgh. Many years later, I was a worker in the first British workers' co-operative newspaper venture, the Scottish Daily News. To this day, I thank Tony Benn for putting up some of the funds, although they were inadequate. We found that the big union bosses and the big proprietors did not want us; they wanted the battle lines still to be drawn. Although we failed, we showed the passion that there is among people in the print industry for newspapers.

One can learn from those mistakes. In the case of the SMG, a management and workers' buyout, backed by the Scottish people and the Parliament, is always possible. Believe me, passion is needed to run newspapers. Running newspapers is not at all like Brian Monteith described it. He talked about newspapers as if they were cans of beans. Brian Monteith is a columnist here and there, but he should take it from one who has been through the heat of the day and night working on newspapers that that is totally different and that the influence of a bad proprietor can seep in like swamp gas. The very best proprietor is an invisible proprietor. I am fortunate to have been blessed with a few invisible proprietors and excellent editors over the years. Indeed, The Herald and the Sunday Herald have editors of excellence.

I am afraid that I am going to break the old style book for The Herald, with which I was told to abide. The style book did not include the word "unique", because, as the staff used to say, nothing is unique in this world. However, it is rather unique for me to agree with Mike Russell. There should indeed be a transfer of all media and broadcasting powers to this Parliament in order for us to defend our newspaper industry. I am afraid that whether we like it or not, that will be inevitable if we are to protect what we like to call the freedom of the press.

There will be a hard struggle ahead for those in the newspaper industry, upon which jobs and livelihoods depend. I remember friends back in the hot metal days who lost their jobs because of mergers. Some died not too long afterwards from the stress and strain. Those who survived are some of my very best friends to this day. I ask Brian Monteith to think of the human angle, for God's sake, as well as of the readers and the so-called general benefit to Scotland. We should continue to keep our press here as free as possible, run with passion for the industry.

I welcome the debate on the Scottish media, even though the issue is reserved. As Karen Gillon said, there are more pressing issues within our competence and I would have preferred to discuss those. However, I would like to contribute this morning.

I am the MSP who probably represents the most journalists, actors and newsreaders, in Glasgow Kelvin, given that that the Daily Record headquarters and the BBC and STV studios are in my constituency. The new Scottish soap, which I confess to having watched, is supposedly set in Whiteinch or Partick, which are also in my constituency. I am sure that my colleague Jackie Baillie welcomes the £100,000 investment that the soap has brought to her constituency. I will have a continuing interest in media issues for as long as I represent Glasgow Kelvin.

I can accept either side of the argument about whether the broadcasting media is part of the devolved settlement. However, I object to the dishonesty of the second part of the SNP's motion, which calls for a change in the devolution settlement that the SNP did not support in the first place. Of course, Mr Russell may be a devolutionist infiltrator in the party, which other people would support. The reality of the media and the print and broadcasting industry is that we cannot legislate for the problems that would remain. We cannot legislate for the content of newspaper editorials and we cannot dictate to television stations the content of their news and current affairs programmes. The reality is that there would be a small market in Scotland.

The dumbing down of the BBC, to which Mike Russell referred, is a continuing issue on which I support him and I know that others share his concerns.

I agree that there has been an increase in foreign affairs coverage. We are faced with the problem of the attitudes of viewers and readers who, for some reason, are less interested in politics and current affairs than we are. We must tackle those readership and viewing issues.

Independence cannot wish away the market size of Scotland or any of the associated problems. I support public broadcasting and the benefits of standards that have come from many years of development and experience. I would like to know what the Scottish National Party's position on public broadcasting is, because that is not clear.

On foreign affairs coverage, the BBC is rivalled only by CNN. We should all celebrate the BBC's success in that field.

Mr Russell accuses my colleague Mr Macintosh of believing that the Scottish Six is a nationalist plot. If he did say that, Mr Macintosh credits the SNP with too much imagination. Mike Russell also thinks that the BBC is a new Labour plot.

Many members would not disagree with the desire for diversity of ownership of our print media that is mentioned in motion S1M-3507. Although there is some consensus on the impending sale of The Herald, we must get real about the facts. We cannot change the fact that the industry is run by press barons who will continue to dominate. I do not profess to prefer one press baron to another. The diversity that we so desire might be difficult to achieve. Are we saying that the Barclay brothers should be barred from buying The Herald and that Rupert Murdoch represents a better bet?

I welcome Mike Watson's announcement on the development of a Scottish committee for Ofcom and Karen Gillon's suggestion that ministers should press further for a full seat on the Ofcom board. Whether we have a Scottish Six, a Scottish Seven, a Scottish Eight, a Scottish Nine or a Scottish 10, we must be careful about the decisions that we as politicians seek to influence. We must always do that at a distance, regardless of what the constitutional settlement might be. The nationalists must be careful about the level of intervention for which they argue in a democratic country. In spite of the frustrations that the press and the media cause, their freedom must be preserved. Richard Lochhead was concerned about regional programming. I have a few words of advice—he should take the high road.

The debate is important because the media is so influential in providing information and informing views and opinions. Consultation and research consistently provide evidence of Scotland's need for a distinctive service. In Scotland more than in any other country in the United Kingdom, a majority of people want broadcasting to reflect their interests. Research confirms that in Scotland there is a much stronger sense of identity and a much greater interest in regional and national programming.

Negativity from Executive and Tory members contradicts the evidence on viewing figures and public perceptions that research has provided. The report of the Westminster Select Committee on Scottish Affairs indicated that the BBC felt that there was no technical reason why a news programme mixing international, UK and Scottish news that was made and edited in Scotland could not be produced. It is entirely appropriate for us to maintain pressure for news broadcasting of that nature from a Scottish perspective. It is misleading and confusing to continue to relegate our devolved responsibilities to a regional broadcast, while news that is relevant only to other parts of the UK remains part of the main broadcast.

When Scotland is perceived as a region, the regions of Scotland suffer in consequence. I will illustrate how that disadvantage is manifested. Although Dundee is Scotland's fourth city, only one national paper—the Daily Record—has a journalist based in the city. In my opinion, the worst offender is the BBC, which has allocated only one full-time reporter to work on news and current affairs. In addition to Dundee, that reporter has to cover large areas of the north-east of Scotland. On the ground of its population size alone, not to mention all the interesting developments and news opportunities that it offers, Dundee should justify a far greater number of staff. There has been no investment in staff and local infrastructure for years.

The fact that Dundee is a serious base for news reporting should be reflected in the coverage that the city gets. Some members feel strongly that Dundee's situation compares most unfavourably with Aberdeen, which has a similar population, or Inverness, which has a smaller population. We are seeking an urgent meeting with the controller of BBC Scotland, because far higher numbers of reporters are based in those cities than in Dundee.

If all our news broadcasting originated in Scotland and had a Scottish focus, there would not be a tension between the cities and the regions—all the cities and regions of Scotland would be better served.

Another example illustrates the extent to which our cultural diversity is compromised by the current situation. There are differences and they should be reflected in the media. That state of affairs is not adequately reflected in what we see on television, hear on the radio or read in the papers. The Scottish media behaves as if the Scots language does not exist. Scots is never used in broadsheets or in news and current affairs programmes. It is okay for comedy, but not for serious issues. Scottish newsreaders, announcers and interviewers mostly assume standard English pronunciation, even though a third of their listening and viewing audience speak Scots for at least part of the day.

Although Gaelic speakers are better served—they have local papers and Radio nan Gaidheal and are allocated some television time—they want much more than that, including a dedicated channel. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee identified and endorsed that desire in its report on Gaelic broadcasting.

Greater broadcasting powers in Scotland would reflect and secure those aspects—indeed, all aspects—of our culture much more effectively.

Unlike other members, I receive many representations about broadcasting. Those representations are not about whether the regulatory environment should be a devolved or a reserved matter; they are about access and content.

Access to BBC 2 Scotland is a serious issue for television viewers in the south of Scotland. The lack of such access deprives them of access to the Holyrood programme and prevents them from seeing coverage of the Parliament on Wednesdays and Thursdays. I concede that their main concern is missing Rikki Fulton's annual Christmas address.

On content, the failure of Border Television adequately to cover Queen of the South's glorious second division championship win last season is a matter of great concern. Border Television plays an important role in the south of Scotland. In lodging such a little Scotlander motion, which says that everything must be controlled in Scotland, the SNP forgets the distinctiveness of Scotland and the distinctiveness within Scotland.

Having access to media that cover both sides of the border is extremely important to people in the south of Scotland. What happens in and around Carlisle is highly relevant to people in Dumfriesshire. What happens in southern Scotland is relevant to people in Carlisle, even though I am sure that John Swinney's visit to Dalbeattie was not the high point of their evening.

The SNP's broadcasting policy does not include a proposal to introduce jamming of signals, which would mean that people in Carlisle would be unable to receive Scottish broadcasting and vice versa. On that basis, the member's argument falls.

My argument does not fall, because the SNP proposals on the regulatory environment would threaten the ability of Border Television to cross the border by operating a regional franchise in Scotland and England. Under the SNP's regime, there would be a wider Scottish franchise, in which the south of Scotland would hardly be mentioned. That is the reality of Mr Russell's proposals.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, we have heard from Mr Russell. I am sure that viewers would like him to be jammed.

People do not come up to me to express their concern about the sale of The Herald and The Scotsman, because those papers rarely cover or mention areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. That is what would happen if our television service did not take into account regional diversity within Scotland. On the wider issue, it is important that we continue to be informed about what is happening in England.

Obviously, there is significant room for improvement in some of the sloppy journalism within the BBC across the UK. For example, the BBC's "Breakfast" programme continually fails to set out that an education measure applies only to England and Wales. There is a serious job still to be done within the BBC and other national organisations before they come to terms with the devolution settlement.

However, given the contributions to today's debate from Mr Russell and his colleagues, the national media are not the only ones who have still to come to terms with the devolution settlement.

It is fascinating that David Mundell thinks that the new arrangements, which will see Border Television rebranded as ITV1 and so lose its identity, will be of benefit to his area. The diversity of ownership is one of the things that underpins the diversity of opinion. I suspect that the entire Parliament shares the view that a diversity of opinion should be expressed through our media.

I am fortunate in being able to outbid Pauline McNeill in one sense, as my parliamentary constituency probably has a greater diversity of media than almost any other. We have four weekly newspapers published in the constituency and a further five that are widely distributed. We have three radio stations based in the constituency, one of which broadcasts continually, the others less so. We also have four other broadcasting organisations that beam local news into the constituency.

How does that happen? To use some business language, the reason is that channels to market are available for those media. That is what supports them. However, to use business language again, those people do not have the kind of constructive monopoly that can exist in broadcasting. For example, we cannot magically create the bandwidth that will allow us to have competition in either the Scottish Television or Grampian Television franchise—or, at least, not yet.

Digital broadcasting will provide some opportunities. It is illustrative to consider the difference between Scotland and Wales. The National Assembly for Wales is already carried on digital broadcasting. Despite the constraints of the devolution settlement, the Assembly has taken the initiative to ensure that Wales can access the new media.

One of the new media, to which no reference has been made in the debate so far, is broadband. Broadband will increasingly become one of the delivery mechanisms for new direct-to-home news, information and entertainment channels. Scotland lags so far behind that it barely registers on any world measure of broadband utilisation.

It is a great disappointment that, while we hear colleagues on the Government benches trumpeting the creation of a new committee under the new arrangements, we hear nothing about the abolition of the existing Scottish advisory committee on telecommunications, which has effectively championed the cause of broadband in Scotland. Again, consider the experience in Wales, which has made an investment of £100 million to give access to broadband across the whole of Wales. That contrasts dramatically with what happens here in Scotland.

We are making so little progress because we do not have the powers that would enable us to make more progress. Let me give an illustration of that. Scotland is covered with fibre optic cable, but most of it is in private hands, despite the fact that it uses public wayleaves. The technologies that have been chosen block off public access to that cable, but we cannot do anything about it.

One of the ironies is that my mother spoke no English when she went to school and no Gaelic when she left it, yet today Scottish broadcasting's most effective current affairs programme is in Gaelic. That programme is "Eòrpa". The broadcasters manage to get away with that because the programme is hidden away in what is regarded as a ghetto. In 1966, Radio Scotland started as a pirate station. Today, BBC Scotland is still piratically—like the Executive—abusing its position.

I support the SNP motion.

Wind-up speeches should be of four minutes.

As a member of the Procedures Committee, I find it interesting that today's debate, which has been all about regulation, needed to have some regulation of predatory interruptions, which is an issue that was raised.

Let me deal with the constitutional issue first. I entirely support Ian Jenkins and I have come to sit beside him, instead of in my usual place, to reassert that the Liberal Democrats do not see the present constitutional settlement as final. The settlement was a compromise that was achieved by Donald Dewar, who got it through the House of Commons very well. We should not tinker away with the settlement, but we should study it carefully over the next few years and draw up a sensible list of the changes that need to be made within the United Kingdom to improve the working of this Parliament.

There are two underlying problems, which are perhaps outwith our control. First, despite devolution, the United Kingdom is perhaps the most centralised democratic country that exists. The media reflect that and are totally London-centred. If the second coming happened a few miles north of Watford, it would rate a very few paragraphs on some inner page.

Let me illustrate that point. Some years ago, I tried to help some newsagents who had problems with a wholesaler of magazines who had a virtual monopoly. However, the monopoly people in London said that there was no monopoly, because the newsagents could drive down to Berwick or Carlisle and fill up with magazines from some other wholesaler. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the whole thing. The problem is that we are over-centralised.

There is another problem, which I will try to express delicately. There is a perception that the Labour party in London—in London, I emphasise—is too much in cahoots with unbridled capitalism and especially with people such as Rupert Murdoch. That is an issue—although one that, I am sure, is not shared by my excellent coalition colleagues.

The key issue is how, or whether, we should regulate unfettered market capitalism. Our Tory friends do not think that we should have any regulation at all. They want a free-for-all and they do not accept Ted Heath's remark about the unacceptable face of capitalism. I believe that capitalism does have unacceptable faces.

How then do we regulate to ensure true competition? The Americans and most European countries have much better competition than we do. We have weaker competition laws.

Thanks to the European Union and other things, there is some degree of competition. There is genuine competition between banks, which Brian Monteith mentioned, and between manufacturers of widgets—if people still use widgets—but the press and the media are something different. There can be no real competition if there is a monopoly of control. The question is not whether the owners of The Scotsman are more wicked than Rupert Murdoch. If the same people, whether they are wicked or not, control a great deal of Scotland's media, most people will view that as a bad thing. There must be rules to prevent that from happening.

Does the member agree that monopoly legislation should be decided separately in Scotland, where our press is separate? I think ahead to the danger that our two main newspapers might get together.

Yes, I would support that in the revision of the constitutional settlement, which will happen in a few years' time.

On the question of reduction of staff, it is ludicrous to suggest that if the various organisations joined together, they would still send as many journalists to the Parliament and different journalists out to distant sporting events. There would be a loss of staff and diversity. Many journalists already do an amazing job and—if I can be a sook—the television people do remarkably well. All of us have been interviewed by one man a dog with the dog holding the microphone. They are under-resourced and the issue of the resourcing and quality of our media must be addressed. Mike Watson's amendment is worthy of support.

This has been an instructive debate because of what it has told us about the Scottish National Party. It is no surprise to anyone in the chamber that the SNP wishes to see broadcasting devolved to Scotland because it wishes to see everything devolved to Scotland. However, that blinkered approach blinds the SNP to the good sense of having matters that affect the whole of the UK dealt with at Westminster.

The media and broadcasting are surely issues that should be dealt with at a UK level because radio waves do not stop at the border. I am sure that Michael Russell wishes that they would, but he has to accept that we have a United Kingdom and that we have that because that is what people in Scotland want and consistently vote for. If we have a United Kingdom, there are certain matters that should properly be dealt with at the UK level and broadcasting is one of those matters.

I am most grateful to the member for giving way. Could the member advise the chamber whether it was in a blinkered moment that he supported fiscal autonomy?

My views on fiscal autonomy are on the record, as Mr Ewing well knows. I accept that there are matters that should be dealt with at a Scottish level and others that should be dealt with at a UK level. As I have said, broadcasting is just such a matter.

There are 72 Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament, some of whom make up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which is holding an inquiry into broadcasting. There is even a member of the Scottish National Party sitting on that committee. If the nationalists are so against broadcasting being dealt with at Westminster, why do they have a member sitting on that committee? That is sheer hypocrisy.

I shall deal briefly with the question of competition in newspapers, to which a number of members referred. Members from different parts of the chamber made the important point that the Scottish newspaper press is not just The Scotsman and The Herald. To think that shows a central-belt bias.

In different parts of Scotland we have different broadsheet newspapers. We have The Courier and Advertiser in Tayside, Fife and Stirlingshire. Further north, we have The Press and Journal, which has achieved substantial market penetration. It is not just a question of The Scotsman and The Herald.

Should the same company own The Scotsman and The Herald? I see that there might be problems with that, but there might also be certain advantages. It is not for me to make that judgment. That is what the competition authorities are for, as even Michael Russell accepted. To make up scare stories when the mechanisms already exist is just seeking to score political points.

In response to Donald Gorrie's contribution, I say that ownership of newspapers is entirely detached from editorial control. It is quite possible to own a newspaper and have an editor or columnists who represent a contrary point of view. That is why someone such as Jimmy Reid can write a column in The Scotsman. No one could suggest that he holds similar views to those of Andrew Neil.

I turn to broadcasting. David Mundell made a good point about the future of Border Television and I concur with that point. I speak up for Grampian Television, which covers my area, because it is now owned by SMG—the same company that owns Scottish Television—but it still retains its Grampian Television identity. That has not been diminished by the fact that the ownership of the two companies is the same.

Throughout the debate, SNP members have disclosed their fear of the outside world. Richard Lochhead, who has now left the chamber, said that the Disney corporation should not be allowed to own ITV. Why ever not? If it improves output and the quality of programmes improves, what is wrong with it, as long as there are competition rules to protect the public interest?

Twenty years ago we could get only four channels on our televisions. If there was an argument to be made for broadcasting being regulated from Scotland, that might have been the right time to make it. There are now five terrestrial channels, and countless channels available on satellite and digital television that do not just cover the UK but cross national boundaries.

With the internationalisation of broadcasting, the SNP's typically parochial approach is completely out of step with the modern world. Yet again, the SNP has missed the point. In the modern world, we should not be talking about more controls or which Parliament regulates what; we should be removing controls, allowing free choice and letting the consumer decide. That is what our amendment proposes and I commend it to the chamber.

It is a pity that the motion focuses on the constitution because there is much in the motion on which we could get a fair consensus of agreement across the chamber.

As Ian Jenkins said, it is true that the devolution settlement had difficulty with aspects of broadcasting and the media. It is no surprise that some aspects of the devolution settlement were clearer than others. In terms of broadcasting in particular, there were competition issues with competition policy being reserved. There were also the issues of devolved responsibility for the contribution to economic development and social justice. Those issues have made the devolution settlement more difficult.

I am one of those who believe that devolution is an evolutionary process. I might not be proved right in future, but I do not imagine that everything is set in stone. However, we have a devolution settlement in the Scotland Act 1998 and there is little point in continually returning to discuss that settlement.

I share the concerns about the SMG situation. I believe that a newspaper owner or editor has every right to a particular political position. They have every right to be against the Scottish Parliament if they wish to be so. I do not agree with Andrew Neil's politics, but I do like "Despatch Box" and will be sorry if that programme ceases to exist. However, I would be worried if the SMG broadsheet coverage was the only position available to the vast majority of people in Scotland.

A merger would restrict opportunities for quality journalists who want to remain and work in Scotland. I know that the National Union of Journalists has recently expressed its concern about the possible merger. However, if we refer back to Tavish Scott's question to the First Minister on 3 October, members will recall that the First Minister has pledged to make representations to the ministers responsible for competition policy at the appropriate time. I am certain that he will do so.

I am afraid that, unlike the Conservatives' motion, I do not think that broadcasting is identical to banking. I do not believe that a free market would safeguard regional broadcasting. We need the public sector obligation and the commitment to independent regional, educational and quality programmes. Those are part of the so-called second tier of regulation that will be applied flexibly and after consultation with the broadcaster. However, it is necessary to have such regulation in order to ensure the quality of the service.

Whether there is a Scottish Six is a decision for the BBC and not politicians to make. I do not necessarily believe the stories that are circulating in the newspapers that Gordon Brown or Tony Blair or whoever is somehow stymieing the BBC and preventing it from making that decision.

David Mundell made an important point about Border Television. The issue is not that the SNP would be blocking the airwaves to prevent Border Television coming into Scotland. The question is why Border Television should continue to operate a Scottish opt-out when it has been taken over by Granada and will form part of the ITV channel. What is the point of that? There is a potential that if the regulations covering the operation in Scotland are different from those in England, those companies that have cross-border operations will not want to continue with the Scottish side. As someone who represents the south of Scotland, that is my concern and I suspect that it is shared by others who represent the south of Scotland.

I reassure all members that the Executive will continue to take a strong interest in the issue. I say to Karen Gillon that we will continue to have on-going discussions about the communications bill and representation within Ofcom. It is on record that the First Minister requested a seat on the central board. The DCMS feels strongly that it should not be a representative board, but that it should be a board of individuals and that there will not be representation for any particular part of the UK. However, the DCMS has conceded—as Mike Watson described—on issues to do with a Scottish committee and Scottish representation on the content board and consumer panel. That demonstrates that the interventions of the First Minister and the proposals of the Executive have been taken on board by the DCMS in the draft communications bill. Those discussions will continue.

We are continuing, as Mike Watson said, to try to secure a better place for Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland. We recognise the importance of digital broadcasting and in particular whether any progress can be made on digital broadcasting and regional interests. That issue will form the subject of an important series of discussions. I reassure the chamber that the Executive is concerned about the effects on the media and broadcasting in Scotland. Those are reserved, but we fully recognise that they have important interactions with many of our devolved responsibilities. We will continue to have discussions with representatives in the UK, as will Scottish MPs. We return 72 members of Parliament to the UK Parliament, and they have a responsibility to represent Scotland's interests there also.

This has been an interesting debate for a variety of reasons, not all of them positive. It is always entertaining to see the other parties doing their head-of-a-pin dancing, which they require to do to justify the unjustifiable. We have seen it in three particular ways today. The most entertaining way is the Tory way. There has been a lot of debate about the possibility of the Disney corporation buying into Scottish television. It is clear that the Disney corporation has bought the Scottish Tory party, because it is a Mickey Mouse party. It has Mickey Mouse arguments and it puts itself in a completely indefensible position in terms of Scottish culture and the Scottish economy. I will come back to that position in a moment, because although it does not deserve to be taken seriously, there are points that Mr Monteith in particular made that require a rebuttal.

The Liberal position is, as usual, refreshing—or it would be refreshing if we had not heard it so many times before. The reality is that the Liberals will not rock the boat; they are, after all, part of the Executive. At some unspecified date in the future they may return to the issue of whether the devolution settlement is good for Scotland. I am reminded of the remark:

"They make a desert and they call it peace."

There will be nothing left in Scotland. Everything will have been finished. We will have no media, because they will have been taken over, our culture will have been destroyed and there will be no economy, but the Liberals will be scratching their heads saying, "I wonder whether the moment has arrived to reconsider the devolution settlement." The Labour position is profoundly depressing, because Labour members know perfectly well that some of the things that they are trying to defend today are indefensible.

Will the member give way?

No. Rhona Brankin has only just entered the chamber and already she wishes to denounce the SNP. She will no doubt be doing it in the High Street shortly, so enthusiastic is she about her mission, but she will not do it in my time.

The reality is that ministers have secured a position—on which I congratulate them, although it is very little—that is, as I said in my opening speech, ex post facto with regard to regulation. The consumer panel and the content board will comment on what has happened; they will not take part in the decision-making process of regulation. That is the problem.

At the moment, Scotland is represented on the ITC. The core of the problem, which the minister indicated in her summing up, is that the position of the DCMS in London is solid because it has chosen, and is pushing through, a model of regulation that it has imported from the United States, which is based on a federal state and which deliberately excludes representations from other parts. That is what the American structure does.

The trouble is that that structure cannot be imported into the type of country that we live in at present. We live in a country where our regulatory structure has to represent the other parts, because we have a broadcasting structure that exists distinctly in other parts of the United Kingdom. The wrong model was chosen, the wrong model is being defended and the wrong model will exclude Scotland. That is the problem. Although the Executive has achieved something, it has achieved little and, unless it achieves a presence on the board, it will have virtually no effect. A Scottish committee, supporting individuals on the consumer panel and content board, is also largely—although not entirely—irrelevant.

I want to talk about two Labour speeches in particular. First, I was disappointed by Pauline McNeill's speech, because she defended the absolutely indefensible in terms of the Scottish Six. We know from John Birt's autobiography that he worked with senior members of the Labour party to prevent the Scottish Six from happening. There is no doubt about that; he made that admission. In those circumstances, if she is defending what happened with the Scottish Six, she is defending an absolutely abnormal use of powers by the director-general of the BBC and Government ministers.

Will the member give way?

No, I want to finish this point. Pauline McNeill had her opportunity to debate the matter and she misrepresented it profoundly. There has been an abnormal use of powers by the director-general of the BBC and by senior Labour ministers, and that is utterly wrong. Such things used to take place in Ceausescu's Romania; now they take place in Tony Blair's Britain—and there are other similarities.

Finally, I return to the question of the Tories' position.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not protocol in this chamber that if a member misquotes another member, they should at least be given the opportunity to intervene?

I am afraid not.

I turn to the Tory position. Brian Monteith's opening speech was remarkable, because the argument was that monopolies are good, competition is bad. If he had ever attended a first-year economics class, he would have heard of antitrust legislation. He would have learned of the need for competitive markets. People are arguing, and Karen Gillon argued—I commend her speech, although I know that that will not help her—that the proper position in Scotland is, rightly, to oppose anticompetitive, monopolistic, predatory business practices. If any member believes that any of the current bids for SMG fall into that category, they have a duty to oppose those bids; therefore we have a duty to oppose what appears to me and to many others in this chamber to be such a bid from a company that is owned by the Barclay brothers.

Finally, I have been disappointed by parts of this debate, because there is a great deal about the media that needs to be discussed intelligently and with knowledge of the media. To take the head-of-a-pin position that the unionist parties have taken denies the reality of what is happening and, unfortunately, makes the situation worse.