Appendix 1 London Assembly Economy Committee – 21 March 2017 Transcript of Item 6 – Local News Provision Fiona Twycross AM (Chair): That brings us to today’s main item, a discussion on local news provision in London. Firstly, can I ask Members to agree the terms of reference for the discussion? They are: to examine how local news provision in London has changed over the past decade and what is driving that change and to consider the impact of these changes on the ability of Londoners to remain reliably informed on key issues in their local areas. I would now like to welcome our guests. We do have slightly more guests than we normally would, but there were a whole range of different angles on this and so thank you, everybody, for coming along. We have Laura Davison, who is National Organiser from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ); Hannah Walker, who is London Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief of the London Weekly News; Ceri Gould, Editor-in-Chief of the Trinity Mirror; and Professor Angela Phillips from Goldsmiths, University of London. Michael MacFarlane [Head of BBC London & BBC South East] is going to join us at about 11.00 am. Eric Gordon is here; he is Editor of the Camden New Journal (CNJ) group. Martin Hoscik is a journalist and commentator, notably of MayorWatch. We are also expecting Linda Quinn, Editor-in-Chief of the Brixton Bugle, who, again, is expected at about 11.00 am. That brings us to the start of the questioning and to one of the most topical questions in London around media at the moment: will the appointment of a serving politician as editor of the [London] Evening Standard affect the news coverage in London? Would anybody like to start? Laura Davison (National Organiser, National Union of Journalists): I am happy to kick off. Fiona Twycross AM (Chair): OK, Laura. Do you want to begin? Laura Davison (National Organiser, National Union of Journalists): Yes. There has been a huge amount of shock at the announcement and, as the news has settled in, that has perhaps increased. From the NUJ’s point of view, the appointment sends all of the wrong signals. London needs a newspaper and not a propaganda vehicle. It demeans journalism when someone with no experience can be parachuted into a job and at the same time retain other roles, which raises questions of conflict. It raises questions about the vision for the Standard and their long-term plans. As it stands at the moment, the journalists there, who are proud of the newspaper’s tradition and their place in the life of the city, are facing cuts to their pay and their hours because the second edition of the paper has been scrapped without consultation. There are concerns about the impact that that is going to have in terms of coverage of day-to-day news in the capital. The post of editor requires a range of skills and talents and experience and I have no doubt that there are many journalists out there who would have aspired to that position, which Mr Osborne [George Osborne, MP for Tatton] has been gifted. We would like to invite him to withdraw from the post and to apply in the normal way, taking part in an open competition with other journalists who are qualified for the position. We would absolutely welcome the intervention of the Committee in terms of convening some kind of follow-up meeting with the management of the Standard because this raises lots of questions and the issues that were raised about what is happening internally as well. We would be very happy to take part in that follow-up session because they are not represented today. Fiona Twycross AM (Chair): Angela, would you like to comment as well? Professor Angela Phillips (Goldsmiths College, University of London): Yes, I have commented on this quite a lot already. It raises issues that have been there for a very long time but have been hidden. Goldsmiths did analysis of the coverage of the last mayoral election and it was very clear from that the degree to which the Evening Standard is biased in one direction. It was biased in favour of Zac Goldsmith [Conservative candidate, 2016 mayoral election]. It is a testament to the people of London that things did not quite turn out the way they had hoped. However, all this does really is to make absolutely clear that the Evening Standard is a Conservative newspaper. This should raise issues for the relationship between Transport for London (TfL) and the Evening Standard. We are in a situation in this city where the only newspaper for London is allowed a monopoly of our transport system. Given what we know about the way in which people access news now - and there is now huge amounts of data about this - for a very large number, particularly of young people, particularly of people who are not very engaged with news, the London Evening Standard is going to be their only access to any information about what is happening in London. Already, particularly in the youngest age groups, we are seeing the numbers of people watching television dropping and so simply having a newspaper available to you on the Tube network means that this is your access to London news. I do not know what is possible and I do not know what is practicable but it is time that once again TfL looked at whether it is appropriate for a newspaper that makes no pretence at being even-handed to be given a monopoly of our transport system. I know that this is an issue that has been discussed in the past and Ken Livingstone [former Mayor of London] had to deal with it in past eras and did not get anywhere and so I am not suggesting that it is an easy problem to solve, but it is something that really does need to be looked at. We cannot even begin to pretend that the London media is serving democracy if now we are being told that, basically, the London Evening Standard is going to be a pulpit through which two wings of the Conservative Party can debate the future of Brexit between them. That does not strike me as the best role for London’s only newspaper. This is something that London’s politicians should be taking up across the different parties and it should not be taken up as simple a single-party problem. It is a problem for democracy. Fiona Twycross AM (Chair): The issue of the transport system is quite an interesting one and we maybe can come back to that and think about that one a bit more. Kemi Badenoch AM (Deputy Chair): It is on my list of questions. It is something that I want to talk about. Thank you for raising that, Angela. This is, for me, quite a controversial topic and I have already had emails back and forth with the Chair and so on because, of course, today’s meeting is supposed to be about the contribution of local newspapers to London’s economy and their role in connecting local communities and businesses together. I am very concerned about the decline. I understand that George Osborne’s appointment is very topical and is fun to discuss, but let us be frank: it is not within the remit of this Committee to invite a private company to ask its editor to step down. This is something that we had a discussion about and I appreciate everyone making their views known, but that is not what we are supposed to be discussing today. Fiona Twycross AM (Chair): Kemi, I need to ask you to explain. If you are going to state that you do not think this is part of the remit of this meeting -- Kemi Badenoch AM (Deputy Chair): It is most certainly not. Fiona Twycross AM (Chair): -- I would like you to explain how it does not fit within the terms of reference of this meeting. Kemi Badenoch AM (Deputy Chair): For the simple reason that press neutrality, as Angela [Phillips] has indicated, is not something that has ever existed. We are not talking about broadcast media here. This is not the BBC or any other radio or television network. We all know who the Daily Mail and Telegraph support. We all know who the Morning Star and the [Daily] Mirror support. The Evening Standard seems to jump between different places. Today it seems to be more right-leaning. It has been bought by a new Russian person, who is pushing things that way. That is not something that we can do anything about. We would not be having a meeting here saying that we do not like the Daily Mail. It is not within the terms of reference of this meeting. I strongly disagree and I am sad to find that you have decided to continue doing this because I expressed my reservations and we agreed that we were not going to do this. Fiona Twycross AM (Chair): Kemi, I am going to have to ask you to wait one moment while I reread the terms of reference for this discussion and then restate the question I asked. The terms of reference for the discussion are: to examine how local news provision in London has changed over the past decade and what is driving that change and to consider the impact of these changes on the ability of Londoners to remain reliably informed on key issues in their local areas.