Contents
- Attendance
- Current Petition
- New Petitions
- Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation in Scotland
- Current Petitions
New Petitions
No More Page 3 (PE1521)
I have been a supporter of the no more page 3 campaign since the 1980s, and I am glad that other newspapers that used to carry page 3, such as the Daily Record and the Daily Mail—sorry, I meant the Daily Mirror, not the Daily Mail. That is my mistake; I did not intend to offend Daily Mail readers—no longer do. I am fully supportive of the campaign. I had to ask my earlier question because once we start looking at a temporary ban, we have to think about the logical extension of what that may mean.
I suggest that we write to The Sun and ask it about removing the page 3 feature. The page 3 feature prevents me from reading The Sun, particularly the editorial, which is always on page 2—coincidentally just opposite page 3; I do not know what The Sun is trying to say about its editorials.
Ms O’Donnell referred to the fact that the edition of The Sun that was distributed nationally for free did not contain a page 3 feature. She asked why The Sun felt it necessary to distribute the newspaper for free without a page 3 feature.
I suggest that we write to the National Union of Journalists, too, because I am sure that it will have a view on the issue. It would be interesting to get the NUJ’s view on a publication that involves NUJ members.
That is not necessarily us. We are talking about breaking the cycle. The international trade union movement would recognise that, and the UN Commission on the Status of Women would recognise that there is a very broad spectrum and continuum of issues.
You asked who else we have tackled, so I will go back to that point. I am currently in the end stage of a process of appeal to the BBC Trust on the lack of equality in the use of BBC assets—in my view—to promote sexism via The Sun in relation to CBeebies. I have also challenged Tesco. The words that I have used come from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which sees a relationship in that respect.
I have asked the assistant chief constable of Police Scotland about the issue. He sees a clear relationship and has identified academic studies that he is willing to police by. We are talking about prevention. The equally safe strategy that is forthcoming from the Scottish Government and local government will address the issue of prevention and how we can prevent the next generation from suffering the same issues.
This morning, I tried to explain to my four-year-old son where his daddy was going, because I was not going to work and I had my shorts and my campaign T-shirt on—which, thankfully, I have been able to reverse, otherwise the committee would have been objectifying me, as I did not have any other clothing on me this morning. I found it easier to explain gravity to a four-year-old who went to the Glasgow science centre at the weekend than to explain why there is a naked lady in a newspaper. He said, “Daddy, isn’t there meant to be news and words there?” I simply could not explain that. I can explain gravity and particle physics more easily than I can explain why there is a naked woman in a newspaper.
My intention in this introduction is to provide some general information on the no more page 3 campaign before highlighting the work that has been undertaken to date in the Scottish Parliament and then outlining our reasons for bringing both parts of our petition to you.
Although many have felt uneasy about the prominence and presence of page 3 in our society for decades, the official no more page 3 campaign began in earnest in 2012 with Lucy-Anne Holmes, who opened The Sun newspaper on the day after Jessica Ennis won gold in the London 2012 Olympics to find that, even on that occasion, the most prominent portrayal of a woman was that of a topless woman—a page 3 girl, as they are called. Lucy-Anne wrote to the editor of The Sun newspaper at that time—Dominic Mohan—and asked him politely to drop that outdated and highly sexualised portrayal of women in his newspaper. The Sun has so far refused to do that.
Since that time, the campaign has grown in strength, striking a chord with men and women across the country. A petition hosted at the website change.org now has more than 195,000 signatures and, here in Scotland, there are bespoke no more page 3 groups in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
It is important to emphasise that the campaign is not asking for a ban on a newspaper. The petition calls on David Dinsmore and his Scottish counterpart, Gordon Smart, to voluntarily remove page 3 from the newspaper. There have been suggestions that The Sun acknowledges that it is time to end page 3. An interesting example of that is the version of The Sun that was recently delivered free to many households across the UK, which did not have a page 3 girl. Perhaps that was an acknowledgement that it is time no longer to have soft porn in a newspaper.
In November 2013, Jackie Baillie, who sits with us today, led a members’ business debate on the no more page 3 campaign. I sat in the public gallery for the debate and was struck by the sincere support across the political spectrum from representatives of all political parties, who spoke to support the removal of page 3 from The Sun newspaper. The debate acknowledged the links between portrayals of women that are demeaning and highly sexualised and the real issues that we face in trying to achieve equality for girls and women in society—issues such as sexual violence; the murder of girls and women by family, partners and strangers; the inability to achieve equal pay across our industries; and the many issues of poor self-esteem that affect the life choices and potential of young women.
In the first part of our petition, we call on the Scottish Parliament to
“urge the editorial team of the Sun and Scottish Sun to voluntarily remove the page 3 feature permanently.”
Why are we asking for that? Page 3 is sexist and misogynist and is yet another relic from the sexist culture of the 1970s. Page 3 shows a young woman just wearing her pants. She is there to be viewed as a sexual object—she is objectified and subservient. She invites men to stare at her for as long as they like, and she will never complain. Surrounded by stories of men achieving their goals in business, politics and sport, page 3 reminds women that they can be viewed as no more than a series of body parts.
It is difficult to imagine how a newspaper can respectfully and responsibly report on violence and harassment against women while still using the page 3 feature. Page 3 normalises that view of women, and people think, “It’s just a joke; it’s just a bit of fun.” I refer the committee to the everyday sexism campaign, which is a remarkable campaign that evidences what women and girls experience every single day in our society as a result of that view. We have noted in our supporting submissions to the committee evidence from the United Nations that links readily available sexualised views of women with violence and sexual violence.
Page 3 is widely available and accessible to children and young people. The Sun and The Scottish Sun portray themselves as family newspapers. We are not a prudish campaign—we accept that there is a normal view of nudity and that it has a place in everyday family life. However, in other areas of the media we have different views on portrayals of nudity and we have ways to manage it in films, television and bespoke publications. For films, we have useful age-appropriate certification; for TV, we have a recognised watershed; and pornographic publications are still widely available but they are kept on the top shelf in shops, away from children’s eyes. The Sun is everywhere. It has a wide circulation and copies can be found in the workplace, in homes, in cafes and bars and on public transport. We need mature and responsible views of sexuality and nudity as our children grow up in society—not this.
Some argue that there would be a commercial detriment to The Sun from removing the page 3 feature. As I said, the circulation is wide in Scotland. Are we suggesting that people buy The Sun only for page 3? I doubt that very much. Those of us who still buy newspapers buy them because we like the editorial content, the journalistic approach and the approach of the publication. That will be the same for the many readers of The Sun in this country. In Ireland, page 3 was removed from The Sun last year, with the editor citing “cultural differences”, and there was a negligible effect on circulation figures.
In the second part of our petition, we respectfully request that the Scottish Parliament take note of our evidence and, in recognition of the equalities framework and dignity at work policy that are in place in the Scottish Parliament, that it agree to remove The Sun and The Scottish Sun from the Parliament building on a temporary basis until the editorial team agrees to permanently remove page 3 as a feature of the newspaper.
Thank you for your time. We are happy to answer any questions.
On the basis that you can explain gravity, can you explain civil liberty to me?
Can we just focus on one thing at a time? We will concentrate on the first suggestion. Does the committee agree to write to The Scottish Sun in terms of the petitioners’ request and the issue that John Wilson raised about the free distribution of the paper?
I have a final question to ask before my colleagues come in. As both of you will be aware, the Privy Council approved the royal charter on press regulation. Do you think that concerns about the portrayal of women in the press can be dealt with under that new regulation?
Good morning. I am sympathetic to your arguments, but I am not quite sure what formal process you want to arise from the petition. A members’ business debate was held on the subject, and spokespeople from all parties in the Parliament spoke in favour of the petition’s aims. Therefore, in a sense, the Scottish Parliament has expressed in a chamber debate the very point that you want your petition to address.
I will bundle my questions together. First, I am not quite sure how you want us to further represent that view, given that Parliament has already done so. I am not sure whether you are looking for a formal Government motion that would be voted on. I do not think that there is a mechanism for Parliament to express a view beyond that, because Parliament is a collection of the members of the Parliament who would, I suppose, have to contribute to that expression.
Secondly, you were gilding the lily a bit when you said that The Sun is there to explain the news and current affairs—hmm. Mr Eckton suggested a slightly less defined interpretation of what a newspaper ultimately is. On that basis, a newspaper would not give us TV listings or tell us about “Big Brother” or a whole lot of other things that I could probably well do without knowing about, too. I suppose that, from time to time, The Sun, like all other newspapers, has managed to break an important and exclusive news story that may be of very considerable interest and importance to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament.
At one point in your evidence, I thought that you went further and talked about the banning of the publication from the Scottish Parliament’s premises as opposed to its no longer being stocked or sold on the premises. I would have some concerns about that; by extension, one could argue that members would not be allowed to refer to the newspaper because it was a proscribed publication.
I have two concerns. First, have we not already given expression to the view that the petition calls for? What more do you want us to do? Secondly, do you understand my slight concern about the proscription of the publication within parliamentary premises when there might be a legitimate need to refer to it?
On a personal basis?
I think—I hope that I have made this clear—that The Sun newspaper has a role to play in our society. It is a publication: it provides news articles and news information about the work of the Scottish Parliament to its readership. That is very important and it is something that we all firmly believe in.
Thank you for making your statement in such a clear and helpful way. Mr Eckton, if you want to come in at any stage, please catch my eye.
I have a couple of questions to ask before I let my colleagues in. Your campaign has had widespread support, including from the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and across the political divide. What positive actions can we take to help your petition to succeed?
Okay—let us put that on the back burner. Do members have other ways forward to suggest?
Do you mean civil liberty in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and freedom of expression?
Thank you, convener. I find it very interesting that, as a Parliament, we do not allow people to wear a T-shirt bearing the no more page 3 slogan, yet we allow boobs to be in newspapers that are freely available in the Parliament, which hundreds of children visit weekly and in which we pride ourselves on the very strong and positive images that we have of women, particularly as representatives in the Parliament. Perhaps we have got our priorities slightly wrong.
I am very supportive of the petition. As you have heard, it seeks to do two things. One is about not stocking or selling The Sun in the Parliament on a temporary basis while we all encourage it to do the right thing, which is to remove page 3.
I genuinely believe that page 3 is out of date. I am sure that my colleagues share my concerns about what happens when they are sitting on the train in the morning, probably not having had breakfast and still half asleep. When somebody opens up a copy of The Sun, you see a naked women in front of you as if that is how women are and how they should be portrayed. Page 3 belongs to a deeply sexist culture that I thought we had left far behind.
Parliament as an institution rightly prides itself on having a robust equalities framework and great dignity at work policies for all our employees. However, those are only as robust as their implementation. If we apply those policies to The Sun newspaper in the Parliament, we do not measure up. The Parliament should be concerned about that.
Indeed, it is not only the Parliament but the Government that should be concerned. Successive Governments of various political persuasions have all said that we have to have equality at the heart of everything that we do. We talk about income inequality, health inequality and, of course, gender inequality. This is an opportunity to encourage the gender equality that we aspire to.
To borrow a phrase from the First Minister, I say as gently as I can to Chic Brodie that, when we had the debate in November, the minister, Shona Robison—now the cabinet secretary—rightly noted the link between sexualised images of women and the fact that sexual predators and criminals were more likely to inflict violence on women who, given how The Sun portrays them, are seen simply as a collection of body parts. There is a clear link and there is a continuum. I see Chic Brodie shaking his head, but if even Police Scotland now recognises that there is a continuum relating to the objectification of women and violence as a consequence of that, surely he can be persuaded likewise. In the debate, the Scottish Parliament, across the parties, recognised the link, and the Scottish Government—Chic Brodie’s Government—agrees. I hope that the committee will do likewise.
Councils across Scotland are now beginning to remove The Sun from their public libraries, because they recognise that such objectification of women is out of date and out of touch.
Following the debate, I wrote to the editor of The Scottish Sun, one Gordon Smart, who eventually replied—he is clearly a busy man; I do not think that we will meet any time soon. He said something that was quite interesting: he said that this was an editorial decision for David Dinsmore, the editor of The Sun down in London. I think that the Scottish Government agreed to write to him, although I am not sure whether it has done so. It would be very powerful if the Scottish Parliament applied its equalities framework and dignity at work policy, and if it also led the charge to ensure that there is no more page 3 in The Scottish Sun by writing—the committee could do so—to the editor of The Sun.
To use your argument, the journalists could also find that information online—it could report the information that is provided online by the Parliament.
I will pick up your second question first. Perhaps it was semantics on my part, but the petition specifically calls for The Sun and The Scottish Sun not to be stocked or sold in the Scottish Parliament. The petition makes specific reference to the Parliament’s equalities framework and dignity at work policy.
If you wished to access the material because you needed to refer to it, you would not need to have a copy of The Sun in the building because the content is all available online. I also suggest that some of your colleagues and the staff who work here may feel uncomfortable if copies of The Sun were being used in a public area.
Last November’s debate was great. It was the first time that I had come to the public gallery and watched a debate, and I was absolutely taken with the whole process and with the strength of feeling right across the political parties. I enjoyed it very much. However, moving on from the debate, I do not think that, as a campaign, we have seen all that we would want to see in terms of the Scottish Parliament’s endorsement. The debate was positive and everyone signed up to it and agreed that the no more page 3 campaign was absolutely right. MSPs made the link between violence against women and sexualised views of women and others said—this is a quote from a member during the debate—“Surely we need to think about banning this publication.”
We are looking for the Scottish Parliament or the Public Petitions Committee to write to The Sun and The Scottish Sun to say that you have heard our evidence, that you lend your support to our campaign and that you ask them to remove voluntarily the page 3 feature from the newspapers. We are also looking for you to say that you find in favour of the second part of our petition and that you note, for their interest, that The Sun and The Scottish Sun will not be stocked or sold on Scottish Parliament premises until page 3 is removed.
We are looking for MSPs from across the political spectrum to sign the petition and to support the no more page 3 campaign. We think that the Scottish Parliament has an influential voice in our society—now more than ever as our country considers what Scotland means for the future. The Parliament can have a lot of influence if it adds its voice and supports us in asking for page 3 to be removed voluntarily from The Sun and The Scottish Sun.
A difficulty has been expressed about how we transpose article 10 of the European convention on human rights. My understanding of the UK constitution is that we transpose it unedited, unlike Norway, which says, “You have complete freedom of expression.” However, Norway also has a constitution in which it is freely written—I will not get into the constitutional arguments—in article 100 that there are clear limits on the freedom of expression, and they are X, Y and Z. In the current UK constitutional arrangement, we do not have that. Therefore, I do not believe that self-regulation by the press is appropriate.
I have written about my not believing that page 3 is an appropriate defence of press freedom. Press freedom is meant to protect journalists who risk their lives to expose serious detriments to human rights; it is not there so that a young lady from a narrow cohort of society can be objectified daily on page 3 of each newspaper. I do not believe that page 3 is an appropriate defence of press freedom.
I am asking you the question. What other areas of censorship do you approve of?
We would need to write to the national version of The Sun on that point.
I am not sure whether we have got to this bit, but has Shona Robison done what she said she was going to do?
11:15
As committee members have no more questions, I ask Jackie Baillie to make a brief statement.
11:00
I highlight the Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account. Recently, there has been what we could view as a clear endorsement of The Scottish Sun by Glasgow 2014 in relation to the Sun+ website. We might get on to the issue of online availability, but for the committee’s information I note that the Sun+ website, which is the electronic version of The Sun, hosts a back catalogue of objectification of women, where women can be spun through 360°, presumably for the viewing pleasure of men, presumably adults.
Two weeks ago, in the newspaper, there was a clear Glasgow 2014 logo endorsing a team Scotland T-shirt that was being given out for joining Sun+. That relates to holding the Executive to account. As the committee will have seen from our evidence, I have written to the cabinet secretary in question to ask for reassurance that that involved no public money and no public decision. We have had support from the Scottish Government, but we would like that to be followed through in its actions.
We are not asking for a ban. Others, including The Sun itself, have asked for economic sanctions to be taken against countries in which there are human rights abuses against women and children, through campaigns such as the bring back our girls campaign. I do not believe that our request of the Parliament is inappropriate.
Good morning. Let me be very clear: I totally agree with everything that you have asked for. I am very much in favour of gender equality. Indeed, some years ago I suffered from promoting women as managers, as they are much better managers than men in a commercial environment. Therefore, perhaps I understand some of the issues.
I want you to take my questioning in the manner in which it is intended. It will be fairly robust, but it should be recognised that I certainly revere—as, I am sure, many of my gender do—the opposite sex for what they do and what they are.
What other organisations have you challenged on the portrayal of women in the way that you claim they are portrayed in The Sun?
Yes.
That is true. I am not a journalist and I am not here to speak for them, but my understanding is that they would say that they like to speak to the MSPs and to the clerks and officials who support them so that they get to the truth of the matter and portray it as well as they possibly can.
I would love to see The Sun newspaper continue to do well in Scotland without the page 3 feature. No one in the campaign is calling for an end to The Sun. We do not want its circulation figures to drop; we want it to continue to do well. We just want it to remove that feature.
Yes. There are different points for The Sun and The Scottish Sun.
I do not see this campaign as a form of censorship—I am making that very clear. We are not banning anything or making anybody do anything. We are asking David Dinsmore and Gordon Smart to acknowledge voluntarily that page 3 represents a view of women that belongs in the 1970s, along with Jimmy Savile and all the other awful things that have come out recently about our society back then. We are saying, “No more of this”, and we want them to say, “You’re right”. We want them, as media representatives, to portray very positive views of women—
Convener, I am not sure whether it is fair on Ms Baillie to ask her to answer this question, but perhaps Ms O’Donnell will take the opportunity to answer it.
You are calling for a temporary ban on The Sun newspaper in the Scottish Parliament until it removes page 3. Would you go so far as to say that we should also withdraw the press credentials of journalists from The Sun as part of the action against it? I ask for the purposes of clarification. You are talking about banning The Sun, but press credentials continue to be issued for journalists from The Sun who act on behalf of the publication in the building and report on matters that take place in it. Would the logic of your argument about banning The Sun from the building or preventing its availability in the building also extend to withdrawing press credentials from journalists?
We absolutely accept that there is a wider issue with regard to—
We are asking you to apply the Equality Act 2010 as it applies to public bodies. The implication relates to the general duty or the protected characteristics.
Although my mum supports the campaign, she would be a very unhappy aunty if you made my cousin—who is the home affairs editor for The Scottish Sun—redundant. I believe that the newspaper performs a public duty as regards reporting news outwith the Parliament, but we are applying the Parliament’s equalities framework to the newspapers that it stocks. That is what I asked the chief executive to do when I spoke to him and it is what Jane O’Donnell has intimated in her evidence.
We are trying to keep the petition as focused as possible, as we were asked to do by the clerks when we presented the petition to you. We wanted a wider petition but we were asked to be as focused as possible.
We restart the meeting. We had some crowd control issues there—sorry to delay you all.
Agenda item 2 is consideration of four new petitions and, as previously agreed, the committee will take evidence on three of them. The first new petition is PE1521, by George Eckton and Jane O’Donnell, on no more page 3 in The Scottish Sun and the Scottish Parliament. Members have a note by the clerk, the SPICe briefing and a submission from the petitioners.
I welcome Jackie Baillie, who I ask to make a brief contribution after we have asked questions. I welcome both petitioners, who I thank very much for coming along. I am sorry to have delayed you. I am sure that you watched the discussion of our earlier petition and that you understand why it had to overrun.
I ask Jane O’Donnell to make a short presentation of around five minutes, after which I will ask a couple of questions before my colleagues take it in turns to ask questions.
Can we also write to the Parliament’s chief executive to ask for a schedule showing the number of copies of the newspaper that are stocked, displayed or sold within the parliamentary campus? I would like to know where copies of the paper are kept. I am aware that a couple are for sale at the coffee bar and that there is usually one on display in the members’ lounge and possibly in the restaurant.
I presume that it is the idea that everyone has the individual right to express themselves freely and democratically, yet—
So did Michelangelo and Picasso.
I direct that question to the petitioners, because Jackie Baillie is obviously not a witness.
Do members agree that we should write to the cabinet secretary about that?
In that case, why have you picked on The Sun?
Do the models—
The newspapers are in SPICe.
She may well have received a reply. Could we have that information?
Thank you for that. I am conscious of time and, as a result, I do not particularly want to open this up to a larger philosophical debate. However, Mr Brodie has a brief question.
They could use page 3 to support women who are active and sporty, which is a view of women that is difficult to get across to our young people.
But I am happy to answer.
There are a number of suggestions, and the clerk will keep me right if I have missed any. We will write to The Scottish Sun, asking for its views on the petition. We will write to the UK Sun regarding the issue that was distributed for free. We will write to the NUJ and the leaders of the political parties. We will also write to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to determine the number of copies of The Scottish Sun that it stocks. We will hold fire on writing to Rupert Murdoch until we get the other replies.
A copy of the paper is kept in SPICe, which is not open to the public. It would be helpful to understand from the chief executive how many copies of the paper the Parliament purchases and where they are kept in the parliamentary campus. I hope that they are not all in the offices of any one political party.
I also suggest that we write to the leaders of each of the political groups in the Parliament, asking them to establish the views of their group in relation to the aims of the petition as stated. Clearly, it would be useful to know whether the petition enjoyed cross-party support, perhaps including members who might not want to sign a motion per se.
Excuse me—you have asked me a question, so can I answer it?
Because it is so famous. It is part of the culture. It is a brand, and there is the page 3 girl brand. The campaign has been working since 2012, although the issue has been a concern for a number of years, as I said. There are different views of women in our society, which can be difficult. We want to see a wide range of views of women that takes into account not only the different ways that we all look and their all being acceptable, but all the things that we achieve and do. Page 3 removes that in its entirety. Page 3 women are the perfect example of a brand of women that reduces women to the sum of their body parts.
First, Ms Baillie—probably not for the first time—clearly did not listen to what I said in my opening peroration.
What do you say to the women who take part in that and who want to take part in it?
Okay.
Could we have some research on the impact on the newspaper in Ireland?
I listened very carefully.
Thank you. First, on the point about where the paper is stocked, we can easily ascertain that by writing to the secretary to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Do members agree to our doing that?
Members indicated agreement.
There is clearly a job in glamour modelling, which other publications allow. I think that I have said that. However, those publications tend to be kept on the top shelf and are a different form of media.
I think that John Wilson’s second point was about writing to the NUJ.
Thank you. I believe that, if there is detrimental harm to individuals, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR, which we have enshrined in law, allow the opportunity to make legislation to protect those individuals.
Having said that, we are talking about fairness and equality. I am not saying that I support The Sun doing this—I cannot pretend that I read it a lot; when I do, I tend to read the sports pages—but we are talking about fairness, equality and civil liberties.
If there was a compulsion for young ladies to appear on page 3, I would understand the issue. Although The Sun clearly promotes page 3, there are others, including glamour models and so on—it is not just restricted to The Sun. It is a very popular paper, but some of commentary in women’s magazines about big hunks or whatever they call them is ridiculous. I am not saying that I support page 3, but I ask us to be fair, equal and understand our civil liberties obligations—that is my issue.
Sorry—which newspaper?
The internet is not on the top shelf.
Yes.
Where is your evidence of detrimental harm to people? You have conflated the numbers that you have given with page 3, but the same argument could apply to many organisations. I am not saying that I support page 3 or any of those other organisations, but you have chosen to conflate that harm with page 3.
Where, in terms of civil liberties, which the editor of The Sun is entitled to enjoy as much as those who choose not to read that newspaper, is the evidence that page 3 causes the detriment that you say it does?
I am very conscious that we could have a much longer debate, and I am not trying to stifle debate. However, I am also conscious that we are running very late. We are now at the summation point, which the petitioners will probably know about from our consideration of the previous petition. This is the point at which we end the questions and the committee comes to conclusions. I ask the petitioners to stay where they are and committee members for their views. Obviously, our options include seeking views on the petition from The Scottish Sun, the Presiding Officer, who is responsible for conduct in the Parliament, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The Sun.
The Sun is a newspaper: its purpose is to provide news stories and to reflect current affairs. With regard to freedom of expression, the editor of The Sun or The Scottish Sun would, according to your argument, say, “We’ve got the right to show a naked woman in the newspaper.”
Sorry—we heard in evidence today that The Irish Sun stopped page 3.
Do members agree to that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
No, but we have other ways in which to protect children. Children are trained, but we do not train or look after our children enough to explain the matter. We have had conversations among ourselves—both of us here are parents—about trying to explain the page 3 phenomenon to a child. I have a 12-year-old daughter who simply does not understand why there is a naked woman in a newspaper. She cannot understand why that would be there.
I was born in the 1970s and am of the generation for which page 3 has always been there. It has always been part of my life. There have been many moments during my life, in different situations, when the brand and feature have played a role in reducing me to feeling less than I could and to realising less of my potential. It is the number 1 objectification of women, and it is readily available to everybody in our society because of The Sun’s circulation.
Only if she agrees.
I think that Jane O’Donnell referred to that.
You may or may not know that we undertook a thorough inquiry into child sexual exploitation, which covered boys as well as girls. Are you seriously conflating the 300,000 women who are sexually assaulted and 60,000 women who are raped each year with page 3 of The Sun?
10:45
Do members agree to our writing to The Scottish Sun about the petitioners’ request and to The Sun nationally about the issue that was distributed for free?
Members indicated agreement.
Could we find out—
Following on from that, the briefing from the clerks noted that, in February 2013, in response to a tweet about page 3 being old fashioned, Rupert Murdoch suggested that he was considering whether to remove page 3 and replace it with a
“halfway house with glamorous fashionistas”.
I like to think that I am one of those, by the way.
Only if she agrees—of course. We know that many young women choose to go into that profession. However, I refer you to the no more page 3 campaign website, where you can, if you get the chance do so, read some of the survivor testimonies from girls and women who have been part of the profession and have had very negative experiences.
The Sun is a newspaper and it is there to explain news and current affairs. If people want to express a certain view of nudity or pornography, there are other mechanisms for their doing so that do not affect the people who do not wish to see those things.
As I said, we have age-appropriate certification in cinema and different views of sexuality and nudity, and we have ways to ensure that those things are dealt with responsibly and that material is appropriate for those who see it. The same applies to television. There are many concerns and complaints about television, but broadcasters generally tend to adhere to the 9 pm watershed. Parents know that, after 9 o’clock, if their child picks up something that they did not want them to see, they have a responsibility in that respect. As an individual, I can choose to use those different mechanisms to view what is acceptable to me. I cannot influence or control page 3 at all, and neither can any of the other women or girls who are affected by it.
We are talking about a newspaper, and the no more page 3 campaign has put it very well. Do you expect George Alagiah to introduce Syria on the 6 o’clock news and say, “But let’s stop for a moment—here’s 22-year-old Casey from Warwick”?
Convener—
You and Chic Brodie.
That is a nonsensical argument, if you do not mind—
Is it within our remit to contact Rupert Murdoch directly to see whether he can advise us if he has moved on from his suggestion that he was considering removing page 3?
No—forgive me, but it is the argument. There is no role for a naked woman in a newspaper. As I have said, we accept that there is a role for nudity, and for different sorts of nudity, but that is in different forms of media, not in the pages of a daily newspaper.
Sorry—we are past the question stage. We are now at our summation.
What other areas of censorship do you approve of?
What are members’ views on that request? Do members wish the committee to write to Rupert Murdoch?
Could we have some evidence about that?
I have a general concern that is of a totally different dimension. As I said earlier, I would not advocate reading the paper, but I am concerned about having a say no to Tesco campaign, for example, and particularising the issue in that way. There is a larger problem, and we should have a proper inquiry on it and ask questions of the appropriate bodies.
If the petitioners have any further information to help us, it will be gratefully received.
Sorry, but can I just nag the committee by asking it to focus on the individual suggestion? If we do not do that, we will be here for some time. The suggestion is that we write to Rupert Murdoch. What is the committee’s view on that?
For clarification, I suggested that the committee write to News International, not Rupert Murdoch.
I think that the committee picked that up.
I thank committee members for those suggestions.
As the petitioners can see, we will pursue the matter on a number of fronts. I thank them both for coming along and for their very articulate input to the committee’s deliberations. I also thank Jackie Baillie—as always—for her articulate contributions to the committee.
11:16 Meeting suspended.11:18 On resuming—
No.
Chic Brodie is opposed to doing that.
I would be minded to write to Rupert Murdoch. If we do not write to him as an individual, perhaps we can write to his corporation.
Does David Torrance agree?
Yes.
I agree that we should write to the corporation.
I think that we should wait until we have received responses to our other inquiries. I just wonder whether Angus MacDonald’s further suggestion might open us up to a slightly more lurid and sensationalist treatment of the petition than we would wish for.
So you do not disagree with the principle; you disagree with the timing. Is Angus MacDonald happy to wait as Jackson Carlaw suggested?
I am content to wait and for the committee to keep my suggestion as an option.
Moving on from that point, Anne McTaggart has a question.
I thank the witnesses for their answers so far. I fully support and have signed up to the no more page 3 campaign for all the reasons that you have given, Ms O’Donnell.
You are exactly right: the newspaper is there to deliver news. The newspaper is readily available, and I am surprised that our Scottish Parliament has not addressed the issue before now, given that you were here when Jackie Baillie MSP brought a debate on the issue to the chamber and asked the Presiding Officer to look at the Scottish Parliament’s equalities framework.
There was a great deal of support in that debate. The issue is a no-brainer, and I am not sure why The Sun newspaper does not see it in the same way. I fully back your campaign.
Returning to the issue of censorship, I will outline the specific issue for the Scottish Parliament and the BBC. Rather sadly, and probably to avert my eyes from the England team losing to Italy at football, I, as a member of the public, was reading back over equalities frameworks and the Libel Act 1881, which is the only act currently in force that specifies what a newspaper should be in the UK. There is a common-law interpretation, but the 1881 act contains a very short definition, which states that a newspaper should impart intelligence.
I learned pretty quickly about the biological and anatomical differences between a man and a woman, and I do not believe that boobs are still news. All that we have done in our petition is reflect on the stated equalities framework under the Equality Act 2010, applied it and asked the chief executive why the Parliament stocks the publication. The answer was, “It’s popular”, so one might expect the Parliament also to stock Playboy and other magazines on the basis of popularity. I doubt that that would happen; it simply could not be done under the Parliament’s dignity at work policy, which mentions pin-ups. Page 3 is a pin-up, and therefore the question is very straightforward. We have applied the equalities framework to the papers that are sold here and we hope that you, as our democratic representatives, will see that through. I do not believe that that would be inappropriate. I am quite happy to go with the assistant chief constable of Police Scotland, who says that there is a continuum and a spectrum of objectification. When it starts, people are aware of the issues, but it then becomes habitual and other things happen at the end of it. We appear to have accepted that in our drugs policy and other forms of public policy, and I would say that it happens in this respect too.
I am sorry, but we are a bit pushed for time. Does any other member wish to come in?
Planning System (Consultation) (PE1518)
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to air my views on the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and to voice my opinion that the major developments criterion is being treated as if it were no more than a voluntary code of practice and, as such, can be and is being ignored with impunity as and when it suits the developer.
I am not in any way an expert on the planning system or planning regulations. My interest in the planning system was triggered in 2010 by curiosity—in particular, curiosity about why a developer would submit two applications for one development adjacent to my property and about our local authority’s initial reluctance to engage in dialogue on the issue.
After much googling of the planning regulations, it became clear that this practice was being used solely to prevent developments from being classed as major under the regulations, thus avoiding—but not being limited to—meaningful pre-application consultation with communities. If that right to meaningful consultation is easily ignored, the regulations are not fit for purpose.
Given the basis of the petition, could not an independent opinion give an unbiased perspective to the issue? Could Planning Aid for Scotland fulfil that role?
As an example to support my voluntary code of practice opinion, the design statement submitted along with the two applications stated:
“Due to the time constraints imposed by the landowner it was not possible to pursue a Major Applications Planning Procedure in this instance. The significant time implications created by the Major Applications process would have pushed the determination of the applications beyond the period afforded to the developer by the landowner and may have extended into the period within which the current local plan is superseded by the weight of material consideration imposed by the emerging local plan. For reasons described above it was necessary to split the development into two applications. Accepting the above situation and the consequential actions, it was never intended that in not pursuing the Major Applications procedure public consultation would not be carried out.”
The same document also states:
“Forming part of the curtilage at Waterton Farm Pitcaple and lying to the north of the village of Whiteford the site is approximately 2.6 hectares in area.”
That is a clear, unambiguous statement being used to justify a major development not being classed as a major development. That is the crux of my petition. That was all accepted by the local planning authority and, disappointingly, by our councillors on the local area committee.
I fail to understand how regulations can ever be deemed fit for purpose when, one day, a planning authority classed the development concerned as major and then, by the simple manipulation of paperwork, the very same planning authority no longer considered it to fit that criterion.
No public or community council consultation was ever subsequently carried out, and the emerging local plan was not adopted until June 2012, some 19 months after the applications were submitted. The general public deserves better.
When the example quoted above went to appeal, the reporter appointed by the Scottish ministers commented in the appeal decision notice:
“The layouts make clear that the project before me and the 3-dwellings project can in many ways be regarded as part of a single scheme.”
Should not the local planning authority or our local area councillors be considered competent to make those decisions? If not, who is?
Do the Scottish ministers have that power under the legislation? It states:
“But the Scottish Ministers may, as respects a particular local development, direct that the development is to be dealt with as if (instead of being a local development) it were a major development.”
When, how and by whom is that power invoked?
The briefing note before the committee gives one interpretation of one aspect of the regulations, based on the second sentence from circular 5 2009, paragraph 10. Given that that paragraph has only two sentences, and no account having been taken of the first sentence in the paragraph—in my opinion, a sentence very pertinent to the second sentence—it could be argued that the interpretation in the briefing note requires scrutiny. To base an opinion on one sentence, which, it could be argued, has been taken out of context from a vast array of documentation, is open to question. It may have been more helpful to the committee to have had an interpretation of the complete paragraph. It would be interesting to know whose interpretation of circular 5 2009 makes it “clear”.
The only reason why we found that out was because we received handwritten notes after we made a freedom of information request. It is very hard to find the paperwork between developers and the planning system, which is why we made the FOI request. The handwritten notes showed how the process had worked.
11:30
As colleagues have no other questions I will go to straight to summation. Clearly it is important to get the views of the Scottish Government, Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland and Heads of Planning Scotland. Do members agree to that, or do members have alternate or additional views?
I have a couple of questions before I bring in my colleagues. You have made interesting points. What evidence—if any—do you have that, Scotland-wide, developers are bypassing planning regulations in the way that you described as happening locally?
Mr Chalmers—
I gave examples in the petition. Alison McInnes contacted all the local authorities that are in her region. Every local authority seemed to have evidence that such a scheme had been used. In one case in Moray, 10 applications were made for one development.
In conclusion—
I have additional views, as usual.
The reason I asked that question is that elected members often rely on local authority planning officials to make recommendations about potential developments. We expect the professional integrity of planning officers to be such that they will take on board any regulations that might apply to developments. You have indicated that there is a potential to say that planning officials have colluded with developers to say, “We can avoid making this a major development by splitting the application up.”
Based on the information that has been provided, and after looking at the two applications, the Scottish Government’s official reporter said that, had there been only one application, it would have been deemed to be a major application and would have been subject to the public consultation regime that is required for planning applications. Do you think that there was a deliberate attempt to avoid going through the public consultation process?
Good.
What actions do you want from the Scottish Government?
You have pre-empted my chasing you to wind up.
The evidence shows that the planners in Aberdeenshire Council had been in touch with Government officials. We know from the freedom of information request that there had been verbal discussions and then emails had been sent.
I get the impression that, if the Government officials had said, “No, you can’t do this,” it would not have been done. The letters that I got from Aberdeenshire Council showed that it was depending on Government officials approving what it had done.
I suggest that we also write to Planning Aid Scotland. When we write to the Scottish Government and Heads of Planning Scotland, we should ask them whether they have carried out any investigations or research into the availability of information from local authorities online in relation to planning applications. Mr Chalmers made the important point that many members of the public rely heavily on online information. If it is difficult to access that information or if all the information is not online, how do the public feed into the planning process and make objections to or support planning applications?
In conclusion, it has become increasingly difficult—some would say nigh impossible—for the general public to have their voices or opinions listened to within the current system, particularly when it comes to local planning issues.
The public deserve robust regulations. Unfortunately, as shown in my petition, the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, which are said to be at
“the heart of the modernised planning system”,
are not. They are far too easily bypassed.
I want clarification. If there are get-out clauses, they should be clearly defined in the regulations. If a major development involves a site that is 2 hectares or more, but that depends on several factors, that should be included in the regulations. The public deserve robust regulations, but they certainly are not robust.
The Government’s reporter intimated that the application would have been classified as a major development. However, the reporter makes a recommendation to the local authority, which will then make the final deliberation on whether the development goes ahead.
The point that you have raised is that there is a lack of transparency in terms of the consultation process and the information that is available, and that developers and, in some cases, planners could be accused of bypassing the public consultation commitments under the 2009 planning regulations.
I throw the session open to colleagues who wish to ask questions.
I agree with John Wilson. I wonder whether we should also write to the heads of planning in not necessarily all the local authorities but selected local authorities. I see Jackson Carlaw despairing at that suggestion, but it would be interesting to see whether there is consistency of approach.
I am intrigued after reading the comments from Dundee City Council. We know about situations when a developer applies to build 50 houses and then asks to build another five or 10 houses. Do you have an indication of how many changed applications are made?
Do members agree that we continue the petition?
Yes, but what gave Aberdeenshire Council confidence was the communication that it had with Government officials. The letters that we have received from the council indicate that it was comfortable with what it was doing because it was being told by Government officials that it was a-okay.
When I asked the Scottish Government about that, a minister said:
“We are not aware that there are significant numbers of applicants”.
However, the Government has no real idea of the number that try that approach. From what I can see, it tends to be smaller developers that do it; major developers probably go through the proper procedure, but smaller developers and individuals can quite easily bypass the system by making two applications.
I suggest that we write to Alison McInnes and Nanette Milne as well, who appear to have been raising issues of concern regarding this, to hear what conclusions they have reached, or hear about any other conversations that they may have had, arising from that inquiry.
In your opening remarks, you referred to the community councils not being fully consulted. My understanding is that community councils are statutory consultees on planning applications. Do you think that there was an attempt to bypass the community council as a statutory consultee in terms of the planning process?
Having been to the community council a few times, I understand that the developer had made arrangements to present the plans to the community council but that, because of weather conditions, it was unable to do that. There was never any further communication between the developer and the community council or the community. In its design statement, the developer said that, although it had not followed the major procedure route, it was still going to do the community council consultation and make a presentation to the local community on the development. None of that ever happened.
That is a very good point.
As you have heard, Mr Chalmers, we are continuing the petition and we will write to a series of organisations. We will keep you informed of developments and we will discuss the petition at a future meeting, once we have all the material before us. Thanks again for coming along; we appreciate your evidence and we will keep you up to date with developments.
11:37 Meeting suspended.11:38 On resuming—
Are you saying that developers put in the first application, instead of the larger application that they might know that they want, to be sure that they will get that?
If an application is deemed to be for a major development, a proper public consultation process must be followed. Our local issue involved two applications that were made on the same day. Originally, the developer put in one application, which the council said would be a major development. Some days later, the developer went back with two applications, which the council said was fine. That was just manipulation of paperwork.
The case in Moray is even worse. The biggest problem that I have found is in how councils administer their planning websites. Until now, it has been easy in Aberdeenshire to follow how each application has developed through the process, but Aberdeenshire Council has changed its system to be in line with that in Moray, which is not user-friendly at all. Under that system, it is impossible for the public to trace every step of an application from its start.
This is not a question, Mr Chalmers; it is more of an observation. If what you are saying is correct—I have no reason to doubt that it is—then, effectively, planners across Scotland are flying under the radar by avoiding triggering a much more major procedure.
I think that the planners cover themselves by contacting the Government officials. That is the card that they are playing. Every time we spoke to them, they said, “Government officials have said this is okay.”
You have brought an interesting issue to us. You gave an example from Aberdeenshire, which started your interest in major developments versus other developments. You said that the developer made two applications—one for 15 houses and one for three houses—after making an original application for 18 homes. Do you know who advised the developer to split the application? Do you know whether advice was given?
The local council sent the developer a letter that said that a pre-application consultation would be required, because the site was over 2 hectares. A few days later, the council’s planners and the developer’s agent met. At that meeting, the agent basically said, “Sod the system—we’ll just put in two applications.” Those were not his exact words, but he said that putting in two applications would get round the problem.
I hope that the advice was more technical.
Our second new petition is PE1518, by George Chalmers, on meaningful public consultation within the Scottish planning system. Members have a note by the clerk, the SPICe briefing and the petition.
I welcome Mr Chalmers to the meeting. Thank you for coming along, and I apologise for keeping you late. I invite you to make a short presentation of no more than five minutes. I will then start off by asking some questions, and committee members will follow.
Save Our Seals Fund (PE1519)
To understand the situation in Scotland regarding shooting seals we must look back at its history. Under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, anyone who applied for a variation to a firearms licence could, as long as they used the correct calibre of rifle, shoot any seal at any time—apart from anglers, who could not shoot seals during the close seasons. You will see in our briefing paper, which you have in front of you, that the close seasons are three months in the summer for common seals and three in the winter for grey seals.
The reason why angling bodies could not shoot seals in those periods was that they did not have equipment to protect. Salmon netsmen have nets to protect from damage. The old Scottish Office also accepted that fish farms came under the same section, as they had cage nets to protect. They could shoot seals 365 days a year without a licence, but angling bodies had to get a licence if they wanted to shoot in the close seasons.
In the past, the only licence issued was the one for people who wanted to shoot in the close season. I remember having questions asked at Westminster about the number of seals that were shot in a year and the answer came back that it was 60. That was correct in that 60 seals had been shot under licence. The real figure had to be a guesstimate that I produced in the mid-1980s, which was that perhaps 6,000 seals were being shot per year in Scotland. That was an average of 10 per salmon farm and 10 per netting station.
I was at a fish farm conference in Inverness as a representative of a fish food sales company. The chaps from the fish farms were quite happy to talk to me because they thought that I was with the industry. One was quite happy to tell me, “We shot 60 seals last year.” That was at one farm unit.
We did a documentary for Channel 4 about the shooting that went on at the netting stations. A chap from Hopeman quite openly said that he shot 89 seals at one net in one season. That is the scale of it. My figure of 5,000 to 6,000 a year was not challenged, and I feel that it was conservative.
Then the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 was replaced by the Marine Scotland Act 2010. What worried me was that it was said that the 2010 act gave seals added protection in that everyone would have to have a licence to shoot seals. One or two licences have been refused, but once an individual has that licence, they can shoot seals 365 days a year up to the limit that is set on the licence. That means that angling bodies have an extra six months a year in which to shoot seals without going through the palaver of applying for a licence. Previously, they had to get the licence for the close season and many of them did not bother, so seals in estuaries would have protection during close seasons. Anglers would not shoot them while they were breeding but would do so at other times of the year. That protection has been removed.
Marine Scotland has come out with more spin than Malcolm Tucker on this one. It is saying that there is added protection when the opposite is the case. That piece of protection has been removed.
I made a submission when the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill was being brought in. One of the things that we pushed was the fact that fish are sentient. Fish feel pain and stress, and they react to adverse stimulus. After the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) 2006 was put in place, fish farmers, like any other farmer, inherited a duty to protect their stock from predators. That does not simply mean that you have to stop the fox from getting in and taking a chunk out of your chicken. The fish farmers have to stop the seals from getting to the nets and biting the fish, but they also have to stop them from getting close enough to cause the fish stress.
I think that you are suggesting that we do a bit more homework before we refer the petition.
Excuse me, Mr Robins, but your five minutes is up. We have time for questions. I hope that we can pick up the rest of your points then.
You have argued that 1,000 seals are shot under licence each year and that that is cruel and unnecessary. What assessment have you made of the effect of your proposals on salmon farming, for example?
That is a fair comment.
I think that I caught the Channel 4 documentary that you mentioned. It is clear that there are issues with netting stations, and I believe that the Government is looking at them. It looked at them during consideration of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill and is still looking at them. Could you develop your argument about netting stations? For example, should the Government buy out all the netting stations and put an end to netting altogether?
Up to 1,005 can be shot this year. We are talking about an industry that has a history of not having to tell anyone how many seals are shot. The farms are in very remote areas. No one polices the shooting. We take the farmers’ word for it that they are shooting only X number of seals. Strangely enough, they increase the request for how many seals they want to shoot and Marine Scotland has reduced the number that they are allowed to shoot. I do not see how that balances.
The other thing is that, under the new act, a farmer has to protect their fish but they cannot do that by shooting seals. They would have to get someone who could shoot day and night to stop the seals getting near the salmon. The only way to do that is to put up external barrier nets to stop the seals getting in close.
11:45
I think that that is the best way forward. If a salmon netsman gets a salmon in his net and bangs it on the head, he will get £70 to £100 for it. If a salmon gets into the estuary and up the river, it will be worth £2,000 to the Scottish economy, as it will be caught perhaps two or three times before it gets to the head of the river. Anglers come in and stimulate the tourism industry, as they spend money. That is the estimated value. There is £70 if the person bangs the salmon on the head at the net and £2,000 once it goes up the river.
The approach that has been mentioned would make a lot of sense. Usan Salmon Fisheries says that it is trialling a new acoustic device, and it is working. It would be nice to follow that through and see whether it does work but, unless an external body properly audits what is going on, I do not have a lot of faith in the industry at all. I am not accusing any specific company; the whole industry is simply too remote and secretive, and it needs to be monitored.
Yes.
You have predicted my next question. You talked about installing high-tension predator exclusion nets. I know that it is very hard to be explicit about the costs for that, but what would it cost for an average fish farm?
I can be very accurate. We asked the American Government to ban the import of salmon farmed in farms that are allowed to shoot marine mammals, which is not allowed in the United States. The US has a great law whereby if a non-American producer is producing something unfairly compared with domestic producers, the Government can stop any of its imports. The Canadian branch of Marine Harvest brought in exclusion nets that cost 120,000 Canadian dollars for one farm. That is a lot of money but not a great deal given the size of the industry.
For completeness, what happens to the seals that are shot?
I suggest that we ask the Scottish Government, Marine Scotland and the special committee on seals for their views.
I declare an interest in that I have worked with a company that is about to introduce an onshore salmon fish farm and a company that has developed a submersible for tidal power that manages to avoid killing seals or any other marine life.
I think that we will see more and more onshore fish farms. However, in terms of the technology, can you explain the acoustic deterrent device and tell us how successful it has been?
Ideally, they should be brought ashore and autopsied but, as far as I am aware, only one has been in the past three years. That might be something to do with a Scottish Government meeting that was held in Inverness four years ago, I think. You have heard of the Scottish seals forum, which is interested in whether seals should or should not be shot. It is weighted 3:1 in favour of organisations that actively shoot or support the shooting of seals. I tried to access that forum four times and was refused four times.
A chap from Australia was brought over, and he spoke for five minutes at the meeting in Inverness. He was the keynote speaker, and he thanked the Scottish Government: he had never before flown on the class of flight from Australia that he had been on, and he had really enjoyed the trip. He was enjoying being back in Scotland and seeing his old colleagues. The best bit of advice that he gave to the people who were sitting around—the meeting was to do with the Moray seal management plan—was, “If you’re going to shoot seals, do it in the morning when there are no tourists about.” He was brought from Australia to tell people that. The attitude has been, “If you’re going to do it, do it quietly.”
We should also write to the Scottish salmon association—I am trying to think what it is called. I know that there is a national body that covers the industry.
Thank you for that.
Unless colleagues have any other questions, we will go to summation and look at the next steps.
It seems to me that there are two main things that we can do. We can either continue the petition and ask the relevant bodies questions, or refer it to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, which has recently looked at the bill that became the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013. It is a matter for members. I think that at least one member of this committee is on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.
My view is that it is probably worth referring the petition to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee but, again, I will take advice from committee members. Should we refer the petition to the committee that recently looked at the subject area?
There are various options of acoustic devices, some of which are better than others, and some of which are still on trial. I went to a fish farm where the manager said, “We’ve got two acoustic devices. When we see seals in the area, we turn them on—they scare the seals away. We don’t have to do any shooting here.” I think that it was two years since the farm had last shot a seal. I went on to the farm and I heard a generator on one of the barges. I said to the farm manager, who lived on a floating house on the farm, “I hear you’ve got the acoustics on. Any seals about?” He said “Naw, we don’t get seals here. I’ve been running that 24/7 for the last three years.” What that means is that seals are being moved away from their natural habitat. That farm was within a quarter of a mile of a traditional seal rookery and haul-out site, but it got planning permission to be there, just as farms get permission to be put at the mouths of salmon rivers in the estuaries. If the industry started today, that would never be allowed.
The acoustic devices work on some farms—some come back and say, “Yes, they’re working”—but, again, the question is how we police that. There is nobody there to see exactly what is going on.
I think that it is now called the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation.
Yes. We should write to that organisation, too, to seek its views on the petition.
Good morning, Mr Robins. Your petition covers quite a number of issues. My colleague Chic Brodie has already mentioned the high-strength, high-tension predator exclusion nets, which I have seen at first hand. They have been introduced by Marine Harvest and I saw them on some of its farms up in Lochaber. Those nets have already been introduced by major salmon farming companies, although I believe that there have been some initial difficulties with them. The industry certainly seems to be heading in the direction of the onshore tank farms that Mr Brodie mentioned as well as of moving salmon farms further offshore out into the deeper water. There are developments in the industry that are going to address the issues that you are concerned about.
I would be keen to seek the views of the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland first, before we refer it to that committee. As you say, it recently scrutinised the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, so the issue is still fresh for it.
We have to be careful when we talk about anti-predator nets. Some farms are getting bigger cages and putting stronger-tension nets around the cages. That means that seals cannot push the net in far enough to grab a salmon, but they can get close enough to panic and stress the salmon. There should be an anti-predator barrier perhaps 50m away from the inner cage, so that seals cannot get close to it.
The onshore fish farms are probably the best way forward as they do not have lice or predator problems and, instead of the pollution lying on the seabed, it is bagged up and sold as fertiliser. That is the way forward. It was started in Otter Ferry on the Argyll peninsula. A chap who was a director of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was in charge of that. The problem was that he made a big mistake and started to dabble in genetically modified salmon. He killed his business. His son now farms halibut onshore and is making a damn good business out of it, because that has a higher value. He cannot compete with salmon and bring them onshore, because it is currently still cheaper to do that work in the sea. That is because we do not regulate it properly, although we could. Marine Scotland could say, “If you want a marine fin-fish farm, you must put in predator exclusion nets.” However, that simply does not happen.
Do members agree to the suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mr Robins for his evidence and for the technical advice that he has given us. Obviously, we are continuing the petition, so we will keep him up to date with developments and discuss the petition again at a future meeting.
I quickly point out that I have read the SPICe briefing paper and found two or three major errors in it.
Could you perhaps send us a note, and we will have a look at that?
I will do.
Thank you for coming, Mr Robins.
11:55 Meeting suspended.11:55 On resuming—
PE1519 is by John F Robins, on behalf of the Save Our Seals Fund, on saving Scotland’s seals. Members have a note by the clerk, the SPICe briefing, the petition and a submission from the petitioner.
I welcome Mr Robins: thank you for coming along and sorry for delaying you.
No problem. Thank you for inviting me.
I invite Mr Robins to make a brief presentation of a maximum of five minutes, after which I will kick off with a couple of questions before I ask my colleagues to ask further questions.
Building Consent (PE1520)
We will move on quickly, as I am conscious that members have other things to do.
The fourth new petition is PE1520, on unrestricted freedom to build on plots of up to 1 acre. Members have a note by the clerk, the SPICe briefing and the petition. As advised previously, despite efforts over the past couple of months, the clerks have been unable to make any contact with the petitioner. In those circumstances, and as there has been no contact since the end of March, I suggest that the petition be closed. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.