Official Report 349KB pdf
Magazines and Newspapers(Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)
Good afternoon, everyone. I welcome members of the public to the 14th meeting this year of the Public Petitions Committee. I have received apologies on behalf of Nanette Milne, and I welcome her substitute, Jamie McGrigor. All mobiles phones and other electronic devices should be switched off.
I welcome this opportunity.
PE1169, by Margaret Forbes on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to introduce and enforce measures to ensure that magazines and newspapers with sexually graphic covers are not displayed at or below children's eye-level, or adjacent to children's titles and comics, and are screen sleeved before being placed on the shelf. We have considered the petition on previous occasions, and I know that members have a range of questions to put to the witnesses. Unless the minister or Tam Baillie has any specific remarks to make, I will invite questions.
I am happy to go straight to questions.
Likewise.
How can the voluntary code be more effective and flexible than statutory regulation when the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, which drew up the code, acknowledges that
We as a society must decide how to proceed on such matters. There is often good reason for having a system of self-regulation. We do that in a variety of circumstances because it is cost effective. Once we bring in regulation, we have to monitor it, enforcement powers have to be provided and there has to be supervision. It is a question of society, Parliament and Government deciding where they wish to set matters.
Before we consider regulation, we need to know whether it is accepted that there is a problem. It is difficult to make arguments for or against regulation if there is not a common acceptance that there is a problem with the availability of sexually explicit material to children and young people. We need to establish whether all sides agree that we have a problem. Then it will be easier to consider what to do about it.
I understand why Tam Baillie is calling for research on the issue. There is certainly evidence from numerous campaigns at national and local level that even leading retailers are not enforcing the code. Do you share the committee's concern that the voluntary approach is not having much effect?
I have no problem with the evidence that has been presented so far, which demonstrates that there is a widespread problem, given that a very few people who have taken an interest in the issue have unearthed numerous examples of floor-level displays of explicit material and of children's comics, toys and videos being placed next to explicit material. That is happening not just in local grocers shops that are not part of any federation but in stations and garages. The problem is widespread, but there must be acceptance of it so that we can start to consider the best course of action. That is key. I think that the extent of the problem is significant, but because surveys have been conducted locally the Scottish Government can always argue that there is insufficient evidence to convince it that it must do something about the problem. In my view there is sufficient evidence, but I think that there is a lot more to unearth. That is why the issue should be properly researched in Scotland.
Cabinet secretary, do you have a copy of the material that SWAP has collected?
No, I do not have that information; I will be happy to look at it. I echo the commissioner. It would be naive or deluded to suggest that there is 100 per cent adherence to the scheme. If there are breaches of the scheme we need to consider the extent of the problem and the basis of the information that we have—it must be more than anecdotal—and we need to consider whether the solution is to improve the existing scheme or to legislate. We are more than happy to engage with the committee on the matter, which is why we are here as the committee reflects on the petition. I am more than happy to consider the information and discuss what we can do to address the issue.
Does the Government accept that there is a problem?
The short answer is that we do not know. We are not deluding ourselves by saying that there are never breaches of the code. We welcome what the committee is doing. We have not been carrying out research on the issue but we are happy to consider the advice that the committee will doubtless supply when it has considered matters. I agree with the commissioner that we must have clear, sustainable evidence. When we have that, we will be happy to discuss with the committee what we should do.
On that basis, is the Government willing to initiate national research on the effectiveness of the voluntary code? If such research shows that there is not just an occasional breach but a significant problem, will you consider making the code compulsory?
I cannot answer your latter question until we have seen the evidence on the former. A lot would depend on the cost of commissioning research. There are also a variety of other factors. Do we need to undertake the research if the information is available, as the commissioner suggests? That could be verified by you. The Government wants to hear from you. Are we prepared to accept that there are difficulties and problems out there? Yes. What is the extent of those? We would like to hear that from you. If the committee feels that extensive research is required, we will be more than happy to consider that. However, it may be that, after considering the matter, you find that it can be dealt with here. You are pushing at an open door in terms of our being prepared to consider the matter. We accept that there probably are problems and that we must get to the root of them.
I am glad to hear that we are pushing at an open door. Given the fact that the cost to the Government of initiating a piece of national research would be minimal, even in these straitened times, why not go ahead with that? Only you can draw that together so that we get a clear picture of the national situation to enable you and the committee to take an impartial and objective view of the situation. The social cost of the problem, in terms of the exploitation of women and the harm that is done to women and children, is far higher than the cost of any research. Do you not agree that you should get the ball rolling on this one?
It is important that we ensure that everyone in our society is respected, not simply those of one particular gender. You will accept that, before we embarked on any research, we would have to define its remit and what outcome we were seeking to achieve. Also, some of the aspects to which you have alluded, relating to consumer protection, are reserved and therefore outwith the control of the Scottish Government.
Let us leave the constitution aside for a minute. If the committee were able to help you and the Government to establish a framework for research centring on matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, would the Government be willing to initiate that research? Yes or no?
I would be prepared to consider it, Mr Butler, but you cannot expect me to sign a blank cheque. The Government must have priorities. I attended a meeting earlier at which we discussed research on a variety of things relating to criminal justice, including public attitudes to knife crime and the fear of crime. What we are discussing now is important and must be factored in, but I cannot give you a blank cheque.
So, you are not against it in principle.
No. In principle, we accept it. I have come here with a willingness to engage with the committee and discuss the issue. However, as the commissioner said, we need to work out the extent of the problem, what we need to discover and where we want the research to go. You are asking me to commit to research when we do not know what the remit of that research would be, never mind the cost or what we would hope to do with the research when we had it—whether to lobby Westminster or to take action here. We are happy to engage with the subject, but we need to work out what we would be trying to achieve.
The focus of the research would be to establish the extent of the problem. The Government has already accepted, in written evidence, that such material should not be displayed at children's eye-level and I am encouraged by that. We have some small-scale surveys that were conducted by a very few people in Scotland and the amount of evidence that they unearthed was disproportionate to the size of their organisation. That makes me believe that there is something much more significant underneath, which is why I think that it is important that we carry out research.
Sometimes parents who are concerned that such magazines are displayed in front of their children take up the problem with individual shopkeepers. That is what they have to do, but it can be daunting and intimidating. Is it fair to put the onus on parents to do that? What measures can the Scottish Government take to support parents in such situations?
Obviously, such matters can be raised with the Scottish Grocers Federation. It depends on whether the outlet is small or is a member of any of the federated bodies, such as the Scottish Grocers Federation. Many magazines are sold in the multiple supermarket retail outlets, which have methods of engaging with people.
This is not about the Daily Sport, minister; rather, it is about publications—
Publications that have been displayed which are clearly pornographic and require to be dealt with in a particular way fall within the ambit of the criminal law. Daily papers and other things that are viewed as legitimate are reserved matters. There are two issues: where publications are displayed and whether they should exist in principle. To some extent, matters stand or fall in each separate instance. However, first and foremost, people have an obligation to challenge. If a person thinks that something has been dealt with inappropriately in a shop, it is often correct to challenge the shopkeeper.
What happens if they challenge the shopkeeper and the shopkeeper becomes intimidating?
That depends on the level of intimidation. The intimidation could constitute a breach of the peace. However, if the shopkeeper is intimidatory but a criminal offence has not been committed, I would have thought that common sense would dictate that the person concerned should take their business elsewhere and encourage their friends and family not to give the shopkeeper the business that they previously sought. The business will stand or fall on such things.
I want to pick up on something that you said about the existence of such magazines in principle. The Scottish Government has done a lot of work on gender equality and tackling violence against women. Are you concerned that the existence of such magazines—never mind where they are displayed—undermines the messages that the Scottish Government is working hard to get out?
There are various issues. The question takes us back to the point that the commissioner made about requiring empirical evidence. The Government is keen to promote a culture of respect. People should respect themselves and one other, behave in a respectful way, respect the rights of others, and portray people in a respectful way, but those issues are broader than that raised in the petition. We are more than happy to engage in any such matters that the committee wants to engage in, because things are not static. After all, many years ago there was a debate about D H Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and how it was perceived. We want to ensure that we have a culture of respect so that people are treated appropriately.
Cabinet secretary, clearly there are major concerns among the public. The petitioners have laid out their concerns and we have heard Tam Baillie speak in his role as Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People. There is concern about the type of publication that is displayed openly on shop shelves.
The committee is quite correct to examine the issue with interest. My officials have already met a number of trade bodies such as the Scottish Grocers Federation, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, and the Periodical Publishers Association. We understand that they take any breaches seriously, but there is obviously evidence, whether anecdotal or otherwise, that the voluntary code is not being adhered to, so we are more than happy to work with those organisations to see what can be done. Presumably such work would have the remit of improving the current voluntary scheme.
I welcome those comments and the cabinet secretary's commitment. However, I remind everyone that powerful forces are at play here. For instance, the Scottish Retail Consortium stated in written evidence that the retailer must
I am aware that a number of reserved matters impinge on our discussions, but if the Scottish Parliament, this committee or the Cabinet Secretary for Justice gets clear evidence that the voluntary code is not working, we would expect that the cabinet secretary would present that evidence to the United Kingdom Government and ask it to introduce a code at UK level. That would, I hope, put pressure on the publishers of the material in question to apply the code as we expect it to be applied. As Tam Baillie said, some publishers pay a premium to have their magazines displayed, because they know that the voluntary code is not working and cannot work in the present circumstances. The code is not enforced in the way that the petitioners or other people in Scotland or the UK would like. If we get clear evidence that the voluntary code is being flouted, we hope that you, cabinet secretary, along with the Parliament and others, would make representations to the UK Government to ensure that a code applied and was in place and that it could be enforced so that publishers, retailers or whoever could be brought to book for what they do with the publications concerned.
We are more than happy to work with this committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee or whatever. If we can get the clear empirical evidence to which the commissioner alluded, and if there are clear recommendations, we will obviously be more than happy to seek to do what we can to ensure that our children and, indeed, the rights of women are protected in this country.
I want to try and pull the discussion together now, so Marlyn Glen and Jamie McGrigor will ask a question each, then the cabinet secretary will respond.
I want to point out some connections. I think that everybody welcomes the Parliament's equality work, the Scottish Government-backed Rape Crisis Scotland campaign and so on, but there are connections to be made that I do not think are obvious from the petition.
If these magazines are being displayed at children's eye-level, is that compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child or for that matter the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women?
With such matters, the devil is always in the detail. All individuals, including children, have rights, but we have to strike a balance in that respect. After all, when we talk about a child's eye-level, are we talking about an average child of five or 15? I do not want to be flippant but if we want to legislate for displays at child's eye-level, the fact is that any legislation that we vote on in the chamber will have to define the term, because the courts will require it. I would not want to be the parliamentary draftsman who was charged with that task—indeed, I find the term difficult to define—but if the committee has a view on what constitutes a child's eye-level we will be more than happy to consider it.
The Daily Sport that I purchased was at pram level. The commonly accepted level is 1.2m, which is the average height of a six or seven-year-old.
A large section of the community would describe these magazines as harmless fun, although there is no doubt that others have directly linked them with hard-core pornography and prostitution through the advertisements in the back pages. The fact is that when they are displayed at children's eye-level or next to comics, they are already easily accessible by children. As the voluntary code is clearly not working, why do we not enforce it or make it compulsory? Surely that would ensure that the provisions work effectively.
If the committee wishes to go down that route, we are happy to consider it. However, the proposal raises a number of questions. What sanctions will be applied for breaching the code? Who will impose the sanction? How will you recover the penalty? Is the penalty a criminal or civil one? If it is civil, which organisation will administer it? We are not precluding any approach; all I am saying is that the devil is in the detail. The commissioner might well be right in saying that a child's eye-level is 1.2m to 1.3m, but that will have to be specified. As I have said, parliamentary draftsmen will simply not accept the phrase "child's eye-level".
I thank the cabinet secretary for attending. Do you have any final comments, Mr Baillie?
The Scottish Government has accepted in written evidence that this material should not be available. It is helpful that it has been acknowledged that there is a problem. How assertive we should be in any future action depends on the extent of the problem. We do not really know that, because there is a lack of information. It is pretty tricky to work out what we should do about the issue. There are a number of options, but difficulties are associated with each of them. It will be helpful for us to know the extent of the problem. Common sense tells us that most people know that there is an issue.
We have received responses from both the children's commissioner and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. We will ask for an options paper to be produced for the committee. From the questions that were asked, it is clear that members are genuinely concerned to identify the problem, its scale and whether the existing code is adequate to cover concerns or requires further development. The committee has the option of commissioning its own research, as we have done on a couple of occasions in recent years. We can consider that option, but it might be helpful for the cabinet secretary's department to reflect broadly on the contributions that have been made today. There are many areas of uncertainty. We acknowledge that the legal terminology must be precise, should a different course of action be taken on the issue. In those circumstances, we would seek advice from the cabinet secretary's officials and parliamentary draftspersons.