Magazines and Newspapers (Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)
We have three current petitions to consider this afternoon. The first is PE1169, by Margaret Forbes, on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish 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.
Indeed we have. The issue is not going away. I recall hearing a small discussion on the subject on the radio within the past three days. I think that it was on “Women’s Hour”.
Yes, it was.
That discussion brought home the problems of mothers whose young children ask questions about the magazines on low shelves. We must continue the petition. If my recollection of the previous meeting at which we considered the petition is correct, the feeling was that we should, in order to take it further, consider a small-scale research project.
It would be useful to get Graham Ross’s views.
We have put a paper together. Basically, there are two options for research. The small-scale, short-term one would look at the level of compliance with the voluntary guidelines on display of such magazines. That would involve people going round and looking at different kinds of retail outlets that sell them, seeing what the level of compliance is, and finding out the retailer’s understanding of the guidelines.
Do we need to get somebody else to do the research? I imagine that that was—roughly—what was going to be suggested. Does scope exist for us—I appreciate that my colleagues are not all here—to do the research?
I was thinking along the lines of such complementary small-scale research. It is very important that we do the small-scale research, however small it is, to provide a kicking-off point for the next committee. It is clear that we will not make progress on the petition before dissolution. Given the amount of business that will be involved in setting up the fourth parliamentary session, the committee might have a slow start after dissolution. If the next committee has a baseplate that it can start with, that will provide probably six months to a year of progress beyond where we would be otherwise. Our committee numbers are down, but we know from the previous meeting at which we considered the petition that the committee is in favour of small-scale research, so I strongly recommend that we do that.
I have a concern about committee members undertaking research. I do not doubt their research skills, but the sample would be tiny. It is important that we do the research because we could feed it into the UK Government’s consideration of childhood sexualisation—I do not remember the review’s exact title. I am not saying that our research would not be credible, but external research would give us a larger sample and the research might be—I hesitate to say it—
Perhaps it might be more credible.
It might be more credible.
That is all right. We know what you are saying and nobody will take offence.
We would have to take that into consideration when the bids came in. We would feed it in and ask people to indicate what kind of research team they would put together to do the work. In my experience, it is fairly easy to get a research team of five or half a dozen people to do 30 or 40 stores each. That is not a tiny sample. It takes slightly longer to conduct follow-up interviews to ask about understanding of the guidelines, why they are not being complied with or why people think that they should be. In the paper, I say that because timescales are tight, I have already contacted some research groups, with the proviso that the committee must still make a decision on the matter. Three people have said that they are ready to go, should we ask them to do the research.
The design of the research is also important.
Forgive me, convener. My first degree is in science and I am married to a research scientist, but occasionally I forget that not everyone has that background.
It is agreeable to be able to note that our researchers are one step ahead of us.
For once.
We agree to a small-scale research project. The proposal will have to be referred to the Conveners Group for consideration. I will be unable to attend the meeting at which it will be considered, so it will be important for John Farquhar Munro to do so.
Scottish Water (Executive Bonuses) (PE1300)
PE1300, from Drew Cochrane, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to issue a direction to Scottish Water under the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 to discontinue the practice of paying bonuses to its senior executives. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
We can reflect on the fact that the petition has been discussed and referred to the Scottish Government, that we have received replies and that comments have been made in the chamber. My reading of the situation is that the Scottish Government has been put under some pressure to do what the petition asks, has decided not to and believes that it can justify its view, whatever principled objections some of us may have. A regulatory regime and a remuneration framework are in place. Clearly, the Government believes that staying with what it has will achieve the maximum efficiency and cost savings for the organisation. I do not know whether we can disagree with that. On that basis, perhaps we should close the petition, as there is not much else that we can do.
Absolutely.
We agree to close the petition.
Cerebral Palsy/Acquired Brain Injury National Football Team (PE1335)
The final current petition is PE1335, from Maggie Tervit and other parents, on behalf of football players with cerebral palsy or acquired brain injury. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action, including by making representations to the Scottish Football Association, to bring Scotland more into line with England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and to adopt the Scottish national team for footballers with cerebral palsy/acquired brain injury.
Given that the SFA is committed to resourcing grass-roots and developmental opportunities for players from all areas of disability football and is funding a national development manager whose remit will cover all areas of disability football from grass-roots to international level, I do not think that it is an appropriate time to ask the Government to make representations to the SFA or to attempt to direct what it is doing in that regard.
I am not very clear about where we are on the petition, given that Scottish Disability Sport said in its letter of 30 August:
At the very least we could formulate our question as, “Why has Scotland taken a different approach from that of the other countries?” We do not object to that, but we would like an explanation and rationalisation of the difference in approach.
We could also ask whether it means that other disability sports are excluded. It would certainly be useful to find out what plans there are for future international development when the future disability plan is written. Other members of the committee might be interested in that area.
Our problem in understanding the situation is to do with the number of funding streams and the multiplicity of organisations concerned. It is quite complex. The Government, sportscotland, the SFA, disability organisations and SDS are all involved.
With the committee’s agreement, I suggest that we look at the petition again on a future occasion. I think that there are some issues that we still need to have clarified. For example, I find the view of SDS on the adoption of the CP/ABI football squad by the SFA quite interesting.
At the very least, we should ask the questions that the petitioner has asked us to pursue, on the basis that she has a much better understanding of the subject than I do. The more I see of petitions relating to Scottish football, the more confused I get and the more concerned I become that people expect Parliament to sort out what other people do not seem to be able to sort out themselves. When it comes to football in general, I am not too worried, but when it comes to disabilities and those who need our help, I think that it is important that we push forward and ask the questions that they are asking. Once we have got responses to those questions and there are more of us present, it might be clearer what we can do in the future to help.
The Government is quite clear—correctly, I think—that this is a matter for sportscotland, which is the agency that has the responsibility for implementing ministerial policy. How much further the Government could be expected to interfere in the work of sportscotland is a matter of conjecture.
I do not think that that is what we are asking. The suggestion is that we write to the SFA. I am also interested in what Scottish Disability Sport’s position is, as it receives funding from sportscotland. It would be useful to tease out the matter a little further.
It might be worth asking the Government whether it has given sportscotland specific targets on disability football and, if so, whether those targets have been met.
Do we agree to the suggestions?
Previous
New Petitions