Magazines and Newspapers (Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of two petitions, the first of which is PE1169, on sexually graphic magazine covers. Paper 2 gives us an update on the petition’s situation. The recommendations in paragraph 5 are that we can either close the petition on the basis that the matter has been reviewed at United Kingdom Government level, inform the petitioner and give them copies of correspondence, or that we can take any other course of action. What would members like to do with the petition?
I am inclined to agree, but the fact that the petition has been reviewed at Government level does not necessarily mean that it will be addressed as we would wish. The subject of the petition is one that often takes us into the area of censorship, which is complicated and gives us a lot more to consider. However, I think that what the petition proposes is a very simple and practical measure, which I suspect is already good practice; it does not happen generally, but we should be pushing for that. I am content to close the petition on the basis that the matter is being reviewed nationally, but I would wish to keep a watching brief on it to ensure that something else can be done if progress is not made in that direction.
We could certainly keep a watching brief on it after closing it.
I have a similar concern to Alex Johnstone’s. The set of voluntary guidelines on the issue is an improvement on the previous situation, but it might fail to deliver the change that we want and might not satisfy the petitioner. If the guidelines are not adhered to, the petitioner might have the right to submit a different petition based on that. However, that might put the petitioner in a difficult position and it might not be the best way of addressing concerns about the matter, which will remain outstanding until the guidelines take effect.
Are there any other views from around the table? No? Do we wish to refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee?
It can keep a watching brief on the issue.
Can we enter into correspondence with the petitioner again?
We can ask the Public Petitions Committee to do that, and the petitioner can keep a watching brief on the issue as well. Do we agree to do as suggested?
Access to Justice (Environment) (PE1372)
The next petition is PE1372, on access to justice in environmental matters. Again, we have an update in the form of a letter from Friends of the Earth Scotland. Paragraph 5 of the briefing paper indicates that we can revisit the petition when further updates are received from Friends of the Earth in late 2013 and early 2014, or we can take any other course of action that we see fit. Given that we have on-going correspondence with Friends of the Earth on the matter, I favour taking the first action suggested. However, I am happy to take members’ views.
It has been some time since the petition first came to the committee. Undoubtedly, the justice system, including civil justice, faces considerable financial demands. I understand and share Friends of the Earth’s frustration about certain justice matters. There are a number of overlapping issues, so I think that it is important that we keep the petition live, not least because of the factors that are highlighted in the letter from Friends of the Earth.
We will revisit the petition when further updates are available, and we can keep in contact with Friends of the Earth.
Why did the petition come to the Equal Opportunities Committee? The issue is one of access to justice, but it seems be about broad access to justice rather than one that interacts with any of the protected characteristics. I would have thought that the petition would be for the Justice Committee.
The petition does not relate to a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, but the Scotland Act 1998 gives the Equal Opportunities Committee a role in looking at discrimination on the basis of social background. The petition comes within the remit of this committee under that criterion.
The petition is really about a financial aspect, because people without access to sufficient finance are disadvantaged when trying to go to court on environmental issues. Are we happy to do what has been suggested?
Thank you.
Next
Women and Work