Equal Opportunities Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Official Report 316KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Access to Justice (Environment) (PE1372)

We have two petitions before us. Members have received papers 4 to 7, which include the Scottish Parliament information centre briefings and copies of the petitions. I advise members that papers 4 and 5 were inadvertently circulated as private papers and that, with our leave, the clerk will publish them with this meeting’s public papers. Does the committee agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

The first petition, PE1372, by Duncan McLaren on behalf of Friends of the Earth Scotland, concerns whether access to the Scottish courts is compliant with the Aarhus convention on access to justice in environmental matters. Our paper asks us to decide on a course of action. We could write to the Scottish Government about the issues that have been raised, or we can agree on an alternative course of action, including taking no action.

As members came into the meeting, they received—hot off the press—a document from the Scottish Government that says that the Government will conduct a consultation exercise on the very point that the petition raises. The last paragraph says:

“The Scottish Government’s intention is to put a mechanism in place which will put Scotland’s compliance with the requirements of the PPD beyond doubt. The Scottish Government considers that Rules of the Court of Session, setting out a clear objective framework in which Protective Expenses Orders can be granted in relevant cases, will do that.”

Obviously, members will not have had much time to consider that information, but we could certainly hold off making any decision until we see what comes out of the consultation. Do we agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I agree with the suggestion, but I would like to have a point clarified. The SPICe briefing note says that the Scottish Government’s response to the report of the Scottish civil courts review that was launched by Lord Gill in September 2009 says:

“The Lord President has indicated to the Scottish Government that he intends to make rules to address this issue in environmental cases and the Court of Session Rules Council has now proposed new rules for such cases.”

It would be helpful to know the status of those rules. The Court of Session is separate from the Scottish Government, and I would like to know whether the rules are agreed and in place. I wonder whether we could ask for clarification of that in our letter to the Scottish Government.

We can find that out. That would be useful.

---

Magazines and Newspapers (Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)

The second petition 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.

As it is not clear that the measures that are called for are within the Parliament’s legislative competence, the recommendation is to seek the Scottish Government’s view on that point and ask whether it plans to act in this area. Again, we can agree an alternative course of action if we wish, including taking no action. Do members have any comments?

I am curious about the uncertainty about the legislative competence of the Parliament, because the Scottish Government has legislated in respect of tobacco displays. If that has happened, why is there an issue about the display of newspaper materials? I raise that as a point for clarification. Perhaps we could inquire into that.

The clerk suggests that there is a health aspect to the issue of tobacco, which is why the Scottish Government can make regulations in that regard. However, he will check up on that.

14:15

I have another observation. I do not know what other members feel about the issue but, having read the paper on it, I feel very strongly about it. The issue has been the subject of previous discussion, including discussion with the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, which culminated in the Public Petitions Committee commissioning back in December 2010 a small-scale research project. The response to that research inquiry was rather discouraging. It indicates to me that there does not seem to be a high level of interest on the part of retailers in observing their own federation’s guidelines.

I certainly feel that it is undesirable that children can go into a village shop, for example, and find material on display at a shelf height of 1.5m. I think that the committee would consider that to be unsuitable for children. In addition to whatever else the committee decides to do on the petition, should it agree to put on record its disquiet by writing to the National Federation of Retail Newsagents?

I certainly agree with your point. Before I came into the Parliament, I worked for many years for one of the country’s biggest retailers. Where to display the magazines in question seemed to be left to the retailer’s discretion. The retailer that I worked for put all such publications on a high shelf, but they often ended up not being on a high shelf. The issue seems to be very much a grey area, but it should certainly be tightened up on.

I agree that, as Annabel Goldie suggested, we should write to the federation. I do not see how that can do any harm, and a letter coming from the committee might be beneficial.

Annabel Goldie raised a point on legislative competence, on which an explanation has been provided. There appears to be a bit of confusion. It is certainly worth while writing to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on what the position is. When we get responses from the Government and from the federation, the committee might be in a better position to take a decision on any possible further action on the petition.

If we write a letter, it should emphasise our distaste in the strongest possible terms. Because the guidance that is already out there is not being followed, we must ask how inspection is done. If it is up to local managers in retail organisations, perhaps our views should be disseminated to them as well.

We must ensure that the content of our letter to the federation goes out to all its members. In addition, it is perhaps worth while trying to get our letter into a newsletter or other correspondence of the Federation of Small Businesses that goes out to retailers. As well as writing to the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, our disquiet and distaste—I do not think that that is too strong a term to use—could be expressed in other periodicals.

We can certainly draw up a letter and do what has been suggested. Do members want to see the letter before it is sent out?

Yes, and I agree with Dennis Robertson that the letter should be written in clear and uncompromising terms.

We can circulate the letter for members’ approval and agreement before it gets sent out. It is certainly a wise course of action to clarify matters with the Government and retailers, because retailers seem to follow the guidance only if they feel like it.

I suggest that we say in our letter to the National Federation of Retail Newsagents that the committee has no desire to increase bureaucracy for shopkeepers and small retailers but that, if the voluntary code cannot be complied with, a legislative alternative will have to be vigorously investigated.

That is fine. Thank you very much.

The committee agreed previously to take in private item 6, so we now move into private session.

14:19 Meeting continued in private until 14:31.