Equal Opportunities Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Official Report 496KB pdf

---

Petition

---

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

Before we go on to item 3, I ask everybody round the table to introduce themselves again, because we have all moved places.

I am the MSP for Aberdeenshire West.

I am a Central Scotland MSP.

I am a West Scotland MSP.

I am a Highlands and Islands MSP.

I am a West Scotland MSP.

I am a Highlands and Islands MSP.

Item 3 is petition PE1169, on sexually graphic magazine and newspaper covers. We have received responses from the Scottish Government and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. Members are invited to note the responses and consider what action we should take next.

We have a choice of four things to do. We could write back to the NFRN to ask when it expects to decide what action to take following the Bailey review and to ask it to inform us of the outcome of that. We could write to the UK Government and ask to be informed of the outcome of its taking-stock exercise. We could close the petition, or we could take any other course of action on which we decide. Do members have views on the action that we should take?

It would be useful to write back to the NFRN. I am keen that we ask it whether there are any specific areas that it is keen to see tightened up. That information would help the committee. We should also ask for more information on its guidelines. We have a brief outline, but it would be useful for the committee to know more.

We should not close the petition. I am aware of the situation regarding the UK Government, and I dare say that we will end up closing the petition at some point in the near future because of the work that is going on elsewhere, but in the short term we should seek more information.

That is useful. I do not see any point in closing the petition, because we need to continue to look at it. Obviously, at some time in the future, we will close it, but I agree that we need more information.

Do other members have views?

I have a lot of sympathy with the Scottish Government’s letter. I am not keen on rushing to regulation either, and the Scottish Government is rightly canny about doing that.

I was far less happy with the NFRN’s letter, for two reasons. First, if there are guidelines, why does it promptly say that it is all the publisher’s fault? If it is all the publisher’s fault, that implies that members of the NFRN and the organisation itself have no responsibility. I do not believe that that is the case, and many responsible members of the NFRN do not believe that it is the case.

Secondly, I know responsible members of the NFRN who would not dream of displaying these materials where schoolchildren could see them, and they are at pains to ensure that that does not happen.

I agree with Stuart McMillan. We should not close the petition; that would be premature. We need to say to the NFRN, “You’re an organisation with a responsibility to the public. Why do some of your members have difficulty in applying the guidelines in a responsible and proportionate manner? What is the problem?” As I have said before, the committee should make it clear to the NFRN that this is a serious issue. It does not strike me as being an earth-shatteringly difficult one to resolve, yet there seems to be a disappointing appetite on the part of the NFRN to deal with it.

16:00

I agree.

I agree entirely with what Annabel Goldie has just said. Given that Paul Baxter says that

“the real culprits are the editors”

and he talks about publishers twice, I would like to know what correspondence he has had with the publishers and editors of the magazines. If he is so perturbed by what they are doing, what has his organisation done to involve itself in the debate?

I endorse what others have said. I do not think that we need to legislate further. I think that there is probably a strict code in place already, but it is not being adhered to. It is the adherence to the code that we need to consider, as well as the sanctions that can be enforced when people do not apply the code. That might come down to revoking people’s licences, for example.

Legislation should always be the very last resort. I firmly believe that other steps can be considered before the idea of legislation is even contemplated.

I agree with what others have said. Paul Baxter’s letter is a bit of a get-out clause. Basically, newsagents and publishers want to sell magazines and will not change the covers. That is not going to happen unless we go in the direction in which we are going in relation to cigarettes and put brown covers on magazines. I think, therefore, that the other route is best.

There is a definite view around the table that we do not want to close the petition and that the NFRN is not being as open and up front as it could be. I suggest that we write to the NFRN asking for clarification on the correspondence that it has had with publishers on the guidelines and so on.

The clerks have suggested that we might write to the UK Government to ask to be informed of the outcome of its taking-stock exercise. Do we want to do that? Do we want to write to the NFRN first? Do we want to do both?

I think that we should do both.

I do not think that it would do any harm to write to the UK Government to ask what it is going to do. We will get that letter drawn up and sent off.

Would it be worth obtaining a copy of the guidelines that the NFRN sends out, rather than just asking for some further information? If we obtained the exact guidelines that it sends out, that would perhaps aid us in our future activities.

Yes. Do we agree to what has been proposed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will move into private session for item 4.

16:03 Meeting continued in private until 16:14.