Petition
Pornography (PE752)
Item 3 is petition PE752, which is by Catherine Harper on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography. Before members is a paper from our gender reporter, Elaine Smith. Good morning, Elaine—I said a few minutes ago that you would be late.
I have arrived in the nick of time. I apologise for being late—there was an accident on the motorway.
Members will know that our deliberation on the petition has continued for some time. The paper provides some background on what the Executive has been doing and what has been happening elsewhere on violence against women and pornography. I hope that members find it informative.
In August, the expert committee on violence against women published the strategic framework on violence against women—a consultation document that I draw to members' attention. The expert committee talks about what its definition of violence against women encompasses; the definition is not limited to violence, but it includes pornography. That is of some interest to the committee.
I ask in the report whether the committee would like to bring the consultation to the petitioners' attention. When we hear oral evidence from the Scottish Executive on the consultation's outcomes, we might wish to ask questions about pornography.
The adult entertainment working group discussed the petition, which we passed to it. The group said that the petition fell outwith its remit because it relates to reserved matters, but it recommended that the Scottish Executive do more work on gender-based exploitation. That was a positive outcome.
On 30 August, the Home Office announced that it would introduce legislation in England and Wales to make possession of extreme pornography offline and online a criminal offence that would carry a maximum penalty of three years in prison. The Scottish Executive has not announced how it might develop that, so that is an on-going issue. Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas MP has proposed a bill to establish an offence in relation to the sale and display of sexually explicit material, which is more to do with so-called lads' mags. Such developments continue. The report contains more detail and I do not want to waste time going through it all.
I have had a couple of meetings with SWAP. At the most recent meeting, which was in June, SWAP agreed that an evidence session might provide a way to achieve some of the terms of its petition. SWAP agreed that the petition probably would not achieve what was hoped when it was lodged. An evidence session would have two main outcomes: it would give committee members the opportunity to consider a variety of evidence on the harmfulness of pornography, in line with the petitioners' objectives, and it would raise awareness of the issues in the debate about the harmfulness of pornography. That would benefit the committee in deciding on future work on the subject and in taking into account everything else that is going on—particularly the policy initiatives that are taking place in the Scottish Executive and further afield.
In some ways, the wider issues that the petition raises have been taken into account by the continuing policy initiatives. Given all that I have said, I recommend that we close the petition, although I do not want to close the issue. It is entirely up to the committee what it wants to do. There are five suggested action points on page 9 of paper EO/S2/06/17/1.
I do not think that an evidence session would be a token gesture, because it would help to inform the committee and it would leave a legacy for the next session. It would also help to address the issues that were raised by Scottish Women Against Pornography, which supported the idea of having an evidence session.
We will want to invite the petitioners to respond to the consultation on the strategic framework on violence against women and we should also question the Scottish Executive on the issues that are raised in the petition as part of the evidence session. I recommend that, in closing the petition, the committee ask me to work with the clerks to produce a further approach paper with options for an evidence session on the harmfulness of pornography. I am happy to listen to members' views.
We should thank Elaine Smith for her work, because the information that we have been given is really useful. I agree, as do the petitioners, that we should close the petition, but not our consideration of the subject. I found all the information about the violence against women agenda—which picks up on the pornography debate—interesting.
I go along with Elaine Smith's suggestion that we continue working on the subject. We should not just have an evidence session: we should also link our work with all the policies that are going ahead. I note that there are to be seminars on violence against women in November. It would be good if one of us could go to the forthcoming conference, as well.
The subject will be an important part of our legacy paper for next session. If we can fit in an evidence session with the petitioners, that would be a good starting point.
I thank Elaine Smith, the clerks and the petitioners for their work. I wondered about the validity of an evidence session, because I was concerned that it might be skewed. However, having heard Elaine Smith's summary, I agree that we should hold an evidence session and that the petition should be closed. Would we have only one evidence session? How long would it take? Would we hear from the petitioners, the Executive and other groups in one session?
I understand that we are looking to have one meeting in which we would hear both sides of the argument. Some of us do not think that there are two sides to the argument, but others will disagree. Elaine Smith will work with the clerks to suggest from whom we should hear to cover the issues, which would link in with the Scottish Executive's strategy. I expect to include some of this in our legacy paper for our successor committee.
We are quite right to close the petition, given that the petitioners have said that the petition has shot its bolt, as it were. I think they said that the petition might be counterproductive and that their real intention is to raise awareness of the harmfulness of pornography. I would find it useful to hear expert advice on the harmfulness of pornography, at a meeting in which we concentrated on the arguments for and against the proposition.
I am new to the committee, so I have not been involved in members' consideration of the petition. Is it intended to seek out research evidence before the proposed evidence session takes place? There are many research papers out there. I am a wee bit concerned that a verbal presentation of the arguments for and against the proposition would not give an indication of the breadth and depth of the research that has been done.
We have a fair amount of information, but we can ask the people from whom we take evidence to provide written submissions before they attend the meeting.
Such matters will be considered in the approach paper that I will produce for the committee. The committee will need to agree an approach to the evidence session. Perhaps that addresses Sandra White's point, too.
The debate is about the harmfulness of pornography and about raising awareness. I envisage a more academic approach, in which we would consider the evidence that Carolyn Leckie mentioned. I do not recall seeing any evidence that pornography is a good thing, but the question is whether it is harmful and contributes to the subjugation of women. We need to consider the matter in the context of the debate about violence against women, so at this stage we must take an academic approach.
If members agree to the two action points that I have recommended, they will have an opportunity to discuss the nature of the proposed evidence session when the clerks and I produce the approach paper. Perhaps we can ask Steve Farrell whether the clerks can help me with that.
The recommendations in action points 2 and 4 on page 9 of your paper, which include bringing forward an approach paper, represent the best way forward.
The approach would help us to answer some of our questions.
Before the committee concludes its discussion, I want to thank the clerks—Steve Farrell and Zoé Tough in particular—for assisting me during the past couple of years.
I want to underline Carolyn Leckie's comments. On page 3 of her paper, Elaine Smith quotes the consultation on the strategic framework on violence against women, which defines violence against women as encompassing a long list of things, including pornography. That should be our starting point.
We can take that on board as part of the approach paper.
Will consideration be limited to the relationship between pornography and violence against women or will we also consider other matters, such as the effect of pornography on children?
We need to work within the focus of the petition, which was on violence against women.
I agree absolutely. We must narrow down our consideration, because the subject is enormous.
Yes it is. Are members happy with Elaine Smith's proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Elaine Smith and the clerks for the large amount of work that has been done. Elaine Smith has been working on the matter for some time. Our proceeding with her proposals will at least ensure that the issue is on our agenda and is considered in the context of the strategic framework on violence against women.