Official Report 137KB pdf
Item 4 relates to the review of equal opportunities in the work of committees. At its meeting on 26 February, the committee considered further the Equal Opportunities Committee's proposal for a rule change to require committees to report on their equal opportunities work. The committee agreed to defer its decision until publication of the parliamentary committees' annual reports, to review those reports and to revisit the issue in the light of that review. The committee also agreed to notify committees of its decision in writing. The Conveners Group supported the proposal for a review of mainstreaming equal opportunities, which would be co-ordinated by the Equal Opportunities Committee.
I simply have an observation to make. The coverage of equal opportunities in the committee annual reports appears, to say the least, to be variable and inconsistent. Of course, in some instances, there are legitimate reasons for such variability. Whichever option we go forward with, we need perhaps to consider producing guidance or a template for the section on mainstreaming equal opportunities in all committees' annual reports. That would provide consistency across them all and delineate the sections clearly so that interested parties would not have to trawl through an entire report if they were particularly interested in that section alone.
Do we know what a rule change would entail and how much extra work it would mean for the clerks and others? Would we be able to do it well enough to make the Equal Opportunities Committee happy? I do not really know what it would entail.
I suppose that that relates to Hugh O'Donnell's point that, if we give some kind of guidance or template, we are more likely to get something out of it. Certainly, when I attended the European and External Relations Committee, it did not have a clue what it would put into the report. The matter was dealt with cursorily.
Whether or not there was a rule change, the committees would produce reports. We would have to work with legal colleagues to draft a rule change—although I do not think that it would be a substantial one—and the Parliament would have to agree to it, so time would have to be found to debate it. It is not a huge amount of work.
From the responses that we have received from the various committees, it seems that the Public Petitions Committee is ahead of the game. It has a monitoring process in place and, unsurprisingly, is content that it is doing what is expected of it but does not think that a rule change would create any problem. We could invite some members of that committee along to find out how it goes about mainstreaming equal opportunities or the clerks to both committees should speak to one another to see what we can learn.
The idea is that all members should know the subject in depth, but it is obvious that they do not. Therefore, I am definitely for a rule change. Compiling the annual report might not be a lot of work, but I hope that a lot of work would be put into mainstreaming equal opportunities much earlier in the game. When committees decide on their work programmes, they should think about equal opportunities right at the beginning rather than have a wee look at the end to see what they can squeeze into their annual reports under that heading. Without a rule change, it would be easy to be disappointed, so it would be better to change the rules and make mainstreaming equal opportunities an accepted part of all committees' work.
I am looking at the three recommendations in the paper from the clerks—SPPA/S3/08/14/3. It seems to me that the second is the most valuable and would be the least time-consuming. Committees would have to write a report only once a session, and all reports would then be collated by the Equal Opportunities Committee for it to produce one report covering all the committees. That would give us some idea of whether mainstreaming was working or not.
I have been a wee bit ambivalent over whether or not there should be a rule change. Based on our experience, my fear is that a rule change might make it even easier for people just to tick a box without doing any substantial work, although that would depend on how the rule change was constructed.
I agree with the point about guidance. You would, I suspect, be right in saying that without guidance, the exercise might become merely a box-ticking exercise.
I hope that I am not asking them to abuse their position, but I wanted to ask a question of our colleagues who are also members of the Equal Opportunities Committee. The second recommendation, which Jamie McGrigor mentioned, seems reasonable. However, I would be concerned if the work were carried out only once a session—once every four years is not enough. When a session is over, a committee will leave a legacy paper for the committee to come, but that committee will often want to stamp its own views on its work. The first committee might have identified problems, but there is no guarantee that the new committee will pick up on them. This committee and others have shown that they do not always pick up on issues in legacy papers.
That is a good point, given that committees produce annual reports. The other advantage of Cathie Craigie's suggestion is that the Equal Opportunities Committee and other interested parties would have the opportunity to flag up any laxness annually. That would give the committee that had fallen short the opportunity to rectify the problem within its period of responsibility, thereby avoiding the problem that the member has highlighted.
Ideally, the matter should be reported on once a year. The suggestion that the Equal Opportunities Committee should collate the responses into one document is good, but that would involve a lot of work and I am not sure that it could be done every year. I prefer recommendation 2 to recommendation 1, because I think that a collated report would be more interesting than individual reports from committees, which people may tend not to read. We have been presented with the option of having such a report only every four years, but perhaps we should have one every year. I would not argue against that, but it is not one of the recommendations.
We do not have to go with what is in the paper—we can go with something else.
I suggest biennial reports, which would give us a good idea of what was happening. It would be onerous for the Equal Opportunities Committee to produce such reports annually.
I see that. My objection to the proposal is the same, regardless of whether reports are produced annually or sessionally. If they are retrospective, they will provide ex post facto justifications of what committees have not done and will put the best spin on the fact that they have failed to address equal opportunities issues. I would prefer such issues to be included in committees' work programmes.
Jamie McGrigor's point is well made. Alternatively, committees could produce annual reports and there could be a rule change stipulating that, at the end of each session, the Equal Opportunities Committee be responsible for bringing together the reports of the previous four years as part of its end-of-session report. That is just one possibility—never trust a Liberal to come up with an alternative.
Jamie McGrigor suggested that the Equal Opportunities Committee produce a report midway through the session, which would flag up any problems. Presumably, the committee would pick up those problems.
Two years is too long—reports must be produced annually. I do not want to pick out one committee, but in its report the Health and Sport Committee mentions health and deprivation—which is interesting, but is not the same as equal opportunities—but not sport. If the committee had to produce four reports, I presume that it would discuss sport in one of them. Sport is really important to women, but getting girls to continue taking part in sport after they leave school is a massive problem. The Health and Sport Committee must consider that, because no one else will. Committees must report annually, but I agree that the Equal Opportunities Committee could compile a report once a session, rather than as an on-going part of its programme. As committees become better at mainstreaming, the Equal Opportunities Committee's work programme should shrink, until all that is left for it to do is to look at how well everyone else is doing.
It is interesting that Marlyn Glen has picked up on sport, because there is extensive research from several years ago—impact assessments and policy positions—on the relationship between equal opportunities and sport. I think that the Scottish women's budget group was involved in that. That is a specific example.
Based on the debate that we have had, I would probably opt for a rule change as well, and I agree that committees should report annually. The Public Petitions Committee has a good model and is an example of good practice. If it can do the work, I do not see why other committees cannot do it as well. I support a rule change to require the production of one report per year. The point was well made about the Equal Opportunities Committee pulling everything together at the end of a session. We should have interim reports and then a final one that covers four years.
I acknowledge that, but I return to Marlyn Glen's point. If we put through a rule change that says, "You must put this in your annual report," and committees then nimble along and do not address the matter, they will get to the end of the year and say, "Well, how did we address it?" Somebody—usually a clerk, I think—will have the thankless task of going off and trying to find ways in which they considered equalities or took it into account. It would be more effective if, at the start of the year, committees had some guidance on how they could incorporate equalities in their work as they go along, rather than their having to justify whether they have incorporated it at the end of the year.
I agree with everything that you just said, convener. One point that we should remember is that we should get this right. We should take the time to get it right rather than make a rule change now and find that people are not happy about it.
I am looking at the letter from the Equal Opportunities Committee, in which it undertakes to discuss
I have a feeling that providing people with guidelines on what is expected of them might expand their horizons a wee bit rather than limit them, but that might be a cynical point of view.
I support the option of getting the clerks together. That would be an important piece of preparatory work.
That would not rule out a rule change.
I missed the letter that Marlyn Glen mentioned. However, the fact is that the Equal Opportunities Committee has gone as far as thinking that, if there has to be guidance, training will be required. That committee is a step ahead of us in knowing what will be required. We are eight or nine years into the life of this Parliament and we have been working in a voluntary way—everyone is expected to do the work but not everyone does it. We are all guilty of that—we have not done the work.
The view expressed by Cathie Craigie seems to be reflected in the variable amount and quality of the work that has been done.
Gillian Baxendine will comment on that, but it seems to me from the Equal Opportunities Committee's letter that it is saying that guidance and training would be required if this committee decided not to support a rule change—although it is not ruled out if we do support a rule change.
I want only to clarify the point made by Hugh O'Donnell about it being perfectly feasible for us to draft a rule change while also approaching the Equal Opportunities Committee. The committee could always draft a rule then change it if it needed to.
I wanted to make the point that you made, convener, which is that a rule change was proposed in the context of the Equal Opportunities Committee not offering guidance and training. We need to clarify whether it is willing to offer that guidance and training if we decide that we need a rule change.
I am slightly unclear in my mind about whom the guidance and training are for. As ever, the burden of putting together the reports will fall on the clerks, but the need for guidance and training is among members.
Does the Equal Opportunities Committee specify the sort of thing that it would like us to do? Given her experience, perhaps Marlyn Glen could provide specific examples of work that we—by which I mean parliamentary committees—are not doing but should be doing.
The Finance Committee is the most interesting example of a committee that needs to do work on equalities, but every committee must consider the issue. Given that an economy will miss out if it does not make use of everyone's talents, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee needs to ensure that people who are disabled, for example, have the opportunity to find employment.
Do we envisage that there will be penalties if committees do not do what they are meant to do? If so, what will those penalties be and how will they be applied?
I do not know the answer to that. When we wrote to the other committees, we made it implicit that if they did not take action on the issue voluntarily, the penalty would be a rule change. I do not know what the penalties might be, other than condemnation for not having treated equal opportunities seriously.
I have a particular interest in concluding at least part of our work on the issue, but more of that at another time. I would like us to agree in principle to a rule change and for that to be recorded.
Can I clarify what that rule change would be?
If we agree in principle to a rule change, a rule change might be proposed that we do not like. We cannot anticipate giving our support for a rule change that we have not seen, although I suppose that we could record the fact that, in principle, we are in favour of a rule change. That would not commit us to any particular proposal.
That is right. It is the principle that I am interested in. I am quite keen on issues of principle at the moment.
I wonder whether the rule change could require committees to include specific equal opportunities information in their annual reports, with the Equal Opportunities Committee being responsible for combining the relevant information from those reports in one publication once a session. That would pull together the best parts of the first and the second recommendations.
As has been said, the clerks will go away and speak to others about drafting a rule change. Such a change would have to require parliamentary committees to mainstream equal opportunities in their work. Someone else can come up with the appropriate wording.
We could also say that the matter should be reflected in committees' annual reports, in accordance with any guidance. Wording of that nature would be appropriate. I realise that I am being a bit specific.
Whenever the Procedures Committee discussed rule changes in the previous session, it would not come up with the wording for those changes. The clerks always went away and drew something up. What matters is the committee's intention.
That is all that I want to clarify. A rule change on reports is distinct from a rule change on mainstreaming equalities, which would be much wider than the change that we have discussed.
Someone may be able to help me—am I right to think that mainstreaming equal opportunities is built into the Scotland Act 1998?
So what we are attempting to do would be narrower.
Yes. That is why I was fairly specific about what committees would need to do to address the requirement.
Although we will agree in principle to a rule change, I fear that we will be unable to agree on whether it is wide or narrow enough or on whether it will achieve anything before we see it. I would like to see the proposal before agreeing to it in principle, but several members have said that they agree in principle.
I have a question, because we have ranged over several issues. Is it just a matter of obtaining from committees reports of what they have done in their committee procedures? From some committees' comments, the position is pretty clear. For instance, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee said:
Yes.
Yes—that is what the committee should do.
I propose that a report should be prepared with a proposed rule change and that, after discussion between the clerks of this committee and of the Equal Opportunities Committee, guidance should be produced for committees on how they should report. I do not want to support a rule change before seeing what is proposed, but if the procedure happens in that way, that is fair enough.
I just suggested a general idea—the work does not have to be done in that way. That just seemed to be what people were thinking.
The last point to consider is whether, at the same time as asking for a draft rule change, we should agree in principle to the rule change. My position is that we should not agree until we see the proposal. Does anyone have a different view? By asking for a draft rule change, we will move to the next stage, and tell the most important other committee—the Equal Opportunities Committee—about it. I imagine that the cart will not go before the horse and that the discussion about the rule change will refer to the guidance that might accompany it. Are members agreed on that? Is anyone otherwise minded?
No—that is okay.
We will ask for a draft rule change to be prepared and for guidance to be produced after discussions between the clerks of this committee and of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Is that okay?
That is fine.
Thanks very much.
Meeting continued in private until 16:28.
Previous
Code of Conduct Review