We pick up from where we left off. I confirm for the record that no business was transacted during the adjournment; we were simply awaiting the arrival of representatives from the Equal Opportunities Committee. I am grateful to the Public Petitions Committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee and a number of members of the Procedures Committee for juggling among themselves the various meetings that have been happening today so that we can fit in with one another.
Thank you, convener. It is a bit strange to be sitting at this side of the table instead of in the convener's chair.
In the submission that you sent to the committee on 26 June, you indicated that you might be in a position at this stage to discuss the emerging findings from the Equal Opportunities Committee's work on mainstreaming, the report on which you mentioned at the end of your presentation. I think that you said that your report will now be made in mid-November and that it was slipping behind the original time scale. Are you in a position to discuss any of that with us or might we more fruitfully come back to you later on that?
We are not at a stage at which we could discuss that, but we will be able to return in mid or late November to discuss the report in full.
We will take you up on that offer, one way or another.
Kate MacLean mentioned the equality checklist. What is the Equal Opportunities Committee's view on monitoring the effectiveness of the checklist? Many of us have had experience of similar situations in local government. Are there any differences between how policy areas or departments respond to the checklist?
The conveners group approved the checklist some time ago. There has been no obvious hostility from committees to using it. It has been used to support the scrutiny of recent policy and legislation, such as the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001.
As Kate MacLean said in her introductory remarks, we are knocking at an open door. All the committees feel that the equality checklist and monitoring are very important. Nobody is balking at the checklist.
Are any committees telling you that although they agree with the principle of monitoring, their skills and knowledge in this area are partial and they would like more support?
Everyone agrees with the principle of equal opportunities. However, some members and committee still see equal opportunities as the responsibility of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Ideally, the Parliament would not need an Equal Opportunities Committee, because work on equal opportunities would be mainstreamed throughout the Parliament. We held workshops on mainstreaming, but they were not very well attended by members. The aim was to find out what support members felt they needed in this area. The Equal Opportunities Committee has a role in facilitating equal opportunities education and training for members, because the equal opportunities implications of legislation are not always obvious.
My first question is about the workshops on mainstreaming. I speak as someone who wanted to attend those workshops, but was unable to. How many MSPs attended the workshops?
Four.
Oh dear.
Like Kenneth Macintosh, many members wanted to attend but did not.
When the research into mainstreaming is published, it will go out for consultation. We may consider holding further workshops, and there will be tools available to assist with mainstreaming. However, four out of 129 MSPs is not a good turnout.
As I recall, the workshops were held on a Friday in the middle of a busy period.
It is not the role of the Scottish Executive equality unit to monitor the Parliament. The equality unit works for the Executive and its work must be scrutinised. It should not be the Equal Opportunities Committee's role to monitor the Parliament, but at the moment we are doing that. It should be for equality organisations to ensure that we adhere to good practice in equal opportunities—they already do that to a certain extent. Amendments to legislation that the Equal Opportunities Committee proposes often come from the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equality Network or the Equal Opportunities Commission. The committee has not yet discussed designating an organisation to scrutinise the entire work of the Parliament.
We are moving towards adopting a monitoring role. We have used our checklist to scrutinise legislation, but we must go on to monitor how that legislation is operating.
Do you think that legislation is equality proofed by the Parliament?
When draft bills are published, they are supposed to have been equality proofed. However, we have had to lodge similar amendments to several different bills, which suggests that the message is not getting through. Committees should also do mainstreaming work when scrutinising legislation.
A similar issue came up when the Transport and the Environment Committee considered sustainability. All bills are supposed to have been scrutinised for their environmental impact, but we had great difficulty in working out who carried out that scrutiny, what it consisted of and what criteria were used. Have you been able to identify the equal opportunities criteria that are being used, how they are applied and who is responsible for doing that?
The equality unit provides the relevant part of the policy memorandum to bills. The unit is responsible for equality-proofing legislation.
Is that arrangement working satisfactorily?
It is obviously not working, as time after time we have to lodge similar amendments to legislation.
What do you intend to do about that?
Mainstreaming is not just for committees, but for the Parliament as a whole. It applies to all the Executive departments, every committee and every person who is involved in producing legislation, from the beginning to the end of the process. It is a huge job for the Equal Opportunities Committee to consider every piece of legislation. The committee has to decide where detailed scrutiny is required or whether a cursory glance will suffice. Sometimes we have to revise those decisions. Unlike subject committees, which deal with bills as lead committees and have more time to consider those pieces of legislation, we examine all legislation that comes before the Parliament. Because we have to feed into the deliberations of the lead committee, we have a much reduced time scale for scrutinising legislation and carrying out consultation. The committee aims to introduce mainstreaming throughout the Parliament, so that everyone is responsible for ensuring equal opportunities.
Hence your description of the committee as a catalyst rather than a watchdog. There is some tension between those two roles. You want to move the agenda forward, but you do not want to be oppressive and interfering, or to get on other people's cases. That is a difficult job.
I have not encountered any hostility or animosity from other committees. They are happy when we report on specific pieces of legislation. We have arranged with other committees to take evidence jointly, so that we do not end up taking evidence from the same organisations. We agree on areas that we can deal with, which takes some of the weight off subject committees. Other committees are not reluctant to allow us to become involved, as everyone is in favour of equal opportunities. However, it would be easier if committees started to take the issue on board themselves.
I was a member of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, which considered the Housing (Scotland) Bill in co-operation with the Equal Opportunities Committee. I know that the Equal Opportunities Committee is not supposed to be a watchdog, but I recall that it sent a member to some of our evidence-taking sessions. That served as a physical reminder of the Equal Opportunities Committee's existence. The stage 1 report that the Equal Opportunities Committee submitted on the Housing (Scotland) Bill also helped identify some of the main issues.
The Equal Opportunities Committee discusses the issues that arise from a bill and produces a report. The lead committee can either append that report to its stage 1 report or incorporate part of it into its own report.
The most tangible effect on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which was a major bill, came at stage 3, when equal opportunities were finally written into it—but only as a result of Executive action.
The Executive's writing of equal opportunities into the bill was also the result of a lot of lobbying behind the scenes by me, the Commission for Racial Equality and other individual members.
Many of the responses that we have received suggest that one of the flaws in our procedure is the lack of time at stage 2 for debating amendments, considering implications, canvassing expert opinion and discussing issues in committee with a view to lodging committee amendments. Is that your feeling? Do the committees need more time to consider amendments to bills at stage 2?
That is a problem. The committee has repeatedly remarked that it does not have sufficient time to consult organisations. We could issue a report to a lead committee without being able to consult fully on the matter. The lack of time is a huge problem, which the committee has discussed.
It would be helpful if the lead committee's stage 1 report on a bill contained a list of equal opportunities flash-points or a warning of areas about which the committee had concerns, rather than just the comment, "The bill has been equality-proofed by the Executive." For example, the Equal Opportunities Committee compiled a full report on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. It would be helpful at stage 2 to have such a checklist of specific concerns rather than general comments.
The lead committee's role is to consider all the evidence. Our report is submitted as evidence to that committee.
Professor David McCrone, our adviser, would like to pursue several issues with you.
It is nice to have this opportunity to learn more.
We are aware that, during the first two years of the Parliament, we have focused predominantly on issues of race and sexual orientation. Gender and disability issues have not really been covered by the committee. We have decided to address that by initiating major inquiries, over the next two years, into a gender-related topic and a disability-related topic.
We are limited by the definition of equal opportunities in the Scotland Act 1998. For example, there is no mention of carers or dependants in the Scotland Act 1998, yet they appear in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
As you say, you are reactive—in the best sense—and wait for organisations to bring issues to you. However, I presume that there is not the same level of organisation regarding certain social issues, such as age. I am not thinking about older people, who may be better organised than younger people, but one would be hard pushed to find an organisation representing younger people, for example, or one representing religious beliefs. What organisations would one look to on those issues? Would it depend on a specific issue arising?
Our work depends on issues that are raised. We have a database of around 600 different organisations and it is not only the usual suspects who are contacted. We consult a wide range of organisations.
We also issued a statement on the negative impact on equality of the Act of Settlement.
If there are groups of people who are not well represented—if they are represented at all—how can one include them to prevent mainstreaming from becoming narrowly defined by certain issues or groups?
That is very difficult. We are a white Parliament and no members have obvious disabilities. Early on, we discussed the possibility of permanently co-opting people on to the Equal Opportunities Committee to represent unrepresented or under-represented groups. However, the Scotland Act 1998 does not allow us to do that. We can appoint advisers on specific issues, but we cannot co-opt such representatives on to the committee. If the Scotland Act 1998 were to be reconsidered, we would make representations to Westminster to have it amended to address that.
Have you found any scope for using a panel of advisers to give you that input?
So far, we have not used a panel of advisers. Each of the reporters meets a wide range of organisations and returns to the committee with issues of concern. The committee as a whole does not have the time to consult on that level. Nonetheless, we have not felt the need to appoint a panel of advisers on any issues so far.
From that contact and from the 600 organisations on your database, do you get a clear picture of what the equal opportunities issues are for the people of Scotland? Are there any salient points that you would like to consider?
It is different for different groups. Black and ethnic minority people are discriminated against in different ways from women or people with disabilities. It is difficult to say that the issues have a theme. The one theme that runs through the representations that organisations have made to us is the lack of disaggregated data for Scotland about specific groups. It is hard to find out what the inequalities are, because we do not have detailed information about different groups. The committee wanted changes to the census so that we could find out where discrimination takes place and tackle it.
The Equal Opportunities Committee has appointed four reporters. David McCrone made the point that a wide range of issues must be addressed. What led you to appoint reporters in those four areas? How do you compensate for the fact that many minority groups are not represented by those areas so that you ensure that you keep pace with the issues that concern them?
We considered the definition of equal opportunities in the Scotland Act 1998 and felt that those were the four main areas that no other committee would cover. We felt that the Social Justice Committee might cover matters such as social origin. Religious belief is included in the remit of the race reporters. Were a specific issue to arise in relation to a group that is covered in the Scotland Act 1998, we could appoint a reporter on the matter.
One of the points that emerged from the consultation on the implementation of the CSG principles in the Parliament is that the responses from the public on equal opportunities are relatively thin compared with those on other key principles of the Parliament. Is that because of a lack of precision in the language that is used or is it because of people's awareness of the issues and how they relate to equal opportunities?
It is worth noting that not everyone who attended the recent race relations event that we held in the chamber was from an organisation. I was pleased that a number of individuals were there. We are meeting members from other equal opportunities committees in other countries. We have trips planned to Cardiff, London, Dublin and Belfast. Kate MacLean will be able to say more about that, as I have not been on the committee for that long.
I asked about that because we have mentioned international comparators in previous discussions. It is a good idea for people to do what I call study audits. It would be helpful to receive documentation that gives an overview of what other legislatures do and what we are doing and which points out aspects that we could expand on or areas that we have not considered before.
May I ask Richard Walsh to come in, convener?
Yes.
The research that we have been doing, which will not be ready for publication until mid-November, includes a literature review of published documentation on a national level. Our researchers have followed that up with a number of e-mail questionnaires to named offices and individuals in other legislatures abroad. I will run through the list. The research includes: Finland; Canada—the Canadian House of Commons and Senate; the Belgian advisory committee on equal opportunities between men and women; the National Assembly for Wales; the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Kay Ullrich alluded; the Australian Senate; Denmark; and the Canadian legislatures in Alberta, Quebec, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan.
You have done well. That is enough; I have got the message.
There is a large body of information out there. It is so vast that it has taken a specific literature research to review it.
For those, such as me, who are minimalist readers, could that be pulled together into two or three pages that cover the key points and put down some markers? That would enable us to map out where we need to go on some of the issues.
The committee has indicated that although a full and substantial body of research, plus an executive summary, will be produced for people to read, the idea is also to produce a model with a few bullet points to show the criteria.
All that contact was not a precursor to going on fact-finding missions to all those places.
When we consider the CSG principles, it is interesting to remember that a proposal was on the table—perhaps not overtly—to abolish the Equal Opportunities Committee or merge it with another committee. What reaction did you receive to that proposal from within the Parliament?
From other members?
Yes.
There was quite a lot of support for keeping the Equal Opportunities Committee. Members realised that although at some time in the future it might be possible not to have an Equal Opportunities Committee, we are not yet far enough down the road of mainstreaming equal opportunities. Perhaps members did not want to have to examine equal opportunities on their own committees. There was quite a bit of opposition to abolishing the committee within the Parliament and there was a huge amount of opposition to it outwith the Parliament.
Was that opposition to abolishing the Equal Opportunities Committee communicated to the powers that be?
There was a lot of contact directly with them.
Professor McCrone asked about how well the Parliament—not just the Equal Opportunities Committee—reaches out to the wider public. There is a debate about whether we hear only from the "usual suspects", to use that expression again.
I cannot think of any examples of our not reaching out to the public. Perhaps the member has some, given that he asks the question.
Was there an opportunity at the recent race relations event, for example, to get feedback from people about how they see the Parliament? Is it accessible to them? Do they think that it responds to their concerns? John McAllion told us that there has not been a single petition from someone from an ethnic minority. Is that because people from ethnic minorities do not know about that mechanism or because they know about it but do not rate it? Are their concerns and complaints more substantive? Are petitions too trivial a mechanism? There does not seem to be a dialogue between the ethnic communities and the Parliament. Is that your view?
Our committee has a lot of contact with people from minority ethnic communities and I am asked to go along and speak at various events. Many people view the Equal Opportunities Committee—as opposed to an Executive department or minister—as the first point of contact for equal opportunities. At the race relations event, people were pleased that individuals were able to nominate themselves for invitation. Some of the feedback indicated that the Equal Opportunities Committee is doing a lot of good work. However, some people will not even know about it. It is the same with any committee or department.
The race relations event was the first time that a member of the Lithuanian community had ever come to a parliamentary event. That is just an example.
We find that people from minority ethnic communities do not access a lot of the services and do not use a lot of the routes used by other sections of the community.
Is that because they have other, more focused ways of pursuing the issues that concern them?
I do not think so, but they may feel that there are barriers, which may be linguistic. We have tried to address that. When we discussed the thematic report on the police, Punjabi interpreting and translation facilities were available in the Parliament and on the web. We try to ensure that the Parliament is as accessible as possible.
I somewhat hijacked Kenneth Macintosh's question. Do you want to continue?
To respond to Kate MacLean, I did not have any examples in mind.
Most groups that work in the field of equality find that the Scottish Parliament has improved their access to legislation and opportunities to have their voice heard. The Equality Network produced a 1999 election manifesto for the Scottish Parliament. Everything in that manifesto has been delivered—although I am sure that the organisation will have a new manifesto now.
I am conscious that the internal structure of the Parliament and our own attitudes towards equal opportunities could be improved. When working recently with another committee, I was involved in interviewing applicants for a post. We did not have one woman applicant. That is a reflection of how we advertise posts as much as anything else.
Yes. The observance of equal opportunities within the Parliament is within our remit and the SPCB, with my involvement, has appointed somebody to produce an equal opportunities policy. That policy will cover the work and staff of the Parliament, how the Parliament operates and how it deals with members of the public. We will shortly have a policy on that and it will then be up to all MSPs, not just members of the Equal Opportunities Committee, to ensure that the policy is adhered to.
Does that mean that the Parliament is to have an equal opportunities officer?
That is still under discussion and was covered in our report.
I think that question stemmed from a comment on the CSG principles by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, which said that a disability rights and equal opportunities officer should be appointed. It would be interesting if a proposal to appoint one was on the table.
The report will be discussed by the Parliament in due course. The question of whether to have an equal opportunities officer or other people with responsibility for equal opportunities in different directorates or offices has been discussed.
Is there anything that David McCrone wanted to cover that we have not touched on?
No, although I would like to pick up on Ken Macintosh's point on the vexed issue of cross-indexing equal opportunities and whether we consider ethnic minorities times gender times age and so on. That method becomes horrendously complicated. The interactions between the different dimensions give rise to many issues. For example, if a woman or a young person is being sought, that is fine, but if we have to splice things together, it becomes impossible, or at least difficult.
Indeed—we might have an elderly Asian woman, for example. We need to consider what we need to achieve, which is equality of opportunity, rather than breaking down types of people into compartments. If there are barriers to equality of opportunity, we can consider how to deal with them issue by issue.
Particular multiple problems to do with elderly people's access to community care or young people being discriminated against at school emerged during our Gypsy/Traveller inquiry.
Does Kate MacLean have anything else to raise?
I do not think so, but I would be happy to come back to the Procedures Committee—in November or whenever it suits—once the report on the mainstreaming research is available. That is the whole point of the CSG principles on equal opportunities.
We would be very interested to consider that report and to cross-reference it with our work.
Meeting closed at 11:48.
Previous
Committee Meetings