Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 11 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Official Report 131KB pdf

---

Equalities Inquiry

We move on to agenda item 3. Paper 3 outlines the proposal that was submitted to the Procedures Committee in session 2 for a rule change that would require committees to carry out a review of their work on equal opportunities at the end of each session. The Equal Opportunities Committee would co-ordinate the reviews. We agreed that consideration of the proposal should be included in our work programme.

As part of our inquiry, the committee will want to consider whether other options to achieve the same end should be considered. For example, is a rule change definitely required, given that the Equal Opportunities Committee already has the discretion to ask committees to carry out equalities reviews and report the results to it?

The paper suggests that, before we proceed with an inquiry, the committee might want to seek the views of the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Conveners Group, either through spoken or written evidence. I ask members for their views on that proposal.

My first question is whether a rule change is required. If a rule change is required, why is that the case? I understood that all our activity in the Scottish Parliament was to be underpinned by, and have running through it, equalities. I imagine that all the Parliament's committees take equalities issues into account when they produce a report or do a piece of work, legislative or otherwise. I understood that the Procedures Committee took that proposal to the Conveners Group during the Parliament's second session and that it was agreed that it would be up to each committee to ensure that equalities were taken into account in every report that it wrote, whether on the budget or otherwise. At that stage, the information was that implementing that proposal did not require a rule change. My information on that could be wrong, but we need clarity.

The clerk will answer that, after which Hugh O'Donnell wants to come in.

If it was to be mandatory for each committee to report annually on equal opportunities, a rule change to standing orders would be required. It is a pertinent question for any inquiry that the committee carries out whether such a rule change is needed or whether the intended effect can be achieved without one. That is not something that I can answer; the committee might want to consider the issue as part of its inquiry.

First, I must declare an interest as a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, although I speak for myself.

Issues have come to light during the equal opportunities monitoring of the current budget. One difficulty is that the monitoring is not evidence based. The purpose of mainstreaming equal opportunities—regardless of the principles—is that it is fundamental that the tools for equalities proofing are applied to everything that we do, both within the Parliament and in our scrutiny of the Government. Those tools are equalities impact assessments, and the reason for the equalities reviews is to encourage all committees to use the tools when analysing their procedures or scrutinising any legislation that comes before them. It would appear that that is not being done equally across all committees, and the lack of evidence that the tools are being applied has instigated the suggestion that a rule change be considered to make equalities reviews mandatory.

I want to underline what Hugh O'Donnell said. Equal opportunities is taken to be mainstreamed, but it is questionable whether every member of the public, never mind every member of the Scottish Parliament, understands what that means.

A rule change is the way forward. It would help committees to focus on equal opportunities from the beginning of their deliberations, whatever they are. That is preferable to asking for a review at the end, when people would be working with hindsight. A rule change would ensure that everybody was aware of equalities from the beginning.

I realise that the previous Conveners Group agreed to have equalities reviews and recommended that committees produce them, but I think that it would be a mistake to have that discussion every session. We could take evidence if that is needed, but I think that it would be a good idea to make the rule change. It would ensure that all committees were clear, from the word go, about what was expected of them.

Given what has been said, there is obviously a strong case for a rule change, but at this stage we are agreeing only to crack on with the inquiry, during which it can be considered.

If we agree to launch an inquiry, the question is whether we want to take the views of the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Conveners Group as part of it, given the fact that the membership of both has changed since the previous session—although I think that Trish Godman was convener of the Conveners Group in the previous session as well. Do we want to take the views of the Conveners Group and the Equal Opportunities Committee as part of the inquiry?

It is certainly not for me to speak for the rest of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I think that that would be a productive way forward—we would certainly get a clearer picture of that committee's position. As for the Conveners Group, it is not for me to say.

Given that the subject was discussed last year, would it be enough to take written evidence?

I would have said so.

It is up to us. We can either have hearings or, if members think that it would be quicker, just crack on with written evidence. I have no objection to that.

I think that written evidence would be sufficient, as the subject has been thoroughly discussed already.

It will make things quicker. If everyone is happy to take just written evidence, I confirm that we will begin the inquiry and take written evidence from the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Conveners Group as a starting point. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.