Official Report 202KB pdf
Members have in their papers a letter from the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The letter is about a proposal from the Equal Opportunities Committee to change the standing orders to require committees to report on the work that they have undertaken to mainstream equality issues at least once per parliamentary session, perhaps in annual reports. The letter seeks our collective view on whether we support the principle of reporting on mainstreaming equal opportunities near the end of the session in our annual reports and, if so, whether we believe that a rule change would help to secure that it happens.
I support strongly the notion of including such reports in our annual reports in the way that is set out in the paper. The only question that I have is whether a rule change is necessary. I do not know because I am not an expert in the area and I am open to receiving advice.
Sorry, I missed that last bit—was it to do with whether changing the standing orders is necessary?
Yes. I do not know whether such a change is necessary, so I seek further guidance from others who might be more knowledgeable on such matters.
Yes, I am a bit like you in that regard. Does anyone else wish to comment?
I agree with Helen Eadie. The only benefit of changing the rules is to make sure that the reporting happens. Most committees would be happy to include such a report voluntarily. However, we need to look to the future because things can change. A rule change would enshrine reporting on mainstreaming equal opportunities in the Parliament's ethos and send out a signal, which might be useful.
I have no fixed view either way. I concur with the members who have spoken. Ours is one of the committees that tries to mainstream equality because it is at the root of everything that we try to do in prevention, intervention and treatment in the health and sport portfolios. It is probably one of the main thrusts of our agenda. However, I am not convinced about a change to the standing orders, simply because I do not know whether committees will comply voluntarily. It is pretty radical to change the standing orders. I do not want to put words in members' mouths, but would it be appropriate for us to respond that we have no conclusive view whether the reporting of mainstreaming equal opportunities should be part of the standing orders and that we should see whether it works on a voluntary basis?
That is fine.
I would prefer for it to happen voluntarily rather than being overly bureaucratic.
If we are all signing up to including such a report in our annual report, as this committee is, the next time that we get a set of reports, we will have an evidence base on which we could judge whether it is necessary to make a change to the rules to make such reporting mandatory.
Our annual report will be before us in June for consideration so we can judge the situation then. In the meantime, does the committee agree to delegate to me the response to the letter? I will send it round to you all and take silence to be affirmation after how long?
An hour.
I will give you more than an hour, Dr McKee. We do not have to respond until 1 May, but I will send the response to members and include a deadline for saying whether you are not content with it. However, the matter does not seem at all contentious.
Meeting continued in private until 12:04.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation