Progress Reports
The next item on the agenda is reporters' progress reports. We will take them in the order that they appear on the agenda. Michael, you are first.
The first meeting of the disability reporters group took place on 26 October. Michael McMahon, Irene McGugan and I were present. A number of points were highlighted, the first of which was the consultation paper on "Improving our Schools" and the need for it to address disability issues.
I welcome what the convener said about writing to organisations. Our group had planned to ask the committee to write to organisations that may have a specific interest. The Equity Group gave an excellent presentation and I am sure that a number of other disability organisations also have strong views and would like specific issues to be addressed. It is obvious that that is being progressed. This morning's meeting has shown that—although consultation has taken place, of which ministers will take account—the committee has a responsibility to consider how much consultation input is reflected in the bill. Can we obtain copies of the consultation responses, so that we have a clear view of what was presented to ministers? We could then see which parts of the consultation have been incorporated in any published bill.
We discussed published bills in which our input on disability issues may be relevant. We noted that the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill has now been published and that it will have implications for individuals with a disability. We request that the committee write to relevant interested organisations so that we can consider their views on the bill. Where necessary, we could take evidence or suggest appropriate amendments.
We also discussed the issue of the disability rights commission, which had already been raised in the committee. We request that the committee be provided with a full briefing on the workings of the disability rights commission, with particular reference to Scottish provisions. If possible, that could take the form of an informal briefing for the committee as a whole.
We also discussed the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as the second part of that act has now come into force. Given the act's relevance, we request that the committee arrange for an informal briefing for all members. We also suggest that the committee consider writing to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, with a view to its making briefings available to all MSPs, particularly in relation to their working arrangements. The act has specific relevance to matters such as access to offices and access to information. It would be helpful if the SPCB were willing to arrange briefings so that MSPs can ensure that they do not break the law.
Those were the primary areas discussed at the meeting.
Thank you. Does anyone else who was present at the meeting have anything to add? No.
On "Improving our Schools", we can ask for copies of the consultation responses. I do not know whether we will be given them, but we can certainly ask.
We have said before that the committee would consider the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. We can write to all the organisations that deal with the issues that the committee is concerned with, including sexual orientation and gender issues. Did you say that you wanted us to arrange briefings or to request written responses?
At this stage, the group considered written requests for submissions. We would seek to have further briefings later.
That is fine. The group also wants us to arrange briefings about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 from the disability rights commission and another organisation. We will organise that as soon as possible. Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
During a visit, islanders on Bute raised a small point with me about the ferries, which are very difficult for disabled people. People asked whether I could get Caledonian MacBrayne to send a deputation to the committee to talk about that. Perhaps this should be discussed under any other business.
No, it is relevant to this part of our meeting.
Of course, it also came to my notice that everyone complained about the price of the ferries. Improvements would have to be made in such a way that people would not have to pay any more.
If we were considering transport in general, we could invite the ferry company, but perhaps whoever comes to the meeting to speak about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 could address transport at the same time.
Anyway, the issue has reared its head.
I go along with that.
Thank you. As I said, I will write to the minister about access to information. I am surprised that materials are not made available in accessible formats. Local authorities and other public bodies had that battle 10 years ago; I am surprised to hear about it now. We should action that as soon as possible, in general rather than in response to the education bill.
As reporter for the group on gender issues, I have provided a written report, from which I will highlight a few points. It was obvious—this will be true for all the groups—that there is a huge amount of work that we could do. It is a question of identifying some priorities in the short term.
As our report states, we agreed to examine two strands concerning women in the judicial system. The first is how women are treated as witnesses or victims—when they have experienced crime—and the document referred to in our report has now been circulated to the group. I have yet to determine the status of that document, but we can make progress on that point.
The group believes that the way in which women come into the criminal system and are treated as offenders raises many issues. A number of groups have recognised that, when women offend, there is a connection with prostitution, drugs and so on. We can explore that whole area.
Our report refers to a document by Sheila McLean on the treatment of women offenders, which I understand is in the process of being published. We can examine that once it is available.
We felt that we wanted to pursue the issue of women's appointments to public bodies. We discussed whether the committee could lodge questions on that, as such questions would carry more authority than those lodged by individual MSPs. I am more than happy to draw up the questions, if the committee agrees that it wants to do that. Perhaps we could find out whether that is possible. In particular, we want to find out the numbers involved if the figures are disaggregated and the figure for women in the panel system is removed. We also want to consider some aspects of the appointment system, such as whether the criteria for appropriate candidates on the boards are discriminatory and how the appointments are publicised. People sit in judgment on the applications and we need to examine the system, because it is obviously unsatisfactory.
If members so desire, I can report later on the consultative forum that I attended yesterday. Several recommendations are listed at the end of our report, for which we seek the committee's approval. On zero tolerance, it was suggested that we hear from Rape Crisis and Sexually Abused Young Women, a group that offers housing and support.
We need to strike a balance, however; the full committee cannot listen to every group and every briefing. The idea behind the sub-groups is to give us the opportunity to tap into more external organisations. However, we should remember that meetings of the whole committee are on the public record, while those of the sub-groups are not, and that there will be occasions when it is important to get things on to the public record so that they are accessible. I would argue that that would be the case if we invite the Zero Tolerance Trust, SAY Women and the Rape Crisis Centre to a full committee meeting.
On a practical point, we have agreed to meet next Tuesday. If the sub-groups are to operate properly, I am keen that we keep every other Tuesday free, as it is an obvious slot for sub-groups.
Are there any other comments or questions?
I ask that the committee request briefing from those organisations. Can we decide on that now?
Yes, we can organise that.
I do not know about lodging a question, Johann, although Martin Verity has the standing orders. I imagine that you would have to lodge a question as an individual but that, if you said that you were asking the question with the unanimous support of the Equal Opportunities Committee, the effect would be the same as if the whole committee had lodged it. I do not think that the committee can lodge a question.
Do you want me to pursue that?
Yes. If the committee is agreed, when you ask the question you can say that it is with the support of the committee.
On Johann's point, can we clarify how frequently reporters groups are expected to meet—there was some confusion in our group. I know that every second Tuesday was going to be the slot for those meetings. Is it expected that we meet every second Tuesday, or should we meet as needs be?
It should be as needs be. People should keep that time free in case groups want to take evidence. I think that Johann meant that members should not fill up their diaries, but there is no expectation that groups have to meet so often—that is not necessary.
Is it just the morning that we are keeping clear?
Yes. If we had decided to meet weekly, there would be a committee meeting every Tuesday morning. The expectation was that members would spend time on committee work every other Tuesday, but it is up to groups to find the most suitable arrangement.
Given that the group on race issues had already done a report, I felt that it would be appropriate to allow other groups to meet without having to find convenient dates for members with an interest in more than one area. Johann Lamont asked when and how frequently meetings should be held. The race issues group will hold a meeting in November at which we will set out a programme of work. We did not hold a meeting in October, to allow other groups to hold their first meeting.
That is fine.
Will sub-group meetings always be on the Tuesdays on which the full committee does not meet? I do not know what other members think about that, but is there any chance that such meetings could be held on the same day as committee meetings?
That is up to the groups. It is not up to the committee or convener to prescribe when people have meetings, but when we discussed whether we should have weekly or fortnightly meetings, it was suggested that every other Tuesday could be kept free because people had already pencilled in meetings for that time in their diaries. You should discuss it with the other members of your group.
As for the sexual orientation issues sub-group, Nora was appointed as reporter only last week, but has managed to get section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 repealed already—fantastic work.
We have not met as a group yet. A meeting with the Equality Network is provisionally arranged either for tomorrow night or a week tomorrow night, depending on when most people are available.
Shona Robison and I discussed what the group should consider. Section 28 was obviously top of the agenda. Speaking personally, I am delighted that section 28 will go at the first opportunity. We were invited to send a representative to the launch on Friday of a community safety partnership report by the City of Edinburgh Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Safety Forum. Shona went to that launch.
The area that we want to examine next will be civil recognition of same-sex partnerships. That has implications for the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill.
That is all, unless Shona wants to say something about the launch that she attended.
The launch was a very interesting morning. There was a lot of press interest—generally, the press coverage of section 28 was mixed, to say the least, and some of the language that was used in the tabloid press left a lot to be desired.
The launch highlighted some frightening statistics about people's experiences—violent experiences in particular—as they go about their daily business on the streets of Edinburgh. I asked for copies of that report to be sent to members of this committee, so we may have an opportunity to discuss some of the detail.
More generally, it is important that we maintain our input into the issue of the repeal of section 28. I want to flag up that we may want members of this committee to attend the meeting of the Local Government Committee when the local government and ethics bill is discussed.
I was involved in local government when section 28 was brought in. It was vigorously opposed as a vindictive piece of legislation. Some sections of the press have handled the whole issue very maturely, but some of the language and comments in the press and from some organisations have been disgraceful. This committee should put on record the fact that we welcome the abolition of section 28.
We are considering issues such as same-sex relationships in relation to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is considering that issue in relation to the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. We are keen that that area of equality be finally dealt with in a mature way, which has not happened in the past. I hope that everybody agrees that we should put on record the fact that we welcome the repeal of section 28 and that we abhor the attitudes and the way in which the matter has been handled in some sections of Scottish life.
Shona Robison asked about representation on the Local Government Committee. A practical point is that Johann and I are on that committee and can bring up anything that this committee wants to raise collectively. That is not to say that members could not make separate representations, but it would be a good way of raising issues that have to be dealt with immediately.
I have discussed with Michael and a few others the fact that there is no formal mechanism for this committee to become involved when the bureau designates lead committees. We need to become engaged in that process. I hope that I will be able to report back to the committee on that. I feel that we should be notified when a lead committee has been designated so that we can lay down a marker. A committee will probably not refuse to hear representatives from this committee, but I would like a more formal procedure to be in place.
I have a general point, which arose from the consultation on the Scottish education bill and the fact that there had been no requests for minority language versions. When we are consulting, do we ask people, in their own languages, if they want to be involved? If we do not, we should. Perhaps we should consider the cost implications of translating material into the main minority languages in use in Scotland.
If material is not translated into accessible formats, we will not be consulting grass-roots opinion. People working at the grass roots of equal opportunity organisations will not necessarily be able to use the kind of formats in which information is currently provided. I will raise that matter, perhaps in question time, to push the process on.
I want to raise a different issue. Last week, Johann Lamont and I attended the meeting of the cross-party working group on human rights. Human rights organisations want to set up a commission for human rights and would like to make representations to the Equal Opportunities Committee. Johann and I were asked by the cross-party group to find out whether any of those organisations had been invited to appear before the committee.
The committee previously agreed to invite the Scottish Human Rights Centre to give a presentation, but it has said that it was not yet aware of such an invitation.
We will get that sorted out. Several presentations have now been requested and those will take us through until next year.