Equal Opportunities Committee, 04 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 4, 2003

Official Report 89KB pdf

---

Legacy Paper

Item 4 is our consideration of the draft legacy paper, which was circulated with the agenda. Members will remember the discussion that was held a couple of meetings ago about the legacy papers that all committees are leaving for future committees. The legacy papers will act only as guidance—there is nothing that we can mandate a future Equal Opportunities Committee to do. Do members have comments on the paper?

I want to say something about paragraph 30 of the paper—the matter cropped up in the plenary debate on Thursday afternoon. The committee's third civic participation event was held in May 2002, when the Parliament sat in Aberdeen. Members commented on the accessibility of the meeting. In the plenary debate, I mentioned that the event was not our finest hour. If we had wanted to try to make the best access arrangements for people, we ought to have reflected on doing so at the time.

I am sorry, but you have lost me.

When we held our civic participation event in Aberdeen, accommodation accessibility was a problem, which does not bode well, as we are the Equal Opportunities Committee. I appreciate that the property in question was not ours and that things would have been much easier if we had been on our own patch.

When events are arranged outside the Parliament complex, it is sometimes difficult to get other organisations to realise the standards of accessibility that we expect. However, it is fair to say that we must ensure—

We made progress when we held our meeting to celebrate the European year of disabled people. We took the trouble to find better, more accessible accommodation.

We organised a big event, but did not particularly consider the needs of people with young children. As a legacy, we could pass on the fact that such issues must be thought about. I hope that if the new committee arranges anything in the new Parliament, there will be crèche facilities, so that parents can access events and bring their children with them. Such matters must be considered.

The background to the issue is that although the committee is one of the eight mandatory committees, we have no power to legislate, which is a frustration for committee members. I would like that to be reflected in the legacy paper. I think that the committee is the only committee of the eight mandatory committees that does not have the power to legislate.

I apologise for being late and arriving in the middle of a conversation. I had to deal with a constituency issue.

Why would the committee want to legislate? Surely our job is to scrutinise work in the Executive on equalities and mainstreaming and legislation with which other committees are dealing. If we got involved in legislation, we could not do that important work.

I thought that the idea behind devolution was that there should be Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. I feel frustrated that we cannot proceed with legislation. The matter will be an on-going issue for the committee.

Who would scrutinise mainstreaming and equalities issues in the Executive and the committees?

Surely we would be doing that—

Members are getting into an open debate without referring to the convener. We should be discussing the legacy paper, and I am not prepared to get into a constitutional debate about what is reserved and what is devolved—political parties can deal with such matters, in particular when they set out their stalls in the run-up to the election. The intention behind the legacy paper is that the committee should leave an idea of what it has been doing and give guidance to a future committee, based on the current devolution settlement in Scotland. Other points can be made in other forums, but I would prefer to concentrate on what we want to put in the legacy paper. It is not appropriate to have a constitutional argument at the moment.

I had not intended to have a constitutional argument—I simply asked that the fact that the committee has no power to legislate should be reflected in background information. It is a matter of fact.

Every other committee scrutinises. It is legitimate to say that there might be a reason why we would want to legislate, within the limited powers that we have, and that it seems that we are not equipping ourselves with the tools to do so.

I hope that future members of the committee will be aware that equal opportunities legislation is a matter that is reserved to Westminster. It is not necessary to put that fact in the legacy paper. I do not think that everybody will necessarily share Kay Ullrich's view that that has held the committee back. We visited the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has devolved powers for equal opportunities, and I think that we in Scotland have achieved far more in the field of equal opportunities than the Northern Ireland Assembly has.

We should return to the legacy paper, which is important. Michael McMahon and Elaine Smith, who are original members of the committee, will remember the daunting task that the committee had when it first considered the range of issues that it would have to cover and what issues would be focused on. The paper is important for the Equal Opportunities Committee after the election and I would like to concentrate on it.

I agree that we should do that. The committee has made a huge difference to the operation of the Parliament. While we are discussing the paper, we should record in the Official Report our thanks to the committee clerks for their hard work over the four years of the Parliament.

Perhaps there are two different aspects to the argument. I do not know whether the committee can proceed with a committee bill, as other committees can—there may be an option for it to do so. It is clear that revisiting the Scotland Act 1998 is an argument for another place and not for the committee. There are different levels of scrutiny around legislation and different ways of initiating legislation, but the committee has been extremely successful in influencing the legislation that has been passed in the Parliament. We should record that in the Official Report.

I want to make a general comment, which is based on what the convener said. When the committee's work started, it had a clean slate. We have made some progress in connecting with organisations and communities out there that looked to the committee to make a difference. We will pass on a legacy that other committees can build on, but we need to encourage an incoming Equal Opportunities Committee to engage even more with organisations. We have only scratched the surface in dealing with civic Scotland, minority ethnic communities and the wider range of organisations that want to see the Scottish Parliament making a real difference to people's lives.

Before we discuss other dimensions of what the committee can do, a whole range of things can be built on, and I want to put down a marker for an incoming committee on that. It should consider those matters before it starts to consider what other powers it can take upon itself. It should use its ability to engage with organisations that are dependent on its doing a job of work for them.

I support what has been said. In considering what to hand over to a future committee, it is important to stress the need for the committee. Members will recall discussions in the past about whether an Equal Opportunities Committee was needed. There could be a paragraph in the paper to say that the committee is important. It would be easy to decide that other committees could scrutinise or that other bodies could do the committee's work, but perhaps we should say that an Equal Opportunities Committee is an integral part of the Parliament.

I support what Cathy Peattie has said. There are still questions about the committee and there might be pressure to reduce the number of committees. The committee could be particularly vulnerable, so it is important that we make our case, probably in the draft paper.

Okay, we can add something to the paper. Are members happy for the clerks to make the changes that have been mentioned, to be agreed by Kay Ullrich and me?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we move into private session, I would like to thank some people, as this is likely to be the final meeting of the committee this session.

I thank all the Parliament staff who have been involved in the committee over the years, including the staff of the official report and the Scottish Parliament information centre, the broadcasting staff and the security staff. I particularly thank all the clerks we have had over the past four years, who have ensured that we have been able to operate effectively, produce high-quality reports and carry out the committee's wishes.

I thank all the members, particularly Elaine Smith and Michael McMahon, because they have been members from the start, along with me. All members have contributed a wide variety of skills over the years.

I particularly thank all the organisations that have given evidence to the committee over three and half years. Hundreds of people have given oral evidence and have submitted written evidence, which has certainly been very useful.

The legacy paper demonstrates that we have taken significant steps forward. Equal opportunities are at the heart of what the Parliament does, largely because of the hard work of the people whom I have just mentioned. There is still a lot to do. I take the opportunity to wish the future Equal Opportunities Committee all the best in the next session. I am sure that everybody will agree with me on that.

Meeting continued in private until 10:32.