Equal Opportunities Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 4, 2004

Official Report 222KB pdf

---

Council Membership (Widening Access)

I warmly welcome Rowena Arshad and Susan Love from the widening access to council membership progress group. I invite Rowena Arshad to make a short statement before we ask questions.

Thank you for inviting us to provide details and to have a discussion with you.

I am sure that the committee has full details of the group's membership and remit. I was invited by Andy Kerr to chair the group and we started work in October last year. The group was set up to consider the widening of access to council membership to a cross-section of the community, to provide guidance on politically restricted posts, and to make recommendations on the training, development and support that are given to councillors.

Although much of our work is not directly connected to the provisions of the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, there are areas of overlap. One part of our remit that is directly related to the bill is the preparation of guidance on politically restricted posts. We are meeting a range of people, including councillors, political parties, unions and equalities groups, and that process will continue until the summer. The committee might want to ask us more about that. Some of the key issues that are arising are the public perception of local government, remuneration for councillors, and the role that political parties can play in helping people to come forward.

We intend to report to the minister in the autumn. It will then be for ministers to decide how to take forward our recommendations.

How was the group made up and how does it go about its work of examining the issues that affect various under-represented groups? Does the group contain adequate representation from the relevant communities?

The minister, Andy Kerr, advised on the composition of the group and we were invited to join it. We are working well together and collectively we bring to the group a wide enough range of networks. All the equalities strands are represented through the equalities co-ordinating group, which is represented on our group by John Wilkes. The business sector is also represented, and the group includes councillors, former councillors and a member from the Scottish Youth Parliament. I am not sure whether representative is the correct word, but I hope that we are sufficiently well connected around the circuits to be able to draw on the resources in Scotland.

Has the group had adequate time to do its work, or would it have benefited from having a longer timescale?

We are not running to the timetable of the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill; we have a slightly more relaxed timescale. I read the evidence that touched on the progress group's work in the Official Report of the Equal Opportunities Committee, and I was conscious that, at that time, people were not aware of the group's existence.

We started in October and were slower in making progress than we would have liked. That is partly because we wanted to think about the venues to which we would go around the country and the people to whom we needed to speak. Really, the work of the group took off in February.

We have not had a long enough time to do the necessary work. Issues are arising at the moment and we have to get our act together and get the work done. Making the timescale longer would not increase the depth of the work

Do you feel that you have an understanding of what the barriers are?

I think that we are beginning to get an understanding of that.

I have known Susan Love for a number of years and am happy to meet her again.

Rowena Arshad talked about the overlap with the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill. As a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee, I know what you mean. However, I welcome the idea of having a small working group to examine public perceptions and the availability of people who are able to get into local politics. My questions are based on an understanding that the group has done some work on that area.

What is your understanding of public perceptions of local politics, based on the consultation that you have done? Does the evidence suggest that some groups are more disengaged from the process than others, even within the under-represented groups? If so, what are the implications for tackling the problems?

There is a range of perceptions. There is a lot of confusion about what local councillors do. People have used local councillors in relation to particular issues and, if they do not have an issue, they do not engage with the process. People also have a range of other options, such as community councils, citizens advice bureaux and other advice groups.

The question of whether some groups are more under-represented than others is interesting and one that we will continue to pursue. We would have to examine who is involved with community councils, because that is one of the routes by which people become involved with the local council. We are particularly keen to consider the involvement of young people, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. If you have seen our schedule for Aberdeen, you will know that we have been examining those groups in particular.

We are on the cusp of that work. Until now, we have met only political parties, councillors and trade unions. From now on, we will be examining the community side of the issue.

In speaking to people, we have been trying to find out about the difference between being involved in a community and wanting to stand for election to local government. So far, we have seen that there does not appear to be a huge problem with certain groups being involved in their community or being interested in issues. However, they are not willing to take the step of standing for local government.

The issue of why people do not want to stand for local government is interesting. People have told us that it is not because they are not interested or lack confidence, but because they do not feel that that is for them. Funnily enough, those who are politically active say that they would be happier to stand for the Scottish Parliament than for the council. There is something peculiar about local government that means that people do not want to get involved in it. That is obviously more distinct in certain groups. Rowena Arshad said that we would be doing more work on women, for example, because there is a huge lack of gender balance among councillors and council candidates. There does not seem to be the same imbalance in community involvement. We want to do more work on that.

As someone who has been—and thoroughly enjoyed being—a local councillor, I know how difficult it is for women to get on that ladder.

The Scottish Youth Parliament has suggested that politics should be part of the curriculum. I have always supported that view; politics could be studied in modern studies or good citizenship classes. Do you think that having that form of education on the curriculum would help younger people to understand local government, for example, and to participate in it by being elected as councillors? Did your findings include any such discoveries?

We have not made that specific finding yet, but I would have thought that there is a lot of merit in the suggestion. A great deal is done on the Parliament in modern studies and through various other curricular initiatives, but I am less conscious of a lot being done about local government. We might need to speak to educators about that balance.

The fact that the Parliament is seen as the next step up from activity at community level, with the result that local government is bypassed, is intriguing. That ties in with perceptions of remuneration. The comment was made that, although people would never consider not paying their MSP or asking them to be an MSP for the love of their country, they would expect that of their local councillor. Why is that? All those issues are linked. I note—and agree with—your suggestion about education.

Much of the evidence that councillors have given us is that the public have a very limited understanding of how much local government affects their day-to-day lives and of the relevance of their councillor.

It is interesting that, although local government is perceived to be closer than the Scottish Parliament and Westminster, people have less knowledge of it. We should take that on board. I did not realise that people just did not know as much about local government, so I think that it should be covered in the curriculum.

You mentioned that people join community councils and interest groups to put forward their views to local government. We have heard from disabled groups that a similar thing happens with disabled people. How do we avoid getting people to use gatekeepers to put forward their ideas? How do we get through to the grass roots and the relevant groups to ensure that people such as disabled people are heard in their communities and that what they say is acted on directly? Do you think that your consultation will pick up on that type of issue?

I hope so. There is confusion, but we need to demystify what councillors and councils do other than get blamed when services are not provided. That is the level at which people interact; they need to have their understanding broadened.

In my experience of the voluntary sector, people tend to see councillors as people whom they should lobby if their community groups' budgets are being cut or there are problems with the swimming pools, for example. That knowledge needs to be widened so that there is more participation.

On gatekeepers, I suppose that there is a need for elected members and council officers to become more visible to communities. They need to meet where communities meet and they should not expect meetings to occur only at surgeries or when one-hour or two-hour sessions are held in the local community centre. There has to be more of that; engagement must be wider so that councillors do not meet their communities only on local gala days but on days such as those on which there is an Eid celebration somewhere. That is happening more and more, so perhaps people are feeling more confident as time trickles on. However, I think that work needs to be done with community group workers and practitioners to get them to think about using their councillors more proactively, rather than to use them purely as a means of complaining about something.

There is the local community fund and there is talk of communities being involved in planning issues. When new housing or new transport infrastructure is being built, could councils be more proactive in reaching out to groups such as disabled people and offering them the opportunity to get involved?

Councils have done quite a bit of work on accessibility and have tailored their provision so that communities can come forward. Councils have worked hard, although I am not saying that what they have done is perfect.

Our group will ask councils how they have audited their work in terms of mainstreaming equality. They can do that in the budget areas for which they are responsible. If someone is involved in a community planning exercise or some other initiative, it will be up to them to consider how they involve people with disabilities. Such involvement should not be bolted on at the end and then passed on to the council's equal opportunities committee or equality person.

When people think about disability, they tend to think of wheelchairs and access issues, or of visual impairment or deafness. However, we have to consider the other disabilities. If you have epilepsy, it is a hidden disability; or if you have a form of disability that means that you do not want to climb three flights of stairs, it may be that nobody will ask you about it. We need to broaden our thinking on disability.

Before I ask a question, I would like to say that it is important to engage people at community council level. I graduated from being a community councillor to being a councillor. I enjoyed the parish work of being a community councillor very much and, if people are engaged at that level, the transition to the work of a councillor is easier.

I want to back-pedal a little and ask about your consultation. How successful have you been in engaging with groups that are under-represented as councillors? Are there any gaps in the groups from which you have been able to take evidence so far?

We are a month into our consultation. We have written to more than 350 organisations and, to date, we have had three responses. We have quite a bit of chasing up to do. The lack of responses may be because some groups are small and do not have the staff time available to write back, or it may be because the issue is pretty low on people's agenda. We will have to find out.

We have specifically targeted 20 or so organisations, which are probably the larger community-type organisations. We will not necessarily have to chase up umbrella organisations, such as the Scottish Civic Forum or the Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland, because we would hope to receive direct responses from them. It is the groups at community level that we may have to chase up. I do not know whether they have not responded because of a lack of interest or because they have nothing to say about the issue.

I am surprised that the response has been so poor. That is disappointing. There must be some way of engaging people and letting them know how important it is that they give their views.

How do you propose to consult those groups? When you spoke to the Local Government and Transport Committee, you said that you were keen to travel extensively to consult. Will you have to get right down to grass-roots level so that you really engage with smaller groups across the country?

We are going to Aberdeen and Glasgow, for example, and we are trying to have evening meetings and not just meetings during the day. We are having to consider our timescales and the times when members of our secretariat are available. Some groups will not come to evidence sessions, so we will try to speak to perhaps just two members of the group. We have to explore those options. It is important to have meetings in the evening and to travel around. We would love to travel a lot more as we are not, for example, hitting any of the islands. However, if people write to the group, ring us up or e-mail us to say that they would prefer a smaller meeting, I am not opposed to that. We will try to accommodate such requests as much as we can.

That sounds like a way forward. Have you had much in the way of written evidence?

We have received some written evidence, but we have not yet examined it all. I have also had direct phone calls through the SCVO newsletter. People who know who I am, and in particular those who know where I work, will ring up and say what they want to say; that has been helpful.

We have heard about particular issues—including child care facilities and the representation of minorities, such as ethnic minorities—with regard to rural areas. I presume that you have not yet been able to consult widely with people in those areas. I assume that you plan to go to see people in rural areas and identify any barriers that exist.

Absolutely. Such issues are particularly relevant in relation to rural areas and to independents. Independent councillors have to stand on their own, and often they are without any natural group to be mentored by in a council. There are issues about training and support. People who want to stand in rural areas often face those issues.

Some of the evidence that we have received from councillors in rural areas is about accessibility, time constraints and the impact that such issues have on the support that they receive. We have heard about some of those issues and we hope that we will hear more about them in Aberdeen.

I was a councillor in Aberdeen and I am now quite closely involved with Aberdeenshire. In some remote parts of Aberdeenshire, people feel cut off from council services and councillors. A lot of work must be done on what is happening in remote areas.

Some of the evidence that we have heard from councillors suggests that it is not only those in rural areas who might have difficulty in, for example, accessing facilities. Although some councillors in rural areas might have facilities provided in their home because they are so far away from the council headquarters, those who live near the headquarters but work far away are not given the same opportunity. Their employment poses a barrier for them, because they do not have time during the day to get from their employment to the council headquarters and back to work or back home. The issue has not only been raised by rural councillors.

In your update letter to the convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee, you report that you have held discussions with representatives of a range of political parties and have plans to hear from councillors. What is the understanding among those stakeholders of the various barriers to participation?

I will start and perhaps Susan Love can chip in.

Overall, the main concern is about people not coming forward. In a nutshell, the problem is, "How can we select people if we do not have a pool from which to select?" There is variation in the experience of different political parties on the issue, but that is one point that was raised.

The political parties have been working, pretty much unanimously, on selection procedures and ensuring that selection teams are au fait with equal opportunity principles and all that kind of stuff. Some political parties have gone forward to positive action measures such as mentoring and shadowing. The discussion seems to be around those issues; there is nothing overly new in that respect.

The parties have a fair understanding of the issues, but I sense from all the political parties that there is almost desperation as to what to do about the situation. Although they had considered measures, most of them indicated that too few people were coming forward for them to be able to impose any kind of selection procedures. For example, the parties could not get people to come forward for training. There seemed to be an air of "Well, we know about it, but there is nothing we can do about it." That was the case throughout the political parties.

There appears to be a real issue, not only to do with the traditional councillor, but concerning whether people—in full-time employment, or regardless of their background—consider standing for council. My experience is that, if a person is able and willing, selection and training sometimes go by the by. Do you see any change in that? Would removing some of the barriers encourage more people to participate or to consider putting their names forward?

Are you talking about people who are already active in the political process or active within their party?

Yes.

I am not sure whether it ties in to your question, but we wanted to bring to the committee an issue that we are keen to consider, which is the whole culture in local government and within political parties. I am talking about the culture of male domination and ways of working that are sometimes unnecessarily adversarial. Particular past experiences are perhaps less valued. Women tend to have a range of backgrounds and experiences, such as in the voluntary sector. Are those experiences seen to be as valid during selection?

We are talking about a change of mindset and we have to nail the issue on the head. We have to be honest with ourselves and say that, unless the mindset changes, many under-represented groups will not put themselves forward or that the people who put themselves forward will be the same types as the ones who are already there, which means that a small group will keep perpetuating itself.

One of the issues that are coming up is that, although political parties would not want to put up any barriers, there is the realpolitik of fighting elections and the decisions about which candidates should be put in certain wards. It has been suggested that people from the under-represented groups, or people who were seen to be different in some way, might feel that they would not always get the support of their local party, the council or the local press. That would put them off wanting to hold any kind of position or even to stand for election. The political parties have not said anything about that.

In written evidence to the committee, Fiona Mackay recommended that local authorities and political parties should undertake reviews of the potential barriers to the full participation of women, minority ethnic groups, disabled people and others. Do you feel that that would be productive? If so, do you have any suggestions about how it might best be done?

I would have thought that that was in line with Kerley's recommendations and with recommendations from other reports. The suggestion is nothing new, although I accept that such reviews need to be done.

Hard questions should be asked. Susan Love mentioned issues that were coming up. One such issue is that, if a gay candidate has their life exposed in the press, what backing will they get, immediately, from their party? That is a hard question. We should ask every selection group, every constituency party and the political party as a whole what they would do. If the answer is hesitance and I were a gay or lesbian potential candidate, whose life and that of my family might be in the press, I could see myself hanging back and not coming forward.

The other side of that issue is that potential candidates have said to us, "I know that there might be an aspect of me that might get pilloried in the press and I don't wish to bring my party down." We need to discuss such issues. If we are going to change the culture and the mindset, we do not just need statistics; we need to go right down to the difficult questions.

So we must deal with the culture and address issues around it.

The 50/50 Campaign has expressed concerns to the committee about the culture in political parties suiting a certain kind of person—Rowena Arshad has alluded to that—and figures show that only 22 per cent of councillors are women. It is clear that cultural change in local government is crucial. Local organisations—particularly women's organisations—have expressed concerns to me after they have visited their local authorities and observed the culture in council meetings. That culture is a real barrier and can discourage women from entering local government.

The fact that Susan Love spoke about people perhaps aspiring from community level to the Scottish Parliament is interesting. Do the culture and the number of women in the Parliament encourage people to think that they can participate? It is clear that the fairly macho culture in some local authorities—although not in all—can be a real barrier to participation.

The high profile that the Scottish Parliament has given to its commitment to equal opportunities and the presence of women in it has, without a doubt, made standing for the Parliament an attractive option for people who are thinking about a political career or about taking a more active role in politics and governance.

The macho culture of local government should not be understated. Evidence that we have received relates directly to what you say about the presence of women in the Scottish Parliament being a positive factor that has encouraged more women to consider taking that route; we have also heard evidence about the macho, negative and parochial culture of local government in the majority of councils. Those views have not come out directly in every piece of evidence, but sufficient numbers of people whom we have met have talked specifically about how they have been put off by such a culture. We must tackle sexism in the same way as we have tackled hard-core race issues, such as institutional racism. We must not shy away from the issue and I hope that our report will not do so.

I welcome that. After 20 years in politics, I see some changes, but some days I do not see any.

I have a question about care costs. In evidence to the committee, it has been suggested that the provision of a subsidy for care costs, whether for child care or care for other dependants, would facilitate participation, particularly by women. The committee made a recommendation to the Local Government and Transport Committee about allowances for disabled people who require care support and for people with caring responsibilities. What is your view on that? Has the issue been raised significantly in consultation?

The issue of remuneration has certainly been raised, but I am not sure whether the issue of caring has been raised specifically so far. However, we will, of course, come to groups to consider disability issues and a range of other issues as we proceed to Aberdeen and Glasgow.

We need to consider the notion of whether a person can afford to be a councillor, particularly if they are on their own, supporting a family or do not have another means of income, such as a business that could tick over. When we were considering rural and urban issues, we made a distinction between big businesses, which might have a corporate social responsibility policy of encouraging employees to come forward, and very small businesses that have a person who is both the boss and the worker and who is keen to put himself or herself forward for a more active role in the community. How could they do that? I think that remuneration—which would include caring costs—could be part of the approach, but more is needed than just caring costs. Some people might be encouraged to come forward by them and people who are already in councils could take advantage of them, but there might not necessarily be a huge impact on widening access.

We have no evidence that care costs are the main reason why women in particular are not putting themselves forward for council membership. In fact, there is a problem for anyone with care responsibilities who wants to stand for council. We have not yet managed to tie that issue down.

As far as support for councillors is concerned, we have vaguely discussed the role of the council as an employer. What are the council's responsibilities to councillors? How much should councillors be provided with? We will probably discuss the matter further and do not yet have any final recommendations.

That is interesting, because evidence that we received suggested that care costs could be subsidised directly or included as a separate package in addition to remuneration.

The point is that becoming a councillor should enhance people's lives, not be a financial detriment.

I was interested to hear that the witnesses are going to Aberdeen. Before I left Aberdeen City Council, there had been some discussion about support for councillors across the range of issues that have been raised this morning. I hope that that visit will provide some interesting information.

Does the group have a view on the kinds of training that will make an impact on widening access? We have already talked about the culture within political parties and councils. To what extent do you feel that equal opportunities training and awareness raising for elected members is likely to make a positive impact in that respect?

Training is an interesting subject. To start with, we are trying to get to grips with the areas where there are gaps. Political parties and councils provide certain training, of which equal opportunities forms a part, and we are trying to find out what one thinks the other is providing. Clearly, an independent councillor will be dependent on a council's training provision.

We also need to put equal opportunities higher up council agendas. All the officers to whom we have spoken have said that councillors are so pressed for time that their presence at training can be hit or miss. As a result, we recommend that equality issues form part of any training—no matter whether it refers to child protection guidelines, planning permissions or whatever—to ensure that we are not dependent on having a specific equal opportunities training slot. I am not quite sure that we have received all the necessary evidence on that matter; we will probably have to go back and ask councils about it.

The official training that political parties and councils provide for candidates and newly elected or existing councillors is critical, because from what we have seen so far there appear to be very few links in that respect between the parties and the councils. The situation appears to be totally hit or miss.

That would be a good issue to follow up in Aberdeen.

The committee has also received evidence that various forms of training should be aimed at under-represented groups as well as at councillors. For example, pupils could job shadow councillors and pre-election induction programmes could be introduced for all members of the community. Has the group received much evidence about that type of activity? Would any types of training be particularly helpful in removing barriers to participation?

We have not yet received a huge amount of evidence on that matter. Indeed, none of the political parties that we have contacted has mentioned job shadowing as a means of widening access or removing barriers. That suggestion is quite useful.

As far as community groups are concerned, the issue is as much about information as it is about training. As we said earlier, people do not seem to be very clued up about what councillors do. We have to encourage the provision of educational packages that help advice agencies, people who advise communities and people who are gatekeepers to explain to members of the public which issues they should take to their local councillor and not to their MSP.

I should have mentioned another training issue, which comes from the political-party side. We hear from many councillors that they did not know what they were letting themselves in for when they stood for election. There is a strong impression that, if the political parties train their candidates, there will be no more candidates, because people will know what the job involves and that will scare them off. That may be another reason why the parties are not keen to give it all away to their candidates.

My first question concerns length of service as a barrier. The committee noted in its report to the Local Government and Transport Committee that setting an upper limit of service could be examined in relation to encouraging wider representation and diversity. Has the group examined that and formed a view?

We have not looked at length of service.

I am scribbling it down.

We are both scribbling it down right now.

A balance has to be struck between length of service and the lead-in time of several years that is required to increase one's knowledge base and confidence. Someone thought that a covert purpose of the group was to remove white middle-aged men. We had to say that that is not the remit of the group. There is a balance to be struck between length of service and someone becoming so ingrained that they are out of touch with the issues on the ground. We will look at that matter.

My next question concerns the media. As new members, some of us have been the subject of a little bit of criticism and satirical nonsense in the past few days. The committee has heard evidence that has highlighted the fact that the media have a significant role to play in forming attitudes and affecting the willingness of under-represented groups to come forward and stand for election. Has that issue come to your attention? To what extent have you been able to engage with the media as part of your consideration of the issues?

We have not directly engaged with any elements of the media, although it would be interesting to take evidence from them. We have concentrated our evidence sessions on community groups, on current and previously elected members and on political parties. The media have not been in the frame, but there is no reason why they should not be.

I gave the example of someone who is gay or lesbian standing for election as a member of a political party. In that situation, the media can have a negative or positive role. Someone mentioned the powerful role of the media and how it could make people think twice, especially if their political party had not thought through how it was going to cope with the media. We can go back to political parties and ask them how their media offices deal with negative press and whether they have thought about how they would deal with the media on behalf of their members.

I would go further and challenge the media pundits themselves, asking them what they think that they are achieving with some of the negative publicity.

Absolutely. We will do that.

We are talking about councils and the media. COSLA is the big umbrella group for all councils. I know that COSLA has relations with the media. Has the group thought about approaching COSLA to ask whether it has a group that puts out positive messages about councils and councillors? Asking COSLA to take a leading role might be a way of upping the ante in a positive way.

That is a good suggestion. Corrie McChord, who sits on the progress group, has links to COSLA. I would have thought that COSLA has machinery to ensure that the press profile is positive. I am sure that work is being done on that. Shiona Baird is right about pinning down people in the media to take more responsibility, but that applies not just to this area, but to a range of areas of negative reporting, such as on asylum seekers.

Much of what we have heard this morning has been about issues that people have been discussing for a long time. We know what the Kerley report says, for example. How do we ensure that your recommendations do not end up in a cupboard somewhere? How do we ensure that progress is made and how can the committee support the review that is under way?

It would be helpful to present the completed report to the committee, flesh out the points and gain support for them. It would also help to stress the points to ministers. We are all keen not to produce a vague report. When issues are raised, we should point them out. That is one way of pinning people down. We could also ask for progress to be made on the Kerley report. We could ask what has happened and where the gaps are. We might be able to tie in the evidence to show us why gaps continue to exist. We could present the report—perhaps in person—for the committee's consideration.

I see from the nodding heads that members would welcome the opportunity to discuss the report. Are there any glaring issues that we have missed this morning in our questioning that you would like to raise?

No. You have been thorough and wide ranging in your questions. You have also given us three or four leads to follow up—for example, on length of service, on the media and work with COSLA, and on rural-urban issues. We have thought about some of those issues, but we will seek further views on them. Thank you for that.

Thank you for your evidence this morning. I am sure that I speak for the committee when I wish you well in your further evidence taking.

Meeting continued in private until 12:19.