Equal Opportunities Committee, 04 Jul 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, July 4, 2000

Official Report 232KB pdf

---

Reporters

The next item is the reporters' reports. Irene McGugan will report first.

All members should have a copy of the minute of the previous meeting. We are still pursuing the idea of an MSPs guide to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with Capability Scotland, which professes to be as confused as us about why such a document has not yet been made available, especially as there is one for MPs. I have sent away for a copy of the guide for MPs to see whether there might be a noticeable difference between them.

Capability Scotland brought up the issue of an awareness-raising campaign on disability access to constituency surgeries. We are keen to participate in that, but it should perhaps go wider than the Equal Opportunities Committee to include the cross-party group on disability.

Disability Scotland asked to meet the group. We felt that such a meeting should have a focus. Given that the Transport (Scotland) Bill is currently before Parliament, it might be a useful hook on which to hang the meeting. If the committee decides to take any evidence on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, we suggest that it should take evidence from Disability Scotland. We have considered the time scale for that and are anxious that, because of the summer recess, there will not be much time to take evidence on stage 2 amendments. However, we have now been advised that the first meeting to examine stage 2 amendments may not be until 2 October. That would allow some time after the recess to consider the various issues and decide whether we want to raise particular matters.

I was going to lodge some questions for Jackie Baillie on the disability rights task force, although the update that she gave us today was helpful. We are still working on part T of the building regulations. Although we have had input from the Disabled Persons Housing Service, we think that we should seek input from other organisations with a role in disability and housing.

I am not sure whether the Transport and the Environment Committee has considered taking evidence from excluded groups on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I have a particular interest in access to public transport systems for people with disabilities in Glasgow. Yesterday, I received correspondence from Enable, which has done specific work on access to public transport for people with learning disabilities. I have copied that to the convener and to the Transport and the Environment Committee. I will also send a copy to Irene McGugan, because it would be useful to hear about the work that Enable commissioned if we decide to take further evidence.

I also received a response from the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, which I shall copy to members. After the recess we can discuss our timetable for taking evidence on the Transport (Scotland) Bill.

Last week, the gender issues sub-group met and Alison Campbell provided a note of that meeting that I was supposed to check. However, I did not check it, for which I apologise. We met to discuss the consultation document on stalking. I thought that it would be appropriate for the committee to respond to that consultation. The suggestion was that we write to Jim Wallace outlining our views. There is a problem that needs to be addressed and the current legislation and procedures are inadequate. However, there is an important debate still to be conducted on whether there should be a specific offence of stalking. There is disagreement around that. I understand that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee took the view that it would not necessarily be appropriate at this stage to make that a specific offence.

I received correspondence from Scottish Women's Aid who felt quite strongly that there should be a specific offence and that that debate should be aired further through the committee process. I take the view that there should be a specific offence, but I understand that at this stage the committee would not necessarily be able to make that recommendation, because we have not heard the evidence. I hope that we will either request that that evidence is heard elsewhere or take it ourselves at the next stage in the consultation process.

In our letter to the Minister for Justice, we should say that further investigation should be carried out and that we should not close the door on the option of creating a specific offence of stalking. It is significant that Scottish Women's Aid and several other organisations support that option. Malcolm Chisholm received material from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, which has also indicated that it thinks that there is a strong case for a named offence. After the evidence has been heard, members might take a different view, but we should emphasise to Jim Wallace that the matter should be pursued.

Johann Lamont's comments about the Justice and Home Affairs Committee are correct. The committee took evidence from Victim Support Scotland, who felt that the current legislation should be used more effectively rather than that a different category of crime should be created. The committee accepted that we had not had time to carry out the proper research. I suggested that the Equal Opportunities Committee could take the required evidence and further research stalking and harassment and the reasons behind it. I suggested that we could investigate whether people thought stalking and harassment should be dealt with as a separate crime, rather than as breach of the peace, which is how it is currently dealt with.

When we write to Jim Wallace, we should leave open the possibility of taking evidence in future. Perhaps Johann Lamont and I could talk to Pauline McNeill, who produced a report on the matter for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, to find out how she would feel about some joint work. It is an important issue and we should not leave it at the discussion of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

What was the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's response to your suggestion?

The convener said that she would mention the offer when she contacted the Minister for Justice. There was no particular response one way or the other.

Did the committee discuss the offer and decide against it?

No.

In that case, after the recess, we could make that the subject of our second inquiry.

Members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee expressed some frustration that they were not getting the necessary breadth of evidence and that they did not have time. That presents us with a good opportunity.

It is certainly a possibility for the second inquiry.

Scottish Women's Aid was particularly frustrated that it had not been able to feed in its views on the matter. That is the difficulty with the Justice and Home Affairs Committee timetable at the moment.

I have a question on that to put to Jim Wallace on Thursday.

I have received four letters on single-sex schools, some of which I have sent to you, convener. There are some allegations of sexual discrimination. That is a difficult matter that should perhaps be passed to the gender issues group.

I have received the letters that were sent to Tommy Sheridan as well as some that were sent to me directly. I have already written to Sam Galbraith asking for comments on whether the matters raised in them contravene any legislation. I have written back to all the people from whom Tommy received letters and I have asked Martin Verity to put that on a future agenda.

I will also give you the latest letters, convener. They argue that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is contravened only if there is less opportunity for males in the same area. There is clearly a problem because of school closures.

I do not know how quickly we will be able to take that forward, but I have written to the people to let them know that we are considering the matter, and I have written to Sam Galbraith.

The race issues group met last Tuesday and agreed the two documents that were included in the papers for today's meeting.

That is good.

Nora Radcliffe has sent her apologies. I had an inquiry from the press yesterday about the sexual orientation reporter and sub-group—although we do not have a sub-group as such. One of the lobbyists, who did not want to be named, had complained to the press that the group had been meeting in secret and that Nora Radcliffe had been sending round e-mails rather than reporting back to the committee. I would like to put it on record that we have no official sub-groups about which we can notify the press and public. We have reporters to the committee who meet with various organisations and other interested MSPs. Every MSP was invited to the last sexual orientation reporters meeting, not just members of the Equal Opportunities Committee.

I hope that none of the lobbyists or others are trying to stir up controversy around sexual orientation issues or to suggest that the committee has a hidden agenda. The Equal Opportunities Committee will deal with such issues in public. I put that on record to put an end to the myth that there have been secret meetings. As everyone knows, there is no secret agenda.