Official Report 267KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is on the new Scottish Government's approach to equal opportunities. I am pleased to welcome the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, who is accompanied by Yvonne Strachan, who is head of the Government's equality unit. I invite the minister to make a brief introduction.
I thank the committee for inviting me to appear before it to outline the Scottish Government's commitment and approach to equality.
Thank you, that is helpful.
In general terms, yes—I agree that that is the case. Our society's understanding of these issues has moved on every year over the past 30 or 40 years. There has been a sea change in public opinion about what these things mean and how they are defined. Government—both at United Kingdom level and, more recently, at Scottish level—has been very much involved in that process. I do not think that, over time, such things can be fixed because, in some senses, they are a reflection of society's views and, on the other hand, they lead society to what is hopefully a more enlightened approach to the different communities that exist within it.
The term "equity" is often used now. In the mind of the Scottish Government, is there a distinction between the definitions of equality and equity?
We are in favour of both. Equity means fairness, in my view. Clearly, we absolutely support fair treatment for all our citizens. Equality, according to a dictionary definition, means the same treatment for everyone. Obviously, that is not the definition that we take. Equality is about equality of opportunity. It is about providing different support levels for different groups in society to ensure that they get equality of opportunity to be all they can be, to maximise their potential and to maximise their opportunities in society to achieve what they want to achieve for themselves, their families and their wider social group. For us, equality is about providing that opportunity as much as Government can. Equity is about ensuring that we do so in a fair way.
That is useful to have on the record.
Before I ask my questions, I want to pick up on that difference between equality and equity. In the minister's opening statement, he mentioned the joint statement with COSLA on equality and he also mentioned the treatment of people. Will the supporting people fund and funding to tackle violence against women be included in that joint statement with COSLA? Will it also talk about equity and equality?
We have not finalised the statement. We are currently in discussions with COSLA on what the statement will contain, so it would be slightly presumptuous of me to put my view on the record at the moment. The statement on equality, which we look forward to issuing as soon as possible, will deal with that in general terms. We hope to issue it early in the new year—it will certainly be in the new year. However, it would be politic of me to wait and have discussions with COSLA on the specifics before we come to a final conclusion.
Thank you. I will ask my original question, convener. Sorry about that.
That is a difficult question. I go back to my answer to the question that the convener asked: such things change over time; they are a moveable feast. In broad terms, we want to ensure that everybody is able to exercise choice and has the freedom to choose the lifestyle that best suits them whether because of their cultural background, ethnic background, sexual orientation, age or any other reason, such as political or other views, which Sandra White mentioned. To be frank, we want people to have the maximum opportunity to—I was going to say "indulge in", but that is the wrong phrase—take forward those issues themselves with their families and colleagues.
We might hold you to the statement that you would never say never.
There are a number of ways. We work in close harmony with our COSLA and local authority partners and we work in close partnership with a number of organisations in Scottish society that focus on the different strands and the different areas of work.
I am asking whether you are prioritising various degrees of discrimination.
We are not prioritising.
I am not saying that you are, just asking whether you have a mind to prioritise certain types of discrimination or whether they will all be treated equally.
Oh, I see. The answer is no, I do not have a mind to discriminate among different discriminations. To be honest, that would be a rather odd way of tackling the issues. We try to treat all groups equally. It would be rather puzzling to individuals who face discrimination because of their sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or whatever reason if we thought that some of those areas were more important than others. To the individuals, they are all equally important and it is important that the Government views the matter in that way.
Having had some time to settle into your portfolio since we met you at our away day, have you been able to reflect on the Parliament's devolved powers on equal opportunities? Could they be used more widely?
I am sure that you will not be surprised to learn that I do not think that we have enough powers on equal opportunities. I will be interested to watch the debate on the Parliament's powers that is about to begin among the political parties. It is important that Parliament use its powers to the best of its ability. However, a balance has to be struck: we must drive forward the equality agenda with our partners in COSLA and elsewhere, but we must not micromanage the situation. The lead will often come from the people—in local authorities and other organisations—who work on the ground.
I might come back in a moment to ask what you might have in mind to do with further devolved powers.
The violence against women budget remains ring fenced, as does the equalities budget.
I hope that you are right. Obviously, you will be keeping an eye on that. Over many years, people have fought to provide services to tackle violence against women.
I would be happy to answer any questions in detail.
That would be helpful. We may not manage to cover everything today, so we may write to you with any outstanding questions.
I will be brief. What discussions have you had with women's organisations about their reservations about your position on the supporting people fund? You will know that homelessness organisations and housing organisations have also expressed reservations. Prior to decisions being taken on the budget, what discussions did you have and what discussions did the minister responsible for finance have?
I have met a number of the organisations that are represented on the national group to address violence against women, and we have discussed budget issues and ring fencing. The most recent meeting was last week. People gave me their views on ring fencing and told me of their concerns for the future. We discussed the issues in some detail. However, I do not believe that there is any reason why local authorities would withdraw from that work.
Would you therefore accept that there is a reasonable halfway house? Until the single outcome agreement is decided, ring fencing should remain.
No, I do not accept that. We have agreed with COSLA that the money will be part of the local government settlement. COSLA, like us, is still bound by the equality duties.
I think that everybody welcomes your commitment and wants to share in your hopes. However, we want an indicator to show that we are going forwards and not backwards. The single outcome agreement does not contain a national outcome or indicator that reflects the efforts to tackle violence against women, children and young people. We want a benchmark, so that next year you can come back and tell us that things have improved. Of course, we would welcome any such improvement.
One of the five strategic objectives is about fairness, and one of the 15 national outcomes is about tackling significant inequalities in Scottish society. The direction of travel is clear. The First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I have made clear statements about this. Our commitment, and our expectation of the outcomes, are clear.
We do not doubt that, but we want an indicator.
The point I am making is that local government is signed up to exactly the same agenda. There is no doubt about that.
So there might be indicators.
Other than the current top-level ones.
Did you say that the supporting people programme was now part of COSLA's work and part of the outcome agreements, but that funding to tackle violence against women was still ring fenced? Or did I mishear you?
No, that is correct. The supporting people budget was rolled up into the local government settlement, but the violence against women budget was not. It is ring fenced.
Thank you for clarifying that, minister.
I want to turn to Patrick Harvie's proposal for a private member's bill on expanding hate crime legislation to protect disabled and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Does the Government intend to legislate on these issues itself, or will you support Patrick Harvie's proposal? Gender is not included, and people feel strongly that it should be.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has made clear our commitment to expand hate crime legislation, specifically to cover disabled people and the LGBT community. Whether the means will be Patrick Harvie's bill or Government legislation is still under discussion. However, we have said that we will introduce legislation at a suitable opportunity. Discussions are on-going with Patrick Harvie on what he is trying to achieve and what we are trying to achieve, and whether we can achieve it together through legislation.
Do you intend to include hate crimes against women in that legislation?
We will have that discussion when we introduce the legislation. We intend to introduce legislation on hate crime. We have made commitments so far on disability and the LGBT community, but I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will be open to further discussions about what the legislation would cover.
Does the minister agree with witnesses who took part in the committee's round-table discussion last week on barriers to mainstreaming that the concept of mainstreaming is not always well understood by the public, and that the public is persuaded by the view that in order to provide equal opportunities, some groups may have to be treated differently from others? How do we persuade them that mainstreaming does not mean taking away rights or resources from groups that are not included?
I read the Official Report of that meeting. Attitude change is probably the most difficult thing for any society to try to achieve. It can be seen in many areas of work that changing people's attitudes is often a long, drawn-out process. We are committed to achieving attitude change so that there is not a perception among the public that people who fall within certain groups are in some way being treated better than other groups, when in fact the opposite is the case. It is a perception rather than a reality.
Rather than hoping you can hit the issue with a scattergun of public information, do you intend to discuss with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning the possibility of bringing that through more strongly in schools?
Public information is just one of the ways of ensuring that people are aware of Government messages. Bill Kidd's broader point, about getting people young and educating them about fairness, equality and antidiscrimination, is correct. I am supportive of early years intervention in many areas. The Government has prioritised that, not only to ensure that children grow up with the kind of attitudes that we want to be held throughout Scottish society, but to address fitness issues and anti-poverty measures. There are a range of things we want to achieve, and we very much believe that intervening in the early years is the way to achieve them.
There is a cross-cutting impact for Government as well as challenges for equal opportunities in our society's increasing diversity due to increased migration, which is generally from eastern Europe. In the past two years, 2,000 east Europeans have moved into Glasgow's Govanhill area, where they are exploited by private landlords and crammed into small and unsuitable accommodation. To alleviate that situation, the local public services that try to support those new arrivals will no doubt look for increased input from different Government departments. How might that situation be tackled?
Let me say two things. First, through landlord registration we want to ensure that we drive up standards in the private rented sector, where there is a problem with individuals such as those to whom Bill Kidd alluded. Clearly, it is unacceptable if the appropriate rules and laws are being broken. Landlord registration was introduced to ensure that we identify all those who work in the sector and to ensure that we do not allow landlords to treat people as has been suggested. Local authorities are taking that forward, but I have been driving them to complete the landlord registration process as quickly as possible so that we can start the whole process of raising the game in the private rented sector.
Before I start my other questions, I want to go back to the minister's previous response to Bill Kidd. We are trying to include pupils with disabilities in mainstream schools. Has any effort been made to gather data on the attitudes of non-disabled pupils to pupils with disabilities prior to and after the movement of pupils with disabilities into mainstream schools? It occurs to me that such data might be useful in considering how to tackle other discriminatory attitudes.
To be honest, I am not aware that such data exist, but I will check. Perhaps I can provide information in writing afterwards about whether such data exist and what sorts of details might be available.
That would be excellent. It occurs to me that we would need to have gathered the baseline data before large numbers of pupils with disabilities went into those schools, so there would have been a short time period during which baseline data could have been gathered. Thanks for that answer—
The minister has indicated that he will respond in writing, so I think we can move on.
As a general point, I visited a school in Musselburgh, just outside Edinburgh, on Friday, where I saw how children who have a variety of disabilities have been mainstreamed. I thought that the school was dealing with that in a fantastic way. The schoolchildren are very aware of disabilities but have positive attitudes towards the children with disabilities. As far as I could see during my half-day visit, they were treated with due respect and great interest was taken in them, just as people rather than as people with disabilities. Positive work is taking place, but I accept the point that has been made and I will write to the convener on the matter.
Carol Fox, one of the witnesses at a recent round-table discussion to which Bill Kidd referred, called for a more collective approach to litigation in order to challenge workplace discrimination. We realise that there are reserved dimensions to that, but do you agree that there are options for the Scottish Government in that area, such as greater use of alternative dispute resolution?
You are right that that is a reserved matter, although I am sure that you and I would share the view that it should not be. Beyond that, mediation and alternative dispute resolution clearly have a role to play. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice would take the lead on that work. The legislation is currently reserved and we are not able to change that, but I would not resist the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. From my time on the justice committees in the previous session, it seems to me that we do not make enough use of those avenues. Many disputes and problems can be resolved before they get to the point at which they have to go before the courts.
We are pressed for time, minister, so we will have to cut short the questioning on the Government's approach to equal opportunities. However, I will ask one last question about the disability inquiry. You may recall that, at the committee's away day, we alerted you to our intention to ask the various ministers across the portfolios about progress on the recommendations in the previous Equal Opportunities Committee's report on its disability inquiry. Have you written to your colleagues to alert them to the fact that the committee intends to seek evidence from them? Have you discussed with them the new Government's approach to the recommendations?
I am slightly surprised by the question, because I believe that we have a full evidence-taking session on disability on 18 December. Is that correct?
You may recall that, at our away day, we suggested that, as it was a cross-cutting issue, we would take evidence from the ministers in the relevant portfolios. I was trying to follow that up.
To be honest, I cannot recall whether that has been done. I will check and, if it has not been done, I will ensure that it gets done.
That would be helpful. I take it that there have been no discussions with your colleagues.
There have been no formal discussions on that point specifically.
Will the race equality statement and action plan be issued for consultation? When will that be?
I cannot give you a specific date, but they will certainly be issued in the new year.
In the new year?
Yes. We will issue them as soon as possible, but we will not get a chance to do it until after the new year.
Thank you for your evidence. We did not have time to get to a number of questions, so we will write to you. When could we realistically expect a reply to those questions?
It depends on what your letter asks. I will reply as soon as possible, but it depends on the detail for which you ask.
I suppose you cannot say any fairer than that. We will not be too hard on you.