Equal Opportunities Committee, 07 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 7, 1999

Official Report 130KB pdf

---

Work Programme

We have had briefings in the summer and the legislative programme obviously forms part of our work programme. Does anybody have any questions on the paper or anything to add?

One item that has been missed in the report of the Scottish Trades Union Congress briefing is sectarianism and religious discrimination, although I do not think that the STUC was the only organisation to mention it. It would be remiss of this committee not to have identified that as something that we should be alert to.

It is included under the CRE's briefing. I agree that it is something that we have to look at.

Are we planning to prioritise our work programme or are we going to try to distribute the spread of work across the committee so that we encompass all the areas quickly?

That is up to the committee to decide.

The public assumes that we will at least do work in the four main areas mentioned here: gender, race, disability and sexual orientation. As I am sure the convener will say when we come to the item on invitations, we need to have a briefing from gay and lesbian groups. If—at least to begin with—we have four groups, those groups should have general discussions but should also focus on a particular issue. The group looking at racial equality would want to look at the Macpherson report, for example, and other issues would follow from that. I think that we are all slightly daunted by the size of our agenda, so we should have groups to deal with each of the areas and those groups could start by focusing on a particular issue within its area.

I wish to raise the matter of domestic violence, partly because of last week's debate on the subject, which a journalist called inspiring. This committee ought to take hold of the domestic violence agenda because, although the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is proposing that the law on interdicts be amended, it has a limited remit on that issue. The minister with responsibility for the strategy to tackle violence against women is the equality minister Jackie Baillie. Because the debate was inspiring—it was probably the best one that this Parliament has had since 6 May—we gained a great deal of momentum and we should build on that. The group examining gender issues should carry that agenda forward, because there is a concern that we do not have an holistic strategy to address all aspects in a broad way. I would like the gender group to address that agenda and ensure that we make quick progress, which is clearly what the Parliament wanted last Thursday.

It was in my mind after last Thursday that one of the sub-groups of this committee could address domestic violence. Are there any other comments?

The issues of data collection and monitoring span all groups and may be addressed by the whole committee. Those issues were raised in most of the briefings that we had. We may be able to make progress on those matters, which could quickly raise issues that we do not yet know about.

The point was well made that, because the data collection and monitoring procedures are in many respects flawed, we do not have a lot of the information that we require to make decisions about what we are going to do. Remedying that should be an early priority, especially because the problem spans all the groups that we are talking about. That would prevent the committee from being perceived as being more interested in one area than it is in another, which would be a good start.

I agree that we must address that issue because concerns about it were raised across the board. An issue relating to information gathering concerns the decision to exclude from the census in Scotland a question on religion, although a question will be asked on it elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I would be interested in exploring that issue and finding out where our locus would be. From representations that I have had, I know that a number of religious groups—especially from the black and ethnic minority groups—feel strongly that they want the question to be asked.

My understanding is that it was claimed that the business case for including the question was not strong enough. However, the point was made to me that the information was not being asked for because organisations were not aware of, or sensitive to, the fact that they should be identifying the specific needs of the ethnic minority community in relation to services. Because they are not asking the questions, we do not have the information that would give us a much sharper focus on where the need is.

I note that later in this meeting we are to consider whether we should bring—that sounds too threatening; I should say "invite"—ministers to this committee. I hope that we pursue this matter with them, because I am sure that it has been raised with other MSPs. A lot of organisations feel strongly about the issue; we could intervene, but we need to know at which stage we can have an influence.

We could decide to invite an appropriate minister and ask questions on that matter.

Would a sub-group like to examine data collection, or should the whole committee do it? The committee can ask the Executive to produce proposals on how there could be more consistency in data collection. That may be preferable to a sub-group reporting to the committee on how bad the situation is because, as Shona said, we have already heard from every group that we met during the recess that the situation is bad.

I support what Shona said. It would be good if the whole committee dealt with this matter. Many people could be questioned; it is not difficult for those involved to collect the data, but the reality is that they do not do it.

There are many relevant people, particularly within the Scottish Executive, whose remit is data collection. It applies to many areas of our work, and we need to get moving on it. It cannot be difficult to make progress—it is a matter of demanding answers and creating momentum. We do not need much research on this issue: we just need to put pressure on people.

We should make a request.

Does anyone else have any comments on other areas that we should address?

The committee should address religious bigotry, which Michael McMahon mentioned; we should incorporate it into our programme. I am not sure whether we should establish a sub-committee on it, but there is an expectation that this committee will address it and I support that view. I am open to ideas on the way in which we can make progress.

With regard to race, are there other areas that the committee should address? Malcolm suggested that we consider the Macpherson report. That would be the most sensible matter for a sub-group to examine. The report raised many issues that were not covered in the Executive's response and which this committee might want to flag up.

May I remind members that the deadline for responses to the action plan is 30 September. I would have thought it appropriate for this committee to input into the process before the deadline. The time scale is tight, but we should make every effort to submit our view.

We would need to set up a sub-group now to address the subject. I am happy to do that.

Another area that we could make quick progress on, because we already hold powers to do something about it, is ensuring that all public bodies fulfil their equal opportunities duties—it was distressing to hear at our briefings that they do not always do so. We can take a lead on that and ensure that all bodies that are accountable to us adhere to good practice and good equal opportunities principles.

Linked to that issue is the establishment of support processes to ensure that minority groups participate appropriately in public bodies. The issue is wider than ethnic minority participation; it relates to minority participation in general. Women are often under-represented on public bodies, as are the disabled. Our concern is minority interests in general. We can move quickly on that and be seen to be effective.

Some of the organisations referred to the lack of equality in appointments. The committee may want to raise that matter with the appropriate minister and ask what steps, if any, have been taken to ensure that fairer appointments are made to public bodies.

At the informal meeting we discussed the issue of co-opting on to committees. There was a broad view that co-opting to this committee, and possibly to others, will be required. Can we fit into our work programme a briefing on that? How do we make progress on co-opting members, and what action would be required? I know that you were informed that the Scotland Act 1998 may need to be amended before members can be co-opted. If that is the case, could we have the appropriate input from civil servants as to how we achieve that?

That would be possible. A report is being prepared for the Procedures Committee, because the problem was raised at the conveners liaison committee. There should be no problem in bringing that report to this committee. I am concerned about that issue, but sub-groups are allowed to have advisers. The groups will be informal and will not involve the official report or the clerks; they will go out and gather information. Until we get things sorted out, I see no problem with inviting on to the sub-groups anyone that we feel would be useful as an adviser. It is important that we have outside input from the start. We cannot afford to wait for months while the problem is sorted out.

On the Macpherson report, the final date for submissions is 30 September and our next formal committee meeting is 21 September, which means that we have only next week in the interim. As you suggested, a small group could meet then. Could we identify four or five people who could spend the next week examining and researching the report? We could meet next Wednesday to discuss how to consider the report and use the meeting on 21 September to decide how the full committee should respond to it.

I suggest that we ask the CRE whether it can release someone to work with that sub-group.

Would it be possible to invite the Minister for Justice to the 21 September meeting? Even if the sub-group could not do a huge amount of work, it would be helpful to have the opportunity to question the minister about the decisions that have been made and about what kinds of forums it has been proposed be set up.

Macpherson deals with big issues. It might be useful if a sub-group began to address them and then have a discussion in this committee. We could produce our conclusions at the end of that meeting.

I am happy to have the minister attend, subject to his diary commitments. With regard to our response to the Macpherson report, I suspect that a lot of work has already been done by the CRE—we could tap into that.

At the previous formal meeting, you suggested inviting along the two ministers who are chairing the two working groups on specific aspects of racial discrimination and equal opportunities. We could discuss how our committee can work with them, how we can ensure clear lines of communications and how we establish what their remit is and the role that our committee will play. If we have the Minister for Justice here to discuss the Macpherson report and the action plan, it may be worthwhile pursuing those other matters at the same time.

It has been pointed out to me that the Cabinet meets on Tuesday mornings. We will try to get the appropriate ministers to come along anyway.

What do they view as more important?

Could we have the names of those who wish to be on the sub-group? I know that everyone is interested, but four or five people would be enough.

I note that Michael McMahon, Shona Robison, Elaine Smith and Nora Radcliffe have volunteered.

Are members happy with that arrangement? Does anyone feel left out?

Are we talking about setting up four groups today? I would like to join this sub-group, but there are other things that I want to do as well.

Because of the urgency of this issue and the deadline for submissions, I think that we will establish only this one today—I do not think that we need to establish the other sub-groups now.

So the others will come later?

Members should indicate which areas they are interested in.

I would like to volunteer for this sub-group.

We will add Malcolm Chisholm's name to the list as well.

Could members nominate one of the five members of the sub-group as a reporter who would officially report back, or is there a volunteer? Michael McMahon is volunteering. Are members happy with that? Good.

Will the clerks facilitate the sub-group's meeting? Will we get our diaries out at the end of this meeting?

We will do as much as we can to help to organise the meeting, but it will depend on the clashes that the five members have with other groups.

The clerks will not attend all the meetings, as there might be quite a few of them over the next couple of weeks.

In terms of the timetable, are we assuming that the sub-groups will meet every other Tuesday morning, although they can meet at other times as well?

Meeting every other Tuesday morning would be the minimum.

So this sub-group will meet next Tuesday morning, although it might need to meet at other times?

Yes.

Is it a one-off group established purely to respond to the Macpherson action plan?

Yes.

That was the suggestion, as it would give us a week to go through the papers. We could then meet next week to discuss our proposals and to formalise a paper to bring to the full committee the following week.

On the work programme, disability has not yet been mentioned. Do members want to raise specific points on which we should establish a sub-group? So far, we have highlighted domestic violence, the Macpherson report, data collection—which will be a matter for the full committee—and religious bigotry.

When I mentioned domestic violence, my concern was that our strategy should be broad and should deal with violence against women, although domestic violence is part of that. It is important that we devise a holistic strategy—that is what a lot of people are telling us.

On disability, I got the impression from Disability Scotland's presentation that a major concern was consultation and involvement in policy planning. The organisation was concerned about its input on local authority provision, which affects disabled people markedly. Perhaps we should examine the involvement of service users in the consultation process, in order to see whether the process is working effectively. I would add that to the agenda.

Are you referring specifically to consultation with local government?

One of the issues that I raised at the briefing with Disability Scotland was community care planning, although the organisation felt that there was a wider issue of consultation in a number of areas. It may be that the issue that we want to examine—and that we could address with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—is whether disabled people are appropriately consulted on the community care planning process or on the on-going delivery of services.

Last week, I met representatives of COSLA who hope to brief the committee. They have done a lot on that subject and it would be useful if we could work with them on it.

We have not covered gay, lesbian and transgender issues. I am aware that we have not had a briefing from any of the relevant organisations, although we have spoken to the STUC and the Equal Opportunities Commission. I hope that we will be able to arrange a briefing for the earliest possible committee meeting. Are there any issues that members wish to raise, in terms of establishing a sub-group?

We should get a briefing as soon as possible; I do not think that we should decide priorities until we have had one.

Yes, but it is agreed that we will set up a group once we have had that briefing. Are members happy with the work programme?

Yes.