Official Report 130KB pdf
I am aware that this committee could send an invitation to every minister, as every minister should—and probably will—come before us at some point to answer questions on equality issues. The suggestion is that we send our first invitation to Jim Wallace and Jackie Baillie.
We have identified that we want to see Jim Wallace at an early point about the Macpherson report, but we also want to see him about the broader issue of how legislation is put together in relation to equal opportunities. It is important to find out from Jackie Baillie—or the appropriate person responsible for equalities—how it is proposed to intervene in other departments. We need to find out what structures have been set up to ensure that an awareness of equalities issues is written into departmental processes at the very earliest stage—as Malcolm said—before legislation comes before committees. We will want to address specifics on policy matters, but the broad process that people who are responsible for equalities are planning to use when looking at other departments is also important.
It is agreed that we will invite those two ministers to the earliest meeting, and that we will discuss, as issues come up, which other ministers to invite. It is also agreed that we will arrange a briefing with COSLA, which was keen to come. Given that local government spends 40 or 50 per cent of the Scottish block, it would be useful to get a general briefing from COSLA. The clerk will also invite one or more of the organisations that deal with gay, lesbian and transgender issues to give us the earliest possible briefing, so that we can include those issues in our work programme.
Malcolm mentioned education as a priority—perhaps we should invite the Minister for Children and Education sooner rather than later.
As you rightly said, Kate, we will be dependent on outside experts for a lot of our work on proofing legislation. Would it be possible to write to the bodies that we have heard from—particularly the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and Disability Scotland—for their views or responses to the education bill? We could use that as a starting point, as it would be daft to bypass them.
Yes, we can do that, but I think that that would be part of Michael Matheson's suggestion that we establish a process whereby the process of writing to organisations and asking for comments is triggered automatically when legislation is introduced.
Although this is not an immediate issue, I imagine that, at some point, we will need to consider transport, given that a transport consultation process is on the go just now. Disability Scotland referred to a national concessionary fare scheme—as did the STUC, I believe—and it may be appropriate to invite the Minister for Transport and the Environment.
Would it be helpful for members to have an indicative timetable for legislation, so that we can take on board Malcolm's point about early intervention? That would highlight—provisionally—particular pieces of legislation at particular meetings of this committee. I am not clear in my own mind when each piece of legislation is likely to be introduced. While dates might not be finalised, they will probably be indicative, and it would be helpful for us to timetable that.
The clerk will do that.
I wish to endorse Michael Matheson's comments on transport. The main worry for Disability Scotland seemed to be rail transport. I wonder whether we could get some information about the difficulties that people face at stations; that would enable us to tackle those difficulties.
I suspect that that work has already been done. We can try to obtain the information and circulate it to members.
Transport affects various groups, and there is a women's dimension to it, particularly relating to women's safety and the fact that women are more likely than men to use public transport. We should consider the issue from that perspective, too.