Official Report 130KB pdf
I intend to circulate to all meetings—as I have done today—a list of organisations that have been in touch to ask whether they can give us briefings or provide us with information. We have already had informal presentations from some of these organisations, and we will organise further, formal presentations. Do members have any comments or requests?
Is this a list of organisations that have provided information or ones that are offering to provide information? Would information provided be circulated to members, or would we need to opt into that?
The clerks receive correspondence during the period between committee meetings, and we are not entirely sure of the best way of handling that correspondence. We could keep members notified of every item of correspondence that we receive; members would be welcome to contact us if they want to see a particular item. Alternatively, we could list correspondence under each agenda item for each committee meeting, although that might load the committee down. It is for the committee to determine how it would like the clerks to handle correspondence.
Most of the organisations that have sent information have already sent it to members of the committee as well. Some organisations offer briefings. I think that it would be sufficient for us to be notified of the correspondence that has been received and for members to get in touch with the clerks if they wish to see a particular item. That would be better than having everything sent out, which would become unwieldy. Are members happy with that?
Yes.
That concludes the business of the committee—
Can I confirm that we will at some point have a briefing from COSLA and the Equality Network together? When will that take place?
I do not know—as soon as we can organise it, which will depend on people's diary commitments. It may not be a joint briefing. The Equality Network briefing will take place as soon as we can set it up. We will probably have that briefing before the one from COSLA. The Scottish Executive is to appoint a head of the equality unit and I would like that person to brief us on how we could work together. We will leave it to Martin to organise those briefings as soon as possible.
We talked about devising a template for examining legislation. How will that happen? Do we have to make suggestions or will we get a paper that we can comment on? Will we be given a starting point, or do we provide that?
From listening to today's discussion, I think that Martin will provide something.
The clerks can advise the committee which consultation papers, green papers, white papers and bills are coming through the system only as we are made aware of them.
My point echoes Michael's point—we need a checklist to guide us on considering legislation. How do we derive that checklist? It is fine for us to say that we want one, but how do we get it?
We will have a paper on that at the next meeting.
I am sure that systems are used elsewhere in Europe. It may be worthwhile to compare the systems that are used by other Parliaments, such as the Länder Parliaments.
We will bring something back to the next committee meeting.
Will there be any papers for the group that is to consider the Macpherson report, or should we supply our own?
All committee members should have a copy of the Macpherson report. They should also have a copy of the Executive's response. Comments or papers will have to be provided by other organisations, but Martin will try to help with that as much as possible.
With providing what exists?
Yes.
Kate, will you leave it until the next meeting to ask members to indicate an interest in the four working groups that you mentioned?
It would be useful if members indicate to Martin, in writing, a couple of areas in which they would be interested. We could then decide at the next meeting what will happen.
I shall clarify what will happen for the next two or three meetings. Next week, and possibly more often, the Macpherson sub-group will meet. That sub-group should report to the committee at 10 o'clock so that we can call others halfway through the meeting on 21 September—otherwise, the sub-group will be unable to report to the committee. The meeting of 21 September will then be taken up by discussion of the action plan in response to the Macpherson report. Are we aiming to have the other sub-groups up and running by 28 September?
Yes. Those sub-groups should be decided by next week.
I am a bit confused. Could you confirm the sub-groups in which we are being asked to express an interest?
Initially, sub-groups were envisaged only in the four main areas. Michael mentioned religious bigotry, but I do not know whether he wanted a sub-group to be set up for that as well.
I would, as I think that it is a large area that needs a lot of study. Many organisations need to be contacted for evidence and advice. It would be appropriate for a sub-group to be established on that issue.
So what sub-groups have we agreed on?
Those that I have noted are to deal with race, gender, disability and sexual orientation.
And religious bigotry.
The four main issues are clear and we have focused on them so far. However, a range of other issues relate to equal opportunities, including religion, religious discrimination and hostility towards religion. That is an area that we could explore, but I am not sure that I want to prioritise it above others. It could be dealt with after the first four areas are established.
How does the committee feel about that?
It is all down to personal perceptions. I know what Johann is saying, but ultimately the decision is one for the committee to make. I see religious bigotry as a priority issue and believe that it should be addressed at an early opportunity. I also believe that the establishment of this Equal Opportunities Committee has led to the expectation that we would seek to address that issue.
There is an element of crossover between religious discrimination and race discrimination. The CRE raised the issue of religious discrimination, as did the STUC when it was dealing with race discrimination. We would not need a separate sub-group on religious discrimination if the sub-group on racial equality considered the issue in conjunction with race.
I agree with that, but I would not want us to go ahead with the four sub-groups before we considered whether to have other sub-groups. I would prefer religious discrimination in itself to be the subject for a sub-group.
Is that agreed? Committee members should inform Martin as soon as possible which areas they are interested in. That concludes the committee's business. Thank you for your attendance.
Meeting closed at 11:06.
Previous
Ministers