Reporters
Item 9 of our agenda is on progress reports. Members should have received written reports from the reporters. The first is from Nora Radcliffe, the reporter on sexual orientation.
The report is fairly self-explanatory. I met representatives of the Evangelical Alliance and of Christian Action Research and Education—CARE—who said that people who have queries about religious topics were not sure what their access point to the committee was. They thought that it might be helpful for us to designate someone as a reporter on religious issues, in addition to our existing reporters on race, gender, disability and sexual orientation. That might provide people with a gateway that would allow them to get their views into the parliamentary system.
Any religious organisation is able to give evidence on specific issues, such as section 28. Some of them availed themselves of that opportunity. The reporter on race, Michael McMahon, also covers religious issues. However, his job is to address religious discrimination, rather than to feed in religious viewpoints on matters that the committee is considering. I am comfortable with the current arrangement.
It might be helpful to redesignate Michael McMahon as the reporter on race and religious issues.
I have no problem with that, although only issues of discrimination would come before this committee. I have provided religious groups with access to the committee through my reports on the Act of Settlement, as has the inclusion of a question on religion in the census. The arrangement has worked thus far.
I can see the logic of that. However, I would have a problem with redesignating Michael McMahon as the reporter on race and religious issues. A race issue need not have a religious element. It might be regarded as discriminatory to make that assumption.
I could be termed the reporter on race or religious issues.
We could simply indicate that the reporter on race is also the reporter on religious issues.
Perhaps that is the answer.
Would you like another hat, Michael?
I think that it is sufficient to put on record the fact that the reporter for race issues also deals with religious issues, as he has done in the past, for example on the Act of Settlement and on the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I am not entirely sure that that role is what the representatives from the Evangelical Alliance advocated in their evidence. I was not at the relevant meeting, but I sense that they were asking for something quite different—from a religious perspective. I do not think that that is a matter of religious discrimination. Such views can be reflected in the evidence that we can take on any issue, and the alliance is more than welcome to come along at any time to give evidence to the committee on any matter that we are considering. It can also ask us to consider something that is not already included on our future work programme. I am quite comfortable with the set-up as it is.
Does Nora Radcliffe wish to comment further on her report? Do other members have any questions on it?
I think that the report covers the points that we have discussed.
We will pass over the report from the gender reporter, as Elaine Smith has had to pop out of the room for 10 minutes. We will move on to the report from the disability reporter, Irene McGugan.
I apologise for the fact that my paper was not submitted in time for circulation with the other committee papers; I hope that members have seen a copy, as attached to my e-mail.
There are only two issues to report. One concerned the DPHS, and was well covered under agenda item 6. As a follow-up to that and to previous correspondence, any additional queries will be forwarded to the relevant ministers.
The second issue was that of recognition for the European day for disabled persons, which is normally held on 3 December. That links nicely with the fourth anniversary of the coming into force in 1996 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and with the first anniversary of the requirement on providers of goods and services to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled people.
I have learned that Capability Scotland plans to undertake a nationwide survey of shopping facilities, during which disabled people will be going out to both local shops and high street multiples in various parts of the country to make the same kind of purchases. They will then fill in a detailed questionnaire, outlining their experiences. The questionnaires will be analysed and their results collated in a report that will be issued by Capability Scotland to illustrate how well shops—in particular—have implemented the terms of the 1995 act, which is otherwise known as the DDA. The intention of the report is that it should not so much criticise as attempt to find and highlight good practice as well as shortcomings.
I thought that it would be good for the committee to acknowledge the European day for disabled persons and to give some time in the agenda of our meeting during the week beginning 3 December to hear Capability Scotland present us with the findings of its shopping survey, which is set to be very useful. That would help us to gauge how far society may or may not have come in implementing the terms of the DDA. We could also consider recommendations on what might be done to ensure that the 2004 deadline relating to that act is met. That is when services and goods must be fully accessible to all disabled people.
This committee is set to meet on 5 December. Is it agreed that we invite Capability Scotland along to that meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
Will that provide enough time for Capability Scotland to conduct an extensive analysis of its findings?
Yes—its representatives think that it will.
The committee accepts that the time scale is short, but Capability Scotland will still be able to send people along to give us useful evidence.
We will now return to the report from the gender reporter.
Thank you for holding this part of the discussion back, Kate.
Last week, I took evidence from Linda Watson Brown and I had hoped to take evidence from Scottish Women Against Pornography. Due to the short notice of the request, its representatives were unable to turn up. I managed to take evidence from them because the transport issue had to be put off until next Tuesday. I will take evidence from Professor Sheila Henderson at that meeting, should any members be interested in attending it.
Members have my report in front of them. Its subject matter—women and pornography—is quite controversial, but I do not think that it is peripheral to the debate on gender equality. Although we might sometimes consider the problems and the symptoms, such as domestic violence and the increase in the number of rapes that are reported, we might be failing to consider the underlying causes.
There is not much research on pornography and it is quite difficult to find the research that exists. For obvious reasons, if one were to use the internet to research pornography, one would find sites that one might prefer not to find. It is important that the committee should take evidence from Scottish Women Against Pornography and Linda Watson Brown. I have included those points in my recommendation.
We must note that pornography might cause problems—it is a big business that, through imagery, can have an effect on society and on the way in which women are viewed. It might also have subliminal effects on people and on their attitudes to women in society. Does the committee agree to undertake that work? I know that our schedule is quite tight, but at some point before the end of the year, we should take evidence. That would be useful.
It is unlikely that we will have time to take evidence on pornography before the end of the year. I do not mind taking such evidence, but it will be useful to know in what context we would do so. What part of our work would that evidence feed into? Our work plan is busy and, although it would be interesting to take evidence on a number of matters, evidence should fit in with work that the committee is undertaking. How would such evidence tie into our work?
Having taken over the role of gender reporter from Johann Lamont, I have been pursuing the issue of women in the justice system and I believe that pornography ties in with that issue. The committee might want to reconsider that issue later in the year or when we decide our next work plan.
We could fit it into next year's work programme. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
As members have no questions or comments on Elaine's report, we will move on to a brief report from Michael McMahon, who is the race reporter.
I want to highlight a particular problem. Only I was able to attend the previous two—abortive—meetings, the purpose of which was to consider the current legislative programme and to determine the race input into that programme. I have not been able to start that work. Apart from me, the sub-group was made up of Jamie McGrigor, Malcolm Chisholm and Shona Robison.
In order to allow the group to consider that issue, other members must attend our meetings. I have scheduled another meeting for next Tuesday morning, about which I will e-mail members.
If other issues arise, such as meetings with groups and so on, I can attend to those issues with one of the clerks—that is not a difficulty. However, we must consider the legislative programme, on which the race reporter's sub-group must develop an angle. If members volunteer to come along to that meeting, we might be able to kick off that process. We are being held back because meetings are not taking place.
I will ask the clerk to e-mail all members with information about the reporters. New members should contact the reporters for the areas in which they are particularly interested.
We do not have sub-groups—we are not allowed to have sub-groups.
They are discussion groups.
People will be able to get in touch with the reporters and find out when they can hold discussions with them after that e-mail has been sent.
Meeting continued in private until 12:07.