Official Report 239KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2009 of the Equal Opportunities Committee. This is our first meeting since the end of the summer recess. I remind all those present, including members, that mobile phones and Blackberrys should be switched off completely, because they interfere with the sound system even when they are switched to silent mode.
I will try to live up to the title.
I bet it is a relief that you are a manager and not a minister today.
We are, of course, very sad that four out of 16 commissioners have resigned. It is probably worth mentioning that in any case the commission was due to be reconstituted and reduced in size at the end of the year, at the end of the current members' terms of office. Given that people were going to have to reapply for appointment to the commission, and that the original commission had completed the set-up job and was moving on to a more focused size, there was a view that perhaps people had made their contribution and that it was time to move on.
In a similar context, I understand that Trevor Phillips has been appointed for a second three-year term and that several senior employees formerly of the Commission for Racial Equality were re-engaged. Who was responsible for those appointments? Was there an open recruitment process with equal opportunities, similar to the one that we have in Scotland for public appointments?
The person responsible for reappointing Trevor Phillips as chair, and Margaret Prosser as deputy chair, was the Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman. She decided to give them a second term. There was an open competition when the posts were first filled, but there was no competition for the reappointment. There will be a competition for the remaining commissioner posts, given that the size of the commission is to be reduced. It is not unusual practice for people who have been appointed through open competition to have a second term of office without having to go through the same process.
Given what you have said, it might be worth your seeking advice from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland on how the public appointments process should be engaged with. It is a little ironic that we have an equalities commission that, broadly speaking, appears not to have followed equalities recruitment practices, certainly in the case of the appointment of Trevor Phillips and others. It would be interesting to have a conversation with Karen Carlton of OCPAS to find better ways forward.
I assure you that we are working closely with OCPAS on an interesting project that you might have heard about. We have written to all members of the Scottish Parliament asking you to complete a survey to help with our project to get more people into public life in Scotland. Unfortunately, I cannot answer on the minister's reasons for making her decision.
I think that Hugh O'Donnell's point was that equalities principles should be applied in the commission.
It was damaging that the commission's accounts were qualified. However, we are not the only body whose accounts have been qualified: I gather that a couple of Government departments are in a similar position. The accounts concerned were the ones for our first year of operation—the year that ended in March 2008. I hope that the qualification reflects not how we operate now but the pressures of the set-up phase, when the commission was moving to become fully operational. I do not think that the qualification is indicative of wider or longer term incompetence. An unfortunate mistake happened in the very early days of bringing the three organisations together, and big gaps in the skills base of the staff led to some perhaps slightly hasty decisions.
More specifically, what impact have those events had on the work of the commission in Scotland?
We have tried to keep firmly focused on what we are delivering and to reassure everyone who works with us and all our stakeholders that we are still operating, that we are still clear about our priorities and that we are still delivering for Scotland. We have had a lot of support from our stakeholders, who have said that they do not recognise in our work some of the assertions that have been made in inflammatory language in the press down south.
That is encouraging.
I will ask about the high-level aspirations that are laid out in the commission's strategic plan, before we move on to discuss more specific matters. Your strategic plan mentions your work to
Yes. I do not think that we will get there in the first year, anyway, but we have a number of programmes and projects that underpin those high-level, strategic priorities. We worked out the specific priorities and what we are going to deliver through extensive consultation in Scotland and in Britain as a whole, and also by looking at the evidence of where the significant problems are and what people are telling us needs to be tackled.
That was helpful. Some of what you said, particularly with reference to local authorities, will be picked up later. However, I have a couple of specific questions about your submission, which shows that more than half the calls to your helpline concern disability. Why is the volume of calls for that equality strand so high relative to the other strands?
We think that it is a legacy issue in that the Disability Rights Commission had a well-used helpline and people who phone the old number get through to our new commission. The other strands provided slightly less of a service previously, so the situation is simply a follow-on from the number of people who phoned the previous commissions' helplines.
On page 4 of your submission, you take up the situation of looked-after children in relation to decisions of the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland. That is a valid issue, but I will ask a related question that has come up for me recently. It appears that parents who exercise their right to appeal tribunal decisions have costs awarded against them if they do not succeed in their appeal. Are you aware of that and are you concerned about it?
It has not been brought to our attention so far, but we would be very interested in the matter. It would be great if you passed further information to us.
In response to Malcolm Chisholm's question, you said that the fact that the disability strand accounted for so many of the calls to the helpline was a legacy issue. However, that prompts the question why, in the past, the disability strand accounted for a higher number of calls than did the other strands. What was the reason for the extra effectiveness of the disability strand?
I think it was simply to do with the fact that the DRC was a newer organisation. At its inception, the DRC set up a well-advertised helpline. The other two legacy commissions had slightly lesser helpline services. The issue simply relates to the way in which the commissions were originally set up and the kind of services that they offered.
Does that imply that the helpline needs to be advertised more heavily in relation to the other strands so that it is used more heavily?
Yes. We have planned substantial advertising of our helpline, which has been rejigged slightly and will be formally relaunched soon.
Your submission shows that you got quite a lot of calls for "no strand". Does that mean that the calls were not relevant or that they involved cross-cutting issues, or does it mean something else?
It mainly means that the calls were not relevant, such as calls from people about benefits rather than discrimination or equality issues. We have always had that problem.
Does that show that people fail to understand what the helpline is about? Does that need to be addressed?
The legacy commissions had the same problem. We do our best to explain the difference between discrimination and human rights issues, and the kind of services that we provide, but we continue to get calls that are not relevant.
We hope that the revamped helpline will enable us to break down the calls and analyse what is behind them a bit more thoroughly, which will enable us to understand better the no strand category and see whether other issues are hidden in it.
I have spoken to a number of constituents who have had difficulties with various Scottish and Westminster Government departments. I imagine that many people often do not get a satisfactory answer from Government departments. Do people in that situation come to the EHRC to ask whether you can solve the problem that they have encountered? It seems that many people imagine that they have rights that they do not actually have—the truth is that you do not always get what you want.
We do not have official statistical breakdowns of all the calls that we receive but, having spoken to helpline colleagues, I feel that some of the calls that they receive are based on the belief that the area of human rights extends slightly further than it does. Our helpline offers advice on human rights both for the EHRC and for the Scottish Human Rights Commission, so it covers devolved and reserved areas. We cannot be of assistance to every caller, but I hope that we can help lots of them.
I know that you do not want to take on unnecessary work, but do you refer issues back to the departments that people wrongly call you up to complain about? Do you let those departments know that someone has contacted you with an issue that is their responsibility, not yours? That would ensure that people who wrongly contacted you were not left hanging with no hope.
We always try to find someone to whom we can refer people. For example, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman might be more useful than we can be.
We tend to ask people to make contact themselves. We have to draw the line there. The helpline does not contact departments on people's behalf; we try to give people the tools to do the job for themselves.
The commission's submission refers to the on-going pressure on public finances. During the recession, have you seen a decline in public and private sector organisations' focus on equal opportunity issues?
On the whole, not yet, although there have been enough danger signs for us to issue guidance—which we know has been used by the public sector—on taking difficult financial decisions while taking account of the equality duties, considering the impact of decisions and ensuring that they are based on clear evidence. However, I am afraid that the worst is yet to come, which is why we are preparing by gaining firm evidence about how decisions are taken and by working with others to ensure that robust equality duties mechanisms are put in place so that people who are more vulnerable do not suffer disproportionately.
That is all the more crucial in difficult times.
Exactly.
In the next evidence session we will talk to the renamed equality and the budget group. You have spoken already about guidance for public authorities in respect of public sector duties and financial decisions. When developing proposals and making policy decisions, including those about finance and service provision, public authorities must comply with their statutory equality duties. What is the commission's expectations of the work of the equality and the budget group in the next period?
We see its work as making a great contribution to the wider mainstreaming agenda. Looking at budgets in isolation can be a bit of a dead end, but looking at budgets in a way that makes connections between the financial decisions and the policy decisions is really helpful. That is the approach that has to be taken. I believe that that is the approach that the group is taking.
Do you have plans to work alongside the group or to feed into its work?
Yes. I think that we are represented on the group at the moment. As things develop, we will review the level and nature of that involvement.
Thank you. That is really important.
The Scottish Government's national performance framework includes, among others, the national outcome:
That is a big question. The outcome focus is a real strength. It provides a way of linking equality activity at all levels of government and public services. The outcome focus is really good and helpful.
Thank you; that was very helpful. It would not be for me to comment on the issue of pious words from Governments, regardless of their shade.
You are right about the socioeconomic duty. At the moment, the Equality Bill includes a socioeconomic duty that will apply only in England and Wales. Our commission's view is that it is desirable to have such a duty embedded in law, and we are extremely pleased that the Scottish Government has decided to consult on whether, under the bill, that duty should cover Scotland as well. That consultation is under way.
What about progress on equalities in local authorities' SOAs?
We are still analysing the new round of single outcome agreements, so I cannot say much on that at the moment. We might need to come back to you with a written answer, unless Euan Page can say something on it.
Community planning partnerships now have a much more formal role in single outcome agreements, so we will undertake a programme of face-to-face engagements with all 32 CPPs in Scotland. We will sit down with local authorities and other key agencies that deliver services to communities around the country, and talk at a practical level about the issues. For example, we will discuss how we will develop the equality measurement framework work and what that will mean at a practical level for the delivery and design of services, particularly in the context of having to make increasingly difficult decisions about how we spend finite resources.
I suppose the budget project to which Ros Micklem referred earlier will also provide concrete information for us about how local authorities are carrying through the single outcome agreements and how much they consider their equality duties when they make spending decisions under the single outcome agreements.
The committee would be keen to see any additional information that you have on that.
My question carries on from one that Malcolm Chisholm asked earlier. The commission announced that it would carry out an assessment of the extent to which the Scottish Government is meeting the public sector equality duties in the development and implementation of its policies and practices, with particular focus on equality impact assessments. The commission is doing that assessment with the co-operation of the Scottish Government, and it focusing on three areas: the guidance on local housing strategies, the national drugs strategy and the development of the "better together" improvement programme. I understand that the commission hopes to produce its findings by spring next year. Why is the commission focusing on those three areas in particular?
We wanted to address a range of areas, each of which gives us a different flavour. We wanted areas in which there is a lot of delegation and areas that are mainly about central policy making. We also wanted areas in which there is a reasonable degree of confidence in the process and areas in which the Scottish Government feels that there is a bit further to go. We therefore negotiated with the Government for a reasonable cross-section of different policy areas to give us a representative view of how the process works across Government. We would have loved to look at more areas, but there is a limit to the capacity to do the work thoroughly, so we had to choose three areas. Lynn Welsh may be able to comment a bit more on that.
We had evidence from research that the previous commissions undertook on housing difficulties for minority ethnic communities and disabled people. They found that minority ethnic people tend not to use social housing while disabled people tend to be stuck in it. We therefore knew that there are difficulties in that area, and we wanted to see how the Government looks at them when it considers its strategy. There was also anecdotal evidence on the drugs strategy and how services are made available across different, perhaps harder-to-reach groups. Those aspects were part of the reason why we chose the three assessment areas.
I am not clear about what you said at the beginning about people being stuck in social housing. What did you mean?
There is a difficulty for some physically disabled people with regard to what housing is available and accessible to them. There is a lack of disabled housing in public, social housing and a severe lack outside that sector, simply for accessibility reasons. We wanted to see how that issue would be tackled through the work that the Government is doing.
In the social housing sphere?
Yes.
Local housing strategy guidance is developed and published jointly by the Scottish Government and COSLA. Will the commission's assessment be based just on the Scottish Government's performance, or will you also consider COSLA's performance?
It is not as much about performance as about the system that is being used, where and how equality assessments are being carried out and the outcome of assessments. It is about looking for good practice, if there is any, and making recommendations. Of course, in practice our recommendations could also benefit COSLA's work.
Will you be looking specifically at the Scottish Government?
Yes, because the Government is covered by the equality duties, whereas COSLA, as an organisation, is not.
If you find that the Scottish Government has failed to meet any of the public sector duties, what action can you take?
We hope that the Government would be keen to take on any recommendations that we made to it. If we find that the system is not working properly, we will firmly recommend what we think is required to improve practice. If the Government simply ignored what we came out with, we could take enforcement action. We can serve a compliance notice if we think that the equality duties are not being formally carried out, which we can enforce in court if required.
You have the teeth, but you would prefer not to have to use them.
Yes. It would be preferable to work in partnership.
In July, the EHRC launched the equality measurement framework, which aims to provide information for Government and public bodies. In evidence to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, the EHRC said that there are gaps in data on Scottish equality issues, the most significant of which relate to sexual orientation, ethnicity and religion and belief. What work, if any, are you doing with the Scottish Government to standardise data collection and close those gaps?
The discussions that we have started with the analysts about marrying up our equality measurement framework and the indicators in the national performance framework are partly about that, as the analysts are considering whether they could populate our framework with data over time.
What impact might those data gaps have had on the commission's work in Scotland?
It is probably a combination of data gaps and the fact that the equality duties apply to only three of the equality areas for which we are responsible.
You say that your work has been weighted towards the other strands because that is where you have had better data. Can you give me some examples of what you might like to do with the strands that your work has not been weighted towards and that you are not currently addressing because of the slight lack of data?
We have some evidence—it is partly anecdotal—that access to some public services for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is not as good as it should be and is not equal. We would like to know a lot more about that and take action on it, and the new equality duty, which will cover all the equality mandates, gives us a great opportunity to get more teeth so that we can do something about that. There are areas that we are keen to tackle but that, in my view, we are not yet in a position to address. Others may want to add to that.
Although that is true at a policy and strategic level, we provide casework services to all the strands. We have handled cases involving lesbian couples, cases of gay people being harassed at work and age cases. We are providing services firmly across all the strands, although the strategic-level work may be slightly behind that.
The framework does not seek to act as a performance measurement for the local authorities or the Scottish Government. How will the commission measure the success of those bodies' performance?
We would encourage those bodies to measure their own success; I do not think that it is for us to do that. It is for us to provide tools and encouragement, persuasion, guidance and, potentially, enforcement if they do not comply with their duties. It is up to public bodies and Governments to decide how to measure their performance on equality. We are in dialogue with them at every level to inform their thinking about how to do that, and we are keen to work with the project to develop local indicators. We are in constant dialogue with community planning partnerships, as Euan Page has said, on how they address equalities. However, we do not dictate the way in which people should measure performance; we provide them with the tools to do that themselves. The framework can be used as part of a performance measurement framework as well as a progress measurement framework, but it is not for us to tell people to use it in that way.
Does that mean that we could have 32 local authorities with quite different ways of measuring or assessing their equality situation?
Potentially, but I do not think that they would want that. Everything that we have heard from the local authorities suggests that they are keen to have tools that will enable them to compare themselves with others. They are keen to have ways of measuring that will enable them to demonstrate that they are meeting their duties. It is a process of dialogue rather than people going off and doing their own thing.
If that were to happen, would you regard it as a problem? I am sorry—Euan Page wanted to say something.
I was just going to add that the other vehicle is the work that is being undertaken as part of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, on reviewing and reshaping the scrutiny system in Scotland. In our written evidence to the Finance Committee on that bill, we indicated that with the advent of the new specific duties on public authorities that will be introduced by the Equality Bill, which will be consulted on and shaped and delivered in Scotland by Scottish ministers with the approval of the Parliament, an enormous opportunity exists to ensure that the new duties, particularly those around user focus in part 6 of the bill, are aligned with the new scrutiny arrangements in Scotland. On scrutiny and transparency, there is a direct link at local level with the work that can be done by devolved scrutiny bodies in Scotland.
I think that the Government would have something to say about it if all the bodies were to go off in their own direction. Given that there is a national performance framework and an expectation that all public authorities should make a contribution towards the meeting of the national outcomes, I would expect there to be concern if that contribution was measured in different ways. As Euan Page said, the scrutiny bodies have a view on how equality standards should be built into scrutiny. Government should have a view on how equality fits into the national outcomes. We have a view on how to demonstrate people's compliance with equality duties and their promotion of greater equality. However, I do not think that any one of those is about one body saying that there is a single way of measuring equality. If the tool is good enough, I hope that people will choose to use it.
Will you clarify why the analysts are working like mad—as I think you described it—to match up the equality measurement framework, which your submission said was launched in July, with the Scottish Government's national performance framework? Should it not have been ensured at an earlier stage that the framework was sympathetic to the Scottish Government's outcomes framework? Does the fact that such work is being done now not suggest that there should have been a Scottish framework that was applicable and suitable to Scottish needs?
There is scope to adapt and tweak the framework and make it suitable for Scottish needs, and that has been part of the dialogue that we have been having for more than two years. I am sorry if I gave the impression that there was a last-minute mad rush to complete that work. The discussion has been going on for a considerable time. We would have liked the work to have been concluded before the framework was published in July. Unfortunately, that did not happen, but at least the work is continuing and we hope that it will have a happy conclusion before too long.
In effect, will there be a United Kingdom framework and a Scottish one?
No, I do not think so. I think that we will end up with one framework that is flexible enough to be adapted when Scottish or Welsh circumstances make that desirable.
My next question develops the theme of the one that I have just asked, which was about how policy and initiatives develop. Let us take the example of migration, on which one can see a divergence of thinking in policy development between the UK and Scotland. How does that impact on your organisation in Scotland? Can you develop initiatives in Scotland separately from initiatives that might be pursued at UK level?
The way in which the process works is that we have some consistent areas of strategic focus across all three countries. In the migration debate, our consistent focus is on good relations. Our mandate is to support and promote and foster good relations between groups in society. The commission as a whole wants that to work in practice in ways that fit local circumstances and policy approaches, and the priorities of the three different Governments. Although our focus is still on good relations, our discussions about what that means in practice will be different in Scotland because of the different thinking and population needs, and so on.
On reserved matters, do you still consider that your organisation can play an influential role in developing policy and local solutions for Scotland?
There is no distinction. The House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee's report of our meeting with it at the start of the year seemed to imply that we work to some kind of distinction between reserved and devolved matters, but we do not make such a distinction. If we feel that a policy area, whether reserved or devolved, is relevant and falls within our strategic priorities and our mandate, we address it. That is why we are examining migration in Scotland.
During its round-table discussion on the Scottish Government's race statement, the committee took evidence from the Scottish Gypsy and Traveller law reform coalition. The coalition was very critical of the commission and felt that it had not been supportive in a case that related to the Gypsy Traveller education and information project. What are your views on that evidence?
We cannot comment on a specific case. We have had many discussions with the Gypsy and Traveller law reform coalition, which have not all been happy ones, and we know that the coalition is very critical of our approach. However, we have been doing a great deal of work and thinking about how to take forward work to support the rights of Gypsy Travellers. We agree with them that they experience some of the worst discrimination and outcomes of any group in Scotland. We are already commissioning research on how accommodation is provided, and we are developing a number of strands of thinking around work with them, which includes legal strategy.
We are considering the development of a cross-directorate strategy in Scotland that is specifically aimed at Scottish Gypsy Travellers and their needs. It will examine their human rights as much as discrimination and equality issues, because there are a lot of human rights issues in relation to areas such as land, housing and accommodation.
We are keen to point out that two reports from, I believe, this committee's predecessor committees set out valid recommendations on what should be done to support Gypsy Travellers. Our policy approach very much involves trying to work with the Scottish Government to do something about those recommendations. I am sad to say that most of them have sat there, as recommendations, for far too long. We all have a responsibility to move those issues forward.
That completes our lines of questioning. Do you have anything to add?
We have not said much about the Equality Bill and the power that Scottish ministers will have to decide on the specific public sector duties that will support the general duty under the bill. It is important that we use that opportunity to create effective, rigorous and user-friendly duties that will move us substantially closer to getting real outcomes on equality and getting people away from being bogged down in process, which is a complaint that people have about the equality duties. I believe that the consultation is due to be launched by the end of this month. We are thinking along similar lines to the Scottish Government about what those new duties might look like. This is a great opportunity for us all to get something that works for Scotland, and we look forward to continuing discussions about what that might look like.
The session has been interesting, and I thank you all for appearing before the committee.
Meeting suspended.