Official Report 106KB pdf
I invite members' comments on the draft work programme that was circulated to them.
I commend the draft programme. However, will you use the headings to work through the briefing paper? I have a few comments to make.
I will work through the headings, if that is okay.
The next heading is "Single Equality Body". Do members want to carry out an inquiry into the proposals for a single equality body?
I support our doing that. Further, given the previous Equal Opportunities Committee's intention to invite a Westminster minister to address the committee, would it be useful for us to do that if we carry out an inquiry?
I am sure that it would be fine to do that. Committees have previously issued such invitations.
Obviously, it would be up to the invited minister whether to attend. However, it would be a useful exercise to issue an invitation.
I support that suggestion. Given that it is the United Kingdom Government's initiative to establish a single equality body, it is important that a UK minister come if asked. Obviously, it would be up to that minister to decide whether to come, but it would be beneficial to us if they did.
To invite a minister would be a positive approach because we know that discussion on the issue is under way at UK level and that there are implications for Scottish equality bodies. Therefore, we must consider the matter.
I want to put on record points that have been made to us about a potential gap in relation to discrimination. Currently, three statutory bodies deal with particular areas of discrimination, but the extension of strands of discrimination into sexual orientation, religion and faith and age means that there is likely to be a gap between those strands and existing ones in terms of the level at which they are dealt with. It has been suggested that the voluntary sector could take on the role of filling such a gap by, for example, informing employers of their obligations. We should consider that matter to ensure that the voluntary sector, which already has capacity problems, is properly resourced for taking on what would be an important role.
Okay. Is it agreed that we carry out an inquiry into the proposals for a single equality body and that we invite a Westminster minister to give evidence to the committee as part of that?
The next heading in the work programme is "Budget Process". Do members want to invite written and oral evidence, including from the Engender women's budget group, before taking evidence from the minister?
I strongly support the committee's taking such evidence, in particular from the Engender women's budget group.
Was it the practice in the previous session of Parliament to have such evidence taken before the budget process?
Yes. It is to enable us to gather information and other people's views on how the budget is presented and on strands within the budget.
The Equal Opportunities Committee or any committee can suggest other options for the Executive's budget. If something comes up from evidence that we receive, we can input that to the budget discussion. The budget process is meant to be a two-way process as opposed to the Executive's merely presenting the budget and saying that we can take it or leave it.
Margaret Smith is right. Evidence taking gives us the chance at this stage to comment on what we think should be included in the budget, rather than wait until the budget is finalised, when it is obviously too late for any input.
Can I clarify a point on that issue? We will obviously discuss the matter later, but I raise now the possibility of the committee's taking evidence on the proposed civil registered partnerships (Scotland) bill, irrespective of how the bill is dealt with. It would be important to include such evidence taking at this stage of the work programme.
Okay. I think that that makes sense. Do members agree with Elaine Smith's proposal?
The next heading is "Gender Recognition Bill". Do members want to take evidence to establish the Westminster bill's implications for Scotland and should we ask the clerks to present an approach paper?
The next heading is "Article 13 requirements". Do members want to carry out a stocktaking exercise on age?
I am sorry, convener, but you have missed the heading on the European year of disabled people.
Sorry, I am following my list, which should have that heading but does not.
The European year of disabled people is an important issue. It is also important that we take evidence to find out whether the EYDP has made a difference. We must listen to groups and discover what their experience of the EYDP has been. I am pleased that the issue is included in our work programme.
We will discuss the EYDP under agenda item 5, but we need to agree it as part of our work programme.
I return to the issue of requirements under article 13 of the Treaty of Rome. Do members want to carry out a stocktaking exercise on age?
That issue is also important because the relevant European directive will soon be introduced and we ought to get ready for it by taking whatever evidence we need ahead of time.
The next work programme heading is "Attitudes towards discrimination in Scotland: Findings from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey". Do members agree to invite Professor John Curtice to present his research findings to the committee?
The next heading is "Scottish Executive Equality Strategy Annual Report". It might be appropriate for the committee to discuss the report following its publication.
I agree strongly with that suggestion. I think that it is vital that the committee scrutinise what the Minister for Communities is introducing and that we be given an opportunity to question her.
Absolutely—it is a positive step forward for such a report to be produced.
The next heading is "Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Bill". Do members want to examine the bill, following its introduction, to scrutinise its equal opportunities aspects?
It is crucial that we do so because the bill is a major piece of legislation that will, I hope, bring major improvements.
The bill will have a big impact on families with children who have learning disabilities and who need greater support. We have heard that some parents are concerned about aspects of the bill. The bill is probably a bit of a mixed bag and it is a good idea for us to consider it. Some people will probably do well out of the bill's provisions for extensions and rights of appeal and so on, but others seem likely to lose out.
Is that agreed?
The next heading is the "Scottish Commissioner for Public Appointments". Do members want to invite the new commissioner to give us a briefing following their appointment?
I want to clarify a point on this item. The committee received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress a letter on representation issues around black and minority ethnic groups in public life. Would a briefing from the new commissioner help to address some of the issues in that letter?
I would be delighted for us to go along that route because I think that such a briefing would address not only the issues to which Elaine referred, but others. There is a helpful example from the National Assembly for Wales, where clerks circulated a draft of their public appointments scheme.
The next heading is "Gypsy Travellers". Members will be aware that, in the previous session of Parliament, the Equal Opportunities Committee carried out an inquiry into the situation of Gypsy Travellers. I suggest that, in this session, we should take stock of the current situation.
May I say something before we move on to discuss reporters? At our away day, we talked about whether our work programme should include looking into British Sign Language. I think that that would be important.
I agree. Do members agree?
Going back for a moment, convener, can I clarify that you will write to the Scottish Trades Union Congress in response to its letter, to tell it what we intend to do?
Yes. That is right.
Before we appoint reporters, we should put on record that having reporters is important so that particular groups have a point of focus on the committee, and so that the reporters can inform the committee. However, there was a tendency in the previous session for reporters to feel that they had to make a report to this committee or to as many committees as possible. Can it be clarified that that need not be the case in this session? Reporters should report on particular issues only when they feel that it is important to do so. They should not feel obliged to have a report on every single agenda.
In the interests of equal opportunities, I wondered whether Campbell Martin—as he was not at the away day and we decided on the allocation in a rather ad hoc way—would like an opportunity to say what he would like to do.
I was just about to offer him that opportunity.
I could not make it to the away day, which was my problem, but I am quite happy to go along with what has been agreed.
Elaine Smith is right about when reporters should report. Given the pressure that the clerks are likely to be under, it is important that we do not gum up the works with reports that are not needed.
We could have a system for our agendas. Reporters could perhaps say if they want a space to discuss a particular issue on the agenda of a forthcoming meeting. That could be done in committee so that interested organisations would know when an issue was going to be on our agenda. That would make more sense than simply having ad hoc reporting. Do members agree?
Members have received a note on the allocation of reporters. That allocation is: age, Nanette Milne; disability, Marilyn Livingstone; gender, Elaine Smith; race, Marlyn Glen; religion and faith, Shiona Baird; and sexual orientation, Margaret Smith. Do members agree with that allocation?
Do members agree that we should publish our work programme on the committee's web page?