Equal Opportunities Committee, 10 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Official Report 327KB pdf

---

Correspondence

The final item on the agenda is correspondence. We have had a letter from the Equal Opportunities Commission, with a copy of its submission to the Department of Trade and Industry consultation, "Advancing equality for men and women: Government proposals to introduce a public sector duty to promote gender equality". Do members have any comments on the EOC paper?

The paper raises important points. Obviously, the EOC will submit it to the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation. Members might want to comment on particular issues to which the paper refers, such as equal pay, which is obviously a current concern in Scotland. The paper raises other issues. For example, the EOC says that it wants Scottish ministers to set targets and report progress in relation to the sectors that they lead, rather than just their own departments. That is important and it could tie up with the procurement issues that we were talking about earlier this morning in relation to a different subject. All those issues are very important. Do we have time to raise them with the Scottish Executive and ask it to respond in the first instance, before deciding whether we, as a committee, would like to submit a response to the consultation?

The difficulty is that there is not time to do that, because the consultation closes at the end of this month. We can consider what the EOC has said, but what is coming out of this is what the Scottish ministers will have to do on the back of it. We have a locus to scrutinise what the Scottish ministers are doing, so perhaps we would be more use in scrutinising after the event than in making a submission as a committee. I would be nervous about making a submission on something on which we have not taken evidence; the submission would be based only on our opinions.

It is important to raise the issues with the Scottish Executive at this stage, rather than wait until the consultation result is a fait accompli and then say that we have some concerns.

Perhaps we could do that by writing to the Scottish ministers, flagging up the issues that have been raised and asking for a response from them about how they propose to take the matter forward. Do committee members think that that would be the right way to take it on?

I would be happy with that. I was going to raise issues that Elaine Smith has raised. I was concerned about signing the correspondence off without raising those points. I am happy to support your proposal.

I have no problem with the Equal Opportunities Commission's submission—it is good—but there is not enough Scottish information. The convener suggests that we raise the issues with the Scottish ministers; why not ask them to suppose what would have changed on equal pay in Scotland if the proposed duty to promote gender equality was already in place? I do not have much confidence that a simple duty to promote equality is enough if it is not statutory. Equal pay is the biggest issue on the gender equality agenda and it is an issue in local authorities throughout the country. I am frustrated that the Equal Opportunities Committee has been sitting impotent and the Scottish ministers are refusing to comment. They are washing their hands of it, including the funding for equal pay.

I would like to write to the Scottish ministers to ask them what their views are on the equal pay settlement for women workers and how that fits into equality proofing the budget. The committee should write to the Scottish ministers asking those specific questions—perhaps we should also ask the Equal Opportunities Commission. We should also ask what the Scottish ministers' response would be to the equal pay issue that we face at the moment, assuming that the duty was in place. The Scottish ministers will not have thought of that yet.

I do not want to vote for another load of paper. We need action and, at the moment, the Scottish ministers are inactive on the issue.

We could write to the Scottish ministers and ask them to inform us what their actions would be in response to the duty. That would give us the opportunity to cross-examine them on the issue that you highlight. We should take a more general approach in the first instance and follow it up with more detailed questioning and scrutiny on the back of whatever their response is.

Do any other members think that the committee should do something on the equal pay settlement that has been debated and discussed and that will be implemented in three months—well, councils are attempting to implement it—or should we sit here and watch it unfold? The Scottish ministers have access to part of the funding settlement for equal pay, but Tom McCabe has said that it is nothing to do with him and everything to do with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I do not accept that argument, because the Scottish Executive has some responsibility on gender equality. We are the Equal Opportunities Committee and perhaps there is a case for us to write and question ministers on that. I do not know what other members think.

I would like to do something about the issue, but we are not holding an inquiry into it. I am not saying that we should not be looking into it but, as the deputy convener said, it is a question of the timescale. I do not think that it is within the committee's remit to pick out a single issue such as equal pay just because it happens to have arisen now. Every MSP has the opportunity to question ministers on the matter, to lodge written questions or motions.

I agree with Frances Curran—I think that the Westminster Government should pay for the settlement because it introduced the legislation on equal pay. I do not think that local government should have to find the money from council tax payers. However, I do not think that it is within the committee's remit to pick out that particular issue. MSPs have the opportunity to lodge questions and motions and try to get it debated in the Parliament, but I do not think that the committee can raise the matter because we are not holding an inquiry or taking evidence from witnesses.

We all have concerns around the equal pay agenda, but the Equal Opportunities Commission's letter also contains other, equally valid concerns. We should write to the Executive, as Elaine Smith and the deputy convener suggested, because that will allow us to find out the Executive's views. We should not isolate the issue of equal pay. To do the Equal Opportunities Commission's letter justice, we should write a broad-based letter, as has been suggested.

This is the most agist document I have ever read in my life. It makes 113 points but we have to read as far as point 74 before we get to the most relevant point for my generation. In passing, it states:

"Currently women's retirement income is just over half (57%) of men's."

As members will remember, that is due to the small stamp issue. Because women wanted to take home a few pounds more in their pay packet, employers conned them into not paying the big stamp and, in later life, they find that they are totally disadvantaged. I deplore the Government putting out a document like this because it makes no mention of the fact that women in retirement get 50 per cent of their husband's pension.

It is not the Government's document.

The document is the Equal Opportunities Commission's response to the DTI.

It is condoning the fact that women are being severely disadvantaged. We talk about equality for women, but this is a basic thing. By the way, the Equal Opportunities Commission is a quango. Am I right? It does not even have a gender balance. There are 11 women and 4 men. I do not object to that, because the women have issues that should be pushed forward more than male issues, but if we checked out every quango in the country—there are about 38 of them—we would find a gender imbalance. I was at a health board meeting about an important issue and there were 11 men and 1 woman on the panel. The Government in Scotland should be able to enforce a better balance, surely. To try to put tripe like this forward as an acceptable document for the Parliament is absolutely out of order, because 20 to 25 per cent of the people are not even considered. The pensioners are not considered.

I could go on and on, but basically there is no way that we should condone anything like this document going out in our name. If it goes out in the majority's name, I will add a personal opinion at the end.

I clarify that the document in front of us has been prepared by the Equal Opportunities Commission as its submission to a Government consultation, so—

It is responding to—

The document has been sent to us for our interest and comment.

That is my comment. The consultation is called "Advancing equality for men and women: Government proposals to introduce a public sector duty to promote gender equality", but the Government is not promoting gender equality. It is getting the Equal Opportunities Commission to try to—ach. I never read anything as imbalanced and irrational in my life.

I think that we might all be reading different things, convener.

I read the thing three times and I can assure you that it is totally agist.

I am sorry. I am a bit lost.

I accept what Frances Curran said, but I suggest that we send a letter to the Scottish Executive, as has been proposed. There is an opportunity to examine other issues as part of our work programme, but it is for members to bid for that and raise those issues. If we send the letter in the first instance, we can see what the response is and develop things from there. I accept that the committee would probably not want to put in its own response to the consultation.

I do not think that we can do that because we have not taken any evidence on which to base such a response. Our locus is to scrutinise how the Scottish Executive implements what comes out of the process. I think that, to get the ball rolling, it is appropriate for the committee to write to the Scottish Executive and invite the Scottish ministers to inform us how they propose to react to what emerges. Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 13:07.