Official Report 85KB pdf
Members have before them a paper concerning the work programme. In the past, we have discussed this item in private, but it has been brought on to the public agenda.
Very good.
It would certainly be possible to commission research to find out what information is in the public domain.
I was going to suggest that we do that. When we have received similar research previously, that has served to highlight the issue in public.
The committee is aware that, in addition to the current inquiry into gender equality and best value, it has commissioned research into gender strategies in the public sector in Scotland. The research is based on a breakdown of the Scottish household survey into categories such as employment, age and population distribution. The emergent themes from that research will have an implication for the issue of equal pay and will provide us with further information on the subject. The clerks could consider the current situation and ask the Parliament's legal directorate to give us an idea of the overarching commitments of legislation, including the Equal Pay Act 1970.
When will we receive the information?
There has been a gratifying delay—if it can be called that—in the research. A second trawl of organisations revealed upwards of 300 responses containing information that the researchers call "grey material". That is material that has been published at local level—by local authorities, for example—but is not logged at national level with bodies such as the National Library of Scotland or published on academic websites. The researchers are overwhelmed by that vast seam of information. The clerks will put a paper before the committee to reference the themes that emerge from that research. Before we do so, it seems that a further meeting with the researchers is required—I understand from the Scottish Parliament information centre that that meeting is to take place in October.
Consideration of that information will have to be fitted somewhere into the work programme, which takes us up to December. We have discussed the importance of such grey material at a previous meeting. It is good news that we are to receive that information; it will give us a good starting point. However, I suspect that we might want to commission further research to home in on the issue of equal pay that Tommy Sheridan outlined.
As members know, the work programme is flexible. We can wait for the information before the committee decides whether it wants to go ahead with a full-scale inquiry. If the committee wants to do so, we have the opportunity to fit in extra meetings between our fortnightly meetings.
Excuse my ignorance, convener, but does the committee still have the facility to appoint a committee reporter to examine an issue such as equal pay in more detail if the whole committee cannot devote the time required to the subject?
The committee has always operated with four core reporters. So far, we have not appointed reporters on an ad hoc basis, but that would be a decision for the committee. As Tommy Sheridan knows, Elaine Smith is the reporter on gender issues. Since the committee started its work, there have been occasions on which each reporter has done a considerable amount of work on a particular area before the committee considered the issue. We continue to have the facility to do that. If the committee wants to appoint a reporter on a single issue, that is well within the rules of the Parliament.
Okay.
Is it agreed that we await receipt of the research before we discuss the issue further under a work programme item on a future agenda?
Members indicated agreement.
Before we move into private session, I want to return to the Chhokar situation. I do not see that subject on the work programme. Prior to the recess, the committee agreed that we should try over the summer to make progress on the issue. Unfortunately, that could not happen. The committee also agreed that, if we did not make progress by September, we would have to decide when to consider the report into the Chhokar case. If we do not do so soon, it will not be worth doing.
To update members, I wrote to Mr Chhokar and his representatives at the beginning of the recess. During the recess, Michael McMahon, the clerks and I arranged to go to Hamilton to meet Mr Chhokar and his representative to have an informal meeting about how they wanted the committee to be conducted and where the meeting should be held. Unfortunately, Mr Chhokar was taken into hospital again so we could not have that informal meeting. Michael McMahon is right: the committee needs to hold its meeting as originally planned, if possible, in an area that is convenient to Mr Chhokar. We want the family to feel as though they are getting a fair hearing, which they have not felt to be the case in the past. However, we must deal with the inquiry and take evidence on the Jandoo report if we are to progress and make recommendations. Do you have any suggestions, Michael?
I agree with you entirely, convener. We suggested holding the meeting in the Lanarkshire area and we have checked out venues. If we are to have any impact, we will have to act in the next month or two. I do not have a date, but we should find a Monday or a Friday on which we can go to Hamilton to deal with the issue and start to put it to bed. We have to address it and we cannot afford to let it sit any longer.
Has a formal approach been made to the STUC to draw on its involvement in the case from the beginning? It has pursued the case determinedly throughout. Should we liaise with the STUC about lines of inquiry as well as with the Chhokar family, which has liaised closely with the STUC? In recognition of Mr Chhokar's long-term illness, we must get something off the ground, as Michael said. That would also be a reasonable starting point.
If the STUC felt that it had evidence to give, its representatives could come and give evidence to the committee. If we go ahead, the Chhokar family could give written evidence to the committee and others could give oral evidence.
I have taken a major role in the matter. I believe that it would be wrong for us to ask the family how we should conduct the inquiry, just as it would be wrong to ask people from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service how they think we should do it—if they are major players in the report, we should be asking them questions. We wanted to make sure that the family was comfortable with how we intended to conduct the inquiry. The meeting that was arranged was not intended to allow us to agree to lines of questioning; it was intended to allow us to agree to the format. That has not been possible because of Mr Chhokar's ill health. However, we can start up the inquiry and begin to make some progress. We have to find a way in which the family can have an input.
I agree with everything that Michael McMahon has said. We are free every second Tuesday and it might be possible to hold the committee meeting on one of those days, depending on members' commitments in Edinburgh in the afternoon. That would give us more choice on the date.
We are already committed on Tuesdays, so perhaps we could arrange a meeting with the Chhokars on a Tuesday, if that gives us a greater window of opportunity.
Perhaps members would like Michael McMahon, the clerks and me to sort out the matter. We will report on it before the end of the year.
Definitely before the end of the year.
Do you mean before the end of the parliamentary year or the calendar year?
We should sort it out before the end of the calendar year. The matter will be on the agenda regularly.
Meeting continued in private until 10:36.