Equal Opportunities Committee, 14 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 14, 2003

Official Report 220KB pdf

---

Holocaust Memorial Day

Item 3 on the agenda is the UK Holocaust memorial day. Members have a copy of the note from the clerk. Michael McMahon will update the committee on the issue.

It is not so much an update, convener. The fact that we have to discuss the issue at all is problematic. There are two aspects to the issue. The first is that the convener has written on three occasions to the justice department and Jim Wallace on behalf of the committee to ask for information on the Holocaust commemoration, but we have received no reply. No matter what the issue is, it is totally unacceptable for a Scottish Executive department to ignore a committee of the Parliament three times. We must address the issue by asking the justice department directly to explain why it did not respond to our request for an answer.

The other dimension is that our original question remains unanswered. It was highlighted to the committee that one of the communities that was most affected by the Holocaust—officially it lost 500,000 people, although the figure might have been much higher—is not given its proper place in a commemoration that was established to ensure that we do not forget that the Holocaust took place. We have not received an answer on that issue, although the Scottish Executive has a remit in the organisation of the commemoration.

The response to my initial letter that we received from Jim Wallace was that many communities were affected by the Holocaust, all of which are invited to sit in the audience at the commemoration. If the Holocaust had not taken place, we would not have the commemoration. The service has been rightly widened to remember genocides that have taken place since that time, such as those in the Balkans and Rwanda. There has been discrimination against communities since the second world war, but the event would not be taking place in two weeks' time were it not for the Nazi Holocaust. Besides the Jewish community, the Gypsy community was the one most affected by the Holocaust, but it has not been given a proper place at the event. We must get a direct answer from the Executive on what it is doing to ensure that the Roma Gypsies are given their proper place in the commemoration.

As Michael McMahon has outlined, the issue was put on the agenda out of frustration. Michael wrote to the minister and, because the committee was disappointed about the answer that we received, I have since written to the minister three times but have not received a response. The event takes place on 27 January, but we do not know what the position is in relation to Gypsy Travellers. The committee should discuss this issue in public and decide how it wishes to take it forward, given that the Executive is totally ignoring the committee on an important issue that was raised with us by an organisation that falls within the remit of the committee.

The problem we all have is that this is not the type of issue that we want to create a row over—it is the type of issue that everyone wants to unite around—but we have been forced into doing so because of the way in which we have been treated. We have tried to take up the marginalised voices of people who felt that they were not accorded appropriate recognition at the memorial.

The Minister for Justice's reply to the convener on 4 March contradicts his whole reply. In the course of his comments he stated that a special brochure was produced, which dedicated a whole page

"to the genocide of Roma and Sinti Gypsies during the Holocaust."

That is what we are trying to highlight. The fact that a whole page has to be dedicated to that particular genocide is the reason why we think that the carrying of a memorial candle is so important in recognition of that genocide and persecution. The Minister for Justice and, by implication, the Executive have dealt with us very shoddily. It begs the question of whom the committee can complain to about not being dealt with courteously—never mind the fact that the issue was not dealt with courteously.

I hope that today, in a united fashion, we will not only demand an answer but demand that the Gypsy community be given the status that we seek for it. That is our right. It is interesting that Rona Fitzgerald talked earlier about the need for political champions for equal opportunities. Well, this is one of those issues where we are trying to champion a group that has been ignored for far too long.

We have to do two things. First, we have to complain strenuously about the way in which we have been treated. Secondly, we have to seek or demand—however we word it—that the Executive use its influence to accord the Gypsy community the status that it deserves in relation to the memorial.

I follow on from what Michael McMahon and Tommy Sheridan said. Clearly, what has happened has been disrespectful, to say the least, to the committee and to the Gypsy Traveller community in Scotland. Ignoring the issue has made it very much a Parliament issue. It is disrespectful to the Parliament to ignore a committee, so can the committee engage the assistance of the Presiding Officer?

I support everything that has been said and in particular Tommy Sheridan's comments. I was at the last commemoration with Michael McMahon and found it truly moving, but it was glaringly obvious that the Gypsy community had been completely overlooked. Being in the audience as either a member of the public or as someone who was just there to watch simply did not cut the mustard. It was offensive.

I take the point about considering whom we can engage to support us. What has happened has been offensive to the committee. Elaine Smith is right that it has been offensive to the Parliament. We should at least go as far as Sir David Steel. The committee should bear in mind the fact that one of our Deputy Presiding Officers, Murray Tosh, took part in the ceremony and lit a candle. I am sure that he would happily have given his place to someone whom we thought more worthy of having the opportunity to light a candle.

I do not think that writing to Sir David is an option, because he does not have control over the Executive. If we want to write to somebody senior to Jim Wallace in the Executive, we should write to the First Minister. We can take advice from the clerks, but I do not think Sir David has any locus in a response to the committee from the minister. Writing to the First Minister would obviously demonstrate to the Executive how seriously we take the issue and it is possible that it would then be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The only other option open to the committee is to submit a parliamentary question, which would take a bit more time.

I have had a parliamentary question answered within one day. We could ask for that as an emergency.

It is up to the committee. I suggest that the best option is to write to Jack McConnell because the matter concerns a minister in his Cabinet.

I suggest that we do all those things, given the urgency of the situation. I have no problem with the committee writing to Jack McConnell, but we could also seek Sir David Steel's advice on whether he has a role as Presiding Officer, given the disrespect that has been shown to a parliamentary committee. We could submit a parliamentary question at the same time.

One way of accelerating the response and ensuring that the matter is dealt with as urgently as it deserves, is to notify the Presiding Officer of the intention of the convener or another committee member to raise the matter in the chamber tomorrow before the official business begins. The Presiding Officer would then have to make a ruling to explain whether he has any locus as far as treatment of the committee is concerned. That would alert the Executive to the fact that it must address the problem and would certainly ensure that we get an answer. My worry is that we have only two weeks. If there is to be the change that there should be, the Executive must take action within days, rather than telling us that it will get back to us.

A letter could be faxed to Jack McConnell this afternoon.

We would have to take into account the fact that if the Executive has not taken on board the concerns that we expressed last year, it will further inflame the situation and offend people if it does something at the last minute.

It is better that a change takes place at the last minute than not at all. Whatever we do to ensure that that change takes place, the reality is that, because the Executive has not replied to us, we do not know whether any change is necessary. The Executive might have acted already and the change that we seek might have been implemented. There are two dimensions to the issue. We want to know who is responsible for ensuring that committees are treated with due courtesy, but we still await the answer to the points that we made in the first place. Has the Scottish Executive intervened positively to address the concerns that were raised with the committee last year? That might be a yes or a no, but we have to be told one way or another.

The quickest way to deal with the matter is to get a letter faxed off to Jack McConnell this afternoon and for me and Michael McMahon to chase it up by speaking to him.

As regards the Presiding Officer and Parliament, I can explore the options with the clerks and find out what the Presiding Officer's locus is. That would be the quickest course of action.

I support that, but I remind members that Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network also flagged up the importance of representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups.

We can discuss that too, but in the letters that have been sent—but not responded to—the issue was purely to do with Gypsy Travellers. However, we can speak about those groups as well in discussions with Jack McConnell.

We are not asking for any organisation to be taken out of the event to make way for the Gypsy community. Lyndsay McIntosh will recall from last year that because of the number of people involved, on occasion two or three groups came forward together to light the same candle. The organisers thought about how they could maximise the levels of participation. However, it was glaringly obvious that they had not considered one of the major communities that was affected by the Holocaust during the second world war and has been affected by it since. We were asking about the proper place of that community in the commemoration.

Would members be happy for me to fax a letter this afternoon to Jack McConnell's office and to follow that up with discussion? Should I copy the letter to members before I fax it?

No. We have confidence in the convener's ability to write the letter. However, it could be copied to members and to the Presiding Officer.

I will do that.