Equal Opportunities Committee, 14 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000

Official Report 244KB pdf

---

Progress Reports

The first report is from Irene McGugan on disability issues.

We held a meeting on Tuesday 7 March. The committee will remember that the Disabled Persons Housing Service gave evidence last week and the disability reporters group was remitted to draw up an action plan. We spent some time considering how to put that together. We hope to have a report that will include a list of questions for ministers. We also hope to give some consideration to and review the Building Standards and Procedure Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, in particular the amendments to part T (Access and Facilities for Disabled People) of the Technical Standards for Compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990.

We will share that report with DPHS and the committee. Members might like to consider whether it would be appropriate to write to the minister with comments and questions or to invite her to come along and discuss the issues.

We are going to contact Capability Scotland in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We hope that Capability Scotland will help us to prepare or source a briefing for MSPs on the impact of that legislation in Scotland.

We note that the National Disability Council is to meet the committee on 28 March. We will liaise with the conveners and the clerk about whether it would be relevant to put something on the agenda for that meeting about the Disability Rights Commission.

Finally, lip-reading was mentioned at a previous meeting. It should be noted that a motion on lip-reading has been lodged, the text of which I have printed on my paper for today's meeting. Members will have to decide whether they want to support the motion. However, that does not take away from the need to make progress on other issues to do with lip-reading.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions or comments?

I wondered about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We spoke before about the fact that ferries are exempt under the act, but school buses are too, which I thought was remarkable. It would be useful to get some more information about that.

If that is everything, Johann Lamont will give her report on gender issues.

I have circulated a report, which should be self-explanatory, but I want to emphasise the importance of the work done in the past by Engender. Engender will continue to do important work but, crucially, it will not do the gender audit. It is important to find out what the Scottish Executive's strategy will be in relation to the audit.

At some stage, it will be useful to hear about Engender's broader work. I want to draw particular attention, however, to the points raised about budget scrutiny. Engender reported that a women's budget group has been set up—Engender admitted that that was not a terribly user-friendly name. The idea is to scrutinise expenditure plans from the women's perspective.

Engender is keen to encourage the committees that will scrutinise budgets to take that kind of perspective when they start their work. Scrutiny of next year's budgets starts in the very near future. We have asked to take evidence from Engender on the whole question of budget scrutiny and other issues, but importantly, we should also write to the committees that will examine questions of finance, budgets and so on, either to suggest that they hear from the women's budget group or to make them aware that information is there and encourage them to seek it, even in written form, so that they are aware of those elements when they consider the budget. I hope that members will agree to write to the committees.

The final recommendation is that we pursue with the Executive the question of how it will deal with the gender audit and whether the Scottish Executive can offer any funding options for Engender's work.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? If not, I should say that I spoke to someone from Engender last week and said that it was possible that we would have Engender along to talk in particular about the gender audit, which is the last that the organisation will produce. It might be useful to have someone from the Scottish Executive along at the same time to ask questions about how the audit will be dealt with by the Scottish Executive.

I should have mentioned—I think that it is in the report—that on 29 March Engender will facilitate a debate between the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Canadian High Commission, building on the work that has been done in Canada, on how budgets can be scrutinised from the women's perspective.

Unfortunately, I think that the committee meets that day, so I am not sure whether anybody from here will be able to go. There will be a briefing for MSPs at lunch time, but it may also be possible to organise an informal event in the Parliament at the end of the conference so that we can speak to people.

It is important for us to be proactive with the other committees. We need to tell them that we expect them to have an equalities perspective when they scrutinise budgets—that is not just our job—and expect them to source the Engender information to get particular experience or expertise in relation to women's inequality.

The lunch-time event is in my diary. I am quite happy to contact Engender to find out whether there is any possibility of organising something for later in the day.

Are there any other comments?

There is perhaps a general question about how this committee will deal with the budget. All the other committees will have a timetable for dealing with the budget in April and May. We should give some thought to that so that we do not opt out of the process.

All the committees, including the Equal Opportunities Committee, have been asked to consider the budget process. It has been suggested that the Equal Opportunities Committee should take a particular interest in how the subject committees handle the budget. This committee could develop an overall perspective, which it could ask the other committees to take on board.

What it the timetable for dealing with the budget?

We understand that the process will begin at the end of March. This committee and other committees will then have to fit in meetings on this over the same period. It might be appropriate for this committee to write formally to the other committees to ask them to take its perspective on board. The matter could also be raised at the conveners liaison group.

If members leave that matter with me, I will try to report back at the next meeting.

There was a meeting last Tuesday morning with Positive Action in Housing. Two items on the agenda were the recent statistics on race crime from Strathclyde police, and the review of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, one year on from the publication of its report.

The key point about the statistics, which I invited PAIH to the Parliament to discuss, is that the police claim that a 74 per cent increase in race crime is an indication of more confidence in the way in which the police are handling situations, but PAIH, I was not surprised to learn, is foremost among groups that view that increase differently. When crime rates fall, the police congratulates itself, and when crime rates increase it congratulates itself again. PAIH looked at the disposal rates—the number of convictions and actions that are taken on those statistics—and found that there was no evidence that there had been any improvement. Although 170 racial incidents were reported to PAIH, there was no sign of increased confidence—that is particularly true in relation to racial harassment and action against tenants who were responsible for that harassment.

The statistics do not stack up in relation to the experience of the ethnic minority communities. PAIH asked us to examine a few issues. Given that Jim Wallace announced to this committee that there would be a review of the police complaints system, it is important that we should be proactive and invite him to discuss that review. I know that that review is due shortly, so we might time a meeting to coincide with it. At the same meeting we can ask Jim Wallace about the review of the Stephen Lawrence report. The information that I have received is that, although there were 70 recommendations, there is little or no evidence of any change being effected. There are a series of issues to discuss with Jim Wallace.

PAIH said that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland had been considering the situation. A series of issues arise about how racism is tackled with the police. Just educating someone about the culture of a Muslim family does not help that family when the police batter down its door to make an arrest. The attitudes that the police bring to such situations are not changing. The number of candidates for the police force from ethnic minority groups who drop out has increased. It is important that we examine those issues. If we invited Jim Wallace and ACPOS along, we could address those issues, which are fundamental to what is happening in the community.

The other on-going issue is the way in which ethnic minorities are treated by the criminal justice system. Given that in the near future the Lord Advocate will be leaving to handle a case in another country, we should try to have him or representatives of the Law Society or Crown Office—preferably all of them—along as soon as possible. We need to examine what is happening in the system in general. I know that we cannot discuss the specifics of the Chhokhar case, but it raises some general issues. The committee should consider those with a view to highlighting the problems.

I received an e-mail yesterday from Positive Action in Housing, which indicated how important it was that the census should include a question on language and called on the Equal Opportunities Committee to ensure that it was included.

Everybody received that e-mail. I think that the organisation must be behind on what has been happening, as the contents of the census have already been agreed. When this committee is consulted about the form that a language question should take in the boosted household survey, we will be able to take on board the points that have been made to us. I read the e-mail just before I came to the meeting and will be responding. However, it is too late to have a language question included in the census.

When the Commission for Racial Equality appeared before us to discuss the census, did they express support for the inclusion of a language question?

The CRE would have preferred a language question to be included in the census but has accepted the fact that valuable information can still be gained through the boosted household survey, depending on what question is asked. We will want to consult Positive Action in Housing and the Commission for Racial Equality on the form of that question.

At the same time as the race issues sub-group was meeting, I and a couple of other MSPs, including Shona Robison, were at a seminar organised by the Scottish Gypsy Traveller Association. It was entitled "Striving for Equality" and took place at the City Chambers in Edinburgh. Following that seminar the Scottish Traveller Consortium, which is made up of Save the Children, the Scottish Human Rights Centre and the Scottish Gypsy Traveller Association, made a strenuous attempt to be allowed to make a presentation to the committee on what it perceives as a denial of the rights of the travelling and gypsy community across Scotland. It also wanted the committee to hear the arguments in favour of the gypsy and travelling community being considered as a specific ethnic group, which is a bone of contention within the travelling community itself.

I had hoped that we might agree to invite the consortium to give us a presentation on those issues. Some of the treatment that the travelling community is experiencing in different parts of Scotland is extremely worrying, and we need to get a handle on it.

We have already said that travelling people would come within our race remit, and I know that the Commission for Racial Equality deals with the travelling community. We would like to invite the consortium to a future meeting, as soon as we are clear of the legislation that we have to deal with.

I support Tommy Sheridan's suggestion. However, there is disagreement within the travelling community between new age travellers and traditional travellers. Is there unity between those two groups, or would we need to see them separately?

John Munro's point is accurate. The consortium is an attempt to establish a wide umbrella to speak for as many travellers and members of the gypsy community as possible. There will always be differences within that community and the consortium will be able to speak for the majority of them.

I have been in touch with one representative of the travelling community and I told her to write to the Equal Opportunities Committee to ask whether she could give evidence.

Thank you. I have not received that yet, but I have no doubt that I will.

Michael McMahon suggested that we invite Jim Wallace for an update of the review of the Stephen Lawrence report and, because much of the report referred to the police, that we invite APCOS as well. He suggested that we invite the Lord Advocate, so that we can consider the way that ethnic minority people are treated in the criminal justice system. The first thing I would want to do is to invite Jim Wallace and ACPOS along for a review of what is happening and to establish whether any of the committee's points from its report were taken on board. We have not really heard anything about that yet.

With regard to the criminal justice system, it might be better to wait until after the Chhokar trial to fully examine the issues. Given that the case is sub judice, we would be restricted in what we could discuss. We could discuss issues in general, but it would be more useful if we could discuss the matter in more detail afterwards. Perhaps we could do both.

The point has been made that we do not have to discuss what is happening in the trial. The signal has been sent out that this important case is not being handled particularly well. If we decide to look at the issue overall—and to wait until the Lord Advocate is available to do that—it might be appropriate for the committee to send a letter, highlighting the concerns that have been raised.

I am concerned that, because of the way that the procedure has been handled, this trial has been dragged out and that justice has been denied. It is not about the evidence or the outcome of the trial, but the fact that it was handled in this way—it has been transferred from city to city and has been held up, for people to come to consider it. That is not conducive to good justice.

I have already spoken to the new Lord Advocate about it and I have arranged to speak to him about it again on Thursday. As well as making private representations to the Lord Advocate about how things are progressing, if there is no public inquiry into the handling of the trial, the committee could conduct some form of inquiry. There is little that the committee can usefully discuss at the moment. It would be useful to make private representations to move the thing along.

Obviously, we cannot discuss the Chhokar case, although I would accept that there ought to be a public inquiry about the handling of it, once the trial is over.

I am concerned that Aamer Anwar, who has co-ordinated the Chhokar Family Justice Campaign, has been excluded from Jim Wallace's steering group on the Macpherson report. My understanding is that that is related to his role in the Chhokar campaign. However, just as we can discuss the general issues without talking about matters that are sub judice, I am entirely sure that he—not least as a lawyer—is perfectly capable of doing the same. He would be an important person to have on that steering group and I am concerned that he has been excluded. I hope that the committee might be able to make representations on that.

As a committee, we should at least contact the Lord Advocate, to try to raise these issues.

I shall speak to the Lord Advocate on Thursday, and would be happy to raise those issues on behalf of the committee.

That will be quicker than sending a letter.

It will be quicker and, at this stage, more useful than inviting him to attend the committee. At some point—probably when the case is over—we will invite several people to attend the committee to talk about what has happened. I shall raise with the Lord Advocate the issue of the exclusion of Aamer Anwar.

That issue is for Jim Wallace.

We must emphasise to the Lord Advocate the concern of the ethnic minority communities over the handling of this case and the lack of progress that has been made. The procedures that are being pursued are not conducive to encouraging the belief that ethnic minorities will be treated equitably in the eyes of the law. We must emphasise that that feeling is out there and make the Lord Advocate aware of it.

We will timetable the invitation to Jim Wallace as soon as possible. The final report is from Nora Radcliffe on sexual orientation issues.

We had a meeting that was hosted by Outright Scotland and the Equality Network on 1 March. I do not have a minute of that, but when I get one I shall e-mail it to members, as I have done for previous meetings. It was a fairly informal meeting. Kate McLean and Shona Robison were there. Our recent preoccupation had been the wording in the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. The Executive has now produced a form of words that, after informal consultation with those two organisations, seems to pass the equality test.

The group next wants to consider three issues. The first is the issue of provision for young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and I have undertaken to investigate the youth organisations that exist for that group of youngsters.

Secondly, we will be considering what aspects of family law and Scots law might have to be changed to ensure that it is not discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation. That is a massive task, but Professor Norrie of the University of Strathclyde is putting together a comprehensive list of what legislation will be involved. That will be another avenue of work for us.

The third issue that the LGBT community is beginning to become aware of and discuss concerns its feelings about the recognition of same-sex couples, whether it wants some form of formal, civic recognition, and what form that should take. That is another wide-ranging topic of discussion.

Those are the three avenues that we will pursue over the next few months. As usual, I shall e-mail committee members the date of the next group meeting. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Thanks very much.