Equal Opportunities Committee, 15 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000

Official Report 296KB pdf

---

Census (Scotland) Order 2000

I put the Census (Scotland) Order 2000 on the agenda so that we could discuss developments. Members will have seen over the weekend that the Executive seems prepared to make changes. I have just learned that the chamber clerks expect that a revised Executive motion will be lodged today. I had a discussion just before this meeting and can say—although not officially—that the Executive has listened to the evidence that the committee has given and the representations that it has made over the past weeks. In the Executive's revised motion, there will be a question on religious denomination, including a breakdown of Christian affiliation, and a question on the faith in which people were brought up. The Executive proposes to consult on a more detailed ethnic group question. That consultation will inform the decision on the extent of any amendment to the order. Although that is not official, it is the most up-to-date information on the census.

You were reading out an extract—

I was reading from a note that was passed to me today.

By whom?

The note was passed to me by somebody who had information about the minister's discussions.

So we do not have a note from the minister?

As I said, I have had no official information.

I was trying to clarify the status of the note that you read out.

The note is telling me approximately what will be in the new Executive motion. It is a handwritten, unofficial note. I have no more information. I have been trying since Friday, when I first heard that a change of heart was likely, to find out what is going on. This is the most official information that I have received so far.

I welcome the fact that the committee has been able to change the Executive's mind about something. I think that it has been able to do that because it has stuck together on this issue, and because it has made sound representations, which were based on evidence that it had taken. The fact that there has been any movement on this issue is a victory for the committee. The committee must decide how the change affects the motion that it lodged. We should discuss that now.

In the absence of any confirmation that the situation has changed, the committee's only option is to hold by the motion that it lodged.

I would have to agree—the change may be technical but it is not official. We may have read about it in the press, but we have not been told that that is the Executive's official position. We took our decision based on the information that we had at the time, and although there may be indications that the Executive's position has changed, it has not changed officially.

I have checked with the chamber desk, and at this stage no other amendment or motion has been lodged.

We are technically bound by the situation.

That is the position; you are correct that the committee has not received official notification of any change.

Like you, convener, we all read over the weekend that there would be changes. That situation has arisen not because the minister agrees with us, but because he is taking on board the fact that he cannot win on a vote. I have found the minister's behaviour towards the committee arrogant and inconsiderate. At our meeting last Tuesday, he was unwilling to take anything on board and he has not communicated in any way with the committee.

However, the minister or his spokespeople appear to have been communicating with the press. That is not the way in which to treat a committee of the Parliament. He needs to consider his attitude towards the committee and his behaviour over the weekend. In the absence of any official notification that he is willing to consider the points that we have made, we have no alternative but to hold to our motion.

I have raised the matter of issues being reported in the press and I have been assured that the leak did not come from the minister's office. However, it obviously came from somewhere. The fact that there were a lot of different versions in the press would indicate that it came from various sources.

If the committee—rather than the prospect of defeat in the chamber on Wednesday—has persuaded the minister to change his mind, based on common sense, the evidence that we have taken and the case that was made last week, that shows that the strength of the committees is that they enable issues to be officially discussed and alternatives to be suggested. I would prefer to think that the minister had listened to the committee rather than that he had been beaten into submission.

We should welcome any change in the minister's—and indeed in the Executive's—position. We have set up a structure that allows people who are unhappy with what the Executive is doing—I am talking about those who are particularly interested in this question as well as the broader public—to make representations to the committee, which influences the Executive's decisions. We can comment on the difficulties of communicating with the minister and so on, but I would hope that the strongest message that comes out of this is that it is possible for people outwith the Parliament to influence its decisions.

Any Executive proposal will be a matter for judgment on Wednesday, when we see how the broader group, beyond the Equal Opportunities Committee, votes. However, what is significant is that the committee enabled that vote to take place.

I would be happier if, in general terms, we stopped perceiving every change in policy as a defeat. We should recognise that we have the opportunity for a meeting of minds and that people can change their views after they have talked to others. We do not have to have the old combative model where, if someone is beaten, they lose their credibility. In fact, the most positive message might be that the minister has been able to shift on this issue because of the representations that can be made through a committee such as this.

Whatever the cause, the minister has changed his mind miraculously within a week. But there we have it.

The motion should remain, for the reasons that have already been outlined—for example, that we do not have any details of what is proposed. The strength of the motion was that it was all-encompassing and that it was a motion of the Equal Opportunities Committee. I would hope that our position remains as it was last week—I am heartened that that appears to be the view round the table. The strength of the committee is that we have reached a consensus and that we are prepared to see it through—I want to put that on record.

I would endorse that. Members of my party do not worry about defeat.

Obviously. [Laughter.]

I, too, agree with Shona. Although I was not here last week, for which I apologise, I recall that at the meeting before that we discussed whether the motion should be split and that it was agreed that it should be all-encompassing. If any shift addresses only part of the motion, will we stick with our decision for our motion to be all-encompassing?

To some extent, that is irrelevant—I think that it is too late for me to lodge another motion. I will support the motion of the Equal Opportunities Committee on Wednesday. However, I welcome the fact that the Executive has given considerable ground. The reason for that is less important than the fact that it bodes well for the future in terms of the Executive listening to committees. However the Executive reached this decision, it is a good thing. If Jim Wallace lodges a revised motion, it will inevitably change the dynamic in the chamber on Wednesday. At this stage, it is probably too late for me to lodge another motion. The only option would be for me to withdraw my motion; I do not want to do that and I think that the committee would not want me to do that either. On Wednesday, people will have to decide how they want to vote. It is up to committee members—the committee is not mandated to vote in any particular way.

Can I clarify whether it is too late to do anything? We might be assuming that.

I understand that, if I had wanted to withdraw the motion that had been lodged on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee and submit another one, I would have had to have done so by 4.30 pm yesterday. Amendments can be lodged until 4.30 pm today.

It may be too late to do anything, because the issues with which we are concerned, on the language spoken at home and the Scots language, cannot be registered in the form of an amendment. I am unsure—the whole thing is very confusing. The business bulletin tried to explain it last week.

To some extent, this is academic. The committee has agreed that it cannot withdraw the motion, because we have not had official notice of what the Executive is planning and we will not be meeting before we do. However, people will be able to judge to what extent the amendments that have been lodged meet their concerns when they see them on the day. That represents a broader judgment than that of the Equal Opportunities Committee. If we agree that our motion should remain, the issue is just a matter of considering the amendments when they appear.

Is it agreed that we welcome the Executive's intention—

Alleged.

Alleged intention. I welcome the intention to include questions on religion and a further break down of ethnicity, but the committee's motion stands. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask for clarification on a procedural matter for tomorrow's motion. Usual practice has been for speakers to be distributed across party groupings and not on a committee basis. Have you had any guidance on that?

Not so far. I will find out after the meeting. At this stage, I do not even know how long I will have in which to speak to and move the motion.

That is what I mean.

This is the first time that this has happened, so it will be up to the Presiding Officer to decide. I will have a certain length of time to move the motion. After that, the allocation of time to speakers will be based on party, as usual.

We have had some discussion with the clerks about the possibility of someone closing the debate on behalf of the committee, which would give us parity with the Executive. The clerks were not sure whether that would be possible, because it is new territory, but they gave an indication that it might be. Have we had any clarification?

No. I am going to the chamber desk after this meeting to find out.

Obviously the committee will not meet again before tomorrow, so we need some guidance.

The last time that I spoke to anyone about the matter was after the meeting of the Parliament on Thursday. I have not been in Edinburgh since then. However, we could agree who would sum up for the Equal Opportunities Committee if the facility is made available to us.

If you are putting forward a motion, it is only fair that you should have the opportunity to sum up. We should expect to be able to submit the names of someone to move the motion and someone to sum up on behalf of the committee.

I am happy to do that. The committee will have to decide who it wants to sum up the debate.

I think that it should be Shona Robison.

Are we agreed that Shona Robison, as deputy convener of the committee, should sum up on the committee's behalf?

Members indicated agreement.

If anyone wants to know more about the procedure, they will have to go to the chamber desk, because it is very complicated. After the meeting, Shona and I will find out whether we will be given time in the chamber to sum up. Is there anything else on the census? If not, we will move to discuss the forward work programme.