Progress Reports
The next item on the agenda is the reporters' reports. The first report is from Johann Lamont, on gender issues.
Our group met last week. We have agreed to meet on the Tuesdays that alternate with the weeks in which the Equal Opportunities Committee meets. There are several issues that we want to explore further.
We have been approached by Women's Aid and Engender, both of which want to meet us. Women's Aid wants to brief us on the implications for women's aid of some of the proposals on housing. Our group felt that it would be useful to meet that organisation, but that there was a case for making the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee aware of that particular aspect of housing and for urging it to take evidence from Women's Aid, if it has not done so already. With that in mind, I hope that it will be possible for us to write to the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee. We are also keen to get an initial response from Women's Aid on the way in which the domestic abuse development fund is working, and whether there are related issues of which we should be aware.
The other group that we have invited to meet us is Engender, which is seeking financial support for a gender audit that it is carrying out. I am conscious of the need to strike a balance between meeting as a smaller group and meeting as a full committee.
We want to establish a link with the equality unit and we are exploring the possibility of inviting someone from that unit to meet the group. We are also exploring how we can participate in the broader structures, such as the women's forum. There are technicalities concerning who is entitled to be invited, but I hope that we can engage in constructive dialogue at that level.
My last point relates to another item of future business. The committee will be aware that, at a members' business debate that was initiated by Gil Paterson, the Deputy Minister for Justice said that the Scottish Executive would produce an action plan within 90 days, based on "Towards a Just Conclusion". We were keen to have some kind of discussion or dialogue with Angus MacKay about the progress of the action plan and whether we can influence it. I hope that it will be possible for us to ask the organisations that are coming to the committee on 14 March to direct some of their comments towards that action plan. Related to that is the matter of how soon we will hear from Professor Sheila McLean on women in the judicial system and women as offenders. I hope that we can address that matter at some stage.
Thank you. If members have no comments, is Johann's report accepted?
Members indicated agreement.
The next report is from Michael McMahon.
Our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday. There might be a clash if the gender group is going to meet on alternate Tuesdays, as the race group—which meets only once a month—also meets on Tuesdays when the Equal Opportunities Committee is not meeting. If a member is on both groups, there might be a problem. Perhaps we should address that.
We do not meet until 11:30 am, to accommodate some of our members.
The race group meets at 11 o'clock, so there might be a clash.
That was inevitable.
If it is not too difficult, I will bring one meeting forward. I shall speak to Johann, and we will sort that out.
The main item on next week's agenda—the increase in racial crimes—was raised in yesterday's report by Strathclyde police. There was a 74 per cent increase in such crimes, from 354 to 616, in the last nine months of 1999. That is an issue that should be discussed, and which was raised yesterday by Positive Action Housing. There are many underlying issues: 75 per cent of victims said that they had reported the crimes because of an increased confidence in the police; 70 per cent said that there was now greater awareness of the ability to report such crimes. Although the statistics might be shocking, they might reflect a positive situation, in that people now feel confident enough to report crimes. Fifty two per cent of people said that their awareness had been raised by more sympathetic coverage of race crimes in the media. I want to put the issue on to next week's agenda, and I hope to get someone from Positive Action Housing to go over it with us. That is a major item on next week's agenda.
Members who want to attend the race group's meeting next week should let me know before Tuesday and I will make arrangements to accommodate them. We could spend most, if not all, of that meeting discussing the report, so it might be useful to bring it before the committee, eventually.
Yes—that would be useful.
The final report is from Nora Radcliffe, on sexual orientation issues.
I sent out an e-mail to committee members, with notes attached from the meetings that we have had. I do not know whether members found that useful.
Yes, it was.
It seemed as good a way as any of keeping people in touch with what we are up to. At our previous meeting, we debated the wording of the Minister for Justice's amendment to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. We did not feel that the amendment met the equality standard, and we submitted our own committee amendment to Jim Wallace's amendment. At the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the issue was debated quite fully and all sides decided that neither the minister nor we had the definition quite right. The Minister for Justice's amendment was withdrawn, which meant that our amendment fell. The arrangement made was that, in discussion, we would find a form of words that meets the equality test for defining an unmarried couple of mixed or same-gender.
We accepted that both amendments were trying to deal with the same issue: we wanted a definition of a couple who are not married but who are regarded as a couple. Such a definition would apply equally whether the people were of the same gender or of opposite genders. We wanted to arrive at a form of words that was non-discriminatory. The sexual orientation group has had the assistance of Professor Norrie, a professor of family law at the University of Strathclyde, who has volunteered to work with the Executive and the civil service to try to find an acceptable form of words to be proposed at stage 3 of the bill. That is the stage that we have reached in that piece of work.
The date of the next meeting has been circulated to committee members, who are welcome to attend. We are meeting in the evening because it suits some people who are coming and who have work commitments during the day.
There was a lot of speculation in the press over the weekend about the aims of the Equal Opportunities Committee and there was misinformation on what the committee is trying to achieve. Some of the Sunday papers suggested that we are trying to give same-sex relationships the same standing as legal marriages and some seem to think that we are going to advocate gay marriages. My understanding is that what the committee agreed, and what we are trying to achieve in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee with the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill, is a definition that would give the same rights to cohabiting same-sex and different-sex couples. Nora's amendment referred to
"a man and a woman living together as husband and wife."
That is not the same as a married couple. It would be unfortunate if the committee's work and what we are trying to achieve in terms of practical equal rights for people in same-sex relationships—rights such as succession to housing tenancies and to make health and welfare decisions—was misunderstood. We are trying to ensure that inequality is not enshrined in new legislation. We have seen how difficult it is to change legislation where it relates to gay and lesbian people, so we need to get a definition that is right—not a definition that is merely politically correct or that gives more rights to same-sex couples than it does to different-sex couples.
I hope that the committee will agree to either Nora or me putting out a press release after the meeting to make that clear. Otherwise, the whole issue is going to run out of control and become involved in the totally separate section 28 debate. If we want to be taken seriously as a committee we should clarify our position—I was very concerned by the press reporting on Sunday.
I agree that it was unfortunate that there was press confusion about what the committee is calling for, which is parity for cohabitees rather than for married couples only—something that is not possible in Scots law. The danger is that the point is lost in the distortion. A press statement by the convener clarifying what was meant would be appropriate. A copy should be sent to the Sunday paper in question so that it can clarify the committee's position next Sunday.