Equal Opportunities Committee, 16 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999

Official Report 150KB pdf

---

Progress Reports

We will now deal with the progress reports from the committee's reporters. The first report, from Michael Matheson, is about disability issues.

I do not have anything to report, as the disability issues group did not meet because we gave a report at the last meeting that set issues for the committee to discuss.

Jamie McGrigor raised two points. He mentioned some complaints that he had had regarding the accessibility of ferries.

When I was in the Isle of Bute a while ago, the question was raised by a lady called Dorothy MacDonald, who is the chairman of a group called Achievement Bute, which helps young children with disabilities. She talked about the ferries between Rothesay and the mainland and asked me to raise the matter of disabled access. I advised her to write to our clerk. What did she write, Martin?

There is a suggestion in the letter that the islanders might send a delegation to the committee to put their case. They would be grateful if the committee would tell them whether it wants them to come.

I have spoken to the chairman of Caledonian MacBrayne, who said that he would be willing to send a representative to join in the discussion. The problem is that a lot of the ferries are old. We should suggest that if any new boats are built, they should include facilities for disabled people.

The organisation raises a number of issues. It might be worth finding out if the committee could meet in Bute so that we could experience what the crossing on the ferry is like. However, the organisation might prefer to give evidence in Edinburgh. What do members think about that?

In principle, we should go. However, I was going to raise a point about disability and housing and I think that there might be a question about the order in which we tackle subjects. As we will be dealing with transport quite soon, when we consider the transport bill, it might make sense to deal with the ferry issue when we do that. I am worried that we will have too many balls in the air before Christmas.

The letter from the group indicates their willingness to come here. I think that would be better at this stage. I hope that committees generally will be willing to go outwith Edinburgh to discuss various issues, but if the Equal Opportunities Committee goes to Bute to discuss the ferry, will that set a precedent? Will we be expected to visit other parts of the country to discuss problems in regard to other modes of transport and other issues such as housing? We have been asked, rightly, to be selective about where we take the committee, but I hope that that will not be restrictive. We should also invite the chairman of Caledonian MacBrayne.

I agree with Tommy. The problem is not only with the Clyde ferries. We hear that there are problems up and down the coast. It is not so much of a problem once people are aboard the vessels. The difficulty is encountered in getting from the quay to the vessel. Some of the new vessels that Caledonian MacBrayne has built have excellent facilities. If the group from Bute comes to the committee, we will see the wider picture.

I support what Malcolm said. There is an issue about the ferries—no one would dispute that—but there are also issues about trains and buses. It would be useful to put together all those problems relating to access and public transport, including ferries, and to examine the big picture. We should have a debate on the wider issues of access and we should spend some time examining transport, but I leave it to you, convener, to decide in what order we should examine the issues.

Is everybody quite happy with that?

I agree with Marilyn. If we are going to examine the ferries, we should try to do something about the general situation and set up a committee on transport issues.

Are we agreed that we will invite the group from Bute and the ferry company along to the committee to give evidence?

Members indicated agreement.

There is a housing seminar on 14 December—when we are scheduled to meet—to which this committee has been invited. Do members feel that the committee should attend, or should we send a representative to speak for the committee?

Has the whole committee been asked to attend?

Yes. It is one-day seminar on developing an equality agenda for housing. Bob Benson, director of Disability Scotland, has been in touch about this. I have been asked to speak at the seminar and, if this committee wants to meet, I will not be able to speak, as this committee cannot go ahead unless I am here. The committee could send somebody else to speak, or the whole committee could go along.

I agree that we should send a representative of this committee to the seminar with a remit to give us a written report on it which can be circulated and discussed at the next meeting. I am sorry to be a killjoy, but if the entire committee agrees to go to one conference or seminar, how many other requests to do the same will we get in the next four years? The seminar might, however, be very important and it would be useful to have a written report on it.

The only problem is that the seminar is taking place on a day on which this committee is scheduled to meet so, if a member went, they would not be able to attend the committee meeting.

That is an insurmountable problem, Martin. We cannot ask that seminars and conferences meet only on the days that we do not. We have to accept that the member of the committee who is selected or asked to go will have to miss the committee that day. Did you say that you are going to be chairing it, Malcolm?

I am chairing the afternoon meeting, but I am not in favour of missing a committee.

Michael, would you be able to attend?

My only concern is that I do not want to miss the committee. I was wondering whether someone from the disability issues group might be interested, or whether we should approach Bob Benson to ask whether he could give us a summary of the issues. Circulating a summary to all members of the committee might be better than one committee member going along and missing our meeting.

All right. I will talk to people and try to get something worked out.

The next report is from the gender issues group.

Johann Lamont is not here, but I spoke to her yesterday and she has produced a report. Her main concern was whether the groups that were discussed at our previous meeting had been invited and whether there had been any response from them. I think that SAY Women was one, and she mentioned two or three others that were in the initial inquiry that she had conducted. I think that Tommy mentioned another group a few weeks ago.

I spoke about that to the committee clerk this morning, and it is all in hand. I hope that we will shortly have a timetable for all the different groups that will be coming and speaking to the committee. It is just a case of fitting them all in.

I can confirm to the committee that the invitation to the Scottish Human Rights Centre is now in hand.

The invitation has not gone out yet, but it will go out soon.

I wonder whether, in Johann's absence, Elaine Smith can answer a question about the visit to Cornton Vale prison. Is that visit being organised in relation to a specific issue, or is it a general visit? If it is a general visit, is it open to all members of the Equal Opportunities Committee?

Sylvia Jackson is organising that visit, and she happened to mention it to Johann. Sylvia is checking how many visitors Cornton Vale can accommodate at one time. I had also been interested in going, but I have something else on that day. We should have a word with Sylvia. It may be that the prison wants only one or two people, but we can check that. If it is not possible that way, Tommy, perhaps this committee could think about organising a visit.

So will you check with Sylvia and get back to Tommy?

Yes, I will.

I am sorry to return to this, Kate, but I am not a member of the group so I have to raise these questions in committee. The reason I asked about the visit is that I am looking forward to the paper from Sheila McLean on alternatives to custody for women prisoners. That is an issue that everyone is concerned about, and it would be good to link that paper with a visit to Cornton Vale. It could make clear the inadequacy of Cornton Vale as an institution to deal with women, especially young women, who are being sent there for very minor offences.

Although the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is very busy at the moment with the legislative programme, the treatment of women offenders and young offenders are issues that it is interested in. Elaine can check who can go on the visit that is being organised, and we can discuss at a future meeting whether this committee wants to organise a visit as well.

We do not yet have a date for the publication of Professor McLean's paper, although Malcolm may know more about it. I think that the visit to Cornton Vale will be in the next few weeks. The two may not tie in, so it might be better and more appropriate for the committee to think about a visit after having seen the paper.

Elaine can let me know when we get that paper.

The next subject is the race issues group.

The first meeting of the group is scheduled for Tuesday morning. On the agenda will be the Act of Settlement 1701, an issue that was raised at the previous meeting of the committee. In the interim, I have made some initial contacts and carried out some research on the issues that may arise. It is a complex matter. I have given a draft statement to the members of the group so that the issue can be discussed when we meet. The clerks office has provided a series of guidelines that lay out the procedures that we must follow if we are to produce a report and, once that report is completed, what we can do with it.

Given its complexity and importance, we cannot rush into this matter. I hope that the committee will understand that we have to take our time and follow correct procedures if our outcome is to have any meaning. That will have implications in other areas, because the debate on this matter is on-going. If the committee is to do a proper job, I plead with other groups and individuals who have an interest to give us a chance to deal with it before it is dealt with anywhere else.

As a committee, we can take this matter to the Executive. It would then be up to the Executive to decide how it relates the matter to the rest of the Parliament. However, to give this committee its place, and given what I have said about the complexity of the subject, I ask that no one rushes into this matter in any capacity. We must do it right.

The Catholic Church, in my initial contacts with it, indicated that it did not want the issue to become a political football. It is important that that is borne in mind. I am just highlighting some of the difficulties that we will uncover. Martin Verity knows what the procedures are and we must follow them. We cannot deal with this matter in the immediate future but, as the Catholic Church has waited 300 years, I do not think that there is any rush to achieve an outcome.

I will open up the discussion on the procedures that we will follow, but not on the issue itself.

I have no intention of addressing the issue itself—that is for the reporter's group to discuss. I would like to see in writing the procedures to which Michael McMahon referred. Are they new or are they guidelines that are laid down in the standing orders?

The guidelines are new. I think that they were published in November 1999. I came across them only because I wanted to check the procedures that had to be followed. I wanted to wait until next week to give the reporter's group a chance to look not just at the issues, but at the guidelines on how we can deal with it.

The guidance is for the operation of committees. I received a copy at my constituency office on Friday, so it is new. I am sure that anyone can obtain a copy.

I am a member of the race sub-group, so I am in danger of arguing for early redundancy. If you read yesterday's business bulletin and look at the motions that have been lodged, you will see that an extraordinary number of members have signed a motion on the Act of Settlement. There is an extraordinary level of interest in the Parliament's attitude towards the act, regardless of our legal competency in the matter. I wonder, therefore, whether we should not have a full committee investigation of this issue, rather than leaving it to the race sub-group. I think that the issue may be too big for the sub-group.

According to the guidelines, the reporter or convener must produce a draft report to come before the committee. It is suggested that the initial meeting to discuss the draft report should be held in private, in case any comments that members make in that discussion have wider implications. The reporter then produces a final report, taking on board members' views, which is again brought before the committee. If there is a vote, any amendments or dissenting positions must be noted. The report is then sent to the Scottish Executive.

That said, it would be for this committee to decide whether the draft report was discussed in private. As convener, I feel that as little business as possible should be discussed in private. It would be up to the committee to decide on the day whether the meeting should be held in public.

Are there time scales for when the report would come back to the full committee?

We have a committee meeting next Tuesday afternoon. If we hold a meeting of the reporter's group that morning, it may be possible to have a draft report ready for discussion at the afternoon meeting. However, I suspect that that will not be possible if we want to do this issue justice. The next formal meeting of the committee will be on 14 December. I imagine that we will aim to complete the draft report for that date, rather than for next Tuesday.

I will put discussion of the report on the agenda for next Tuesday, just in case it is ready.

I have not seen these procedures, so they are new to me as well. Can a reporter draft a report, to be submitted to the committee meeting in private, without reference to the other members of the reporter's group?

The reporter's group is an informal group.

Our reporters' groups are informal, so, unlike reporters, they are not recognised in the guidance for the operation of committees. However, the situation that Michael Matheson has described would not arise because of the way in which the reporters' groups work.

There is a point of principle here. One way in which the committee can avoid having to meet in private is for the reporters' groups to be consulted on reports that are to be submitted to the committee. As a reporter, I would be more comfortable with that. I would be concerned about submitting a report on a disability issue without consulting the disability reporter's group, as it might then be ripped to shreds in informal discussion by the full committee. We should take a step back and establish at the outset that reporters should consult the relevant reporter's group before submitting anything to the committee.

I am happy for the committee to agree to that, but we would have to do so informally. No one is less happy than I am about some of the procedures in which we seem to get tied up. However, any agreement that we made would be informal and would have no place in the guidance that has been issued.

Is that agreed, then?

Yes, as far as the members of this committee are concerned.

I agree with Michael Matheson. The situation that he has described is what I was saying would take place in this instance. The report will have to be discussed by the informal group next Tuesday before it is brought before a meeting of the committee. I would not come to this committee with a report without having discussed it with those members who had declared an interest.

It has been suggested that meetings to discuss such reports should be held in private because the reports would still be at draft stage. If the meetings were held in public, it might be assumed that these were final documents.

I am reluctant for any meetings to be held in private. I do not see a problem with the public or the press having a better understanding of how we reach a final conclusion because they have been involved in the discussion all along. That is my personal opinion, and it is up to the committee to decide. However, I am reluctant for the committee to discuss in private matters that have been debated in the press. When the draft comes to the committee, we can decide, but I am definitely biased towards having all our meetings in public.

I understand that the guidance on private meetings indicates that the principle behind them is to defend someone's personal interests. For example, someone may be aware of a Catholic who wants to marry a royal, and perhaps that should be discussed in private. [Laughter.]

The proposal is in the post.

Failing that, however, we should be willing to discuss drafts as well as reports openly. If anyone asks about those discussions or comments on them, we should simply emphasise the fact that the document under discussion is a draft. We are mature enough to discuss a draft and then a final document, and we will probably be misquoted whatever we decide to do, so the idea of something going on in private, behind closed doors with white smoke coming out of chimneys, will probably lead to even more misquoting.

I had better declare an interest here—my daughter has always wanted to be a princess. [Laughter.]

I take Tommy's point. I am not saying that we should hold debates in private; I am saying that we have the option to do that. If a smaller group decides that a private meeting would be in the interests of the committee, it could recommend that. However, I am certainly not recommending that that is what should happen. I am simply pointing out something that is in the guidelines and that should perhaps be considered.

If a discussion were likely to disclose private information about an individual, it may be in the committee's best interests to meet in private. That will always be an option for us. In general, however, we would want all our meetings to be in public.

How was the guidance arrived at? Who drew it up? What consultation was there? Should we, as a committee, discuss the document? We all have a vested interest in how the committee is run, so that may be either a helpful suggestion or a can of worms.

The document has been drawn up in the clerking division. The Parliament is regulated by the Scotland Act 1998 and by standing orders, issued under the authority of the Scotland Act 1998. Within those standing orders, the clerks will offer advice on any issues that we are asked to comment on.

The purpose of this document is to indicate the advice that clerks will give. It has been approved by the clerking division and by the Parliamentary Bureau. It is a public document that is available on the website and will be updated from time to time. It indicates to members of the Parliament and members of the public the advice that clerks will give when procedural questions are raised.

Is it a clarification of what is already in the standing orders and the Scotland Act 1998?

Yes. It cannot override either the standing orders or the act in any way.

I had not seen it before, so that explanation was helpful. Thank you.

A copy reached my office on Friday. If anybody feels that there are problems with it, those problems could be raised at the Procedures Committee. The document is an interpretation of the standing orders and people may disagree with it, so I invite any comments.

The final progress report, on sexual orientation issues, is from Nora Radcliffe.

Before we go on, I notice that we have received an invitation from the Africa Centre Scotland to discuss the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The important issue of the Act of Settlement 1701 will probably dominate the next couple of meetings of the sub-group. However, the committee should consider the equal opportunities issues arising from the Asylum and Immigration Bill which at the moment is shuttling between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Can I suggest that the sub-group examine the bill as soon as possible?

Okay. Michael McMahon will take that on board.

Nora is passing around copies of her report.

On 3 November, we met people from the Equality Network and Outright Scotland to discuss what issues the reporter's group should be considering. I think that the report is reasonably self-explanatory. The repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was welcomed. There were some questions about how we set about benchmarking and collecting data. At the previous committee meeting, we said that we wanted copies of the City of Edinburgh Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Community Safety Forum report on violence and harassment. Andrew O'Donnell, one of the authors, would like to report to the committee and I will consult the convener about that. Sorry, I should have done that already.

That's fine.

I am not catching up with myself.

One of the key issues concerning the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill is equality for same-sex couples, which raises the question of what other legislation will be affected by that underlying principle. We will need to do a lot of work to get equality for same-gender couples into all legislation. The report outlines what we need to do to tackle the problem.

I think that the rest of the report speaks for itself. In the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill, the definition of next of kin derives from the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. Does the committee agree to make a representation to the Millan committee about this issue? Do we need to submit a report to the lead committee?

About making a representation to the Millan committee?

No. I am asking whether we need to ask the lead committee whether we should make a representation to the Millan committee on this issue.

I think that that would have to be an agenda item.

Yes, that is what I am saying. The reporter's group should put together a report on the matter.

It might be worth finding out what other areas of legislation will be affected, instead of doing things in bits and pieces.

It will take decades of work to cover all the relevant legislation.

I mean in the current legislative programme. We could get advice from the Equality Network, which is probably more au fait with the issue than the committee is. Do members have any questions for Nora about her report? She has obviously done loads of work since the previous meeting.

Well, I had one very productive meeting.

Very good. Is it agreed that Nora should report back to the committee on same-sex relationships?

Members indicated agreement.