Equal Opportunities Committee, 20 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Official Report 97KB pdf

---

Race Equality

Good morning. I open the Equal Opportunities Committee's fourth meeting in 2007. I remind all those present, including members, that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be turned off completely, as they interfere with the sound system even when they are switched to silent. I have received apologies from Jamie McGrigor, John Swinburne and Sandra White.

Our first agenda item is on the Scottish Executive's national strategy and action plan on race equality. As members are aware, we have received notification from the Minister for Communities that publication of the strategy will be delayed until the next parliamentary session. Members will note that the delay is supported by key stakeholders. However, it will impact on the work on Gypsy Travellers that the committee had hoped to do before dissolution. Do members have any comments on the clerk's paper on the issue or the letter from the minister?

The delay is disappointing but, as stakeholders support it—presumably because they do not want the strategy to be rushed at the last minute—there is not much that we can do. We can express our disappointment, but accept that it is better that the strategy is prepared properly. I know that you will do this, convener, but we should ensure that our legacy paper makes it clear that the issue is a priority for the committee and encourages our successor committee after the election to ensure that its eye is firmly on that particular ball.

Absolutely.

I agree with Elaine Smith. We should express our decided disappointment on the matter. The delay will affect work that we took up at the beginning of the present session of Parliament and which was started in the previous session. Although the stakeholders support the delay, which I understand, because we want the strategy to be done properly, the situation makes me question what the priorities are. Our priorities have definitely been superseded by other ones, so I am extremely disappointed.

I agree with what members have said. The work on the strategy should be done properly. However, I am perplexed as to why that work has not been done properly in the time that the Executive has had to do it. A last-minute excuse has been provided, which is not good enough. I am particularly disappointed given that the committee has done a lot of good work on Gypsy Travellers' issues, and I am sure that the Gypsy Traveller community will be angry. We should communicate that to the Executive. That said, I am interested in which stakeholders agreed to the delay in the publication of the strategy and whether some stakeholders did not agree to that delay. Perhaps I could have found that out for myself—I apologise for not doing so.

We can ask about that in a letter to the minister, in which we can express our concerns.

I agree with what colleagues have said. I am not happy about the publication of the strategy being held back, although I understand that various stakeholders support the delay. The committee reviewed its recommendations on Gypsy Travellers, and understood that the working group would consider those recommendations and their implementation. I remind members that a young Gypsy Traveller who gave evidence in the previous session said that although years had passed, nothing had happened. Unfortunately, things have not changed.

I attended one of the working group's sessions, and was concerned to hear the same kind of discussion that the committee had had in the previous parliamentary session, although our discussion was much more comprehensive, given the number of Gypsy Travellers whom we involved—particularly young Gypsy Travellers, who will no longer be young when our successor committee considers the progress that has been made. We must make our views known and make a strong recommendation in our legacy paper to a future committee. There is unfinished work to be done. Things appear to be no better than they were for Gypsy Travellers and young Gypsy Travellers in Scotland, and I am not sure that waiting yet again for a strategy to progress the work that needs to be done is good enough. What I have said sounds strong, but I feel strongly about the matter.

Perhaps one problem is that we are looking for solutions to problems rather than seeing an on-going process. Publishing a report will not mean an end to the process, but we should not be reluctant to publish a report that will be a staging post. We deliberately waited for a report by the Executive before publishing a report, and I do not disagree with our decision to do so, but perhaps it would help if we focused a little less on finding solutions and considered the process to be on-going.

It is absolutely right that the process is on-going, but perhaps a marker should be laid down to show where the process is and what the issues are. The committee wanted to have a report on our recommendations, where we are and what needs to be done, but we cannot have that report because of the delay. That is why I am frustrated.

We owe movement forward to Scotland's Gypsy Travellers, but we cannot provide that. I am frustrated that, because of the delay, we will not be able to progress the work that is needed in our meetings before dissolution. That is regrettable. Of course we are happy for the strategy group to pick up the work, but we wanted to consider how the Executive had progressed our recommendations, which were user led. Gyspy Travellers told us what the issues were and what they wanted to be done, but their issues have not been dealt with. There is unfinished business.

The committee's legacy paper will include a recommendation that the successor committee take forward our review of progress on Gypsy Travellers, and a letter will be sent to the minister that will mention the issues that Carolyn Leckie raised. We will ask which stakeholders agreed to the delay in publishing the strategy and whether some did not agree to it. A strong message that the issues that we have discussed must be dealt with should be sent to the successor committee.

Getting the information that Carolyn Leckie asked for is important, but will the letter also include the comments that we have made and express our disappointment?

Yes.

I just wanted to check that.

There is no reason why a copy of the Official Report of today's meeting cannot be included with the letter. I am sure that members of the committee will make their views on the issue heard elsewhere.