Reporters
The report, "Towards a Healthier LGBT Scotland" has been issued to members along with a paper by Margaret Smith, our sexual orientation reporter. I invite Margaret Smith to talk about her paper.
As this is the first time that I have spoken to the committee in my capacity as sexual orientation reporter, I would like to put on record the fact that I have been trying to have regular discussions with relevant equality groups. In the next week or two, I will meet relevant groups to discuss the Civil Partnership Bill. I also spoke at the "Beyond Barriers" conference in Inverness about rural lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues and will speak at another conference in the next few weeks about issues relating to LGBT and aging. If Nanette Milne wants to input anything in that regard, that would be valuable.
Obviously, a lot is going on at the moment in relation to this equalities area. Wearing my former hat as the convener of the then Health and Community Care Committee, it struck me that "Towards a Healthier LGBT Scotland" is quite an interesting report because it represents the kind of work that needs to be done before we can move on to more mainstreaming and identification of what needs to be done in relation to resources that need to be given to the health service. As we said earlier in discussion, it might be that we require that an audit be done to find out what is needed and what gaps need to be plugged to improve the situation.
The inclusion project, which is a two-year project, is a partnership between the Scottish Executive Health Department and Stonewall Scotland. The project's report, "Towards a Healthier LGBT Scotland", was published in October and considers the action that should be taken forward this year. The report considers levels of discrimination against LGBT people in Scotland and how such discrimination impacts on those people's health and on the availability and accessibility of health services for them. The report makes initial recommendations in certain key areas, such as challenging homophobia, improving accessibility and developing and supporting specialist services.
People have traditionally thought that LGBT health issues are automatically about sexual health—about 25 per cent of the budget for the area is focused on sexual health. However, the report highlights a number of other important issues, such as mental health. There appears to be evidence that there is a high prevalence of suicide among young gay men in particular. However, the Executive's suicide strategy, which was published only a couple of years ago, makes no real mention of that problem. We will have succeeded in mainstreaming such issues only when they are included in the body of reports, rather than in the appendices or in separate reports.
Other issues include the levels of addictions among LGBT people. There are high levels of smoking and alcohol addiction, in particular among gay women. There are issues about drugs—which are in part related to some lifestyle issues—eating disorders and self harm. An awful lot of underlying issues are caused by societal pressures.
The situation can be worse in rural areas, where LGBT people are more likely to encounter problems in coming out or to perceive that they will encounter such problems. They might have problems in accessing such specialist services as are available in big towns and cities, but which are not available in rural communities. Health professionals can make assumptions about people's sexual lifestyles and people can be afraid to set the record straight and say, "No, you cannot make that assumption because I am bisexual"—or gay, or whatever. A number of LGBT people think that that can be more difficult in rural communities, where health professionals might be known to them in their day-to-day lives.
The report contains a lot of interesting material. It is quite unusual in that it is, I think, one of the first such reports to be produced in Europe. It would be useful if the committee were to seek more information about the report and to question the Minister for Health and Community Care about how the recommendations in the report are being taken forward. It was intended that, this year, the Executive would learn some of the lessons in the report, mainstream them into the health service and consider, for example, training and resourcing. I discussed the matter with the convener of the Health Committee, who would be very relaxed and happy for the Equal Opportunities Committee to take the matter on if the committee wants to do so. It would be useful to put the minister on the spot about what is a wide-ranging report.
Do members have any questions for Margaret Smith?
I note that the inclusion project is due to be completed in October 2004. Does that mean that its funding will end or that the project will be completed? After that date, which organisation will monitor whether the report's recommendations have been taken forward?
I understand that the project will end in 2004. There are questions about monitoring and about what action will be taken. The ideas in the report must be translated into action and mainstreamed. It would be relevant to ask the minister how that work will be monitored. That is part of my rationale in suggesting that we start work on the matter now, rather than wait until the project is completed. It is important that we should be able to check with the Health Department that it is thinking about what it must do after the project ends. The project has highlighted the issues and the gaps in relation to which the Executive and the health service should take action.
The LGBT voluntary sector obviously has a high level of involvement in the provision of health, mental health and counselling services, so issues must also be addressed in that regard, about which we should ask the minister.
If no organisation monitors the situation after October 2004, the matter cannot be left solely with the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament. That worries me. We must ask the minister about the work that is being taken forward and the timescale for that work. We should also hear from the report's authors about the monitoring that they think should take place after October.
Yes.
If we take on consideration of the report, will that mean that the Health Committee will not consider the matter in any great detail? I am concerned that, although it obviously seems to be appropriate for us to consider the report, by doing so we are not extending the ability of other committees to investigate the relevance of such issues to them, so members of those committees will not learn, as we have, about the issues. As a new member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I have learned an incredible amount from the work that we have done.
There is nothing to stop us from having an inquiry and reporting on the issues, not only to the Health Committee but to the minister. I understand Shiona Baird's point exactly, because we had a great discussion about encouraging committees to take responsibility for mainstreaming equality. We do not want a situation in which matters that seem to be a bit more complicated are batted back to us because people are not able to prioritise them. However, it is perfectly reasonable for the Equal Opportunities Committee to consider the matter and perhaps to recommend that the Health Committee or the minister do some work on it. The matter is within this committee's remit.
I understand Shiona Baird's concern, but the pragmatic reality is that, because of the time constraints on the Health Committee, that committee will not consider the report any more than it will consider the hundreds of other issues that pass by it, which relate to the health agenda.
Nora Radcliffe lodged a parliamentary question about performance indicators around LGBT issues. I do not have to hand the answer that she received, but she was told that work had been done on the matter and that the Scottish Executive Health Department was considering how the lessons that it learned from that work might be applied beyond the health service and perhaps also beyond LGBT issues, to the provision of services for other groups. There are wider issues about the lessons that the Executive might try to learn from the work.
I am pragmatic. If I thought honestly that there was a chance that the Health Committee would consider the report and the issue, I would say, "Fine, go for it." However, the reality is that the Health Committee will not do so. If the Equal Opportunities Committee does not take up the matter, a very good report will just pass us by. There is a danger that the situation that Tricia Marwick outlined might happen. The report could be lost and no one in Parliament would focus on it, highlight the important issues and ask the Executive what it intends to do to close the gaps that have been identified.
I agree with the responses that the convener and Margaret Smith made to Shiona Baird. We would all like the other committees to take on the role of ensuring that equality issues are mainstreamed in their work. I certainly argued for that when I was a member of the previous Equal Opportunities Committee. However, the reality is that the committees are absolutely strapped full with legislation and their own inquiries and it is impossible for them to find the time to do that work. If the other committees cannot do the work, the Equal Opportunities Committee, which has a remit to consider such issues, has a responsibility to ensure that important documents and information do not become lost in the system. This committee should take on the work because if it does not, no one else will do so.
I thank Margaret Smith for her report, which raises an important issue.
Can we do as Margaret Smith's paper suggests and organise our timetable to enable us to take evidence? If we then produce a report for the Health Committee, we could ask that committee to invite Margaret Smith to attend one of its meetings to present the report and discuss the matter. My suggestion would not require the Health Committee to slot too much work into its timetable, but it takes on board Shiona Baird's point and it might enable the issue to have a higher profile at the Health Committee.
If members have no further comments, can we agree on the action that we want to take? There seems to be a general feeling that we need an inquiry on the matter. It would be helpful to hear from the report's drafters at Stonewall Scotland. It would also be helpful to hear what the minister has to say about how the work will be taken forward. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Margaret Smith for her report.
A paper from another committee reporter, Marilyn Livingstone, has been circulated to members, but unfortunately Marilyn is unwell and cannot be here. Do members have comments on her paper?
The paper raises a number of issues but it does not contain action points. I would prefer it if the committee considered the paper at a time when Marilyn Livingstone can be here to talk about it, in case she has particular action points in mind.
I suggest that we feed the paper into our disability inquiry. As part of the remit of that inquiry we can consider more closely the issues that are raised in the paper and in previous papers from Marilyn Livingstone. Given that we are considering an outline for the inquiry, this is a good time to do that. Is that acceptable to members?
Members indicated agreement.
The committee will move into private session to discuss its forthcoming inquiry into disability.
Meeting continued in private until 11:19.