“Towards an Equality Strategy”
The next item on the agenda is evidence on "Towards an Equality Strategy". Everybody has had a copy of the report on the responses. The annexe includes a list of respondents. We are being offered the opportunity to examine the responses, of which there are a number. Today, we will hear from Yvonne Strachan, Esther Breitenbach and Kate Bilton from the Scottish Executive. As I said, Jackie Baillie is coming on 4 July to talk to the committee about the report.
Yvonne Strachan will lead. The committee will then have the opportunity ask questions.
Yvonne Strachan (Scottish Executive Equality Unit):
I will make a couple of brief introductory remarks and then invite Esther Breitenbach, who is the research consultant for the equality unit, to give a little bit of background to the consultation exercise and analysis. That might help the committee to understand how the report should be looked at.
First, we are pleased to be here. We intend to provide the members of the Equal Opportunities Committee with an opportunity to discuss the report of the analysis of the responses to the consultation document "Towards an Equality Strategy".
The minister will attend the committee meeting on 4 July. That will be an opportunity for the committee to explore the issues that emerge from the consultation and to express its views on how such matters should be taken forward. Today is an opportunity to examine the report, to discuss any practical or technical issues about the process and for us to offer any clarification that will help members in their deliberations.
I invite Esther Breitenbach to say a few words of introduction, which might help the committee to understand how the report was approached and to focus on the questions they might want to ask.
Esther Breitenbach (Scottish Executive Equality Unit):
I want to do three things in introducing the report. First, I want to talk about distribution and how we got the report out to people. Secondly, I want to talk about the character of the report and how we undertook the analysis of responses. Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on the key themes that were discussed in the concluding section.
The consultation paper was distributed in January. The closing date for responses was 4 April. Approximately 4,000 copies of the consultation paper were distributed and it was available on the internet. As is pointed out on page 12 of the report, a range of bodies was included in the distribution—public, private, statutory, voluntary and business organisations, professional associations and so on. In addition, copies were sent to a number of individuals, for example, people in the research community who were known to have a track record in equal opportunities issues. Copies were also sent out on request to organisations and individuals. The paper was quite widely distributed within the Scottish Executive and it was distributed to other Government departments in Whitehall, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Office.
Because we were especially keen to get the consultation document out to groups that might be described as equality constituencies—women's organisations, black and ethnic minority organisations, disability groups, lesbian and gay organisations and so on—we used a number of methods to ensure wide distribution of the document.
First, I have been responsible for compiling and administering the women's organisations database in the Scottish Executive, which contains about 1,000 addresses. Secondly, we used addresses that had already been gathered for consultation purposes. Finally, we sought assistance from bodies such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Positive Action in Housing—which has a directory of about 500 black and ethnic minority organisations—Disability Scotland and the Equality Network. We felt, therefore, that we had reached the appropriate constituencies that were active in the field from national to grass-roots organisations.
In addition, the document was available on the internet. The report indicates that there were about 1,600 hits on the English language version and suggests that that figure underestimates the number of copies that people might have received through that means. Furthermore, there were 241 hits on the community language versions of the document that were available on the internet. As a result, we can conclude that the 4,000 paper copies that were distributed is an underestimate of the total distribution.
Apart from circulation of the document, several meetings were held. One was with academic researchers, because the document contained questions on research, data and information. We had a series of meetings with a variety of other organisations. A note about those meetings is contained in an appendix to the report.
Once distribution was taken care of, the decision about how to analyse responses was prompted by a discussion with the women's issues research advisory group, which advises me in my work. There is a perception that Government consultations do not always result in good feedback to the people who respond or to the bodies that have a wider interest in what might emerge from such consultations. It was, therefore, felt appropriate that the equality unit should use the resources of the Scottish Executive's central research unit to produce an analysis of the responses. A primary reason for the way the report has been produced is that it should give a fairly full account of responses. Feedback should be as good as possible.
For several reasons, it has been beneficial to use the skills in the central research unit to produce the report. First, the equality unit consultation document is, in many respects, different from other consultation documents. Consultation papers that the Executive or other Government departments send out often focus on specific proposals for legislation or policy that seek consultees' agreement or disagreement. I am not saying that there is a typical consultation document or process, but the equality unit's process was somewhat different. The consultation document made a statement about endorsing some underlying principles and the general mainstreaming approach. Although the document asked some specific questions, it asked more general questions about people's response to the broad approach of mainstreaming equality. As a result, it is quite hard to analyse the responses—the answers do not necessarily indicate whether a certain proposal is good. It is not very easy to undertake a quantitative analysis, so any analysis must consider the quality and depth of responses, which is something that trained researchers are able to do effectively.
Secondly, it was felt also that we needed such qualitative research experience to give a reasonably full flavour of the range and complexity of responses. Thirdly—stressing again the requirement to provide good feedback to respondents and other interested parties—we felt that it was necessary to produce a report that would give as in-depth an analysis as possible in the time that was available. Although the report might be longer than some, other reports on consultation responses are as long or longer.
To carry out the analysis, the equality unit negotiated with the central research unit and employed two researchers. They were Alison Platts—who is a member of the CRU's permanent staff and is unable to be with us because she is on holiday—and Kate Bilton, who was employed on a temporary contract and who has worked with me in the equality unit. I have been responsible for liaising with the researchers from day to day, with Yvonne Strachan—as head of the unit—and with other colleagues in the unit.
The key point to stress is that our intention has been that the report should provide a good and relatively detailed account of what respondents to the consultation exercise said. We hope that respondents will feel that their views are represented and given their place in the report.
The report also indicates a range of views on a number of issues that are likely to stimulate further debate and discussion. Some of the responses reflect the fact that very complex issues must be dealt with in the equality strategy. I should also point out that, although 4 April was the official closing date, all the responses that were received after that date have been included in the report.
Esther Breitenbach (Scottish Executive Equality Unit):
Committee members might have been confused by a small technical matter: although the tables in the early part of the report indicate clearly that there were 185 responses, the appendix lists 192 organisations as respondents to the consultation. The responses were numbered as they came in—with an identification number, if you like—and it emerged later that there were duplicates. Although the appendix appears to contain 192 organisations, it contains only 185.
It is also important to stress that the report is about feedback on responses; it does not make recommendations and it is restricted to analysis of responses. Obviously, taking responses into account in the development of an equality strategy is an on-going task for the equality unit.
I want briefly to run through the key themes, which are covered in the report's concluding chapter. First, the responses reflected a broad endorsement of the underlying principles and the mainstreaming approach of the proposed equality strategy. There was widespread support for the involvement in consultation of everyone who will be affected by the strategy, although there were different views on what should be the character of the consultation. For example, some people welcomed the openness of the document while others felt that there should have been more concrete proposals.
There was broad support for the principle of mainstreaming, although there were some differences of emphasis and understanding about what is meant by mainstreaming. In particular, some respondents said that although they approve of mainstreaming, it is important that a specific focus remains on different equality groups and the issues that are pertinent to them. Commitment to partnership working, consultation and on-going dialogue were also endorsed.
People expressed differing views about what equality and opportunity meant. That suggests that there is a need for clear definitions in statements.
There was also discussion about the need to state clearly that an equality strategy was about tackling discrimination. I found interesting the discussion on the use of the word tolerant, to which some people reacted very strongly. We tend to think that tolerant has very positive connotations, but some people thought that it had negative connotations. That illustrates the need for clarity of definitions and use of language.
Another theme that emerged strongly was the need for a strategic approach with clear objectives and for a monitoring and evaluation framework that could indicate progress towards meeting objectives. Among the action areas that were stressed by respondents was the need for a training and development strategy and for the Scottish Executive to ensure the effectiveness of mainstreaming.
Awareness raising, internally and externally, was also regarded as important. Publicity campaigns such as zero tolerance were cited as the kind of activity that might be undertaken. Some people suggested that we should go further and introduce regulations and sanctions to promote good practice and equal opportunities.
There was general support for improvement to data and information, for participation and for the role of partners in funding adequate resources and support for developing the strategy. There was broad support for on-going consultation and communication and for involvement of a wide range of groups and individuals, especially those who were deemed to be disadvantaged.
A point was made about consultation fatigue. People have been subjected to many documents and may find it difficult to find the time or energy to respond, or may question what the end result of the consultation will be. Access issues were also mentioned in this context. They include issues such as format and language—community languages as well as plain English—and methods of encouraging participation. Several respondents thought that the Executive had to address the representativeness of the views that it sought and that there was a need to build an infrastructure for communication where that did not exist. Those respondents suggested that, where necessary, there should be a proactive role in seeking views.
Finally, many respondents suggested that there needed to be an acknowledgement of current and previous work on equal opportunities by agencies and bodies in Scotland, on which the strategy could build and on which the Executive could work in partnership with those organisations.
You said that 4,000 copies were distributed. Were they distributed in accessible formats such as Braille, audiotape and languages that are minority languages in Scotland?
I do not have all the details to hand. The document was translated into community languages and certainly would have been available in a big-print version. I think that we had a Braille version.
We received one request for the document in Hindi and one request for it in Braille. Copies in those formats were made available.
Obviously, as you accepted late submissions, people were not disadvantaged because they had to request the document in an accessible format.
Will the 185 respondents be consulted for feedback on whether they feel that their views have been taken on board?
The report on the consultation will be sent to everybody who responded to the consultation. We hope that they will see that not only their views but the views of other respondents have been reflected.
I have a similar question to yours, convener. It is about the on-going involvement that the report highlights. Does that pose problems for the Executive and for the organisations that have asked for continued involvement? Have you examined how a continuous programme of consultation and communication will be implemented?
The issue of communication and networking was a significant part of the consultation and the responses. The Executive's task is to consider the best way to reflect something that is an essential ingredient of mainstreaming. As we develop the strategy, we are considering how best we can maintain on-going involvement. These issues are under discussion with the respective equality groups. The race equality advisory forum is examining the issue of how best to consult and how to do so beyond the usual suspects. We are keen to develop the issue. I am sure that it is not easy to consult properly when one is trying to reach out to groups that have not become involved. We hope that we can work in partnership with others to determine the best way to do that.
An obvious implication of doing that will be resources. Has the Scottish Executive indicated that there will be adequate resources to continue the involvement and participation of both the equality unit and organisations, which hint, if they do not say so outright, that the consultation process is placing a burden on them? Has there been discussion about that issue?
Several issues arise from the question of whether there are resources to develop communication and networking. Developing appropriate consultative networks is part of the work programme that the unit intends to pursue. Work on the resource implications is being done.
The question of whether individual organisations have the capacity to participate and engage with the Executive relates to funding and broader issues. It has to be examined in the process of discussion with those groups. I cannot comment on the issue of funding for organisations. It is raised in part of the consultation and the Executive will need to consider it in the course of discussing the strategy.
There is already a well-established framework for women's organisations through the database and the women in Scotland consultative forum, which has met regularly for some time. Regular mailings go out that are based on the database. Some of the mechanisms exist and are being developed but, as Yvonne Strachan says, it remains to be seen what will happen in the longer term.
You acknowledged that the consultation was different, in that it did not focus on specific proposals but took a more general approach. A major criticism of the report was that it was a bit vague—it was full of warm words, where it could have outlined clearer targets, objectives and plans. How do you respond to such criticism? In retrospect, do you think that you should have chosen to carry out the consultation differently?
We welcome open and frank opinion. It is good to hear points that are constructive, whether they are negative or positive. As Esther Breitenbach said in her introduction, the intention was to raise some general points for discussion with groups that in many cases had never been engaged in discussion with the Executive. We are developing a strategy in an area of work that is not about a particular project or idea. It is about changing culture, and the way in which we think and do things. That requires a much longer-term approach and requires different things to happen. As a result, it was important to have the most open starting point, without any preconditions. Those points have been raised forcibly in the consultation, and we must take account of that in compiling the strategy document. I hope that the comments made during the consultation exercise will inform that process.
How do you plan to develop the strategy in the light of the responses that you have received, and what time scale are you working to?
Jackie Baillie will be at the Equal Opportunities Committee on 4 July, and we see that as an important part of the process. We are currently discussing how we can engage in a wider debate with equality interests during the summer, and we intend to present a publication to Parliament in September.
I am interested in the definitional aspects of this matter. I read an interesting submission from the Scottish Poverty Information Unit, whose main concern was the separation of equal opportunities and social inclusion, and how poverty could be integrated into all that. Were there any other submissions on that aspect? It is obviously a subject that people could write books about, but how do you deal with that and what relationships do you see between social inclusion and equal opportunities?
How the equality strategy will move forward in the light of the consultation has to be considered further. The relationship between social inclusion, particularly poverty issues, and equality is interesting. Some equality issues are relevant to social inclusion, and we therefore want to ensure that we have joined-up government, so that issues relating to equality and social inclusion are co-ordinated. There must be effective co-operative working between those parts of the Executive, and the equality unit certainly sees that task as important.
You will not be here for item 4 on the agenda, but I can make this question relevant by saying that part of the strategy is to get work done on specific policy areas. One of the good things that you did was to commission work on transport from Reid Howie. Have you arrived at any conclusions on that, and will they be available to us soon?
The final version of the report on women and transport will be finished soon. The purpose of that research was to examine women's transport needs, as it was felt that much research on transport has been insufficiently focused. Although it is known that there are different usage patterns for men and women, women have not been asked what they think their needs are.
The research has also been commissioned with a view to producing guidelines on policy auditing, so that women's transport needs are considered. As I said, the final report is nearly ready, but we cannot be sure when it will be published, as it must be cleared and put through the appropriate channels. Guidelines will be piloted before being finalised for the policy auditing. We think that that approach is valuable in developing policy guidance that takes account of gender and other equality issues, and it is likely to be replicated in other policy areas.
There is a difficulty in working out exactly what the distinction is between equality and social inclusion. However, the mainstreaming approach should certainly mean that the work of the social inclusion division is informed by an equalities perspective. Another piece of social inclusion work related to women's issues and partnership working, and that work will, I hope, emerge quite soon. Over time, I think that more integration can be achieved.
I want to cover more about how successful this consultation process has been. Would the level of responses received be considered to be within the normal range of responses for an equivalent consultation process?
You say that only 12 per cent of respondents were individuals and only 17 per cent are local authorities, which have a significant impact on women's lives. When you do the qualitative research, what kind of processes do you have to gauge particular themes from particular areas, instead of simply having percentage figures?
You mention policy areas in which respondents operated and groups for whom respondents worked. You also have a non-specific category. Does that hide information—for example, the fact that only 17 per cent of respondents work for women's organisations? It could also be argued that local authorities would have a huge responsibility.
You have said that 110 of the respondents under "Policy area in which respondents operated" were categorised as "Non-specific". They come from a non-specific group such as a local authority. Did they not comment on individual areas? If, for example, a local authority made specific mention of education or social work, would that have been counted as a non-specific response? If the respondent came from a local authority, would everything that they said simply be included under the general term?
I will answer the general question first, then I will ask Kate Bilton to answer the specific questions.
It is not easy to say whether the response rates were normal. That is partly because, as far as I am aware, there is no overall collation of what happens. Levels of response vary among consultations. Consultation documents can often be very different with regard to the breadth of the audience or how specifically focused they are on policy area or legislation. It is hard to ask whether the response is good or normal. We do not know the answer. Personally, I think that the level of response gives us quite a lot of substance. However, part of what was said in the response also tells us that we need more and wider consultation.
An equality strategy is probably as broad a consultation process as we could get. Would you have expected more than 185 responses? In your organisation, is there a feeling that that is enough to work with but that, if you were starting the process, you would be seeking such a level of response?
We do not know the answer to that. We would have to take some soundings and to re-examine who responded. We might ask some of the people whom we might have expected to respond. There were comments about consultation fatigue and there were criticisms about the consultation being too general and too difficult to respond to, although other people welcomed it.
We can speculate about there being a lot of factors which might have stopped people responding, but we do not really know. It is worth trying to sound that out more. The consultation had a wide distribution, and I think that we did a good job getting to the groups that we wanted to target. We probably need to think further about why people have not responded to the document.
I will ask Kate to speak about the technical points.
Kate Bilton (Scottish Executive Equality Unit):
There will be organisations that cover interests that are outwith their main purpose. A local authority will certainly cover issues concerning women, black and ethnic minority communities and others.
If a local authority had submitted responses that were focused solely on women's issues, or on women's issues and black and ethnic minority community issues, those responses would have been recorded in those specific categories. However, if the responses had contained only general information on the local authority's work and views, those responses would have been recorded as non-specific, even though they may well have contained specific comments relating to particular groups.
In analysing the responses, we considered whether we should look for themes that women's groups, or any other groups, tended to comment on, but we decided that that would be a difficult task. That was partly because of the time available; but also because it was not obvious whether people would want to know what women's groups had said or whether they would want to know what people had said on women's issues. There is a distinction there. The number of responses in each group made it less appropriate to pick out, for example, all the women's organisations that had responded or all the older people's organisations. There were only two in the latter category, and picking them out would not have been representative of the whole community of organisations in that category. However, the information in the responses is still available.
On women's issues, it would be interesting to know whether the voluntary sector is saying something different from statutory organisations, or whether women's organisations are saying something different from those who provide the services. Would you decide not to say that 65 per cent had said that something was good if it emerged that 99 per cent of those who had said that were individuals, or came from one particular group, or were local authorities?
Further analysis could be done on that, if it were deemed appropriate.
A number of responses covered a range of equality areas, whereas others focused very specifically on one interest. There were women's organisations that talked about race equality and disability issues. That makes the analytical task harder, but, as Kate Bilton says, the information is there and it is possible to go back to do more analysis.
In addition to what is analysed, all the responses are available and will be used individually as well as collectively. Johann Lamont's points are well made. Such information will be of use to us in the course of the work that we do in the unit. That resource will be available to us.
It is sometimes easy to be negative about consultation; but I was quite surprised when I read on page 23 of the report on the responses that, of those who commented, around three quarters were critical of aspects of the consultation paper's format or content. That is obviously quite a high percentage. The main criticisms were that the document was
"too vague, lacked a clear sense of direction or focus, and lacked specific proposals or information on existing work and contexts."
The paragraph continues:
"The lack of an analysis of the causes of inequality and of previous and current equality practices was perceived to weaken the document, as was the use of imprecise, bland language and meaningless phrases".
That feedback from 75 per cent of the respondents must have been a bit of an eye-opener. One respondent said that it was like fighting with candy floss. I must admit that, when I read the document, I felt that as well. It was difficult to get a handle on what was being said and what the document was trying to achieve.
On pages 26 and 27, you conclude:
"There was some divide among respondents as to whether the lack of detailed proposals enabled comments to more actively direct the strategy's development or whether it demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issues and of thought on how the aims of the strategy would be achieved."
I presume that you would say that, as there is no lack of understanding within the unit, the lack of detailed proposals are a problem rather than the lack of understanding. Lessons can perhaps be learned from the 75 per cent of respondents who said that it is difficult to get a handle on the content, direction and meaning of such documents. You must have had discussions on that feedback in the unit. What early lessons have you learned, and how would you do things differently next time?
I would like to make a few practical points. Esther Breitenbach and Kate Bilton will correct me if necessary. "Of those who commented" means of those who commented on the format or content of the consultation; it does not mean that 75 per cent of all respondees made that point about the document. Kate will be able to provide the figures on that.
The points that are contained in the conclusion to that section of the report are not comments that either the unit or the Executive is making; those comments were expressed by the respondents. The question of whether the lack of detailed proposals or a lack of understanding had an impact was raised by different groups of respondees, and does not reflect the views of the unit on the way in which the exercise was completed. This conclusion is the analysis of the responses to the consultation, not the unit's evaluation of those responses.
People were critical of aspects of the document's format and content, although it is important to recognise that that does not mean that they found the whole document impossible to understand or felt that it should be completely rewritten. In this conclusion, we wanted to highlight the specific aspects of the document with which people had taken issue.
People were far more likely to comment on the document's format or content if they had a specific problem with the document. They were less likely to say that they particularly liked the style of the paper. I cannot give my interpretation of what the responses mean. The comments tended to be made by those who had comments to make on specific parts of the document; therefore, they are more likely to reflect the views of those who found problems with the document than the views of those who found it useful and were positive about it.
It would be possible to find the document useful but still comment on the fact that the language that it uses is vague. I found the document useful, but I found the language vague. It would be good to respond to that by making the language less vague next time.
Sure.
Kate, do you know off the top of your head how many people criticised the format or content of the document?
I think that that figure is in the interim report. I do not know it off the top of my head.
That 75 per cent is 75 per cent of a minority of respondents. It can be confusing. On the general point, it would be correct to say that the responses flagged up matters that require attention, and we will take that on board.
In answer to Shona Robison's point, we would want to consider any issues of that nature that were raised in the consultation. We are alive to issues about plain language and making things focused. Where there are matters to be addressed, we want to ensure that we deal with them. That point has been taken on board.
You mentioned the number of hits on the website. Do you have a feel for how much response was provoked by the fact that the consultation document was on the internet? Have you any way of tracking that?
I think that the answer is that we cannot tell. A lot of responses were sent by e-mail, but whether that means that people consulted—
I just wondered if there was any way of tracking that, but obviously there is not.
I do not think so, but we can make inquiries.
I would have thought that it would be easy to find out from 185 people where they first heard about the document. That is a common question in questionnaires.
As there are no more questions, I thank our witnesses for coming along. As I said, Jackie Baillie will come to the committee on 4 July so that we can develop these matters further.