Equal Opportunities Committee, 21 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999

Official Report 133KB pdf

---

Correspondence

The final item on the agenda is correspondence. Does anyone have any comments on the correspondence or on what we should do with it?

Is correspondence that is sent to the committee dealt with by the committee, or is it dealt with by us individually?

The committee might want to deal with some of the correspondence—for example, the first item of correspondence, which is from the Disabled Persons Housing Service and which asks us to consider proposed amendments to the building regulations.

I think that most people will have received invitations—it is up to them, not the committee, to decide whether they want to accept them. We have just agreed that all correspondence will come to the committee; members can get copies from Martin. The committee can decide what to do with correspondence or individuals can decide what to do with it. I would have thought that the committee might want to decide what to do with the correspondence from the DPHS.

It would be useful for us to get involved, because we might be able to achieve what the service asks.

It is appropriate that we have that correspondence at this meeting because it highlights the committee's role. The DPHS wishes to build on existing legislation and is making the case that existing equal opportunities legislation is not strong enough. I am sure that the equality unit will examine legislation and decide whether the standard has been met. We are here to listen to people and say whether the standard is good enough. The correspondence provides a concrete example of what we should be doing, and I hope that we will invite someone from the DPHS to explain the changes that it wants implemented.

The reporters group on disability might want to address that issue, as we have until December before comments have to be submitted.

Am I correct in thinking that we could lodge another amendment to the proposed amendments to the building regulations, in order to guarantee that all new houses are barrier free?

Yes.

Should we contact the Convener of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and look into organising an informal briefing to examine the issue raised by the DPHS? That would ensure that members of that committee are also aware of the issues and can try to find a way of making progress. I am sure that any amendment that was lodged jointly by the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee would carry a lot of weight.

It might be useful to get advice from building standards officers or the professionals who are involved with building standards. That would give us an expert's interpretation of the regulations and of what might be possible.

One of the problems with building standards is that they are open to interpretation—different building control officers have different interpretations.

A poacher turned gamekeeper might be useful.

There are organisations that specialise in this. They are not local authority organisations; they are stand-alone organisations. For example, an accessibility organisation based in London specialises in proofing buildings for disabled access. It has extensive experience of the problems that are associated with building control and planning restrictions.

Building regulations are quite technical, so that organisation could provide technical input.

I will try to organise an informal briefing soon with the two committees and representatives from the accessibility organisation and the DPHS.

I take on board the point that Michael Matheson made, but the DPHS specifically asked us to get involved. It may be easier for the convener to organise an informal briefing for our committee than it is to organise an informal briefing for two committees. Should we not maintain our independence, so to speak, and make a recommendation to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee after having listened to what we have been told?

There are crossover areas for committees. When we met the Commission for Racial Equality, we invited members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee along. I am not sure that any of them turned up, but we did invite them and we sent them details of the documents that were produced. Sometimes it is easier if two committees examine an issue. I will find out from Margaret Curran whether we can organise something reasonably quickly, but if that is going to be a problem we can organise a briefing for just this committee.

We should ask Margaret Curran whether she wants a joint briefing. Rather than say, "We are having a briefing. Do you want to join in?" we should say, "Will we have a briefing together?"

Yes. I will contact her and ask her whether she wants a joint briefing.

When you referred to the incapable adults bill, I wondered how wide our remit was. I recently became aware of the British Deaf Association; I gave a talk to it last Saturday in Inverness. You may think that speaking to the deaf is a contradiction in terms, but it was one of the most revealing undertakings that I have been involved in for quite a while. Like many people, I thought that when we provided a hearing loop system we were doing a magnificent thing, but that is not the case. The hearing loop system is of use only to people who have a hearing aid.

The profoundly deaf told me that there is no legislation to support them. I do not need to tell anyone here of the problems that the deaf daily encounter with things that we take for granted. They are anxious to have an opportunity to make a case to this committee; I think that consideration of the incapable adults bill might be an opportunity to discuss with them how we can make progress in supporting them.

Thank you. The project team for the new Parliament buildings is examining the shapes of the rooms and the lighting to ensure that members of the public and of the Parliament can see signers from anywhere in the room. That will be welcomed.

The only other correspondence is Howard Robinson's offer to meet the committee. What do members feel about that? Shall we get more information about the organisation?

The convener should meet him and report back.

Then we could decide whether we want to meet him.

I will get more information, pass it round the committee and then we can decide whether we want to meet him.

What about the second item of correspondence, which is an invitation to a consultation meeting. Is that an invitation specifically for the committee or is it for everyone?

I think that everyone was invited.

I wonder whether, rather than sending a group of individuals, we ought to send someone as a committee representative, so that we are seen to be responding to the invitation.

Jackie Baillie passed this invitation to us. It is open to any committee member to go. If members who wish to attend the meeting give their names to Martin, they can get a copy of the invitation. We will make sure that the committee is represented.

Can the committee be represented by someone other than a committee member if no members go? If we leave the arrangement as you suggested and no one is able to make the meeting, the committee will not be represented.

I will make sure that we are represented because Martin will let me know if no one puts their name forward.

So if no one else goes, you will go?

Yes, or I will nominate someone.

Are there any more comments on the correspondence? The rest of it is just invitations. The Commission for Racial Equality has invited all members to attend a meeting. It is up to members to decide whether they want to go, but it would be good if a lot of us went, especially as everyone should be in Edinburgh on that day.

Which meeting is that?

I do not have a note of that invitation.

The invitation came after we prepared the papers, but I believe that it was sent to each member.

What are the details?

The Commission for Racial Equality has invited members of this committee to attend a meeting of the joint equalities group after our meeting on 17 November. I will get Martin to send members a copy of the invitation. Many organisations will be there, so it would be good if members could attend.

I am sorry to raise another point that is not on the agenda but—this may already have been done—has the Scottish Human Rights Centre given the committee a briefing on the implications of the European convention on human rights on the legislation that we have talked about and on equal opportunities? If not, do you think that such a briefing would be worth while?

We have not had a briefing on that issue. The committee has been deciding the briefings that it wishes to have. I am happy to organise any briefings that members feel would be useful.

It would be a good briefing—the ECHR keeps cropping up with regard to legislation and I would like to have a better handle on the issue. The SHRC would provide a good starting point for that.

We will have to have a briefing at an open formal meeting—it is getting difficult to fit in extra meetings between our formal meetings.

All the business has been dealt with. Thank you for your attendance.

Meeting closed at 11:14.