Official Report 259KB pdf
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 13th meeting in 2009 of the Equal Opportunities Committee. I remind all those present, including members, that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be switched off completely as they interfere with the sound system, even if they are switched to silent.
Thank you for inviting me to this general discussion on vital matters relating to equalities. The equality statement that accompanies the budget is now ready for publication. We intend to circulate it to committee members today. We would have liked to do so before now, but the budget was not announced until Thursday. I am happy to appear before the committee again at a future date to discuss the detail of the equality statement. We will circulate the statement to the committee and give members a chance to read it before it goes up on our website. That will happen some time today.
Thank you. The committee welcomes the publication of the equality statement, but we are hugely disappointed that we could not have sight of it in advance of this meeting, which would have enabled us to scrutinise the statement and derive maximum benefit from our opportunity to ask you about it. I take your point that in the 10 years of the Parliament it is the first such statement to be published simultaneously with the budget, but it has not been published in time for the Equal Opportunities Committee to be able to use it to best effect. However, we welcome your commitment and your offer to come back to us when the statement has been published. I understand that it is a sizeable document that runs to 90 pages, so we would welcome the opportunity to ask you about it.
That is fine. However, publication one business day after the announcement on the budget is not bad going after 10 years.
Right. We move on to the national performance framework. There are 15 outcomes, but the one that is most relevant and interesting to the Equal Opportunities Committee is the one that states:
There are 45 national indicators. We disaggregate some of them where the data are available and reliable, but as you know, the reliability of some of the data is variable. There is also an issue about definitions, for example in relation to disabilities. However, the most important point is that we are, in a sense, mainstreaming equalities throughout the indicators, in that many of them, in seeking to achieve targets, reflect the need for an approach that is based on equal opportunities and which targets particular groups.
You mentioned that NHS staff now ask women about domestic abuse. Will you tell us a wee bit about how that is done? Are the staff trained to ask about domestic abuse? Often, women may not want to talk about it. Scottish Women's Aid, for example, has training on dealing with those issues.
We consulted widely with the likes of Scottish Women's Aid about how to go about the questioning before we actually introduced it. It is being done in a very sensitive manner. The people who ask the questions have received appropriate training, which is now part and parcel of the normal training that those NHS staff receive.
Is there demonstrable evidence in the draft budget that the Scottish Government's political commitment to supporting equalities is matched by resource allocation?
Yes, I think that there is. In relation to the equality statement, we give not just examples but comprehensive reports by portfolio. If I pick my portfolio as an example, one key area that we are looking at is the need for the affordable housing investment programme to meet the needs of people with varying needs. Many of those people are disabled and it is important that we meet their needs. When we ask local authorities to prepare their housing strategies, and from that their housing investment programmes, we specifically ask them to take into account, for example, the need for housing with wheelchair access, which is important.
How are the Scottish Government's priorities, as stated in the national performance framework, reflected in the budget?
I have given examples of that already. Our overall key purpose is to increase sustainable economic growth and to ensure that Scotland becomes a fairer society. In education and health spend and in other spending areas, including my area of housing, we deliberately try to ensure a fairer distribution of resources. A good example is the equally well strategy that is being implemented in the health service. As you know, an equality impact assessment was behind the work that led to that strategy, which was developed by a group of ministers. The purpose of the strategy is to ensure that, in the health service, people who are most in need—who were previously perhaps not accessing the quality and level of service that they should have been accessing—can now access the quality and level of service that they need.
I will pursue the line that the convener started on. She referred to the Government's website, which refers to specific strands of the equality legislation. However, as she said, the indicators in the national performance framework deal more with socioeconomic inequality, and much of the language on the website is, rightly, about tackling social and economic inequality. I want to pursue how the two aspects relate to each other. One particular dimension is the consultation that you are carrying out on the Equality Bill. What is the Government's attitude on that, if it has one? I do not know whether it is neutral on the issue or whether it has an attitude. I want to tease out your approach to equality legislation in general. In your mind, is that distinguished from the broader approach to tackling socioeconomic inequalities?
There is a clear distinction between the new single public sector equalities duty and reducing inequality in income and wealth in our society. We have strategies in relation to both, but there are areas in which the two come together and must be regarded as part and parcel of a wider picture. A good example is the employment level among people with disabilities in Scotland. At present, the level is 48 per cent, whereas the general level of employment in Scotland is 78 per cent. That 30 per cent differential is a huge gap that we must try to close. That requires us to reduce income inequality and even increase employment opportunities for disabled people, but is part and parcel of fulfilling our duty to disabled people under equality legislation. That is an example of the two strands coming together, although I recognise that there are two separate policy strands.
I understand what you are saying but, to return to a previous point, is it not a bit odd that no indicator seems to focus on issues such as disability and race, although it is obvious that such issues are often connected with wider inequalities?
As I have said, there are 45 indicators, and specific areas and targets relate to many of those indicators. I have just mentioned, for example, that 48 per cent of disabled people are in employment compared with 78 per cent of the population as a whole, and it is clear that the pay gap between men and women is still substantial and unacceptable. The Scottish Government's pay policy reflects the need to close that gap not just by 1 or 2 per cent, but completely. That aim is not specifically one of the 45 national indicators. If we rolled out every indicator for every group, we would end up with an unmanageable base from which to operate. The important point is that we are actively targeting progress where we can measure the size of the problem, whether in employment, income levels or pay gaps. In time, we want to close entirely the gap between the employment levels for disabled people and those for the population in general, and it is clear that our objective is to close the pay gap between men and women. Some modest progress has been made on that.
Will you give an update on the Scottish Government's current attitude towards the socioeconomic duty in the Equality Bill?
As you know, we are consulting on that at the moment. The consultation period will finish at the end of the month. We have agreed with our colleagues in London that if we want to extend the socioeconomic duty to Scotland as a result of that consultation, we will have plenty of time to do so through amendments to the bill, which is going through Westminster.
Like the convener, I am disappointed by the lack of an equality statement. We had a carbon assessment of the budget on Thursday. It would obviously have been much better for us to have the statement—which sounds interesting and which we welcome—because we could have asked you about it.
The group was formed in 2000—its formation is not a recent event—and it has worked on that problem for nine years. As I said, this is the first year in which we have an equality statement. I am glad that the committee welcomes the fact that we have such a statement after nine years.
We took evidence from EBAG at our previous committee meeting, so we are aware of the changes. Will you comment on the nature of the advice that you received from EBAG, and explain to the committee how that advice has been acted on? Will you provide evidence of how EBAG's work has informed the budget process and the resulting spending allocation?
As you know, around 86 equality impact assessments have been published, many of which were carried out under the auspices of EBAG. Those assessments have influenced policy, and therefore spend. The equally well strategy, which I have already mentioned, emanated from EBAG's work, which will—not only this year but on an on-going basis—inform the spend in relation to the programme and how we achieve its objectives.
You mentioned the next spending review, which will be critical in allocating resources for the following three-year period. How and when will you tell the Equal Opportunities Committee how equality considerations will be integrated into the review?
We anticipate that the next spending review will take place after the United Kingdom general election, some time in 2010, although it is not clear at this stage whether it will cover the period 2010 to 2013 or 2011 to 2014. The EBAG report, which will be published in June or early July next year, will be orientated towards the spending review and the process of how we can mainstream equality more than we currently do in the decisions that we make. The publication of that report would be an opportune time for me to return to the committee, to discuss its contents and recommendations in relation to how we improve the mainstreaming of equality in the spending review, irrespective of which three-year period it covers.
The committee seeks reassurance that EBAG will influence policy and spend at the beginning rather than the end of the process. At our previous meeting, Yvonne Strachan said:
I do not think that you can tie the two together. Perhaps that is what happened in years gone by, but it is certainly not happening now.
It is reassuring to hear that you are using equality impact assessments, particularly in relation to housing, given what Shelter Scotland seems to think is a £200 million cut in funding for affordable housing. Can the minister highlight any instances when the impact assessment took the Government in one direction but spending was allocated in a different direction for political reasons related to its overall strategy?
I will first correct the point on housing expenditure, since you mention it. Shelter knows this and every other housing group has said this: there is no cut in the housing budget, particularly for affordable housing. We have reprofiled what we were always going to spend—some of it has been spent this year rather than next—to maintain jobs in the building trades. It is dishonest of anyone to say that there has been any cut in the housing budget; not a penny has been cut from the housing budget.
Thank you for the clarification as far as affordable housing is concerned. It would perhaps have been helpful if the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth had been clearer during last week's statement.
He was.
On the matter of reallocating moneys to equalities organisations, I am given to understand that a substantial amount of money was reclaimed from an organisation called the Scottish-Islamic Foundation for a project that it failed to deliver. At the same time, I understand that the Scottish Inter Faith Council experienced a cut in its budget. Does that clawback mean that the money can be reallocated to another organisation, for example the Scottish Inter Faith Council?
When any organisation that receives funding for spend in a financial year does not meet either all or part of that spend, it is automatic that the money is clawed back, because that is the Treasury rule and we apply the Treasury rules in that case. That would happen to any organisation that did not spend the money that it been allocated for a particular year.
Three members have indicated that they would like to ask questions. The timetable is extremely tight, so I ask them to be brief.
I was interested in what you said about the housing budget. I understand why you said that from a departmental point of view, but you must realise that it completely undermines the Scottish Government's argument that it has an overall cut in its budget. That situation is the result of capital reprofiling, but you are saying that capital reprofiling should not be counted as a cut.
Those are two separate issues.
No, they are not—they are the same issue.
No, there are two separate issues. One is the £500 million cut, which you know of; the second one—
We will leave that issue there because we are straying from equal opportunities, which, predominantly, is what we are here to discuss.
First, I want to dissociate myself from what the convener said—I do not agree that the budget equality statement is late. It is a remarkable achievement to produce the first budget equality statement within one parliamentary day of the publication of the draft budget report.
Are you referring to the equality impact assessments?
Yes.
No, as I said to Hugh O'Donnell, to the best of my knowledge—I cannot answer for previous Administrations; Malcolm Chisholm might be able to help you out in that regard—this Government has never changed a policy as a result—
I probably phrased my question badly. I was not asking whether you had ever changed a policy as a result of an equality impact assessment. I was asking for an example of a case in which you were directed by the equality impact assessment while you were working on the production of a policy. Have there been occasions when the equality impact assessment has directed your final decision?
That happens all the time. As I said, 86 EqIAs have been produced. They are commissioned to inform the policy—that is their purpose.
I thank the minister for his replies so far.
Absolutely. As a Government, we have made it clear that we want to keep as many people as possible in employment until we are in a full recovery phase and that bringing forward more capital spending from 2011-12 into 2010-11 is extremely important in that regard.
As Bill Wilson did, I welcome the equality statement that the minister is releasing today after 10 years of the Scottish Parliament. I can only imagine the disappointment that there must have been around this place for 10 years at the lack of such a statement.
I do not think that we are overburdened, provided that we see measurement as being part of the bigger picture of trying to achieve our equal opportunity objectives. One of our problems is the sheer lack of reliable data in many policy areas. Before we can measure, we must have baseline data, but in many cases the baseline data are not available. For example, we do not know how many transgender people there are in Scotland, so it is difficult to measure precisely progress in the treatment of transgender people. We currently rely on the social attitudes survey for that. In that regard, I am glad to say that the latest social attitudes survey shows that, for the first time, there is a more positive attitude to not only the transgender community but the LGBT community.
That is very encouraging. Obviously, when there are no data with which to compare performance, the task in the early days will be to gather data and evidence. How soon will you be able to report on progress on a range of issues to meetings of the Equal Opportunities Committee?
We already report on various issues. For example, in March we published the annual report on progress on our gender equality duty. That contained details on how we are making progress towards achieving our 10 key objectives for the GED, particularly on violence against women. The problem is that we must rely on many reports to get the total picture—the social attitudes survey, the GED report, the EBAG report and a range of other reports. When the EBAG report comes out, it would perhaps be useful to provide with it an inventory or directory of all the various reports—not just from us but from, for example, the Equality and Human Rights Commission—which are the reference points for measuring data, progress and performance. We will undertake to do that.
How will the local authorities' statements feed into the national performance framework, given that all the local authorities could—although we hope that they will not—decide to use different measurements of their equalities achievements?
I make a distinction between the statutory duties and the discretionary duties of local authorities. Clearly, like the Scottish Government, local authorities will be given a statutory duty under the Equality Bill, in addition to their current statutory duties. The relevant monitoring body for that will be the former Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which is now—the names keep changing—the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
We now move to more general topics, some of which the minister has touched on. What progress have Scottish Government directorates made on the key actions that have been designed to address gender equality issues, as identified in the gender equality scheme? Will the minister add to what he said earlier? In particular, how is progress on actions to tackle violence against women monitored?
The fairly detailed report that we published in March 2009—I take it that committee members have copies—describes our progress on tackling violence against women, and includes an assessment of where we are in meeting the 10 key gender equality objectives.
Carrying on from that point, "Safer Lives: Changed Lives" is a framework and not an action plan, as the document points out, although it refers to priorities for action on which I want to home in. It says on page 22:
As we have been saying, domestic abuse is a priority. We regard trafficking, on which we have been working with our Westminster colleagues, as a priority. Rape is also a priority when it comes to resource allocation. Undoubtedly, we will talk about forced marriages at some point.
Will you also tell us how "Safer Lives: Changed Lives" was developed and which agencies were involved in the process?
It started with the national group on violence against women, which identified the need for the framework. It set up an expert group, which included representatives from the rape crisis centres, Scottish Women's Aid, the police, local authorities and so on. That group produced a report that assessed the scale and incidence of the problem. Once that was done, there was a wide-ranging consultation on the work of the expert group. When the consultation was finished, the results came back to the national violence against women group and we published the document. It was a very wide consultation with a lot of participation, which is more important than consultation.
I will ask you specifically about domestic abuse but, before I do, I will pick up on something that you said about pornography in response to Malcolm Chisholm. You will know that the committee has considered sexualised imagery and goods that are aimed at children. You said that your priorities are domestic abuse and rape, but a lot of pornography is predicated on those two issues. Can we tackle effectively violence against women and gender discrimination as a whole while women are still being objectified by pornography, which is now so much more commonplace in society? How will you progress that issue?
I am keen to make progress on both issues. Up to now, the focus has been on domestic abuse, rape, human trafficking and issues such as forced marriage, which have proved to be easier to deal with and to reach consensus on. Of course, the Government does not always need to take the lead, and it might well be that the best way of dealing with this is for the committee to do so. However, I agree with your underlying point that prostitution and pornography are part and parcel of the problem of violence against women in our society and must be tackled.
We need to recognise that the prevalence and consequential normalisation of pornography make it very difficult to tackle domestic abuse, rape, prostitution and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation. Although over the years the Equal Opportunities Committee has carried out a considerable amount of work on raising the problem of pornography in society, it has found it difficult to take that work forward. Perhaps that is an issue on which we can work.
Given that all the major parties are represented on the committee, it might be more appropriate for it to take the lead on both issues. I am certainly happy to work with the committee in that respect.
Thank you very much.
I have been told by colleagues down south that what appeared in the press is a misrepresentation. However, I am not familiar with all the details and why that story in particular appeared in the press.
As I said, we have to be careful with what we read in the press.
Absolutely. I can say categorically that there is no way we would make the admission of men a funding condition for women's refuges. I have said all along—I made it clear in my opening statement—that our policy is based on a gendered analysis. As Elaine Smith pointed out, all the refuges in Scotland—at least those that I know—are all-women environments. That is not to say that we would stand in the way of any refuge that decided to take in men: the point is that we would not enforce such a move. To the best of my knowledge, that has never happened in Scotland.
You might also want to consider the prospect of men establishing a similar group.
That was my next point. I have received a delegation comprising members of all the major parties on domestic abuse and violence specifically against men. The reported incidence of violence against men used to be a ninth of the figure for women; I believe that the ratio is now 1:7.
Are you talking about domestic abuse as opposed to other, wider forms of violence?
Yes. The figures for women are about 50,000, and the figures for men are now about 7,000. As I said in my opening remarks, the Welsh Assembly Government has examined and developed a strategy to deal with the issue, and I have asked my officials to look at that work. My initial thought is that it is a different issue. Obviously there are underlying commonalities, but we need to consider domestic abuse against men as a discrete problem that needs to be addressed, and not as a tag-on to the issue of domestic abuse against women.
That was helpful. Thank you.
For the record as much as anything else, will the minister summarise the response to the consultation on forced marriages? As an addendum to that, can he clarify what action the Government intends to take on the issue?
We had 47 responses to the consultation. Almost universally, they requested that we introduce legislation to end forced marriages. Obviously the Government is considering the consultation and will, in due course, inform Parliament of its decision.
My question is about the census. The Fife Arabic Society is concerned that the 2011 census will not accurately capture information on Arab-British identity as it will not contain sub-categories such as "Scottish Arab" and "British Arab". The committee has received correspondence from the society that states that it believes that to be an act of inequality in representation. What is the Scottish Government's view of the opinions that have been expressed by the Fife Arabic Society?
I was at FRAE Fife on, I think, Wednesday, where I met representatives from the Fife Arabic Society. I will spell this out, because I have a fairly detailed briefing and I want to get it absolutely right.
Thank you. It will be interesting to look at what you said in the Official Report because it was quite difficult to follow all the details.
I will be happy to send you a full briefing. I will ask Yvonne Strachan to make sure that committee members get that.
Thank you very much.
If you have any outstanding questions when you get the briefing, write to me. We will be happy to share our information with you.
Should I write directly to you?
Yes: write to me or Jim Mather. I am sure that we will compare notes before we answer, anyway.
Thank you minister. We appreciate that full answer.
In June 2006, the Scottish Executive set up the hearts and minds agenda group to consider ways of tackling negative and discriminatory attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Since then, the group has produced several reports and recommendations. What impact have the Scottish Government's actions had on tackling negative and discriminatory attitudes towards LGBT people?
I refer you to the point that I made earlier, which is that the most recent social attitudes survey has shown that we are for the first time making progress in tackling negative attitudes towards, and prejudice against, the LGBT community. We are doing everything we can. I have a meeting with members of the community later this week, and I am going to Brussels next week, where I will meet the European council of the LGBT community, along with Scottish representatives. The hearts and minds campaign is absolutely central to the Scottish Government's strategy and we are working with the community to implement it.
I agree that it would be very difficult to measure the influence of the Scottish Government, UK Government or the European Union and I suspect that the LGBT group would not actually care. However, it is important that we get some idea of why attitudes are changing; otherwise, we do not know how to maintain progress.
We rely on the social attitudes survey for that, which is pretty robust.
My question is about widening access to local council membership. I understand that that issue was highlighted in the Equal Opportunities Committee in session 2 of the Parliament and that it might be mentioned in a legacy paper. What work is the Scottish Government doing, or proposing to do, to try to widen access to representation in local government?
As you know, we had a widening access to council membership progress group. There are no plans to reconvene the group, because I think that it has done the work that it was set up to do. One of the key conclusions in the group's 2008 report was that it identified the level of basic salary as a potential barrier to encouraging wider access for people standing for the council. John Swinney, as the minister who is responsible for local government, has agreed that there is an exceptional need to address some of the issues that were raised in the 2008 review. He will, later this year, outline how he wishes that to be taken forward. The timetable for the review that was discussed with the group would be from around January 2010 until spring 2011. We are very much aware of that key barrier to widening access, according to the work that has been done.
That completes our questions. Do you wish to say anything in closing?
I just want to thank you very much indeed and reiterate my offer to come back and discuss the equality statement in detail once you have had a chance to study it. If you are happy to accept that offer, we will be in touch with you to organise another date.
I reiterate that we very much appreciate that there will be an equality statement this year. That is welcomed by the committee as a huge step forward. Perhaps the harsh comments that were made this morning were to do with the fact that the prospect of the statement being published prior to this meeting was dangled in front of us when we took evidence last week.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—