Official Report 140KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is on mainstreaming equality in the work of the Scottish Parliament's committees. An approach paper has been circulated. Do members have any questions?
We have talked about having an equalities champion on each committee and the idea of having a champion in departments has also been raised. What happened to those ideas?
The committee has discussed the issue and members will recall that I made a presentation to the Conveners Group on it. Some conveners felt that it was a good idea, while others felt that having an equalities champion might sideline equalities issues by leaving them to one person to consider. Some conveners felt that champions would not be a positive step and I think that they have a point.
Recommendation ii in the paper mentions
Representatives of the SPCB will appear before us in April. I hope that we can put that issue on the agenda, as well as the training issue.
Paragraph 6 and recommendation iv relate to the committee's role in scrutinising legislation. The committee should continue to have a roving brief on the issue. I would be concerned if, as suggested in paragraph 6, we stepped back from scrutinising and reporting on legislation except when asked to do such work by another committee or the Parliamentary Bureau. An important part of the bureau's role is to ensure that business gets done. An example is the recent work that the committee did on the Gender Recognition Bill. There was a difference of approach between the way in which this committee took evidence on that bill and the way in which the Justice 1 Committee, of which Marlyn Glen and I are members, scrutinised it. The Justice 1 Committee had no more than an hour to ask questions of the minister, after which we discussed the bill. That situation was a result of the packed legislative programme with which the justice committees have to deal.
I was going to raise that point because I feel the same way about recommendation iv. We could point to the fact that the committee decided proactively to seek evidence on the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill. It is hugely important that we can take such evidence, although perhaps we would not have to in a perfect world. We are trying to promote mainstreaming through our work and the work of the other committees, but I do not think we are there yet. Some matters receive better consideration through equality eyes—we can see equal opportunities implications in things that might not immediately seem to have them.
When I read the paper, I wanted to know the reason behind recommendation iv. My initial reaction was that it was not right, but then I thought that perhaps I did not understand the implications. Perhaps the work that we have already done in getting other committees to consider mainstreaming equality means that we do not need to have the same input.
A few conveners might think, "We've done it and that's it." However, the Equal Opportunities Committee is a standing committee of the Parliament and our role is to consider equalities. As far as I am concerned, our role will always be to consider legislation and the work of the committees in terms of equalities. We have the right to consider bills, as we did with the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, or to liaise with committees such as the justice committees on their work. Whether or not we are a secondary committee on a bill, we should have a right to consider issues that we are concerned about.
I suppose that our role will be slightly different. We expect that the other committees will take mainstreaming on board, and we hope that they will do so, but if we are seen to interact too much, they might sit back and let us do the work. Initially, our role will be difficult; we must ensure that mainstreaming is taken on board while letting the other committees lead the way.
That is right; there is a balance. I remind members that the Executive is committed to mainstreaming, so we would hope that legislation will mainstream equalities. We are here not to police but to scrutinise, to support, and to ensure that people adhere to the principle of mainstreaming equalities. We must hold on to the right to act when we think that issues need more exploration or when there is an opportunity to gather evidence in a particular area, perhaps when other committees do not have time to do so.
It seems to me that that is partly covered in the report under point 4, on the development of monitoring systems—that is essentially what we are talking about. I presume that that can be considered along with the proposed role of the committee.
I think that you are right. The issue is how we should monitor what happens in a supportive way, rather than say, "You did not do this—that is dreadful." As I said, our role is to scrutinise Executive legislation and how it goes through the Parliament in terms of equalities.
We should be supportive, and I agree with Margaret Smith's comment that we can give time to issues. We must give time to looking at other committees' work, but promoting equalities is one of the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament and I am concerned about whether the mechanism is robust enough. We do not need to take a softly-softly approach; we should have high expectations. I would like the mechanism to be consistent and rigorous. I do not think that we need to make excuses for what we do; we need to prod people into doing things properly.
I have a point on timing. Nanette Milne's point on monitoring is crucial, but I would be concerned if we edged towards a role that involved only monitoring, because that is done after the fact. We know how quickly things move in the Parliament, and it was certainly to the benefit of the two pieces of work that I mentioned earlier that the committee jumped the gun and did the work in advance. We did not get the mechanism completely right, and Marlyn Glen has a point about working out a robust mechanism, but we should state our expectations and say that we will take them forward seriously.
You are right. We do not want to be the police at the end of the process, or to complain at that point.
I agree with Margaret Smith.
You are absolutely right, because MSPs' staff are front-line staff, which the report of our predecessor committee highlighted. Training for them is being considered and we need to stress that it is important.
I just could not see the point mentioned.
It was mentioned in the original report and I raised it in the presentation that I made to the Conveners Group. Although it is quite right that clerking teams and people involved in legislation should be trained, it should not just be about them, because some MSPs might want to be involved in training too.
Those who do not want training are the ones who really need it.
I was trying to be diplomatic, but there is certainly a case for involving MSPs and their staff in equalities training. The climate is changing. For example, people with disabilities are frustrated that there is a lack of awareness among the people involved in legislation. We have a role to play in pushing for more awareness.
Is recommendation ii agreed to?
With the suggested amendment.
There has been a lot of positive discussion about recommendations iii and iv in relation to how we take forward equalities. I ask the clerks to take on board what we have said, work that up in a paper and bring it back to us. Is that agreed?
We were clear and unanimous about what needs to be done.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Item in Private