Equal Opportunities Committee, 24 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000

Official Report 99KB pdf

---

Equality Proofing and Mainstreaming

The next item is the paper on equality proofing and mainstreaming, which has been made available today. There is a correction—which members should have had the opportunity to read—to that paper. Are there any questions or comments on the paper?

I was glad to see the correction this morning, because I was concerned by the Procedures Committee's decision to leave equal opportunities out of what it was doing. It is important to remember that equal opportunities was one of the major principles of the consultative steering group, so I am delighted that the Procedures Committee has decided to include equal opportunities.

In the same vein, it is—as the paper says—part of the committee's role

"to encourage other parliamentary committees to undertake equality proofing . . . as a matter of course".

It would have been odd if the Procedures Committee had left equal opportunities out of what it was doing. I welcome the correction because it is important. In addition, it does not detract from what the Equal Opportunities Committee can do, or from the recommendations in the paper. We should go ahead with the recommendations as they have been outlined.

The proposals are sound. Equal opportunities and mainstreaming cannot be implemented quickly and we should not be too dismayed about the length of time before the completion of research. It is a fundamental issue and it merits a great deal of time and effort. If it takes us until summer 2001, that should not be considered detrimental or negative; that is how long this kind of inquiry takes. Everything that comes out of the inquiry can only contribute to making sure that equalities issues are mainstreamed, which would be a tremendous outcome.

There are several proposals, the first of which is that we pursue a bid for research funds to examine the issue. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, we can produce a more detailed research proposal for 7 November. Is it agreed that the clerks should produce a draft checklist as an interim measure? That could also be produced for discussion on 7 November.

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, I could raise the issue at the conveners group to inform the group what will happen. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.