Official Report 160KB pdf
Item 7 is about appointments to public bodies in Scotland. Members have a copy of the consultation paper. Does anybody have any comments on it? I was quite happy with many of the suggestions in the consultation paper.
It is a question for Irene McGugan. At the disability reporters group, we discussed the fact that although there is a reference to widening the scope of appointments in relation to gender and ethnicity, there is a glaring omission in relation to disability. I do not know whether Irene has any more information, but the whole committee must be aware of that omission.
That is noted in the minutes, which will come up under the next agenda item. During the debate, the minister was asked whether he would want to amend that situation and set targets. He assured Parliament that disabled membership would be monitored, even if no specific targets were to be met. A commitment was also given to encourage disabled candidates to apply for appointments, but no target was set. The reason given was that disability takes many forms and it would therefore be almost impossible to set meaningful targets.
I do not know how the Executive can say it is difficult without doing it. If targets were set, it could at least come back in a year or two and demonstrate that it had been difficult to achieve them because it is difficult to define the criteria or whatever. I would have thought that the committee would want to recommend that targets be set for disabled people as well.
It seems a bit strange not to set targets. Meaningful targets have been set for people with disabilities in a number of arenas, whether in the employment market or in the voluntary sector. There is practice out there, which shows that it can be done. The Executive is presumably aware of that. I agree that we should put pressure on for targets to be set.
It is well known—although this point has not been dealt with in the document—that targets cover all public appointments, despite the fact that, as we all know, there are different kinds of appointment. It does not downgrade children's panels to say that the figures for them completely distort the targets. The lead target is to increase the proportion of women appointees from the 1998 level of 47 per cent to 50 per cent by 2002. However, that target is skewed because of the massive number of appointments to children's panels. We need to have separate targets for executive appointments to non-departmental public bodies—the key decision-making bodies—rather than an overall target that masks the fact that, for example, only 25 per cent of people in the top decision-making appointments are women.
When the matter was first discussed in Parliament, I raised the point that 2,000 or so of the 3,800 public appointments are to children's panels. I am almost certain that the minister gave an assurance that children's panel membership would not be included in the targets, but I will clarify that.
That is certainly not built into this document.
Given the scope of the paper and the fact that it is a consultation paper, would it be worth having the minister along so that we can explore those types of issue here rather than through correspondence?
The deadline for the consultation is Friday, so we have to make our comments now. When the minister comes, there will be no difficulty questioning him on his plans for meeting the targets, but we need to decide today on our response to the consultation.
One of the challenges is to ensure that all the wee practical things are done, such as deciding where advertisements are placed. Behind all that, we must challenge attitudes to defining good quality. One could set up all sorts of accessible processes, but if people have a fixed picture in their heads of what they consider to be talent or ability there will be no diversity. If people want to see no more than a mainstream CV, there will still be a problem. We must break down that obstacle.
One aspect that has not been given enough attention is the barriers to people putting themselves forward. For example, some appointments can be taken up only by people who can afford to do unpaid work. People with young children often cannot afford child care. We should be examining how to eliminate such barriers.
There is nothing in the document about assisting people. If we want wider representation, we must consider training and accessibility. For example, papers would have to be provided in accessible formats and any other barriers would have to be dealt with. We could certainly ask whether reference can be made to assisting people who might have difficulties becoming involved in public life.
The barrier argument is right; there are things that prevent people putting themselves forward. However, my political experience tells me that there is an issue of equal concern about people defining what talent and ability are in such a way that, even if people overcome barriers to put themselves forward, they are not considered in the same way as other applicants. I am reluctant to see the problem as lying with the person who is not applying, rather than with the person who is putting applicants into categories of those who are worthwhile and those who are not. That applies to paid posts as well as to voluntary ones. There is little diversity in high-profile paid posts. We must strike the right balance between saying that there are reasons for people not applying and challenging the attitudes that underpin much of the exclusion that happens in the appointments system.
Although benefits are not a devolved matter, we should ask Westminster to consider how payments can affect people's benefits. It has been pointed out to me that some paid appointments can affect people's benefits, and even a small payment can have an adverse affect on personal finances. That means that quite a big group of people are being denied access to involvement in public appointments. That is an issue that we must flag up. I shall e-mail those points to members and ask them to agree to them by Friday—perhaps with a little leeway. If anything else occurs to you, let me know. Are members happy with that?
Previous
MainstreamingNext
Reporters