Barriers to Mainstreaming
Agenda item 3 is a round-table discussion on the barriers to mainstreaming in Scotland. The session marks equality and diversity week in the Parliament, and the European year of equal opportunities for all. I welcome all our witnesses, who have joined us at the table. The session will be less formal than our usual evidence taking, although I remind everyone that contributions should still be made through the convener.
I ask everyone to make a brief introduction. I will start: I am Margaret Mitchell, and I am the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee.
I am an MSP for Central Scotland.
Morag Alexander (Equality and Human Rights Commission):
I am the Scotland commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I am an MSP for North East Scotland.
I am the MSP for Hamilton North and Bellshill.
Scott Skinner (Scottish Enterprise):
I am the head of equalities for Scottish Enterprise.
I am an MSP for the West of Scotland.
I am an MSP for Glasgow.
Mary Senior (Scottish Trades Union Congress):
I am an assistant secretary at the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
I am a Glasgow MSP.
Carol Fox (Thompsons Solicitors Scotland):
I am head of equality at Thompsons Solicitors Scotland.
I am the MSP for Coatbridge and Chryston, and the deputy convener of the committee.
Thank you, everyone. We are disappointed that Fran Wasoff will not be with us; unfortunately, she is ill. However, I am sure that we have got more than enough to discuss and that there will be more than enough views from the panel to make this a stimulating session.
Do all organisations and members of society know what is meant when we talk about mainstreaming equal opportunities? Does everyone support the principle of mainstreaming?
It is probably true to say that not everybody understands what mainstreaming is. However, I read the information that was sent to me by the clerk and, looking broadly at mainstreaming in the Scottish Government, and in the Scottish Parliament and its committees, the guidelines on how to do it are very effective. The guidelines look good, but I am not convinced that mainstreaming is actually done in that way.
The intention is that policy makers should look at what individuals and groups of people need in order to get the best possible outcomes. That is the way in which mainstreaming should be handled, but I am not sure that that is fully recognised or that mainstreaming is always done appropriately. Mainstreaming is not about treating everybody the same, but about recognising that people need different things in different circumstances, and that the policy process should enable that to happen. The right questions need to be asked about different groups of people. In education, for example, the question is whether all our pupils in Scotland can get the best outcomes for themselves. Those questions need to be asked in that thorough way.
Are there any other views? Has mainstreaming become a cliché? Are people not focusing on what was meant by mainstreaming? Is the concept going over their head?
Marlyn Glen asked whether all organisations and members of society know what mainstreaming means. Some organisations have half an idea of what it might mean, but members of society generally—the Scottish voters—do not really know what mainstreaming equal opportunities means to them in practice.
My remit in Thompsons Solicitors is to deal with discrimination complaints that go before the Tribunals Service. The number of complaints that we still get shows that although equal opportunities policies are in abundance in many organisations—and they use the language of mainstreaming—the issue is whether they are implemented and have any practical effect, particularly at the level of the workforce for which we deal with cases via our trade union clients.
Is the situation the same for Scottish Enterprise?
Yes. I agree with Carol Fox and Morag Alexander. Mainstreaming is well understood by diversity practitioners, but perhaps not in wider society. We tend to avoid the term altogether and talk about embedding equal opportunities within organisations.
I will offer two perspectives: one from Scottish Enterprise and one from the business community. As an employer, Scottish Enterprise has done a lot of work to try to get the concept across to staff; we have been pretty successful at doing that. Linking the concept into the organisation's business objectives has worked wonders for us. We have said that following a diversity or equality route is not only a good thing to do—and a legislative requirement—but that it will help our staff to do their job in economic development.
We are following the same route as far as the business community is concerned, because mainstreaming equalities is even further off its radar. Larger businesses get the concept of mainstreaming and understand that, like health and safety, it is everyone's job. However, small and medium-sized enterprises have a lot of work to do just to raise awareness of equality, before they even think about mainstreaming it. We have a project called equality matters in business, which is running across the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise network areas. It is about creating a hunger among the SME community to get a broad understanding of what equality is and then working towards achieving the mainstreaming equality objective.
Is there more of an emphasis on diversity and on equality coming through diversity? We have just returned from the equal opportunities for all conference in Lisbon. L'Oreal gave a presentation and told us that diversity was one of its core values, because it recognised the economic benefits and the benefits to its image that that could bring. Are other companies doing something similar? Are you seeing more of that in private sector companies?
I will return to the STUC in a minute to hear about the other side of the equation.
We are undoubtedly seeing more of that. Given the number of migrants from Europe, a lot of companies know that if they are going to fill skills gaps or positions in their organisations, they will have to look to non-traditional sources. They must deal with equality and diversity issues, particularly as they relate to workers from the accession countries.
Diversity is driving equality. There is a debate about what is equality and what is diversity. To me, diversity is the reactive side and equality is the proactive side. An organisation can be diverse, but it might not be equal. A business might have a diverse workforce, but it might not necessarily be equal.
Do you want to give us the STUC perspective on that, Mary?
Yes. "Diverse" is a safe and cosy term with which we feel comfortable, but it can hide things like discrimination, which impacts on people's lives in a damaging and devastating way. When we use the term "diversity", we must remember that measures are needed to support all people to achieve their potential.
I agree that there is not a wide understanding of mainstreaming. It is important that the distinct needs of different groups of people are brought out. We can consider the six equality strands, but we must remember that people have multiple identities. To mainstream effectively, it is important that we consider how policies impact on different people and consider their needs, so that we can deliver for them.
The second issue within the wider context of barriers is to consider the ultimate goal of equal opportunities policy and legislation and how we will recognise when society has reached that happy state. Whether we use the term "mainstreaming" or any other term, we are talking about something that is second nature: considering people's different needs and requirements.
If you have an excellent, well-trained member of staff who has gone off on maternity leave, how do you ensure that they will want to, or will be able to, come back to work? Some of the obvious barriers to that are around child care, such as crèche provision, child care vouchers or arrangements for homeworking, which was raised in one of the petitions that we discussed earlier.
When will we know that we have reached the happy state of affairs? What sort of barriers are there to mainstreaming equality? Do you think that mainstreaming is about looking with equality eyes at every situation?
We recognise that there are a lot of barriers, some of which you identified. Your question how we will know when we have got there is huge. We need to know where we are at present, because we are not entirely clear about that. The equalities review, to which I understand that the Scottish Government will respond shortly, did not consider carefully or closely what is happening in Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and its statutory Scotland committee will be doing something to amend that. As you know, we were set up only in October. In the months before we respond to the review, we will listen to what people in Scotland think the situation is now and how we get from here to the happy state to which you referred. We need to do some work on understanding where we are now.
I do not think that we have a shared view of what equality really is. Once we have had that debate, on which the Equal Opportunities Committee can lead, we will begin to understand how we make progress. We need to have a starting point before we get an understanding of how we move forward. We can then demonstrate year on year what progress we have made. The Equality and Human Rights Commission will make state-of-the-nation reports every three years. That will include a state-of-the-nation report on where we are in Scotland. We will be able to measure how far we are getting year by year and every three years we will make a formal report. That does not answer your question on how we will know when we have got there, but we will be able to measure progress.
My question was intended to stimulate discussion. It is hard to know how we will get there. Carol Fox provided an excellent written submission, which includes some practical suggestions on that. Perhaps she would like to comment.
The starting point is that we have to build on strong foundations. From my point of view in the work that I do, it is just too difficult for individuals to challenge the discrimination that they face. I am focusing on the workplace particularly. We have a system that relies on individuals challenging and taking individual cases to an employment tribunal; all the onus and responsibility falls on their shoulders. When people start to ask questions or to submit a grievance or make a complaint, that is often the death knell for their career. That should not be the case. We have all the protections in theory, but the reality is that it is hugely difficult for people to make a complaint. If a person is not in a trade union, how do they fund an employment case? How do they ensure that they get access to a sympathetic lawyer who is briefed and knows about this area of the law? There are huge barriers to implementing the law as it exists, never mind looking at building on what we have. Having read everything, I am very supportive of the Equal Opportunities Committee. It is essential that we mainstream and integrate the principle of equal opportunities into all future legislation.
As I set out in my paper, my concern is how we ensure that there is effective monitoring and implementation of the existing legislation. If putting the theory into practice is cumbersome, with the result that the justice system is difficult to access, expensive and does not provide the outcomes that we would want for people, we must consider whether there is an opportunity in the smaller Scottish devolved jurisdiction to look at pilot projects and to run with some of the ideas that have emerged from the Westminster Government's discrimination law review. For example, we could consider piloting class actions and alternative dispute resolution and we could examine existing compensation remedies.
It is vital not only that we incentivise employers to implement equal opportunities policies and the work that is done by the Equal Opportunities Committee and legislators down in Westminster, but that we give people an understanding that such implementation is imperative. Perhaps I can use the analogy of the smoking ban. For years, persuasive arguments were made about the health benefits of stopping smoking. We tried to bring people with us but, ultimately, it was understood that it was in everyone's best interests to have a ban on smoking in public places. I would like a ban on discrimination in the workplace to be completely understood, implemented and robustly underpinned by access to justice, funding, early advice and mediation. It is to the benefit of all parties for mediation to take place before a legal case is pursued.
The process that I am talking about need not be scary for small businesspeople or employers, if they have access to good legal advice at an early stage, if they know how to implement the policies and if they understand the principles behind them. However, I get a bit frustrated that while we rehearse the same arguments, those of us who are employed to take individual cases, along with people such as Mary Senior at the STUC, know how immensely difficult it is to be a claimant in Scotland. It is extremely difficult to go to a tribunal and say, "Excuse me, but I've been discriminated against and would like to exercise my rights under the law."
I return to the question of society knowing when it has reached the point to which Elaine Smith referred. We can all have an idea of a utopia in which there is no gender pay gap; in which black and minority ethnic people are able to do any job that they want, to get promotion and to access training; and in which disabled people are not more likely to be unemployed but are able to go into work. However, Carol Fox has made some good points about mechanisms in the workplace to enable people to assert their rights and to help employers not to discriminate in the first place.
In the Scottish Government and at Westminster, people need to move past the red-tape arguments and to realise that voluntary approaches to issues such as the gender pay gap and flexible working—whereby mothers, fathers and people who care for older or disabled people can get time off to look after them—have not worked. If people are to access such rights, they must be given them in law.
Stereotyping is another area that we need to get to grips with. Assumptions start to be made when boys and girls are at an early age, with the result that they are pigeonholed into certain roles, which can have a significant effect on them throughout their lives. That is a hard nut to crack. If we are ever to address such issues, policy makers and the media will have a role to play and a raft of education and other measures will have to be taken.
When we consider the budget later in the meeting, we will examine issues such as modern apprenticeships. There is a stereotype that apprenticeships in a profession such as engineering would automatically go to males. Is that the kind of thing that you are thinking about?
Yes. Many girls and boys might have been forced into certain roles from the age of one or two, with the result that they make subject-choice decisions at school that affect their future work prospects, the modern apprenticeships that they can do and the careers that they can go into. It is important that we set gendered targets for modern apprenticeships and that we encourage more black and minority ethnic people into them. We have not looked at that area before.
I have a brief question for Carol Fox. Anecdotally, it seems that discrimination cases are often strongly focused on an individual. My limited knowledge of a class action suggests that it would have a much wider scope. In proceeding with a class action on a point of principle, how do you ensure that the individual cases of discrimination under that umbrella are addressed?
With individual cases, whether they are to do with pregnancy discrimination or a refused application for flexible working, one often finds that although only one person has been brave enough to put their head above the parapet and take a claim to a tribunal, many people in the workforce are affected. The number of legal cases that are proceeded with represents only the tip of the iceberg. A large number of people just leave their job or look for alternative employment, so the issue is not addressed. What happens to one person is often representative of what happens more widely in the workplace.
It would be an improvement if a successful outcome in a particular case could have an effect on what happens back in the workplace. As things stand, an employment tribunal has powers to make recommendations, but they are seldom used. If a case has a successful outcome, the individual's situation is considered and they might be given a relatively small amount of money by way of compensation, but no look is taken at the broader impact of what is happening back in the workplace or at how the future career of the person concerned might be affected.
With representative or class actions, a whole body of people might await the outcome of a case. If we structured the means of taking cases differently, the outcome of a particular case could have a much wider impact. The process would be less difficult in that individuals would not have to be brave on their own—bodies such as trade unions and the Equality and Human Rights Commission could step into their shoes and share the responsibility and the difficulty.
Thank you for that. The number of large-scale employers in Scotland is not great. How would developing a representative or class action model impact on small and medium-sized businesses? If a decision in a case is generalised in what I would think of as case law, what impact would that have on smaller operators? I am not talking about the big employers, such as IBM. Increasingly, Scotland's economy is founded on SMEs.
We must offer support to small and medium-sized businesses to understand the law. We must also ensure that they have the tools and the mechanisms to implement it in the first place, which would avoid the difficulties that arise when they face tribunal cases. There is no exemption for small businesses from the obligations of the equal opportunities legislation. We must enable them by ensuring that they have the funds and resources to implement the legislation and to stop and think about how they treat staff. If one person takes a case to a tribunal, there will be an effect throughout the workplace, given the adverse publicity and the low morale that accompany such proceedings.
When I worked with Morag Alexander at the Equal Opportunities Commission, I was involved in the equality exchange, which was a forum that employers could sign up to, through which they could share expertise and attend seminars. The problem was that one was often speaking to the converted—the people who were interested in the issues and wanted to know more about them were often in the room. The challenge was to get to the people who were not in the room. The project that Scott Skinner mentioned is about showing that such principles are important and are to everyone's benefit, including that of the employer.
At present, the only way of dealing with a polarised situation is to become involved in adversarial litigation, which is in no one's interests. That is why I bullet pointed my top four recommendations in my submission. I asked the Parliament to look at the amount of money that is spent in Scotland on employment tribunals and at the outcome of discrimination cases. Given how difficult it is to take such cases, we should consider creative alternatives. Although the primary legislation on such matters is reserved to Westminster, we in Scotland have it within our power to find new and creative ways of ensuring that mechanisms are built in underneath all the legislation. If we can make it mean something, we will take a small step towards increasing the pace of implementation of equal opportunities in Scotland.
That is an important point. If we carry on as at present, it will take 200 years before we achieve equality in Scotland.
I want to make a couple of points. First, I guess that I get disappointed by the them-and-us feeling that exists in the equality field. There is a feeling that employers are baddies and that the public sector is not doing enough. I believe that we all need to work together on the issue. Employers in general—Carol Fox is in the thick of things, so she sees employers that may not be as advanced as those that we come across—are not overly discriminatory or prejudiced. They just want to get on with the job. They want people who are happy to work for them and who can get products out so that wages are paid.
Undoubtedly, prejudice exists and we need the law as a backstop, but an adversarial approach will just not work. We need to pull employers along with us by selling the business benefits. I think that employers are pretty aware of those benefits, but they may be ignorant of how to have equal opportunities policies to handle workforce diversity and that sort of idea. Generally, if we give businesses the tools, I think that they will be successful in mainstreaming equality.
Another important aspect is individual empowerment. In our work, we see many disabled and ethnic minority people who lack the confidence to stand up for themselves and to point out incorrect employment practice. We also need to empower people to start their own businesses. Empowerment is about that sort of idea. We need to look at the individual as well.
If we can all work together—both the public sector and the private sector, both employers and individuals fully empowered—we will make massive steps towards achieving equality. Unless we include all the players and get away from the them-and-us mentality, we will not make major strides towards equality in Scotland.
That is an important point. Instead of pigeonholing people, we need to work together and look at where people can co-operate.
I have two questions. First, given Carol Fox's comment that tribunals generally do not make enough recommendations, do we need to have the opportunity to take class actions or do we just need tribunals to make recommendations? If tribunals always made recommendations about the workplace or more general recommendations, would that solve most of the problems that we have discussed?
Secondly, perhaps I am just being slow, but I always thought that a class action involved a group of people getting together to take legal action. However, Carol Fox suggested in her answer that such actions involve acting on behalf of an individual in a company and that such individuals need to put their head above the parapet for the action to be taken. Can she clarify my slight confusion?
Surely. On the first point, yes, it would be an improvement if tribunals exercised their recommendation powers more often, but such recommendations would apply only to the individual complaint and might have limited impact back in the workplace.
On the second point, the issue of how representative/class actions might be implemented within our system needs further examination and research. Obviously, class actions raise the spectre of an adversarial American litigious system. At the moment, legal action can be taken on behalf of a group of people, but each person must fill in the necessary application form, and the process is cumbersome. For example, we know that tribunals are currently dealing with large numbers of equal pay complaints. For each of those, the individual will have had to ensure that they submitted the complaint within the necessary time limit and put their individual grievance in terms of the law as it is at the moment—although, thankfully, the law is now being re-examined. Lots of boxes need to be ticked in such a bureaucratic, formulaic process, and a great deal of responsibility is placed on the individual, who is required to ensure that they do certain things within a certain time.
If, as Trevor Phillips said recently in the context of equal pay complaints, a representative body could step in as the agent for a group of people and act on their behalf, the legal onus would not be on the shoulders of the individual claimant, as is the case at the moment. Perhaps the committee and the Justice Committee could explore that issue further.
Everything that Carol Fox said is absolutely accurate and correct.
We still face the absolutely shocking scandal of the gender pay gap. Although the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, in 2007 we still have a gender pay gap of 14 per cent. Over the past two years in Scotland, the gap has widened, which is disgraceful. We obviously need better legislation to enable people to exercise their rights.
Many of us were disappointed with the Westminster Government's proposals for a single equality bill which, broadly speaking, seek simply to bring bits of legislation together to make the law clearer, but that misses a tremendous opportunity. I understand that the Westminster Government is now listening and that it recognises that we need to take the opportunity to recast the legislation to ensure that there is better access not just to equal pay but to genuine equality for everyone.
We tend to look at the various protected groups that are identified in the legislation that established the Equality and Human Rights Commission and in the exceptions to the reservation in the Scotland Act 1998, but equality is actually for everyone. There will be a time in everybody's life when they feel that something is not fair, and the committee and the Scottish Government can play an important leadership role by putting the case that the issue is about them as an individual. We need to make that case based on the real experiences of people. Equality is not just about groups; it is about you and me, our children, the people who live next door and the kind of society that we want to build. It is about respect for others—respect for each and every one of us—and helping people to be the best that they can be.
I want to pick up on a couple of points that Scott Skinner made. Although there are clearly some good employers, some employers are not good and they do not comply with the legislation. For example, around 1,000 women a year are sacked or suffer some detriment just because they are pregnant. People still face racism and discrimination because employers do not have effective bullying and harassment or dignity at work policies. Employees suffer as a consequence. In addition, we still have a gender pay gap, which is clearly just exploitation of women, in that they are not paid the rate for the job.
I also challenge the point about BME people lacking confidence. Generally, we do not need to put the onus on the individual; we need to look at the structural issues. Before it was merged into the EHRC, the Equal Opportunities Commission did some work earlier this year on pay and progression for black and minority ethnic women. We found that assumptions are made about such women, that child care is not always suitable for their needs and that they do not receive training opportunities. I do not want the committee to be left with the idea that the issue is about confidence, because there are clear structural issues and barriers that need to be addressed in relation to how we support people to achieve their potential.
I want to ask about data collection. The Scottish Trades Union Congress and all the organisations around the table must have a wealth of experience of discrimination cases. The issues that have been raised should be in the public domain and people should be aware of them, but we do not seem to have a system for collecting and using data in a meaningful way.
We can look at employment tribunals and the useful statistics that are collected by The Labour Research Department. One problem with employment tribunals is that many cases are settled before the tribunal hears them or reaches a conclusion. As Carol Fox said, often nothing further happens after a case has been settled. In addition, a secrecy clause often prevents the person from publicising the issue.
When trade unions get settlements, they publicise them. Unison has been involved in a number of high-profile race discrimination cases in the past couple of years, but it is often in the member's interest simply to settle. Taking a case through an employment tribunal is a hard process, and trade unions must think of their members. Therefore, often no publicity results when a case is settled.
What are the views of Mary Senior or Carol Fox on tribunals being people's courts, as they are supposed to be? We can think of theoretical cases, but people inevitably are up against businesses that can employ many lawyers and Queen's counsels. Businesses may be able to take advice at that level, but individuals cannot.
The situation is impossible for individuals now. In theory, people can represent themselves, but that would be very difficult, because there would be such inequality of arms. It is different for a party litigant going to a tribunal. The chair has a duty to ensure that the process is fair, but that is a difficult starting point.
I want to pick up on the issue of collecting data and information. A wealth of information exists. The Equal Opportunities Review, for example, is a good source of information. I have brought with me information on compensation awards that were made in 2006. The shocking reality is that, across all strands of discrimination, the average compensation award was £13,260. The median award—half of the awards are above the median and half are below it—was £7,500. Who will take a complaint to an employment tribunal and risk their job, their future financial security, their mortgage and their children's future for the prospect of getting £7,500, some of which may have to be paid to a lawyer if they are not in a trade union? That is why we do not have equal opportunities and why equal opportunities are not mainstreamed. Things are too difficult. We must consider the structural mechanisms.
I agree with Mary Senior. The issue is how to empower everyone. We should not blame victims. We must consider the difficulties that people face in enforcing their rights, and we must make the process much easier and simpler, so that employers understand people's rights and everyone in the workplace can have a dialogue and resolve problems at a much earlier stage. The current system does not produce the results that we need.
Something that Morag Alexander said triggered me to think of a note that I have on my briefing paper. Why has the gender pay gap increased over the past couple of years? Long answers could be given to that question, but responses should be brief.
Discrimination is likely to be the cause of that increase. I think that discrimination against women is at the root of unequal pay. We are talking about full-time workers, but the situation for women who work part time is particularly disgraceful. Many women work part time because they need to balance their work and family commitments. They choose to work part time because they do not have access to the child care and support that would enable them to work full time, albeit that they would be discriminated against in full-time work to the extent that there is a 14 per cent gender pay gap.
There are other issues. Women and men largely do different jobs. In the care sector, for example, women are paid very low wages. Not many men work in that sector, but services would be much better if they did, because they would be more appropriate for the men who prefer to be cared for by someone of their own sex. In fact, wages are lower in areas in which a great majority of the workers are women.
I fully accept that discrimination has resulted in the gender pay gap increasing, but I was thinking about why that gap has increased in the past couple of years. Discrimination still exists, but if the situation had started to reverse and the gap had started to close, why has it increased in the past couple of years? What has changed? Has anything changed? Has there simply been a fluctuation? I accept without question the answer that has been given, but why has the pay gap increased in the past two years?
I do not know why that has happened. The increase has been tiny, but it has happened over two years, so there might be a trend. In that case, we would want to consider the matter.
Does anyone else have any ideas about why the gender pay gap has increased?
With respect to mandatory pay audits and making pay systems transparent in the workplace, it is disappointing—to say the least—that in this day and age employers can still have policies to discipline people who ask their colleagues what they earn. That is a big step away from being open and transparent about pay systems. Questions need to be asked about that.
We shall move on. Bill wanted to go into an issue in a little bit more detail.
Me?
Yes, Bill Kidd.
There are too many Bills on this committee.
We will not move on far, because questions on equal opportunities interlink a great deal. I apologise to the witnesses, but I will try to ask about matters that have not yet been fully covered.
We know that our society is diverse, but new diversities are coming through all the time. A large number of immigrant workers with different cultural backgrounds and different expectations on wages and conditions are coming into the country, and there are new discriminations. Carol Fox may know a little about asbestos victims and haemophiliacs who have acquired HIV or hepatitis C and are looking for justice. There has been a failure to address the types of discrimination that currently exist in our society, so it is difficult to measure the new discriminations that exist or will exist. Can we measure them using the bare and inadequate data that a couple of witnesses have mentioned? Are the data the reason why there has been a failure to make a serious impact on discrimination in society? Is that failure down to existing data not being properly interpreted or acted on, or is it the result of our not having enough data? Anybody who understood those questions may answer them.
In the previous session, the Scottish Executive set up a group to consider ethnic minorities in the labour market. In Scotland, we do not have enough data on black and ethnic minority people generally. One recommendation that the group wanted to make was that the census and the labour force survey for Scotland should be boosted so that the experiences of black and minority ethnic people in Scotland could be picked up. It would be useful if the committee progressed that recommendation.
I want to mention the role of audit and inspection bodies. In the public sector, local government, health bodies and non-departmental public bodies, for example, need to comply with gender and equality duties and the equal opportunities requirements of best value. If Audit Scotland and the other inspection bodies were to inspect the different public sector bodies on equalities issues, much of the discrimination that we face could be addressed. Such inspections would ensure that services for different groups in society were delivered in an appropriate way.
I am not sure that I will answer Bill Kidd's questions, but I think that there are gaps in our knowledge and understanding of some of the new equality strands that are now protected under the Westminster legislation. For example, we do not know enough about the experiences of lesbians and gay men, about transgender people's experiences in employment, about people's experiences in society with respect to their religion or beliefs, or about the extent to which such experiences impact on those people's lives and their comfort in living in our society. Age is another aspect of people's lives on which we do not have sufficient information. If you are asking whether we need to plug some of those gaps, my answer is that we do—in Scotland as well as throughout Britain.
I am not blaming anybody for inequalities. We do not want to have a blame culture when we all have to work together.
Morag Alexander is right to say that there are big gaps in the evidence, particularly in the new equalities strands. On some of the more established strands, such as race and gender, we have quite a lot of information. A plea that we often hear from underrepresented groups is that, having researched them almost to death, we need to take action. A balance must be struck, but there are new areas, which Morag Alexander is looking into, on which there is a need for evidence.
I agree 100 per cent with Mary Senior's point that the audit inspection bodies could have a massive influence on changing equality in Scotland. In particular, although Audit Scotland and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education are doing good work, they could do an awful lot more. Nothing focuses the public sector more than having an audit, and if we could mainstream equalities into the audit process we would be on to a real winner. It is not just the private sector that is failing to achieve equality in Scotland; the public sector has a big role to play as well. Much of the public sector—not through not wanting to do it, but through inexperience or ignorance—has not been able to take forward equalities in Scotland.
Are people saying that audit inspection bodies should have greater powers or that politicians have plenty of information but have just not acted on it to ensure that issues are followed up?
I hesitate to get caught up in measuring things endlessly when we know the extent of the problem. We need action to tackle the problem. I do not think that there has been a lack of political will. The Scottish Parliament and Westminster have passed a lot of worthy legislation, but we need to examine the structures that people access and to protect their rights. A lot of awareness raising is carried out by campaigning organisations and trade unions, so that people are more aware of their rights. The question is more about what people do when those rights are breached. That is one of the major gaps.
For audits, it might be helpful if private companies and public organisations had to publish in their annual accounts how much compensation they had had to pay out in legal cases for not implementing their policies. One strand of government is putting a lot of resources behind equality units, glossy policies and rolling out legislation, but do we know what is happening at the grass roots? I have raised that question.
We deal with cases across the board. Unfortunately, at times, cases against larger local authorities might run to a tribunal, whereas a small company might take a more pragmatic approach and secure an economic settlement. A local authority might allow a case to run because it is funded by taxpayers' money. There are issues to be considered, such as the stage at which the officers or the people within organisations who take the decisions whether to defend cases are accountable to the political powers—be they councillors or MSPs—and the ability of those people to say, "That is not acceptable. You have to deal with things in a different way."
I am aghast at some of the defences that are put up in some cases. Thompsons Solicitors acts only for trade unions and employees—I have to give the company a wee plug while I am here—but other solicitors firms charge vast amounts of money to some of our local authorities. Questions must be asked about the proper use of taxpayers' money in such circumstances. In cases in which an individual is up against respondents who, on behalf of a local authority, endlessly make every technical point that they can, I think, "Good God, what sort of bill is the authority going to get at the end of the case and who's going to pay it?" In fact, part of it is paid by me out of my council tax, and I am not happy about that. How can we address such issues? I always return to the pragmatic issue of the implementation of current legislation, which is just not enforced or enforceable.
There is an accountability and transparency issue. Would Mary Senior like to comment? Your union will probably be in there defending individuals and considering how long cases have gone on past the stage at which they should have been settled and resolved.
The STUC represents all the unions in Scotland rather than individual members, but Carol Fox has made some valid points. With regard to audit inspection, we are calling not for more powers but for enforcement of the existing powers and legislation, to ensure that organisations comply with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the duties to promote equality in the best value legislation. If Audit Scotland placed a higher value on that, the situation could be better.
That is an interesting point. On a number of occasions I have been at meetings with many officials and wondered how much it was all costing the taxpayer, whether all the officials were vital to the meeting and whether there was a better way to do it. That was a very interesting line of questioning.
Carol Fox spoke about councils. Is it possible that the councils tend to argue things out for longer because they are large organisations and they are worried about setting a precedent, or is it just that they do not consider the implications for taxpayers' money?
That could be an explanation, but it is more likely that cases get stuck within a department at a certain level in an organisation and do not go higher up to someone to consider whether it should be defended or settled. Reports might be made after the fact, but although councils—and not just councils, but large organisations and universities—have political principles and policies, we find ourselves having arguments with them that do not need to be had. Cases that could be settled at an early stage are not, because the individuals who take the decisions do not have the discussion within the organisation.
So it is not about precedent—it is about an almost incompetent use of councils' own procedures.
I hesitate to call anyone incompetent, but yes, you might be right.
I have a point about inspection bodies, which relates to Bill Kidd's question and to what Mary Senior said. The inspection bodies do not need more powers, but this committee—and the Scottish Government—can control that area in Scotland and they have a real role to play. The issue is leadership, and asking whether we are focused enough on the quality of service that people get, for example in relation to equal opportunities and best value. The same is true of inspection in education.
The negative reports that some local authorities have had are searing, not just for the people who work there and for the councillors but for the people of the community. To draw a parallel, just as employers hate to get a negative report from an employment tribunal, local authorities hate to get a negative report from Audit Scotland and they try to do their best. West Lothian Council, for example, was the best council in the whole of the United Kingdom one or two years ago—it has been using that on its logo and on the sign that is seen on entering West Lothian along the M8, and it has done enormously well. Part of that is about councils getting it right on equality and best value. There are winners in all of that: not just the local people, but the council, which can present itself as a good local authority. This committee, the Scottish Parliament and the Government have real clout in this area.
An example is the internal audit of our compliance with the race equality duty that we carried out a couple of years ago, which worked wonders in the organisation in focusing people's minds. The report had to go to our board and be seen by our chief executive, and all of a sudden the actions started motoring. There is a real opportunity for inspection bodies to get involved.
I have another comment about the public sector in general. Equal opportunities is a poor cousin among the other cross-cutting themes in Scotland, such as sustainability or health and safety. We are fortunate enough to be part of a forum involving the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, whose equality people report directly to their organisation's chief executive. In the public sector in Scotland, there are few equality directors or people who report directly to the chief executive. There is a credibility issue in Scotland around equality. If the committee could do anything to boost credibility in the public sector, we could have a great advantage.
It is interesting to listen to all the comments, but I have a quick question for Morag Alexander. You mentioned a report coming to Parliament once a year and then every three years. If you had the information that Carol Fox referred to, on successful and unsuccessful tribunal cases, would that form part of your report?
It could do. We are looking to report progress, so results at tribunal could be part of that if progress is being made. If progress is not being made, we will want to know why and to report on it.
Who would say if that would or could be part of your report? Would the Equal Opportunities Committee feed into the process?
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has a responsibility to produce a report every three years. It is a state-of-the-nation report and it is a responsibility at Great Britain level. We would want to produce the same kind of report in Scotland, and we would certainly work with this committee and the Scottish Government to ensure that we had all the information that we needed to produce the report.
My original line of questioning has been dealt with fairly adequately, but several witnesses have referred to the role of the Government. As everyone will be aware, we have just had the comprehensive spending review. Notwithstanding that there appears to be an increase in the equalities budget, have you come across any evidence of specific allocations to deal with the issues that we have been talking about? I cannot find any.
Not specifically in relation to the current budgetary issues, but if some of my suggestions about mediation were taken up, for instance, there would be a cost saving because there would not be the same lengthy process at an employment tribunal. That would not necessarily increase costs, and there might be a chance to stand back and ask about the most effective use of taxpayers' money to deliver access to justice.
We need to consider increasing funding for cases when people are not in trade unions. How do they fund access to justice? Legal aid in the employment sphere is very limited, and we need to consider the effect of that. It would not be too difficult to have an increase, and we could consider the statistics from employment tribunals in three years' time. Depending on the documents that you read, the current success rate for discrimination cases at tribunal is about 3 or 7 per cent. We would perhaps be able to show an incremental increase, but we would still have a massive problem on our hands.
We should stand back and look at our opportunity in Scotland to take a lead and do something creative and robust through mediation. We should not take a timid approach. For instance, when someone puts in a tribunal application, they tick a box to say that it is a discrimination complaint. Perhaps there could be pilot project, with the agreement of all the parties involved, in which mediation is tried at a much earlier stage. That may save money in the employment tribunal process.
We now have a helpful practice direction from the tribunal chair that a complaint will be sisted—no legal action will be taken on it—to see whether mediation will assist, but that seems to have come out of the ether, as people have to ask what mediation is and how they access it. That has been one small incremental step, but we need to introduce mediation much earlier in the process.
That idea sounds very good and I am sure that the committee will pick up on the budget implications of mediation.
We have mentioned most of the six equality strands, but what are the key equality issues that face Scotland? Are you content with the pace of change on them? There is, as we have said, terrible inequality in pay, but surely you know of other areas that need to be highlighted.
In this European year of equal opportunities for all, we should not ignore the great advances that we have made. If, five years ago, my partner and I had been told that one day we would be discussing the arrangements for our civil partnership, we would have been amazed at such progress in Scotland. Of course, there is still much progress to make.
As Morag Alexander said, a major issue in Scotland is pay disparity: we are still ignoring 30-year-old legislation in that regard. We have still not tied down the major tensions between the LGB community and religion and belief, and we must focus on addressing that problem in Scotland. We also need to examine unemployment among underrepresented groups, which is still terribly unjust, and, from a Scottish Enterprise perspective, the engagement of the private sector, particularly SMEs, in equality.
We have not yet touched on the challenging issue of violence against women. Young people can be brought into situations involving domestic abuse and still think that in certain circumstances it is acceptable to hit women. Issues such as prostitution, the so-called sex trade, trafficked women and pornography are all part of the violence against women agenda and I am deeply disturbed by the objectification of women in the media, given the impression that it gives to and the role models that it provides for young people.
We must examine the issue of carers, by whom I mean not only the parents of young children but those, particularly young people, who care for older and disabled people.
I am concerned about the underemployment of black and minority ethnic people in Scotland. At the moment, we are trying to address the needs of migrant workers from the eastern European countries that have recently joined the European Union, but black and minority ethnic people have been in Scotland for a number of generations and we must ensure that they do not suffer from discrimination and that they get the same opportunities to achieve at school and go into employment.
As I agree absolutely with Scott Skinner and Mary Senior, I will not repeat their points.
This country has come a long way since 1998, not only because of this committee but because of the Scottish Government equality unit and the vision of successive Governments in Scotland. However, as the comments of Scott Skinner and Mary Senior have highlighted, we still have a long way to go. Indeed, one fact that should shame us all is that two thirds of young gay men in schools report that they have been bullied. That issue must be recognised and tackled.
To what extent does bullying in general need to be tackled? How do you relate that to the particular issue of bullying of young gay men in schools?
Bullying is abhorrent. People who are in a minority and are a bit different tend to be bullied. Many of our schools are doing a great deal to tackle the issue, but focusing on it will help people to understand how important that is. Bullying can blight young people's lives. It happens not only in schools, but in workplaces and in society generally. People with disabilities are often bullied. Gay men and lesbians are bullied in the workplace, in the streets and in pubs. We do not want a society in which that happens.
We must enforce the law and ensure that there is in Scotland stronger legislation on homophobic hate crime and hate crime in relation to disabilities, to match the legislation that is in place in England and Wales. It is also important that we help our children and others in society to recognise that they must treat people with respect and that we all have the right to be treated with respect for our dignity. Bullying is a general issue, but I have with me the statistic for bullying of young gay men in schools, which is a disgrace.
I agree with everything that the other witnesses have said. There must be mutual respect between all people in the workplace, so that individuals' enjoyment of work and job satisfaction are not drained and so that they can progress and be productive for their employer. They should not be constrained by their lifestyle or be required to edit it; they should be able to be themselves and to get sympathy, understanding and respect from their colleagues. There will be real mainstreaming of equal opportunities when the principle is embraced, rather than seen as a fashionable add-on that does not affect the majority of people. In fact, it affects us all. We must all take responsibility for ensuring that we live in a tolerant society. If we hear something to which we object, we must step in and not leave it to the individual concerned to challenge it. Trade unions and campaign organisations encourage that in the workplace.
It is interesting that you did not pinpoint any one of the key equality issues; you were right to say that we must tackle bullying in the round. Mary Senior spoke about violence against women. Do you think that that follows from the fact that women are seen as worth less than other people—I refer to pornography—and receive lower wages and poorer job offers? Is the problem in the whole of society, rather than in just one aspect of it?
There is no doubt that if someone is bullied at school, their confidence is damaged. That affects them in their adult life and in the workplace, unless they are given a confidence boost. We work with an organisation called the Centre for Confidence and Well-being, which is seeking to increase confidence in Scottish society. We see a lot of women who admit that they need confidence and networking to help them start their own business and to access finance. The same issue affects all the equality streams. Much of it comes back to bullying in school, which we cannot ignore. Morag Alexander is right to say that we must focus on the issue if we are to change society in the longer term.
I disagree slightly with Scott Senior's emphasis on confidence. The issue is power and the abuse of power in domestic situations, in prostitution and in the workplace. The problems that we are discussing are linked to power and exploitation.
I will pick up on a point that Sandra White made. One of the cultural changes that I am shocked by is that in popular television shows such as "Friends", which a lot of children watch, porn is referred to by the by as if it were fashionable—that is unacceptable. I have discussed the matter with my daughter. I do not want that invidious issue to come in by the back door—all of a sudden it is fashionable and we do not object. I object, and I will be a grumpy old feminist and object to those things every day with every breath I have. There is an issue about what is acceptable. We must say, "Wait a wee minute, is this really what we want our children to watch? Should it come in on mainstream television?"
I was going to make the point that the continuum of violence against women is a manifestation of gender discrimination. If we allow the normalisation of things such as pornography and do not tackle the issue, the pay gap, for example, will grow wider.
Given that everyone has talked about respect, I will mention Zero Tolerance's respect project, which has been around for a long time. Some local authorities have engaged with it and others have not. What do panel members think about that project, if they know about it, as a tool in the box for helping to tackle the barriers?
Communication is vital. The zero tolerance campaign was brilliant in that it raised awareness about the issues quickly. People could identify with the branding.
In general, we are not very good at communication on equality—we could be a lot better at it. The Government has done a lot through the one Scotland, many cultures campaign, which has been positive, but we need to make many of the messages a lot clearer. In society in general in Scotland, people see equality as being terribly politically correct, despite the fact that it is 20 years since we went down the PC route—that is not what we are about.
The equality community must consider what message we want to send out. We must make it clear that it is not about treating everyone the same, it is not about the thought police and it is not about not being able to say certain words: it is all about individual respect. The zero tolerance campaign was very good at doing that.
The fairness issue is fundamental.
Hugh O'Donnell will follow on from that.
Yes, I will follow on from exactly that point. You cued me in nicely—thanks for the nice segue.
What role do the various sectors of civic society, such as the Government, the voluntary sector and religious institutions, have in taking forward the equalities agenda? We have spoken about the Government's role, but where do the other organisations fit in and how should they fulfil their role?
That is a very important point, because nobody can do it alone. The EHRC has a range of responsibilities and we can work with others to ensure that we make progress, but there is no way that an organisation such as ours, which is just part of the picture, can do it alone. There is no way that the Equal Opportunities Committee can do it alone or that the equality unit in the Scottish Government can do it alone. Here in Scotland, we all have to work together.
I have mentioned a few of those involved, but another one is the voluntary sector—many parts of which have excellent equality policies and put them into practice every day. Many voluntary sector organisations are working to ensure that people who do not start from the same point—because we do not all start from the same point—get the best chance to make progress in their lives and reach their full potential.
We should also consider the public sector. It has many good policies but not always such good practices. Policy and practice do not always match up, so we need to work closely with the public sector.
Scott Skinner mentioned the difficulty, which we have always had, of engaging with the private sector. It has been less difficult to deal with big companies, which have well supported human resources departments. They have good policies and sometimes they even have good practices. They can afford to do some of what we would like everybody in the private sector to do.
The situation is more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We need to work to ensure that we make it less difficult for them, that we support them in doing the work that they need to do and that we highlight to them the terrible disadvantages of not getting it right—of, for example, not employing a wide range of diverse people who can bring different thoughts, skills and backgrounds and new ideas into what they need to do. If they get it wrong, they experience negative publicity and an impact on the bottom line, which is tremendously important for small and medium-sized enterprises. If they must fork out after an employment tribunal, that is bad news.
We must all work together. I hope that, in my role and with the statutory Scotland committee of the commission, we will work closely with the Equal Opportunities Committee. I hope that we will add value to what you do and that you will add value to what we do. We must ensure that we do that.
It is important that all organisations have a responsibility to implement the law. I said in my submission that we must base everything on the lived experience of the individuals and communities that suffer discrimination. Voluntary organisations and trade unions do a tremendous amount of good work but, sometimes, there is a tendency not to listen and to think that organisations have an agenda. I encourage more listening—this meeting provides an excellent opportunity for that to happen.
Gibbons reviewed dispute resolution procedures that were introduced only in 2004. Many people said that those procedures were unworkable. The aim was to reduce the number of tribunals, but many claimant organisations said, "Don't do this—this is madness. In the real world, this'll not work. Don't go there." We then had a review to unpick a system that should never have been introduced. If people had listened to and respected more points of view that were valid and based on experience, and if they had not thought that organisations had an axe to grind or a set agenda, greater understanding would have built up.
I ask Michael McMahon to move us on, as we are nearing the end of the session.
My question arises partly from confusion about something Morag Alexander said about the possibility of a single equality bill. I understood her concern about that, because it is similar to my concern about a single equality body: we cannot look at things in the way that she said the single equality bill will do. However, we are looking at equality issues differently. How will we consider those issues differently from now on as a result of having the single equality body?
The exceptions to the reservation of equal opportunities in the Scotland Act 1998 mean that the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Scottish Government have for a long time had not just a responsibility but a terrific opportunity to look at the issues in the round, not in reserved legislation but in promotion, policies and practices. Opportunities exist to make more of that for the future.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has appointed most of its staff. Most come from the legacy commissions—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality—but we will recruit new people who have skills and experience in human rights and in the new areas that will be protected under Westminster legislation.
We will work across the board to acknowledge that we need to think about equality in different ways. People recognise that it is not about treating everybody in the same way. Not everybody starts from the same position, so we must consider how to ensure that everybody can get the best out of their lives, which might mean treating people in different ways that depend on their circumstances. That means acknowledging that, from time to time, all of us have equality issues and feel that we are being treated unfairly. We will work across all those issues, but we recognise that we must deal with people in the circumstances in which we find them.
I hope that you will find it possible to work closely with us. That is certainly our intention. It is our responsibility to make the case that equality is not just about specific groups of people but about everybody and the kind of society in which we want to live.
I would be interested to hear how the trade union movement and the business community look differently at equality now.
I do not think that we are drawing a line under what we did previously; it is about recognising that people are not one-dimensional, but multi-faceted, and have different needs. There might be specific issues for a woman who is black, for example.
It is also about mainstreaming effectively. I am not convinced that everybody is taking equality into account in everything that they do. We in the trade union movement must ensure that we do that in organising and negotiating with employers. Other organisations have to take equality on board. For example, one of our concerns about the Scottish Government skills strategy was that although there is a one-page statement at the beginning that the Government will mainstream equalities, the strategy should have examined what actions we need to take in relation to schools, colleges, universities and modern apprenticeships to support black and minority ethnic people to access education, for example. I do not think that we have to make a big change. Rather, we have to develop what we should be doing already.
We recognise that SMEs in particular welcome a single equality approach. When I came into post four years ago, a lot of people from single equalities groups were trying to get on to the SME community purely about race issues, disability issues or sexual orientation issues, which did not engage the SME community at all, because it wants sharp, clear messages about what equality is. If we can get buy-in to that, we can start looking at the overall benefits of a single equality approach. A lot of people face multiple barriers—such as black people with disabilities—and are even more disadvantaged than people in a single equalities stream. The business community would welcome a single equalities approach, because that will encourage hunger for equal opportunities.
The message that came through in Lisbon was that we should look at the whole package of a person, who could well face more than one discrimination issue, and that we should not pigeonhole people.
We have five minutes left. I will invite our panel to have their final say by briefly answering two questions. Stewart Maxwell, the Minister for Communities and Sport, is coming next week to answer questions about the budget. Is there anything that you would particularly like us to bring up with him? Secondly, if you could choose an inquiry for the Equal Opportunities Committee to conduct, what would be the topic?
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is only just up and running, so we are listening at the moment. You could consider holding an inquiry into the exceptions to the reservation and examine whether the Scottish Government over the years has made full use of the opportunities in that regard. That would be worth while. I suggest also that you consider the areas of inequality in Scotland that we know least about. We in the commission are about to conduct a research project to pull together what is not known about the progress towards equality, especially in the new strands to which I referred. One is the experience of migrant workers and the extent to which our public services are meeting their needs. Another is faith communities and the experience of community cohesion in Scotland. That is an area in which people would be genuinely pleased to see some investigation. There is also the experience of transgender people in employment and in public service delivery. Those areas are open to the committee and the Scottish Government to have a look at. I commend them to you.
It is difficult to single out one area. That is useful.
The Government has said that the economy is its priority. Considering how equality can help in that would, more than anything, help mainstream equalities throughout the work of the Parliament and the public sector. I would be pleased if the committee looked at that area. The second important area is the public sector duty in Scotland. On the basis of anecdotal evidence, I am not convinced that the public sector is using that extremely powerful tool to mainstream equality throughout Scotland. An inquiry into how the public sector is handling it and how bodies such as Audit Scotland and others can help mainstream that process would be useful. Those would be my two hits.
The committee should ask Stewart Maxwell whether he thinks the public sector has been given enough money to pay women fairly. The STUC is meeting him next week and I shall ask him that, too.
The suggestions that Morag Alexander made for an inquiry are equally valid. There is mileage for work on carers. You could also consider occupational segregation and the gender pay gap.
Last, but by no means least, is Carol Fox.
If I may be so bold, I respectfully refer you to the four points that I made at the end of my submission. One of the posters that I recently got from a TUC event said, "Equality, everyone's right. Discrimination, everyone's problem." If we use language that Scottish voters understand—rather than terms such as "mainstreaming"—we will make great progress in tackling all the issues that are of concern to us.
Thanks very much. By any standard, this discussion has been incredibly worth while. The committee has been given lots of food for thought. All that remains is for me to thank you very much for giving up your time to come along and take part in this discussion, which I think is a fitting way for us to celebrate the European year of equal opportunities for all—it is just one of the ways in which we are doing that in the Scottish Parliament.
We will take a short break while we change over witnesses for the next item.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—