Equalities Issues
Thank you, Jackie, for attending this afternoon's meeting. I understand that you want to make a brief statement before the committee asks questions.
I am conscious, convener, that we have sent out a detailed memorandum, which I hope was helpful. I welcome the opportunity to begin the dialogue on equality with the committee. I believe that all MSPs—and members of this committee in particular—share the Executive's commitment to encouraging equal opportunities. Ensuring that that concern for equality lies at the heart of policy making is a positive challenge for us.
On the equality agenda more generally, there are a number of areas in which we might want to share ideas and engage in useful dialogue with a view to adopting an approach to the encouragement of equal opportunities in Scotland. That dialogue will be between us and the statutory equality agencies, as well as with other key interests such as local authorities and the voluntary sector. That sharing of ideas builds on the constructive exchanges between the committee and various organisations this summer.
At its meeting on 21 September, this committee discussed the role of the new equality unit and its relationship to this committee. I hope to clarify the fact that the unit has been established to support the Scottish ministers. Its members are civil servants who are bound by the civil service code and the recently agreed guidance on contact between civil servants and MSPs.
Through the clerk of the committee, I have issued copies of the earlier announcement about the new head of the equality unit, who takes up that post tomorrow. I hope that members have received copies of the document—we can arrange to have them sent to those who have not received them.
The establishment of the unit is consistent with the principle of mainstreaming equality across the work of the Executive. The unit will support lead departments within the Executive in the development of policy. That is consistent with our commitment to putting concern for equality at the heart of policy making.
Responsibility for the preparation of equal opportunities impact assessments for the policy statements that accompany all Executive bills will, in practice, lie with the lead policy departments. The unit will support them in that work. There will clearly be advantages to many areas in sharing developing knowledge and expertise—such as on mainstreaming—with the committee and, indeed, more widely.
I am conscious of the time, so it might be best if we consider at future meetings how we can take that agenda forward. I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss those issues. I am happy to take questions today or at future meetings.
Thank you very much—I think that you will have to do both, Jackie. Are there any questions? Would you like to kick off, Michael?
During the recess, we held a series of briefings with a lot of organisations to examine equal opportunities as they stand at the moment. One of the themes that came out in all those briefings was the lack of information on equality issues. Can you give the committee some indication of the Scottish Executive's attitude to the provision of the resources and information that would allow proper scrutiny of equal opportunities policies?
We are currently—through the equality unit and the central statistics unit—looking at how we can get better data on the range of equality issues. The committee will appreciate that some of the gender-disaggregated data are currently not bad, although there are patches that we want to examine. Data on disability issues are available, but in different forms. At the moment, we are struggling with the concept of self-description and with the issue of those who describe themselves as disabled or as having a limiting long-term illness.
We are keen to ensure that there is adequate data collection on race. Some measures have already been introduced. The 2001 census will provide data about ethnic populations from both small-area and larger-area levels, which will be useful for policy development and service planning. Furthermore, we have established the Scottish household survey, which will provide useful data on about 60,000 Scottish households over four years. We have started down the road of ensuring that the data sets are appropriate, but it will take time to make sure that we have got those sets right. We are keen not just to make this an issue for the equality unit but to bed the matter down in all Executive departments.
One of the key policy initiatives in Scotland mentioned in the minister's submission concerns working with Westminster on the Home Secretary's bill to extend the Race Relations Act 1976. The submission says that the bill will apply to Scotland and that officials are working with the Home Office on the issue. At what level are those discussions and what areas are they targeting?
In a similar vein, the disability rights task force is reviewing the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with a view to recommending changes. What role is the Scottish Executive playing in that review and what proposals has it suggested?
Michael has naturally and appropriately raised a wider point about the extent to which legislative competence on these areas is reserved to Westminster. The Parliament's role is promotion of and competence over areas where it has devolved responsibility. We are keen for Scottish Executive officials or ministers to be involved in consultation on race relations and on the disability rights task force, one of whose members is from a voluntary sector organisation in Scotland. We are also keen to make such links throughout Scottish civic society.
I cannot give precise details about the discussions, except to say that we will engage in formal and informal discussions to ensure that Scotland's interests are represented at the table. Furthermore, on-going ministerial discussions ensure not only that our interests are taken on board, but that the impact of any proposed changes are a matter for consultation with the Executive.
I have a couple of questions to begin with. Obviously, we will have to examine legislation, the first item of which is the education bill. What work has the equality unit done on the bill and how will the bill work in terms of equality proofing?
As for gender statistics, the minister's briefing mentions a rather generous figure of around 47 per cent of public appointments being women. The target is 50 per cent. However, as many of those women are involved with children's hearings—and we need to get more men on those boards—would it not be better to break that figure down into different kinds of public appointments lest we get complacent?
I will deal with the final point first. Malcolm is absolutely right about the figures. However, he will appreciate that many statistics about public appointments are collected and that we do not publish all of them. I am sure that the figure will be available in the format that he has requested.
I will pass on Malcolm's offer to volunteer in the future for children's panels to Jack McConnell, who is responsible for public appointments. We have deliberately set ourselves challenging targets in this area, because, as well as being members of boards in general, more women should chair public bodies.
I am aware that the education bill is about to be introduced. The equality unit's role is to encourage and to train other Executive departments to perform equality proofing. We have adopted that approach because we want departments to have an understanding of and some ownership over the equality-proofing process. We want the process to have equality at its heart; we do not want to have to approach the matter afterwards with a checklist. That will take much encouragement and engagement with departments, which is already happening. There are proposals to widen the process out across the legislative programme. Naturally, the equality unit will take an active overview of what is happening.
Most of the organisations from which we received briefings during the recess raised the point that there are alarming discrepancies in public appointments. According to your own figures, 3,800 public appointments are made a year, 2,000 of which are to children's panels. The figures on gender balance look good, but I suspect that, if those 2,000 appointments were taken away, we would need to address the gender imbalance in the remaining 1,800. The committee accepted that public appointments seriously needed looked at. If the figures were broken down, as Malcolm suggested, gender balance is one issue that could be dealt with.
I have a specific question about the data in your memorandum, which I thought helpful in providing us an outline. You talked about the census in 2001. I am sure that you are aware that the census will not ask a question on religion, although that question will be asked in other parts of the United Kingdom. You will also be aware that many groups—including religious, black ethnic minority and campaign organisations—are arguing for the inclusion of a question on religion. Where are we on that issue, and what role would either this committee or the Scottish Parliament have in pressing to have that question included?
In much of the briefing that we received during the summer, it was argued that the question may have been excluded because bodies did not ask for it, but bodies did not ask for it because they were not aware that they should have asked for it. By not asking the question, we are denying ourselves information that would help in targeting services. I want to identify what stage we have reached, whose ultimate responsibility the matter is, how we can influence their decision and whether a change is possible.
The Minister for Justice, who has just left, takes the lead responsibility on the issue. The working group that was established received consultation on the formulation of census questions. At that stage, it advised ministers that no business case had been established—I think that that was the form of words that was used. Having said that, no decision has been made and the matter will not be brought before the Parliament until November. There is an opportunity for any interested party, and for members of this committee, to write to us indicating their views on whether the question should be included. We have an open mind about it. There are several forceful arguments from both sides, and it would be helpful if they were put.
A point was made about general attitudes in education. I am a great believer in winning hearts and minds, but I do not believe that we should hang about until hearts and minds have been won before progressing on equality issues. The task—through the Executive's structures and this committee—is to ensure that all the aspirational stuff has been done and to focus on targets and on progressing things.
I welcome the fact that you used the phrase women's issues, rather than gender issues, which neutralises the experience. You talk a lot about research and what has been done. That is important, but I wonder what targets the Executive is setting on women's issues—other than gathering information and doing research. Given that so much research is already in the public domain, do you have some idea of your key target areas?
There is quite a bit of research in the public domain, but there are huge gaps in it—they would frighten you. We are keen to get a feel for the lie of the land before we take decisions about where we are going. I am keen that the equality unit should have a role in engaging directly with Executive departments and in encouraging them to undertake pilot projects and to do innovative work. I would welcome contributions from the committee on that subject.
On one of my recent trips around Scotland, I was struck by the fact that we have an excellent economic development unit at the project in Glasgow—the only one of its kind in Britain—that is looking at the subject of women into business. Such examples are of interest not only on a UK basis, but in terms of how we spread that work across Scotland. There must be a balance between equality proofing, which is central, and encouraging innovative work.
Other than for appointments and internal recruitment within the Executive, we have not devised any specific targets because we would rather take a step back and ensure that our focus is correct.
The minister's memo was very helpful, but it is sprinkled with words such as research, consultation, discussion and advisory groups. If we are to convince minority groups that there is a real commitment to equality, there must come a point when talking ends and action begins. Mention of time scales and commitments would be useful.
You have talked about the role of the equality unit. Could you explain what you see as its relationship with this committee?
As I said, the equality unit is essentially made up of civil servants. They are happy and willing to provide factual information and briefing for the committee as it is requested. Policy issues are raised with me, as the responsible minister. I hope that our relationship can be open and encouraging. There is a huge body of work that we can take forward collectively.
I take the point about the need for action, which is why I am trying to highlight examples of where I would like the equality unit to work with lead departments in taking forward pilot projects. I also recognise that the unit is small—it is to be strategic—and that part of the work extends beyond the Executive and must bed down equality within local government, health boards and wider Scottish society. That is an enormous agenda, but we are keen to bring action plans for operating that agenda back to this committee and to the Parliament for scrutiny.
Thank you, minister, for the press statement, which you had the courtesy to send out in advance—unlike the Minister for Justice. My question is similar to Irene's, but it is on the race equality advisory forum. This committee is concerned about the possibility of duplication; we especially want to avoid confusing groups and organisations with which we will all be consulting. I would like your view on how we should do that.
The last thing that we want to do is to duplicate work—that would be a waste of time for us all. I would be happy to give the committee an indication of my forward plan for parliamentary business, potential announcements and other work, so that members could get a sense of what I and the equality unit are doing. There will be areas that, frankly, the equality unit will not consider and that the Equal Opportunities Committee may choose to examine. I hope that we can complement each other in our work.
I want to bring the discussion back to home base. Have we monitored our performance as employers and does our work force represent Scotland's ethnic make-up?
I can answer in terms of the Scottish Executive and the civil service, but the Scottish Parliament's employees, and those of MSPs, are matters for the Parliament and not for me. I am afraid that I cannot provide those figures, but I can find out who can, if that would be of interest.
I can answer that, because it is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I am on the working group—I have been to one meeting—which has been meeting for some time and which is looking at an equal opportunities policy for the Parliament. The group will produce a draft equal opportunities policy for the 300-odd staff who are employed by the Parliament. This committee will be able to examine that draft policy before anything is finalised.
I just wondered what the facts were at the moment.
On the programme of action for public appointments, there is some helpful data on people from an ethnic minority background and on women in relation to such appointments, but there are no figures on disabled persons. My question may refer back to an answer that the minister gave earlier—I did not catch the full details. Does the Executive intend to produce figures on the number of disabled persons on public bodies and to set targets to try to achieve a more balanced pitch within the various organisations?
It is wonderful when we think in the same way, Michael. That is exactly the point that I picked up. It is interesting that there are targets in certain areas and not in others. I think that the exact wording is: "We would encourage appointments of disabled people to public bodies."
We are keen to take that forward, but to do so sensitively. We are working with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the National Disability Council on what action would be appropriate. These matters are live and continuing, so I would not like to say that we are leaving things there, although it will be some time before we come back to them.
Point 3 of "Promoting Equality for People with Disability" says:
"Our policy is to make the services and opportunities which are readily available to non-disabled people in Scotland equally accessible to people with disabilities."
I am particularly concerned about the old Carnegie libraries, many of which are partnership libraries with the Scottish Parliament. I know that the one in my constituency is not easily accessible and that is just one example. How do you intend to put this policy into practice?
The provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on access to goods and services are being implemented between now and 2004. As Elaine rightly pointed out, we are talking about access not just to goods and services, but specifically to facilities; changes must be made to the physical make-up of buildings to ensure that access is improved and that the physical barriers can be overcome.
We are providing extra help and making reasonable adjustments to give disabled people access to public buildings, but that will happen over a period of time. We are also keen to encourage the private sector, which also provides services and owns buildings, to do the same—that is a requirement of the act. We have also contributed to a national information line that will make the private sector aware of the requirements and point it in the direction of information and advice on how it must meet those requirements.
I am always worried about how overworked you are, Jackie. It strikes me that you chair an awful lot of groups and task forces—the race advisory forum, the homelessness task force, the social inclusion network, the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence, and probably many others that I have overlooked. Some of them predate the Parliament, and they are all good bodies. However, to go back to an earlier point, what interests me is how their way of doing things relates to the new Parliament and, in particular, to the committee. I am not sure what the answer is, but I have a nagging concern that back benchers will feel that government is being contracted out and that somehow they are not involved. You can be assured that we will not let that happen.
I want to press you on the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence, which I have spoken to you about before. You went to the debate on it at the beginning of the month, which many people think has been the most remarkable debate since we started. There is obviously much momentum in the Parliament to get the partnership moving. I think that you have just come to the end of the consultation period. How are the results to be taken forward, and how are MSPs to feel part of that process? Although the partnership is doing good work, there is concern about the way in which its remit has been narrowly defined, rather than made part of a general strategy on violence against women.
I am touched by your concern for me, Malcolm. If I am feeling a bit low, I will come and speak to you and you can bolster me.
There are high expectations of the Parliament and of the way in which we do business. That is our collective responsibility. I get the sense that people want the Parliament to be open, accessible and accountable, and that they want a role in government. Although ministers and Parliament will make the final decisions, there is a positive role to be played by the voluntary sector and by other public agencies in informing our decision making. I may chair a lot of things, but I am not necessarily the expert, and we have an opportunity to factor in knowledge from other bodies across Scotland and to use it productively.
I am sure that back benchers will also play an important role, not only in debates and in the passing of legislation, but in committee work and in informing ministers of current thinking. There are several layers, but I would not necessarily be too worried about them—their existence is a measure of how inclusive the Parliament is attempting to be.
The Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence was set up, as you rightly say, by the previous Administration, but I heartily welcome it. It has been producing a work plan and devising a strategy on domestic violence in Scotland. It will consider the legislation, costs and funding, and the consistency of service provision. It met yesterday, I believe, and it is revising its work plan, which has been out for consultation. In the near future, it will make recommendations to ministers. I assure you that it will not take long to sign off those recommendations, so that we can get down to implementing a strategy.
Like you, Malcolm, I welcomed the debate enormously, and I got the sense that this is one issue on which the Parliament is unified.
I welcome the research project on transport provision for disabled people that you spoke about, Jackie. If legislation is reserved, how will the Scottish Executive—to deliver for disabled people in Scotland—implement any recommendations on the regulation of public transport that might come out of the Reid-Howie Associates review?
There are areas where Westminster and the Scottish Parliament have responsibilities that cover the divide. Responsibility for legislation might remain central, but service provision is our responsibility. Plans are already in place to examine access to rail. Plans are under way to consider accessibility to public transport. Buses, taxis and coaches—all forms of public transport—will be considered. While the Minister for Transport and the Environment has responsibility for the matter, we all have a common interest in ensuring that we get it right, as public transport is a key barrier to disabled people gaining access to economic and social opportunities.
We could therefore regulate, if that was deemed necessary.
What influence can you, as a minister, bring to bear on the availability of documents in alternative formats, which is highlighted in part 12 of your document on promoting equality for people with disabilities? My concern, which is a concern that has been raised with me by several individuals, is the statement that
"consideration is given to making publications and other documents available in alternative formats".
The document refers to that as a
"mainstreaming initiative".
I would have thought that it was a mainstreaming activity only if it were happening as a matter of course. For many disabled people and disabled organisations, this is a matter of empowerment. When someone considers a matter on their behalf, it disempowers them.
I can give a commitment to do more than exercise the limited influence that I have. By providing access to information in a variety of formats, such as Braille and audio cassettes, and by putting Scottish Executive and Scottish parliamentary publications on the web, we are ensuring that we are far more open, transparent and accountable in the work that we do. It should be a matter of course that all publications are available in different formats—and, equally, in different languages—to ensure the widest coverage.
I want to get a feeling for how the unit and the civil servants that it will influence will go about considering the legislation. How proactive will they be? That goes back to the education bill and what we were talking about with Jim Wallace. Will it be a matter of avoiding things or of trying to introduce things in bills that deal with some of the issues that we talked about? To what extent, for example, will the education bill take on board the proposals on anti-racist education, which are so fundamental to dealing with the problems that we were talking about?
The other area that we have not touched on is sexual orientation. There is much discussion now on how we can get rid of section 28. Has any consideration been given to that and to the appropriate bill for it?
The equality unit will be proactive and will avoid creating opportunities for discrimination in new legislation. However, I stress that the equality unit will not be responsible for equality-proofing legislation. It will act as a strategic advisory service to ensure that other departments, such as the education department when it takes forward the education bill, understand equality proofing and have mechanisms in place to take that forward.
That is the best way to achieve what we are seeking—not only the avoidance of discrimination, but proactive encouragement of legislation that addresses the points that you made. There must be a balance. The equality unit will not scrutinise line by line every piece of information that arises from legislation. It will ensure that other departments have clear ownership of that agenda.
I am pleased to confirm that it is ministers' desire to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. We are looking for an appropriate legislative vehicle. Consideration must be given as to whether it is entirely a devolved matter or a reserved matter, but we are keen to make progress, and I am delighted to tell the committee that we are looking actively at ways in which to repeal section 28.
We would all welcome that, and it would be welcomed broadly in Scotland as well.
The difficulty when we talk about equal opportunities is that we want to focus on individual areas that you have identified, so you will forgive me if I address two of them.
You will recall that the first formal lobby of this Parliament was by people with complex impairments—they had a sensory and a visual impairment—and organisations associated with them. Issues arise from the fact that people have two impairments. You identify each impairment separately but not together, so has any work been done in that area? One of the things that was raised at that lobby was the type of signing that was required, the fact that people do not get that support as of right and how isolated they feel because of that.
In your paper on racism, you identify social inclusion issues. What is being done to scrutinise what social inclusion partnership boards are doing with regard to women? Will that be monitored by the Executive, or will the boards be expected to do it? Clearly, child care and supporting women into work are key strategies, but how closely are they monitored?
I am trying to scribble down all your points.
I recall the lobby on disability in committee room 1, by Deafblind UK and Sense. Iain Gray, the Deputy Minister for Community Care, and I had a thematic day on disability and invited a range of organisations to present their cases to us and to engage in a dialogue on what the issues were and the role that the Parliament could play in moving them forward. You are right to identify the category of multiple impairment. Small numbers of people are affected and, to an extent, local authorities and service providers sometimes do not appreciate the difficulty because there are not the numbers to merit attention. While that is understandable, it is not necessarily acceptable.
Iain Gray is keen to look at service provision based on the person. As you will know, we are currently considering how to make progress on a range of community care initiatives that are centred on the individual. To put it simplistically, they give individuals control, in effect, of a pot of money to access services. That might be a way forward. I know that the officials in community care and the minister will consider that.
I will say two things on the issue of women. First, you will be aware that we have established a social inclusion network, which includes a variety of people with interests in social inclusion. One of its action teams deals with evaluation and it will report formally on an evaluation framework that can usefully be implemented and that will address issues such as the role of women. In my experience, the role of women in community activity is extremely powerful, and we need to examine mechanisms to support women in that setting so that they can participate in the community and, beyond that, so that they can access employment and training. Indeed, part of the national child care strategy is aimed directly at expanding such provision to enable women to participate more fully.
In December, we will publish a monitoring and evaluation procedure that all social inclusion partnership boards will be required to adopt. That will enable the committee and the Executive to monitor centrally how effectively the money that has been set aside for tackling social exclusion is being spent.
Unless anyone has a pressing question that has not been answered, I will thank the minister for coming. We intend to invite the equality unit to a meeting soon. The minister is more than welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting.
I hope that the committee will not be offended if I say that I have other pressing engagements.
I may be.