Reporters
We will move on quickly to the reports from the reporters.
The first report is from Irene McGugan, who, I realise, has only just taken over the job. I am not sure whether she has anything to report at this stage.
I do, although, as the disability sub-group acknowledged that it was some time since it had met, we agreed to review where we were. We felt that we had to go back over the ground in three areas.
First, we wanted to renew the request to the committee to write to all organisations that may have an interest in the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill, particularly in relation to disability matters. Secondly, we said previously that we would like a full briefing for all committee members on the workings of the disability rights commission, with specific reference to the arrangements that are being made in Scotland. Thirdly, we thought that an informal briefing for the full committee on the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 would be appropriate. In fact, we thought that it would be so useful that the corporate body should be asked to make that briefing available to all MSPs, in order to raise awareness of the potential impact of the act in terms of access to offices and other requirements.
Those areas were identified previously as requiring action, but that action has yet to be taken. As all three areas relate to briefings for, or evidence taking by, the committee, it would be useful to schedule them into the committee's timetable of future work. That would allow us to see when we are to deal with them and so when we should have material available for the committee.
We also considered two new areas. First, we considered the recent disability rights task force report "From Exclusion to Inclusion", which deals with civil rights for disabled people. The document is lengthy and detailed and we felt that most MSPs would be unlikely to read it in full. However, a summary of the report, highlighting the important issues on which we should focus, would probably be useful to all members. With the committee's permission, we will try to make that summary available.
Lip-reading is the second new issue that we considered. Many MSPs have already met Rosemary Jeffries, including Johann Lamont, who has circulated a briefing of her meeting with Rosemary. Johann's paper sets out ably that, for people with hearing loss, lip-reading offers solutions to communication problems by supplementing or replacing the use of a hearing aid, but that variable support and lack of funding is threatening the lip-reading service. Johann makes three recommendations at the conclusion of her paper, which the disability sub-group has already considered sympathetically. We have no difficulty in exploring further the issues raised in the paper and we support the lodging of a motion on the issue.
Thank you. Are there any questions for Irene? Does Martin Verity wish to say anything about the future work programme?
Martin Verity (Clerk Team Leader):
We have arranged for the National Disability Council to give evidence to the committee on 28 March.
Johann Lamont will now speak for the reporters group on gender issues.
I will persist in calling it the women's group, but that is for historical reasons.
I circulated a report of our meeting, but I will go through it briefly. In pursuing the issues relating to the report "Towards a Just Conclusion", we agreed that as a first step the group would seek a meeting with Angus MacKay to discuss how the Executive planned to progress the report. Those of you who were present at the debate that was initiated by Gil Paterson on the Soroptomist International report on rape will recollect that Angus MacKay said that the Executive planned to produce an action plan. We are keen to hold a dialogue with him about how we can participate in that process.
Meetings with Engender and Women's Aid are being arranged. Our request to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee that it take evidence from Women's Aid has been accepted and will be pursued in due course.
The group felt that it had emerged from the evidence from the equality unit that, rather than operating in separate worlds, the committee and the unit should set up a process by which we could talk with each other. I know that one member of the unit has been identified as its link person, but we thought that as a first step the women's group could be used as a forum for discussion about how we could liaise. Therefore I will invite Jackie Baillie and whoever the equality unit deems the appropriate person to explore these issues initially.
The last point that we raised—we were not trying to be topical—concerned the new Parliament building. It has been suggested that there will not be a crèche in the new Parliament. It is our view that, although a crèche will be an important provision for MSPs and staff, it will be most crucial in relation to the Parliament as a public building, in which people should be able to access MSPs, committees and the chamber and make a contribution regardless of their child care needs. We want this committee to raise our concern in the appropriate place—we were not clear where that would be—and to underline the fact that a crèche is not an added extra but part of the Parliament project and part of the provision of any good public building. We can explore how that can be managed. Large supermarkets manage to provide crèches for folk who are shopping, so a crèche in the Parliament should not be beyond us.
Do members agree that the committee should write to the corporate body to seek clarification about the crèche?
And to emphasise the importance of a crèche.
Yes. We will do that.
We will move on to Michael McMahon's report on race issues.
At the previous meeting, I said that a meeting of the race group had been scheduled. However, because of the number of apologies that I received, it was not worth going ahead with the meeting. We wanted a focused discussion on the recent crime statistics, which would have been a waste of time if members had not been present. I have rescheduled the meeting for next week.
A small delegation, headed by Robina Qureshi from Positive Action in Housing, will guide us on that issue and will give us information on the Macpherson report one year after it was published. I know that the Positive Action in Housing will meet the committee formally to discuss its activities. Given that the meeting will focus on the Macpherson report and the recent statistics, I thought that it would be better to hold it next week rather than to press ahead last week. I will e-mail everyone—again I have received a couple of apologies. I think that we should be well represented at the meeting with the delegation, as the matter is important, but the meeting can be informal. Three people from PAIH are coming through. The meeting is at 10.00 am next Tuesday.
I urge all members of the sub-group and other committee members to attend the meeting. I agree with Michael that it is important to have a good turnout.
Nora Radcliffe is not here to give a report, but she keeps us updated with written reports by e-mail. We will hear from her at the next meeting.