Equal Opportunities Committee, 31 Oct 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Official Report 258KB pdf

---

Equalities Review

Item 2 is the equalities review. I am pleased to be able to welcome Brian Henderson and Sheila Reid from Reid-Howie Associates Ltd, which has carried out two pieces of research for the committee. The first is on stakeholder views of developments in Scotland since devolution and the second is on public attitudes towards equalities issues. I invite one of the witnesses to make some introductory remarks on the work that has been carried out.

Essentially, we were asked to do two things as part of the review to a specification prepared by the Scottish Parliament information centre and agreed by the committee. The first was to consider the views of some stakeholders in Scotland about equalities work that had been done and how they envisaged that work would be taken forward in the future. The second was to examine existing material relating to public attitudes to equalities in Scotland. Those were the two strands of the work and the two separate reports relate to those.

We carried out the research during the summer and it generated a vast amount of information. We understand that the purpose of that information was to help to inform the debate and the way forward by identifying the current situation.

The stakeholder research was done by talking face to face with 28 organisations that had an interest in equalities issues. Those organisations reflected the six strands and were located in different parts of Scotland. It was important to include the statutory equalities organisations and some of the national issue-based umbrella groups, as well as some locally based organisations. We recognised that it would not be possible to include all the organisations that have an interest in equalities work and we never intended to undertake a comprehensive consultation with all the relevant organisations. The purpose of the exercise was to look at the views of a cross-section of organisations on successes, good practice and areas for further action. It was intended to stimulate further discussion of the issues that emerged from it. We agreed that the organisations that took part would not be identified by name and that their views could be submitted anonymously.

When the research was under way, some organisations brought together a group for discussion. In some cases, we met one or two representatives of an organisation. The different combinations worked well, and we found that the issues could be covered equally well in a group setting and with an individual interviewee. The organisations explored their own equalities issues and provided a more general picture of work on cross-cutting issues. We covered a range of topics, which can be summarised as follows: the key issues for organisations at the time of devolution; their expectations of devolution in respect of equalities work; their views on the impact of devolution on equalities issues; positive developments; constraints that they had experienced; and their current priorities and views on the way forward. Again, the focus was on identifying issues for the future.

In a report of this kind, it is impossible to reflect every point that people made, but the report reflects the range and depth of views that were expressed. I hope that it provides an insight into stakeholders' views on the issues that I have mentioned, which reflect the points that stakeholders raised with us.

The public attitudes study involved examining the findings of studies that were based on direct research exploring the general public's attitudes towards equalities issues. We also included research that had been done with particular equalities groups into their experience of discrimination, because there are two aspects to public attitudes. The first is people's direct views on the issues; the second is equalities groups' experiences of those views, as they translate into behaviour. We also looked at attitudes to developments in equalities work and to the way forward. We identified material through a range of sources. Some of the people whom we interviewed as part of the other research identified further material for us to take into account.

We found that there were both studies that focused particularly on Scotland and wider United Kingdom studies that included material of relevance. A small number of the studies focused on specific local authority areas; there were also some UK-wide studies that included relevant data. Some of the studies explored attitudes to a range of strands, whereas some were strand specific. Again, our main focus was on the six equalities strands; we also looked at some of the cross-cutting issues. We hope that we have managed to summarise the key issues in relation to what is currently known about attitudes to equalities issues in Scotland. We hope that, taken together, the two studies will help to inform the debate.

We have some questions to ask about your excellent report, which contains a great deal of information that will help us to decide how to take issues forward. To what extent did the views which emerged from your review of research into public attitudes coincide with the views of the stakeholders that you interviewed? Were there any glaring discrepancies between what stakeholders said and what the public in general said about equalities issues?

There were no glaring disparities; there was a good coincidence of views. It is important to bear in mind that stakeholders are, in a sense, experts, so their views tend to be more wide ranging than the public's view. They are more concerned with practical policy, legislation and so on. We should not downplay the importance of public attitudes, but they are only one element of a mesh of issues. We are content that there were no areas in which there was a significant disparity between the views of stakeholders and the public attitudes research.

Was there any evidence to suggest that some equality strands have experienced more progress than others since devolution?

A view seemed to emerge that there has been a focus on particular issues at particular times. There is not necessarily a view that some strands have made more progress overall, but there is perhaps a view that the relative focus on different strands has been different at different times. Overall comparisons of progress are difficult, because they do not necessarily compare like with like, but there is a perception that progress has recently been made in some of the newer equalities strands, although they sometimes started from a fairly low base. It was clear that, at devolution, some of the organisations representing the newer issues were conscious of the need to establish themselves and be recognised in equalities work. The focus is perhaps reflective of the fact that there had not been such a focus on the newer strands.

There have perhaps been different levels of progress within strands that include different issues, so it is not just a question of a group as a whole. Within a strand, there might have been a lot of progress on a specific issue. One example that emerged was the campaign against violence against women, which was often identified as having made a lot of progress, while progress on other issues was not quite as visible or as high.

None of the stakeholders was content that all of the issues in all of the strands had been addressed, but there was evidence of progress in all of them. Some of the areas where stakeholders felt that particular progress had been made are highlighted in the report.

The next questions are also about the views of stakeholders. There has been a lot of change in legislation since 1999. For example, there have been changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and we have seen the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the forthcoming gender equality duty. What were the views of the equalities groups interviewed about the impact of the changes?

There was a clear recognition that legislation, both here and from the UK Parliament, has had an impact in a range of ways. It has clearly improved the experiences of some equalities groups, and it has also had an impact on communities and in promoting wider change and shifting attitudes. The fourth point is that legislation has also established principles and given a clear sense of direction. When they went through the list that you have just gone through, a number of people were surprised at just how much legislation there had been. That was viewed positively.

It would be fair to recognise that legislation is not the only thing that has brought about change—I have no doubt that we will talk about other things that have been important. However, almost all the people to whom we spoke were content to give legislation its place as an agent of change.

What about the pace of change? The report notes that many respondents felt that the broad policy areas currently requiring action are similar to those on the agenda at the time of devolution. That suggests that positive change is slow in coming even when there are changes to the law. What were the stakeholders' general views of the overall pace of change?

The issue was certainly brought up. It is complex, because of the different levels of concern about it. For example, people were concerned about the length of time it takes to carry out equalities work and how long it takes for that work to have an impact on the lives of those who are affected. However, they also acknowledged that making a difference in equalities is a long-term process and that it is not just about the pace of progress being slow.

The policy areas are similar because of the issues within them. A broad policy area might contain a myriad of issues that need to be addressed, so it might still be seen as a policy area even though things have been done and progress made.

Addressing one issue might simply bring up more issues that need to be addressed. For example, many respondents highlighted concessionary travel as an area in which progress has been made for disabled people and older people, but that raised questions about the accessibility of transport. Because tackling one issue focuses attention on another issue that remains to be tackled, transport remains a policy area.

Finally, empowering groups to participate in the policy process—which is what has been seen to have happened—is bound to raise new issues in policy areas.

The stakeholder report notes that there was a degree of interrelationship between some of the groups that were interviewed. How much agreement was there among the various equalities groups on the progress that has been made to date and on areas to target for development?

There was a widespread recognition that there had been change and that progress had been made. However, we should not view all the groups and issues as homogeneous. It was also recognised that, within the six strands, a great deal still needed to change. Some pointed out that the pace of change on individual issues was slower and others differed on the degree of change that had taken place, but I do not think that any of the organisations to which we spoke believed that no progress had been made.

Did they also agree on the areas that should be targeted?

I find it difficult to think of any such area that cuts across the six strands. Respondents might have raised a general issue about overall direction, leadership and strategic vision but, beneath that, they tended to focus more on the issues in individual strands. After all, older people, young people and LGBT people face different issues.

Based on the interviews, do you think that strand-specific groups focus on their own issues or do they also appreciate the need to support diversity and inclusion more generally?

There is evidence of growing support for cross-strand working. The interviews highlighted that, at devolution, such working was not absent, as such, but was much less prevalent, and people commented that strands tended to work in their own areas, did not work together so much and did not see the big picture. That situation seems to be changing.

However, as Brian Henderson said, strand-specific groups tend to focus on their own key issues. There is also quite a wide variation in the extent to which groups get involved in developing cross-strand working. In some cases, two organisations might work together on a particular project or issue while, in other cases, all the strands might come together to present a broader view.

In that respect, there might also be some variation between local and national organisations, with more of a focus on individual issues and less cross-strand working at local level. However, I do not want to generalise, because the situation varies. There is broad general agreement on the way forward and on the need to combine awareness of policy, awareness of legislation, the need to tackle attitudes, and the need to consider structure and operation.

There has been a growth in joint working in relation to the development of the commission for equality and human rights. That seems to have brought some organisations together and got them thinking about cross-cutting issues that affect them. A nucleus of organisations is involved and others are beginning to see that they, too, can have an input.

More now than at the time of devolution, there is recognition that people have multiple identities. There was once less recognition than there is now that, for example, women in ethnic minority communities face specific issues as women and specific issues as members of ethnic minority communities. There is clear evidence of organisations working together to address such multiple-identity issues. Progress has certainly been made.

Before I ask a question, I want to make a point. Your document is very good, but it is headed "Views of Stakeholders" when it should be headed "Views of a Tiny Minority of Stakeholders". Paragraph 2.4 is headed "Age" and it includes a sweeping statement. It says:

"One organisation noted, for example that:

‘There was a scare about older people having to sell their houses, to pay for their care, that was a big issue at that time'."

What organisation was it that undermined the document with such bland and anonymous generalities? I accept that you cannot cover everyone and it is great to hear comments, but you should make it clear that you have covered the tiny minority of stakeholders and not the vast majority.

I do not think that we ever intended to suggest that the vast majority of stakeholders—

That should have been on the cover.

That is perhaps an issue to take up with the clerks, as to how the work is described.

Fair comment.

Concerns were expressed at the interviews at the lack of equality group representation among MSPs. It was noted that political parties should recognise the need for equality as a priority. Should we regard that as symptomatic of wider public attitudes towards equality issues, or does research suggest that there are, in some areas, other reasons for the lack of representation of people from ethnic minorities etc? I would add that my party will have an ethnic person representing us in the Parliament after the next election.

You raise a range of issues. Clearly, issues arise to do with capacity and the extent to which various equalities groups have been supported in the past to take part in public life. As Sheila Reid said earlier, there is an inevitable time lag. In the meantime, there will have to be capacity building to help people from equalities groups to be selected. However, the representation within the Parliament is ultimately a matter for the political parties and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on that.

Good morning and thank you for an excellent report. I think that the committee agrees that the research in both papers this morning has been very good. I wanted to ask about the vision for equalities in Scotland, and then about the commission for equality and human rights.

The report on the views of stakeholders identified a lack of overall vision for equalities in Scotland. Was there any agreement on how such a vision could be achieved? I noted some of the issues that have been raised about the possible loss of various strands.

A number of suggestions were made by stakeholders about how to address that. It was suggested that a strategic approach should be developed. There was a specific suggestion about developing a strategy that would be supported by an action plan. The need for clarity was emphasised frequently. It was felt that it was important to develop a clear picture of what equality in Scotland might look like, what that would mean and how that would fit into a strategic process. The suggestion was that the vision and outcomes should be developed and that they should be supported by a clear strategy and clear action plans.

There was agreement about the need for that overall approach and for shared goals. There is not yet clarity about what those elements would be—obviously, equalities groups have their own ideas about what that would involve for specific strands and what it would involve overall.

The information suggests that the groups would want to have an input into the development of an overall approach. There was a constant stress on the importance of listening and consultation. It was strongly felt that the groups should have a chance to make their views heard.

There were suggestions about the need for clear definitions of equalities issues and terms and for reviewing and refreshing the existing equalities strategy in order to support the vision.

From the findings of the stakeholder report, you could draw the conclusion that a strategic approach would involve the broad areas that we have identified—the policy, the public attitudes, the structure and the operation. Ways in which that approach could be developed have been indicated. A further conclusion would be that elements of the work that has been found to constitute good practice should be developed, such as consultation, participation and listening. Clearly, a wide range of organisations would want to have an input with regard to the issues that have been raised. This report gives a flavour of what some of those issues might be.

Obviously, we want progress to be made and positive attitudes to be encouraged. However, do you think that the report shows that a lot of people are quite frightened that, the more we get into the issue of equalities, the less progress we will make, as it will appear that equality has been achieved? Was that one of the concerns that came through? That would explain why they want more communication and to be kept in the loop.

A concern was expressed that, at some point, there will be a feeling that equalities have been done and that we can move on to something else. There was a strong feeling that there is a need to stress that the issue can be dealt with only in the long term and that it will need to be a constant priority.

With regard to the proposed commission for equality and human rights, your report notes that there were mixed views on the legislation and that there were concerns about how seriously issues were being treated in some strands. Would you say that there is a degree of anxiety about how individual strands will be dealt with when the new commission is in place?

Yes. Clearly, there is ambivalence. Many people recognise that there are huge opportunities as a result of the CEHR, but any period of change is bound to give rise to anxiety. We identified concerns about the possibility that one strand might receive greater attention than others or that individual issues might be diluted because of the existence of a mega commission. Inevitably, there is a concern that those interests that are able to promote themselves most effectively will get the most attention. There is also a concern that the existing expertise in the current commissions might be lost. However, it is important to stress that there are mixed views. Many of the people to whom we spoke recognised the opportunities that will present themselves. I suppose that the research looks back to the coming of the Scottish Parliament, which was a period of change, and people had anxieties at that time. That is clearly stated in the report. Periods of change present opportunities, but they also give rise to anxieties.

You are right to say that there were anxieties, and there were mixed views as well. Would you say that, as well as the anxieties about the loss of certain important strands, people were concerned that the effect of the CEHR legislation in Scotland will be diluted because it is Great Britain law? Also, were they worried about the effect of European legislation on the CEHR legislation? How strong were those worries and concerns?

People certainly said that we need to focus on issues that are specific to Scotland or which have a particular impact in Scotland. People did not think that there was a problem per se, but they were concerned about how the CEHR will take shape and how it will deal with Scottish issues. People said that it is important to take account of those issues and ensure that the organisation that develops can deal with them appropriately.

It is obvious from page 21 of the stakeholder report, which covers the impact of devolution on equalities, that some stakeholders suddenly realised how positive they were being during the discussions. Do you think that carrying out the interviews was, in that sense, a positive intervention? Is there merit in carrying out such reviews regularly?

Yes. It was a useful exercise for a number of the organisations and individuals concerned. As they said at the end of the interviews, it was an opportunity for them to reflect. It is fair to say that a number of them got to the end and thought, "Hmm—I've been a lot more positive than I thought I was going to be. A lot more has happened than I remembered."

On the need for regular reviews, I return to several points that were made previously. Achieving equality is a huge, long-term aim and processes such as the research allow the committee and others to reflect on what has been achieved to date and what still needs to be achieved. In that sense, reviews are valuable. That was reflected in the views of the people who spoke to us. They recognised that the committee, the Parliament and the Executive—through the equality unit and in other ways—have given them the opportunity to participate to a significant extent both in defining what needs to change and in taking those changes forward. Most people were not surprised but—I am trying to find the right word.

I think that people appreciated the opportunity to give their views, which is part of what they identified as good practice.

Throughout the research there was an emphasis on the fact that good practice involves a clear input to the policy process and the opportunity for people to feed in their views. Some organisations do not have a systematic way of doing that or one that they recognise as being the most effective for them. The research provided one way of doing that, so it was valued. Most of the organisations would say that they were pleased to participate. I hope that they would all say that.

On page 35 of your stakeholders report, you expose the problem that equalities is often regarded as the responsibility of one person and that their expertise is lost when they move on. That leads to frustration in equalities groups and difficulties with achieving a long-term focus on equalities work. Did the people whom you interviewed suggest how that problem can be overcome?

The fact that there were lots of references to mainstreaming is relevant to your question. It is important to ensure that staff throughout organisations are not only aware of but understand equalities issues.

One problem that was highlighted was that, beyond the individuals with responsibility for equalities, there is sometimes not just a lack of understanding but a lack of recognition that equalities has anything to do with people's work. It is a matter of ensuring that everybody recognises how equalities impacts on their work and addresses the issues. That is what mainstreaming is about. That should be the focus for the way forward, coupled with developing knowledge, education and training.

It is suggested on page 37 of the report that the impact of the section 2A debate has led to a fear at Executive level about tackling difficult issues. Was there any evidence in your research to suggest that that debate had a significant impact on public attitudes towards equalities issues generally?

That is a difficult question. The interviews did not focus on asking organisations about their views on public attitudes, although that emerged as a concern. We talked about the issues that had arisen, and the responses tended to centre on the impact on organisations and on the nature of the debate rather than speculation about whether the section 2A debate changed or impacted on public attitudes as such. There were issues within and among organisations and an overall feeling that that debate had been difficult. There was a suggestion that there was a fear of the impact on public attitudes and that perhaps that interfered with subsequent work. However, there was not really any evidence to suggest what organisations thought had actually happened to public attitudes. I hope that that is a clear distinction. Organisations were concerned that there was a fear, but did not speculate about the impact on public attitudes as such.

So they did not suggest anything to resolve that fear.

There were many references to making positive statements, to leadership, to expressing commitment and to challenging issues head on. There was information about good practice, including making brave decisions and continuing with what is right because of a feeling that it is right, rather than weighing up public attitudes.

The report highlights concerns about the perceived lack of knowledge and understanding of equalities issues, particularly at decision-making level, and about a lack of effective leadership across the equalities agenda. What suggestions did the stakeholder groups that you interviewed make for tackling that?

That goes back to a couple of the points that Sheila Reid made earlier. It is about having clear statements from the highest level about the importance of equalities and the need to develop an equalities agenda. It is about the development of a vision and a clear commitment to equalities and asking what an equal Scotland looks like. It also involves training for people at all levels. That comes under the mainstreaming agenda that Sheila Reid was discussing. If people do not understand equality, it will not happen.

A high priority needs to be given to equalities issues throughout all strands of government and policy development. There is also a need to continue with initiatives and to promote developments that are specially designed to address problems as they arise. It is important for the process to be transparent and open, and it should engage as many people as possible. That was a clear message from the stakeholder research. People want to be involved in taking forward that vision. In order for that to happen, there needs to be a process, leadership and a clear picture of what people want to achieve.

The topic of public attitudes is always fascinating. In the equalities field, it is among the more relevant considerations. We have been considering what influences public attitudes. In your research, was there any evidence to suggest that the public behaviour of specific equalities groups has had an obvious impact on public attitudes towards equalities issues in general?

Research that is relevant to that question has been done. There is always a danger in such work of identifying equalities groups as being somehow responsible for prejudice against them and for finding a solution to that prejudice. We stress that the evidence that exists is not necessarily about their behaviour; rather, it is about the white majority population's expectations of equalities groups and how those expectations affect the level of discrimination that they face.

Obviously, evidence exists that attitudes are based on stereotypes and expectations of appropriate behaviour. Material suggests that the extent to which people see others as being like them affects their attitudes towards them. For example, our report on public attitudes makes the point that ethnic minority people are more accepted when greater acculturation has taken place. People in the white majority population are often more accepting of those who are most like them. Perhaps the more challenging a group's behaviour is in diverging from the behaviour of the majority, the less that group will be accepted. There may not be a linear relationship, but there appears to be a link.

There are issues to do with the perceived threat from groups. For example, the level of economic threat that groups pose has been highlighted as an issue that influences public attitudes towards discrimination. Such issues—which relate not to the behaviour of equalities groups but to the behaviour of the white majority population—have an impact on public attitudes.

Your report on public attitudes mentions

"evidence of a lack of understanding of some types of equalities work, with remaining confusion between promoting equality (e.g. positive action) and ‘favouring' certain groups (positive discrimination)."

Is there a feeling that people who work in the field have developed an impenetrable private vocabulary, or are people not communicating effectively enough?

Perhaps there is a bit of both. There is certainly evidence of a lack of understanding of terms such as "positive action" and "positive discrimination". We encounter that lack of understanding quite often; indeed, I wish that I was given a pound for every time that we do so.

Understanding the terms that are used is not necessarily easy. For example, the concept of mainstreaming is not easy to grasp. It is easy to see what it means in general—in big letters—but difficult to understand what it actually means in practice. People might be clearer about rights, fairness and justice, but they are not necessarily clear about concepts such as mainstreaming, positive action and so on. Our report on stakeholders' views says that it is important that concepts are clear, and our report on public attitudes suggests that they are not necessarily clear.

However, messages are getting across—there are no two ways about that. Attitudes have evidently changed in some areas in the seven years since devolution, although it is not immediately clear why some messages get across and some do not. That problem has taxed people for as long as there have been philosophers, and I am not sure that we have a better answer than any of those that people have come up with down the years.

Your report says that research shows that there is often a lack of clarity between race and religious issues. Did your research suggest that that was because the religion or belief strand is relatively new, at least in legislative terms, or is there a more fundamental lack of understanding?

It seems to me from the research that the basis of the discrimination that occurs is not clear cut. There are issues to do with religion and belief being a new strand and the recognition of that strand—that issue certainly arose. However, part of the confusion concerns the basis of discrimination—whether somebody is discriminated against because of their race or because of their religion or belief. That distinction is a particular issue when religious matters are linked to ethnic minority groups and the boundaries are blurred. The religious groups that are being identified are often ethnic minority groups and the understanding becomes blurred along with the basis of the discrimination.

A question was asked about vocabulary. Is positive action the same thing as affirmative action?

Positive action involves introducing measures to address an imbalance that has occurred. It means taking action to address an existing barrier to equality, to ensure that everybody starts from an equal starting point. The same principle of taking action to address an existing difficulty applies, but action is not taken just because a person is a member of a particular group.

So positive discrimination occurs when somebody is a member of a particular group.

Positive discrimination occurs simply because somebody is a member of a particular group and not to address an existing barrier.

That has cleared up the matter.

Is it fair to say that the research suggests that public attitudes tend to focus more on specific groups of people or issues than on equality in general? If so, does that have implications for how we should combat negative attitudes?

You raise two issues. The generalised view that equality is a good thing probably exists, but most of the work that has been done has targeted specific equalities issues. Even when an apparently comprehensive survey of attitudes to equalities was conducted—the 2003 Scottish social attitudes survey—it did nothing on age or religion and beliefs. Work on such areas is still two or three bits short of being comprehensive. The 2006 survey, which we were told is in the field—I presume that that means that fieldwork is being done now—will cover age and religion and beliefs.

It is said that public attitudes tend to focus on individual strands, but whether that is the case or whether it only appears so because the research has been done on attitudes to individual strands is not immediately clear. If people are asked generalised questions about equality, they may have generalised views. The difficulty for us is in presenting evidence, because even if anyone has asked such general questions, we do not have access to the data.

On the implications for taking work forward, it is useful to go past the general issues and to reach the strand-specific issues. It has emerged that each area of work involves a vast number of specific issues, which individual groups are best placed to identify. The same applies to public attitudes. If public attitudes to a particular group or to an issue for that group are known about, it helps us to target the response. However, both aspects are needed. The evidence suggests that broad views of equalities issues are also important, to obtain a flavour of changes and patterns, within which it is useful to know about individual strands.

In paragraph 2.8 of your attitudes report, you refer to a study that suggests that

"many people felt that pressure to ‘say the right thing' had made prejudice less visible, but that underlying attitudes and beliefs had not changed significantly."

Did the interviews with stakeholder groups support that view?

Stakeholders did not deal with that directly as an issue, but a couple of points are relevant to it. As you say, material in the attitudes research suggests that at least an element of what you describe is present. Stakeholders certainly referred to lip service being paid to equalities issues in some cases, which is the same idea.

The stakeholder research also identified that there is overall support for work to tackle equalities issues. It is felt that there is growing awareness, but that it is coupled with some problematic views, which are identified in the report. It is acknowledged that overall awareness has been raised, but that there is a persistent lack of understanding about some of the more detailed issues, which is a similar issue. It is not necessarily the case that people are not saying the right thing, but there is at least a level at which people are not fully understanding the issues. Some issues are not yet well understood. It is not just about saying the right thing. There is a genuine lack of understanding of some issues. However, it was clear that the stakeholders were emphasising the need to tackle attitudes and the lack of understanding.

There are some worrying findings in the attitudes report. For example, on page 20 you quote a study that indicates that 41 per cent of people felt that Britain as a whole had become more racially prejudiced in the last five years and that the same percentage thought that racial prejudice would increase in the next five years. Was that finding supported by your interviews with relevant stakeholder groups?

Yes, although not in such precise terms. There is recognition not only among ethnic minority stakeholders but among other stakeholders that racism is a serious issue in Scotland. A lot of mention was also made of the rise—if I can describe it as that—of Islamophobia, which had not really been discussed in 1999.

Another related point that was made by a number of people is that most of us have grown up with a cosy idea of Scotland as a place where there is no racism, where we are all Jock Tamson's bairns and we are all friendly. To some extent, what has changed is the increasing visibility of racism and racist attitudes and an increasing recognition that they exist. They are evident in daily life. From that point of view, it is not clear whether there is a rise in racist attitudes or people are now better able to recognise such attitudes for what they are. Research continues to explore the issue.

To return to your original point, there is certainly a strong concern that racism is and remains a serious issue.

I am sure that Sandra White wants to make this comment too. I want to emphasise that you are talking about the relevant stakeholder groups that you talked to locally in Scotland, but the studies were conducted in England, or in one case in England and Wales. Did the stakeholder groups go along with them and agree with the findings?

They did, to the extent of recognising the seriousness of racism. They were not asked the same specific question about the increase in racism and future developments, but the issues remain very much a concern.

I have a question about a related matter. I am not sure that you can answer my question, but the findings are concerning. Were the responses often specific to Islamophobia? For me, the obvious explanation for that is Government policy, which you refer to in your findings as one influence on attitudes.

Somebody will ask a question later about the influence of the media. Is it possible to quantify how much each factor influences attitudes? I would like to know the answer to that question, but I am not sure that you can answer it.

For me, the rise in racist attitudes and Islamophobia is directly related to the actions of Government, but how do we prove that? The scale of the rise gives us a lot of circumstantial evidence that Government policy has been the major determinant in the rise of Islamophobia. How much more can you say about that?

We cannot comment on that in any quantifiable terms. First, as you have pointed out, such things are not easy to measure. Secondly, we have not found a way of measuring people's attitudes in a way that allows us to explore with them what influenced their attitudes.

As you mentioned, there is plenty of evidence on what kinds of things influence attitudes, and the public attitudes study contains material on how attitudes develop and what influences them. However, we cannot say that there is a direct link between a particular factor—Government policy or the media or whatever—and an individual's attitudes towards racism, for example, and how those might develop.

I want to go back to the public attitudes report. As Marlyn Glen mentioned earlier, we should make it clear that the 41 per cent who said that the country had become more racially prejudiced were respondents to a survey that was carried out for Cumbria County Council down in England. Will you elaborate on whether exactly the same question was put to respondents in Scotland? Paragraph 2.93 of the report states:

"Overall, the 2005 research suggested some positive trends in the acceptance of people from other backgrounds in Scotland … 61% … believed that people who come to live in Scotland from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds enrich Scottish culture."

If exactly the same question was put to people in Scotland, what was the answer?

I think that you have already said that no such question was put to people in Scotland. It seems quite dishonest to include such figures in a report for the Scottish Parliament when so much of the research relates only to England and goes as far back as 2000. Can you elaborate on that and provide some clarification? I am not saying that Scotland does not have problems with prejudice or racism, but we should be honest and not quote English figures in a report for the Scottish Parliament.

That raises a number of issues. First, the questions were not ours. We had to rely on what was asked in studies that had already been published. We have tried to bring together material from different studies to provide an indication of what public attitudes are. We have tried to be clear about which studies relate to England and Wales and which are UK-wide so that the report does not imply that the same situation exists in Scotland.

The issue also highlights the fact that there is a dearth of information on some issues. For the public attitudes study, we have had to draw in information from existing published sources. As I said, we have tried to be specific by trying to make it clear which studies relate to Scotland.

Another issue is that, if two studies ask a similar question in slightly different ways, they cannot be said to be identical and to compare like with like. In those situations, we have again tried to draw out what the studies were about, to ensure that the reader is in no doubt what question was asked in the different studies and what the separate findings were. We do not attempt to say that such studies are about the same thing. Our report tries to give a broad picture by pulling together findings that help us to infer what the attitudes are. However, it is difficult to do that because there is a limited amount of information, which often comes from people who are working to different parameters.

I just wanted clarification on that. It should be noted that some of the figures are based on surveys that were carried out in England but not in Scotland.

I want to continue on the theme of tackling prejudice. It is encouraging to note that paragraph 4.9 of the public attitudes study concludes:

"there is support in Scotland for … concepts such as fairness, tolerance, absence of prejudice and human rights".

The report also notes that one study found that

"More than two thirds (68%) of people were found to believe that:

‘Scotland should do as much as it can to get rid of all kinds of prejudice'."

Were the stakeholder groups that were interviewed optimistic that such support can be translated into action to reduce prejudice and discrimination?

Yes, it would be fair to say that there was a good level of optimism among the stakeholder groups. It was also recognised that, although much has been achieved, a lot remains to be done. Clearly, there is a need to identify what still needs to be done. A number of stakeholders mentioned the need for an overall vision and an understanding of what we are trying to achieve.

There was a view among stakeholders that equalities work will continue to evolve, that it will retain a high priority and that it will continue to have general support. There was undoubtedly optimism, which seemed to be based on people's recognition of what there was before and of the progress that has been made.

You mentioned identifying what needs to be done. One of the bullet points under paragraph 4.9 says:

"A relatively high proportion of people think that equalities work has not gone far enough for disabled people and women and few think that it has gone too far".

It is encouraging to see that people believe that we need to go further.

However, another bullet point further down says:

"A higher proportion of people in Scotland believe that equal opportunities have gone too far for ethnic minority groups".

Do you know why that was? Why did the people who were interviewed believe that? Was there evidence that they felt that we had gone far enough in that direction but not far enough in other areas? We have got work to do in all areas, and I wondered why there was a difference in views.

It is difficult to speculate about such findings. Our study was specifically about attitudes in Scotland to four different groups and the report showed up some interesting contradictions in public attitudes. There were issues around how far people recognised that particular groups experience discrimination. There was a slightly anomalous situation, in that a high proportion of people recognised that ethnic minority groups experienced discrimination, whereas fewer people, relatively speaking, recognised the need for work to be done in that regard. Having said that, more people felt that measures had not gone far enough, which points to disparity and contradictions in how people view the need for work to be done. Across different groups, a good proportion of people felt that there was a need for more work. It is difficult to speculate on why they reached those conclusions and what underpins their attitudes.

To return to something that Sheila Reid said, there is a real danger that unless the scale of the problem is kept in the public eye, people will think that it is now sorted. The issue might be cyclical; people might believe that a lot of progress has been made and that there is therefore not an issue. In the stakeholders' view, however, there is a need to keep the scale of the issue as it is, to continue to make progress and to do so in the public eye. I would speculate that, over time, people might come to the alternative view that not enough has been done across all six strands.

Stakeholder groups have recognised that tackling prejudice and discrimination needs long-term commitment. Did any of the groups talk about setting targets or timescales for measuring progress?

That was mentioned in a number of contexts, including those of developing a vision of what equality will look like in the future and developing a strategic approach and clear planning. People specifically referred to target setting for work and other relevant issues. An issue that came up persistently was the lack of measurement and of available data and baseline information. Such information would allow progress to be measured, which would link in with target setting, impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation. All those things were stressed.

On page 36 of your report, you say:

"some people have come to resent what they see as ‘political correctness'."

Such attitudes are not substantiated by evidence of the material situation of discriminated groups. During your interviews with stakeholders, did you discuss how such attitudes might be tackled?

Not directly, but the issue related to our overall discussions about changing public attitudes and ensuring that people understand the issues. People often use the phrase "political correctness" as shorthand for dismissing something that they do not understand or do not much like the sound of. Stakeholders made the point in the context of discussions about the need for people to understand the reality of equalities issues. The presumption is that the more people understand that reality, the more they will understand the concepts and the likelier it is that they will not dismiss what they see as political correctness, because they will understand the seriousness of the problems. That relates to my earlier point about the need for clarity.

Did you discuss how that understanding can be achieved?

Not specifically, but the point was made regularly about the need to keep equalities issues in the public domain, the need for strong leadership and clear vision and the need to help people to understand the day-to-day realities of equalities issues. Sheila Reid will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that there was a discussion about how to address the lack of understanding that is manifested in the notion of political correctness. As I said, the issue fits in the broader concept of improving understanding as a mechanism for helping to take work forward in a more successful and rounded way.

On page 43 of your report you quote a study that concluded:

"it is important that banal, benevolent and unintentional prejudices are tackled with as much commitment as aggressive and cathartic prejudices".

You mention other studies, which highlight difficulties in tackling such prejudices in individuals. Did those studies find that attempts to challenge such attitudes tend to be dismissed as excessive?

The issue emerged from material about public attitudes, which identified the need to tackle all kinds of discrimination, including discrimination that is not always clearly recognised as such and which is difficult to tackle. Although stakeholders did not discuss the issue in those terms, they acknowledged the need to challenge all discrimination and negative public attitudes, however they are manifested. They also talked a lot about how embedded public attitudes can be, which goes to the heart of the issue.

We come back to what Brian Henderson said about the lack of understanding of why the issues are important. The attitudes study found that people do not understand that some forms of discrimination are harmful. Stakeholders made suggestions about how to develop understanding and knowledge through education. We must acknowledge the danger of reinforcing stereotypes.

On gender equality, you quote a study from the European Commission in 1996, which concluded:

"European public opinion is … strongly in favour of equal opportunities for women and men".

However, a 2003 study noted that

"on a social level, most people did not see sex inequality as a particular priority".

Does the contrast between the two conclusions reflect a gap between theory and practice, or is the issue the wider consciousness and understanding of the issues in society?

I do not think that it reflects a gap between theory and practice; it reflects a lack of recognition of the issues. During the past few years a range of research has examined matters such as gender pay gaps and has identified a lack of recognition of gender inequality. I suppose that people might think that the issue has been sorted but, as you said, the reality does not bear that out.

As I said in response to the question about the rise in racism, studies use different terminology and methodologies. The findings of a study might suggest that there has been a change in attitude or contradict the findings of another study, but that might be to do with the nature of the questions that people were asked. If studies do not ask the same question, it is difficult to discuss the differences in their findings. However, issues emerged that are having an impact.

Do we need to reconsider the definitions that we use, in particular in relation to gender inequality? When I read what your study said about violence against women, I was interested to know what definition you used, because you did not mention prostitution and pornography and the proliferation of violence against women in our culture. There is currently an extremely low level of consciousness of such matters. I will not go into the abortion rights debate, but recently I participated in a university debate and I was horrified when students laughed at my assertion that women are oppressed in our society. That assertion would have been accepted as fact 20 or 30 years ago. The students' attitudes reflect your findings on the situation for women.

How can we redefine gender inequality and change the language that we use about the situation of women in society, to enable us to increase awareness and tackle gender inequality? What did stakeholders think about that? People understand economic inequalities and know that it is not good that women's wages are 80 per cent of men's wages—even though the Government is not doing anything about that. However, given the wider impact on women of changes in culture and the pressures that women are under, we urgently need to find the language and definitions that will enable us to start to tackle gender inequality.

We could speculate on the issues that you mention. The research evidence identifies a need for clarity in the terms that we use, to ensure that issues can be explained to people clearly and meaningfully. There is a wider point about the need to get underneath broad issues such as violence against women, and to talk about specific aspects and impacts of those issues in a way that people can understand.

As you said, we do not mention a range of issues in the report. At the start of the report we said that each issue merited an entire report of its own. We have not tried to gloss over such matters, which are important, but we wanted to give a broad feel for the issues.

Stakeholders repeatedly stressed the need to have the data to support assertions, so that when we make an assertion we can support it with evidence.

Carolyn Leckie is right. Perhaps we need to get underneath some of the issues as part of the equalities review.

Both reports highlight the central role of the media in relation to prejudice and discrimination and the urgent need to tackle them. Page 44 of the public attitudes report states:

"The Citizens' Forum participants identified the need to challenge negative accounts in the media, as well as to promote more positive images of a diverse society."

Did you come across any examples of good practice in your research on tackling the media, including in the gutter press?

We did not go looking for good examples, because we were not asked to do so. Had we been asked to consider the impact of the media, I dare say that we would have found good and bad examples.

The answer lies in the question of what can be done to address those issues. It is about challenging stereotypes, promoting positive images—of which there are many examples in the press and publications by public agencies—and the need for clear and accurate reporting.

We discovered that stakeholders recognised the need to work with the media to promote positive images and good news stories. However, we did not go looking for good examples. That is not to say that there are none; we were simply not asked to do that.

We are talking about organisations that deal with such issues. I suspect that their views are based on their experiences of what has worked well and what constitutes good practice. Although we did not ask them to say, "We worked with X newspaper or X medium and this worked very well", we asked them what worked, based on their experience, and based our report on that.

Do you agree that good news does not sell newspapers? Society wants to read all the grot that papers can print without being dragged before the courts.

I will not comment on that. The stakeholders recognised the importance of presenting a positive view of equalities work in the media, but felt that the emphasis was not always on positive developments and views.

I thank the witnesses for the excellent report, which is a good starting point for us, and for their evidence. Are members content to publish the research on the committee's web page?

Members indicated agreement.

Although I do not agree with it, we can publish it.