Equality and Diversity
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-928, in the name of Stewart Maxwell, on equality and diversity.
I am pleased to speak to and move the motion during the Parliament's equality and diversity week. I begin by making a clear and unambiguous statement about the Government's position. We are committed to an equal and fair Scotland in which we value the diversity of our people and recognise their different needs and aspirations; foster respect for others and challenge prejudice and discriminatory attitudes; and ensure that people's experiences and life chances are not impeded by unjust discrimination and systemic bias on account of their race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, belief or age.
We want a Scotland in which every individual has the freedom and opportunity to be all that they can be. Over the years, there has been significant progress to that end in legislation and policy and there have been real shifts in attitudes. For example, men were executed for homosexuality in Britain 200 years ago, and male homosexual relationships were unlawful in Scotland 30 years ago. However, in 2005, civil partnerships were introduced, and I think that we can all agree that that was a serious and welcome step forward.
However, too many people do not yet experience equality or opportunity. One woman in five will experience abuse by a male partner in her lifetime. Women still do not have equal pay with men. People from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are less likely to occupy representative positions or to be visible in the leadership roles of civic society. Bigotry and sectarianism unfortunately still pervade parts of our communities. Many disabled people have no qualifications and are too often judged by what they cannot do rather than by what they can do. Older people are not always valued for the contribution that they can make. People are bullied and discriminated against because they are gay or lesbian.
Securing a fairer and more equal Scotland sits squarely with our strategic objectives and is reflected in our national outcomes and our budget. We have allocated £61 million in the budget over three years specifically for equality. That represents an £11 million increase over three years from the 2007-08 actual allocation.
The funding that has been identified for work on equality is for the Scottish Government to allocate. I emphasise that it is not being rolled up into the local government settlement. Hugh O'Donnell's amendment is factually incorrect on that point. It is also not correct to say that the violence against women fund and the children's services-women's aid fund are being rolled into the local government settlement. As I explained in the domestic abuse debate last week, allocation of those funds remains the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Only a small element of the funds, which corresponds to moneys that are currently given to local authorities for the projects that they run, will be passed over in the settlement. The significant increase in the equality budget will be directed primarily at tackling violence against women, including work on women and children who are affected by domestic abuse. We therefore reject the amendment lodged by Hugh O'Donnell.
We will, however, accept the amendment lodged by Johann Lamont. In so doing, we acknowledge the importance of equality impact assessment. We view it as a key driver in delivering on our commitment to ensure that our investment and policies promote equality and do not discriminate or perpetuate inequality.
Will the minister confirm that the equality impact assessment tool will be used in and applied to all Government policies?
Clearly, that is our aim. Our ambition is, as far as possible, to use the equality impact assessment tool on all our policies. As I am sure members will appreciate, there can be cases in which that will not be possible—in emergency situations, such as a foot-and-mouth outbreak or terrorist incident, or when an election has taken place and a new party comes into power with a clear mandate on a policy or priority that it has laid out in its manifesto, on the basis of which it was elected to office. Generally, however, our aim is to use the equality impact assessment tool.
The minister mentioned the case of a new Government coming in. What is the Government doing to demonstrate tolerance, understanding, compassion and empathy in relation to people in the Parliament who have other political beliefs, in order to set an example to the rest of Scotland?
That is my forte.
Perhaps I should leave that to Mr Ewing. I am sure that, at the end of the debate, he will give the member a clear and unequivocal answer.
I will move on. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth outlined our approach to mainstreaming equality and the Scottish budget in his letter to the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee of 21 November. The equality impact assessment tool that we have developed is available for use across the Government. We will keep it under review to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and in so doing we will value the input of the equality proofing the budget and policy advisory group. We view equality impact assessment as a key mechanism for ensuring both that our policies respond to the different needs of people in Scotland and that those needs are reflected in the resources that are allocated to delivery.
Public bodies, including local authorities, are key to delivering change. They, too, are subject to the public sector equality duties, and they have responsibilities to ensure that the impact of their policies on equality is assessed. We very much value our partnership with local government on this agenda, and we are pleased to be working on a joint equality statement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which we hope to finalise shortly.
Disabled people should be valued and respected and able to participate fully in our society. We will continue to listen to the views of disabled people about what needs to be done. The report of the disability inquiry undertaken by the Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee will help to inform our approach in the period ahead. I am specifically considering how best to advance work on independent living. That is an important issue on which I know Parliament is keen to see progress. I intend to say something further on the matter in the new year.
The number of British Sign Language/English interpreters on the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters register has increased from 39, in March 2003, to 52, with 13 trainee associate members. We will continue that work, as well as developing a detailed plan for improving linguistic access for deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing people. The Scottish Government has recently produced new guidance on self-directed support and will be undertaking a review of the disabled student allowance. All of those, I believe, are welcome developments for disabled people.
Our demographic is changing. We are an ageing population—I certainly feel that I am ageing today. Age should not be a barrier to the opportunities that are available to people to participate in Scottish society. The spending review contains commitments of particular import to older people, such as the freeze on council tax, the uprating of free personal and nursing care and a commitment to improve support for people who are affected by dementia.
A traditional African saying is that there is no music in a single sound; different sounds are needed to give music harmony. Scotland is an increasingly diverse nation with a growing minority ethnic population. That diversity enriches us, but racism, sectarianism and Islamophobia undermine Scotland's image and reputation as a nation of tolerance and acceptance.
Recent acts of terror have tested attitudes, and it is to Scotland's credit that there has been little scapegoating of communities. We recognise that there has been a heightening of tension and that some fear a shift in attitudes. We are absolutely clear: those acts of terror were criminal acts by individuals, not communities. We value the positive relationship with our communities and are looking to develop further our community engagement work.
Racism is a blight on any nation. We are proud that Scotland has taken a public stand against it through its one Scotland campaign. I acknowledge the work undertaken by previous ministers to build that campaign and I put it on record that we will continue to move the campaign forward.
We will also need to consider how new migration and the linkages between race and faith work should be addressed. We will do that as part of the redrafting of the statement and action plan on race equality on which we will engage with stakeholders early next year.
This Parliament and its committees have rightly taken a keen interest in Gypsy Travellers. The Gypsy Traveller community has been marginalised and excluded for far too long. It is a community that is not understood and about which myths and incorrect assumptions abound. I know that the Parliament is concerned to see progress on that issue and that members want to know how the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Committee's report on Gypsy Travellers will be advanced. We will consider that as part of the race equality statement and action plan and will report back to Parliament in due course.
On asylum seekers and refugees, we have made clear our principled position on a number of issues, such as our opposition to dawn raids and the detention of families in Dungavel. We believe that those with legacy cases should be given leave to remain if there has been no involvement in criminality or fraud, and that the right to work should be restored. This Government has acted swiftly in an area in which we have jurisdiction: asylum-seeking young people who have been studying in Scottish schools for at least three years will be able to apply for full-time courses at universities and colleges—a move that has been widely welcomed.
This Government welcomes the gender duty and the opportunities that it presents to progress gender equality in Scotland. We will continue to work with others to address violence against women, the pay gap and occupational segregation; challenge stereotypical attitudes about men and women's roles; and support the engagement of women and women's organisations.
Scotland has made great strides in improving legislative rights and policy recognition for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, but, unfortunately, homophobic attitudes remain an underlying barrier to equality. The LGBT hearts and minds group is exploring the prejudice and discrimination experienced by communities in Scotland and I look forward to receiving its report in early 2008.
We welcome the legislative changes and the discrimination law review, with the prospect of a single equality act and a single equality duty. However, we share some of the concerns that have been expressed by equality stakeholders about some of the proposals. We conveyed those concerns to the United Kingdom Government in September 2007.
We look forward to working closely with the new Equality and Human Rights Commission, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with the Parliament and with the range of equality interests whose activities have been crucial in the advancement of equality in Scotland to date.
I believe that there is much to do to achieve a fair and equal society, and I hope that members will support us in meeting the challenge.
I move,
That the Parliament is committed to securing equality of opportunity and a fairer Scotland in which diversity of need is recognised, respect for others is fostered, stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes and behaviours are challenged and people have more control over their lives and welcomes Equality and Diversity Week, the creation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the commitment of the Scottish Government to promoting and mainstreaming equality and to working in partnership with public bodies, the voluntary sector, business interests and communities to tackle disadvantage and the barriers to equality.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I also welcome much of what the minister said in his comprehensive capturing of the range of areas in which discrimination and inequality feature in our society. I am particularly proud to lead for the Labour Party in this debate, because, of course, the Labour Party was founded on an understanding of inequality, injustice and exclusion and a recognition that to tackle those things we need people who are discriminated against to shape the political process. To tackle inequality and respect diversity, we need to open up the political process to those who most need its protection.
My colleagues will address a range of the critical issues that are part of the equality and diversity agenda. In speaking to the amendment in my name, I indicate that we are happy to support the motion. However, we believe that, although the sentiments in the motion are easy to express, the challenge is to ensure that the means are willed to deliver on those aspirations. That is what we seek from the statement to the Parliament that we call for in our amendment. We need properly to assess—and to use the equality impact assessment tool to deliver that assessment—and we need to ensure that rhetoric is matched by resources.
We know that striving for equality and celebrating diversity should be the core of Government business. A society that seeks to release all the talents and abilities in our communities is a safer, more secure and better society for all. That is what we are seeking from the Government in a statement. To state the obvious, for example, a straight budget increase for individual services may, ironically, disproportionately benefit those who are already strong in our communities. We might therefore want to ask how the budget presented by the Executive, driven as it is by tax cuts, can benefit the most vulnerable and excluded in our communities.
Will the member give way?
I want to make some progress.
I will focus on disability and, more specifically, on children with disability, both as a means of illustrating the challenge of delivering equality through the budget and to raise with the Executive grave concerns about its budgeting priorities.
I have come to the issue most sharply because of the experience of a number of my constituents who have children with disability and special needs, but the issues that they raise are the common experience of many families. I recognise the courage, persistence and moderation of those parents in pursuing the issues, but the reality for them is that to have a child with a disability is, it seems, always to be engaged in a battle, struggle and fight to secure for their child what they need to thrive. It is harder to access services, child care, after-school care and holiday clubs and to secure for their children their independence and happiness in adult life.
As a small example, we know that three out of four blind or visually impaired people are unemployed. We know, too, that disabled young people make up 8 per cent of all 16 to 34-year-olds, yet in 2005-06 22 per cent of all young Scots who were not in employment, education or training were disabled. We have concerns about the language of the Executive on regulation. I ask the minister to reflect that one person's excessive red tape is another person's job opportunity. When talking about employment, we also have to challenge employers. I hope that the minister can confirm that any benefits to business that come through the budget will be attached to conditions in relation to those whom businesses seek to employ.
We know that supporting disabled children puts pressure on parents; pressure is also put on siblings and on their parents' capacity to give them the attention that they need. Members may be aware of the powerful every disabled child matters campaign, which sought to get the UK Government to understand more fully the challenges faced by families and to engage in creating change for them. As a consequence, a group was set up, chaired by Tom Clarke MP, to review and hear evidence and to make recommendations to the Government. The group took evidence from across the UK, including Scotland, and the report that the group submitted highlights critical issues for families.
The UK Government responded with the document "Aiming high for disabled children: better support for families" in May 2007. This may not come as a huge surprise, but the report highlighted the critical need to empower disabled children and their families, provide more responsive services and support, and improve the quality of support. With the response came a £340 million package, £280 million of which was a grant to cover the cost of delivery of improvements in the provision of short breaks for children, allowing a change of environment for the child and respite for carers and siblings.
As a direct consequential from that funding, the Executive received £34 million. In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram, confirmed that the money had been received but that it was for the Scottish Government to determine how it was spent. Will the Minister for Communities and Sport confirm today that that £34 million will be spent on meeting the needs of disabled children and their families, as outlined in the UK Government's response, with a particular focus on short breaks and respite? Technically, of course, the Minister for Children and Early Years was correct, but I am sure that the Minister for Communities and Sport will agree that it would be an outrage if families in Scotland did not benefit from the funding, given the groundbreaking work that was done by the families and campaigning groups to create understanding of the issues and pressure for the funding.
We seek the minister's reassurance that the £34 million is not a windfall that the Government will use to fund its tax-cutting priorities but is recognised as critical funding to change the lives of vulnerable children. It would be a bitter irony if there were no beneficial consequences to vulnerable children of the hard work of families of disabled children and the support of disability groups.
In the summing-up speech, will the minister commit to making a statement to Parliament, as requested in our amendment, on how the budget, shaped by the equality impact assessment tool, will meet the aspirations in the motion? Will he guarantee that that statement will identify how the £34 million will be spent to meet disabled children's needs, as identified in "Aiming high for disabled children"? Will he resist the red-tape argument and ensure that any employability strategy challenges employers as well as employees? Will he consider how business tax cuts can be a means of creating support in the business community for employing people with disabilities?
Further, will the minister confirm the commitment to localised funding for excluded groups, to address their experience? They know the problems, but they also know the answers. Will he meet representatives of disability groups in particular to pursue the agenda of how the fruits of their campaigning labour will be delivered to families with disabled children?
As for local government spending priorities, will the minister guarantee that equality groups will be involved in the development and monitoring of single outcome agreements, to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our communities do not bear the cost of the new change in funding?
Like all other members, Labour members recognise the broader agenda. We also recognise the progress that has been made by the former Labour-led Executive and—critically—by the current Labour Government, which is willing to take courageous action on the equality agenda. We all like warm words, but the people in our communities who are most sharply aware of inequality and discrimination, which pepper and shape their every day and every waking moment, deserve from all of us the Executive's unequivocal commitment to putting its money where its mouth is.
It is a privilege to participate in the debate. I trust that the minister will respond to some of the sharp points that I have raised.
I move amendment S3M-928.2, to insert at end:
"further recognises that equality impact assessment tools should be used in determining and assessing policy priorities and spending allocations, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a statement to the Parliament detailing how the above commitments on equality and diversity will be delivered through the Scottish budget."
First, I thank the Minister for Communities and Sport for clarifying the rolled-up funding issue. Having specific figures on that will help the organisations that are involved.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, particularly during equality and diversity week. We should always have the subject on our radar because, despite the positive steps to which the minister and Johann Lamont referred, there is still a long way to go.
Scotland is undoubtedly a diverse society, no matter how that is defined, and it is a better place for that. The rich panoply of individual, cultural and social contributions that make up society brings social, economic and cultural benefits. The Liberal Democrats welcome that for our country.
It is of course welcome that the motion acknowledges the importance of that equality and diversity, but it is perhaps significant that an attempt was made earlier this week to produce a single consensual motion. I was a little concerned that that was an attempt to avoid the questions that many members have raised and are likely to raise about how the Scottish National Party has approached the issue.
Despite the warm words, the budget and the economic strategy contain clear indications that the mainstreaming of equalities has disappeared off the agenda. Before anybody becomes excited about that, I make it clear that a change in funding and well-meaning words in the spending review document do not represent an equalities policy in any circumstances.
I will take an intervention from the cabinet secretary.
I thank Hugh O'Donnell for the promotion to cabinet secretary. First, does he accept that the budget for equalities and dealing with violence against women will increase by a substantial sum in the next three years? I laid that out clearly in last week's debate on violence against women.
Secondly, if Hugh O'Donnell checks the budget document, he will see on page 4 a statement about equalities and on page 107 a clear and unequivocal statement about mainstreaming equalities.
I am sure that the minister will merit the promotion in due course. I take his points about those statements, to which I will refer later in my speech. I acknowledge the budget increase, which I have mentioned.
My main concern is that simply saying well-meaning words is not good enough. By the time that documents have been produced, it is almost too late to consider equalities—they are part of the whole process of developing and delivering policy.
There is no trade-off between the economic imperative and equalities generally, and despite the project money to which the minister referred, there is not much to indicate that the Government sees equalities as much more than a bolt-on.
There is a reference to equity in "The Government Economic Strategy", and the Government followed the same line in the budget, but it is understood that the strategy deals with economic inequalities. However, inequalities go beyond economic inequalities. The clear implication is that policies and resources will be targeted at addressing income inequalities and promoting regional equity, but where is the commitment to equal pay and single status even in that sphere? There are no references to equal pay and single status, although 20,000 cases are waiting to be addressed and £5 million has already been paid out.
It is almost impossible to find any notion, beyond the very narrowly defined notion of equity, of how equalities considerations have informed the Government's economic strategy and budget. What, for example, are the implications for equalities of the Government's pursuit of efficiency savings and the transfer of responsibilities for delivering services and the equalities agenda to the voluntary sector? At first glance, it seems that that sector is getting more money, but there has been no indication of what is expected of it. There is an efficiency drive in the public sector—target savings of 2 per cent have been set—and the inescapable conclusion is that the voluntary sector will be the mechanism by which savings will be levered out of the public sector. However, that approach will work only if the voluntary sector does not get the money that it needs. It has not even been clearly told yet what job it is expected to do.
If the SNP is so committed to equalities and mainstreaming, why do the "Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007" and "The Government Economic Strategy" not refer to gender stereotyping when they discuss skills development? By focusing on that issue, the SNP could encourage women to take up career opportunities that have the possibility of higher incomes. The issue is particularly important at a time when, to our shame, the gender pay gap is widening. Removing such barriers so that people can make non-traditional career choices is part of what mainstreaming equalities is all about and helps to lift them out of poor pay situations. On the basis of the documents that I have referred to, it is clear that that idea has not occurred to the SNP, although I am sure that the minister will clarify what I have misinterpreted.
Will the member take an intervention?
Certainly.
Mr O'Donnell is just finishing.
I am sorry.
We should all be concerned that the budget—in its details and in how it makes people know what is expected of them—pays little more than lip service to equalities. That is disappointing. I hope that the minister will respond to the points that I have raised.
I move amendment S3M-928.1, to insert at end:
"further welcomes the creation of the Scottish Commission for Human Rights with a remit to promote and encourage best practice in human rights including the rights of those groups whose rights are not otherwise sufficiently promoted; regrets the absence of a commitment to the mainstreaming of equality in the Scottish budget document; is concerned at the rolling up into the local government settlement of equalities funding, including the Violence Against Women Fund and the Women's Aid Fund where they will have to compete with other local government delivery priorities, and therefore believes that the Scottish Government should clarify its commitment to mainstreaming equality and how its identified equalities funding will support that objective."
I apologise to the Presiding Officer, the ministers and to everyone else in the chamber for missing the start of the debate.
In September, the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, attended the Equal Opportunities Committee away day, during which the committee asked whether it would be possible to hold a debate in the Scottish Parliament to mark the European year of equal opportunities for all in 2007. I am grateful to the Scottish Government for setting aside parliamentary time to discuss the many, varied, complex and extremely important issues that relate to raising awareness of rights and equal opportunities and to promoting the benefits that embracing diversity can bring to key stakeholders in European societies, such as the voluntary sector, local authorities, private companies, communities and individuals.
The first-ever European equality summit was held in Berlin in January 2007. Last week, as convener of the Scottish Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee, I attended the year's closing conference in Lisbon, where the varied activities that had taken place in different member states to mark the year were highlighted. Those included the issuing of commemorative stamps and coins, organised road shows on the subject, debates similar to this one, awards for best practice and the use of humour to get the message across and help to raise awareness. In Portugal, that was done through cartoons. In the Scottish Parliament, as part of equality and diversity week, we are holding a room 101 event to raise awareness about the issue in a light-hearted way. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Aneela McKenna and her staff for all the excellent events that they have staged for the Scottish Parliament's equality and diversity week.
The use of humour is worth exploring given the fact that, over the years, there has been a tendency to take equal opportunities to extremes so that, in the public perception, it has become primarily associated with negativity. For example, it is perceived to be about political correctness and what one cannot do. That has meant that, all too often, when equal opportunities is raised, the inevitable reaction is to groan or switch off completely. Yet, the fundamental issue of fairness that equal opportunities seeks to address is one that affects everybody. If not directly about ourselves, it is about our son, daughter, wider family, friend, neighbour, colleague or acquaintance. Equal opportunities is about everyone and involves celebrating diversity, breaking down stereotyping and challenging cultural prejudice.
That message was powerfully brought home to me by one speaker at the Lisbon conference who pointed out that, although climate change has dominated political thought in recent years by posing the question, "Can we live without the planet?" a more pressing question—given the international conflict that is almost a permanent feature in the world arena—is perhaps, "Can we live without each other?" Clearly, we cannot. That makes it all the more pertinent to raise awareness of and establish our understanding of diversity and difference as positive rather than negative attributes.
There is encouraging evidence that private companies and multinationals such as L'Oréal are already recognising and promoting diversity as good for competitiveness and for their public image. Their philosophy is that diversity is the mirror of the world and breeds creativity. L'Oréal therefore not only has diversity as a core value, but has established a diversity laboratory to exchange and promote best practice among other countries. It is interesting to note that more than 50 per cent of the company's managers are women. There is, therefore, a growing recognition in both the public and private sectors that the workplace is a key channel for the promotion of diversity and intercultural dialogue and that there are economic benefits to be reaped from that. There are lessons there to be learned for Scotland.
I will briefly mention some of the valid points that were raised at yesterday's round-table discussion on barriers to mainstreaming equal opportunities in Scotland, which the Equal Opportunities Committee held to celebrate the European year of equal opportunities. At the debate, it was pointed out that mainstreaming is not always clearly understood, and concern was expressed about the lack of sufficient scrutiny and analysis of spending commitments dedicated to tackling barriers to equal opportunities and to promoting diversity.
Very pertinent points were also raised about access to justice being denied in relation to the tribunal system, which militates against individuals taking up complaints on their own. They find it too expensive to do so, they may lack expertise and such actions can often be a death knell for their career prospects. There is therefore definitely a case for exploring the increased use of alternative dispute resolution and mediation to encourage early resolution and to give value for money.
Those and other issues will be pursued more thoroughly with the minister, not least during the weeks and months ahead as we scrutinise the draft budget. For today, the Scottish Conservatives will support the motion in Stewart Maxwell's name.
As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee and its disability reporter, I am grateful to the minister for having lodged the motion for debate today. Parliament must be seen to take a lead for Scotland and beyond in recognising the diversity of our society and, at the same time, raising awareness of the fact that all our diverse elements are of equal value. I am therefore happy to see that the Government's motion contains a commitment to promoting and mainstreaming equality, and to continuing the commitment to tackle disadvantage within our communities. However, I must emphasise that although I know only too well about the need to tackle poverty as an equalities issue, we must not take our eye off the ball with regard to discrimination in all its other insidious forms.
Unbelievably, the Equal Pay Act 1970 still blatantly fails to eradicate the gender imbalance in incomes: 37 years after the act was passed, it is disgraceful that women in Scotland are paid on average 15 per cent less than men for doing the same or an equivalent job. Indeed, that gap has widened inexplicably in Scotland in the past two years, which must be investigated with great haste—otherwise it might continue.
Furthermore, the Scottish Trades Union Congress reports that approximately 1,000 women per year lose their jobs as a result of pregnancy. Discrimination therefore appears to know no joy at all.
Mainstreaming or embedding equalities in society is not yet widely understood as a concept; far less is it a reality. We should therefore hold up as examples organisations that recognise diversities and which implement equalities legislation as intended. Conversely, we must have the courage to focus a light on local authorities, educational establishments and businesses that fail to do that, perhaps by obliging them to publish successful actions that have been raised against them by the people whom they have failed.
Fifty-eight per cent of Scottish disabled people have no formal qualifications, compared with 24 per cent of people who do not have a disability. It is sad, but not surprising, that young disabled Scots are therefore twice as likely to be not in employment, education or training as those without a disability. In further education, the ability to travel independently is still being used as one of the criteria that govern admissions, thereby frequently debarring disabled students from further education.
As the member is committed to disability and has a role as a disability reporter, will he join me in encouraging the minister to ensure that the £34 million that was given to the Scottish Executive to support the needs of disabled children and their families will be used to do so?
I thank the member for her—I was going to say interruption, but that is not nice—intervention. I am sure that the minister heard the member's full and comprehensive speech earlier, and he is better able than me to make that decision. I hope that the money will be targeted specifically and that the full amount will be given, but that is not for me to do or say.
Because young disabled people are twice as likely to be not in employment, education or training, they lack education and job opportunities. Their prospects are limited and, inevitably, poverty ensues.
For those with learning disabilities and mental health problems, there is often a social stigma with the added complication that they might be unable to articulate ideas and feelings, which leads to greater risk of heart and other diseases, and a shorter life span. The learning disabled also now face social isolation and reduced job and education prospects because they will lose their travel passes if they are on the lower rate of the disability living allowance. That will be yet another blow to their chances of equality and hopes of more control over their lives. I hope that that will be addressed.
Opportunities in life depend upon the equality that is afforded by society to a diverse range of people. Whether we talk about disability, gender, age, race, faith or sexuality, our words must be a prelude to action. It is the duty of all in the Parliament to embed the mainstreaming of equalities in all our work. I thank the minister for the motion.
I am pleased to take part in today's debate. I congratulate the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on organising the equality and diversity week here in Parliament as part of the celebrations of the European year of equal opportunities for all. It is important that we are all aware of the progress that has been made towards equality. We can with real pride point to the Parliament as playing a leading role in promoting equality and providing a good example of diversity in practice.
I am also pleased that today's debate follows on from last week's debate, which focused on stopping violence against women and children. In today's Scotsman, domestic violence is described as "an epidemic" by Morag Alexander, who is Scotland's commissioner on the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Given that we are debating equality and diversity, does the member recognise that last week's debate was not terribly equal in raising the issue of domestic violence against men? That point is not often raised.
I thank Mike Rumbles for that intervention, which we have heard before. The statistics, which were well rehearsed last week, show that a large proportion of women are victims of domestic violence. We cannot forget that. There is a hidden epidemic of domestic violence. Therefore, I call again on the Government to ensure that the work on providing services is continued. As I said last week, it is important that those services include not just refuges for the victims but means of ensuring that the perpetrators—generally men—change their behaviour.
As well as ensuring the provision of services, the Government should look seriously at the causes of such crimes of hatred. I am delighted that the newly formed EHRC has already spoken out at the beginning of the 16 days of activism against gender violence. However, it cannot be repeated often enough that we need urgently to look at the reasons behind what is, in the words of Kofi Annan,
"the most atrocious manifestation of the systemic discrimination and inequality women continue to face".
Women are not a homogeneous group and it would be wrong to see them only as victims, but many different women—and, sadly, all people—can be discriminated against for multiple reasons. In the Equal Opportunities Committee, we have identified six strands: gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age and faith and religion. We have strand-specific reporters who facilitate our work both within and outwith Parliament to counter discrimination on any of those grounds.
I have always held to the belief that much can be achieved by positive reinforcement—by wielding a carrot as well as a stick. A great deal of discrimination comes from ignorance, so it is essential that we spend time gathering and facilitating the spread of information about all the different communities and cultures that make Scotland what it is today—one Scotland, many cultures. We need to celebrate the diversity of life.
Of course, we also need legislation to underline how important equality is. The gender equality duty, which came into force in April this year, has been described as the biggest change to sex equality legislation since the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. In the Scottish Executive's gender equality scheme, which was published earlier this year, the then Minister for Communities, Rhona Brankin, outlined a vision that we would all acknowledge as being the Scotland for which we strive: a Scotland in which women do not face discrimination in the workplace because they are pregnant or because they work part-time; a Scotland in which health outcomes for men are improved and men are better able to achieve a work-life balance; a Scotland in which no woman faces the threat of domestic violence; and a Scotland in which young men and young women are able to make choices about their education and careers without being restricted by gender stereotyping.
The gender equality duty requires all public bodies to acknowledge the need to end sex discrimination and harassment and to promote equality of opportunity between women and men. In short, the quality of the service that people receive from a public body should not depend on their gender. In its consultation on its gender equality scheme, the Scottish Executive consulted on the agenda for women in Scotland. The priority issues included gender stereotyping in education, occupational segregation, equal pay, child care, women's participation in decision making and violence against women. Each of those topics deserves a debate, and the Scottish Government needs to ensure that its budget gives proper consideration to each of them. I look forward to seeing the detail of how the Government will fulfil its commitment to the duty.
I turn now to the budget. A key cause for concern is the possible impact that the proposed spending allocations across the spending review period may have on promotion of equal pay. We are all aware of how pervasive gender segregation is in employment. Efficiency savings cannot be made on the backs of the workers—mainly women—who are involved in delivering services. A focus on efficiency savings should and must not imply a trade-off with the strategic priority that is attached to the promotion of equality, not just equity. The explicit commitment to mainstreaming is integral to sustainable economic development. Although I welcome the minister's statement today, I look forward to his giving evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee next week, when we can examine the issue in greater detail.
I call on the Government, all members and all citizens of Scotland to commit themselves once and for all to working to eliminate discrimination in all its forms and to celebrate the continuing diversity of Scotland.
I welcome today's debate and the varied contributions that have been made. The members who have spoken so far have articulated the scale of the problem that faces our society and have highlighted the range of inequalities that still need to be tackled. Recently, I have been glad to support Patrick Harvie's proposed member's bill on hate crime and Shirley-Anne Somerville's motion supporting the women's coalition's statement of intent, each of which, in its own way, sets out to tackle important areas of inequality.
In the brief time that I have this afternoon, I want to focus on gender inequality—perhaps it is just as well that Mr Rumbles has left the chamber. There is still great gender inequality in Scotland. Men are still paid more than women, thousands of pregnant workers are treated unfairly and thousands of women are sexually harassed at work every year. Although half of us want to work more flexible hours, many of us are denied that. One woman in five faces domestic abuse, conviction rates for rape are at an all-time low and power is still mostly held by men. We will not fix that this afternoon.
In 1975, when the Equal Pay Act 1970 came into force and the Sex Discrimination Bill was passed, I was a student at university. I remember the sense of excitement and the feeling that things were really going to change. Now, more than 30 years on, with my own daughter at university, I have a growing sense of disbelief at the lack of progress. My daughter and her friends face many of the inequalities that my friends and I faced in the 1970s. As the Equal Opportunities Commission Scotland said in its final report, there is an "unfinished revolution".
In 2028, we will mark the centenary of the Equal Franchise Act 1928, which was passed on 2 July 1928 and gave women the vote on equal terms with men. The Fawcett Society is campaigning to ensure that equality comes of age in the next 21 years. I commend its equal votes, equal power campaign, which seeks to close the gaps between women and men in access to power, money and justice. However, surely we must not wait another 21 years—another generation, with my granddaughter at university—before women gain real equality. The Fawcett Society says that the 21-year target reflects the scale of the current equality gap. At the current rate of change, it will take 200 years to achieve equal representation of women and men in the Westminster Parliament, although we have a better record here, as Marlyn Glen pointed out. It will take 40 years to achieve an equal number of senior women in the judiciary, 60 years to achieve an equal number of female directors of FTSE 100 companies, 80 years before the full-time pay gap closes and 140 years before the part-time gap closes.
We must still mind the gap—the UK has the biggest pay gap of all European Union countries. Women working part-time earn on average 36 per cent less an hour than men working full-time. Women working full-time earn on average 17 per cent less an hour than men working full-time. That is a disgrace. As Unison says, it is the equivalent of men getting paid all year and women working for free from 30 October. The problem affects us throughout our lives, because lower pay means that women also face a pensions gap—their retirement income is 53 per cent of men's.
Although I know that there is a need to tackle all inequalities, I am concerned about the umbrella nature of the new Equality and Human Rights Commission. There is the potential for a loss of focus on gender equality issues. The Equal Opportunities Commission Scotland's final report outlined the changes that are needed here to bring about greater equality and which should be used as the blueprint for action. Gender equality is not just good for individuals—it is good for business and for social well-being. The report said:
"Change is about doing what makes sense for our social health and financial wealth, as well as doing what is right. Whilst our own lives are made more difficult by these inequalities, Scotland will also lose out economically if we don't tackle them. A country that doesn't use its full potential by channelling women into low paid work, forcing families to struggle to cope and losing the skills of those who cannot work and care will fall behind."
I note that the Government has increased the budget for equalities, but what will it do to ensure that the money is properly targeted and effective? The UK still works longer hours than other developed countries and has a culture that views the hours that someone puts in as a measure of a person's commitment to their job. Our long-hours working culture means that those who want to balance work and home life find it hard to get on in the workplace and can face discrimination. That is despite the fact that there is clear evidence that, when an employer offers flexibility in respect of working hours, everyone—female employees, male employees and the employer—benefits. In such circumstances, men get to spend more time with their families, which is important as we know that seven out of 10 dads are concerned that they do not spend enough time with their families. For women, greater sharing of caring and work enables them to thrive in the workplace. Furthermore, employers who implement such policies report higher morale, lower turnover of staff and greater productivity.
We need practical measures to ensure that everyone can benefit from such flexible working. Why is it that, in 2007, having children or becoming a carer means economic inequality for women? Why is it that flexible working is not available in all types of work, including senior roles? Why is it that pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and other forms of workplace discrimination are not yet eliminated? Until we transform Scotland's workplaces, our choices will remain limited. Men and women will not be able to lead family lives in a way that works for them, older women will continue to be less independent than men and our country will become less productive.
The problem is not with the limits that people have but with the limits that society places on them. We need action now and society needs to catch up. We need to close the income gap, give better support to families, modernise public services and work to deliver equal power. The EOC has spoken of an "unfinished revolution". I call on the Government to do all that it can to help complete that revolution.
I am proud to be able to speak in this debate in equality and diversity week and I congratulate the minister on his positive contribution. I welcome in particular what he said about the mainstreaming of equalities, which was raised at yesterday's meeting of the Equal Opportunities Committee, and the impact of the equality impact assessments, which are at the core of ensuring that equality is delivered by Parliament.
Tomorrow will see the appointment of the first ever Scottish commissioner for human rights. That person will lead on human rights issues relating to devolved matters and, with the other members of the commission, will be charged with promoting widespread awareness, understanding of and respect for human rights; reviewing and recommending changes to any policies or practices of Scottish public authorities; and providing advice and guidance. I am sure that everyone in the chamber will welcome that appointment as further evidence that the Government is committed to equality and justice for all.
I believe that we are moving in the right direction and that the profile and importance of equalities and diversity have grown over the years and will continue to do so. I want to give everyone their due and say that all parties have played a role in that, but we must not be complacent. There will always be new challenges to overcome and there are some challenges that have been going on for a long time without having been resolved.
I want to concentrate on equal pay, which other members have talked about. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, but today many people are still fighting for the right to equal pay. Bill Kidd mentioned that the pay gap between men and women has increased since then. The situation that exists 37 years after passing the act is unacceptable and must be tackled. For far too long, women have been employed in low-paid part-time jobs. I agree with Hugh O'Donnell's words about stereotyping in employment and I assure him that the SNP Government is committed to challenging that serious issue. Equality of pay, conditions and opportunities must be at the forefront of any skills strategy, so that we can ensure, for example, that as many women as men take up apprenticeships and that the drop-out rate for women, which is greater than it is for men, after a couple of months, is examined. I ask the minister to ensure that that is looked at.
In 2001, Wendy Alexander, in answer to a parliamentary question on equal pay in the further education sector, referred to a guidance letter in which she had written:
"staff are the key resource … and we must continually strive to improve people management, staff development and succession planning."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 15 November 2001; S1W-19620.]
I will avoid commenting on Ms Alexander's powers of people management, staff development and succession planning, but I agree with her remark. I hope that the historic agreement between local government and the national Government, which the Government has delivered, will provide a firm foundation for future agreements and allow both parties to work together to tackle the problem, after years of failure.
On the pressures on and value of staff, does Sandra White agree that given how funds are being allocated for the third sector—the voluntary sector—and the transfer of funds, opportunities for staff in that sector to receive equal and proper pay are potentially threatened?
I do not agree with Hugh O'Donnell. If he reads the Official Report of yesterday's Equal Opportunities Committee meeting, he will find that Morag Alexander told the committee that many voluntary organisations have a good approach to equal opportunities and that the public and private sectors can learn from the voluntary sector.
Day care workers in Glasgow are on strike over downgrading of their jobs. Those workers support vulnerable people and do not have the support or opportunities that other members of society enjoy, as members have said. Women in such situations are the very people we are talking about, because low-paid jobs that are done by women are constantly targeted for regrading.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, I do not have time. I would have liked to have given way to Margaret Curran.
I am the Equal Opportunities Committee's reporter on older people and I am the convener of Parliament's cross-party group on older people, age and ageing. The population is ageing and many older people express concern that they are excluded from society, denied opportunities for employment and discriminated against because of their age. Such discrimination is against the law, but it happens and the Government must address it.
I encourage the minister to consider how the Government can work with relevant stakeholders—I hate that word but it is the only one that I could find—to raise awareness of the growing problem of age discrimination and to implement the many recommendations of reports such as the excellent "All Our Futures: Planning for a Scotland with an Ageing Population". That report calls for the planning and delivery of "age-friendly services" and employment opportunities, the establishment of a national forum on ageing—this is a wish list, but I might as well carry on—the development of indicators to monitor success and the production of regular reports to Parliament from 2008.
I hate to say it, but we are all getting older, although we should not fear ageing or run away from the issue. There is much to celebrate about getting older. Older people's experience and the contribution that they can—and do—make to society should be embraced.
Like other members, I am pleased to speak in the debate, in the middle of a week of awareness raising in the Parliament about equality and diversity. I thank the Government for bringing the debate.
The debate also takes place during the United Nations 16 days of activism against gender violence. Marlyn Glen mentioned that campaign, the theme of which this year is challenging obstacles. I am pleased that the Minister for Communities and Sport is wearing the white ribbon for men who want to observe the 16 days of action.
The previous Executive put much effort into the promotion of equality and into tackling the most extreme manifestation of gender inequality: violence against women. The Executive built on the work done by women in the Labour and trade union movements over many years.
There can be little doubt that male violence against women is premised on women's inequality and subordination in society. This week, Trevor Phillips described such violence as
"an undeclared war on women".
Therefore it is vital to focus on challenging and changing attitudes, which are supported and encouraged by social structures and cultural messages. All-pervasive messages portray women's needs and rights as less significant than those of men, suggest that it is normal or natural for men to disrespect women, and continue to advocate rigid models of what it means to be a man or a woman in society.
On the continuum of male violence against women and children are domestic abuse, rape, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, sexual harassment, trafficking, prostitution and pornography. The harm that is caused by some forms of male violence has been recognised, and attempts have been to tackle it, one example of that being the attempts to tackle domestic abuse. I note the good and successful debate in the chamber on that subject.
Today, I will talk specifically about pornography, which is a major obstacle to tackling gender discrimination. In 2004, Malcolm Chisholm, who was the Minister for Communities at the time, stated in the chamber:
"Pornography is predicated on abuse".—[Official Report, 25 November 2004; c 12350.]
That statement was an important one for a minister to make.
Over the years, the Equal Opportunities Committee has tried to look into the harm that pornography causes. The task is not easy because of the lack of research. Consideration of pornography tends to attract unhelpful and, at times, hysterical media attention. The debate needs to be around common sense and the evidence that we can find of harm.
In 1990, the Home Office published a review of existing research evidence of the effects of pornography. At the time, owing to the difficulty of getting appropriate control groups for research purposes, it was not possible to conclude whether pornography causes sexual violence. However, the report acknowledged that many women find pornography distressing and that it is frequently the case that women who suffer domestic violence have partners who use pornography heavily. It also showed that some sexual offenders use pornography, including in preparation for committing an offence.
Just last month, two American academics gave evidence to me, as the Equal Opportunities Committee gender reporter, and MSP colleagues. They showed us the results of more recent studies, which found that exposure to violent pornography directly affects aggressive attitudes and behaviours.
The images that are of concern are not only the most extreme. The Home Office report to which I referred stated:
"it might be that sexually violent pornography is the most dangerous but that newspaper nudity is still to a small degree harmful & because newspapers are more everyday than extreme pornography their aggregate effects might be greater. The research evidence is silent on this."
The many women who have been involved in pornography have not been silent on the harm that it has caused them. Some of their stories can be found in reports of the civil rights hearings in the United States of America in the 1980s and 1990s. One of the women who gave evidence was Linda Marchiano, who is otherwise known as Linda Lovelace. Referring to her appearance in a particular pornographic film, she said:
"every time someone watches that film, they are watching me being raped".
Despite protests, the film was shown recently in Edinburgh. That is outrageous.
I will not spend further time saying what pornography is. We all know that. We can all see the reality of the pictures and other images that are often accepted as harmless, but which dehumanise women, are regularly associated with violence, and are usually accompanied by crude and derogatory captions. They should all simply be captioned "Women for Sale". The images are predicated on women's subordination and objectification, which means that they are predicated on inequality.
Some people argue that pornography is okay because some women make the choice to participate voluntarily in pornography for money. We need to make it clear today that pornography does not exist because of the choices that women make; it exists because men use it at the expense of women for sexual gratification. Pornography is big business.
The last statement helps to explain the pervasive nature of pornography. It is everywhere, from the violent hardcore images that can be accessed in minutes via the worldwide web to T-shirts with insidious slogans, and the Playboy merchandise that is now aimed specifically at our children. Indeed, the BBC is even associated with pornography, courtesy of the Spice Girls video that accompanied the children in need theme song this year. It is simply wrong to give out those kinds of message to our children. The message that we must continually reinforce is the one that says, "Women and children are not for sale."
Does the minister have plans to tackle the normalisation of pornography that is aimed specifically at children? Will he agree, and put on the record today, that pornography is premised on inequality and that it is part of the continuum of male violence against women? Will he indicate whether there will be further consultation on the proposal to create an offence in Scotland of the possession of extreme pornography?
I conclude with the UN declaration on the elimination of violence against women, which acknowledges and confirms the basic tenet that
"violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men".
Throughout east Africa, English and Kiswahili are widely spoken, alongside 100 or more native languages. It is now the aim of at least some east African Governments to modernise, to cease all teaching of regional native languages and to restrict all communication, including radio and television communication, to English or Swahili. Some groups have even argued for the removal of Swahili—if everybody speaks English, Swahili is not needed. I will read one response from one of those countries' Government websites: "Why continue with native languages? How many people cannot speak either Swahili or English? Native languages are redundant. How much money is wasted on producing documents that people can easily read in another language?"
I ask members and people in Scotland whether they would support such a programme of language eradication and discrimination in Africa. If the answer is no, we must ask why not. Let me read comments on a similar matter that were made on another website:
"How many monoglot Scots-speakers (who can't read English) are there in Scotland? And how much Scottish taxpayers' money is spent on translating public documents, such as this website, into Scots?"
I am confident that most people would be horrified to hear of plans to eradicate native African languages—plans that, for the record, I invented. All the Africans whom I know are proud of their rich linguistic heritage. Nonetheless, it is clear from the second comment that I quoted, which I did not invent, that some people in Scotland take exactly that view of native Scottish languages. They may be horrified by discrimination against native African languages, but Scots is clearly different.
Here is an excerpt from another comment that was sent to the Scottish Parliament website:
"can I ask why there is any need to offer a translation in Scots? Are we trying to promote this ludicrous form of bastardised English … Will Scots be promoted as a language through television and other media, and taught at school?"
Would not Franco have been proud of such a quote? Following the Spanish civil war, Catalan teaching was forbidden and Catalan cultural institutions were closed down. For Franco, Catalan was a bastardised Castilian that was not to be promoted through the media or taught at school. I have yet to hear of any support for Franco's Catalan eradication programme yet, oddly, many have no difficulty adopting a similar view of Scots—the discrimination is not acceptable abroad, but it is fine at home.
Many similar comments were received by those who were responsible for the first tentative attempts to put Scots on the Scottish Parliament website. For example, one stated:
"Is there a tradition of written as compared to oral use of ‘Scots'? Are there any written examples of this ‘language' other than your website?"
What an incredible question. Scots language literature is studied in Japanese and German universities, yet some individuals who are the products of a Scottish education remain ignorant of names from the past such as Dunbar, Lyndsay, Fergusson, Burns and MacDiarmid, and of today's Blackhall, Fitt and Flett. Franco would have been proud of such results—complete cultural ignorance.
Is there discrimination against the Scots language? Given my earlier quotes, one would be surprised if there was not. I will give a few small samples of discrimination, starting with that great institution the BBC. The BBC states that it should represent the United Kingdom, its nations, regions and communities. It boldly declares that its output should support the UK's indigenous minority languages,
"such as Gaelic, Welsh, Irish and Ulster Scots".
That is pretty blatant discrimination. If somebody speaks Scots in Ulster, their rights are recognised, but if they are a Scots speaker in Scotland—they might be a Doric speaker or from Shetland or the west coast—according to the BBC, they have no rights, no recognition and no acceptance.
The recent language at Letham project threw up the admission by some teachers that they had been discriminating against Scots-speaking pupils. To be fair, those teachers were genuinely horrified when they realised that they were guilty of discrimination. Nonetheless, discrimination, however inadvertent, existed and if it existed in that school, it almost certainly exists elsewhere.
Do Scots-speaking adults face discrimination? That is unknown. However, given the attitude of organisations such as the BBC, the nature of the comments that were received on the Scottish Parliament website and the evidence of discrimination in schools, it is, to say the least, highly unlikely that Scots-speaking adults are not discriminated against. After eight years of a Scottish Parliament, Scots speakers might well—to quote an English author to show that I have no bias—echo Shakespeare's Macduff and ask:
"Stands Scotland where it did?"
Sadly, Ross's reply might still be all too true:
"Alas, poor country! Almost afraid to know itself."
Endless excuses have been made for why the rights of Scots speakers have not been recognised. "There is no standard written Scots." Nonsense. That is simply not true; it is an excuse. Shetlandic Scots speakers are just as capable as Doric Scots speakers or Borders Scots speakers of reading Dunbar, Lyndsay or Fergusson.
A related argument is, "We cannot teach Scots because there are various dialects." Another excuse—what language does not have dialects? Should we stop teaching English because the inhabitants of Glasgow and Lewis, or the inhabitants of London and Newcastle for that matter, have different dialects?
Another popular excuse is, "We should not be teaching Scots; we should be teaching a more useful foreign language." I refer members to my earlier comments regarding the native languages of Kenya. If people do not agree with those comments, they cannot agree with that comment about Scots.
The Catalan experience shows that teaching children in Castilian and Catalan actually makes it easier for the children to learn a third language. Furthermore, the Letham project has revealed considerable spin-offs from the teaching of Scots.
It is time for the excuses to end, it is time for the discrimination to end, and it is time for the rights of Scots speakers to be recognised, not ignored. The motion makes it clear that discrimination on any grounds is wrong. We all recognise that. It has been eight years since this Parliament was formed. How much longer must Scots speakers wait, not only for their rights to be acknowledged but for real action to be taken?
Ah'm gey tempted to do my speech in Scots—perhaps another day.
No, no—go on!
We would, of course, all like a world where bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission are not necessary. Although we have made substantial progress over the years—fighting discrimination, changing attitudes and enhancing rights—barriers persist and opportunities are certainly not equal.
One million Scots are disabled or affected by long-term illness. Towards the end of the previous session of Parliament, the Equal Opportunities Committee held a major inquiry into the barriers facing disabled people. The inquiry resulted in the report "Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities". I hope that, in this session, we will see progress on some of the suggestions made in that report.
One issue already raised in this session, through a petition from one of my constituents, is the difficulties encountered by disabled people seeking to work from home. My constituent felt that addressing the issue would address the problems that he and many disabled people face. We have to be more flexible. For example, some people working from home should be able to work for shorter times. I say to the minister that we have to find ways to help people to work. We have a real resource of people in Scotland, but many are unable to work even when they want to.
Women have less access than men to political power and decision-making across a range of public bodies. In spite of the high level of women active in their communities, they are underrepresented in local government. Only one party in this Parliament has equal numbers of men and women. However, to be fair, since 1999 the percentage of women among Tory MSPs has improved, overtaking the SNP, which is going in the opposite direction, on a downwards slide towards the Liberals' poor percentage of women. There have been some damn good Liberal women in this Parliament and I would like to see some more.
In Scotland, we still have a large pay gap between men and women. In full-time work, women earn on average £172.80 for every £200 earned by men. In part-time work, it is £130 for every £200. Women tend to have less access to incomes, earnings, pensions and resources such as cars or housing.
Women are the main users of public transport. Despite that, buses are often not user friendly. Try getting on a bus wi twa bairns and a pram. Ah'll tell ye—it is damn hard. Or try getting on a bus with a wheelchair.
Women have a one in five chance of experiencing domestic abuse during their lives; and there are many similar observations that I could make about barriers and discrimination on other grounds. In addressing those issues, I am sure that the Scottish Executive will use fine words with which we will all agree. However, it is by its actions that it should be judged.
The Parliament has a good record on equal opportunities. We have promoted mainstreaming and gender proofing of budgets, and have worked with the voluntary sector, businesses, trade unions and campaigning organisations to improve the lives of women, older people, younger people, black and ethnic minority people, LGBT groups, people with disabilities, and people with a wide range of religious and other beliefs. It is vital for the Parliament to do that. I want that record to be maintained, and for equal opportunities to be advanced within the Parliament. Equalities underpin the work of the Parliament. The Equal Opportunities Committee was set up right at the start because people felt that equalities were important. We must continue to promote them. That is a challenge not just to the Scottish Executive, but to the Parliament. We must scrutinise the Executive and hold it to account. We must all work to make Scotland a better place in which to live, a Scotland in which people can be proud to be part of a country that promotes equal opportunities for all.
In this debate on equality and diversity, many members have rightly focused on a number of groups in society, including females, ethnic minorities, the physically disabled, the visually impaired and the learning disabled. I had not included Scots speakers in that list, but I will now. Those are specific groups with particular equality issues that the motion rightly takes seriously. However, I will focus on an issue that cuts across all those groups, which is regional or area-specific equality, or the correlation of poverty with where someone lives.
The motion talks about equality of opportunity and a fairer Scotland. Hard work and talent should be rewarded within society, but unless the conditions are right, many hard-working, talented people will struggle to flourish. Why is it that only 22 per cent of Glasgow's youngsters in fourth year received five credit level qualifications or equivalent this summer, while the figure was 57 per cent in East Renfrewshire? As a representative of Glasgow, I find such disparities deeply worrying.
Glasgow is not alone—other areas show similar inequalities. Dundee and West Dunbartonshire deserve special mention. Youngsters in those areas are no less intelligent than those in East Renfrewshire. I suggest that while the reasons for poorer performance may be complex, when the complexities are stripped away, poverty becomes central to equalities in terms of regional equality and educational attainment. Education is at the core of equality of opportunity, and it is a crucial stepping stone to finding a route out of poverty. For many youngsters, such stepping stones do not exist or are more difficult to navigate. Consequently, it is not just in education that inequality of opportunity by location is a reality.
I welcome the tenor of Bob Doris's contribution. Does he think that grant-aided expenditure, local government funding and health funding should reflect regional inequality, as he describes it?
There has to be some form of correlation there. At today's meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee, the Minister for Communities and Sport talked about how that would work.
We are talking about regional inequality by location for educational attainment, but of course when talking about equality in education, it would be remiss not to mention visually impaired students, who struggle to get the necessary software and laptops, both at school and at home for homework; learning-disabled students who do not always get the correct support; or students for whom English is a second language, who struggle to get the necessary support.
As well as equality of opportunity, there is equality of condition. It is a central human rights issue that not only should everyone have a real opportunity to improve their lot, but that we all have a right to have certain basic needs met. For instance, to what extent can different groups—or, in my example, people from different locations—get access to a decent standard of housing, be able to walk down the street safely, or have basic leisure and recreational amenities close at hand? The poverty statistics for parts of Glasgow make woeful reading. One fifth of Scotland's poverty is based in Glasgow, and Glasgow has a disproportionate share of Scotland's poorest areas. With that comes environmental poverty. Something that brought home to me the qualitative aspect of equality was the fact that, while in Eastwood 23.1 per cent of the population stays within 500m of a derelict site, in Springburn the figure is 86.3 per cent. Those figures clearly demonstrate the poverty of environment as well as of income.
I should mention a couple of other groups in connection with equality of condition. We must ensure access to decent local amenities. It is my understanding that, in the whole of Glasgow, there is only one hoist suitable for adults with physical disabilities who want to access a swimming pool. That is surely unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that, if two people who are in a same-sex relationship walk down the street in parts of the city, they are more likely to be attacked simply because they are in such a relationship. Those situations are unacceptable as part of the human experience.
It would be wrong not to mention life expectancy when discussing regional equality. The projected life expectancy of babies born in Glasgow in 2004 to 2006 is 73.7 years, whereas the national average is 77.2. That leaves Glasgow 32nd out of 32 local authorities. International comparisons do not look good either, particularly for those who live in Glasgow's Calton area, where male life expectancy is an appalling 53.9 years, compared with more than 70 years in the Gaza strip. If Mike Rumbles had hung around to talk about inequalities with regard to male life expectancy in Scotland, that would perhaps have been constructive.
I was going to talk in a genuinely non-partisan way about the new Government's early years strategy, which I believe to be based on an equalities agenda. However, I do not have time for that, so I will point out one aspect of it of which I am proud: the extension of allowances for foster parents to the kinship carers of looked-after children. That is incredibly important in equality terms.
I have been talking about putting poverty at the centre of the equalities agenda because poverty bites. It does not distinguish colour, creed, sexual orientation or disability, it just bites. There are regional inequalities in where it bites, and we must accept that. Many people face not only inferior life chances because of where they live, but stigma because they come from a certain part of the country or even a certain housing scheme. I am sure that there is room in equality and diversity week for them and for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to acknowledge the scale of poverty and inequality.
With that in mind, it gives me great pleasure to support the motion.
I thank the minister for responding to the Equal Opportunities Committee's request for a debate by lodging the motion for us to discuss. The various parties that are represented in the Parliament may have different visions for the future of the country, but a Scotland in which each person is provided with the equality of opportunity to reach their potential and fulfil their aims must be common to them all. To aspire towards anything less will only ensure that history records us as having failed to dismantle the institutionalised discrimination that prevents marginalised communities from realising their potential for themselves and for Scotland.
To get consensus on that is the easy bit—the motherhood and apple pie of any equality debate. However, it is no longer good enough or acceptable merely to work towards equality of opportunity and the removal of discrimination. It is time to insist that measurable, person-centred delivery of equality becomes part of today's working culture and does not remain something that always seems to hover on the threshold of tomorrow.
Scotland's public sector is awash with action plans on the delivery of race equality, disability equality, gender equality and plans to deliver equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Particularly in the case of race equality, some of the action plans have been around for a few years, but what is being delivered? The Government's own effort to define its workforce in terms of ethnicity is two years out of date and cannot tell us—as is required by law—how well people from minority ethnic communities are making career progress compared with everyone else. I ask the minister to give the Parliament clear evidence in his closing speech that the Government is aware of that and to say what its plans are to take us forward.
One of the targets in the Government's disability equality scheme is to increase the number of job applications from disabled people, but is that really the best that we can do for disabled people as we reach the end of 2007? VisitScotland, which has a major role to play in persuading the rest of the world to visit Glasgow for the Commonwealth games, does not even have a race equality scheme, in spite of that being a legal requirement for all public bodies.
Equality impact assessments of all functions and policies of public bodies, which are required by law to meet race, disability and gender equality duties, are a powerful tool for identifying and removing barriers to a person's equality of access to, and experience of, public services, as well as for accessing work opportunities within those services. Unfortunately, however, such assessments are as scarce as the Government's equality commitments in its budget, as the evidence that was provided by the equality organisations that were represented at yesterday's meeting of the Equal Opportunities Committee clearly outlined.
The Government has published on its website the outcomes of just two equality impact assessments. Is that really the sum total of the policies and functions that are available to the Scottish Government, or is it another comment on just how poorly committed it is to using the tools that the major equality communities agree will significantly dismantle the barriers to equality?
As I have said, we must move on—and quickly—from merely working towards delivering equality to starting to deliver measurable, person-centred changes that will enable people from all the equality communities to reach their potential. Despite changing attitudes and improvements in some areas, Scotland has not moved far or fast enough in eliminating discrimination and building a model of equality that is meaningful to everyone in the country.
The minister spoke about the report by the Equal Opportunities Committee on the Gypsy Traveller community. I was proud to play a role in that in the first session of the Parliament. I was disappointed that previous Executives did not go as far as we would have liked in delivering on that report's recommendations. However, that was not because of a lack of effort—I know the former ministers who were involved in considering and developing those issues. The reality was that that could not simply be done by the Scottish Executive, and it could not be done by diktat. It required buy-in. It required targets. It required public bodies, such as the national health service, social services and education authorities, to commit to achieving what was set out in the Equal Opportunities Committee's recommendations.
I am concerned that the Government's budget proposals do not contain targets. There are no firm budgets. Ring fencing has been removed from the very things that we asked to be established to ensure that delivery could be achieved for the Gypsy Traveller community, and to ensure that it could be measured.
In many ways, I accept what the member says. However, does he accept that there is a statutory duty on public bodies, including local authorities and central Government, as far as equalities are concerned? Does he accept that that statutory duty is in place and should be adhered to?
That just reiterates my point about all the equalities strategies that we have. There are requirements and commitments, but there has to be a driving force and there has to be a way of measuring whether those aims are being achieved. We need to tackle persistent inequalities in new ways. As Johann Lamont outlined, we need much better than the Government is currently offering before we can fully approve and be confident of its equality and diversity agenda. That is what the organisations that came to the Equal Opportunities Committee said yesterday. One of those organisations said that the progress that had been made under previous Executives had been faltering, but at least it was progress. The concern is that, without proper targeting and the proper standards being set, the budget as it is outlined contains a huge hole. We need to know where the money is coming from, and we need to know where it is directed. That has to be specified.
My colleague Marlyn Glen said that she looked forward to discussing those issues with the Minister for Communities and Sport when he comes before the Equal Opportunities Committee next week. I said earlier that much of the talk that we might have about this issue is apple pie. I recommend that the minister does not come along to the committee with apple pie next week—he should bring the meat dish.
This is an important debate, the roots of which go deep into the Parliament's founding principles, and indeed its psyche. Some important speeches have been made, not least that last one, from Michael McMahon, with his committee experience. There is a broad welcome across the chamber for the main principles of the motion. I sincerely welcome the minister's comments on making progress on independent living, as well as what he said on university fees for asylum seekers; that issue is close to my heart.
However, the SNP Government must address a number of issues. It is passing strange that a nationalist Government whose raison d'être is to throw off the purported shackles of Westminster finds it possible to refer in its motion to the Great Britain Commission for Equality and Human Rights, whose remit in key respects is limited to reserved matters, but to ignore completely the Scottish Commission for Human Rights, which was established by this Parliament, whose remit is commensurate with our responsibilities and whose chair will be approved by the Parliament tomorrow. I accept that the Scottish Commission for Human Rights does not have a formal role in the equalities field; nevertheless, it will have a significant role in promoting best practice in human rights and, not least, the interests of the groups that tend to be left out. Given Michael McMahon's comments on the lack of targets and drivers, that is an important point.
Then there is the matter of the budget. Partly because of its opaqueness and lack of transparency, the SNP budget is assuming central importance as a litmus test of the SNP's commitment across a series of policy areas. We already know that it is incoherent in that it does not match the importance of growing the economy with a commitment to the necessary funding for our universities. We know that the promises on class sizes and student debt have been dumped. Michael McMahon was right to talk about targets, drivers and standards across the equalities strands. It is becoming increasingly clear that there are significant question marks over the effect of the budget on the equalities agenda.
To be fair, there is a complex debate about how best to deliver equal opportunities for all our citizens across the board in employment, public services and protection against discrimination. The approach that was taken by Westminster in establishing a single equalities commission and harmonising its powers has not been universally welcomed. Most of us would support the idea that the rights of one group should not be elevated above the rights of another, but there is the worry that a generic body with generic duties might lose the focus and the expertise that came from having separate commissions charged with specific duties for racial equality, disability rights, and equal opportunities.
In truth, the worry is more about what happens on the ground, because councils, health boards and other public bodies have moved in the same direction. I am told that that is happening in the NHS, with a move away from equality-strand-specific support to NHS boards through the fair for all projects, which have had some success in an area where there are different and specific health and employment challenges, which are not so easily wrapped up in one generic approach. That raises questions about the future of well-regarded projects such as the national resource centre for ethnic minority health. In Glasgow, there seems to be a move away from city-wide projects such as the big step, which offers expertise on the problems of young carers, towards more generic area-based projects that do not bring to bear the same expertise. We must be careful about those developments, because there are fashions in the public sector that can sometimes result in our throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Despite the member's concerns about generic legislation and planning, does he agree that Patrick Harvie's bill, which will give solace to almost all groups who are routinely discriminated against and suffer violence, is important and that members should be paying attention to it?
It is certainly one of the panoply of things to be taken forward. I, along with other colleagues, have signed up to support it.
There are similar dilemmas for the Government to tease out with regard to where it places its funding support. Johann Lamont referred to the £34 million funding for disabled children. The central issue is the way in which the funds are rolled up into the rather flexible embrace of the local government settlement. According to the information that was put in the public domain, the violence against women fund of £3 million will now have to compete with schools, housing and long-term care for the elderly as part of local government priorities. The concordat with local authorities states specifically that the violence against women fund and the children's services-women's aid fund are both being rolled up into the local government settlement in 2008-09. Clarity is needed on those matters in the public documents that are produced on behalf of the Scottish Government.
Debates in this area can easily become clichéd and jargon ridden. It is worth remembering that, at their heart, the issues are about real people: elderly people; young people; and people who have particular challenges because of their particular characteristics. Real problems can lead to real inequality and a diminution of people's human rights.
As the Equality and Human Rights Commission points out,
"An equal society protects and promotes equal, real freedom and substantive opportunity to live in the ways people value and would choose, so that everyone can flourish. An equal society recognises people's different needs, situations and goals and removes the barriers that limit what people can do and can be."
That may not be a perfect definition, but it is a pretty good one that I commend to members. The test of the Government's policies should be whether they advance towards that goal. It is a marker of what the modern Scotland should be, and it is built into our founding documents. We should not fall short of what we should be.
This has been a good debate, with many considered contributions from members throughout the chamber. Many issues could be highlighted in such a debate, and I commend the minister for covering such a broad section of views. However, other topics such as single status, equal pay and the agenda for change could perhaps have been given more prominence.
I acknowledge Mike Rumbles's point about female-on-male violence, which is undoubtedly underreported. It takes nothing away from the problem of domestic violence that many women suffer to acknowledge that point.
I think that it was inappropriate for Sandra White to comment on staffing issues relating to another MSP. It was out of kilter with the mood of, and other contributions to, the debate. However, I celebrate the diverse speech from Bill Wilson, whom I now see as the main challenger to Stewart Stevenson.
I will concentrate on three issues: mental health, age and disability. We have a long way still to go in Scotland on mental health. In any year, one in four people will experience a mental health problem, including stress, depression and anxiety. Around one third of general practitioner consultations, one third of sick leave and one third of incapacity benefit claims are due to mental health problems. The cost is high: the cost of care, lost output and the human cost are estimated at 9 per cent of Scotland's gross domestic product.
Too often, it is difficult for people with mental health problems to return to the work environment, so we need to find ways to get those people gradually back into the workplace. In our current scrutiny of the budget, mental health is a difficult issue. As Howat stated, there are no or very few measurable outcomes in mental health—as opposed to the measurement of surgery outcomes in the normal health service, for example. However, that is no reason for not making mental health a priority.
It is difficult for people to talk about suffering from depression, particularly in the workplace, not just because they are judged or labelled but because many fear that it may affect their future career progression. Some of the mental health services and attitudes must be modernised and given a more positive approach, and people must be helped at an early stage before depression becomes severe, chronic and enduring. In fact, many mental health patients get support and treatment only when their condition is chronic. That must change.
On a more positive note, I heard about the new facility that was opened in Glasgow this week, which seems to address many of the issues that I am raising today. I hope that such an approach, which is more open and positive, with early interventions and better surroundings, will be replicated throughout Scotland.
There is no doubt that there is workplace discrimination in relation to age. A clear signal that age discrimination in the workplace is unacceptable would be the abandonment of a mandatory retirement age. I understand that many employment tribunal cases on that issue are on hold, but they will certainly set the precedent for the future.
Employment law has progressed significantly in equality and diversity, but I am not sure that everyone is aware of their own rights as an employee. Less favourable treatment and discrimination are undoubtedly difficult to prove, but I understand that the burden has now shifted to the employer to prove that employees have not been treated less favourably on the ground of age, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or beliefs, which I think include political beliefs.
I was shocked to read in Help the Aged's briefing paper that a 60-year-old widow who wanted to sue an NHS board after her husband died from contracting MRSA in hospital was told that she would have to foot a bill of more than £1,000 in legal aid costs because she receives pension credit. That situation must be examined.
I acknowledge the excellent points that Johann Lamont, Bill Kidd and Michael McMahon made about disability. I recently visited Drummond school in Inverness, which people with physical and learning disabilities attend. I commend the school's excellent work, but when school education ends, there is nothing. The briefing from Inclusion Scotland, which highlights that issue, says that many young people with learning disabilities are excluded from mainstream pathways and that further education offers little provision. FE colleges are described as being at risk of becoming "the new day centres" because of segregated provision and a narrow curriculum that focuses on basic numeracy and literacy; students continue to go through a revolving door of repeated courses without any progression. That subject requires more joined-up thinking and I ask the minister to address it.
I have been unable to come up with the right word to replace "tolerance", which almost suggests grudging acceptance. I hope that the minister will come up with a better word.
Mary Scanlon has laid down quite a challenge for the minister, on which I wish him good luck.
Like everyone else, I welcome the debate. I associate the Labour Party with the comments that the Conservatives made about the work that has been done to create equality and diversity week, which is important. We support all those who did that work.
I recognised the challenge that the minister faced in his opening speech—how to introduce an equality debate and grasp the range of issues. I appreciate his recognition of the work that was done before and what he said about how the SNP plans to continue it.
In a previous life, I was a minister with a strong association with equality, so I put on record the work that the Executive and many others did on the one Scotland, many cultures campaign, on lesbian, gay and transgender issues and on prostitution—that work was beginning to grapple with the challenges and details.
Bob Doris made an interesting speech. We must of course recognise the economic dimensions of equality and inequality. That is critical to dealing with poverty and other forms of social inequality, such as the experience of women and, as the minister said, the impact that coming from an ethnic minority background often has on people's economic status. Understanding the connections and interrelationships between those experiences is vital.
If anything, the debate's theme has been that warm words are not enough. Paying attention to that is a challenge to us all, but perhaps especially to the Government. Speaking from my ministerial experience—I would never want to be patronising and I sincerely hope that I will not be—I think that the challenge is grasping the theory of equality and inequality and the direction that is being taken. Ministers must understand equality and inequality and their causes and consequences. They must know why that matters and how the subject should be prioritised. Hugh O'Donnell made an interesting speech about that. If ministers grasp those issues, they see equality in its full dimension and they do not make mistakes such as having a skills strategy that does not embrace other dimensions.
However, as we know, understanding the issues is not enough. That must go hand in hand with practical actions, resources and meaningful change. Given the spark that has been around this afternoon, I refer members to the Equality and Human Rights Commission's important report, which has been published today. I know that some people have issues with the commission, but its comments on Scotland in the report are pleasing. It says that Scotland has set the benchmark for work on violence against women and that the rest of the United Kingdom should follow suit. Such important issues have to be flagged up, although those of us who have been immensely involved in addressing such matters in a ministerial capacity in particular should not want to pat ourselves on the back, as we have much more to do.
There has been another theme in the debate. Parliament must be vigilant in progressing our equalities strategy, and we will be. As Robert Brown said, it is somehow in the Parliament's psyche that equality is one of its main priorities. Cathy Peattie illustrated that point significantly, particularly with respect to the debate on mainstreaming. Perhaps our discussions on ring fencing and mainstreaming do not resonate particularly with the vast majority of the Scottish public, as terms such as ring fencing and mainstreaming are technical, but they mean a great deal in the light of what has been achieved.
I ask the minister to consider the points that are made in the Equality and Human Rights Commission report. It pinpoints ring fencing and the creation of national programmes and priorities as a way of driving matters. That is not to diminish in any way the work of local authorities, which have had a significant role in developing resources. They will say that moneys such as supporting people moneys are essential. It is disappointing that the concordat has not so far picked up on issues that have been raised in relation to supporting people moneys.
I am pleased that the Government has accepted Labour's amendment and has agreed to make a statement on how equality impact assessment tools inform the budget process. John Swinney has just arrived—his timing is perfect. I will try to persuade him, as I was about to try to persuade Fergus Ewing and Stewart Maxwell, that it is vital that a statement be made soon. If Parliament is truly to be involved in guaranteeing that the budget is a budget for equality, it is vital that members have information on how equality impact assessment tools inform the budget process. Significant details on the matter have been flagged up during the debate. I hope that, when he replies to the debate, the minister will say that a statement will be made soon. If he does not give a date, I hope that he will say that the issue will be brought to Parliament so that the various avenues in Parliament can ensure that the issues are addressed.
Johann Lamont raised a pertinent issue when she spoke about the budget seeming so far to have failed to address equality issues. That is not simply a party-political point, although it may become one. I am pleased that Bill Kidd recognised the importance of funding for services for disabled children. The £34 million really matters to disabled children. I give members fair warning that we will want to discuss how equality impact assessment tools are used in the budget process.
There is always a challenge in debates such as this. We should not simply provide a shopping list of experiences of equality and talk about them. Many members have, of course, spoken about their experiences and interests, which is to be expected and is welcome. Indeed, Alison McInnes made an interesting speech about her experience of discrimination against women. We wish her granddaughters well—I hope that their experience will be slightly better than ours. What she said illustrates the depth of work that still requires to be done. We must always be cautious about thinking that, just because we have more women in our legislature and gender has been on our agenda more often, we have ticked the gender box. That is certainly not the case. We must consider the scale and depth of the challenge of gender discrimination.
The previous Executive tried to move beyond the traditional definitions of equality and inequality. That was one of the big pushes that it tried to make. We tried to grasp other experiences coherently and strategically, particularly experiences of age discrimination, but also issues to do with faith and how and why people are attacked for their faiths. Some of our work was on Islamophobia and sectarianism. Those were important avenues to develop in Scotland.
Much is determined by where money is put. We should put our money where our mouth is. Our funding of Stonewall Scotland's work with lesbian and gay young people was significant. It illustrated what we thought about issues to do with lesbian and gay young people and the significance of those issues.
We will pursue equalities ministers, as it is vital that the issue is driven politically and given leadership. We will pursue them on the roll-out of domestic abuse courts, as they will be judged on whether they take domestic abuse seriously. We will also pursue them on how they tackle institutionalised racism. However, the best demonstration of what they can do would be to open up the budget to debate around equality. I hope that Fergus Ewing will give us answers on the £34 million for disabled children and tell us when we will be able to roll our sleeves up, get into the detail of the budget and test it against equalities criteria.
I rise to the challenge that Mary Scanlon set early on. She asked the Scottish Government to demonstrate that it exemplifies political consensus and tolerance. In that spirit, I congratulate Margaret Curran on her closing speech and echo the sentiments that she expressed. We have heard largely a commonality of view, almost free from partisan party politics, and that has been welcome.
The debate has been extremely wide ranging because the motion permitted it to be so in addressing all forms of discrimination. However, it is right that many members have focused on one particular topic. I pay tribute to the work that is done throughout Scotland by disability access panels. I visited one of the panels in my constituency, in Lochaber, just over a week ago. The panels are run by volunteers who have great knowledge of the nitty-gritty of the discrimination that is faced by people with disabilities of all kinds. They made the excellent suggestion that, although the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not have a locus to investigate claims that a building does not comply with the DDA, it might be useful if the commission were to send out a pro forma letter when it receives an allegation of non-compliance from the public. In that way, although the commission could not investigate every case, bodies such as reputable banks that received such a pro forma letter from the commission would feel obliged to investigate the matter.
I was also pleased to hear Johann Lamont focus on the needs of children with a disability. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I say that the issue transcends politics and that we want to do everything we can for those children. We all know from our constituency work that the parents of children with a disability often face great difficulty obtaining appropriate provision for their child, especially in education. Mary Scanlon rightly paid tribute to the work that is done at Drummond school. She was also correct in stating that it is often when children leave school that there is an almost complete lack of further provision. It is difficult to tackle that problem, which is no doubt a matter of resources. However, I hope that we all recognise the problem that Mary Scanlon identified. I know that it exists in my constituency.
I will tackle head on the issue that Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran raised about the £34 million. It is known, from a parliamentary question that was only recently posed and answered, that that £34 million is consequentials that are available to the Scottish Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, is considering the matter carefully.
The parliamentary question stated that John Swinney would respond in mid-November. Can the minister confirm that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will consider using the £34 million not to meet the generality of the needs of people with disabilities but to implement the recommendations in the report on changing services and meeting the need for short breaks?
I confirm that the Government is absolutely determined to meet the needs of children with a disability. Currently, we are engaged in a range of positive activity to support disabled children and their families. That includes sponsorship of the Scottish portion of the Family Fund, which is the key provider of short breaks and other necessary non-statutory support through flexible small grants to families. I know how important that is because I have many constituents who cannot get any respite from spending their whole lives—24/7—looking after a disabled child.
The Badaguish centre, which is in my constituency, is an excellent facility that John Swinney visited recently. It is a long-established facility that provides outstanding opportunities for young people with special needs or a disability to participate in and experience the pleasures of the outdoors. I hope that it will continue to be supported by other councils as it is supported, I am pleased to say, by Highland Council.
Many members made wide-ranging speeches. All were interesting and some were valuable. I want to reply specifically to Elaine Smith, who has campaigned long and hard on violence against women. I apologise to other members who, quite rightly, raised issues on the same theme. Elaine Smith pointed out that pornography is part of the continuum of violence against women. We in the Scottish Government agree, and we share the concerns about the impact of pornography, especially on the young. Many measures are in place at present—I will spare the chamber my reading them out—but we are currently considering proposals to create a Scottish offence of possession of extreme pornographic material, in light of the joint consultation that was undertaken with the Home Office in 2005. Today's debate was useful in that Elaine Smith rightly raised the issue once again.
Albeit in passing, reference was made to sectarianism and religious intolerance. I am charged with portfolio responsibility for tackling sectarianism. Today's debate has been another useful opportunity to reiterate that the work on tackling sectarianism was led by the former First Minister and Cathy Jamieson. I always make that point when I am making speeches on this theme, and I took the opportunity to do so on Monday this week at a useful conference in Glasgow, which sought to explore how the churches can contribute towards tackling sectarianism. I am also pleased that the First Minister recently attended an event at Hampden for the signing up of Scottish Premier League clubs to the kick out bigotry pledge, which sends out a strong message that religious hatred is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated in football grounds or anywhere else in Scotland.
I hoped that the motion and today's debate would provide us with the opportunity to unite as one Parliament behind one motion.
Will Fergus Ewing answer my specific point about the statement on the equality impact assessment tools and how they will impact on the budget?
The minister is now in his final minute.
We will certainly support the amendment tonight and business managers will discuss ways to implement it. I hope that that is clear.
I hope that the Liberal Democrats will unite and speak with one voice from the Parliament. In his opening remarks, Mr Maxwell pointed out that the Liberal Democrat amendment is factually incorrect.
Will the minister take an intervention?
The minister is in his final minute.
I am sorry; I do not think that I can take an intervention.
The Liberal Democrat amendment says that there is an
"absence of a commitment to the mainstreaming of equality in the Scottish budget",
but as Mr Maxwell pointed out it is on pages 4 and 107 of the document. The amendment then goes on to say that equalities funding is rolled up into the local government settlement, but it is not.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry to be difficult about this. I do not want to make an unnecessary challenge, but the fact is that the concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities specifically says that those funds will be rolled up into the settlement. Perhaps the minister would care to respond to that point.
That is up to the minister, but it is not a point of order.
The minister should be winding up now.
I get the sense that my plea for unity will not be favourably received by my Liberal Democrat friends. That is unfortunate. Not only have they no leader at the present time, they seem to have no positive alternatives by way of policies. The amendment is perhaps just another exemplification of that.
I am happy to second Mr Maxwell in calling for a fairer Scotland that is free from discrimination.