Official Report 224KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is the logistics of our inquiry into drug misuse and deprived communities. This is an update on our on-going discussions. After discussion with our adviser, we have outlined a schedule for visits and a methodology for taking evidence. There are a few rough edges that we have to tidy up—if that is what you do with edges. For example, we have to ensure that we take evidence properly and that we use the Official Report. I am confident that we can tidy things up, after which we will come back to the committee.
How do we decide who should go to Dublin or Grampian? Do we draw lots?
I do not know.
Because I am for Dublin.
Okay—bids for Dublin now please.
I would like to ask about the proposed visit on 8 May, when half of the committee will go to Edinburgh and the other half to Glasgow. As the convener knows, the social work department in Glasgow manages 12 drug addiction projects. We should visit the department and meet Iona Colvin, who is the principal officer on addictions. It may also be valuable to visit one of the projects. I know about the one in Castlemilk because it is in my constituency.
I will ensure that those points are incorporated in our programme.
From the papers that we have, I see that we expect to receive more than 80 written responses, which is a hell of a lot. Will the Scottish Parliament information centre do any kind of analysis of those responses on our behalf?
Mary Dinsdale is working very hard on this. Mary is making a summary of responses and will produce a briefing for us by 26 April. I have asked that especially interesting information be selected and brought to our attention.
I will leave aside the controversial issue of who is going to Dublin, but should individual members advise Martin Verity of the visits that they would like to go on? If there is an imbalance, we can resolve it in committee.
Yes, I was going to suggest that. If we feel that there is an imbalance for reasons of geography, party or interests, we could discuss that and perhaps swap some people around. When members make their requests to Martin Verity, things may resolve themselves naturally and we may not have to worry about swaps.
My second point is perhaps slightly more controversial, but I feel that it is relevant. In recent days, there have been clear indications from the Prime Minister, and others at UK level, of a change in thinking on certain aspects of drug policy. That may impact on any recommendations that we make. [Interruption.]
Oops.
You see? I knew it was controversial.
Yes, Mike is obviously a little anxious about this.
You always move me, Alex.
It is usually the beans you spill, Mike, not the water.
I have always made it clear that I do not want us to get lost in issues such as the legalisation of certain drugs, because that would make us lose focus. I do not want to get sidetracked. Would it be a good idea for us to write to seek clarification on any changes in thinking?
Yes.
Depending on the answer, we could fit any such changes into the context of our inquiry. If there has been a change, we certainly need to know.
They will definitely write back to say that there has been no change in policy.
I would like to ask people's opinion on a slightly different issue. Our adviser, Dr Laurence Gruer, is considered one of the leading experts in the field, and he clearly is. Consequently, when incidents occur, Laurence is asked for his comments by the newspapers. He was quoted in a number of papers at the weekend. Should we say to Laurence that, yes, he should continue to offer his comments as he has done over many years, but that he should make it clear to reporters that they should make no reference to the fact that he is advising this committee? One of the papers mentioned that he was our adviser. I do not want to make a big deal of this, but when Laurence gives his views, they could be regarded as being the views of this committee.
I take your point. I will seek clarification on the issue and bring it to Laurence's attention.
Our taking of oral evidence will start with officials from the Executive and will continue in May. When will we be told of the people that it is recommended that we take evidence from?
I am glad that you have raised that point. The clerks have asked us to remit the taking of evidence from the people who were supposed to be coming on 10 May. We want to sift through written evidence and material first, and then e-mail people over the recess so that we can get them booked in.
We will be going through all the written evidence and, on the basis of that, we will recommend to the committee the people to call to give oral evidence. However, if we are doing that on 26 April, it does not leave much time to call the first witnesses to the first oral evidence session on 10 May. It is probably reasonable to assume that there will be some particular organisations from which the committee will want to hear evidence. The clerks are suggesting that the committee should remit to the convener the decision on who to call to give evidence at the first session on 10 May. The other witnesses would then be allocated a session on the basis of the summary of written evidence.
I am quite happy with that, as long as one or two members of the committee are consulted.
There is no problem about consulting.
What are the criteria for judging which witnesses are appropriate? It is unfortunate that Keith Raffan is not here, but we should know by now the sort of evidence that we want to take.
There will be different sorts of evidence that we will want to take, as happened with our housing inquiry. I think that the people who would come here would be officers and policy makers, and perhaps deliverers of services. The people who are experiencing the problem directly—the families, the individuals, people from the communities—would be outside.
Is what we will do on those dates set in stone? Has anything been set in motion on arranging the visits? I make no secret of the fact that I will not be able to be there, in particular on 8 May, because I have a long-standing commitment to speak at a conference on that date. I understand that such clashes are bound to happen, but if it were possible to reverse the visits on 8 and 22 May, I would appreciate that.
Does anyone have similar points to flag up?
Perhaps now is the time to raise the matter of what will happen when the Parliament meets in Glasgow. Am I right in saying that there will be no committee meetings on the Wednesday mornings?
I think that the implication is that the Parliament will meet in the mornings.
But from the point of view of our committee meetings during that two or three-week period when the Parliament is in Glasgow, which I think includes the week beginning 8 May—
No. It is the weeks beginning 15 and 22 May.
I have asked the clerk to incorporate that information into our programme.
As we are on the subject anyway, what will happen about our committee meetings while the Parliament is sitting in Glasgow?
The times will change.
The conveners liaison group has discussed the committee timetable for that period. I understand that the committees will continue to meet in Edinburgh while the Parliament is meeting in Glasgow, and that will have an impact on the timetable. There may be a difficulty with Monday 15 May; that session may be changed to Tuesday 16 May.
Is that date for a visit?
No, for a meeting of the committee.
But that would not prohibit us from making a visit on Monday?
No. The visits are a separate matter.
I am not sure what Martin is saying. Why would 15 May be affected? That is a Monday. I know from my position on the Finance Committee that the three committee sessions of Tuesday morning, Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning will all be concertinaed into Tuesday—there will be morning, lunchtime and afternoon meetings. Presumably, we will get one of those Tuesday slots.
Yes.
We should not get mixed up on this. As I understand it, the Monday meetings are additional.
Apart from 15 May.
Is that not an additional meeting as well?
That is what I meant. I do not understand why 15 May creates a problem.
Monday 15 May is on our programme as an oral evidence session.
That can be shifted to 16 May.
Perhaps I am missing something, but why is a Monday meeting affected by the fact that the Parliament is meeting in Glasgow that week?
We have not had confirmation that we will not meet, for example, on Wednesday 17 May in the morning because we will be in Glasgow. Clarification of basic information such as that would be helpful.
Can we also have clarification that we are not meeting on 16 May in Edinburgh? In other words, is the meeting on 15 May an additional meeting on a Monday, which would have happened anyway, or is it a substitute for what would have been the Wednesday meeting on 17 May? Or are we having the special meeting on Monday 15 May—[Laughter.]
You are confusing everybody, Alex. I will confer with the clerk and get the programme back out to members tomorrow. We will sort it out.
It looks as if we are not meeting at all on Wednesdays between 10 May and the end of May, and that we are substituting the Wednesday meetings for—
We are really short of time. I will get the information out to members tomorrow.
Meeting continued in private until 12:32.