Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, 10 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999

Official Report 248KB pdf

---

Reporters (Remit)

When we conclude taking evidence, it might be helpful to ask John McAllion formally to report to the committee, with Fiona's assistance, on how we pursue our work on housing. It might be useful to hear the evidence first. We asked John to produce a programme of work, which we are now working through. We need to revisit the issue once we have done some of the work. Members should consider how we pursue the issue, as it will obviously remain on the agenda.

I will move on to the social inclusion part of the paper. It is obvious that a substantial agenda is outlined there. We have been trying to get the social inclusion ad hoc group together, but without much success.

We tried to arrange a meeting for Friday morning, but that has not proved possible. I appreciate that Bill Aitken has had to leave the meeting, but it will be helpful if the other members of that group could stay behind so that we can arrange a meeting.

As I have said, because we are meeting weekly, we have set ourselves impossible agendas. We cannot even hold the meetings between committee meetings that we need to facilitate the work programme. We will get the social inclusion group together before we make formal decisions about the programme. We need to have a full committee discussion about the role of the group, but we ask the ad hoc group to come back with proposals.

Martin Verity has taken my point that, when we finish the current programme, we must consider whether holding weekly meetings is working out. It is difficult to be prepared properly—I might be unique in thinking this—if we are getting papers on the Monday and meeting on the Tuesday.

We keep referring to the programme of work but, according to the paper on the remit of reporters, we agreed at our meeting on 23 August that proposals to initiate a programme of work would be brought back to the committee. I do not remember whether that happened.

I do not remember whether that happened, either. My view was that we would refer issues to the ad hoc group, but the group would have to be functioning in order for it to initiate a work programme. It has not been functioning, as we have not been able to get people together. It has been very difficult to set dates for that group. The group needs to start functioning and to initiate the work programme.

I wish to make a suggestion. I am not trying to put a spanner in the works—I am trying to be helpful. If it is difficult for that group to get together, perhaps the committee could consider the appointment of a reporter.

We can return to that point.

At least that might get things moving. I am not trying to increase the work load, convener.

Anyone who dares to suggest an increase in the work load will be in deep trouble.

I ask that group to try to get together. I liked the idea of it—it has cross-party representation and there is a substantial amount of in-depth work that needs to be considered. I said before that there is no need to rush at that work full tilt, as we have such a pressing legislative agenda. However, the group must start to function.

With the exception of Bill Aitken, who has left, could the members of that group stay behind? They say that they will, but they never do.

We have discussed voluntary sector issues.

A couple of weeks ago, I asked for a clearer definition of my role as the voluntary sector reporter. Lloyd Quinan raised the issue again last week.

I am concerned about the paper on the remit of reporters. It does not reflect my recollection of what happened at the committee meeting when I was appointed as the reporter and at which we had a long debate about whether we should have a sub-group on the voluntary sector.

While I want to take these issues forward, before I do anything I want to be clear that I have the agreement of the whole committee to undertake that work. I have written a short paper that I would like to circulate, which outlines my ideas about what I should be doing.

It is entirely up to committee members to decide whether to take my paper away and to come back to it at a later meeting or to read it quickly. I am conscious that a number of members of the committee are not here.

I am not sure how permissible that is, in terms of the committee's procedures. It should be a public paper and, technically, people must be given notice.

The paper could come back to next week's meeting, as an item that arises from an action point.

That might be a fairer approach, given that some members are not here. Could we circulate the paper today?

It would be better if the paper could be circulated to all members, rather than just to the members who are here.

The paper should be discussed between Karen and the people who are to be on the voluntary sector group, to see whether it can be firmed up into recommendations to the committee.

That is an excellent suggestion. It will be circulated to all members, Karen will consult the people on the group and recommendations will be made.

Can I add my name informally to those of members of the group? I am my party's voluntary sector spokesman, so I would quite like to—

You are the party's spokesman for quite a lot of things, Keith.

We do not have hosts of members—we have to quadruple up. We offer quality, not quantity.

Can we discuss research needs now, as it seems to be an appropriate time?

Can you hold back on that, Alex? I want to finish with this paper and then I will come back to research needs. We are looking at sub-committees.

I am trying to recollect what our discussion was about—I do not want to upset you, convener.

I think that the committee should be aware that there is a move, in other committees, to set up a sub-committee on drugs. I know that Richard Simpson is particularly keen on that idea and that you are going to have a word with him, convener.

The convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, with whom I had a word, shares our view that we should allow the existing committee system to settle down before we set up sub-committees. I sat in on a Parliamentary Bureau meeting and I think that that is the view of bureau members as well. The idea was to monitor the situation to see how it develops. There is a cross-cutting ministerial group on drug misuse, but there is no cross-cutting parliamentary committee. I do not want to get involved in a debate about that now.

The Official Report shows that we took a view that we would not agree to setting up a sub-committee yet, but that we would undertake our work on drug misuse. When we have concluded that work, we may well change our view and agree that there is a need for an all-party group.

Can we conduct our inquiry and return to that issue?

Yes, we should keep our eye on it—particularly in view of the moves that other committees are making—and review the position around Easter.

Are there any other issues on sub-committees?

I will move on to our meeting on research needs. It might be worth our while having an informal half-hour meeting on quantifying and defining our research needs to give SPICe a steer. However, we need to give notice if we are going to go into private session for that item.

There is no problem with having a formal private meeting. The clerks will minute the conclusions, but the official report will not log every word that is said.

Why do we need to meet in private?

The committee does not have to.

I suggested an informal meeting because we will have more of an exchange with SPICe about our research needs. If members from SPICe are called before the committee, it becomes a procedural issue. The meeting will be informal, rather than private.

You do not need to give notice of an informal meeting, convener.

That is fine.

I had a chat with Martin yesterday and suggested that, instead of meeting SPICe and throwing everything into the air, it would be particularly useful if the members of the four sub-groups could feed in suggestions to Martin, who could then produce a draft paper on our research needs. Our half-hour meeting would be based around a paper, instead of being some blue-sky affair that tends to turn a half hour into two hours.

That is a very helpful suggestion.

I agree, Margaret, otherwise we could all come with a huge wish list, which would make it difficult for us to agree on anything in such a short period.

Can Martin give us some idea about the budget? If our four submissions put us way over budget, we will need to prioritise.

On a point of information, convener. Is the seminar on Monday?

Yes.

I am living for the day at the moment. Are we getting papers for that seminar?

It is a briefing seminar. I do not know whether the speakers will provide papers.

Where is the meeting taking place?

Committee room 2.

We agreed at a previous meeting to have these briefing sessions on 15 November and 22 November from 10 am to 4 pm.

Has SPICe provided any more information for these meetings?

Sue Morris has been liaising with Keith and me.

Well, I have been liaising with her.

So when is the meeting?

It is on Monday, from 10 to 4.

From 10 to 4?

I keep telling you. We keep agreeing these things.

That is fine. I was not disagreeing—although 10 to 12 might have been enough.

And is there a meeting on 22 November as well?

Yes.

Are we having a break for lunch?

Yes, but you are getting only five minutes, Keith; the rest of us are getting half an hour.

At the previous meeting, I said that those sessions would mean a substantial commitment.

I was just asking as a point of information.

That is all right, Keith.

Do we know who is coming to the first session on warrant sales?

I will stop you there, Alex. That issue comes up in the next agenda item.

I think that we have covered the third item on the agenda.