Official Report 205KB pdf
Let us begin with the preliminary consideration of the drugs inquiry, which has gained a wee bit of publicity. The purpose of this paper is to get us started on the issue; it is not meant to be a definitive statement or watertight, as it must be thought through a bit. The title will be "Drugs and Social Inclusion—The Impact on Communities".
After the previous meeting, it seems that we need a clear definition. Are we talking about addiction and social exclusion or about drugs and social exclusion? If we are talking about drugs and social exclusion, which drugs are we including and which are we excluding?
I am worried about the title of the paper—a small thing, but it indicates where we are going. "Drugs and Social Exclusion" is fine, but "The Impact on Communities" is not. We know that drugs have a desperate impact on communities. There should be a more definite indication of what we are looking for—what ways there are of improving the situation.
Lloyd is right in a sense. The title is phrased deliberately. My understanding was that the committee took the clear decision that we would examine addiction with the emphasis on illegal drugs, but all the agencies tell us that there is a clear connection between alcohol misuse and drugs misuse. Therefore, part of the inquiry is to examine those problems.
We agreed that we must build on the report of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee rather than reinvent the wheel. We must build a number of recommendations from that committee's report into our remit.
I have no difficulty with that. I was suggesting that detail would be mapped out as we go into the issue in greater depth, especially the funding issues, but those are exactly the kinds of issues that we will examine.
I do not want to widen the focus of the inquiry because it is important that it is focused, but we cannot ignore the fact that drugs are as prevalent in some prosperous areas of Scotland as in others. For example, oil-rich, cash-rich Aberdeen, Fraserburgh and the Broch are among the worst areas for heroin and cocaine abuse in Scotland.
Even this discussion on a short, sharp inquiry is turning into a long-winded affair. We must be careful. Already we are talking about following up the Westminster Scottish Affairs Select Committee report, which in itself would be a major task for this committee. We are also considering an examination of the remit of the drugs enforcement agency, which would be another major task. Now we are talking about considering prosperous areas as well as deprived areas, where the drug problems are different. An inquiry that took in all of those recommendations would take 18 months or two years.
We can cover some of the issues in a short, sharp inquiry, but perhaps not all of them. It may be difficult, for example, to consider the enforcement agency.
First, I would like the clerk to get copies of the recommendations of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee report.
They have already been circulated.
I have not seen them. In any case, it is important that we build on some of those points. We should not overdo it. I agree with John that we need to narrow down our priorities.
May I make a suggestion? I agree with Mike and John that we must be focused, but we cannot ignore the connections. It may be useful to have written evidence on the connections between alcohol and drug abuse, for example, or between the situation in deprived areas, such as those in Aberdeen—which do exist—and in prosperous areas. We need to consider that connection, too: how drugs spread. With a problem as widespread as drugs, we cannot pigeonhole.
We need to curtail this part of the meeting.
I want to underline Mike's point. I am concerned that we are losing our focus. We are here to focus on the effects of drugs on communities. If we start spreading into the effects of alcohol—although I appreciate that alcohol causes problems—we are likely to lose that focus. I am also concerned that bringing alcohol addiction into the debate is becoming a bit of a Trojan horse and that those who see alcohol as a soft drug may use that as a mechanism to press for the legalisation of cannabis. The argument is in danger of being hijacked.
We are trying to achieve a greater understanding of where the problems come from, so that we can arrive at solutions. One of the angles that we should consider goes back to housing. Quite a lot of people who live on the streets are there because of drugs and family breakdown. We need to know a bit more about that and about how we can prevent the problem arising in the first place. Our main priority has to be the causes.
We need to remember where we came from in this debate. I argued unsuccessfully for a cross-committee inquiry into drugs. If we had that, we would be able to consider the drugs enforcement agency and some of the health issues. We have made the decision that we do not want a cross-committee inquiry. The impact on communities—including funding—is an area where we can have a short, sharp look at the problem and that will lead us on to other areas.
This issue will undoubtedly go to other parts of the Parliament—probably the committee structure—and we may be able to make recommendations to some ministers. My interpretation of our previous discussion is that this committee wants to get a sense of what it is really like to live in communities that pay the highest price for the drug problem and that that must determine our agenda. That is why I have recommended a preliminary phase. We must investigate—not necessarily formally—those communities, the people who have misused drugs and their families, who have suffered directly. A lot of evidence from those people has not found its way into the political system.
Obviously, Margaret, you will consider the points that have been raised about planning and funding, the need for information and Mike's point about looking at the recommendations of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. I suggest that you come back to the next meeting with a revised remit and a more detailed work programme under each of the phases.
Perhaps I could have a word with Keith and Mike, as they have indicated a particular interest, and anyone else who wishes to be involved. The idea was that during the preliminary phase regular reports to the committee would keep us up to date. I have met a number of agencies to hear their views. I will continue to do that on behalf of the committee and to work out some programme for us.
This is a good example of where the committee should go out and meet people who live in the real world, rather than sit here in Edinburgh and take evidence.
Yes. We had a wee discussion about this prior to everyone else joining us. It is clearly the view of this committee—not only in relation to drugs but to all the issues that we deal with—that we cannot do our work sitting in this room. Some work will be done here, but not all of it. We have unanimously agreed to make the strongest representation to the Parliamentary Bureau and to the committee of conveners. The notion that we can have only one meeting outside Edinburgh is absurd. We cannot do our work that way. We can propose to the bureau many options for conducting our work at minimal cost. There is, however, no point in minimising costs to the point at which we cannot do our job, and we must travel.
By definition we would be socially excluding people from the work of this committee if we sat only in Edinburgh.
Yes. That is a clear view across the committee.
I am keen that the committee gets out and about and engages people in dialogue so that we take evidence and gather information that will help us to make informed decisions. I do not think that we do much by inviting people along who then have to sit and watch the proceedings. We want to involve people in our work. I support what you say about objecting strongly to what today's press reports as the Parliamentary Bureau's ruling. That is not acceptable. We want to get out and meet people
How do you propose to deal with part B, on the timescale and the gathering of evidence? How will we establish who we want to speak to?
Is that on the drugs paper?
Yes. You talked about establishing key sources and evidence from communities, from addicts themselves and from their families. I could suggest a number of agencies and I am sure that others could too. How are we going to establish who to talk to?
After this decision has been made, I would like to talk to committee members who have expertise. Keith, you and others have mentioned possibilities for consultation. We should talk to the agencies and establish a profile of key agencies and parties. We will want to consult key sources. They would be previous reports and some of the international material that has been published. There is also strong evidence that we should hear directly from people with experience of drugs in their families, as well as from knowledgeable agencies. The emphasis, again, would be on rehabilitation, care and treatment, rather than on enforcement issues.
When it comes to treatment and rehabilitation there are other parts of the country and, indeed, other parts of the world that are a long way ahead of us. Obviously, the Parliamentary Bureau would call a halt to our bringing people over from the United States, but as so many of the leading figures in treatment are down south, it would be worth considering getting written evidence from them and possibly calling them to the committee to give evidence.
It would also be appropriate to call on representatives of the Department of Health because not all the relevant budgets are devolved. The national drugs helpline, for example, is still funded centrally from the Department of Health in London although it covers the whole UK. Funding for it has been reduced substantially in the past year or two. The helpline has been a major influence in preventing some problems as well as in assisting treatment.
Perhaps we can produce more detailed reports on that as we gather evidence.