Work Programme (Social Inclusion)
Robert Brown has agreed to present the social inclusion work programme and has circulated a paper to all members.
I apologise for having this ready relatively late, which means that I have been unable to discuss it with members, except with the convener during a brief conversation on Monday.
Members will recall that earlier we had a discussion about what we might be getting into. After some delay, we agreed that we would try to work up a programme, possibly based on "New Life for Urban Scotland". Although there is a historic element to that, it has the benefit of 10 years' experience and there are lessons that can be learned. Providing that we keep it contemporary, there is value in that.
I have tried to identify possible areas of interest: bureaucracy, funding arrangements, successes and failures, and the economic aspect. Economic and social regeneration is extremely important, because it is widely recognised as the area where past efforts have not been particularly successful. However, it overlaps with the remit of other committees. Underlying everything is the issue of empowerment—are the efforts that are being made in that area improving the quality of life and the ability of people, not least the various minority groupings involved, to control their situation? We must be conscious of the Executive's current moves in that direction and of the need to monitor them.
That is the background that I was trying to sketch out. Members should indicate whether they think that I have identified the right issues, or whether there are other issues that should be included. The next question is: what do we do and where do we go? I thought that it might be useful to put things in perspective by organising a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing. I know that we have had some briefings on detail, but I do not think that we have yet been given an overview, bar what we had from the Scottish Executive. In the light of the information that we now have—not least the wider perspective that we are getting from our inquiries into drugs, warrant sales and so on—it would be worth having such a briefing. It might help us focus on where we are going, whom we might involve, and the sort of people about whom we might like to hear evidence.
This is another area where the appointment of an adviser would be quite useful, because evaluation and analysis of the available evidence is a technical and complicated task. It would be helpful to have someone who knows the field and can guide us.
What we want to come out of this are practical and usable suggestions that will make a difference. We will not solve the world's poverty problems overnight—we are unlikely even to make a major impact on them—but we do want to make a wee bit of difference.
That was helpful. Again, we will take general comments before moving to specific recommendations and agreements.
I agree with the outline. The problem is that social inclusion has become such a trendy term. There is a social exclusion unit at Downing Street, but we talk about social inclusion up here. It is important for us to try to define the term. Robert Brown's suggestion of a SPICe briefing is good. I suggest that we undertake a series of short, sharp inquiries in specific areas, one of which could be the credit aspect that Karen Whitefield mentioned. That should enable us to pin down a definition.
I am sure that I do not have to remind Robert Brown that there is a rural dimension to social inclusion and deprivation, and we must not consider only urban regeneration. We must examine the social inclusion partnerships that have been set up so far. The Alloa project is in my patch, so I know a bit about it, and Richard Simpson would be able to tell you more. We could conduct a series of visits to compare the way in which the projects operate. From the little knowledge that I have, it appears that they are all working in quite different ways. We must ensure that best practice is shared, so it might be a good starting point to undertake an inquiry into the existing SIPs.
I agree with the paper that Robert Brown has produced, and particularly with the idea that we should focus on evaluating the past urban regeneration strategies. Social inclusion is but the latest of a series of anti-poverty strategies that Governments have been pursuing for a long time. They give the impression of being like a caravan that arrives with a good deal of pomp and noise, but which settles down for a few years and then moves on without having changed very much. Such strategies seem to be run for the sake of ministers and politicians rather than for the communities whose poverty they are supposed to address.
I would like us to focus on the four regeneration areas and assess whether the previous strategy worked. In Whitfield, in my constituency, there are many complaints, not only about the fact that the people in charge pulled out early, but because they did not carry out the fundamental changes that were required. It was felt that the housing policy led to people being moved out of Whitfield to other parts of Dundee and a new population drafted in and presented as a success in tackling poverty. There are still pockets of poverty in Whitfield; the council housing stands in stark contrast to the new housing association and private sector housing in the area. In some ways, the community is more divided than it was before the anti-poverty strategy began. It would be useful to consider the experiences of those four regeneration areas. Making a judgment on those projects would help us to decide whether the present strategy is addressing the right problems.
I was impressed by the idea of holding the Executive to account on its annual social justice targets. The announcement of those targets and the debate on them will become one of the most important features of this Parliament every year.
This committee could recommend that a week of the Parliament's business, some time after the social targets had been announced, should be given over to poverty hearings by the committees of the Parliament. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the Health and Community Care Committee and other committees could all dedicate a meeting to listening to poverty groups' experiences of how the Government's targets were being met. This committee should recommend that the Parliamentary Bureau work that into the parliamentary programme. The most successful anti-poverty session that I have ever attended was a poverty hearing in England where there was nobody on the platform but poor people, who had their day and their say while the politicians listened to them and learned from them. We should build that into the mechanisms of this Parliament.
That is an interesting idea. Going back to the idea of examining the experience of such projects as those in Castlemilk and Whitfield, I believe that it might be a good idea to make that one of the short, sharp inquiries that Keith Raffan recommended.
It would be sensible to tie the two things in. A considerable amount of research has already been done on those projects.
Yes, there is a huge report.
Enormous amounts of money have been thrown at those projects, but the situation is worse in some respects as a result. It is important not to duplicate the work in the existing report, but it might be helpful to examine it.
Copies of the report are available from the clerk. It is quite a substantial evaluation.
The four partnership areas are good examples to start with, as the evaluation has just been published. I would like some of the people from those areas to contribute rather than it being done by someone from the Scottish Executive or from the organisations that have taken over in those areas. Robert Brown's paper asks:
"After a decade of urban regeneration programmes, has the position changed on the ground?"
I can talk about Castlemilk from a constituency perspective. Some people argue that £100 million has been put into that area and not a lot has changed. The housing has been improved, but unemployment is still far too high.
Getting people's experiences of that might not fit in with the short, sharp inquiry approach. It would mean canvassing the views of a wider sector than Keith Raffan's approach anticipates. However, it is a good starting point. We must examine what has been done and how effective it has been. If it has not been effective enough, we must consider how we can do things better.
Robert's report highlights the important points effectively. It refers to the inclusion network and the five action team plans. We have had briefings on some of them, but we should try to draw more from those plans and see where that leaves us. The briefing that we had was quite good as far as it went, but I do not think that it went far enough.
Robert's paper refers to
"an overview of urban regeneration strategy since the war".
I am not sure which war he means. Given his age, which is not far ahead of mine, I assume that he means since 1945. I am not sure that it would be helpful to go back that far.
I did not mean to go back quite as far as that.
It might be more helpful to concentrate on strategies over the past 20 years or so, since urban regeneration became a buzz word.
You are the only one who would remember it.
Do not draw me on that point.
Robert Brown mentions the appointment of a practical academic as adviser. That adjective is quite important. If we can find one, by all means let us use him or her. I am concerned that we might get too involved in the theory rather than the practice. I am not anti-academic, but we must be aware of that risk.
My final point is to suggest something that we should do now rather than leave it to the Equal Opportunities Committee—to build in some sort of monitoring of the impact on women of policy development and allocation of resources. Last year, Glasgow Caledonian University's Scottish poverty information unit published a report called "Women's Issues in Local Partnership Working". I have a copy that I shall give to the clerk to copy to other committee members. We should try to build gender issues in from the start rather than pass the matter to the Equal Opportunities Committee at a later stage. I am not trying to cut that committee out of the process, but we could easily layer it into what we are doing as we go along.
It is encouraging that in the new politics even the men are suggesting that we consider women's issues. That suggestion has made my day, and I know that Robert Brown mentioned it in his report.
I agree with much of what is in Robert Brown's paper. Some of the issues that he has identified will have to be considered. The committee must start from a strategic point of view before getting down to the nitty-gritty issues. The root causes of poverty are unemployment, low income, poor housing and things of that nature. From a wider perspective, including education and transport, social inclusion issues touch on every aspect of economic and social life.
The Glasgow eastern area renewal project was the first major regeneration project.
I remember it.
It was a multi-million pound integrated development programme in the east end of Glasgow. Evaluation of the project marked different aspects of the work. For example, physical improvement was given eight out of 10, and the provision of recreational activity facilities was given six out of 10. When it came to jobs and sustainable economic development, however, it was given something like two out of 10. Without economic sustainability over a period of 10 to 15 years, the physical fabric, the social fabric and the leisure facilities end up back at square one.
In talking about social inclusion, we are really talking about economic and social inclusion. A good example is Abbeyview in Dunfermline, which is next to a major—and very successful—inward investment park. There have been attempts to get jobs for unemployed people from Abbeyview in the inward investment park, which is literally within five minutes' walk for them. That has proved almost impossible. Why? We should get to the root of those problems and come up with ideas and suggestions. We need to look at those issues, but do so within a strategic framework.
It would be useful to get some information from the Scottish Parliament information centre on practices in other parts of the UK, particularly in southern Ireland, which has a well-developed poverty-proofing system.
Southern Ireland is not part of the UK.
I meant to say, "as well as southern Ireland". We should look also at other parts of Europe. Clearly, the European Union has a role to play in the matter as well, so it is important to consider the part that it plays.
My final point was discussed before, but we did not act on it. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee did a mapping exercise of the delivery organisations for economic development, and found that about 300 agencies are involved in Scotland. I suspect that a similar number of organisations is involved in social regeneration, social inclusion and the rest of it. It would be worth while if SPICe did a mapping exercise of those organisations.
When Lloyd Quinan, Robert Brown, Karen Whitefield and I worked on the group that led to Robert producing these proposals, SPICe produced a good briefing on European, international and Irish models. I accept Alex's point. We need to follow up this issue, and that point should be included in Robert's work programme. Perhaps Robert and Martin Verity could check out what other committees have done. I cannot see them prohibiting us from taking into account the economic dimension, because it is impossible to ignore it.
Yes, and issues such as transport, local government and education all come into social inclusion.
Yes. In fact, we are the cross-cutting committee.
We can consider those areas as long as we do not duplicate what other committees are doing. If they have taken evidence, let us see it, so that we do not interview the same people again.
That is what I mean. I hope that I am not giving Robert too much work, but if he could look at what the other committees have done—conclusions that they have reached and reports that they have issued—and bring it to us, it would enable us to programme these matters sensibly.
I know that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is looking at local economic development and local enterprise companies, and that it is doing so until June or July. That work is relevant to ours.
May I amend one of my suggestions in the light of what John McAllion said? It is important that we examine social justice targets once a year. It might be sensible to deal with social inclusion partnerships similarly, and have an annual or 18-month review of their progress and how they are changing. We should find out what they are doing now, and look at them in a year or a year and a half to find out how policies have changed. We should also talk to local people. That is crucial.
Everyone accepts your original suggestion that the rural dimension should also be examined. We should consider the strategic role of SIPs. Are they the right strategy? Are they delivering what they say they are delivering? Are they working? What different models are there, and what is best practice? Those issues are critical, because they tell us what is happening on the ground. The grand ideas are translated by the workers in the field.
Perhaps that is where I differ slightly from Alex Neil. It is all very well looking at broad strategies, but I take Mike Watson's point that although it is important to look at them, the danger is that you get theoretical and you do not relate to what is happening on the ground.
I hope that we can do that.
It might be useful if I have a chat with Alex, who clearly has views on those matters. A mapping exercise might be more substantial than he thinks. I identified 298 voluntary sector groups in Easterhouse alone.
I know them all.
Determining the number of organisations that are involved would be a major issue.
I am talking about public sector agencies that work at a national level. If voluntary sector groups were included, the list would be endless.
We could keep the matter on the agenda, because our view on it will be different in two years' time.
I mentioned in the small group meeting that we had on the work programme that when there was a hoo-ha about the Glasgow v Edinburgh report, we had a request from the academic Ivan Turok to submit evidence to the committee. In view of Keith Raffan's recommendations for short, sharp inquiries, my view is that Ivan Turok's submission would be worth hearing. He said important things about the current state of economic regeneration and in whose interest it is operating.
He has been involved with officials from Glasgow City Council and others on a number of papers, so he is well up on the issues.
I recommend that Robert take away the points that have been made, knock them into shape and see whether we can negotiate a work programme around the matter, because there is broad consensus that we should go down this road. Given that it looks as if the housing bill will be introduced in the autumn, I am keen to start on that issue soon.
The Rural Affairs Committee is also looking at rural deprivation, which is crucial, and is related directly to the matters that we are examining. A big department at the University of Aberdeen is looking into that area, and we should see what it has produced.
An adviser in that area would be useful, because he or she could do a quick mapping exercise of the essential points. I have a suggestion for Robert, which I will not make now, for someone who is well qualified in the field.
With regard to the adviser, we are looking for someone to assist us in the first phase of our investigations, but if we shift emphasis, we can change the adviser. If members have recommendations for advisers, they should give the names to Robert, who will liaise with Martin Verity and me.
Members will appreciate that it will take us some time to get through a body of work. We might do the short, sharp bursts as Keith Raffan suggests, but we will also do long-term inquiries and visits.
Is there agreement on having an overview from SPICe first? Can SPICe cope with that? If so, we should have the overview soon.
Members indicated agreement.
We could then move quickly to evaluate the report, "New Life for Urban Scotland", because that is a current issue. We might also do some visits. That would get us started, and we could strategically feed in the longer-term economic analysis and the review of SIPs. We might have space in the programme to get a member of the action team to produce a report, but I leave that to Robert to recommend.
With your permission, I will meet Alex Neil and chat about his interesting angle on those matters, then I will have a chat with you and Martin Verity to see how we move on from there. We will try to set up the SPICe briefing soon.
I will leave you to do that. I thank Robert and the other members of the team for their work. It was helpful in getting us started.