Official Report 227KB pdf
[The Convener opened the meeting at 14:04]
One member of the committee who is not yet present has indicated that he will join us later. I am also led to believe that Keith Raffan is quite ill.
The poor man is flat on his back at the moment. He sends his apologies.
I am sure that everyone sends him their best wishes.
Everybody likes you, Margaret.
It is a shame that they are outside and not in the meeting.
As I have already written to Martin to point out, I have a slight concern about the listing of our priorities. Fuel poverty is inseparable from a national comprehensive strategy for poverty. Fuel poverty is clearly an element of a national anti-poverty strategy. As soon as any of the poverty-proofing indicators are taken out of a national anti-poverty strategy, a hole will be created that will allow poverty to breed. At this stage, it is vital that, if we are to discuss a national, comprehensive strategy for poverty, we make it clear that fuel poverty, along with many other issues, is part of that strategy and is not a separate issue.
I was going to raise exactly the same issue. In fact, the convener in her paper subdivided the national strategy into three strands. Fuel poverty is not mentioned specifically under any of those strands, and there are no recommendations on how fuel poverty will be addressed. While, ideally, we want to agree that fuel poverty will be one of the issues that we examine as part of the anti-poverty strategy, it has slipped betwixt and between the strands.
I have an open mind on this subject and I am happy to put fuel poverty where you suggest, Alex. Given some of the Executive initiatives that are around, it may have linked into, and come up under, housing. We could put it into both strands, as we need to examine the warm deal initiatives and similar issues that relate to housing. However, I take your point that it may well have to be inserted under the national poverty strategy.
It is also important to break the subject down into discrete, workable pieces that we can deal with, doing something useful, as opposed to the risk of having a grandiose strategy that does not get to grips with anything.
On that point, Robert—and I will be firm on this—there is experience from elsewhere in the world, such as South Australia, the Netherlands, Portugal and Ireland, where a national anti-poverty strategy has been applied. Indeed, South Australia started off by separating the issue into each particular section. It was discovered within a very short period of time that by isolating single elements, it was not possible to carry out a national, comprehensive strategy.
If I may say so, convener, we should not be arguing about the detail of the strategy.
Can I stop you, Lloyd, as we are getting into the meat of the paper itself, and your point raises one of the big arguments in this field. We should try to approach it logically as we work through the paper.
Two areas that are central to any discussion about the causes of poverty and, more important, about how to eliminate poverty are unemployment and benefits. Anyone who has studied the subject of poverty will know that poverty and unemployment go hand in hand. We cannot examine poverty and raise expectations about tackling it without considering the related issue of the need for a serious programme to tackle short-term and long-term unemployment.
I apologise if I missed this issue being debated at an earlier committee meeting and it has already been discussed. One of my concerns early doors about this committee was that while it was worthwhile to talk about poverty and have a national strategy on paper, what had the committee accepted as a definition of poverty? How many people in Scotland suffer poverty? What ideas has the committee had about setting realistic targets, which we can use to assess the success of the Parliament in raising people out of poverty? The committee may have accepted a definition of poverty already, but there is nothing in this paper that tells me what has been accepted as a definition, how many people in Scotland suffer from poverty and what targets we are setting for each of the coming years so that we can assure people outside this room that we are more than a talking shop. As Margaret Curran said, we do not want to be a talking shop but we will be accused of being one if we discuss those issues without setting targets.
Those are two big points that come up in the debate about poverty all the time. Part of the reason that I have structured the paper in this way—and I did this in my role as convener rather than in the way that I would respond politically—was to say, in the section that considers the national anti-poverty strategy, that when we get into that kind of work that is where the debate of those issues rests. Let us stick to the remit of the committee first and see what we can do. If we feel that we must go beyond that and tackle some of the issues, that will be the time to have that debate about whether we really have to examine benefits or look at the work that the committee is challenged with immediately.
It is important that the committee must set itself some guidelines as to the nature of its discussions, but we must also ensure that the achievements that the committee seeks to manage are measurable. I accept that there are many definitions of poverty. A document entitled "Poverty in Scotland", which I am sure that we all read, by Glasgow Caledonian University sought to highlight, underline and define what poverty was. I doubt if many of the members of the committee would fully agree with that document, although certain aspects of it did have some merit. At some stage, for our own benefit—and for the benefit of people whom we seek to assist—we must highlight what we define as poverty. It is against that definition that our success or failure will be measured.
I am not suggesting that we should not define poverty and should not set standards as to how we measure our work and judge our effectiveness. What I am saying is that this paper is about setting a framework that allows us to do that and sets our work in progress. When we start the work of the anti-poverty strategy, it will hopefully tackle those issues.
I suggest that we move on through the paper. It is important to stress that, although this committee was the last to start, we are now meeting for the third time. We have had our briefing and have agreed that one of the first matters that we should decide is a Scottish definition of poverty and how we should deal with it. That is a good thing for the committee.
May I say something before we conclude this part of the discussion? It is important before we start our work that we have a clear framework for the way in which the committee will operate and that we prioritise our work. Our work is so wide-ranging that it would be easy for us to scratch at the surface of lots of issues related to poverty and the causes of poverty without actually achieving anything. From the start, we must get right the way in which we operate. We can then consider setting targets, which is essential but which should be part of our drawing up a national anti-poverty strategy for Scotland.
I now want to look at point 2 on the paper to propose priorities. As some of you may know, tomorrow afternoon the conveners of committees will meet to consider a substantial package of papers relating to the work of the committees. I wanted to let you know about the meeting because it will have a big part to play in our work. However, I will report on it later, so as not to detract from our discussion of prioritisation
We have been talking about the guidelines for the work programme but we have not mentioned the time scale. Is this work programme for the next 12 months or for the next four years? I would imagine that it is for the next 12 months, but could we clarify that?
That is for us to decide today. I did not want to do so because I thought that that might have been pre-emptive. My view is that the work programme is for the next 12 months. I certainly would not want to say that it was for the next four years—it would be a bit crazy for me to do that. The time scale will obviously be altered, depending on what sections of the work come back to us. If we can broadly agree on the issues on the agenda, I hope that we can talk about time scales at the end of the meeting.
One of the suggestions was that we investigate suitable dates for the minister to come before the committee, especially to discuss some of the issues that we think are time sensitive, as some of the housing and social inclusion issues will be. To help us to put our work programme together, has the minister indicated any available dates?
At our informal meeting, we were not sure whether we should get a written statement from the minister, which would mean that we could question her and not just hear her tell us what is being done. We want to use the opportunity to question and to scrutinise. I understand that ministers will make themselves available to us whenever we need them.
It is important that we have a written statement prior to such a meeting. The minister can then by all means speak to us to augment that statement. We would thereafter have the time and the opportunity to study that document so that our questioning can, I hope, be more pertinent.
That might be helpful across the range of subjects that this committee covers. We must think a wee bit about how we manage it. It might, for example, be worth producing our own briefing on the summary of responses to the green paper and then to question the minister on that.
That can be raised when we discuss housing. I have been through a number of the summary responses to the green paper on housing and my concern is that, by the time we get the official report on them, we may have missed the boat on some of the current stock transfer issues. We need to discuss issues such as whether Glasgow will have a single-landlord system or a multi-landlord system and whether it will have a single ballot or multi-ballots. I am concerned about the time scale during which this committee examines those issues and the time scales of the real world—those things will be happening in September and October and if this committee is to be relevant and pertinent we must not miss the boat.
Immediately after this meeting, we will ask the minister for a statement, which we will have distributed to members of the committee. We will also request an early meeting with the minister on a range of issues.
I would like to follow on from my earlier point. The Secretary of State for Social Security made a statement yesterday on targets for the reduction of poverty across the UK. That clearly affects Scotland. I am obviously in favour of an early meeting with the Minister for Communities and her staff, but we must invite the Secretary of State for Social Security at some point, although I am not saying that that should be our top priority. Once we get into discussions on a national anti-poverty strategy, the targets referred to in the statement he made yesterday and the work of his department will greatly affect the ability of the Scottish Parliament—with its limited powers and resources—to achieve the objectives that we are talking about.
I would like to raise that when we come to discuss a national anti-poverty strategy.
I apologise for being late. I made the mistake of using public transport.
We will need to refer that to the transport committee. We are discussing page 3 of the paper.
There are two lists of the various organisations that have said that they want some form of engagement with us. Is the suggestion that they come here to meet us or should we see the various projects in which they are involved at first hand? We could, perhaps, even question some of the people who are involved in the projects. Presumably there will be a different answer for different organisations. May I ask the clerk whether that has been specified?
I understand that it has in some instances but not in others, as you anticipated. There has been a range of requests. Most of the organisations have said that they know that we are here and that they want to speak to us to bring their issues to our attention. They are waiting until we complete this exercise before making further requests.
One of the organisations that responded was Shelter, but the report says only that it gave responses to the housing green paper. Does that mean that it only sent us a copy of its response?
Perhaps the committee clerk could speak to that.
That item relates simply to information that Shelter sent in. That does not mean that Shelter would not seek to meet the committee—I am sure that it would—but that that correspondence was simply a summary of the responses that it had received to the housing green paper.
I hope that you all know that now everybody will be asking to meet us.
I have one more question regarding GPC Scotland, which is described in the briefing paper as being a
But you are.
Even if that is not a general rule of the Parliament, it is something that we should adopt as a matter of practice, given that we are the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, so that we are aware of the vested interests of those who give evidence to us.
As someone who used to work for a lobbying company, I am happy to rise to the bait. It is absolutely clear that everybody—whoever they are—should make it clear whose interests they are representing, whether their own or those of a client organisation. We should expect, and indeed demand, that to be perfectly clear so that we can ask informed questions.
We are considering having a rolling programme of meetings and seminars, which we all assume will suit the programme of work that we are carrying out. I suggest that, rather than our having general briefings, as I know some committees are, it is the duty and responsibility of all committee members to give themselves a general briefing and to take action. The briefings that we want as a committee should be evidence-based and relevant to the work issues and packages with which we are dealing. That would be the most productive use of our time and would allow the organisations that want to speak to us to get the most out of our meetings.
Following on from that, we need to tell organisations to be as specific and as focused as possible when they give us information. One rider I would add is that if any of us think that something is coming up, we should bring it to the committee's attention. It may benefit us to take a wee bit of time out to consider a slightly different issue so that when we have set a programme we do not miss other issues. Now that we have said that, the organisations of Scotland will be geared up to bring their issues to our attention. It looks as though we will be doing nothing but going to seminars and meetings.
It is fair to say that the current list of responses is a bit arbitrary, in that it includes only people who have come to us. I assume that there will have been an element not of screening—that gives the wrong impression—but of the clerk asking, where there has been an approach, what exactly organisations want to make representations about. Perhaps he will give us a steer on how this all fits together and on when, and about what subjects, we should see particular people. There are far too many people to see in a shortish period—it is as simple as that.
It is one of my roles as convener to engage with key staff to get an idea from them of what they are expecting from us and to tell them what we are expecting of them.
We must also watch that we do not exclude people who have something slightly different to say, which does not quite fit our agenda but which we should nevertheless hear.
That is what I was trying to say earlier. Thank you.
Thank you for setting out a programme and suggesting how we should work our way through it. We are the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, and I think that there are some concerns about the voluntary sector. The work programme identified the importance of our dealing with the voluntary sector. Instead of hiving off the voluntary sector in a separate work programme later, we could include in this area the voluntary sector's provision of services. We might get a more useful analysis from it about what prevents it from delivering on issues to combat poverty. That would engage the voluntary sector at the heart of our work instead of dealing with it separately.
I appreciate that we are half and half on the issue of employment initiatives, but it is important to note that the employment element has been missing from a number of projects that have not achieved what was expected of them.
When dealing with matters from which connecting issues arise, such as employment, it might be useful for us to examine the issue and recommend it on if it goes beyond our brief. We will return to that theme. If we talk to voluntary organisations about how to tackle poverty and they mention employment, we cannot say that that is not a matter for us because it is for another committee. We will examine employment in the context of anti-poverty work, but if our discussions become concerned with more direct employment strategies we can refer the matter on to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee or the appropriate committee.
Passing on an issue such as employment, when we are trying to develop a national anti-poverty strategy, will leave a hole in the strategy. The point of a national anti-poverty strategy everywhere in the world where it is applied is that it is an over-arching policy structure. It is the management of policy whereby each and every department and committee is subordinate to the policy.
Lloyd's points will be covered by our analysis of how we are addressing the issue of poverty and on how a national anti-poverty policy works elsewhere. For example, the analysis should identify how people have dealt with employment issues and how they have made progress. That may ensure that we do not lose track of the big issues of employment that are so relevant to poverty.
As an old socialist I am normally in favour of seizures of power from the Executive or any committee, but we should be careful about building our own little empire that takes over the Scottish Parliament. The model is that there will be a lead committee for issues that come under the remit of more than one committee. Obviously, in developing an anti-poverty strategy for Scotland, ours is the lead committee. However, there will be times when we can refer matters to other committees because they have a legitimate interest and can primarily address the technical aspects of that interest better than we can. We can work together with other committees, rather than taking power away from them.
I was going to raise that issue later on, as it is important. If we are to understand social exclusion, it is not enough for us to have people come here; we need to feel and live it. The paper before us states that those who experience exclusion should speak to the issue. The voluntary sector and social workers have something important to say, but that is not the same as talking to those who have direct experience of exclusion. I have had discussions with some groups about how we can create a system for doing that. It would be done partly through those groups and partly through our visits. Our visits will not involve going off to nice conferences in places such as Milan, but going to places such as Whitfield, Easterhouse and Pilton—although I do not know Edinburgh that well.
Craigmillar, Pilton, Wester Hailes and Leith.
We are genuinely committed to being in those places. Later I will talk about the nitty-gritty of organising that.
It was I who raised it. Like the convener, I believe that the two key issues relating to the causes of poverty and tackling poverty in society are unemployment and benefits. I do not want to make a party-political point, but the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that is currently before the Westminster Parliament would make the situation of some people worse rather than better. We cannot seriously discuss an anti-poverty strategy without tackling the related issues of employment, unemployment and benefits, particularly benefit reform.
That is not a party-political point: it is self-evident. However, we must tread carefully and try to take people with us rather than to score political points for Holyrood against Westminster. There is no point in doing that. John referred to articles in the media today about the stresses that are—I suppose inevitably—emerging. It is my understanding that we cannot demand the presence of the Secretary of State for Social Security at this committee, but we should ask whether he is prepared to appear before us. That would enable us to link our proposals with policies at the UK level. It is self-evident that the two must be linked. There is no question of our trying to pursue policies in a vacuum.
It is interesting that we are meeting in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Social Security. It is obviously important that we forge links with him; I am sure that he, for his part, will want to forge links with us. We have indicated that we want that to be on the agenda.
I want to pursue Mike's point about taking people with us. I hope that, when discussing funding arrangements, support for regeneration and work with the social inclusion partnerships, we will remember that, lower down the administrative hierarchy, local government is often left with the task of making policies work. When it comes to funding arrangements, I hope that the committee will be honest enough to examine the facts and figures rather than Government-speak about those figures. As a local councillor, I find it galling to read about extra funding that is supposed to be being made available when we in the City of Glasgow Council are cutting services.
To respond to this big debate, we must remember that we are one strand of a response to poverty. We are not going to answer everything in this committee. The councils do a very important job tackling poverty and other parts of the Government cover important areas of work. I do not think that that prohibits our commenting on their work when we have the evidence to do so. We should not shy away from that—I am not prepared to. Evidence will also come from the communities that experience poverty.
John raised an important point that I made at the first meeting about where the spending ends up in a lot of these programmes, particularly those previously funded under urban aid and which are now funded under social inclusion—the in phrase which I detest, as opposed to social justice—partnerships. I have no doubt from my experience or from what people who are experiencing poverty say that that they are fed up to the back teeth with people in what they call the poverty industry making a bob or two. When we examine the audit trail of spend, an awful lot of it ends up with what I call the woolly jersey brigade, not with the people who need the resources and assistance to get out of poverty.
There are also many dimensions of poverty, including discrimination. You, Cathie, know about women's groups and will give us information about them.
You obviously know how bad they are for your health.
I deliberately referred to "drugs . . and social exclusion" in the document on our priority areas of work. Keith Raffan, who is unfortunately not here this afternoon, made the point clearly at the previous meeting: there is a dimension of the drugs debate that does not really get proper attention. That has been evident in recent weeks. Much of the attention has been on individuals' responses to and experience of particular drugs.
That establishes an interrelation with other committees. This issue is a relevant focus for our committee, but the health and justice committees also have a role to play. Is that something that you will discuss at the meeting of conveners?
Yes.
This area should be made clear rather than considered by overlapping groups.
Procedures for joint committees that could examine those issues are written into the papers for tomorrow. The feeling is that no more committees should be set up until the ones that are already established are working. Once those committees are working, that possibility could be considered. I would argue that we are considering only one aspect of the subject. If issues arose that were within the proper remit of other committees, we would refer them to those committees.
I am concerned that the work of the Parliament and the committees has been restricted because of worries about staffing—the availability of the clerks—and financing. It is evident, however, that members from all parties want the issue of drugs to be dealt with. My concern is that if we pigeonhole the issue by saying that we are considering only the social inclusion aspects, other committees will identify and examine the justice and health aspects individually.
I do not necessarily disagree with the principle that Fiona is suggesting, Margaret, although I hope that any committee will be much more focused than this one when it is established.
I agree with others that this subject is far too serious for us to play politics with it in any sense—whether playing to the tabloids or anyone else. However, I am concerned about the idea of an ad hoc committee comprising members of the social inclusion, health and justice committees. Such a committee would only go over the ground that the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster covered. There will be a debate about the medicinal uses of cannabis, which provide the basis for a legitimate complaint. Heroin and cocaine can be prescribed on the national health service, but cannabis cannot. The health committee will be interested in that. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee will be interested in drugs tsars and punitive regimes. The focus of this committee should be on the impact of drug abuse on poor communities.
I agree with John McAllion. The incidence of alcohol and tobacco-related diseases and deaths is considerably higher in poor communities, so those drugs cannot be excluded from our work.
I agree with what Mike and John have said. We must look at the effect of drugs on poorer communities. Linking up with other committees would widen the scope of our work, but we want to discover the facts about drug abuse for our poverty strategy report, and we must not lose sight of the point of that report.
I am a member of the Health and Community Care Committee. My contribution will be brief as I have to leave shortly, but I agree with what members of this committee said in earlier discussions. There are many issues that will be touched on by several of the Parliament's committees. The Health and Community Care Committee will be interested in the health aspects of housing, but that does not mean that this committee cannot look at the issue, too. Similarly, the Health and Community Care Committee's interest in drugs should not preclude another committee from examining the issue from its own perspective. We do not have to set up sub-committees for all the cross-cutting issues; that is neither practical nor necessary.
Although I understand the responses of the other committee members, I agree with Fiona. We have never had a genuine, open, honest debate about drugs in Scotland or the UK. No one has ever said, "The following amount of money goes into the following communities because there is a drug problem." We look at enforcement, law, health and attitudes—which is why we have just had a debate about what are legal and illegal drugs.
What have you been up to, Malcolm?
Malcolm's story is tomorrow.
The member for Pollok, Malcolm, sorry. You do look remarkably similar.
I was not suggesting that we keep the issue within this committee. As previous speakers said, it relates to the remit of every committee. Our role is to look at the impact of the issue on poverty and social inclusion. We are all experienced in that role, and will be able to come to grips with it. That is not to suggest that it is the only thing that we will look at—clearly there are other areas in the Parliament. Ultimately, committees have to report; when we and other committees—whether health, education or justice—come back with our reports on this subject, the Parliament should be able to examine them and come up with a strategy that deals holistically with the problem of drugs. It is not right to suggest that we want to look at one small part of it.
I do not think that I said that—that is an interesting interpretation.
The heat that the issue is generating in this committee shows how strongly people feel about it.
I have some sympathy with Fiona, but one of my concerns is that we could dither about indefinitely. If there is an argument at the conveners committee or among committees about setting up some sort of joint group, nothing will get going. The central part of what has been said here, on both sides, is that the drugs issue is wider than just drugs but is, rather, about alcohol and general addiction problems. If the details were to be widened a little to include some of the alcohol-type problems, we would have a fairly discrete subject.
Absolutely.
There may then be scope for joining together the work that this committee and perhaps others have done and moving on with it. Something more overarching will certainly be needed at the end of the day.
That is quite helpful. If we move ahead, that does not preclude the idea of the Parliament setting up some kind of joint committee at a later stage. The reason why I would prefer to pursue it immediately is that I disagree with Tommy; I think that communities would tell us—they have certainly told me—that drug misuse and its impact are at the top of their agendas. All facets of drug misuse have an enormous impact on the way in which those communities live and their quality of life.
On the point of addiction, as opposed to drugs—
I think that it might be worth asking the group to consider that.
I agree with much of what Margaret said. The issue of drugs is very important to many of the communities that we represent. We had a death in my constituency on Thursday, which has shocked Airdrie because we have realised that the problem of drugs is not isolated within certain communities in the constituency. The death happened in the shopping precinct in the main town centre.
We are all trying to achieve the same thing and we are all concerned about the drugs issue, including legal as well as illegal drugs, and their impact on deprived communities in particular. This is obviously a general paper; I suggest that for our next meeting we agree a more specific remit along the lines suggested. I also suggest that Margaret could agree with the conveners of the health and the justice committees what their remit will be on drugs so that we each know what the three committees are doing and do not reinvent the wheel. We could all focus on our particular areas and bring the work together at parliamentary level to complete the process. In that way, we could overcome the objections to a joint committee but at the same time achieve the cross-committee co-ordination that Fiona is trying to ensure.
I am happy to inform the conveners—however that is done—that we have decided that this is one of our top priorities and that we wish to look at and will move ahead on this dimension of it, but we wish to co-operate with them on other aspects. Is that acceptable?
Will you also ask for clarification on what they are doing, so that we will not be at cross-purposes with each other?
I wonder whether the idea of a joint committee of 10 MSPs is an alternative to Charlie Kennedy's call for a royal commission. Is it the Scottish equivalent?
If I remember correctly, Angus MacKay made a statement about the formation of a drug enforcement agency and a new great plan that the Executive has. Surely a first step would be to ask him to come and tell us what the intentions for it are and what our role would be in scrutinising what it is doing. For the Executive, will drugs issues be led by a law and order approach or by Cathie's concept of a holistic approach?
That is the point we are trying to make—that there are all sorts of dimensions to drugs. Enforcement is one of them and the Executive has—
The point I am making is that if we get Angus MacKay here and find out what the intentions are, that will clear the ground for us to do what Margaret is suggesting, which is to look at drugs in the context of poverty.
I do not think that it does. With respect, I think that means the opposite of what we are saying. As I understand Lloyd's argument, he is saying that there are clearly enforcement issues around drugs, and health and education issues—which the entire Parliament and different committees have to address. What we are saying in this committee is that there is an often misunderstood dimension of drugs in relation to poverty, the social causes of drugs problems and their impact and, I would also argue, our inability to date to tackle the drugs epidemic—or whatever language we use—effectively and to put in place effective services. Other solutions and strategies must also be in place.
Has there been further clarification of what work the committee will be expected to do, and when the committee will be expected to do the work?
No, I have not received any information specifically on that. I understand that Wendy Alexander will inform Parliament of the summary of responses to the green paper, "Investing in Modernisation—An Agenda for Scotland's Housing", and that the programme will emerge from that. I do not have any more information than that.
Stock transfers and housing partnerships are the priority and are the area in which we have legislative powers and responsibilities. Clearly, though, in the next six months or so, as a result of the green paper on housing in England and Wales, legislation on housing benefits that will affect Scotland will probably be proposed.
Housing benefit reform is an important part of the stock transfer issue as well. If the stock transfers that are proposed result in rent increases for many council tenants, and housing benefit rises faster in Scotland than it does in England as a result of this Parliament's legislative or economic programme, there will be an impact on the Scottish block.
It is a bad moment to make decisions about housing, simply because the responses to the green paper have not yet been published and the Executive has yet to announce when the responses will be published. We will need time to read them and to understand what people across Scotland are saying about the future of housing.
When I made that suggestion, it was not to preclude an early debate of current events. It was to enable us to manage the work programme sensibly and to get a strategic view of housing and how the issues connect.
What John is proposing makes sense, particularly the timing of it, because we will be tied by debates that go on outwith this committee. His proposal will also tie in with getting an early indication from the minister—which we discussed earlier—of what is expected and when, and a view of how things are developing. I think that we are looking at a running brief. The anti-poverty strategy is a major piece of work—a meaty, strategic issue—but if we are to keep abreast of contemporary debates as we go along, then we must look at housing too. I do not want the suggested programme to kick housing into touch, but I do not think that we would allow it to do that. It is a case of keeping pace with the debate and with the legislative programme.
If we have some flexibility—although we have so much work to do that we will not have any—then we all know that if the Executive makes an announcement or if people want to make a submission to the committee, we will make every effort to address that.
I am also in agreement with the proposal, but housing stock transfers will catch us. It is a complex matter that is happening diferently in different areas of the country, and as a committee we must come to grips with it. That probably means that we must have briefings, not so much individual briefings from Edinburgh and Glasgow and other areas, but more in terms of how the committee should approach the question and what the criteria of judgement should be. We need to think through how we can pursue angles and get a proper critique to enable us to view decisions on this matter properly. Housing stock transfers have major implications. Someone talked about the next century, but housing stock in many areas will be of great importance over the next scores of years.
The Scottish Tenants Organisation has contacted me and asked me to tell the committee that it wishes to bring to our attention its views on housing stock transfers. I have reassured it that, although it was not on the agenda today, we will hear it.
The question of housing stock transfers to which Robert Brown alluded is central to the housing aspect of this committee's work, and perhaps other aspects. Earlier, we talked about how we might define poverty. Many of Scotland's citizens are living in substandard housing conditions which are liable to deteriorate quite dramatically as the years advance. I know that there are different views around this table regarding the efficacy of housing stock transfers, but I think that I may be forgiven for saying that I do not necessarily agree. The whole question of housing stock transfers, what is likely to happen, and what the Executive is going to say about it, is at the nub of our deliberations and it must be looked at. We need more money in Scottish public sector housing—I think that we all agree on that. The argument is about where that money will come from. The public sector is not able to fund the improvements that we would like. There will not be a unanimous view around the table on that, but I suggest that consideration of the matter by the Executive must be accelerated. We must know what we are doing. If the funding is not to come from stock transfers, then we must seek another source. We would not like the situation of those who live in the peripheral schemes of our cities to deteriorate in the way that is likely to happen unless that money is found.
There are many dimensions to this question, and you are right about housing stock transfers. There may be different points of view, but I think that we want to hear the arguments.
Of course.
We do not need to make a decision about the reporter now—I will keep that for the summary at the end—but we are agreed that that is how we will move forward.
It is important to remember that, although a large chunk of the voluntary sector deals with the issues for which we are responsible—social inclusion and housing—a substantial part of the voluntary sector deals with other aspects that are of equal importance. As Fiona suggested, our discussions on issues such as anti-poverty measures, for example, should involve voluntary organisations. But how do we deal with the parts of the voluntary sector that are not involved in housing and social inclusion? Voluntary organisations are involved with everything from economic development to education to mental health. Some guidance from SCVO on how we could include them would be helpful. From information I have received from SCVO, I believe that the voluntary sector is concerned about general issues to do with the registration of voluntary organisations and other aspects of law that discriminate against voluntary organisations or that do not provide for their needs. Those are areas on which we might be able to concentrate under the voluntary sector part of our remit, but we would want to have guidance from the umbrella organisation.
We should begin discussions with SCVO. We will ask them to host a seminar to bring us all up to speed on the issues before we set an agenda.
The citizens advice bureau has been my area.
Karen, you have a special interest as well, have you not?
I agree with Fiona that it is important that we consult the voluntary organisations that deliver services and tackle poverty, but we should remember that there is more to the voluntary sector than that. The sector expects the committee to consider issues such as funding, how organisations can cope with things like national lottery funding and the rolling programme and how they can exit from that programme. The issues that we need to consider are not just about how the voluntary sector delivers services but about how the groups within it operate. We should also bear in mind the difference between the voluntary sector and community groups. There is a difference between professional voluntary organisations and community activists.
At some point, we will have a profound discussion on that difference. I know where I stand on the issue.
I would like to clarify something before we do that. I understand that our previous agreement was that, after having read the statement from the ministers, we would ask for an early meeting.
Is it the view of the committee that we want an early meeting?
There will be several meetings at that time. I suggest that we schedule the meeting, but get the paper beforehand so that we can form our questions.
That is okay. We will get that going very soon, I hope.
Can I ask whether that will include all three ministers? I think that Frank McAveety should be here, if possible. Although he cannot say anything definite, it would be good to know what is being thought about housing and to receive any information that is available.
Yes, if any ministers have a direct impact on the work of the committee, we should request that they attend. Sorry, am I misunderstanding that point?
The point was that it might be asking a lot to get them all here on the same day.
Yes, that would be too much.
Leave that with us. I take it that Wendy Alexander is the main person that we would wish to see. If we had more detailed questions about the role of the voluntary sector, for example, we could ask the other ministers as appropriate. I shall start with Wendy.
No problem.
That was a joke. Re-reading the Official Report, what seem like jokes in committee do not come across like that, so I should be careful about what I say.
That is why we are in politics, Margaret—comedy.
With the permission of members I will come back to the next meeting having talked to individuals in between times about proposals for taking forward the national anti-poverty strategy.
In the housing section in your paper, Margaret, you suggest that a couple of reporters come back to the committee with a proposal. In the case of the anti-poverty strategy, under your chairmanship, perhaps another couple of members as well as you could report back. It would help to create a consensus about the work programme. We do not want to spend much more time discussing the work programme, but to get into the nitty-gritty of it. It might be useful to have a small group, with one member from each of the parties, agreeing on the proposals, to expedite the work of the committee.
Yes, let us get it started and see how it goes. Is everyone agreed to that? [Members: "Yes."] I will convene the group, and perhaps Lloyd will take part. Bill, you do not have much choice about it.
With all due modesty, I shall nominate myself.
Robert, I hate to say it, but you are in the same position.
What are we doing? Are we having one group for each subject?
It is ad hoc, a one-off, just to take us forward. If we include Karen too, that will get us moving.
That is okay.
Can we agree that we initiate a short-term inquiry into drugs?
Yes, as long as that does not preclude collective working.
At a later stage.
But not too late.
I will raise that at the committee of conveners. We are starting the inquiry, but we think that the other committees have a key role to play.
Are we talking about a committee member or an external reporter?
The reporter must be a member of the committee. I am sorry, I should have clarified that point. The reporter cannot work outwith the remit or powers of the committee and must report back to us.
Is a reporter the equivalent of the European rapporteur?
That is the debate. It is and it is not. The idea of a reporter is equivalent to the rapporteur, but we can develop that idea as we like. I am suggesting that we should not be too hide-bound, but should do what we want and let people stop us if necessary.
There are two concepts here: one is to appoint a reporter to develop ideas and so forth and the other is to have an expert adviser to the committee.
We need at some point to discuss the role of expert advisers and suchlike. We have the power to appoint them and I am sure that we will do so when we get down to the nitty-gritty. The role of a reporter is different from that of an expert adviser—we are asking one of our members to take on a specific responsibility and to report back to us.
Is this a one-off appointment or will that member be the reporter on housing for the next 12 months?
That is for us to decide. I suggest making an appointment now in order to get started; we can look again at the role of the reporter once the work is completed. It is not worth getting too caught up on that member's role. We want someone to get the work under way; they can come back to us with their proposals for a work load, having knocked some of it about. We will know whom to talk to about a particular issue.
I nominate Fiona Hyslop.
I nominate John McAllion, largely on the basis of his experience in housing issues and of the all-party Scottish group in the House of Commons in particular.
Is there anything wrong in having two reporters working together and coming back with one report?
We had better ask Fiona and John.
I think that it is probably better to have one reporter—and I do not say that for any reason other than that I have just come up with my suggestion for managing the work load. If it does not work, we can review our decision, but I think that it gives us a focal point—
This is not a question of party political advantage—even if it seems that way. If we establish the practice of the committee having reporters, different members can be reporters for the different issues that we examine. This reporter will be for a housing matter, which we are examining in our initial programme. In other programmes—and, indeed, in this programme—there will be other issues for which we may wish to appoint a reporter. This is just the first of a number of these appointments.
I wish to ask a not altogether unrelated question: is the committee to have a vice-convener?
Yes, that has been decided. I understand that the Parliamentary Bureau will make that recommendation and that arrangements are being negotiated. The Parliamentary Bureau will meet tomorrow and, although I do not know whether the question will come up, I think that discussions are being held about it. I will report back when I am properly informed about it.
I agree with Mike's point that, at some stage, we will probably have reporters on other issues. The committee consists of only 11 members, so we would not stretch very far if we were to break up into groups. If at this early stage we establish that there should be two reporters, it might be difficult to pursue that practice in future. I suggest that we have one reporter, and I support John's nomination. Moreover, I suggest that when we appoint reporters to an issue, they should not be their party's spokesperson on that issue.
We will cross that bridge when we come to it.
It will hide-bound the Parliament if the conveners, vice-conveners or reporters cannot be spokespersons for their parties. We should make it clear that that would be an unacceptable way for the Parliament to proceed.
I have no problem with that. I will be happy to work with anyone to make progress on housing.
So there will be a reporter and a deputy reporter.
I hope that any member reporting on an issue—whether on housing or on social exclusion—will work with the committee and have discussions with us throughout.
We all have our party loyalties and there is no point in hiding them. However, I think that there is genuine co-operation in this committee—at least, we are all trying our best to co-operate with one another. Let us see how matters develop; we will deal with problems when we meet them.
Are the reporters dealing only with the programme of work at this stage? Issues of party balance arise from this point. If there is only one reporter, I feel that he or she should not come from the same party as the convener. If we have different reporters dealing with different issues, that is a different ball-game. Against that background, I am more than happy to go along with what has been suggested.
The reporters will be dealing specifically with the work load and will come back to the committee—they will not be taking any decisions and will not have any real power. I hate to say that, John.
That's why I have been nominated. [Laughter.]
Now, now, John. As I have said, any decisions will be taken by the committee. If committees decide to appoint a lot of reporters, debates about party loyalties will invariably arise. Rapporteurs on the European model have much more power than our reporters will have, but we will examine that issue. We are just starting out and this is just to let us make progress on the issue of housing. John, you will be formally charged to bring a report to a future meeting of the committee—we will decide on that in a minute—and you will do that with Fiona's assistance.
Is tomorrow's meeting an open one, Margaret?
It must be, if it is a committee meeting of the Parliament.
Will any decisions be made at the meeting?
Yes, but I think that the decisions will go back to the Parliamentary Bureau.
I think that that raises a fundamental issue about how the Parliament works. What powers has the committee of conveners to make decisions and how many of its decisions will be referred back to the Parliamentary Bureau?
One of the points raised in a previous meeting—I think that John strongly emphasised it—was that all powers should not reside in the Parliamentary Bureau. It is important for the committees to establish their independence—ergo it is important for the committee of conveners to establish that it can take decisions. I hope that one of the loud and clear messages from everyone in this committee is that the committee of conveners should have a decision-making power. Obviously, we would need to consult the Parliamentary Bureau about decisions—and vice versa, as appropriate—but all power and all wisdom does not reside in the bureau.
Wash your mouth out. My documentation says that the group will be chaired by one of the Deputy Presiding Officers, which will enable the conveners to feed their views into the corporate body and the bureau. I think that I will have to come back to members of this committee. Mike and John will be at that meeting tomorrow as well.
I have opened up the agenda for the first time, so I will have to read it tonight before I go to the meeting tomorrow. The first paper deals with the purpose of the group. I am sure that there will be a debate about that. It is important that the committees of the Parliament establish their independence from the Executive and the whipping system.
John will be in lively form tomorrow. Issues will be discussed that are important to us, such as the draft schedule of meetings, travelling in connection with committee business, issues about sub-committees and cross-cutting issues. I will raise the drugs issue and explain how we are beginning to work. Other issues such as the role of clerks will be discussed, which I will ensure members get some information about. This committee is scheduled to meet on Wednesday mornings. The schedule is only a draft document and our views on it will be taken tomorrow. Discussions are going on in the bureau about the management of parliamentary time. There are concerns that we do not have enough time and that we need to find more.
For meetings of the Parliament?
Yes. That may encroach into Wednesday mornings. I am raising this issue because I would like to get a general feeling about how members feel about when and how the committee should meet. There is clearly a view that we should move out of Edinburgh at times and go to communities where we can meet key people. There are issues about travelling and how we manage the time. At our informal meeting we began to develop the view that we could perhaps set aside a whole day, for example a Monday, to meet outside Edinburgh. I know that that may cause difficulties for constituency business.
It is important to draw a line between meetings of the committee in the Parliament, which are scheduled for Wednesday mornings and the times when we go out to engage with the people of Scotland. Although we all have other things to do on Mondays and Fridays, it will obviously be easier to travel then. If we go any more than 20 miles from Edinburgh it will be impossible to travel on a Wednesday morning and be back for the meeting of the Parliament in the afternoon. We must take a decision to use Mondays or Fridays, albeit we must plan far enough ahead to allow members to fit committee business in with constituency business and other commitments.
We could have meetings on a Tuesday as well.
Other committees will meet on Tuesdays, though. Another option, with due deference to those who have children—I do not—is that it may be possible to do things during weeks such as the period in October when the Parliament is in recess.
The key issue is to get notice. That is a disaster area at the moment with no forward dates. If we have dates for meetings in advance it will work; it will not work if we are told about a meeting two days before it takes place.
The committee schedule takes account of members' commitments in terms of all the committees of which they are members. However, I warn members that the schedule is likely to change.
Are we not getting ahead of ourselves by talking about meeting people and consulting people, as the last I heard before I went away last week was that there is no money to do that?
That is my second point.
There may be a restriction on the money that is available, but it is clear—for example in the consultative steering group report—that the Parliament has been established on the basis that travelling to meet and consult people is part of the way our work must be done.
There is a lot in the CSG report that has not been stuck to.
The CSG report was accepted, and it contained the principle that committees should be able to travel, so we have to ensure that this and other committees push ahead with that principle, within the resources that are available.
There is a schedule for tomorrow's meeting that considers the costs of committee travel and comes up with proposals. However, if we want to travel outside Edinburgh, we have to ask the permission of the Parliamentary Bureau.
Margaret, I think that we should travel within Edinburgh, seeing as how you do not know it very well.
I should not say Edinburgh; I should say the Parliament. They are not synonymous. We need permission in terms of costings, even if we go to Pilton.
Or Dumbiedykes.
We need to get in very quickly with the idea that the committee may want to move, and make the point that if we have to travel to, for example, Dundee, it should not cost a fortune.
It should not cost significantly more than coming to Edinburgh.
If we invite community groups, housing associations or whoever to come here to give evidence, the Parliament will presumably pay their expenses, so there will be a cost in bringing people here. Could the clerk clarify that?
A scheme is to be drawn up for the payment of witnesses who give evidence. It is likely to be based on the scheme that is operated at the House of Commons, and would basically be travelling expenses.
So there will be costs in bringing people here; it is not as if we save money—or spend no money—by doing that.
The convener said that we have to ask permission of the Parliamentary Bureau if we want to go out of Edinburgh. In Westminster, the committee chairs make that decision—and the decision of who gets what money—not the bureau or anyone in the establishment. It is important to ensure the independence of committee conveners so that they, and not the bureau, make the decisions and set the priorities.
I can clarify that matter because I have just looked more closely at the papers. Initial requests to utilise the travel budget should go before the conveners group. I think that that is better.
We have to be careful about saying that because they do something at the House of Commons we should do it here, but if the conveners group is to have a function, and if a certain amount of money is to be allocated to it, I suggest that the allocation of that money should be decided in that group. That is an issue that I want to raise in the conveners group tomorrow.
That is to be endorsed tomorrow. I just wanted to give members the opportunity to raise any points that they wanted to. Members know that the meeting is on tomorrow and that we can raise their points. The meeting slightly muddies the waters as to when we next meet. I asked Martin earlier, but I do not think that we can set a time for the next official meeting until after tomorrow's meeting and the formal rota of meetings has been agreed.
That is correct.
Can we not set a provisional date, subject to that decision?
There is a problem—Cathie already has a clash with her other committee.
If we are going for Wednesday mornings, and if we want to start things moving, is there any harm in our meeting on the morning of Wednesday 1 September?
That is just next week. Are we going to be much further forward? What about 8 September?
Any Parliament business that has been decided is unlikely to be changed before next week. We can move ahead with some of these briefings, for example.
Yes, we can do that. I was in a blind panic about trying to get work done for 1 September. That might be difficult, but if members do not have diary engagements, we could certainly have a briefing that day. I cannot see this meeting determining anything for 1 September.
I am definitely committed on the morning of 1 September for the work of the Audit Committee, but if there were briefing papers that would be fine.
It is probably a fairly tall order to ask anybody to give us a briefing by 1 September, but we could try.
If we want to use time effectively, we could do something fairly quickly on issues such as the anti-poverty strategy, drugs or the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.
Realistically, a week's notice is quite short.
We will have to wait for two weeks.
In that case it will be Wednesday 8 September, and we will have to consider the rota. Members will have to bear with us: we have to go to the conveners group tomorrow to get permission, and we will ask that papers go out immediately to clarify matters.
I would like to ask about the dates of meetings. Will you be able to give us a list of our programmed days shortly after the conveners meeting tomorrow?
Committees are a wee bit ad hoc just now because the Parliament is just beginning to settle. My understanding is that once the conveners group has met and is formalised, committee meetings will become official meetings of the Parliament, with the same standing as meetings of the Parliament, and they will be in the rota system. We will have the powers to act differently within those meetings.
Are we talking about fortnightly meetings?
Yes. A fortnightly schedule has been recommended. We may play around with that regarding meeting in different places, and adding other meetings. That will need to be managed according to the work of the Parliament.
I suggest that a sensible pattern would be to have our regular meeting every second Wednesday and to have the meetings that we will hold elsewhere on Mondays or Fridays.
Yes, and I am sure that there will be times when we will ask people to come to the committee. Groups will want that platform to make formal presentations to the committee, but we will come back to that. Members should look out for the formal papers from the central parliamentary system on the date of the next meeting. Until then we will pursue the work that we have agreed on.
Meeting closed at 16:07.