Social Inclusion
The item on social inclusion concerns a report from a recent meeting. We have had a couple of meetings, which have been fairly wide-ranging. May I move to our recommendations? If members wish to raise other issues, they are free to do so.
We have received a great deal of material, which I believe has been circulated to all MSPs. I would like officially to thank the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre for the high quality of the work that they have produced for us. We are continuing with our work; members of the committee often need material on conferences and debates. It is an important part of our work to keep an eye on that brief and to look at the experience of other countries.
Social inclusion is an important element of the work of the committee. Our view is that it is long term; there is no need to rush at it immediately, given the pressure with regard to any future legislation on housing policy. We also need to have the drugs inquiry. However, we want to embed social inclusion into the long-term work of the committee. That does not mean that we will not pay attention to it—big issues will come to our notice, which will need to be dealt with.
One of those issues is the publication of the social action team reports next week. We need to check the publicity surrounding that. Because of that, we will recommend that at next week's meeting we hear some of the reports of the action teams, to ensure that we are still keeping an eye on the brief and that it does not get lost.
There are several other issues, such as the publication of "New Life for Urban Scotland". I had the pleasure of listening to Malcolm Rifkind's lecture the other day.
I am sure that you learned a lot.
Indeed—it was most entertaining.
We must pay attention to the evaluation of social action; we might need to reflect critically on it, although we do not need to do that immediately. The general feeling of the social action team—given our liaison with some key organisations in the field—was that the issue would be an on-going item on our agenda. We must ensure that we keep our eye on it. The ad hoc group should keep meeting regularly and—as appropriate—bring recommendations back to the full committee.
Do the other members of that group wish to add to that?
I have two points. First, I appreciate that this is a long-term project. I think that we all acknowledged that when we included it as a main priority. As we said previously, we are trying to consider it in the context of a national anti-poverty strategy. I would be a bit concerned if that were to be left out. It would be reassuring if we could get some recommendations from you, convener, on a timetable for developing the strategy.
My second point is on the action team reports. I read with some concern from the SCVO publications about how the Executive is viewing the social inclusion indicators, and about the Executive not being able to set its own indicators and terms of reference. I would argue strongly that we as a committee must examine that. Looking at the evaluation task force report, I think that we have an opportunity to address that important issue next week. If we are to have a Scottish anti-poverty strategy, the evaluation role of the task force is key, and we should hear from it.
Thank you. I read The Herald on Monday, so I knew that such points would be raised. If we are asking the ministers to bring issues to the committee and not issue press releases, we feel that members should do the same. I do not think that it is necessarily right for us always to discover our business through the newspapers.
I come to Fiona's two specific points. I thought that I had made this clear, and I will do so again. The anti-poverty strategy is part of the social inclusion strategy. We are clear about that and will return to it. We will take a substantial range of evidence on anti-poverty work and will pursue that, but it is in the context of social inclusion. If I say "social inclusion", believe me, it does not mean that the anti-poverty strategy is lost—absolutely not. It is part of it.
Some of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee agenda will be set for us by what the Executive is doing. We need to keep abreast of that, but we must have a strategic commitment to pursue anti-poverty work and bring that work back, independently, to the committee, so that the committee can take an independent view on what should be done. The commitment is clear and the small, ad hoc group is clear about that.
On the Executive's papers for next week and the indicators, and the papers from the Scottish social inclusion network, I am not sure of the views of the SCVO. I have had no submission on its views, and I think that if it is commenting and wishes the committee to deal with that, it must proceed formally. It should not be left to a party political debate. If key organisations in the field wish to make submissions, they must do it appropriately. I am sure that, if the SCVO has points to make about the debate on indicators, it will do so. Undoubtedly, the political points that have been raised will come up in the debate on the action team reports.
We have not decided on the people to bring back next week—for general administrative reasons. A general invitation has been issued. I do not have a difficulty with bringing the evaluation team back.
I want to make it clear that concerns were raised in an SCVO publication. I have not spoken to its members about their views, but the evaluation part of the strategy is key. If we are examining the task force, the evaluation part must be put under scrutiny. I do not think that we can put words in other organisations' mouths.
I agree that it is very important that we do not do that.
That is clear. We should be alert to the materials and publications that we get through. Obviously, people produce them to bring issues to our attention, and we should pay attention to them.
I hope that organisations will bring issues to our attention in that way. Are there any other views on that?
I am getting very confused about a timetabling point. You say that we are taking evidence from the action teams next week. We already have an evidence session with the drugs inquiry and possibly another with Volunteer Development Scotland.
I will clarify that when we come to timetabling on the agenda. That is how the timetable is framed, but I will have to come to the difference between italicised and non-italicised items in it later.
It would help. The idea of having three evidence sessions in one morning is highly unsatisfactory.
I will clarify that with you later, but that is the recommendation of our group.
I think that it is our view that the evaluation group be included. Is that agreed?
Yes.
Are there any other points?
We will now move to hearing evidence from representatives of Scottish Homes. We are five minutes ahead of time, so we shall take a short break and get our guests settled.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—