Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, 29 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999

Official Report 195KB pdf

---

Drugs Inquiry

I want to put on record my thanks to Sue Morris at the information centre who worked with me on this paper and who has been extremely helpful. I met her at a conference yesterday and we have come up with some recommendations for how some of the points that have been raised can be pursued. First, however, we need to work through this paper. Are there any general points about the paper, before we move on to discuss it section by section?

It is important to be clear about the focus and remit of this inquiry. The focus needs to be reworded so that the remit is absolutely clear. I suggest that the focus should be changed to read that the committee intends to establish an inquiry into the links between drugs and poverty in Scotland. It is the link between drugs and poverty that is important.

There are other aspects of social exclusion, for example exclusion on the basis of ethnic group or sexual orientation, but they are not the issues that we want to examine. We want to examine the direct link between drugs and poverty and deprivation in Scotland. We need to be precise about that.

I should point out that the paper recommends that we refocus once we have taken evidence and once members feel more fully briefed.

I am not happy with what Alex has just said, simply because the drugs issue is a crisis in Scotland that knows no boundaries, whether of class or wealth. The drugs problem in oil-rich, cash-rich Aberdeen, for example, is severe. The city has been called the heroin capital of Europe. There would be a problem if we tied down the focus as Alex suggests.

I strongly agree, however, with the statement in the second paragraph—that

"Much of the political debate centres on crime and enforcement."

We need to move things on. The debate is becoming bogged down in crime and enforcement. That is certainly how I have felt over the past three days, listening to the statements of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, indeed, the First Minister. We must put the emphasis on the other side—treatment, rehabilitation, after care and what we can do to help drug addicts. The inquiry should focus on that.

I agree with Keith that Alex's definition is a bit narrow. I know what Alex means, but the committee should investigate other aspects of social inclusion, such as the effects on families and people's ability to work. If someone is incapable of holding down a job, they are socially excluded. A lot of people who are in work suffer according to various indices of poverty. The addition of "the links between" would be helpful. Apart from adding those words, we should leave it at drugs and social exclusion. That would include what Alex is trying to do, but allow the scope to be a little wider.

I agree with Alex.

Hang on.

We stressed that we are not examining drugs as a problem—that is not in our remit. It will be for the Health and Community Care Committee, or another committee, to examine how drugs interact across the whole of society. We must examine the impact of drugs on poor communities. It is important that we focus on that. Oil-rich Aberdeen has drug problems, but they are not the problems that concern this committee. If people from wealthy backgrounds are taking cocaine, that is not our concern. Our concern is the impact of drugs on people in poor, deprived areas

Yes, that is the general focus, but when we examine drugs we will spill over into other issues. There is a huge gender dimension to drugs; consider prostitution in Glasgow, which has a huge connection with drugs.

If the wording is too narrow, we might miss out some of the added dimensions. There is no doubt that the effects spill outwith the heavily deprived areas. We must be focused, but I hoped that some of the ways we examine the issue—where we hear evidence from—might throw up some of those connections. Talking to families and addicts might give us that. When I say the missing dimension, I mean the communities that have borne the worst. That is classically the deprived areas of Scotland, but I do not want to tie us down too much at this stage.

I am not disagreeing with Alex or John. What I am worried about is that when you say drugs and the impact on communities, it sounds like an academic thesis. This committee is not undertaking an academic thesis. We all know the devastating effect that drugs have had on communities. That will come out in the inquiry. We are considering what we can do to help those communities, the addicts in them and all those who are affected by addiction. We should be proactive in that sense. I think it is better to have a looser definition.

I want to address how we will go about our work. We have identified that we want to talk to drug users and their families. We are not the most user-friendly group to go around the country. We said that we wanted to go into communities, and I think that we should do so. We should go to Glasgow first. As I am a Lothian list MSP, I hope that you appreciate me saying that.

That is generous of you.

I have concerns about how we can speak to individuals without putting them into an awkward situation. We must make people feel comfortable. We should consider breaking into smaller groups when we are talking to individuals and ensure that we are approachable. If this is meant to be the open, accessible, approachable Parliament, we should consider carefully how we go about this.

I will let Keith speak in a second. I considered how we should do this before I drafted the paper. We have spoken to a number of organisations and users. We asked their views on whether they are prepared to give evidence. Some of the evidence that we hear about the services and experiences will be very strong.

People are willing to give evidence. We must ensure that we do it sensitively so that we get proper evidence and information. The organisations and groups with which I am familiar are up to speed and can help us on that.

Fiona's point is important. There are a number of drugs agencies close to the Parliament buildings, such as Crew 2000. I have been to very useful meetings with them, but that is not the same as going to housing estates or into the deprived areas where addiction has hit so hard. We will do that too, but it is good to meet the voluntary agencies at their place of work. We can do a lot within a radius of about one mile of this building.

Glasgow has been suggested.

Seeing a lot of the agencies may be an appropriate place to start—whether in small groups or the whole lot of us.

I would like to raise a couple of points. First, if a group of people wants to give evidence to us but does not want to do that in the full glare of publicicity, we should be prepared to be flexible enough to take some evidence in private. Secondly, it should be incumbent on us to look at this as both an urban and a rural problem. I am keen to go to Glasgow—I am always keen to go to Glasgow—but we should look at the rural aspects of this problem too. In a number of rural areas, including mine, drugs is just as big a problem—if not a bigger one—as it is in some parts of urban Scotland.

I have written rural issues into the paper for that reason.

The point that Alex made is very important. Poverty is not unique to Glasgow and the big cities—there are deprived rural communities too. It is an issue in the cities, but it is also an issue in places such as Plains and Caldercruix in my constituency. I am sure that Alex could list similar rural communities where drugs are a problem.

I will recap on what I have in front of me so far, which might help us with the planning. This depends on what Martin says and on what we decide about the rest of the work, but I have asked Sue Morris if she would be prepared to attend next week's meeting. It would have to be an informal session, because it would be difficult to arrange a formal one, but she could give us an hour's input on what information is available to us. I would then recommend, in the lead-up to November, that we have two seminar days in that preliminary phase.

In those seminars we could address questions such as where we are at the moment, what the state of play is regarding research and information—because there are big gaps there—and what we know about health and social trends. Apparently one of the key agencies is the Executive's public health policy unit. It collates all the Government information. Other questions include the medical position and what the debate is on methadone prescribing and similar issues.

We need to look at the service providers—the agencies and what the voluntary and statutory sectors provide. There is also a big debate around what treatments are available. Finally, we will see what resources are available.

Perhaps we could take a Monday and a Friday out to have two seminar days on that and brief ourselves thoroughly in October and November. Once we are briefed, it might be worthwhile getting a minister to attend the committee. Given what we now know about questioning ministers, we should invite Angus MacKay to come along, as he heads up the drugs work in Scotland. We could question him about the Executive's strategy.

I made this point in the chamber last week. I am concerned about inviting Angus. It is nothing personal, but we always get these blooming cross-department groups. Drugs misuse is always chaired by a home affairs or justice minister. Jackie is the member of the ministry that we shadow and scrutinise. I am not saying that we should not have Angus, but if we do, the emphasis will once again be on enforcement.

I take that point, but we do not need to question him on that. He is chairing the ministerial task force.

Does he know enough about the other—Jackie's field?

I know that this flies in the face of what we discussed earlier, in private, but is there not a case, in this instance, for inviting the two ministers together if we have enough time?

A bit like Mike, I am averse to inviting more than one minister at a time unless that is absolutely necessary.

I suggest that we should brief ourselves. During that briefing period, we could build up a reservoir of sources of public evidence and of groups that we would consult, and determine how we would organise that evidence. An official could perhaps brief us. We should get information, find out what the Executive is doing, then take public evidence and refocus it in the direction in which we want to go. Alternatively, we could get our information, listen to the ministers or whomever we invite to speak on Executive policy—undoubtedly, we will tighten the inquiry after that evidence—then take evidence, refocus the inquiry and come up with the short, sharp recommendations that we are hoping for. We do not need to decide that today.

We should invite both Angus and Jackie.

We would need to give them warning. We want to ensure that what we want to ask them is clear.

One thing that we should keep in focus is why people are getting into drugs at an ever younger age. We should look at the problem from that angle. If we can stop such behaviour in the first place, so much the better.

We could find out what research has been done on that. We need to ask people directly what evidence they have.

Is it agreed that we could begin by asking Sue Morris to attend a meeting on 6 October? We could, from her lead, determine our seminar programme.

Members indicated agreement.

Let us move on to discuss our draft timetable of work.