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

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999

Official Report 195KB pdf

---

Timetable

John, do you want to say anything about housing before we tie ourselves down to some of this?

When we discussed the matter last week, we agreed that we should have the briefing on housing finance and the session with Scottish Homes early on, because of the uncertainty surrounding that issue. Those are the first two briefings that are scheduled. I am not sure about the third one.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations is keen that, if we are to consider stock transfers, we should start quite soon. The time for making decisions is running out, and it will take time for the committee to reach a view on new housing partnerships and stock transfers. I would prefer to examine stock transfers in the session in the week beginning 3 November. We could invite Glasgow City Council, which is at the forefront, to come along at the same time as some of the organisations that are opposed to its proposals, so we can hear both sides of the argument.

We could invite the minister on 10 November.

In the light of the uncertain future of Scottish Homes, is not the exercise that was proposed for 27 October redundant?

Nothing has been decided.

I understand that Peter McKinlay will retire at the end of the year. I am not sure whether that will be this year or the end of March.

It will be this year.

It will be quite soon. There is no indication that Scottish Homes will be affected during that period. John Ward will be appointed temporary chief executive, after Peter McKinlay leaves, for a further year. It is expected that a decision will be arrived at in 2000. That is something on which we should seek clarification. We need up-to-date information on the review of Scottish Homes, as I do not have an answer.

That is a neutral response from the minister to a parliamentary question.

Surely not.

Once the committee has reached a decision on housing, we should move on from that rather than revisit the matter. John's recommendation to have the briefings on housing finance and Scottish Homes early on should be followed. We need to press on with examining urban and rural stock transfer issues. If we can tie our discussion in with rearranging when we intend to invite ministers to speak on drugs issues, we can move fairly quickly, at the beginning of November, to examine the urban issues. We could ask John to set up that meeting.

We could undertake the drugs work on our seminar days and make progress on the housing work during our formal committee slots. That means taking up a bit of time, but I get the impression that members are willing to give that time. Martin, will you say a few words about our proposals?

I want to clarify that the italicised items on the committee timetable are provisional—there are a lot of provisional items. In particular, it was not possible to arrange for a session from John Breslin and Albert Tait at the committee's next meeting. They asked for more time—more notice—if members wanted written material in advance. It may be possible to schedule informal briefing sessions from them, if members would prefer, which could take place during the recess. However, Peter McKinlay and John Ward will attend the committee meeting on 27 October.

I think that we must make a decision about our modus operandi and our work pattern. It seems to me that we want to cover three or four strands of work: housing, anti-poverty strategies—on which we want to make a start—drugs and, possibly, warrant sales. We need to establish one of two patterns. We could rotate the subjects at each committee meeting, so this week we look at housing, next week we look at drugs, the following week we look at housing again and then the week after we look at warrant sales, or whatever.

Alternatively, as we have only two hours per week for public business, we could decide to spend one hour on, say, housing and one hour on drugs and then the next week we would spend one hour on housing and one hour on the anti-poverty strategy, and so on. We need to establish a pattern so that we are clear about where we are trying to go in order to ensure that we allocate time appropriately. At the moment, we are a wee bit all over the place.

We could spend the last meeting of the month out on visits.

I am glad that Alex raised that point—I was going to raise it at the end of the meeting if no one else did. We are juggling a lot of issues in the air and I am concerned that we will end up not dealing with any of them as thoroughly or as well as we should. Furthermore, while I am happy to give the time, there is a problem for members who are members of other committees. Other members are affected, too—I am not using this as an excuse to be let off work—and we have other commitments.

We will have to consider our modus operandi, such as breaking into smaller groups on particular issues, which has been suggested, although I am not proposing it. An evidence session that lasts just an hour is not satisfactory—I do not think that it was particularly satisfactory this morning. We must consider carefully how we operate; otherwise it will look as if we are only skimming the surface.

The hour that we had today with the witnesses from SCVO echoed our session with the minister: it was not quite long enough and a number of issues were not taken up.

It might be useful to have some sort of debriefing. What are we going to do about the information that we received this morning? How are we going to draw it together? There may be issues, such as charity law, or whatever, that we want to consider further. We must be able to make rational use, in terms of making decisions and progressing work, of the information that comes in and of the time that people give us.

I wish to make a suggestion. Each area that we are considering is at a different stage. There is the preliminary stage, when we are getting up to speed, and there is the inquiry stage which is, perhaps, more public. From our discussions, I think that the initial stage on the drugs inquiry will involve seminars and briefing. John suggested that we could move quickly on to hearing housing evidence during our public sessions.

We should consider using the week-about pattern, where one week we have more briefing sessions. We could use those for our drugs work and to bring ourselves up to speed on housing. We need to get a move on with the national anti-poverty strategy, which we have not started yet, but we could get updates on the preparation of the strategy from the sub-committee. That would give us a clear direction for the next three months.

Does that answer some of the points that members have raised?

I think that our modus operandi remains the basic issue. My inclination is to suggest that we pick only one issue—particularly when we are dealing with big issues such as housing and the anti-poverty strategy—if we have only two hours at a time, rather than trying to deal with two in one day, as that would be impossible. I want to suggest a way forward, Margaret. We have already agreed that, initially, we will deal with our drugs work in the meetings that fall in the last week of the month, as that is when we will be going out and about. It would be logical for us to focus on that work in the last week of October and November, assuming that we will not be out on visits between Christmas and new year.

I wanted to recommend the model that Fiona was suggesting for dealing with housing at formal committee meetings. We could use Mondays and Fridays to discuss drugs, even if we continue to meet on Wednesdays. People may find that a bit much, but perhaps we should keep either one of those days free to conduct our seminars so that, by the beginning of November, the briefing stage will be over and we can move to the public inquiry stage by the middle of the month.

We will lose our focus on housing if we are conducting a public inquiry on drugs at the same time. We should use the formal meetings to discuss housing and try to reorganise the inquiry and briefing sessions on drugs outwith that cycle, although we may have to encroach on it a bit. I know that that programme places great demands on people's time, but the arrangements for 27 October have already been made and we must deal with housing finance before we can go on to consider housing stock transfer in November.

It is important to focus on the work that we are doing. Once we have heard evidence and discussed it, we must come up with a list of key action points. Otherwise, our work will be diffuse and we will come to no conclusions. Ten minutes at the end of each meeting summarising what we have learned and where we are going would be time well spent.

That is an excellent suggestion. At the end of every meeting we should draw up a list of points on which we need to take action. We should probably take 15 minutes at the end of next week's meeting to reflect on the SCVO presentation that we have just heard.

We must establish a pattern, and I agree with Keith and Robert about the need for debriefing sessions. This morning we finished in mid air, as it were, without knowing what we were going to do, although the SVCO gave us five action points to consider.

I have a number of suggestions. First, I suggest that we should devote each public meeting to one subject area rather than covering two or three. Secondly, we should concentrate either on housing or on the anti-poverty strategy or on drugs. We should have a system for rotating subject areas unless something urgent comes up. Thirdly, our visitations—perhaps I should say days out instead of visitations—

That is the worst word to use; it will get into the Daily Record tomorrow morning.

Initially, we should devote our days out to the drugs inquiry. Once we get on to the anti-poverty strategy, we will become involved in other things. Would those suggestions set a sensible pattern?

We keep talking about an anti-poverty strategy, but I cannot see anything about it on the timetable.

I wanted to make a similar point. We agreed at one of our early meetings to set up a group to draw up a remit for the committee to work to. We must formalise that today and agree a date at which the members who are to form that group will have their initial meeting. Alex is right in saying that, at the moment, we have no direction. That must be sorted out, otherwise we risk losing an important area of work such as the anti-poverty strategy. We must get that on to our agenda.

I think that Martin Verity would agree that our social inclusion remit includes anti-poverty issues.

I agree with every point that Alex made—which is worrying.

I am not criticising anyone but I would add that we should have a minimum of two hours when we are taking evidence or being briefed—for example, when we discuss a drugs agency. We might want to hear evidence from two or three people in that time. We could easily have gone on for two hours today. We must be able to explore a number of issues and I, for one, had more questions to ask.

I take your point. Are the principles that Alex mentioned broadly agreed to?

Yes.

It is acknowledged that there should be some flexibility. Legislation on warrant sales, for example, might come to this committee and other matters will be drawn to our attention.

On our anti-poverty work, I suggest that—as there have been hassles getting people together—the group meets during the recess. We are going to have problems with dates.

The committee must give attention to issues that relate to the broad strategy of social inclusion, which includes anti-poverty work. We need to get the anti-poverty group together but it is important that members understand that we cannot get all the work done before Christmas. However, I congratulate members on their commitment and energy.

We must be thoughtful in our strategy. We cannot tackle all the issues in the next two weeks and there will inevitably be frustration and difficulties. We must be sensible—we have four years in which to tackle some of the issues. Some issues—such as the housing stock transfer—are pressing and we need to think them through. I intend no disrespect to the work of the anti-poverty group—please do not interpret it in that way, Keith—but the housing stock issue has crept ahead of that.

I would like to flag up another important issue. When I was on select committees in that other place down south, we did not timetable inquiries. Inquiries would drag on and on and, by the time we reached the end, we had forgotten about the evidence that we had taken.

Because we are running three different things at the same time there is a danger that, when we come to reporting and making recommendations, we will be doing too much at once. We must be careful. I do not want to set an artificial deadline of Christmas, but we must set a timetable to ensure that we do not go on for an inordinate length of time.

Bearing in mind some of the comments that were made earlier, it would seem that a timetable is being shaped. We have a timetable for the drugs inquiry that I hope we can stick to—so far, it looks as though we will.

The housing work is running in parallel with the drugs work. We must strike a balance between briefings and public hearings and we must be ready to concentrate on responding to the work of the Executive early in the new year. We must think about that work, which will be fairly strenuous.

A small group should do the anti-poverty work in the background. That is not to say that that work will be neglected or that it is unimportant, but I do not think that it is likely that there will be legislation on that by February, although I might be wrong.

I do not think that any of us expects to solve all the problems of social inclusion in the next few weeks. I am concerned that we need a firmer timetable. We need issues to be put on our agenda—we are all looking to make the work programme firm.

I suggest that we stress the work of the action teams on social inclusion, as that could tie in well with how we examine the national anti-poverty strategy. We do not necessarily need live reports to the committee from all the action teams. We should expect written reports, some of which will be of particular interest, such as the evaluation framework for the national anti-poverty strategy.

That is not the one that I would pull out.

It might not be. Unless we can take immediate action on something, we will have to be ruthless. We should put all the reports in the context of the work of the committee. Doing that might lighten the work load in November, when we hope to do other things.

Items are on the committee timetable to let us know that they are available to us, not necessarily to tell us when we have to have them.

Like Karen, I am concerned that the anti-poverty strategy will slip off the agenda or will slip back well into next year. Given what Fiona has said, I suggest that the sub-committee that has been delegated to consider the work programme for the anti-poverty strategy should present an outline work programme at the meeting after next. That can then be built into the longer-term work programme of the committee.

Secondly—this suggestion will not make me popular—given our work load and the need to get through a lot of it quickly, I suggest that we meet in at least one of the weeks of the October recess.

I have no problem with that—there is certainly material for a meeting. The problem will be which week, as I have a commitment in the first week.

On the sub-committee on the anti-poverty strategy, one way forward could be for a small working group to present a paper to the committee, before each inquiry, on how it thinks that the inquiry should go. Margaret has borne the brunt of the work on the drugs inquiry. A group of two or three of us would share out the work load. It might be a good way of carrying out the work in the preparatory phase before the inquiry.

I remind the committee that the establishment of formal sub-committees has to go to the Parliamentary Bureau. That is why I called the working group an ad hoc group. I do not know what the technical differences are, but we should avoid the term sub-committee.

Let us talk about next week's meeting. We have agreed that Sue Morris will attend. Martin, are there any other formal commitments?

Volunteer Development Scotland has agreed to come next week.

We are moving away from Alex's suggestion, which we agreed to, that we do only one thing each week.

We need to have the briefing on housing finance.

Unfortunately, it will not be possible to have the housing finance briefing next week.

The other point is that, if we are to discuss objective 3 in time to pass our views on to the European Committee, we must do it next week or during the recess.

We have to discuss objective 3 next week. I know that we broke the rules as soon as we made them, which sets a bad precedent, but next week will be more a business-type meeting than a formal investigation of a subject.

That means that there are three items for next week: Sue Morris, objective 3 and Volunteer Development Scotland.

Volunteer Development Scotland might be willing to come at another time.

The problem is that we keep making decisions and then overturning them. If you look at the Official Report of our meetings, you will find us changing decisions week by week.

The end justifies the means.

We have agreed that we will follow up today's SCVO briefing and take 15 minutes to set some action points. How long has Volunteer Development Scotland been given?

We usually say about an hour.

We should go with the drugs paper and objective 3 funding and take 15 minutes—even if it is in our business session—to distil the points that SCVO raised.

When would you like to hear the briefing on housing finance? Reasonable notice should be given.

We want the briefing soon.

What is considered reasonable notice?

We could say three weeks, but it can be quicker if you do not want a paper.

What about 27 October?

We decided that we needed two hours for Scottish Homes on 27 October.

As the Executive has already been notified that we want a briefing from civil servants—it was given three weeks' notice, of which one week has already passed—it is not unreasonable to suggest that we could have a briefing session on housing finance during the recess.

The meeting does not have to be formal.

No, we just want an informal briefing.

If committee members want a briefing session during the recess, I will see whether that can be arranged.

What do you think, John?

I am happy with that.

I am happy with it too, but finding a suitable date might be difficult because of the different holidays in different parts of the country. However, given that we are talking about a briefing session, and not a formal meeting with formal decisions, the paperwork should not be a problem.

If it is difficult to organise a meeting during the recess, Margaret, would it be possible to meet on the Friday before the recess?

That is next Friday.

I think that we should try to arrange a briefing session during the recess, even if one or two members cannot make it, because no formal decisions would be taken. Alternatively, we could try to meet on a Friday or a Monday, but we would need to know who would be available.

What about Monday 25 October?

Martin, will you check people's availability for 25 October?

Yes.

At the end of this meeting, we will get together and check all possible dates with the clerks. We need to feed all our decisions on subject areas, scheduling and meetings to the clerks, so that they can keep updating the committee's timetable. We need to bear in mind the fact that the issue of warrant sales may disrupt our planning, but we will keep you informed on that. Have I missed anything?

If members want to discuss objective 3 funding next week, we can get a member of the planning team along to assist the committee.

That would be welcome.

The Equal Opportunities Committee may also want to discuss an objective 3 paper at its meeting next Tuesday. It will not be possible for a member of the planning team to go to that meeting, so I have been asked to find out whether this committee would be happy if one or two members of the Equal Opportunities Committee attended our meeting next week and asked questions about equal opportunities.

Members indicated agreement.

Martin, I know that papers on objective 3 funding are circulating—the European Committee has one—but are there any other relevant papers on the subject?

All that we have—it is all that the European Committee is going to have, I think—is the paper itself. It is huge—it runs to 191 pages—and we have sent it to each of you. There is also a six or seven page summary, which the clerk of the European Committee has prepared. Other than that, I am not aware of any material that is specifically relevant to social inclusion. However, the paper itself has a lot to say about social inclusion issues.

In future, we will have a private session of 15 minutes or half an hour at the beginning of meetings to deal with our housekeeping issues. We have to let the public know that those sessions are likely to last for half an hour, which unfortunately eats up a lot of our time.

I am wondering about travel arrangements: would it be possible to have the private meeting at 9.30 am and the public meeting from 10 am till 12.30 pm?

That would make my life difficult—I have to get children out to school. It is an awkward time. I am sure that in six month's time we will have a plan to solve all these problems; unfortunately we are not too good at it just now. We are making progress and getting down to work, however, so let us not be too hard on ourselves.

I thank everybody for attending, and I thank members of the public for their forbearance and interest. See you next week.

Meeting closed at 12:19.