Local Government Committee, 05 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 5, 2002

Official Report 143KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Advice Services (PE396)

We have received a petition from Mr Nick Fletcher, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the citizens of Scotland continue to have access to free and independent advice services. A note in members' papers suggests that the committee should refer the petition to the Social Justice Committee. The Social Justice Committee's remit covers the provision of advice services and the voluntary sector, so it would be more appropriate for that committee to discuss the petition.

Members have a briefing paper on the petition. Does anyone have comments? Given our committee's work load and the question of the relevance of the petition to the committee, I suggest that we refer the petition to the Social Justice Committee to examine and to decide whether to take further action. Does anyone object?

I am concerned about referring the petition to the Social Justice Committee. Most citizens advice bureaux and independent advice centres are funded by local authorities, which provide the money that allows many such services to continue. Free and independent advice provision sits with the Local Government Committee, rather than with the Social Justice Committee, not least because of the financing situation.

There are concerns about the availability of independent advice throughout rural and urban Scotland. The petitioner—whom I knew in a previous existence—makes his points well. We should retain the petition and not refer it to the Social Justice Committee.

The recommendation is technically correct. When the committee set its remit, it said where it would and would not go in relation to the workings of local government. That is the only flaw in Tricia Marwick's argument.

We accept what Tricia Marwick says: it is a matter for local government to fund CABx, which have a relationship with local government. That is without question. However, the committee has said several times that, on principle, it will not intervene in such issues to tell local government what it should or should not do. That is my only problem with her suggestion.

If the Social Justice Committee considered the petition, that would open the issue to wider debate, which might be more beneficial. If we reneged on our initial commitment to local government not to intervene in such a way, we would send out the wrong signal.

The convener said that one reason for recommending that the petition be referred to the Social Justice Committee is our work load. I believe that it does not matter what our work load is. If we think it right to investigate the matter, the matter should be investigated. However, I support the recommendation that we refer the petition to the Social Justice Committee, because that will show this committee's independence. Local government is responsible for funding. I suppose that Michael McMahon is right in a way—we cannot tell local government how to run its finances, although we would sometimes like to ring-fence some moneys that go to local government.

The Social Justice Committee has a wider remit. At present, it is homing in on the voluntary sector and doing a report on that. It would be good for representatives of CABx to give evidence to the Social Justice Committee on their difficulties. I hope that that committee will take the matter further. The petition might return to us after that committee has considered it. The Social Justice Committee is conducting an inquiry into the voluntary sector as part and parcel of its work, so the petition would receive more attention from it. I support the recommendation.

I echo what Sandra White said. The petition refers to meeting social inclusion commitments, so it should be a concern of the Social Justice Committee. Through that committee, a case could be better made for core funding, which would take the matter away from local government funding.

Sandra White is right that we would have to fit an inquiry into our time scale. If we wanted to hold a thorough inquiry, as I think we would, our timetable—which is in some ways outwith our control, because of legislation such as the forthcoming local government bill—would not allow us to do so until late this year, after the summer, or early 2003. Given that the Social Justice Committee's work load at present is not as severe as ours, it might be able to consider the petition sooner rather than later.

Does the committee agree to the recommendation that we ask the Social Justice Committee to examine the petition and to decide whether to take further action?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 14:41.