Social Justice Committee, 17 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 17, 2002

Official Report 229KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Advice Services (PE396)

Item 5 is petition PE396, which calls on the Scottish Executive to take the necessary steps to ensure that the citizens of Scotland continue to have access to free and independent advice services. The petition was referred to the Social Justice Committee by the Local Government Committee. A paper on the petition has been provided. We are asked to consider our approach to the consideration of the petition, bearing in mind our earlier discussions about our work plan. The options are either to have an inquiry or to write to the Executive on the basis that it has already indicated that it is conducting a review of advice services—it would be useful to find out where we are with that.

We should write to the Minister for Social Justice for an update. I have raised with ministers, including when we have been dealing with legislation, the issue of the additional burdens on advice centres. Ministers have said to me that they take the issue into account when they are budgeting. The Executive is aware of the issue, which will influence its review. We need to receive an update on where we are. Our timetable of work goes up to the end of the year. It would not be right to start an inquiry in 2003, given that the committee's membership might change. Depending on the response that we receive, we should hold off on that review.

As someone who spent 10 years as the chair of the management committee of Rutherglen and Cambuslang citizens advice bureau, I was shocked by the information that we have been given, especially against the background of the report "Striking the Balance—a new approach to debt management". I have not in a long time seen such a load of bureaucratic nonsense as the letter from the City of Edinburgh Council. The letter evaded the issue—it did not deal with the objective of the exercise, which is to put in place adequate independent advice services throughout the country. I note that there is a problem across the country, albeit the problem is worse in Edinburgh. That strikes at the heart of the policy objectives of the Parliament and the Scottish Executive in this field.

If the Executive is failing to fund the premier independent advice organisation—Citizens Advice Scotland is by far the premier organisation in terms of the amount of advice that it gives and its geographical remit—we have a major problem that threatens many of the objectives that we want to be implemented. We have to find out from the Minister for Social Justice where we are going—I do not disagree with Cathie Craigie on that point—but we ought to return to the issue with a view to holding a more substantial investigation. How many of us have gone on about debt advice and how many of us went on about housing advice during our consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill? There is an expanded need for advice, to which citizens advice bureaux have responded. However, despite increases in local government funding, the advice system is being cut, or at best maintained at a standstill. We cannot let the issue go, despite the pressures on our time.

We have to be cautious about what we examine, given the issues of subsidiarity and the responsibility of local government to make appropriate decisions about funding. In light of the report "Striking the Balance", there is the broader issue of how the Scottish Executive will make money advice and general advice available to people who are in difficulties. We could usefully explore that, but we would have to think about how we would do it and in what context. We must be careful not to impinge on the responsibilities of local government. I think that the petitioners recognise that.

We should ask the Executive what progress it has made. We should not shut the door to an inquiry yet. We must reserve the right to look into the matter further if we receive an unsatisfactory answer from the Executive. When we have that response, we will decide what it is appropriate to do.

We would inquire into the delivery of effective advice services locally, rather than into the situation with the City of Edinburgh Council.

We would absolutely not inquire only into the City of Edinburgh Council's situation. The funding of advice is a general issue for people in Scotland.

I presume that the issue sits in the context of delivering on "Striking the Balance".

We must have an answer from the Executive about the progress that has been made, its views on the future and how it expects the problem to be resolved.

I agree with Robert Brown and Linda Fabiani, and to an extent with the convener. It is important that we find out the lie of the land. It would be pointless to jump into an inquiry at this stage. However, I take on board much of what the report says. Some of the comments are striking. For example, Citizens Advice Scotland says that

"77% of all Department of Social Security forms advise claimants to go to Citizens Advice Bureau if assistance is required with the claim",

yet central Government provides no funding for such organisations. The burden increases weekly. At the same time, funding decreases steadily in real terms. The issue is serious. We must examine it and take action as soon as possible.

However, I take on board what the convener has said. I am surprised that the City of Edinburgh Council says that the Scottish Executive should consider ring fencing additional funds, given that local government has said consistently since the Parliament started that it opposes ring fencing.

We want to find out what the Executive says, because I think everyone agrees that we want to ensure that advice agencies are funded. What guidance is given and what funding plans must the Executive give local authorities? As Linda Fabiani said, if we do not obtain the answer that we want, we must think about where we go from there. The present situation is untenable. Action must be taken to resolve it.

I do not want to repeat anything that has been said. We need to write to the Executive. After we have its response, we can consider what impact the committee can have on the work that will be done on the review of diligence law. The committee will be involved in that legislation. It might be possible to cover in our stage 1 report the issues that the CAB has raised.

We may have reached consensus, which is always to be welcomed. We will write to the Executive to say that we are anxious to know the lie of the land, as Kenny Gibson said, and what point we have reached in the process. We will reflect on the Executive's response. We take seriously the importance of Scotland-wide, effective advice services for people in our communities. Points were made about "Striking the Balance" and potential legislation, into which we will want to have input.

Perhaps this is implied by what you said, convener, but I think that we should formally draw the Executive's attention to what seems at first glance a serious situation in relation to CAB funding. That should be part of the communication to the relevant minister.

We will draw the petition to the Executive's attention—that will meet Robert Brown's request. Is the proposal agreed?

Members indicated agreement.