Official Report 160KB pdf
Advice Services (PE396)
Members will recall that the committee last considered petition PE396 at its meeting on 17 April 2002. At that meeting, we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Justice. Members will find the minister's response and a copy of the petition attached to the paper for agenda item 2. We dealt with money advice in some detail in our recent consideration of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill. Do members have any comments on the clerk's recommendation?
The minister's letter is dated 25 July, so why are we dealing with it in November? That does not seem terribly satisfactory. Perhaps we agreed to something that I have forgotten about, but the gap seems big.
The petition has returned now because we agreed to deal with it in the context of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill. We agreed that we would take the petition into account at stage 1 of that bill. Now that that process is over, we are responding formally to what the minister said and to the petition.
I have pushed from various points and directions on the matter the petition raises. I am not sure whether the minister's reply deals with it. The issue that emerges from Mr Fletcher's letter is core funding for citizens advice bureau services. That reflects the wider voluntary sector problem of core funding, which we have discussed. We could pursue with the minister whether core funding for CAB services throughout Scotland will receive further attention.
I suspect that you are trying to stretch the petition to a broader issue that it does not ask us to address. The petition asks us to deal with funding in Edinburgh, which is clearly a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council. Subsidiarity clearly applies, as we said in our stage 1 report on the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill, in which we also welcomed the fact that additional funding was made available. I would be reluctant to stretch a response to the petition to broader issues. That might send out a message about subsidiarity in relation to local authority decisions.
I say with respect that I did not refer only to Edinburgh. I said that Edinburgh was the key example.
We are responding to the petition, which deals with that.
The convener is right to remind us that the petition is about Edinburgh. We must leave local decisions to the City of Edinburgh Council. I feel confident in saying that because when the committee has taken evidence on matters such as debt and the advice that is available to members of the public, we have often been told about good practice in organisations in the Edinburgh area, particularly in respect of advice on courts, repossessions and evictions. The decision to reduce funding in Edinburgh this year may be because broader areas of advice in the Edinburgh area are being considered. That said, I accept the clerk's recommendation.
I agree with Cathie Craigie. We debated aspects of the matter last week during the debate on the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill and it would not be helpful to pursue the matter any further at this stage. Colleagues' comments have been well made.
It might be worth highlighting the fact that, in writing to Iain Gray, who was the then minister, we expressed our concerns about matters raised in the petition and we reaffirmed that the Executive should continue its support to advice organisations. The Parliament took a view last week on how the balance should be managed.
Despite what was said earlier, it seems to me that the petition is not about Edinburgh specifically, although it arises out of experience in Edinburgh. The petition calls upon the Scottish Parliament to
You are right about the petition. Karen Whitefield and Kenny Gibson want to say something; I then intend to put Robert Brown's proposal to a vote.
I did not want to speak about the petition. It is not helpful to rehearse arguments about the provision of independent advice that we have already debated in the committee and in the Parliament. The provision of advice services was covered extensively in the stage 3 debate on the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill. Nothing is to be gained by our writing to the minister again at this time.
I agree with Labour party colleagues. It is less than seven days since we debated amendment 45, on which Robert Brown abstained. Parliament reached a decision last week. We must let the matter rest and follow the recommendation in paper SJ/02/21/2.
I would like to push the matter to a vote. I accept that we are dealing with an issue that has local and national implications—there are no two ways about that. The petitioners' central point is the Scotland-wide position, which is why it is appropriate for the matter to progress as I suggest. I stand by my proposal.
Robert Brown proposes that we write again to the minister to express our concerns about the issues that are highlighted in the petition. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
I thank members for their attendance. The next meeting of the committee is in a fortnight.
Meeting closed at 11:24.