Official Report 394KB pdf
We move to agenda item 6. For the purposes of this item, Dave Thompson is now on the other side of the desk, so to speak, as we are taking evidence from him on a proposed cross-party group on consumer affairs. Do you want to make opening remarks Mr Thompson?
Yes, thank you. I welcome the opportunity to put the case for the establishment of a cross-party group on consumer affairs. In doing so, I am conscious of discussions in the committee and more generally about the number of cross-party groups. That was very much at the front of my mind when discussions started about the possibility of establishing the group.
The reason for establishing the group fairly late in the parliamentary session is because there are a number of changes in the pipeline on consumer protection, trading standards and so on. A number of new powers, over advice and advocacy, for example, will be transferred to the Parliament, if the process in Westminster concludes in the way that I think it might. Therefore, there will be a greater remit on those matters.
The Parliament is responsible for the structure of enforcement, which is done by local authorities, so COSLA has a big input in the area, as does the Scottish Government. Two reports on consumer affairs are due in a couple of months. It is also an important subject that impacts on individuals across the country in relation to not just consumer rights but consumer credit, as well as deprivation and various other similar issues. Citizens Advice Scotland, which, as you will see from the submission, would do the secretariat’s job for the cross-party group, is keen to develop a forum to deal with a wide range of consumer affairs issues, and I think that it is the right time to do that.
I should make it clear that I have an interest in the area, which is referred to in my entry in the register of members’ interests—I am a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which is a United Kingdom body. I spent 34 years of my working career as a trading standards officer. Therefore, I have a particular interest in consumer affairs.
The committee will see from the list of organisations in the submission that there is wide interest in the cross-party group. I ask members to agree to its establishment.
I note that Cameron Buchanan is the proposed deputy convener of the cross-party group. That does not inhibit his participating in the questioning of the proposed convener, Dave Thompson.
Do colleagues wish to raise any issues?
Mr Thompson, did you consider any way to raise the profile of the issues other than through the establishment of a cross-party group?
Yes. I have sponsored a number of events in the Parliament with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Citizens Advice Scotland and various other organisations. However, such events do not give the opportunity to focus on an issue in the way that can be done in a cross-party group. The group would meet about four times a year, but it could follow through matters in a way that cannot be done with individual events. I did not think that it would be right to set up something that is ad hoc and outwith the Parliament’s rules; I think that such matters should come within Parliament’s control.
Given how late we are in the parliamentary session, how many meetings would you propose to have before the session ends?
We have a meeting arranged in a couple of weeks’ time and another before Christmas. There will be another meeting early next year.
I know that we will be considering reregistration of groups, so I think that it would be advantageous to establish this group. Given my background, Citizens Advice Scotland seems to have seen me as a good vehicle to help to promote the group. CAS asked to see me and made the case to me, and I agreed that a group should be established, even at this late stage.
Given that we do not have the powers that you are talking about, I wonder whether it would have been better to wait till next session in order to be able to focus on the additional powers that we will have rather than the ones that we expect—or suspect—that we will get. From the point of view of timescale, would it have been more logical to do it that way round?
That is a fair point. However, there have been quite a lot of changes recently and there is a lot of concern about the lack of ability of trading standards departments in councils to do their jobs. It is a very small profession—just a few hundred people, who are spread out among 32 local authorities. Some local authorities have only one officer, and officers deal with a massive range of legislation. We already have the power to look at how the enforcement is structured and so on. However, the UK Government changed the system about a year and a half ago. The Scottish Consumer Council, which was an excellent body that had built up expertise for 30 years, was abolished. That was a detrimental step. Given all the changes that are coming in, it will be helpful to have a cross-party group such as this. It would be best to establish it now rather than leave it until, for instance, this time next year.
Speaking as the proposed deputy convener of the cross-party group, I think that the group would enable us to flesh out certain issues and discard irrelevant ones. That is why it would be a good idea to have two or three meetings now so that, when the next session starts, we can focus on the issues that are vital.
Dave Thompson said that changes were made 18 months ago and that there have been a number of more recent changes. Why now? Is it because we are about to come to the end of a session and you want to establish the group before the next session starts? If there have been changes in the past 18 months, why have you waited until now to propose setting up the group?
One of the reasons why I decided not to promulgate the group off my own bat was that I was conscious of the number of cross-party groups. However, when Citizens Advice Scotland approached me earlier this year and made the case to me for a group, I listened and thought that such a group probably needed to be established.
Consumer affairs is important—it has a huge impact on individuals and businesses throughout Scotland. A wide range of consumer issues need to be discussed and dealt with. A cross-party group will be able to focus only on certain aspects. Cameron Buchanan is right—the group needs to focus on the really important aspects. We have six or seven months before Parliament dissolves. That time could usefully be spent developing the group so that, if it is re-established, it is ready to move on in the next parliamentary session.
I suspect that we have heard enough evidence to allow us to make a decision. I thank Dave Thompson for providing evidence.
The next item is to decide whether to accord recognition to the cross-party group on consumer affairs. Does anyone wish to make any further observations before I put the question? As no one does, do we agree to accord recognition to the cross-party group on consumer affairs?
Mary Fee is looking doubtful. You must say yes or no. If you want to defer the decision for further consideration rather than take a decision today, we would have to be clear what it is that we want to happen before we make a decision.
My concern relates to a lack of clarity about what the CPG will consider. I have concerns about whether, at this late stage, it will be able to do anything. I am also concerned that the matter will not be picked up again in the next session, which would mean that we would have had a cross-party group that had met only three times in total. I am afraid that I am therefore inclined to say that I do not approve its establishment.
So, you are saying that the case is not made. The balance has to be that the case has to be made. If we are not satisfied that it has been made, we should not approve it. Patricia Ferguson, do you believe that the case has been made?
I am thinking.
My position is similar to Mary Fee’s. However, I differ from her because I understood that Dave Thompson said that the reason why he wants to set up the group now is so that it is available for someone else to pick up in the next session. I can see why he did that, because it is helpful to get the various groups used to working together. Initially, my attitude was exactly the same as Mary Fee’s, but Dave Thompson has swayed me. I now understand why he wants to set up the group now.
I have a concern about the timeframe that is left, and I wonder whether, when we are thinking about cross-party groups in general, that might be an issue that we can feed into the process. I understand the case that Dave Thompson has made, but I am also conscious that he will not be here in the next session, and the question of whether someone will pick up the group and run with it is perhaps moot at this stage.
I do not like to say no to cross-party groups, but I am conscious of the fact that the committee’s role is to make a considered decision. I have two reservations. One concerns the timing and the other concern is the fact that I am not 100 per cent convinced that the proposed work of the cross-party group fits in with the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament closely enough for us to be happy that it should proceed.
The information that has been provided to us makes me think that it is an interesting idea for a cross-party group, but setting it up now is almost pointless. On the other hand, that is not my judgment to make. If Dave Thompson and his colleagues wish to set it up, I should probably not stand in their way.
It is useful to have those points on the record. Previously, we have discussed the issue of whether we should establish any cross-party groups in the last year of a session, and the proposal clearly fits into that timescale. However, we have not come to a decision on that, so it would be inappropriate for us to apply that discussion at this point. It seems that, very narrowly, the balance of opinion on the committee is that we should accord recognition to the cross-party group. Does anyone disagree with that position?
No.
In that case, we are agreed. However, the record will show that we do so with not insubstantial reluctance.
The reluctance is due to the timing more than anything else, rather than the efficacy of the proposed group, is it not?
To be fair, Patricia Ferguson articulated a vires issue, which is perfectly proper. There is no restriction in the parliamentary rules on our having cross-party groups on matters on which the Parliament cannot legislate or in relation to which it does not have administrative powers. Nonetheless, in our decision-making processes, it is perfectly proper for us to consider that matter.
We have put our views on the record. I suggest that members do not put on the record any further comments, because we are minded to approve, and any comments that might be made might dissuade us from that position.
On that basis, we are agreed to accord recognition to the cross-party group on consumer affairs.
Thank you.
That ends the public part of the meeting.
11:00 Meeting continued in private until 11:26.Previous
Committee Reform