Trading Standards Officers (Shortage)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it can take in relation to the reported shortage of trading standards officers in Scotland. (S4T-01128)
The Scottish Government’s vision is for a comprehensive, effective and widely respected enforcement system. The Government has set up the working group for consumer and competition policy, which is considering the most effective arrangements for delivering consumer and competition services in Scotland. It will make its recommendations to the Government in November this year. The Scottish Government will continue to work in partnership with interested groups to create an integrated consumer protection regime that puts the interests of consumers first and gives consumers greater clarity on where to turn for help and advice.
Trading standards officers undertake an important service in protecting both the public and legitimate businesses from rogue traders. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, in February 2013, Audit Scotland warned that trading standards had experienced greater than average staff reductions and that the long-term viability of those council services was under threat. Since that warning, a further one in eight staff have been lost. Why has it taken so long to act on Audit Scotland’s concerns?
First, I agree whole-heartedly with Dr Murray about the vital role that trading standards officers undertake in Scotland, because they provide advice and guidance to members of the public who may be in a very vulnerable situation as a consequence of an experience that they have had in relation to consumer policy.
In essence, the working group that we have established is exploring many of the issues in this area of policy—in which, of course, some further responsibilities are being devolved to the Scottish Parliament—and taking into account the findings of the Audit Scotland report to ensure that we create a system in Scotland that provides the necessary assurance and support to individuals. That will be at the heart of the material that will come to the Government in November and will shape the Government’s response.
The Government has addressed the issues in a pretty swift timescale. We have seen the conclusions of the Smith commission and have adapted our approach to take that into account. We also have a very broad base of stakeholder opinion participating in the working group, which I warmly welcome.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that, prior to the reorganisation of local government in 1996, trading standards were the responsibility of the regional councils. I understand that there is support for a return to a regional model of service provision. Will he give serious consideration to alternatives that retain some local accountability rather than just centralising the service as a national quango?
As Elaine Murray will know, the Government is very committed to devolving services to local levels. The removal of ring fencing, which the Scottish Government undertook back in 2007, gave significantly greater flexibility to local authorities to determine their choices in their localities. If there is an appetite among local authorities to try to draw together some of the trading standards services on a wider basis in order to secure their sustainability, I would be very open to a conversation with local government to find ways in which we could do that. I am confident that there is a very good atmosphere for discussing these issues, involving the various stakeholders who have been part of our working group and the wider discussion that is taken forward by the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Dr Murray has made a reasonable suggestion and I will ensure that it is reflected on in the Government’s thinking.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that I spent most of my working career as a trading standards officer. I am currently a vice-president of the United Kingdom Chartered Trading Standards Institute.
The trading standards problem started 20 years ago when the regional councils were abolished and it has got much worse in recent years. Only a very small number of people are involved in trading standards, so very small authorities cannot deal with the myriad issues across the consumer protection landscape. Would the cabinet secretary value devolution of all consumer protection to this Parliament? Currently, we are going to get advocacy and advice powers, and we will be able to look at the structures. However, would it help if the full powers in relation to consumer protection were devolved? I would certainly encourage him to go for bigger units. There have been many voluntary schemes in the past for local government services to combine, but every single one has failed, and that has been the case across the whole of the UK.
Parliament has benefited enormously from Mr Thompson’s experience of the operation and development of the trading standards service over a long number of years, which he has just put on the record and I thank him very much for that very helpful contribution.
Mr Thompson has raised two points that I want to respond to, the first of which is on the additional powers that we will attract. Four pillars of competence are essential to the areas of consumer protection: advocacy and advice—which are coming to the Scottish Parliament—and enforcement and redress. Part of the way in which I approach the Scotland Bill provisions is to look at cohesive ways in which policy can be taken forward to enable us to deliver on the expectations of members of the public. The point about cohesion that Mr Thompson has made is a very strong one.
Mr Thompson’s second point is on the nature of drawing local authorities together voluntarily into co-operative and collaborative units. I hear his words of caution about how successful that approach might be. However, notwithstanding what has happened in the past, such co-operation is going to become essential in the future. Local authorities are going to have to work more closely together to share services and to collaborate more widely. That will be a necessary element of how we deal with the financial challenges that we face.
If local authorities do not do that and, as a consequence, do not try to safeguard and improve services, there will be a diminution of services to people in Scotland. Dr Murray does not want that, Mr Thompson does not want that and I do not want that, so we will work with local government to achieve as much as we can in this policy area.
Civil Partnerships (Mixed-sex Couples)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on allowing mixed-sex couples to form civil partnerships. (S4T-01130)
The Government issued a consultation on the review of civil partnership on 22 September. In it, the Government indicated that we are not persuaded that mixed-sex civil partnership should be introduced in Scotland. However, the consultation invites views on that position.
As the member who proposed, when civil partnerships were first being debated, that they should be created on the basis of equality and therefore open to mixed-sex couples as well as same-sex couples, I, like most members, was very happy to welcome that principle of equality being applied to marriage. There is now no legal bar on same-sex couples marrying, and that is based on a principle of equality, to which I think most of us agree they are entitled.
It seems to me bizarre that we do not apply the same test to civil partnership. Why does the minister feel that a mixed-sex couple, whose neighbours—a same-sex couple—can choose cohabitation, civil partnership or marriage, based on their own values and priorities, should be discriminated against in law by having placed against them a legal barrier to one of those legitimate options?
I take a moment to join Patrick Harvie in welcoming the support that this Parliament showed for same-sex marriage, which was a landmark moment of this session that many of us were not just happy to see but personally very proud to be involved in.
The consultation sets out three options, one of which is the introduction of opposite-sex civil partnerships. The consultation carries with that the view that, having considered it, we think that there are arguments against it. There would be issues of low demand, limited recognition—particularly elsewhere in the United Kingdom—a lack of understanding about opposite-sex civil partnership and the rather liberal rights that we have around marriage in Scotland, which put the couple at the heart and give tremendous flexibility over where a marriage may be held, how it may be held and who can officiate at it.
The great challenge for this Parliament has been to legislate for same-sex marriage, and we have done so. This is another issue that we committed to considering, and we are now considering it. I would invite anybody with views on the issue to give them to the consultation.
If low demand and the prospect of limited recognition overseas were legitimate reasons not to act, no country would have been the first to introduce equal marriage for same-sex couples. Countries would have anticipated both arguments and taken no action.
The minister is right to say that the three options are presented in the consultation paper. The arguments for and against option 1, of no change, and option 2, of closing down future civil partnerships, are presented. Option 3, of mixed-sex civil partnerships, does not have the arguments for and against it fairly represented. Is the minister able to confirm that, if the response to the consultation comes back showing that there is a strongly held argument in favour of mixed-sex civil partnerships, the Scottish Government remains open to the option?
The Scottish Government view, having looked at the evidence, is that we are not persuaded that mixed-sex civil partnerships should be introduced. Clearly, that view is in the consultation and we are inviting comment on it.
Over the years, many consultations have stated an outset position on which comment is invited and the Government then considers those comments. The Government will fully consider every comment on this consultation. I would draw a parallel with 2011, for example, when we produced a consultation on same-sex marriage, which indicated that the Government tended towards the view that it should be introduced. The consultation signalled a view while allowing everyone to give their views. I would encourage everyone who has a strong view to submit it to the consultation.
The equal marriage pledge, which was supported by a majority of members on all side of the chamber, says:
“I pledge to support the Equal Marriage campaign to lift the ban on same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnership in Scotland”.
Does the Scottish Government appreciate that, if this Parliament accepts its opposition to mixed-sex civil partnerships, we are breaking our promise to the people of Scotland?
The central and overriding issue of the pledge was to introduce same-sex marriage and, as I said, we are all proud to have done so. The Government, as opposed to MSPs, has been clear all along that, as part of the process, civil partnership would be reviewed. That is what we are doing. As I said, there are three options on the table. We have given an initial view. I would encourage everybody to respond to the consultation.
Previous
Business Motion