Examination of Witnesses (Questions 860
- 865)
MONDAY 26 NOVEMBER 2007
MR STEWART
MAXWELL MSP, MR
JAMIE HAMILTON,
MR MIKE
PALMER AND
MR NEIL
LANGHORN
Q860 Chairman:
We will move on. Debt and irresponsible lending is one of the
major factors contributing towards poverty. We took evidence from
Citizens Advice Bureaux representatives and were told that one
in five cases they are dealing with are directly connected to
debt. Obviously you will be aware that loan sharks and these legal
and illegal lenders are charging up to 200% and 300% interest
rates which are bringing misery to the people and they are coming
to a situation where they have to sell their belongings and even
their homes. Can you tell us what the Scottish Executive is doing
to tackle this issue?
Mr Maxwell: Clearly again, as
you will be only too well aware, Chairman, many of these areas
are reserved to the UK Government and, therefore, as is so often
the case, we operate with one hand tied behind our back, but in
terms of what the Scottish Government is doing, we are investing
in areas such as Money Advice. Clearly, we are trying to help
those who are at risk of going to the illegal money lenders that
you mentioned. We have invested a large amount of money in terms
of Money Advice and, in fact, the current figures which are from
a report carried out in July 2006 showed that government was funding
130 full-time equivalent Money Advice posts, which is around half
of all the advice posts in Scotland. That is one thing we are
doing. The other thing we are doing is making sure that the Curriculum
for Excellence which comes in 2008-09 will have Money Advice as
part of the curriculum to try and help many of our young people
to understand how to deal with and tackle their financial situation.
We also fund a number of areas in which Citizens Advice is involved,
national helplines to help people who have debt problems and we
also help with areas such as the Greater Easterhouse Money Advice
project in Glasgow and the Young Scot InfoLine, so there are a
number of areas which we get involved in. These are particularly
areas of advice because, clearly, that is roughly the area where
we can operate in in terms of the powers we have. We also spend
£5 million on Money Advice approximately, but we also want
to make sure that we assist credit unions where we can and we
have spent money in terms of helping credit unions grow their
capacity, replace their IT systems and get involved in training
for staff, so we have invested money in those areas as well. Clearly,
this area is predominantly regulations and laws set by the UK
Government.
Q861 Mr Davidson:
I think that is right, the regulations and laws are clearly ours
but the provision of phonelines and the like, I think you mentioned
that you were funding approximately half of the numbers. Could
I clarify who is funding the other half? Is that local authorities?
Mr Maxwell: Local authorities,
yes.
Q862 Mr Davidson:
I thought that was what it was. Could I ask whether or not you
are looking at expanding this drastically because one of things
that has struck me recently is that this is one of the areas where
there is an enormous unmet need, in particular in rural areas
where telephone helplines can help overcome not only the difficulties
of distance but also the question of anonymity, people ringing
in could be ringing in from anywhere and so on. Is this something
that you have looked at best practice elsewhere to see whether
or not there are lessons you could learn from what has been happening
in any of the other devolved administrations or geographical areas?
My understanding is that there are particular examples of good
practice in CABs and advice lines elsewhere in the UK.
Mr Maxwell: The simple answer
is yes. We have seen some of the excellent work that has been
done elsewhere in terms of the telephone helplines and we do help
fund the UK helpline, which is the National Debtline, so we partially
fund that but, in particular, in Scotland this year we are funding
Citizens Advice Direct which is clearly intended to help in this
area. Personally, I think that is a very worthwhile project and
certainly something that could be rolled out and expanded.
Q863 Mr Davidson:
Could I pick up a final point, Chairman, before you ask your final
question. Certainly in areas like mine and a number of poor areas,
one of the issues is the question of poverty of ambition and also
poverty of capacity. I am conscious that the previous regime had
CIPS, and now CPPs are rolling forward. I wonder whether or not
you are considering re-examining some of the practices there to
try and make sure that they become less of a bureaucratic monstrosity.
There is a major difficulty when you have a mix of local people
with a certain lack of knowledge and expertise in manipulating
committees and some pretty high-powered officials who know how
to get what they want. The local people are just outgunned and
they then end up in a process of disillusionment and feel disempowered
and that alienates. It is completely the opposite direction from
what I know is generally suggested as being the scheme, it was
about empowering local people rather than disempowering and alienating
them. I wonder whether or not that is something you would be prepared
to re-consider further in the light of experience?
Mr Maxwell: Far be it for me to
say something about the ability to manipulate committees.
Q864 Mr Davidson:
Thank you.
Mr Maxwell: I am sure that there
are others who are more expert at that than I am. One of the things
we do recognise in terms of Community Planning Partnerships in
particular was the fact that there was an issue of, we feel, a
cluttered landscape in terms of bureaucracy and the number of
bodies and individuals involved in these areas. It is one of the
reasons we announced the abolition of Communities Scotland and,
in fact, in terms of the abolition of Communities Scotland and
the role of community regeneration, we will no longer be involved
in that. We will withdraw completely from that and leave local
government and Community Planning Partnerships to take that forward
in collaboration with local people. I think many of the complaints
about that particular model were from local government and local
people saying that Communities Scotland were a block on some of
the processes. I know others take a different view, but we accept
that there is no necessity for us to be involved in that particular
process. We will deliver the funding to these bodies, and these
bodies can take the decisions about how to implement that best
locally. I think that is a positive move in terms of allowing
them to get on and do the job on the ground and deliver for local
people. In terms of community regeneration, the money is going
to CPPs, Communities Scotland used to be involved, those staff
used to be involved, that is all disappearing as of next year
and local bodies are allowed to get on with it. As I said, it
is a positive move.
Q865 Chairman:
Could I thank the witnesses for their attendance. Before I declare
the meeting closed, would you like to say anything in conclusion
perhaps on an area we did not cover during our questions?
Mr Maxwell: I think we covered
quite a lot, Chairman, in that short space of time. I would like
to thank you on behalf of myself and the Scottish Government for
the invitation to come along here today and I look forward to
reciprocal arrangements where UK Government ministers come before
Scottish Parliament committees.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Your evidence
will be very helpful to us when we compile our report.
| 
