Chamber and committees

Do you recognise people’s frustration about the need to go faster and to have a better and clearer picture? If we are serious about the ambitious targets that we have set, we will need to have data. As I said in my previous question, we need to be able to mark our own homework, look at our progress and understand where the gaps are. Throughout our evidence sessions the committee has heard that we need to have that data. I was encouraged by the response to my previous question about providing further information, but do you recognise and understand that frustration?

The bill requires DWP appointees to be authorised by Social Security Scotland

“as soon as reasonably practical”.

What are your general expectations about how long it should take Social Security Scotland to authorise an appointee? We had a discussion with other witnesses about timescales and expectations, so it would be good to get your sense of that.

Good morning. I will start with a broad question. What experience do you have of the existing appointee system under the DWP and Social Security Scotland? What has been your experience of that process?

Those answers are helpful. On some of the practical suggestions, I am sensing frustration about blockages, if I can use that expression, in the system. The bill will create empowering opportunities, but a lot of the detail comes down to how the system operates in practice. Is Social Security Scotland engaging with some of the suggestions that Vicki Cahill made or with the conversation about a more automated process, as Fiona Collie suggested?

On the basis of what I have said, I seek to withdraw amendment 18.

Amendment 18, as amended, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 19 not moved.

I reiterate the purpose of my amendment 18. It is clear from the debate that people want clarity and certainty about a mental health moratorium that goes beyond what has been proposed in the bill as introduced. The framework that I have used in my amendment models some of the areas that were covered by the committee report, and it considers how we expand the framework beyond formal emergency care.

Community settings are important, too, in acknowledging that people can access treatment for crisis in communities and in a variety of ways. It is important that we reflect on that.

As I said at the outset, there is a variance of views among those who have been consulted. For example, I acknowledge that Change Mental Health has been very supportive of the approach that I have taken through amendment 18, whereas Citizens Advice Scotland, which sits on the working group, has said that things should perhaps be done in a different way that allows for the flexibility that the minister has described.

On reflection, it is clear to me that putting something in the bill gives certainty and clarity, although I appreciate the minister’s point about having flexibility. One of the arguments that has been put to me is that mental health law will change and that there has been a consultation process on that change. I do not think that that is insurmountable—something could be put into legislation and then be amended should, for example, mental health law change.

However, I recognise colleagues’ point about people’s lived experience and about those in the sector who have a view on the issue and might want to inform how we change the regulations on the moratorium in a more flexible way.

I also recognise the minister’s offer to find consensus on a wider moratorium that reaches more people and gives them the support that they need when they are in debt crisis. A debate remains about whether we do that in the bill or through regulations. I am encouraged by the minister’s willingness to further discuss any secondary legislation that he would want to introduce and anything that he would want the committee and the Parliament to scrutinise. I am willing to have that conversation, as I am sure my colleagues are. However, I reserve the right to carry out further consultation with stakeholders and to bring back a proposal at stage 3, if I think that that is the right thing to do.

My colleagues Daniel Johnson and Colin Smyth have clearly outlined the strengths and importance of their amendments.

I will end my comments here. I am happy to press manuscript amendment 18A, which amends amendment 18.

Amendment 18A agreed to.

On the basis that the minister and I have a difference of opinion, I will move the amendment.

Amendment 29 moved—[Paul O’Kane].

Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, colleagues on the committee and minister.

I begin by offering my apologies for the need for a manuscript amendment. In my haste to get amendments lodged before the deadline, I failed to note a typographical error in my original amendment 18, which set the moratorium period at 30 days. Let me be clear that that was an error. I support the longer period that is now noted in the manuscript amendment. That is an explanation to the committee of the need for amendment 18A.

I will now speak to amendment 18 and its purpose. I understand that the committee has discussed the matter of a moratorium at length, in the light of the evidence that it heard during its stage 1 proceedings, that there is no universal agreement on the provisions that should or should not be included in a moratorium, and that there is a variance of views. I also understand that there has been a degree of debate about whether to have a moratorium established through the bill or in regulations.

I have lodged amendments 18 and 19 because it is important that we have more detail on how a moratorium might work and whom a moratorium might best serve. By doing that in the bill, we can have certainty and clarity on the moratorium more widely. My amendments have been lodged so that we can have a clear debate on the issue this morning.

I am happy to speak briefly to what amendment 18 would do regarding that moratorium. My amendment would give greater permanence to and clarity on the structure of any mental health moratorium by establishing in law that a moratorium on debt collection in cases of mental ill health will exist; establishing the conditions under which the individual is deemed to be receiving mental health crisis treatment; establishing who can apply for the moratorium on the debtor’s behalf; establishing what must be contained in any application for a moratorium; and establishing the length that any such moratorium would last if granted to a debtor.

It was clear from my engagement with a number of organisations that, as I said, there is a variance of views. However, on balance, many mental health organisations are keen to see the moratorium outlined in the bill and for the provision to be broader than what has been proposed by the Government, so that we do not just deal with initial emergency treatment but go wider and deal with care in community spaces.

I will briefly touch on the other amendments in the group. Amendment 16, in the name of Colin Smyth, would compel ministers to make provisions in regulations for enforcement of the moratorium and for sanctioning of creditors who did not abide by the regulations. The amendment would sit quite neatly with what I have outlined in amendment 18 by ensuring that people were compelled to comply with the outlined moratorium.

I also support amendments 20 and 21, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which push the Government on how it will consult Parliament and this committee on any regulations pertaining to a moratorium, if a moratorium is not established through the bill. Regardless of whether my amendments are agreed to, it is vital that we have a debate on a moratorium and that such a moratorium is clearly scrutinised by the Parliament and, crucially, by the stakeholders that I have mentioned, particularly those in the advice and mental health support sectors, to ensure that the moratorium works, is enforceable and provides the most benefit to the people who need it.

I move amendments 18 and 18A.

Public debt, which is debt that is owed to public authorities, including local authorities, is a growing issue for struggling households. Unlike private debt, it is not covered by Financial Conduct Authority regulation, which compels lenders to take measures to ensure that debtors are treated fairly, with consideration given to vulnerabilities.

Amendments 22 and 23 provide the committee with two options for addressing gaps in regulation. They would require ministers to provide regulations asking for local authorities that are pursuing debt to engage in a reasonable manner and with due regard to the position of the debtor. In particular, amendment 23 includes a provision that would ensure that debtors would get help to maximise their income through identified income maximisation services, which would help with servicing the debt that is owed to local authorities and would help debtors to get free of debt by ensuring that they fully accessed their potential income.

Amendment 22 is a more detailed version of the pre-action requirements and is based on rent arrears regulations. Amendment 23 offers a more simplified approach that might offer wider flexibility to ministers in that space, and it includes the aforementioned detail on income maximisation.

I believe that it is important that we have this debate about how to support people in this area. I have lodged my two amendments to provide options to the committee for discussion.

We were looking at where the bulk of public debt falls, which is on local authorities, and we found, through some of the work that we have looked at, that there are often variances in how local authorities pursue debt and in the support that they give to people who require to repay that debt. Organisations such as Aberlour Child Care Trust have piloted a number of such schemes across Scotland, including in Dundee, to address how local authorities might interact with people differently in that space. In the light of that work, we were keen to bring forward regulations that ensure that there is a more uniform approach among local authorities.

On Mr Whittle’s point about singling out or targeting local authorities, I do not think that that is the intention. It is about public debt more broadly, but it is also about the fact that the lion’s share of debt that is collected—whether council tax, housing rent or school meal debt—is collected via local authorities. That is why the burden falls so heavily on local authorities.

That said, we recognise that the regulations would come with a potential financial implication for local authorities because of what they seek to do, and we would be keen to push the Government on the support that it offers to local authorities in that regard, as it has done with things such as school meal debt.

As I have said, the policy intent is to provide for regulations on actions that local authorities must take prior to pursuing debt that is owed to them and to require ministers to make provisions so that the debtor is aware of what is going to happen and has full support to maximise their income prior to the debt being collected.

Public debt is a significant and pressing issue in Scotland. As I mentioned, Aberlour has done a huge amount of work on the issue, and it highlighted in 2023 that 55 per cent of low-income families in Scotland that are in receipt of universal credit had at least one deduction from their monthly income to cover debts to public bodies.

Amendments 22 and 23 will begin the process of ensuring that public debt and debtors are treated fairly and with the same consideration that is required in relation to regulations on private lenders. The amendments seek to make the process around public debt collection fairer by creating more space for regulations that ensure that local authorities provide debtors with adequate information on the nature of their debt and the support that is available to them through debt advice packages. Similar actions were taken on rent arrears through Covid legislation, and these amendments are very much based on that.

Particularly important, given the scale of public debt, is that the duty to engage with income maximisation services would greatly help people who are in debt to boost their incomes and start to get out of a cycle of problem debt, and it would help local authorities to create more income for families to service the debts that they owe public creditors.

I move amendment 22.