Seòmar agus comataidhean

The issues that are highlighted in this group of amendments go to the heart of what was a focus of discussion in the committee at stage 1. We took evidence about how the mental health moratorium, which everyone agrees needs to happen, should be captured in legislation, and whether we should leave it to the Scottish Government to introduce regulations, as the bill provides, or whether we should have more specificity in the bill as to how that will be set up.

In that respect, I am grateful to Paul O’Kane for lodging his amendment 18, which sets out to put in the bill more detail on how the mental health moratorium would operate. That is a welcome amendment, and I am minded to support it. I appreciate that the Government takes a different view and that it would prefer to have those matters in regulations.

If the Government is not minded to support Paul O’Kane’s amendment, I nevertheless urge the minister to support the other amendments in the group. Daniel Johnson makes an important point about the need for regulations to be properly consulted on with relevant parties and the need to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny of the regulations before they come into law, given the importance of the matters that we are discussing. Colin Smyth made reasonable points about protections that could be put in place for creditors in relation to the operation of the moratorium.

I am minded to support all the amendments in the group, but I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say.

I listened intently to the minister’s detailed explanation, and I think that he makes a reasonable case. I would be interested in hearing the views of ICAS, which originally raised the issue with the committee, on the minister’s proposed way forward. We have the opportunity to revisit the issue at stage 3, so I am happy not to press my amendments at this stage and to support the minister’s amendments. However, we reserve the right to come back at stage 3 with a further amendment, once we have had the opportunity to consult stakeholders on the matter.

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 3 not moved.

Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

My amendments 4, 5 and 6 address points that were discussed in paragraphs 127 to 134 of the committee’s stage 1 report. Sections 6 and 7 of the bill would introduce a new duty of disclosure on the arrestee. The arrestee—the person who is in possession of the assets that belong to the debtor, which is usually a bank or a financial institution—would be required to tell the creditor when diligence has been unsuccessful. That is a new requirement that has been introduced. The arrestee must tell the creditor whether the arrestment has been successful within a specified time period of 21 days.

As we heard in committee evidence, the issue is that that would have significant resource implications for banks and other financial institutions. In its submission to the committee, the NatWest Group said that it would have to respond to approximately 70,000 arrestment requests every year, and that there would be no particularly useful purpose in telling creditors that those requests had been unsuccessful. Therefore, it seems to be an unduly onerous requirement to put upon financial institutions.

In amendments 4,5 and 6, I am proposing what is, in effect, a halfway house. They are not about entirely removing the obligation for disclosure. However, they try to qualify that requirement and ensure that it is less onerous for the financial institutions.

Amendment 4 relates to cases in which the arrestee must disclose information in relation to bank arrestments that have been unsuccessful. It provides that the arrestee need disclose information to the creditor only when the creditor requests that information, where it was not under summary warrant procedure, and that the information should be provided

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

Amendment 5 amends section 7 of the bill to say that a person should respond only to a specific request that has been made.

Amendment 6 says that a person needs to respond only

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”

after the request has been received, rather than within 21 days.

To me, that strikes a reasonable balance. The bill proposes a new onerous requirement on arrestees to report. The costs of doing that may well be significant; I do not know whether the minister can enlighten us on the Government’s assessment of what the additional cost will be. My amendments are not about removing the requirement altogether. Rather, they qualify it and try to strike a balance between the interests of the creditor and the interests of the arrestee. It seems to me to be a reasonable set of proposals.

Amendments 2 and 3 deal with another issue that the committee identified in its stage 1 report: a situation when a debtor cannot be traced or is found to be unco-operative and, therefore, a trustee seeks to be discharged from their responsibility. Evidence on the issue was given to the committee by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which is keen for a change in the law to avoid situations in which, in effect, a trustee ends up being in place in perpetuity—which would come at a cost to the trustee, who might inevitably be a professional person or body—because there is no avenue for an insolvency practitioner to get a discharge. The purpose of amendments 2 and 3 is to address that point by allowing trustees in such a situation to be granted the right of discharge, with particular safeguards added.

The minister also has amendments in the group, as was the case in the previous group, so I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.

In the meantime, I am happy to move amendment 2.

I will come to Mary Mitchell in a minute—I notice that you were nodding away there. Gillian, how would you mark progress in this area, noting the changes that we have seen in the legislation? I presume that there is still work to be done, but do you think that you are making good progress?

Thank you.

My question is about an issue that this committee, and its predecessor committees, have wrestled with over many years. It is about how we use procurement and public sector spending to support local economies, communities and businesses. We recognise that there is always a tension between trying to get good value for the taxpayer—which might lead to bundling of contracts into larger packages, thereby making them less accessible to local businesses, and particularly to SMEs—and trying to direct that spend to where it can support the local economy.

How have changes in the procurement legislation helped to give access to local businesses, if they have done so? I know that that is part of the work that Gillian Cameron does, so perhaps we can start with you.

Can you say a little bit about what your chain of communication is with people in the business community? Are they engaging with you on a regular basis?

We often get feedback from businesses who submit tenders and are unsuccessful but get no feedback about why they were unsuccessful. Do you have a mechanism to provide feedback to unsuccessful bidders?

All the questions that I was going to ask been covered by others, so, in the interests of time, I am happy to move on.