Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an interesting question, and I recognise the nuance in it. If someone was in a standard moratorium and, during that process, met the criteria, they could, of course, benefit from that. The situation that you articulated, if I have understood it correctly, is someone’s being in a standard moratorium but developing problems with their mental health or wellbeing that do not meet the compulsory eligibility.

I recognise that it is a sensitive issue, and we specifically seek views on it in the consultation. I also recognise that, if an individual already experiences an element of compulsion with regard to treatment, we would want to have an additional element of compulsion with regard to their financial circumstances. As you recognise in your question, there is provision for the representative of the individual to take those decisions. However, we will reflect carefully on the views on the overall question of capacity that the committee brings forward in its report and those in the consultation.

Richard, do you want to add to that?

Yes. As the issue of severe mental impairment has been specifically raised, I note that it is an area that I have had correspondence on and that my officials in council tax have explored. My understanding—our understanding—is that the term is something that can be amended only via primary legislation. That is a frustration for me, as I am very sympathetic to the argument that it is an outdated and stigmatising term that we would want to see changed and brought up to date.

My position is that, should an opportunity arise for us to amend that term in primary legislation—we recognise that a very specific change is required—I will be very alert to that. We are looking for opportunities for it to be changed within the existing legislation. Looking forward to the wider work, I am conscious that we have a stage 3 review. The MacDermid review is being taken forward independently, but I will certainly be looking for opportunities to update and reform the language that we use.

I recognise that there are many aspects of the language that is used within bankruptcy and diligence. It is highly technical and can seem somewhat opaque and esoteric to those who are not initiated into and engaged with that area of law and specialism, which can perhaps create challenges and barriers in the use of such language. That point is addressed in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that was prepared at the introduction of the legislation, where it talks about the use of the term “debtor” and the stigmatising effect that that may have. I have had discussions with stakeholders on those issues.

I am conscious that there are long-standing reasons for the use of some of the terminology, and, in making any changes, it is important to ensure that we do not unintentionally create other adverse issues. However, I am very much in alignment with the central point that Mr Stewart has made.

I beg your pardon. To correct that particular point, I am conscious that the matter might be raised with the committee, and that there are other areas of suggested change about which COSLA has written to the committee.

I would like to have the opportunity to reflect on the position that the committee arrives at on this matter and to have further engagement with those who might have an interest in this particular area. I am sympathetic to what such a measure would be seeking to do, but it is important to hear a broader range of voices. I will have further engagement with stakeholders on the matter in the new year, when I have had an opportunity to consider what the committee has to say.

On that specific point, there has been some consideration. I will ask Richard Dennis to provide some of the detail.

Yes. We are going to have further engagement and discussion on that to see whether we can find a solution.

There is a specific question about that within the consultation, which highlights that that is not something that we are proposing, although it invites views on the matter, in recognition of the different statutory protections that exist, for example for tenants, and the fact that, in cases of joint and several liability, other individuals who would be impacted would have access to the various solutions that are available. We will carefully consider the responses to the consultation.

I have already engaged with stakeholders about that. I had a meeting early in the autumn, which I think was referred to by one of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. Members will be aware that that is something that we can address through existing powers, under secondary legislation.

I understand the policy intent behind the argument and am also conscious of some of the comments that have been made by witnesses. Although I am sympathetic about what such a measure would seek to do, it is incumbent on me to ensure that we take a rounded view and that there are no unintended consequences. The undertaking that I have given to stakeholders is that I will wait to see what view the committee forms. I am conscious that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has written to the committee about the matter.

I have committed to further engagement, and if the committee’s view is that that warrants engagement at the consultation level, then I am happy to consider that. I recognise some of the issues and sensitivities that have been raised, and I am committed to further engagement. Richard, is there anything that you want to add?

Yes.