Diligence against Earnings (Variation) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (SSI 2009/98) <br />Diligence against Earnings (Variation) (Scotland) Revocation Regulations 2009 (SSI 2009/133)
Item 4 concerns two pieces of subordinate legislation, the second of which, SSI 2009/133, revokes the first, SSI 2009/98.
We have worked on the original regulations with stakeholders since November 2007. It is unfortunate that information about the regulations was not disseminated to the stakeholders' developers in time for them to make the changes. We had no forewarning that the developers required time to make the changes before the regulations were to come into force. As soon as we were notified of the difficulty, we spoke to our solicitors and to the Minister for Community Safety and decided to revoke the regulations. That was the cleanest and clearest way to deal with the problem.
There is no doubt about that. Once you got on to the issue, you dealt with it in the only way that you could in the circumstances. However, I am somewhat intrigued by how the problem arose. Surely the process is fairly regularly used and all the changes should have been in place.
That most certainly should have been the case. We relied on our stakeholders to disseminate the information directly to their information technology developers. I believe that our stakeholders held discussions, but that they were not formalised. We have now taken the initiative to have direct discussions with payroll IT developers, to ensure that such a situation does not arise again.
So you guarantee that such a situation will not recur in the years ahead.
I most certainly do. I apologise to the committee and the Parliament for our error.
Sometimes, perhaps guarantees should not be given. However, we take that guarantee, which is on the record. I have a few questions, as I am sure other members have. First, why were the changes not forwarded to the payroll software developers earlier?
I cannot comment—I do not know the answer. We spoke to our stakeholders, which include several major organisations, such as the Institute of Payroll Professionals, HM Revenue and Customs and local authorities. Some of those stakeholders disseminated the information directly to their developers and did the development in readiness for the 6 April start date, but others did not.
Which stakeholders did not forward the material?
I do not know exactly.
Can that be found out?
It could be, but I do not know exactly.
Will you find that out?
I will attempt to find out the information.
I do not see why that should be very difficult. You will have to find out that information to allow the Government to be content that it can
I have spoken to the BASDA, Pegasus developers and several other developers and I am committed to meeting all the IT developers in mid-May to go through the regulations and to discuss future development work directly with them. We are jumping a step—we are going directly to developers rather than working with stakeholders, which is what we normally do.
Sure—but my question was whether you are content to say that replacement regulations will appear before the committee before the summer recess.
I am very hopeful that that will happen.
But you are not sure. Okay—I understand that.
The actual process is difficult, but we normally mitigate the cost of the work by tying it in with other work that IT developers are doing for employers. We understand that other changes will be introduced later this year, in approximately October or November. Although the replacement instrument would be laid before the committee before the summer recess, the actual change would not be introduced until later in the year, along with those other payroll changes. That would allow the information to be disseminated to all the developers so that the development work could take place along with the other changes that will be introduced later this year.
When will that happen?
Approximately at either the beginning or the end of October. The change would tie in with the minimum wage changes that happen at around that time.
That seems a more credible explanation, for which I am grateful.
There most certainly will be.
Finally, I ask for a guarantee that the committee will be given the names—we do not necessarily need the addresses—of the stakeholders that did not play the game.
I will do that.
I want to follow up one or two points. By way of background information, will the delay in introducing the changes adversely affect some individuals who would have benefited from the greater flexibility of the new arrangements?
There will be a knock-on effect on debtors. The whole idea behind the original regulations was to make things fairer by uprating the value of the deduction from a debtor's arrested earnings. There will be a slight delay in that uprating. That is why we are keen to work with the developers to introduce the change quickly later this year.
In the original regulations, the first change that would have been made was:
The software can handle all the changes that need to be made. I have already spoken to all the software developers and they have confirmed that. The issue was just the timing of the introduction of those changes.
With respect, employers are used to dealing with complicated payroll changes that come through every so often because of, for example, the budget or the uprating of court charges that come before our committee from time to time. On the face of it, one would have thought that the software could cope with such changes. I appreciate that, in the tables in the schedule to the regulations, the new way in which the deductions would be spread might cause some difficulty. However, surely to goodness a straightforward change from £12 to £13.50 would not require major software adaptation. Surely that must be a matter of pressing a button.
I would have thought so, but I am not an IT developer so I do not know exactly what is required. I understand that the changes involved are quite simple. When I spoke to developers who have made the changes to ask them to hold off from implementing those changes at the moment, I was told that the actual process of making the change was very simple.
Do the civil servants who deal with such matters have access to payroll expertise within the civil service? That would seem desirable and necessary so that people can understand what is happening.
We have had access to payroll expertise as well as developer and IT expertise. I do not know what else I can add to that.
Presumably, there is an old file from the 2006 changes. Did no one read the file, or did the changes not arise in the same way then?
The 2006 changes involved just a slight amendment to the values. We looked at the file, but that change was very simple. The difficulty is that the replacement tables in the schedule to the regulations would introduce a formula, which is what has caused the developers most concern.
I have a final question, which is on the timescales. Given what has been said about when it should be possible to introduce the changes, why did the Government not just make an amending instrument to delay the coming into force date of the regulations? Would not avoiding the need for additional parliamentary time have been simpler, or are you not confident that it will be possible to introduce the change within the timescale that you indicated to Mr Butler?
I felt that it would be clearer to all the developers and to everybody else to revoke the regulations rather than delay matters. I had to speak to the developers to find out exactly when they were making another amendment to their payroll IT development to ensure that the date that I chose for the coming into force of the regulations would coincide with when they were going to do an extra release. I therefore needed to speak to them about that first.
This is a highly unsatisfactory situation. Too much is going wrong with subordinate legislation and it takes up far too much time. However, the committee is required to proceed. Are members content to note the instruments?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Sharon Bell for her attendance. I suspend the meeting briefly.
On resuming—
European Communities (European Order for Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (SSI 2009/99)
We have two further instruments to consider. The Subordinate Legislation Committee reported the first—SSI 2009/99—to this committee and to the Parliament in relation to a failure to follow normal drafting practice in the preamble. Do members have any questions?
It crossed my mind that quite elaborate time-to-pay arrangements and other things are involved. The regulations do not entirely say so, but I assume that such arrangements will continue. Will they be applied when a European order for payment arrives and comes before the sheriff court? It is quite important to see how all that ties in.
I had assumed that the arrangements would continue. That would seem the obvious, commonsense approach, but perhaps we should seek clarification on that by means of a letter.
There is a linked question about legal aid, as it is not entirely clear whether legal aid would be available in such cases. If I have understood the situation correctly, an order for payment would go no further if opposed, so I suppose that legal aid may not be needed. Can we clarify how that fits in? It is quite complicated, is it not?
We will clarify that by correspondence. Again, the instrument is untidy. However, are members generally content to note the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
Charities and Benevolent Fundraising (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (SSI 2009/121)
The Subordinate Legislation Committee reported SSI 2009/121 to this committee and to the Parliament on the grounds that it was partially satisfied with the Government's response to an issue that it raised, but that more detail would have been helpful. Are members content to note the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
The committee will now move into private session.