Chamber and committees

I wish to respond briefly. I have set out in detail the intent behind amendments 22 and 23, which is to ensure that people have all the support and advice that is required prior to the commencement of debt. Some important projects are on-going. I note that my amendments have been lodged after a long discussion with Aberlour, as I have said, and with support from Citizens Advice Scotland. It is important that we take a step forward on these important issues at this stage.

On amendment 29, perhaps this is a difference of opinion, but it was our intent that the rates that the 10 per cent surcharge exemption provision would apply to would be all rates and not just non-domestic rates. I appreciate that the minister has arrived at a different position in that it applies only to non-domestic rates, but it is our view that the surcharge should be limited across all rates. That position is supported by Citizens Advice Scotland and Aberlour.

It is important that, as a package, the amendments would provide more clarity across all 32 local authorities and would provide more support for people to break out of a cycle of problem debt.

I seek to withdraw it.

Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 23 moved—[Paul O’Kane].

Amendment 26, in my name, deals with minimum protected balances for debtors. As we have heard, minimum protected bank balances provide individuals with a level of security in case of hardship and prevent them from being pushed into desperate circumstances by aggressive debt pursual. However, the value of that protected balance can be retained only if there is a measure of uprating; otherwise, as inflation continues over time, the protected balance may become less and less valuable to the debtor. The amendment therefore clarifies that ministers should examine the level of protected balances on an annual basis without creating an automatic uplift. It would create a presumption in favour of the uplift, but it would allow for extraneous circumstances and parliamentary scrutiny in order to give proportionality.

The amendment deals with minimum protected balances as set out in section 73F of the 1987 act, and inserts an obligation on ministers to—as I said—increase the minimum protected balance each year. The amendment is similar to other protections as outlined in this group, as it protects the balances of people who find themselves in problem debt and are trying to break out of that cycle. We know that the principle of uprating is used across various different parts of Government policy, in particular for annual uprating of social security payments, which are frequently uprated by inflation to provide income security for vulnerable individuals in difficult financial times, as we have just been through.

As I said, the affirmative procedure means that there is not an automatic process of uprating; rather, it can be scrutinised by Parliament with reference to specific economic circumstances in each financial year. However, it will be assumed that the provision would create a presumption in favour of uprating of minimum protected balances.

Good morning to the panel. Following on from that point, I am interested in how the current process is working in transferring people from personal independence payment to adult disability payment or child disability payment. How quickly is the authorisation process working for the people who are being transferred? Does anyone have views on, or insights into, the current process?

If there is further information, that would be helpful to the committee.

Does anyone else have a view, based on the work that you are doing with other groups?

That was really helpful, and you have, I think, raised an important point about capacity more broadly, and about building the capacity that will underpin these services.

In relation to harder-to-reach groups, Dr Howe mentioned people who feel inhibited to access PrEP for many reasons. I know that the Terrence Higgins Trust has looked in some detail at the transgender community, intravenous drug users, heterosexual men who have sex with men, and black and minority ethnic populations. How do we encourage greater access for those groups?

Good morning. In the opening remarks and through the conversation, we have spoken about PrEP, which it is important for us to consider further. The Scottish Government has been developing an online PrEP clinic, which would allow people to order the medication without having to go through specialists, as we heard. I ask the witnesses to provide an update on the progress of that.

Thank you for that very comprehensive overview for the committee. Members might not always have been fully aware of the issues.

I do not know whether anyone else wants to add anything, but I was wondering, Dr Howe, whether you have a view on rurality and, say, the Highland area and the impact of this approach with regard to getting the service out more widely in a geographically challenging area.

Does anyone else want to comment on either of those issues?

Good morning. In the first evidence session, I was particularly interested to hear about PrEP and to hear people’s views on the progress of the online clinic proposals. There are wider views about how that online service could enhance the reach of PrEP. We will go on to talk about people who still feel excluded from PrEP or who face stigma.

Who wants to come in first, with an overview?