Chamber and committees

Good morning to our panel. A number of these issues were touched on in opening comments, but we are particularly interested in a couple of areas in relation to performance.

In the performance report for 2023-2024, we had noted some data not being available for certain key performance indicators, most notably the number of website visitors and the helpfulness rating. I know that we have started to touch on some of the investments that are being made, but what progress would OSCR hope to make in respect of that more widely?

I hear what the cabinet secretary says about the framework document and more detail. The charter is a foundational document, and we would not want to see a sense that improving those times is not foundational to Social Security Scotland, but I caution that we have to be aware that it could be read like that. It would therefore be useful if the cabinet secretary said what detail will go into the charter measurement framework about waiting times, call times and those sorts of issues.

Good morning. The cabinet secretary knows, because we have had many exchanges on it, that I have been particularly interested in the lengthy processing times. Mr Wallace will be aware of that as well.

Generally, we have heard calls for target processing times to be set to give clients an expectation of when their claims will be processed. There might be a view that we are watering down our commitment in that space in the wording of the charter, given that we are changing the language around handling applications from

“as quickly as we can”.

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary will probably say about lived experience—that that phrase felt vague and perhaps could have had more detail behind it—but I am keen to get her sense of whether we are moving in the opposite direction in respect of clients having clearer timescales. What does she feel the impact will be of removing the commitment to handle applications

“as quickly as we can”?

I noticed that there was a goal in the report to review and refresh memorandums of understanding and partnership agreements but that that was not met due to reprioritisation. Can you explain to the committee what was prioritised over that and provide some examples of things that were not met?

That is why that scrutiny is important, as people will want to ensure that those processing times are improving. I do not know whether Mr Wallace wants to add anything from the agency’s point of view.

Amendment 15 is rather simple and is intended to give greater permanency to and certainty on the creation of the mental health moratorium.

At stage 2, I lodged amendments that would have put the moratorium and some of the provisions on it into the bill. The driving force behind that—behind all my amendments in this regard—has been the concerns from stakeholders that there has not been certainty about the nature of the moratorium or its creation. At stage 2, we had a good discussion on the potential detail of the moratorium, and I accepted the arguments of the minister at the time, Tom Arthur, about the desire to keep the moratorium in regulations, which would mean that changes and improvements could be made over time as their impact was reviewed. I understand those arguments. That is why, having reflected on the Government’s response, which was to publish regulations to allow people to see what is proposed and interact with it, I have brought back at stage 3 the simpler amendment 15 for the purpose of providing more certainty around the moratorium.

We want certainty that a mental health moratorium will exist. I do not doubt the Scottish Government’s intent or desire. As I have said, there have been numerous productive discussions in that regard. However, it is important that we set that out in the bill because, although we all agree in principle, it is necessary that those who are struggling see the Parliament’s intent on what we will do in regulations to support them.

The other purpose of amendment 15 is to be somewhat probing: to ensure that we can have a debate about the nature of the moratorium, so that the minister can perhaps say more about the details of what he has published to consult on, and so that we can hear a number of views on what should or should not be in scope for the wider moratorium. Indeed, there have been lots of discussions about who will qualify for the moratorium, what sorts of treatments will qualify and what sort of mental health professionals may attest to the need for support through a moratorium. It is important that we continue to have such debates.

I will comment briefly on the other amendments in the group. I support my colleague Daniel Johnson’s amendment 23, which would ensure that ministers could make only regulations that were within the scope of the long title of the bill, maintaining a place for Parliament in any further work. I also note and welcome the minister’s amendments to strengthen the commitment to review and enhance scrutiny procedures in relation to regulations. That is important for scrutiny and getting things right.

I look forward to further debate this afternoon and to the minister laying out the detail of his amendments and any further draft regulations that will be laid before Parliament and consulted on.

I move amendment 15.

Amendment 17 proposes that the protected minimum amount of bank account arrestment be uprated annually if the Scottish ministers deem it to have materially fallen below the inflation level. The Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 amended the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 to allow the Scottish ministers to vary the minimum protected balances by way of negative procedure. There is an opportunity to strengthen that power in order to provide more protection for vulnerable individuals who are dealing with bank account arrestment proceedings. When that legislation was passed in 2022, I do not think that any of us could have foreseen the huge spikes in inflation that have come our way in the intervening period.

Although I recognise that the existing power allows ministers to deal with sudden changes that will require them to alter minimum protected balances—that regulatory power will remain—my amendment 17 opens up a conversation about whether, in a period of volatile inflation, when the cost of living continues to increase, consideration needs to be given to more regular upratings.

That is not a novel idea. We do that across a number of issues, not least social security payments. We recognise that people who are in receipt of those payments are often vulnerable and need their payments to keep pace with inflation.

Given that, amendment 17 would create a regular requirement for the Scottish ministers to calculate the inflation-adjusted level by the end of each financial year. If they deemed the existing protected balance to be materially below that inflation-adjusted level, they would lay regulations to change the amount. That would ensure that the uprating of vital minimum protected balances would not just be done on an ad hoc basis, as and when ministers were motivated to do that, but that there would be a process for modest but nonetheless important uplifts to those minimum balances on an annual basis, if need be. That would provide greater security and protection to vulnerable individuals who are going through debt collection and who are subjected to bank account arrestment, by ensuring that inflation cannot eat away at the protection that they are already being afforded. That is an important safeguard.

I am pleased that amendment 17 has won the backing of stakeholders. I look forward to hearing the minister’s response, because I know that he has given wider consideration to the issue and I am sure that he will want to comment further.

I will make a brief comment on other amendments in the group. The underlying principle of my amendment 17 is to guarantee more protections for vulnerable debtors, so I welcome the amendments from my colleague Colin Smyth and from Maggie Chapman, which run along similar lines. I look forward to hearing from them on the detail of their amendments and on the difference that they will make to people who find themselves in very vulnerable situations.

I move amendment 17.

On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice stood where the Deputy First Minister is and delivered the annual update on progress to tackle child poverty. We know that levels of child poverty in Scotland have been stagnant for 17 years and that, on many measures, they have increased.

The cabinet secretary said:

“our action is making a difference.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2024; c 11.]

At the same time as that statement, the Poverty and Inequality Commission released its annual scrutiny report, which, in relation to the Government’s actions, said:

“Limited progress has been made ... over the last year ... Progress in other areas is slow or not evident at all”

and

“without immediate and significant action, the Scottish Government will not meet the 2030 targets.”

The cabinet secretary told me that the Government is committed to those targets. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with the commission’s analysis of her Government’s actions, and will the Government meet those targets?

It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

As we heard from my colleague Daniel Johnson, Labour members have sought to support the aims and principles of the bill. We have heard from members across the chamber that the bill is technical, but I think that it has the scope to make a real impact on many of the challenges that exist in the area. As we know, there is much more to be done.

I join colleagues in thanking Ivan McKee and the previous minister, Tom Arthur, for their stewardship of the bill and the way in which they have engaged. I also thank their officials.

A lot of our debate this afternoon has rightly been taken up with thinking about those in our society who are vulnerable and who, because of the debt that they face or other factors, deserve support to escape those problems and get on to a more stable footing. It is very important that that is approached with compassion.

That is why there has been such strong support for a mental health moratorium on debt recovery actions. We have heard that roundly across the chamber and, indeed, calls for the provisions to be as strong as possible. I was successful in securing an amendment to change “may” to “must”; that small change is important because it shows the intent in the legislation that that must happen and the will of Parliament in supporting it.

We know that the regulations have been drafted and brought forward by the minister, so we hope that the moratorium will continue to progress and come into effect in the near future. However, there are concerns remaining about the strength of those regulations and the protections that will be provided by that moratorium. Those concerns have been outlined by Maggie Chapman, Daniel Johnson and other members.

We know that many organisations, such as Citizens Advice Scotland, have called for the inclusion of protections from eviction or repossession from on-going liabilities. We have also heard, in the exchange involving my colleagues Claire Baker and Colin Smyth, about the need to do more to create a process that would enable access for those who lack capacity. It is clear that there is still time to address those concerns before regulations go through the necessary parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the minister recognises the concerns of members as well as those of stakeholders, and that he will reflect on some of those in his closing speech and as the bill progresses.

More broadly, beyond the moratorium, we know that the bill could have gone further in many places and could have been stronger. The Economy and Fair Work Committee made a number of recommendations to the Government at stage 1 that have not been taken forward. However, there is the opportunity for further work and dialogue in that regard.

Overall, the bill is an improvement on the status quo. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and the enemy of progress when the scale of the debt problem that Scottish families face is as large as it is. Every positive measure, however small, goes some way in helping them just a little bit more than they are currently being helped.

This is not necessarily the end of the line. There is scope to strengthen and support protections in enhanced regulations or better working practices. We should continue to engage and learn from third sector organisations. We are all grateful for the contribution that such organisations—not least Advice Talks, which Colin Smyth mentioned, Citizens Advice Scotland and Aberlour Children’s Charity—have made in the process. In speaking to the amendments, I mentioned the innovative work that has been done, such as in the Tayside pilot that is run by Aberlour, which provides wraparound support to families in problem debt. We should all engage with such organisations where we can.

To conclude, people have been pushed further into debt in this cost of living crisis. The Money and Pensions Service has estimated that 700,000 people in Scotland are at risk of being in, or are already in, problem debt. We know that those people cannot afford to wait for the perfect solution to come along. We need to use the bill’s provisions to benefit those people. I hope that we will continue to engage on all of these issues, not least the mental health moratorium, in order to try to make as much change as we can.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do not have too much more to add. Daniel Johnson has made eloquent arguments on all the amendments and, in particular, on my amendment 15.

Through amendment 15, I seek to ensure that the consensus on a mental health moratorium is stated in the bill and in law, compelling ministers to lay regulations before the Parliament for consideration. As we spoke to stakeholders during the progress of the bill, and at stage 2, it was clear that there is a need for the moratorium and a desire to move forward with it as quickly as possible.

Daniel Johnson made a number of important points to the minister about the nature of framework bills. The challenge is often in being able to properly scrutinise them and their detail. The point that he made about the committee’s scrutiny of the draft regulations being done in a tight window was well made. It is clear that, with this framework bill, we want to be able to compel the Government but also to give it the opportunity to introduce further regulations to enhance the bill and move it forward. I note, as Daniel Johnson did, the work that the minister has done through his amendments to bring it forward.