Chamber and committees

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.

Sure. I am happy just to hear from Mr Wallace.

It was remiss of me at the start of this contribution not to declare for the record my interest as an OSCR-registered charity trustee until 2023.

On the point about people rating the website as helpful, is that about searching the register or trying to access information? Do we have that level of detail?

Where measures are not being met—for example, the target for dealing with concerns cases is not being achieved—is there a resourcing issue? Does OSCR require further resource to drive some of that work forward, or is it more about the existing resource?

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?

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.

I thank Martin Whitfield for his intervention and for the point that he raises, which is important and relevant. I think that I said in my remarks that, for those outside the chamber, there is a need for certainty and for understanding about the things that they want to see in the bill that will enhance it, and there is a need to ensure that people are given adequate protection. That is a very clear point, and I am sure that the Government will want to reflect on that more widely in our proceedings today.

I believe that amendment 15 is important and that it will push the Government to ensure that the moratorium is enacted and consulted on widely. I press the amendment.

Amendment 16 is similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I took time to reflect on the process at stage 2 before lodging this amendment.

Amendment 16 would grant ministers the power, if it were to be deemed necessary, to make regulations requiring local authorities that are pursuing debt to take certain actions prior to taking any debt recovery action. That could include directing an individual towards free debt, money and legal advice before a summary warrant is granted by a sheriff.

Members across the chamber will know that public debt and, in particular, council tax arrears, has been a growing problem in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. Unlike private debt, it is not covered by Financial Conduct Authority regulations, which compel lenders to take measures to ensure that debtors are treated more fairly and with consideration to vulnerabilities. A 2023 report by Aberlour Children’s Charity highlighted that 55 per cent of low-income families in Scotland that were in receipt of universal credit had at least one deduction from their monthly income to cover debts to public bodies. Another recent report from StepChange found that, in 2021 and 2022, 32 per cent of its clients were in arrears with their council tax. It cannot be right that public bodies and local authorities are on their way to becoming the largest collectors of debt.

Debt collection practices across local authorities vary widely and, in some instances, can be viewed as problematic and quite callous. Examples of that have been relayed in the chamber before, such as the collection of school meals debt by sheriff officers. It is clear that the same level of protection and regulation that often applies to private debt is not there. We seek better practice and more support for individuals, which we are not seeing currently.

I understand from my engagement with Tom Arthur when he was in the role and from my engagement with the current minister that work is on-going with local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on such matters. Indeed, pilot programmes have been conducted and work has been done with third sector organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland to improve that landscape. I know that that work is under review and that the Scottish Government has not yet decided whether regulations would be the best way to deal with those issues. However, I do not want us to be back in the chamber in six months or a year after the Government has considered all that and for us to conclude that regulations are needed. We do not want to miss the boat on that legislation.

Amendment 16 seeks to create a regulatory space now, without requiring ministers to use the provisions immediately, so that they can continue their on-going consultation work and engagement around need as well as exploring the best path forward for regulations. The Government could then bring forward regulations when it is necessary. I am pleased that my amendment has the support of stakeholders such as Citizens Advice Scotland, Aberlour Children’s Charity and the Govan Law Centre. I look forward to hearing from the minister on the record about the Scottish Government’s thinking on public debt and pre-action requirements. I hope that he can find his way to backing my amendment 16.

I move amendment 16.