Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implementation of the immediate priorities plan developed with disabled people’s organisations. (S6O-03247)

Disabled people across my West Scotland region have been in touch with me to express their frustration that the Government is not taking their issues and concerns seriously. Although they have welcomed the intent behind the immediate priorities plan, that has become something of a misnomer because there is no immediacy on a plan that the Government has been discussing for a year. Indeed, the minister’s answer suggested that we will see further progress some time later this year. Will she listen to the concerns of disabled people who are raising those issues with their MSPs? What will she do to energise that work as a matter of urgency, so that we can deliver action on the challenges that disabled people in Scotland face?

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Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

Public debt, which is debt that is owed to public authorities, including local authorities, is a growing issue for struggling households. Unlike private debt, it is not covered by Financial Conduct Authority regulation, which compels lenders to take measures to ensure that debtors are treated fairly, with consideration given to vulnerabilities.

Amendments 22 and 23 provide the committee with two options for addressing gaps in regulation. They would require ministers to provide regulations asking for local authorities that are pursuing debt to engage in a reasonable manner and with due regard to the position of the debtor. In particular, amendment 23 includes a provision that would ensure that debtors would get help to maximise their income through identified income maximisation services, which would help with servicing the debt that is owed to local authorities and would help debtors to get free of debt by ensuring that they fully accessed their potential income.

Amendment 22 is a more detailed version of the pre-action requirements and is based on rent arrears regulations. Amendment 23 offers a more simplified approach that might offer wider flexibility to ministers in that space, and it includes the aforementioned detail on income maximisation.

I believe that it is important that we have this debate about how to support people in this area. I have lodged my two amendments to provide options to the committee for discussion.

We were looking at where the bulk of public debt falls, which is on local authorities, and we found, through some of the work that we have looked at, that there are often variances in how local authorities pursue debt and in the support that they give to people who require to repay that debt. Organisations such as Aberlour Child Care Trust have piloted a number of such schemes across Scotland, including in Dundee, to address how local authorities might interact with people differently in that space. In the light of that work, we were keen to bring forward regulations that ensure that there is a more uniform approach among local authorities.

On Mr Whittle’s point about singling out or targeting local authorities, I do not think that that is the intention. It is about public debt more broadly, but it is also about the fact that the lion’s share of debt that is collected—whether council tax, housing rent or school meal debt—is collected via local authorities. That is why the burden falls so heavily on local authorities.

That said, we recognise that the regulations would come with a potential financial implication for local authorities because of what they seek to do, and we would be keen to push the Government on the support that it offers to local authorities in that regard, as it has done with things such as school meal debt.

As I have said, the policy intent is to provide for regulations on actions that local authorities must take prior to pursuing debt that is owed to them and to require ministers to make provisions so that the debtor is aware of what is going to happen and has full support to maximise their income prior to the debt being collected.

Public debt is a significant and pressing issue in Scotland. As I mentioned, Aberlour has done a huge amount of work on the issue, and it highlighted in 2023 that 55 per cent of low-income families in Scotland that are in receipt of universal credit had at least one deduction from their monthly income to cover debts to public bodies.

Amendments 22 and 23 will begin the process of ensuring that public debt and debtors are treated fairly and with the same consideration that is required in relation to regulations on private lenders. The amendments seek to make the process around public debt collection fairer by creating more space for regulations that ensure that local authorities provide debtors with adequate information on the nature of their debt and the support that is available to them through debt advice packages. Similar actions were taken on rent arrears through Covid legislation, and these amendments are very much based on that.

Particularly important, given the scale of public debt, is that the duty to engage with income maximisation services would greatly help people who are in debt to boost their incomes and start to get out of a cycle of problem debt, and it would help local authorities to create more income for families to service the debts that they owe public creditors.

I move amendment 22.

On the basis of what I have said, I seek to withdraw amendment 18.

Amendment 18, as amended, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 19 not moved.

I reiterate the purpose of my amendment 18. It is clear from the debate that people want clarity and certainty about a mental health moratorium that goes beyond what has been proposed in the bill as introduced. The framework that I have used in my amendment models some of the areas that were covered by the committee report, and it considers how we expand the framework beyond formal emergency care.

Community settings are important, too, in acknowledging that people can access treatment for crisis in communities and in a variety of ways. It is important that we reflect on that.

As I said at the outset, there is a variance of views among those who have been consulted. For example, I acknowledge that Change Mental Health has been very supportive of the approach that I have taken through amendment 18, whereas Citizens Advice Scotland, which sits on the working group, has said that things should perhaps be done in a different way that allows for the flexibility that the minister has described.

On reflection, it is clear to me that putting something in the bill gives certainty and clarity, although I appreciate the minister’s point about having flexibility. One of the arguments that has been put to me is that mental health law will change and that there has been a consultation process on that change. I do not think that that is insurmountable—something could be put into legislation and then be amended should, for example, mental health law change.

However, I recognise colleagues’ point about people’s lived experience and about those in the sector who have a view on the issue and might want to inform how we change the regulations on the moratorium in a more flexible way.

I also recognise the minister’s offer to find consensus on a wider moratorium that reaches more people and gives them the support that they need when they are in debt crisis. A debate remains about whether we do that in the bill or through regulations. I am encouraged by the minister’s willingness to further discuss any secondary legislation that he would want to introduce and anything that he would want the committee and the Parliament to scrutinise. I am willing to have that conversation, as I am sure my colleagues are. However, I reserve the right to carry out further consultation with stakeholders and to bring back a proposal at stage 3, if I think that that is the right thing to do.

My colleagues Daniel Johnson and Colin Smyth have clearly outlined the strengths and importance of their amendments.

I will end my comments here. I am happy to press manuscript amendment 18A, which amends amendment 18.

Amendment 18A agreed to.

On the basis that the minister and I have a difference of opinion, I will move the amendment.

Amendment 29 moved—[Paul O’Kane].