Chamber and committees

We have heard some interesting and informed contributions from Murdo Fraser, who is legally qualified, from Fergus Ewing, who is also legally qualified and has been a practitioner in the area in the past, and from Colin Beattie, with his financial expertise. However, I will concentrate a little more on the general situation, which has given rise to the need for the bill, and on some of the general points that underlie the general principles, which are the subject of a stage 1 debate.

We are currently living through two major crises that are absolutely dominating the quality of life in our country. They are the cost of living crisis, which includes the cost of energy crisis, which we do not talk about so much any more, and the mental health crisis—two problems that are made worse by each other. The Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have helped to unleash economic uncertainty across the world. That is particularly true in Scotland, where the additional uncertainty and the massive costs of Brexit have wreaked even more havoc on the economy, impacting businesses, employment and individuals across the country. Those factors have contributed to a cost of living crisis that is pushing many Scottish households into financial destitution. For some, unsustainable debt has become an unfortunate consequence of those crises, and we all know the strain that that can place on a person’s mental health.

Scotland is in the midst of a rapidly worsening debt crisis. A report that StepChange Debt Charity Scotland published showed a 27 per cent increase in average unsecured debt levels in just one year—they rose from £12,730 in 2021 to £16,174 in 2022. For that reason, the bill could not be more timely, given its central aim of alleviating in a small way the struggles of grappling with debt and potential bankruptcy—two challenges that are often compounded by mental health issues.

It is worth mentioning that the changes to debt enforcement rules under the bill are not hugely dramatic or particularly contentious, as we have heard—they are pragmatic. All the measures that are in the bill have undergone public consultation at least once and have received broad support. They will require transparency from entities such as banks or employers about unsuccessful attempts to arrest a debtor’s assets, while ensuring that debtors are entitled to a debt advice and information package ahead of relevant hearings, among other changes. The changes are fairly straightforward and will ensure greater transparency for all who are involved.

In relation to comments by Colin Beattie, Stephen Kerr asked an interesting question about the register. I think—unless any lawyers who are present want to correct me—that bankruptcy is always public and transparent, whereas it is proposed that the bill will create a public register that would refer to people’s mental health situation. I share Stephen Kerr’s concern and I am interested in how the Government will manage to reconcile the impact on individuals of having their mental health situation made public with the need for transparency.

Scotland has always had distinct laws from those for the rest of the UK on debt recovery, and the bill signals the beginning of a more compassionate and human approach to debt recovery that will protect our fellow Scots’ dignity when they are at their most vulnerable. That is further shown by the bill’s proposed mental health moratorium, which will provide individuals who have serious mental health issues with legal protection and a freeze on debt enforcement actions. That is one of the most important actions that can be taken to alleviate the stress on people and the impact on their mental health—it is a shield to protect our citizens when they are potentially at their most vulnerable. I take on board the points that a number of members have made about the need for more specificity, and I do not envy the minister’s task of getting something that is objective and might satisfy the concerns that have been expressed.

The specific tool that the working group recommended when the bill was being developed recognises the strong link between problem debt and poor mental health. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reports that half of adults with debts face mental health issues, as we have heard, while one in four individuals with mental health problems is in debt, so a symbiotic relationship is clear between debt and poor mental health. As lawmakers, we need to make laws that reflect that.

The bill’s significance lies in the commitment to improving our existing system to protect the most vulnerable at a time when protection is truly needed. It is also important to remember that the bill represents only one aspect of a broader programme that is dedicated to improving how we deal with bankruptcy and diligence. My understanding is that, as we have heard, the Scottish Government intends to introduce additional changes through secondary legislation, which is a perfectly proper, legitimate and transparent process that is subject to democratic scrutiny. Some secondary legislation is expected to be laid before Parliament during the bill’s progress.

Further, I understand that the Scottish Government has undertaken a longer-term review to assess the adequacy of current statutory solutions in the increasingly challenging time in which we live, so that we can continue to provide the necessary protection and support to guide individuals out of the throes of problem debt. There has been discussion about whether we should simply mirror what happens in England and Wales in many important respects. There are important ways in which debt collection in Scotland is much more humane and has developed over time. We should not throw that baby out with the bath water, and nor is it a good course of action to denigrate this Parliament and say that we should do what another Parliament has done. I have confidence in the ability of the Scottish Government and this Parliament to legislate properly in this area.

Our decisions on the bill should reflect our commitment to improving the current system along compassionate lines. We live in a different world now from the one that we lived in until recently, in terms of the prevalence of mental health issues, many of which are a result of the pandemic. Let us build an effective legal framework. As I said, the changes under the bill have received broad support from the public; let us make sure that the bill receives broad support from the Parliament, too.

Given the contempt that Stephen Kerr has repeatedly shown in his speech for the ability of the Parliament to legislate, the unjustifiable faith that he has in the Westminster system and his description of our role as “fatuous”, how can he possibly be considering voting for the bill today?

It is a lie.

I thank Jeremy Balfour for taking the intervention and for taking the trouble to be brought to the chamber this afternoon to do his job. If he is concerned about public services, is he aware of the £40 billion that Kevin Stewart mentioned as having to be loaded on to make up for the Brexit deficit, and of the additional information that we have heard today that £2 billion will be added to council taxpayers’ bills in England? That is the cost of Brexit and why we cannot improve public services to the extent that we would like.

I will make one last point. The table that we have says that the spend as a percentage of the licence fee collected is 86 per cent. You referred to that figure. You also mentioned the fixed costs for nation-based organisations, about which the committee heard previously when it asked about Wales. If the nations are smaller, the spend gets to be larger. Given that there is a premium, if you like, to deliver services in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the 86 per cent figure seems quite small. It is less than 100 per cent of the licence fee collected and includes the premium that you have to pay. Is that a matter of concern and are you looking to address it?

I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying but, from my point of view, the idea of trust, consistency and honesty on the part of Creative Scotland is an issue.

My second point relates to the cabinet secretary’s point about new sources of finance. I raised the issue of innovation, which I have not seen much evidence of, except for the V&A in Dundee. I was assured that it would get back in touch with ideas, and some of those have come back in, to be fair—I have yet to read them.

I know that time is very short so, rather than ask a question about that, I will very cheekily ask the question that I asked the BBC earlier. Does the Scottish Government support the allocation of the status of crown jewels to the carrying of live Scottish national football matches in Scotland?

I expect that it is, but, for the committee, in trying to come to an idea about the fairness of the apportionment of funds, it is an important figure. If it is not possible for you to give it just now, it would be useful to have it subsequently.

In my experience, there has never been a time when there has been such widespread concern about the output of the BBC and other broadcasters. Increasing numbers of people, including young people, are not paying their licence fee. It is not just young people—I am thinking about my mum. That is bound to have an impact. Part of the issue is related to what those people perceive to be the nature of the BBC’s current affairs output. This week, we have seen reference to the fact that the BBC’s “The Nine” programme could have as few as 200 viewers. I do not know whether that is true, but it has certainly been reported on social media. There are real concerns about that. In recent times, the director general of the BBC attended a meeting of Conservative MPs at Westminster. Can we, in this Parliament, expect a similar kind of courtesy from the director general? Is it possible to have direct communication with him to raise some of those concerns?

It was not so much about the committee. The meeting that happened at Westminster was for a particular political party. Is that courtesy extended to all parties?

I do not think that there is a shared understanding in the sector of the financial pressures—or in this committee, either, by the way. As for the examples that have been mentioned, I would just note that the last one, about Denmark, came up at a previous meeting when I asked representatives of the sector to come back with meaningful comparisons, not with independent countries, which have fewer constraints on their budgets, but with devolved Administrations. I should say that, so far, I have had no response from the sector to my question.

You have mentioned the constructive relationships with different partners in the sector, but I am not sure that I have seen that with Creative Scotland. Perhaps I can get your view on a couple of points. First, as I mentioned last week to Creative Scotland, I attended an event with the culture minister just before Christmas at which the Creative Scotland representative felt it necessary to publicly lambast the Scottish Government to the hundreds of people who were attending the meeting. I would also note the contrast between the press release that was put out by Creative Scotland on what it termed the £6.6 million cut—which as we now know is for backfilling a shortfall in national lottery funding—and the fact that its reinstatement last week was passed with virtually no comment. I think that there is a real issue with Creative Scotland’s approach to the Government.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will say that the relationship is very constructive, but all I will say is that that is not the evidence that I have seen. Is he aware of any tensions with Creative Scotland?

The total expenditure in the UK is around £6 billion, more than a third of which is raised from sources other than the licence fee. What is the equivalent figure for Scotland for money raised from sources other than the licence fee?