Chamber and committees

As the convener has said, amendment 12 is absolutely in line with the calls from the committee to update the outdated level of protection from arrestment of earnings, given that, at the same time, the Government is talking about a cost of living crisis. The minister referred to COSLA’s concerns, pointing out that arrestments are used only as a last resort, but I have to say that I take the figures that he quoted with a huge pinch of salt. It would take an enormous leap of faith to believe that increasing the protected minimum amount will have the impact that the minister has referred to, not least because local authorities have other methods of recovering debt other than through earnings arrestments. Most earnings arrestments will remain effective as a means of recovering debt, even with an increase to £1,000, but local authorities will continue to use bank account arrestments, attachments, exceptional attachment orders, charges for payments, direct deductions from benefits and, ultimately, sequestration to recover debts.

Moreover—and this point has not yet been made—I believe that increasing this protection would encourage a collaborative approach between councils and advice agencies and provide more of an incentive to refer on debtors to ensure that their benefits are maximised, to help them pay their debts and reduce their liability for council tax arrears and to help them enter into repayment plans with creditors. It will, I think, have those positive effects.

The discussion has very much focused on the impact on councils, but another factor that has not been mentioned is the impact on residents themselves. Increasing the protected minimum amount will make more wage arrestments affordable to far more people and will make them an awful lot more sustainable. It is also likely to reduce the number of people having to refer to solutions such as sequestration, as a result of which creditors usually receive a nil dividend; protected trust deeds, which also produce very low dividend; or debt arrangement schemes, in which creditors receive only 78p in the pound. Ironically, in many cases, increasing the minimum protected amount could also increase the amount of overall debt that many councils recover from individual debts.

Another factor that has to be considered is that by increasing the protected minimum amount and making earnings arrestments more affordable for people, we will allow more to escape that vicious cycle of debt, in which they cannot pay their current or on-going council tax and therefore accrue more arrears. The effect of that will be increased in-year collections of council tax, which will reduce the funds that local authorities require to service debts.

Crucially, failing to increase the level that is protected to a reasonable level—and, indeed, doing so annually—skews the balance very much in favour of the creditor, because the level that is protected will fall in real terms, unless increased on an annual basis. However, I take on board the view that it might be desirable to make additional changes, and some of the correspondence that we received late yesterday suggests a number of improvements to mitigate the impact of my amendment, such as increasing the percentage recovery rates beyond the protected amount. That is something that I will certainly look at for stage 3.

On amendment 25, I think that it has been accepted that the current law is not robust enough, and I have not heard any argument against strengthening it. The principle of the amendment is robust, but I take on board the need, perhaps, for further changes, and I am happy to discuss such changes with the minister in the hope that we can find a way forward with this amendment and, indeed, amendment 12.

I very much welcome amendment 26, in the name of Paul O’Kane. There seems little point in having a minimum protected balance if the value of that is eaten away over time. Amendment 26 would provide that ministers must “bring forward regulations” to adjust the minimum protected balance in line with inflation when the sum is considered to be

“materially below its inflation-adjusted level”.

That seems a common-sense approach.

It is interesting that the minister, in his response, talked about recent increases in the figure related to bank accounts. That backs up my point regarding amendment 12 that we have not seen a similar approach to the level for wage arrestments. At this stage, I will not press my amendment 12, in the hope that we can find a way forward to, at the very least, bring those wage arrestment figures in line with those that we have for bank accounts.

Amendment 12, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 25 not moved.

Section 6—Arrestment and action of furthcoming

I suppose that there is no requirement to publish the figures on fair trade procurement, despite Scotland being a fair trade nation.

Does Lynette Robertson or Craig Fergusson want to add anything to that?

If there was specific guidance from the Scottish Government that provided a definition of fair trade within procurement and, each year, as part of your annual report, you had to publish the level of fair trade spend based on that definition, could you do that with a change in the way in which you monitor it?

Stephen, I imagine that building that for dozens of individual colleges and universities would be quite a challenge for you. I am keen to hear how colleges and universities monitor that across the board. I am also intrigued by something that you said about the tension between best value and other requirements of the 2014 act. In your submission, you say:

“Potentially the requirement to consider wider policy issues is also leading to the stifling of best value and innovation. Contracting Authorities can be so focussed on including all aspects of policy (fair work, environment etc) that it becomes a box ticking exercise and dissuades smaller companies from bidding.”

I am keen for you to expand on the challenges around that tension.

Do you measure the value of that in your overall procurement?

That would be helpful—thank you.

For the Official Report, I can say that there were nods there: everybody agreed with that point.

On another area of procurement and fair trade, we heard evidence last week from the Scottish Fair Trade Forum. Scotland is a fair trade nation, South Lanarkshire and Aberdeenshire are Fairtrade zones, and Aberdeen city and the city of Edinburgh are Fairtrade cities. I suppose that, as part of your procurement strategy, you have to include a statement of general policy on fairly and ethically traded goods and services.

The Scottish Fair Trade Forum did a report a couple of years ago based on freedom of information requests to local authorities regarding spend on fair trade products. That was £2,644 for Aberdeen city for the 2021-22 financial year, £7,260 for Aberdeenshire, £3,756 for Edinburgh and £28,668 for South Lanarkshire—so South Lanarkshire was top of the table. However, I suspect that the level of spend on fair trade in each of your authorities is higher than that. Why are those figures not higher?

If you have a general policy commitment on fairly traded goods, how do you monitor it if you do not hold or publish that information in a usable way?

I wish to follow up on some of the points that have been raised. Local authorities have mentioned

“the challenges in monitoring and capturing this data in respect of sub-contractors and the wider supply chain”

once a contract has begun. They pointed out that,

“At contract evaluation stage, the evaluation panel will consider Fair Work First responses submitted by the principal contractor”,

but the council does not have the resources to follow that up through monitoring what actually happens with subcontractors.

I will start with you, Rob and Joe, as you spoke a wee bit about some relevant discussions. How do you monitor the delivery of fair work principles when you have a big capital project that might have gone to a contractor and that could be subcontracted in a whole range of ways? How do you know that the subcontractors are delivering on those principles?