Chamber and committees

That came into effect relatively recently.

That is a very helpful suggestion, which I know is informed by your expertise in your previous roles and which I am happy to ensure that we take forward.

I will ask Richard Dennis to come in, in a moment. On the more detailed aspects of the working group and the processes that have informed the recommendations, my direct engagement has been with those representatives, many of whom the committee will have heard from in person or in writing. The process involved those who support and provide advice for people in relation to their financial circumstances, money and debt.

I ask Richard to comment on the work that got us here through the stage 2 working group and the mental health moratorium working group.

There has already been substantial engagement during the process by which the proposals have been developed. There is a clear awareness across the sector that the Parliament is considering the issue, and—

We are not giving specific consideration to that. Again, there is a need for clarity over the proposed criteria for when a mental health moratorium would begin and end. One element is defined by the period of compulsory treatment, and there is the six-month recovery period as well. I clarify that, although the six-month recovery period aligns with the six-month standard moratorium, the period is not fixed in length. We recognise that those who are in a period of recovery will require additional time beyond what might be regarded as a shorter period—for example, it has been suggested that a standard moratorium could be for 12 weeks. One witness raised the potential of that happening in the future. The periods are not fixed or linked.

When it comes to the existing moratorium, we have no intention at the moment of changing the criteria around the ability to extend the period of six months. We recognise that there are, for example, opportunities to seek forbearance through engagement with individual creditors, but there are no specific plans in that space.

We have set out in the consultation a proposal on how the process would operate. There would be an initial process with the mental health professional. With regards to how the second aspect—that is, the engagement with the money adviser—would take place, the proposal is for the adviser to ascertain that the individual understands what the process entails, agrees to it and understands that, within the recovery period, there will be further engagement with the money adviser.

As Richard Dennis touched on, money advisers already have an exceptional amount of experience of engaging with individuals who have varying degrees of mental health conditions.

As I mentioned earlier, the position on the overall delivery is reflected in the consultation. I would not want to repeat myself, but although I recognise that there is a real desire among many in the advice community to be involved, a different approach might be more effective.

As I said, we have been stakeholder led in developing the policy and I intend to be stakeholder led in how we implement it. We will, of course, bear in mind Kevin Stewart’s points to ensure that lived experience is brought to bear in the process, too.

Yes. In the longer term, given the timescales, I think that any translation into legislation of the outcome of the stage 3 review will be a matter for the next session of Parliament. I imagine that, in the next session, Parliament will want to consider whether there is a wider need to update the language in the primary legislation on statutory debt solutions if such a need is reflected in the review.

The position that we have set out in the consultation is that we would not want to do that, but we are asking the question.

We have had engagement specifically with representatives in the sector. We recognise that the reform places an additional requirement, but we think that we can work to ensure that the process is suitably streamlined, efficient and straightforward, so that the policy’s intended benefits can be realised. Richard Dennis might want to comment on the engagement that we have had.

I am conscious of those calls. As you highlighted, we have already made changes around earnings arrestment for this year. I am content to give further consideration to that, through engagement. We can make changes to the threshold through existing powers in secondary legislation.

I am conscious that various proposals have been brought forward. It is about understanding the underlying rationale for a particular amount and how it could be related more widely to other factors. I am happy to give that consideration.

COSLA had flagged up that particular point in correspondence with the committee. I want to ensure that, in taking forward consideration of the matter, I hear the broadest range of voices and opinions. No one would be unsympathetic to the policy intent, and we are looking to explore what, practically, could be done to increase flexibilities and variance.

However, I want to ensure that we still have a system that is efficient and straightforward to administer and does not lead to unintended consequences. I particularly recognise the perspective of local authorities, as one of the primary users of that particular diligence. We must take their opinions and views into account as well.