Chamber and committees

I ask Richard Dennis to come in on that.

We set out a proposal in the consultation for a process that would begin with the mental health professionals who would already be supporting the person. The process would go from the mental health professional, to the money adviser and then the AIB. We seek further views on that as part of the consultation.

We are seeking to provide clarity and clear definitions on eligibility, although it is important to recognise that there are also other provisions within our existing suite of support, such as the existing moratorium. The mental health moratorium that is proposed in the draft consultation would be for those in the most acute and severe mental crisis, who would be subject to the compulsory treatment provisions that are set out in statute. The proposed process by which that would be effected is set out in the consultation although, as I said earlier, that is subject to the bill and the regulations being approved by the Parliament. We would of course reflect, review and continue to engage on the effectiveness of the scheme, and we would be open to further consideration of changes in light of experience.

We are consulting for that very reason. If I were to say that we had already decided what we would do—

I mean the money advice sector, but I recognise that there is already overlap and that there should be co-ordinated working between that sector and mental health professionals.

If, subject to the Parliament’s agreement, the regulations come into effect, there will be a focus on ensuring that there is the broadest possible awareness. We are committed to using the resources at our disposal to ensure that there is the broadest possible awareness of the scheme and that there is understanding of how it can be applied to support the people whom it is designed to benefit.

In true “Blue Peter” fashion, I already have a copy of the leaflet to share with the committee.

I can confirm that we are reviewing the contents of the leaflet and that we will engage with representatives of the advice sector. Picking up on Kevin Stewart’s point, we will do further engagement with those who have direct experience of using the leaflet to help inform the consideration and review process. We have copies of the leaflet available for any member who is interested and wants to consider it in more detail.

It is anticipated that the number of individuals who use the scheme will be relatively low, so we anticipate that the additional demand that will be placed on the sector will be minimal, at least initially. Of course, we will want to carefully monitor the number of individuals who use the scheme and continue to have close engagement with the sector to ensure that, if capacity issues that relate specifically to the introduction of the mental health moratorium are identified, we are in a position to understand and respond to those challenges.

As we have previously stated, when the consensus is that the pressures of the cost of living crisis have abated, we will reconsider the position. However, given the challenges that we currently face—it is very much a live issue that is causing significant distress to many households—there are no immediate plans to change from the current provision of six months.

I want to ensure that I provide clarity here. I understand the exceptional pressure that the money advice sector is currently under, which, in many respects, is a consequence of the cost of living crisis. I pay tribute to those who work in the money advice sector, commend them for the invaluable work that they do and recognise the significant toll that it can have on their wellbeing and mental health, which I know has been reflected in evidence to the committee. It is not the kind of job that allows people to just go home at night and switch off. The work that they do stays with them, and I commend all those who do that invaluable work.

As Richard Dennis touched on, we recognise that there is a strong desire across the sector to be involved in the mental health moratorium, but we also recognise—given the numbers involved and the more specialist nature of that particular case load—that there might be a case for taking a different approach. That is why we have flagged that specific issue in the consultation and posed a question on it. The responses that we get to the consultation, any reflections that the committee has in its stage 1 report, and our further engagement with the sector will help us to land on a position where we can command the broadest consensus.

We are all focused on ensuring that the best service possible is provided for those individuals who require it. I know that money advisers are also focused on that, which is why we are open to the process of engagement. We recognise the sector’s desire to engage, but we appreciate that there may be other means of delivering that support.

Would you like to add anything, Richard?

I do not think that there has been any specific discussion, although Richard Dennis might correct me on that. I am aware that the committee has raised the issue and I would be happy to reflect further on that and to raise it directly with the UK Government as the legislation progresses through Parliament.