Chamber and committees

I will ask Richard Dennis to come in with the detail on that.

I would be happy to have further conversations about that. I would be keen to get a sense of the committee’s view in the light of the views that others might express. We are having to take account of the impact that varying provision would have on employers. With regards to uprating, there is the question whether that is an exceptional one-off event, or whether the committee takes the view that there should be an underlying rationale for a more predictable rhythm of uplifts to reflect other circumstances, such as prevailing economic conditions. We need to recognise that, as well-intentioned as any such decision would be, it also creates administrative and compliance burdens for others, which we would want to take into account.

I recognise the issue. If arrestments are taking place that are inhibiting people from paying their council tax, that creates an additional problem. I know that witnesses have raised that issue. I am happy to have further engagement about that, recognising that we have the means to address that through existing powers and secondary legislation.

As the committee has heard in evidence at previous meetings, there is a recognition that the number of people who are likely to make use of the mental health moratorium is relatively small.

The rationale on alignment with existing statutory provisions, including those under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, comes from wanting to ensure clarity and being able to start small but then, through the opportunity of learning, further review and reflection, potentially expanding or amending the criteria. That approach, which is afforded to us by using regulations, has been welcomed by and has had a positive reception from those in the debt advice community. I would not want to say that the process will necessarily continue like that ad infinitum. However, as a starting point, having the new provisions that we will introduce aligning with the existing statutory provisions provides clarity on eligibility.

The consultation closes on 22 January 2024. It is unlikely that we will be able to complete the independent analysis process ahead of being able to share the draft regulations. We would certainly endeavour to do that and it might be possible. We would be able to provide a summary of the consultation responses, which will help to inform the draft regulations.

Of course, engagement with the committee will further inform what we propose as final regulations. I am open to further public consultation on the draft regulations, beyond simply sharing them with the committee, to explore those matters in further detail. We have set out a series of proposals that reflect the recommendations of the expert working group and we are seeking further views on that through the public consultation that we launched earlier this month.

We are not going to artificially compress the timescale because that would prevent us from taking a fully considered view about what regulations are to be laid before the Parliament. We are trying to ensure that the committee has as early sight as possible of the draft regulations and we hope that the analysis will be completed, published and available to inform the committee’s deliberations. However, preliminary analysis of the responses to the consultation will inform the draft regulations that we introduce.

My concern is to ensure that what up to this point has been a highly collaborative process, informed by expert opinion, continues as we work towards the preparation of the regulations, informed by the consultation on the draft regulations that we bring before the committee, with the potential for further public consultation, and by input from the committee. From that cumulative process, we will be able to lay before the Parliament for approval a final set of regulations that can command the widest support and reflect all the engagement that will have been undertaken.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, committee.

The Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill implements stakeholder-led recommendations to introduce improvements to current debt solutions and debt recovery processes. I accept that it is a small bill and that it does not propose radical changes. That reflects the fact that our system is, broadly speaking, acknowledged as an effective one. As you have heard from previous witnesses, there are no calls for fundamental change.

All the measures in the bill have been subject to at least one public consultation, and all have received broad support. Again, you will have heard from previous witnesses that they are seeking not so much to change what is in the bill as to add things to it.

The measures in the bill have been and are being very much designed with and by the stakeholder community. I pay tribute to the work of all stakeholders whose recommendations are being included in and enabled by the bill. In particular, I commend the members of the mental health moratorium working group. The members of the working group include mental health professionals who were able to contribute professional expertise in the field of mental health and draw lessons from the mental health crisis moratorium that was introduced in England and Wales in 2021.

As the committee will be aware, we are consulting on the details of what a mental health moratorium, enabled by the bill, would look like. I take the opportunity to apologise to the committee that it did not receive advance notice of the publication of the consultation. Officials have worked hard to publish it as soon as possible, which, I hope, will give the committee sufficient time to consider the consultation as part of its stage 1 deliberations. I also want to say to the committee that we will, of course, ensure that it has sight of the draft regulations prior to their being formally laid in the Parliament.

This bill is only one part of a programme of work to improve bankruptcy and diligence. We will introduce changes through secondary legislation, some of which I hope to lay before the Parliament during the progress of the bill.

We have also commissioned a longer-term review to assess how far current statutory solutions meet the needs of a modern economy. Committee members will know that Yvonne MacDermid OBE accepted an appointment to lead stage 3 of that wider review, and there will be some matters that merit further consideration as part of the review. On that point, I will conclude.

If I recall correctly, you raised the matter directly with the First Minister at the Conveners Group meeting. We will certainly endeavour to produce a draft of the regulations ahead of stage 3, while recognising that regulations could only be formally laid should the bill be passed by the Parliament.

I appreciate that we are likely to touch on a number of issues that witnesses have raised while giving evidence to the committee. I am keen to see the committee’s stage 1 report before considering what further proposals the Government brings forward. I want to give the commitment that the considerations that the committee shares through its stage 1 report will help to inform the process that we go through, along with the consultation and the drafting of the regulations. I am keen to consider those points further.

As I said, I set out the rationale of effectively starting small with an opportunity to expand, but significant further opportunity will be afforded for consideration of the detailed proposals in the regulations.

I am conscious that that area has been of substantial interest to the committee and that quite a bit of the evidence that it has taken has related to that. I have found that evidence very useful in enhancing my understanding.

Clearly, we want to ensure that there is the widest possible uptake of the scheme when it is appropriate for, and applicable to, an individual’s circumstances. I made reference to this being a stakeholder-led and collaborative process, which will, subject to the Parliament’s agreement, inform the process of implementation. We will want to continue to work very closely on that. The committee has recognised that, as has been highlighted by several of the expert witnesses from whom the committee has heard, it will be important to take a joined-up and collaborative approach. That will involve building on the skill sets and understanding of money advisers and mental health professionals.

We want to engage closely in order to fully understand what support can be provided. Of course, the key to that will be ensuring that there is the widest possible awareness of the existence of the scheme, should it be agreed to by the Parliament. That will be a clear priority in implementation.