Chamber and committees

Again, Mr Lumsden, you are drawing a direct link between those two things and completely ignoring the broader macroeconomic factors at play.

We are seeking to raise revenue and provide support for first-time buyers. There will be different factors that impact the individual decisions that individual landlords take. The ADS may be a factor; it is not for me to comment on that. It is clear that broader macroeconomic factors will have the most impact in determining the supply and availability of housing, as well as the investment decisions that are taken.

I only want to say that I am very grateful for the committee’s scrutiny, as always.

I am conscious of the committee’s considerable interest in this area, and I repeat my strong appreciation of the concerns that local government has expressed. We have given careful consideration to the matter as part of the ADS review, and I will be in a position to set out the Government’s response to that in the near future.

Our decisions on tax are taken in the round as part of the overall budget process, in the context of the Government’s existing policy commitments. There are clear commitments around housing, in particular on the supply of affordable housing. The policies that we undertake overall with regard to residential LBTT reflect the characteristics of the Scottish property market, as was touched on earlier, with regard to average house prices.

We take account of broader economic factors, and decisions are taken in a way that is consistent with the policy objectives in other areas. In decisions around tax, there is, as much as there can be, a clear focus on revenue raising. We do not take things in isolation, which is why we said at the outset that a key part of the intent behind the ADS—as has been the case since it was introduced—is to provide support for first-time buyers.

It is something that has been reflected on. I will ask Ewan Cameron-Nielsen to correct me if I am wrong, but I think that housing co-operatives represent a very small part of the Scottish housing sector.

I will ask Ewan Cameron-Nielsen to come in at this point.

I am happy to give that undertaking, and I assure the committee that its work has been very much valued and appreciated by the working group that is undertaking the stage 2 review.

Good morning, convener and committee members. Thank you for taking the time to consider these draft regulations.

It is very important for us—and for portfolios across the Government—to consider policies in the context of the current extreme cost of living pressures. We want to act quickly where we can make a difference. There are four areas of particular focus in the regulations.

The first area is debt arrangement scheme payment breaks. Through the debt arrangement scheme, in the region of 16,000 individuals have taken control of their debt and maintain a debt payment plan. For at least some of those people, the increases in the cost of living will pose a threat to the sustainability of those plans. We want to ensure that the arrangements for securing a payment break are sufficiently flexible, bearing in mind the current volatility in living costs. The provisions in the regulations would allow for a break of up to six months where those wider pressures on household income apply. I consider that to be an important change that will help those payment programmes to succeed.

The next two issues relate to access to bankruptcy. Stakeholders working with us on a policy review have recommended the removal of the minimum debt level for minimal asset process bankruptcy, which is currently set at £1,500. The recent report of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, following its inquiry into low income and debt, also made that recommendation. I understand the concern that the current threshold might prevent individuals from accessing debt relief that they desperately need. The regulations remove that minimum debt level.

We have made significant progress in reducing or removing the fees that are associated with self-nominated bankruptcy. The Social Justice and Social Security Committee has recommended further tweaking of the fee waiver criteria to encompass all the people who have been assessed as being unable to pay a contribution through the common financial tool. I am happy to take that forward, which will provide further benefit to the most financially vulnerable.

There is a further change that I consider necessary, which is linked to the entirely appropriate actions that have been taken on fee reduction. Wider pressures on the public purse mean that we need to look at all the options in the current system that can help it to recover costs and remove burdens on public finance. The regulations would increase the deposit that creditors must provide when the Accountant in Bankruptcy is nominated as trustee following court bankruptcy.

The need for that is twofold. First, there is the reduction in fee income, which I highlighted. Secondly, there is the fact that the administration of court petition bankruptcy when no funds can be collected comes at the significant cost to the public purse of almost £2,000 per case, on average. The initial deposit that is paid by creditors is repaid when a bankruptcy generates funds. When no funds are produced, it seems reasonable that the creditor bringing the action should bear more of the cost.

I will conclude there. I hope that the committee will agree to a motion to recommend approval of the regulations, and that it agrees that they are a sensible measure at this time.

The committee will be aware more broadly of statutory debt solutions such as providing individuals with the debt advice and information pack, but I will ask Alex Reid to come in on Mr Beattie’s specific points.