���˿���

The committee is particularly interested in what data we have and how we use it to inform the actions that we take. We have heard from Terence Higgins Trust about the lack of data on stigma and how that prevents us from properly tracking our efforts to tackle it. Does the Government plan to assess nationally how stigma is experienced by people living with HIV in different geographical areas? We have heard a lot of evidence about how stigma manifests itself for someone who is living in a rural community and it being different from what happens in urban communities.

We have also heard a lot this morning and throughout the evidence that we have taken about people who use the different public services and the way that stigma is experienced there. Obviously, the Government can receive reporting from the various public services. What work will be done in that space?

Good morning. I will start with a broad question. What experience do you have of the existing appointee system under the DWP and Social Security Scotland? What has been your experience of that process?

Those answers are helpful. On some of the practical suggestions, I am sensing frustration about blockages, if I can use that expression, in the system. The bill will create empowering opportunities, but a lot of the detail comes down to how the system operates in practice. Is Social Security Scotland engaging with some of the suggestions that Vicki Cahill made or with the conversation about a more automated process, as Fiona Collie suggested?

The bill requires DWP appointees to be authorised by Social Security Scotland

“as soon as reasonably practical”.

What are your general expectations about how long it should take Social Security Scotland to authorise an appointee? We had a discussion with other witnesses about timescales and expectations, so it would be good to get your sense of that.

I reiterate the purpose of my amendment 18. It is clear from the debate that people want clarity and certainty about a mental health moratorium that goes beyond what has been proposed in the bill as introduced. The framework that I have used in my amendment models some of the areas that were covered by the committee report, and it considers how we expand the framework beyond formal emergency care.

Community settings are important, too, in acknowledging that people can access treatment for crisis in communities and in a variety of ways. It is important that we reflect on that.

As I said at the outset, there is a variance of views among those who have been consulted. For example, I acknowledge that Change Mental Health has been very supportive of the approach that I have taken through amendment 18, whereas Citizens Advice Scotland, which sits on the working group, has said that things should perhaps be done in a different way that allows for the flexibility that the minister has described.

On reflection, it is clear to me that putting something in the bill gives certainty and clarity, although I appreciate the minister’s point about having flexibility. One of the arguments that has been put to me is that mental health law will change and that there has been a consultation process on that change. I do not think that that is insurmountable—something could be put into legislation and then be amended should, for example, mental health law change.

However, I recognise colleagues’ point about people’s lived experience and about those in the sector who have a view on the issue and might want to inform how we change the regulations on the moratorium in a more flexible way.

I also recognise the minister’s offer to find consensus on a wider moratorium that reaches more people and gives them the support that they need when they are in debt crisis. A debate remains about whether we do that in the bill or through regulations. I am encouraged by the minister’s willingness to further discuss any secondary legislation that he would want to introduce and anything that he would want the committee and the Parliament to scrutinise. I am willing to have that conversation, as I am sure my colleagues are. However, I reserve the right to carry out further consultation with stakeholders and to bring back a proposal at stage 3, if I think that that is the right thing to do.

My colleagues Daniel Johnson and Colin Smyth have clearly outlined the strengths and importance of their amendments.

I will end my comments here. I am happy to press manuscript amendment 18A, which amends amendment 18.

Amendment 18A agreed to.

On the basis that the minister and I have a difference of opinion, I will move the amendment.

Amendment 29 moved—[Paul O’Kane].

Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, colleagues on the committee and minister.

I begin by offering my apologies for the need for a manuscript amendment. In my haste to get amendments lodged before the deadline, I failed to note a typographical error in my original amendment 18, which set the moratorium period at 30 days. Let me be clear that that was an error. I support the longer period that is now noted in the manuscript amendment. That is an explanation to the committee of the need for amendment 18A.

I will now speak to amendment 18 and its purpose. I understand that the committee has discussed the matter of a moratorium at length, in the light of the evidence that it heard during its stage 1 proceedings, that there is no universal agreement on the provisions that should or should not be included in a moratorium, and that there is a variance of views. I also understand that there has been a degree of debate about whether to have a moratorium established through the bill or in regulations.

I have lodged amendments 18 and 19 because it is important that we have more detail on how a moratorium might work and whom a moratorium might best serve. By doing that in the bill, we can have certainty and clarity on the moratorium more widely. My amendments have been lodged so that we can have a clear debate on the issue this morning.

I am happy to speak briefly to what amendment 18 would do regarding that moratorium. My amendment would give greater permanence to and clarity on the structure of any mental health moratorium by establishing in law that a moratorium on debt collection in cases of mental ill health will exist; establishing the conditions under which the individual is deemed to be receiving mental health crisis treatment; establishing who can apply for the moratorium on the debtor’s behalf; establishing what must be contained in any application for a moratorium; and establishing the length that any such moratorium would last if granted to a debtor.

It was clear from my engagement with a number of organisations that, as I said, there is a variance of views. However, on balance, many mental health organisations are keen to see the moratorium outlined in the bill and for the provision to be broader than what has been proposed by the Government, so that we do not just deal with initial emergency treatment but go wider and deal with care in community spaces.

I will briefly touch on the other amendments in the group. Amendment 16, in the name of Colin Smyth, would compel ministers to make provisions in regulations for enforcement of the moratorium and for sanctioning of creditors who did not abide by the regulations. The amendment would sit quite neatly with what I have outlined in amendment 18 by ensuring that people were compelled to comply with the outlined moratorium.

I also support amendments 20 and 21, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which push the Government on how it will consult Parliament and this committee on any regulations pertaining to a moratorium, if a moratorium is not established through the bill. Regardless of whether my amendments are agreed to, it is vital that we have a debate on a moratorium and that such a moratorium is clearly scrutinised by the Parliament and, crucially, by the stakeholders that I have mentioned, particularly those in the advice and mental health support sectors, to ensure that the moratorium works, is enforceable and provides the most benefit to the people who need it.

I move amendments 18 and 18A.

I wish to respond briefly. I have set out in detail the intent behind amendments 22 and 23, which is to ensure that people have all the support and advice that is required prior to the commencement of debt. Some important projects are on-going. I note that my amendments have been lodged after a long discussion with Aberlour, as I have said, and with support from Citizens Advice Scotland. It is important that we take a step forward on these important issues at this stage.

On amendment 29, perhaps this is a difference of opinion, but it was our intent that the rates that the 10 per cent surcharge exemption provision would apply to would be all rates and not just non-domestic rates. I appreciate that the minister has arrived at a different position in that it applies only to non-domestic rates, but it is our view that the surcharge should be limited across all rates. That position is supported by Citizens Advice Scotland and Aberlour.

It is important that, as a package, the amendments would provide more clarity across all 32 local authorities and would provide more support for people to break out of a cycle of problem debt.

I seek to withdraw it.

Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 23 moved—[Paul O’Kane].

Amendment 26, in my name, deals with minimum protected balances for debtors. As we have heard, minimum protected bank balances provide individuals with a level of security in case of hardship and prevent them from being pushed into desperate circumstances by aggressive debt pursual. However, the value of that protected balance can be retained only if there is a measure of uprating; otherwise, as inflation continues over time, the protected balance may become less and less valuable to the debtor. The amendment therefore clarifies that ministers should examine the level of protected balances on an annual basis without creating an automatic uplift. It would create a presumption in favour of the uplift, but it would allow for extraneous circumstances and parliamentary scrutiny in order to give proportionality.

The amendment deals with minimum protected balances as set out in section 73F of the 1987 act, and inserts an obligation on ministers to—as I said—increase the minimum protected balance each year. The amendment is similar to other protections as outlined in this group, as it protects the balances of people who find themselves in problem debt and are trying to break out of that cycle. We know that the principle of uprating is used across various different parts of Government policy, in particular for annual uprating of social security payments, which are frequently uprated by inflation to provide income security for vulnerable individuals in difficult financial times, as we have just been through.

As I said, the affirmative procedure means that there is not an automatic process of uprating; rather, it can be scrutinised by Parliament with reference to specific economic circumstances in each financial year. However, it will be assumed that the provision would create a presumption in favour of uprating of minimum protected balances.