���˿���

My amendments 4, 5 and 6 address points that were discussed in paragraphs 127 to 134 of the committee’s stage 1 report. Sections 6 and 7 of the bill would introduce a new duty of disclosure on the arrestee. The arrestee—the person who is in possession of the assets that belong to the debtor, which is usually a bank or a financial institution—would be required to tell the creditor when diligence has been unsuccessful. That is a new requirement that has been introduced. The arrestee must tell the creditor whether the arrestment has been successful within a specified time period of 21 days.

As we heard in committee evidence, the issue is that that would have significant resource implications for banks and other financial institutions. In its submission to the committee, the NatWest Group said that it would have to respond to approximately 70,000 arrestment requests every year, and that there would be no particularly useful purpose in telling creditors that those requests had been unsuccessful. Therefore, it seems to be an unduly onerous requirement to put upon financial institutions.

In amendments 4,5 and 6, I am proposing what is, in effect, a halfway house. They are not about entirely removing the obligation for disclosure. However, they try to qualify that requirement and ensure that it is less onerous for the financial institutions.

Amendment 4 relates to cases in which the arrestee must disclose information in relation to bank arrestments that have been unsuccessful. It provides that the arrestee need disclose information to the creditor only when the creditor requests that information, where it was not under summary warrant procedure, and that the information should be provided

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

Amendment 5 amends section 7 of the bill to say that a person should respond only to a specific request that has been made.

Amendment 6 says that a person needs to respond only

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”

after the request has been received, rather than within 21 days.

To me, that strikes a reasonable balance. The bill proposes a new onerous requirement on arrestees to report. The costs of doing that may well be significant; I do not know whether the minister can enlighten us on the Government’s assessment of what the additional cost will be. My amendments are not about removing the requirement altogether. Rather, they qualify it and try to strike a balance between the interests of the creditor and the interests of the arrestee. It seems to me to be a reasonable set of proposals.

My question is about an issue that this committee, and its predecessor committees, have wrestled with over many years. It is about how we use procurement and public sector spending to support local economies, communities and businesses. We recognise that there is always a tension between trying to get good value for the taxpayer—which might lead to bundling of contracts into larger packages, thereby making them less accessible to local businesses, and particularly to SMEs—and trying to direct that spend to where it can support the local economy.

How have changes in the procurement legislation helped to give access to local businesses, if they have done so? I know that that is part of the work that Gillian Cameron does, so perhaps we can start with you.

Can you say a little bit about what your chain of communication is with people in the business community? Are they engaging with you on a regular basis?

I will come to Mary Mitchell in a minute—I notice that you were nodding away there. Gillian, how would you mark progress in this area, noting the changes that we have seen in the legislation? I presume that there is still work to be done, but do you think that you are making good progress?

Thank you.

All the questions that I was going to ask been covered by others, so, in the interests of time, I am happy to move on.

Good morning. This committee, and our predecessor committee, have been interested for a number of years in how we can use procurement to support local economies. Gordon Beattie touched on some of that in his previous answer. Can you say what is being done to proactively engage with local businesses about procurement opportunities?

I am sure that my colleague Brian Whittle will have lots of questions about food shortly. I ask you the same question that I put to Gordon Beattie about feedback to unsuccessful bidders.

We often get feedback from businesses who submit tenders and are unsuccessful but get no feedback about why they were unsuccessful. Do you have a mechanism to provide feedback to unsuccessful bidders?

Good morning to the panel. I have a slightly different question, which is on the impact on local economies and local businesses. I have been on this committee and its predecessors for many years, and that issue continually comes up when we talk about procurement. There is an issue about the extent to which we use the very large pool of procurement funds that are run by national public bodies, national health service boards or local councils to support local businesses. Every time we speak to the business community, that is a key ask. To what extent does the new, or newish, legislative framework do a decent job of ensuring that money is spent more locally?