³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 12 September 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2963 contributions

|

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Town Centres and Retail

Meeting date: 15 June 2022

John Mason

But people are not going to cycle 20 miles home in the middle of the night, though, are they? They need a bus or something.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Town Centres and Retail

Meeting date: 15 June 2022

John Mason

Thank you, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to be at committee today. It is nice to be back.

Alexander Burnett asked about online sales tax, and I take the point that we are waiting to see what the UK decides about that. What powers do we have? Could we introduce an online sales tax even if the UK does not?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Town Centres and Retail

Meeting date: 15 June 2022

John Mason

I take the point that it would be a major change to move away from property completely to turnover. However, would you accept that it is a bit strange that two identical properties, one of which has a huge turnover and one that has a tiny turnover, might pay the same amount in rates? Obviously, there is the small business bonus, but perhaps some kind of hybrid might be possible. I accept that that will have to be looked at over time. Given that 1854 was rather a long time—

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

John Mason

I agree with the DPLR Committee and your argument that the made affirmative procedure was perhaps used a bit too often. I am just wary of ruling it out too much. Do you agree that there is some place for that procedure, albeit that it should not be used every day?

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

John Mason

I wonder whether the member has gone a little too far in the wording of amendment 119. I agree with much of what he has said: every child should have a laptop or something similar and an internet connection. However, if we took the amendment literally—when something is in law, we have to take it literally—it would mean that one child not having an internet connection would prevent a school, or possibly multiple schools, from closing. Does the member not feel that that is going a little too far?

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

John Mason

Well, if you want me to—

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

John Mason

Will the member give way?

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

John Mason

Does the member accept that there were different opinions on some of those things and that it is a question not of an error or a mistake, but of one choice being made against another choice?

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

John Mason

The Government responded rapidly to the Covid pandemic and introduced some welcome changes to the insolvency process. Unfortunately, the emerging cost of living crisis is putting further pressure on household budgets, which will regrettably lead to further instances of unsustainable debt, as has been underlined by StepChange and other charities.

I am aware of the advice sector’s concerns about the current bank arrestment process, which it thinks could be improved, taking into account the unique pressures that are faced by households. I understand that the issue has been raised recently during evidence to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee as part of its inquiry into low income and debt problems.

The current arrangements protect the sum of £566.51 through provision in the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. Those arrangements are linked to the arrangements for a wage arrestment in that that sum is the maximum monthly salary that is required before any wage arrestment can be enacted. I believe that it is right to decouple those arrangements and to fix the protected balance for bankruptcy separately by providing new powers to vary that by regulations that are subject to the negative procedure. That is the parliamentary procedure that is used for regulations to vary the wage arrestment threshold, which, in turn, amends the protected minimum balance.

I believe that the sum of £1,000 would offer a better level of protection than the current sum of £566.51. It would afford greater flexibility and financial resilience while being consistent with the level of funds that an individual can retain while pursuing debt relief through minimal asset process bankruptcy. As I mentioned during the debate on group 6, my amendment 67A in that group would make the new provision come into force on 1 November 2022.

I encourage the committee to support my amendment.

I move amendment 69.

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

John Mason

I thank members for their comments. I take Murdo Fraser’s point that we did not spend much time on the issue, but the committee looked at a range of measures around bankruptcy and related matters and, generally, the theme was to round figures up and make them a bit higher. Amendment 69 is fully consistent with that. Although £1,000 is a round figure and Mr Fraser might call it arbitrary, £566.51 is a very odd figure, and I have to say that I dislike that kind of level of detail. With the current inflation level, £566.51 is clearly not very much to live on. I therefore encourage members to support the figure of £1,000.

I press amendment 69.