³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The consultation focused specifically on the provisions that we are considering today, the other matters to which I have referred and potential ancillary issues around non-domestic rates, of which you will be aware. That is the overall package of proposals that was considered in the consultation.

Clearly, a range of work is under way across local and national Government to increase the supply of housing. I recognise that no single policy will act as a solution to all the challenges that we currently face, but this is one tool that will become available, should Parliament agree to it, as a discretionary power for local authorities. It will be for local authorities to consider the utilisation of this discretionary power in the broader context of the policy tools that they have at their disposal.

The joint working group is considering that as part of its broader programme of work. Moving beyond what is in the regulations would require primary legislation. At this point, the joint working group is carefully reflecting on what emerged through the consultation and its analysis.

We continue to engage with local authorities. Should Parliament agree to pass the regulations, local authorities will have the option to introduce the measure from 1 April next year. I recognise that some local authorities are actively considering it. A period of time would need to pass before we would be in a position to assess the impact of such a policy intervention on a particular local authority and to consider the impact in the various geographies of a local authority and on different local authorities. We would consider those impacts over time.

Local authorities would, of course, monitor the efficacy of the policy. Our continued engagement in dialogue, as per the Verity house agreement and, for that matter, the joint working group, would provide a forum for that. We all recognise that, if any local authority were to introduce the measure in April next year, we would need to allow it some time before making any initial assessments. Of course, there will be on-going engagement and dialogue throughout that process.

On the latter point, through the joint working group, we are engaging with COSLA to produce joint guidance in that space. More broadly, the relative number of second homes in different local authorities will be a factor in the disparity that exists between councils. It will also come down to whether a local authority chooses to utilise this power, and a number of different factors will bear upon that decision for a local authority. As I touched on in my previous answer, we will continue to engage with local authorities to monitor and understand any impacts of the policy that are observed and how they relate to the revenue that individual local authorities raise.

That came into effect relatively recently.

That is a very helpful suggestion, which I know is informed by your expertise in your previous roles and which I am happy to ensure that we take forward.

I will ask Richard Dennis to come in, in a moment. On the more detailed aspects of the working group and the processes that have informed the recommendations, my direct engagement has been with those representatives, many of whom the committee will have heard from in person or in writing. The process involved those who support and provide advice for people in relation to their financial circumstances, money and debt.

I ask Richard to comment on the work that got us here through the stage 2 working group and the mental health moratorium working group.

There has already been substantial engagement during the process by which the proposals have been developed. There is a clear awareness across the sector that the Parliament is considering the issue, and—

We are not giving specific consideration to that. Again, there is a need for clarity over the proposed criteria for when a mental health moratorium would begin and end. One element is defined by the period of compulsory treatment, and there is the six-month recovery period as well. I clarify that, although the six-month recovery period aligns with the six-month standard moratorium, the period is not fixed in length. We recognise that those who are in a period of recovery will require additional time beyond what might be regarded as a shorter period—for example, it has been suggested that a standard moratorium could be for 12 weeks. One witness raised the potential of that happening in the future. The periods are not fixed or linked.

When it comes to the existing moratorium, we have no intention at the moment of changing the criteria around the ability to extend the period of six months. We recognise that there are, for example, opportunities to seek forbearance through engagement with individual creditors, but there are no specific plans in that space.

We have set out in the consultation a proposal on how the process would operate. There would be an initial process with the mental health professional. With regards to how the second aspect—that is, the engagement with the money adviser—would take place, the proposal is for the adviser to ascertain that the individual understands what the process entails, agrees to it and understands that, within the recovery period, there will be further engagement with the money adviser.

As Richard Dennis touched on, money advisers already have an exceptional amount of experience of engaging with individuals who have varying degrees of mental health conditions.

As I mentioned earlier, the position on the overall delivery is reflected in the consultation. I would not want to repeat myself, but although I recognise that there is a real desire among many in the advice community to be involved, a different approach might be more effective.

As I said, we have been stakeholder led in developing the policy and I intend to be stakeholder led in how we implement it. We will, of course, bear in mind Kevin Stewart’s points to ensure that lived experience is brought to bear in the process, too.