���˿���

I think that the committee will recognise the legal requirements around equal treatment and non-discrimination under which we have to operate in respect of regulated procurement, and our obligations under the Government procurement agreement and so on.

On your point about gender, part of that involves looking at the supply side and the work that we do in engaging with suppliers, which includes the bits of work that I spoke about previously. Nikki Archer may want to pick up on that, because she referred earlier to the Business in the Parliament conference event, about which we have had an extended conversation.

We do all that we can to publicise and make available that information. I will not repeat the various partners that we work with and the suite of guidance that we produce. We will continue to learn from the situation. One of the things that I will be keen to learn from the committee’s deliberations and report is about what more we can do to increase awareness of the support that is available and to create an environment where we can encourage more SMEs and supported businesses to look for opportunities to engage with public sector procurement.

With regard to Mr Stewart’s specific point about how we raise awareness, I refer back to the points that officials and I have made about the existing suite of support, guidance and engagement.

There is the engagement that takes place between officials and heads of procurement, for example, and there is the support that I have spoken about through the procurement journey. On the point about implementation, as has been identified by the committee, when we have a diverse and sophisticated public sector landscape, it is inevitable that there will be variations in implementation, for a multitude of reasons.

On the point about being risk averse, I highlight the need to ensure that all procurement activity is compliant with the relevant domestic and international obligations to which we are subject.

I will ask Graeme Cook to comment on both of the points that Mr Stewart raised in his previous two questions.

I would just highlight that, in many respects, we have been ahead of the curve with procurement, given what is set out in the 2014 act on sustainable procurement, the suite of tools that we provide to support buyers and the sustainable procurement obligations.

I will ask Nikki Archer to provide some detail and talk about the engagement that has taken place between officials.

There are requirements for that in the strategy, but there are important flexibilities, too.

I will provide the detail behind that.

There is a good level of engagement between procurement officials in Scotland and those in the other nations of the UK. We have seen recent reform of procurement legislation, both by the UK Government on behalf of England and in reserved bodies, and also in Wales.

Of course, beyond that engagement, we are looking on with interest at what is happening, and, in many respects, we are seeing other parts of the UK seeking to catch up with where we are in Scotland. As we touched on earlier, we are very much ahead of the curve, because of what we achieved in 2014. Different provisions have come in via UK legislation, and we will, of course, want to monitor that very carefully. We are always keen to understand different approaches and any learning that we can take from them.

Broadly, what we have in Scotland—and what has been reflected in the evidence that the committee has taken—is a strong piece of legislation that supports regulations, buttressed by the comprehensive suite of guidance and support that we have touched on.

The Scottish Government thanks Murdo Fraser for his proposed amendments 4, 5 and 6, which I will address shortly. First, I will talk to my amendments 13 and 14. The purpose of the amendments is to enable a creditor or an officer of court to serve an arrestment schedule, earnings arrestment schedule or current maintenance arrestment schedule electronically, where the arrestee or employer has expressed to the creditor or the officer of court that they are willing to receive documents in that way. That new option in serving an arrestment is in addition to existing methods of service by personal delivery and by post.

It has been brought to my attention by Alan McIntosh—whom I know the committee has had some engagement with—that amendment 14, as currently drafted, might have some potential unintended consequences by encouraging personal service, which was not the policy intention. I thank Mr McIntosh for that observation. I intend to remedy the issue at stage 3, to reflect the policy intention of providing an additional method of service by electronic means.

Electronic forms of communication are part of a modern society and it seems reasonable to extend that to the service of arrestment and earnings arrestment schedules. Arrestment schedules are predominantly served on banks, with creditors seeking to recover debt from a person’s bank account. It is hoped that introducing the amendment will help to simplify the process for banks where they choose to receive the schedules electronically. There is no change to how a debtor is notified about an arrestment.

Earnings arrestment and current maintenance arrestments are used by creditors to recover a debt through a person’s earnings. The person’s employer is notified of the arrestment through an arrestment schedule, which is currently either hand-delivered to the employer or sent by post. Sheriff officers have reported that it is becoming increasingly difficult to serve an arrestment schedule personally because of the hybrid working models that have resulted in offices being staffed less frequently, which provides fewer opportunities for a sheriff officer to serve the relevant documents.

Introducing the ability to serve those documents electronically will provide an alternative method of service, which I understand that employers have indicated to sheriff officers they would welcome. Most employers use technology, and receiving an arrestment electronically will make that simpler for many employers.

Amendment 14 will also introduce a technical amendment to section 70(5) of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 to ensure that an earnings arrestment schedule or current maintenance arrestment schedule can be competently served on an employer on a Sunday or public holiday if service is by post or electronic transmission.

Amendments 4, 5 and 6 would remove the requirement for the arrestee—often a bank—or the employer to notify the creditor in all instances when no property has attached or an earnings arrestment has been unsuccessful and replace it with a requirement to notify the creditor only where the creditor specifically requests confirmation. The amendments would also remove the requirement for the notification to be sent within a defined period of the arrestment schedule being sent, and replace it with a requirement to notify

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

following receipt of a request from a creditor. I caution against agreeing to amendments 4, 5 and 6, as they have the potential to delay creditors in receiving important information, which would not be the case under the current drafting of sections 6 and 7 of the bill.

The bill, as introduced, will strengthen the effect of section 70A of the 1987 act. That will be achieved by requiring the employer to notify the creditor, when an earnings arrestment has been unsuccessful, within 21 days of the arrestment schedule being served. It will also strengthen the effect of section 73G of the 1987 act, by requiring the arrestee to notify the creditor as to why no property has attached within three weeks of the arrestment being executed.

In both circumstances, under the bill as introduced, the employer or arrestee would be required to respond only once. We would anticipate that they would do that at the time when they are actioning the arrestment and learn that it is unsuccessful. For a creditor, learning that an arrestment has been unsuccessful is invaluable in helping them to determine what their next steps should be.

The member’s proposed amendments 4, 5 and 6 would also remove the defined deadlines that have been set for the arrestee to confirm to the creditor why nothing has attached and for the employer to notify the creditor of an unsuccessful earnings arrestment. That would leave the period of response open to interpretation by different arrestees and employers, to the detriment of the creditor.

Government bodies such as HM Revenue and Customs and councils, which use summary warrant procedure, would be prevented from requesting information under proposed amendment 4. I would caution against that as, without access to information, some actions that could be stopped may continue when that is not in the interests of any party.

The Scottish Government wants to have diligence procedures that are fair to all parties involved. The effect of the current wording at sections 6(2) and 7(2) of the bill will ensure that creditors are provided with the information that they require within a defined time frame. That will enable them to decide whether further action is necessary and remove the need for speculative repeat service of arrestments on third parties.

The Accountant in Bankruptcy will continue to liaise with banks, employers and sheriff officers in order to minimise the burden on the arrestee and employers, while balancing the information requirements for the creditors.

For those reasons, the Government does not support amendments 4, 5 and 6, and I ask Murdo Fraser not to move them.

I move amendment 13.

Yes, but I would add, with regard to how the Accountant in Bankruptcy operates, with its statutory responsibilities, that there is a continual process of review, given how the landscape can evolve. When a new measure such as a mental health moratorium is introduced, careful monitoring would of course be part of that, so that would be happening anyway, as routine business.

This point could inform conversations ahead of stage 3, if members are agreeable, on what enhanced parliamentary scrutiny would look like. I would be happy to consider proposals for a requirement to review within a defined period, if there is a desire for that. In making commitments to review legislation, there is always a need to ensure that we do not commit ourselves to review prematurely, which would just be an exercise in conforming to statute but without adding real value. I recognise, however, that there might be a desire for that to take place within what would be regarded as a reasonable timescale. I do not think that it is strictly necessary, but, if there was an appetite from the Parliament, reassurance should be provided, specifically on the regulations and formalising the approach.

I will close on this key point. I ask members not to press or move their amendments in this group but to work with me ahead of stage 3 to identify a suitable process of parliamentary oversight of and engagement on regulations, so that we can retain the flexibility that regulations provide while ensuring that the Parliament has the opportunity to engage.

For clarification, the pilot project that I referred to will conclude at the end of this month, so we hope to provide information on it quite shortly.