Chamber and committees

I am sorry, Professor McKenzie Skene, but we are having a few problems with your sound. We will move on to David Menzies for the moment.

Brilliant. Thank you very much, and a warm welcome to you.

My first question is about the proposed bankruptcy threshold. The emergency coronavirus legislation increased the debt threshold at which a creditor can make someone bankrupt from £3,000 to £10,000 during the pandemic. The bill proposes to set the threshold permanently at £5,000. What is the panel’s view on the level of the bankruptcy threshold?

Thank you, Abbey. You raise some very valid points in relation to the increase in the cost of living.

I am sorry, but we are still having technical issues with your audio.

Thank you. That was very interesting. I was not aware of the number of bankruptcies that are initiated by the Government and local authorities.

Actually, we do have a little bit of time, as we are going to 11:30.

This might be covered under the on-going bankruptcy review, but our committee received an interesting submission this week that I wanted to raise and ask your views on. Bearing in mind the cost of living crisis and the fact that families have been made bankrupt and had their wages and bank accounts arrested, I think that the person who got in touch with us asked the valid question whether the bill could be an opportunity to provide people who are struggling financially with increased protection from bank account arrestments. We have been told that such arrestments can leave people with only £529 in their bank accounts, regardless of whether they are single or a couple with three or four kids. One example that was highlighted was of a family with two children. When their bank account was arrested, they were left with £529 to survive on for the rest of the month, and they had to choose between food, gas, electricity and travel and childcare costs. Could there be an opportunity to amend the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 to increase the amount that people are left with in their bank accounts from £529 to, say, £1,000?

Perhaps we could start with Abbey Fleming.

I thank all the witnesses for their evidence and their time. If you want to raise any further evidence with the committee, you can do so in writing. The clerks will be happy to liaise with you on that.

The committee’s next meeting is on 10 March, when we will continue to take evidence on the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill and our inquiry into excess deaths in Scotland since the start of the pandemic.

Would Professor Hunter like to come in?

Thank you. I will start the questioning.

With the great benefit of hindsight, we can all acknowledge that no country on the planet was prepared for Covid when it hit. In my opinion, Governments around the world have a moral duty to reflect on the past two years, learn lessons and put in place measures to ensure that we are never again in the position in which we found ourselves in March 2020.

On 21 February, the Prime Minister confirmed that certain temporary provisions for England relating to improvements in the delivery of public services will be made permanent via the Westminster bills.

As we move forward to put in place legislation to keep the public safe in the future, what principles do you believe underpin good-quality and effective legislation for emergency situations? We will start with Professor de Londras.

Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2022 of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee. This morning, we will take evidence on the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

I warmly welcome our first panel of witnesses, who are all participating virtually: Professor Fiona de Londras, professor of global legal studies, Covid-19 review observatory, University of Birmingham; Anthony Smith, chief executive of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy; and Professor Paul Hunter, professor in medicine, Norwich medical school, University of East Anglia. Thank you for giving us your time.

This will be the first of the committee’s evidence sessions on the bill, and we will start by looking at the public health measures in part 1. We will take evidence on the bill at two further meetings—on 10 and 24 March—before we hear from the Deputy First Minister on 31 March.

Each member will have approximately eight minutes in which to speak to the panel and ask their questions. If a witness would like to respond to an issue that is being discussed, I ask them please to type R in the chat box and we will try to bring them in. I am keen to ensure that everyone gets an opportunity to speak. I apologise in advance, therefore: if time runs on too much, I may have to interrupt members or witnesses, in the interests of brevity.

I ask the witnesses briefly to introduce themselves.