Chamber and committees

I have two brief questions about the moratorium before I bring in Gordon MacDonald. The consultation suggests that the Government is considering a public register of people who have participated in a mental health moratorium. Will you share with the committee the reasoning behind that?

Will you expand a bit on that? We have heard concerns about someone who decides to access a mental health moratorium. Other members have spoken about the stigma around mental health. Given that it would be a public register, what would that mean for a person’s future, perhaps when they are looking for other financial support? Are you not concerned that people who access a mental health moratorium will be on a public register for everybody to see? There are concerns around that.

Does anyone else want to comment in response to that question? I see that Daria Shapovalova does. As a way of organising the meeting, Daria, we will direct our questions initially to you, and you can then invite the other witnesses to comment if you wish. That will make it easier.

I have a couple of questions on diligence reform. We received some representation about the arrestment reforms in the bill. The banking sector was particularly concerned because the bill would mean that banks and employers would have to tell creditors why attempts to arrest a debtor’s assets had been unsuccessful. That would change the current situation, in which they do not have to inform creditors. They are concerned about extra costs and wonder whether, rather than requiring arrestees always to provide a reason why an arrestment has failed, the Government would consider arrestees being required to respond only if they are asked why an arrestment has failed. I do not know what discussions or reflections the Government has had around that.

I thank the minister and the other witnesses for joining us. That brings us to the end of the evidence session. I briefly suspend the meeting for a changeover of witnesses.

I will ask a question that follows on from Evelyn Tweed’s question about whether the Scottish Government could follow a similar process. As you mentioned, we are still waiting for the Scottish Government’s just transition plan for the north-east, and also one for Grangemouth. The committee undertook an inquiry into the situation at Grangemouth. Given the recent announcement about its future, it is more pressing than ever that we have that plan. What is the status of your work? Have you had discussions with the Scottish Government? I think that you said that the model involves 18 months of work. One of the frustrations that we have experienced in our inquiry so far is that we are wondering where the indicators are and how we will know whether a just transition has happened. Have you had discussions with the Government about the work that has been produced?

Thank you for those very helpful opening remarks, which reflect some of the issues that we have been discussing over the past few weeks. For a start, we have heard from various panels about a lack of a shared understanding. There is, as you said, a high-level understanding of what just transition is, but when we ask people what it might mean for their sectors or communities, we get different answers. Do you think that that is problematic? Is that partly why you have undertaken your piece of work? Is the intention to try to establish an agreed set of measures or some shared understanding on the matter?

There is a public register.

It is in the consultation, but do you anticipate that being something that you would want to include in a Scottish moratorium, to bring it into line with England?

That would not have to be done too often, because it would be a move from the current amount to £1,000, so that the level is the same as that for bank arrestments. I think that that would happen infrequently.