Chamber and committees

Thank you. Finally, I invite Brian Whittle to declare any relevant interests.

Before I bring in Maggie Chapman, I have a point to make. What we are looking at in considering the bill is simply agreeing to the principle of a mental health moratorium. We are not agreeing the detail of it. Some of the correspondents said that it was difficult to give an authoritative view on the bill because they do not know what the scheme will actually look like.

You have mentioned the breathing space scheme in England and Wales and the working group seems to be heading towards a model that is very similar to that. Why do we not just introduce the breathing space scheme so that we all know what we will be voting on? Are there any problems with that scheme? Alisdair MacPherson, you seem to be familiar with it: are there problems? Are there likely to be any changes to what we have in Scotland? We seem to be holding up progress and I am not sure what the point of that is.

Therefore, if a creditor receives nothing back from the bank, there is just an assumption that there is not enough money but there is no confirmation that that is the situation. Is that how it operates at the moment?

With regard to the bill’s timescales, there seems to be support for the bill, with many people being largely happy with it as it is. However, if more significant work needs to be done on it, that will take time. You recognise that people are living through a difficult situation; while we wait for the solutions to come, some are having to live through the current situation. Are you confident that, given the timescales involved, people will benefit enough from this? I am taking into account the fact that you want things to be thorough and you want the right kind of legislation, but is there also a recognition of the need for effective change in this area to support people in very difficult situations?

I am sorry, but we might discuss that in private session. The issue that we face at the moment is whether the bill should include the principle of a mental health moratorium, but we do not know the detail. Would there be any merit at this stage in writing to the minister? It is unclear whether the Government intends to include anything beyond what is statutory, but we can discuss that when we come to private session.

I think that we have a note that said that ICAS and the Insolvency Practitioners Association were not going to particularly comment on the diligence reform, so we can maybe focus on Katie McLachlan and Alisdair MacPherson.

Thank you. I call Colin Smyth.

Thank you. I now invite Ash Regan to declare any relevant interests.

There is an argument that there should be a sense of urgency; we are in a cost of living crisis, with pressures on people’s household incomes, and the Government could be doing more in this area. Although the statutory legislation before us contains provision for a mental health moratorium, the other parts of the bill represent fairly technical and minor adjustments, so it could be seen that the Government is not taking strong enough action.

You have mentioned the regulations, but do we have any confidence that those will be imminent? The argument is that they could happen more quickly, but it looks as though we are dealing with the statutory legislation more quickly and that the areas on which people actually want to see action are the ones that we are waiting on.

Thank you.

David Menzies, what are your views? There are arguments around whether the bill lacks a sense of urgency, given that we are in a cost of living crisis. As I have said, many of the responses that we have had are pushing for more than the bill offers. Is that a fair comment?