Chamber and committees

I take on board that amendments 13 and 14 would allow the use of, for example, electronic means as a way of serving arrestment schedules. That is understandable and a better use of technology, but I ask the minister to say more about how he intends to tackle the unintended consequences that Alan McIntosh has highlighted.

Mr McIntosh identified that the amendment removes the requirement that an earnings arrestment schedule can be issued personally only if there is a reason why it cannot be served on an employer by registered post or by recorded delivery. That is important because the current cost to do so by post is £42.91, whereas the cost of using a personal delivery service would be £86.02, which is more than double the cost. Given that more than 50,000 earnings arrests were served in 2022-23, the cost implications of that change are significant and would ultimately land on the debtor.

I hope that the minister will confirm whether he is considering reintroducing the requirement that the use of postal services should remain the preference ahead of personal delivery, and that personal delivery should be used only if postal services or electronic means cannot be used, given the cost of that to the debtor.

I am not clear from the minister’s comments about whether the Government is committed to setting out sanctions for creditors in regulations. However, in the light of the commitment that we will see those regulations before stage 3, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 16 not moved.

Amendment 16, in my name, provides that, when regulations are made under section 1(2)(e), they must provide for sanctions for creditors who do not abide by the moratorium and for a complaints process for debtors.

Section 1 provides that the Scottish ministers

“may by regulations make provision”

about

“the consequences (if any) for creditors”

who abuse the moratorium. There must be a firm commitment to introduce sanctions for those who ignore the mental health moratorium. The existing plans advise that a debt adviser may inform the relevant authorities or regulatory bodies about a creditor’s misconduct, but there is no detail on who those authorities or regulatory bodies would be. The Scottish Government must set out what the practical consequences will be for creditors who do not adhere to the obligations and advise which relevant authorities or regulatory bodies will be responsible for enforcing the consequences. Without proper sanctions, the integrity of the moratorium may be compromised, as we have seen in England and Wales.

Amendment 17 provides that, when a mental health moratorium is established by regulations, those regulations may not make provision to make information about applicants publicly available. That would mean that there could not be a public register and that such information could not be published in another way. Serious concerns have been raised with the committee that creating a public record of people’s significant mental health issues could create undue stigma. Going through a mental health crisis can be daunting enough for someone without the added worry that that information could be made public. That could deter people from applying for the scheme and, therefore, severely limit its effectiveness, which might already be very limited, given the very tight proposed criteria.

The initial mental health moratorium consultation highlighted that the Scottish Government was considering the development of a public register of people who accessed the mental health moratorium if that could

“be done in a way that does not unduly stigmatise the individual.”

However, it is not clear how that would be achieved, and there is scepticism that there is any capacity to build a public register in a way that would not cause undue stigma.

Furthermore, mental health moratoriums that operate across the rest of the United Kingdom do not use a public register and, in my view, there is no requirement for one in Scotland.

I am very supportive of the other amendments in the group from Paul O’Kane and Daniel Johnson, who have highlighted the real concerns that the committee has heard. Their amendments very much speak to the committee’s view that the current criteria relating to a mental health moratorium are far too restrictive. That should change, either in the bill or through a process that allows the Parliament to properly scrutinise the criteria.

I will follow up on the point about monitoring fair work. It is fair to say that you assess the fair work commitments from the main contractor but, if you have awarded a contract, you do not monitor anything beyond that when the contractor subcontracts. Is that the case? Is that entirely a resource issue?

I presume that that is the case for the other witnesses, too.

Melanie Mackenzie indicated agreement.

Lynette Robertson indicated agreement.

I have a final question about resources. Craig Fergusson has already touched on the resource challenge that you would have when going beyond primary contractors. You are having to make millions of pounds of savings every year. Has there been a drive to use procurement as part of those savings? Are local authorities absolutely pushing procurement as a way to save money? If so, that is, I presume, in tension with buying fair trade goods. Is that fair to say?

That line has been used in my local authority. People have said, “You can get the paper clips in the shop round the corner, so why are you ordering them from there?”

Scotland is a fair trade nation, and public procurement is an important part of that. A few years ago, the Scottish Fair Trade Forum did a piece of work that involved making freedom of information requests to find out how much public bodies were spending on fair trade products. To say that there was a mixed bag would be an understatement. I do not think that Scottish Water spent anything on that. It might well be that it does not monitor that or capture that information, but Scottish Water certainly said that it had no expenditure on fair trade products. The expenditure by colleges and universities varied. The University of Edinburgh had done some innovative work on using fair trade graduation gowns and it had a specific contract for that, but others said that they did not spend anything. Again, it probably comes down to how such expenditure is monitored. The NHS varied from board to board. There were some big figures in some areas but very little was spent in others.

Is fair trade on your agenda with regard to the procurement of products? What do you do about it?

I suppose that there is no requirement to publish the figures on fair trade procurement, despite Scotland being a fair trade nation.

Does Lynette Robertson or Craig Fergusson want to add anything to that?