Seòmar agus comataidhean

Having information about what is happening in public services is very important. I appreciate that you spoke for health boards there. However, from the evidence I have head, it is clear to me that stigma exists across the public sector. I have had conversations with people who have dealt with the police and found it very difficult. We know that Police Scotland is facing a number of challenges at the moment. There is a degree to which we need to reflect on how well training is given in parts of public services. We have also heard about people in education settings, for example, where stigma still persists.

Will you expand on what can be done outwith health settings so that people can report their experience and for that information to be properly collated? My concern is that we do not have a good picture of what is happening across the services that the Government is responsible for delivering.

I am sure that the committee would welcome more information on the cross-cutting nature of stigma and what more the Government can do to deal with it. I am sure that your ministerial colleagues must see that it is an issue for everyone; not just people who are in health roles.

I want to touch on the HIV transmission elimination delivery plan and the extent to which individual plans across the country obtain data that will help us to understand the timescales. It sounds as though it will be some time before Public Health Scotland will be able to track the progress of such plans and ensure that rich data is available from them. What more can the Government do to expedite capacity at Public Health Scotland to move matters forward? We know that that is crucial, and that understanding the progress of such plans is crucial to seeing how we are doing.

Do you recognise people’s frustration about the need to go faster and to have a better and clearer picture? If we are serious about the ambitious targets that we have set, we will need to have data. As I said in my previous question, we need to be able to mark our own homework, look at our progress and understand where the gaps are. Throughout our evidence sessions the committee has heard that we need to have that data. I was encouraged by the response to my previous question about providing further information, but do you recognise and understand that frustration?

The bill requires DWP appointees to be authorised by Social Security Scotland

“as soon as reasonably practical”.

What are your general expectations about how long it should take Social Security Scotland to authorise an appointee? We had a discussion with other witnesses about timescales and expectations, so it would be good to get your sense of that.

Good morning. I will start with a broad question. What experience do you have of the existing appointee system under the DWP and Social Security Scotland? What has been your experience of that process?

Those answers are helpful. On some of the practical suggestions, I am sensing frustration about blockages, if I can use that expression, in the system. The bill will create empowering opportunities, but a lot of the detail comes down to how the system operates in practice. Is Social Security Scotland engaging with some of the suggestions that Vicki Cahill made or with the conversation about a more automated process, as Fiona Collie suggested?

On the basis of what I have said, I seek to withdraw amendment 18.

Amendment 18, as amended, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 19 not moved.

I reiterate the purpose of my amendment 18. It is clear from the debate that people want clarity and certainty about a mental health moratorium that goes beyond what has been proposed in the bill as introduced. The framework that I have used in my amendment models some of the areas that were covered by the committee report, and it considers how we expand the framework beyond formal emergency care.

Community settings are important, too, in acknowledging that people can access treatment for crisis in communities and in a variety of ways. It is important that we reflect on that.

As I said at the outset, there is a variance of views among those who have been consulted. For example, I acknowledge that Change Mental Health has been very supportive of the approach that I have taken through amendment 18, whereas Citizens Advice Scotland, which sits on the working group, has said that things should perhaps be done in a different way that allows for the flexibility that the minister has described.

On reflection, it is clear to me that putting something in the bill gives certainty and clarity, although I appreciate the minister’s point about having flexibility. One of the arguments that has been put to me is that mental health law will change and that there has been a consultation process on that change. I do not think that that is insurmountable—something could be put into legislation and then be amended should, for example, mental health law change.

However, I recognise colleagues’ point about people’s lived experience and about those in the sector who have a view on the issue and might want to inform how we change the regulations on the moratorium in a more flexible way.

I also recognise the minister’s offer to find consensus on a wider moratorium that reaches more people and gives them the support that they need when they are in debt crisis. A debate remains about whether we do that in the bill or through regulations. I am encouraged by the minister’s willingness to further discuss any secondary legislation that he would want to introduce and anything that he would want the committee and the Parliament to scrutinise. I am willing to have that conversation, as I am sure my colleagues are. However, I reserve the right to carry out further consultation with stakeholders and to bring back a proposal at stage 3, if I think that that is the right thing to do.

My colleagues Daniel Johnson and Colin Smyth have clearly outlined the strengths and importance of their amendments.

I will end my comments here. I am happy to press manuscript amendment 18A, which amends amendment 18.

Amendment 18A agreed to.

On the basis that the minister and I have a difference of opinion, I will move the amendment.

Amendment 29 moved—[Paul O’Kane].

Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, colleagues on the committee and minister.

I begin by offering my apologies for the need for a manuscript amendment. In my haste to get amendments lodged before the deadline, I failed to note a typographical error in my original amendment 18, which set the moratorium period at 30 days. Let me be clear that that was an error. I support the longer period that is now noted in the manuscript amendment. That is an explanation to the committee of the need for amendment 18A.

I will now speak to amendment 18 and its purpose. I understand that the committee has discussed the matter of a moratorium at length, in the light of the evidence that it heard during its stage 1 proceedings, that there is no universal agreement on the provisions that should or should not be included in a moratorium, and that there is a variance of views. I also understand that there has been a degree of debate about whether to have a moratorium established through the bill or in regulations.

I have lodged amendments 18 and 19 because it is important that we have more detail on how a moratorium might work and whom a moratorium might best serve. By doing that in the bill, we can have certainty and clarity on the moratorium more widely. My amendments have been lodged so that we can have a clear debate on the issue this morning.

I am happy to speak briefly to what amendment 18 would do regarding that moratorium. My amendment would give greater permanence to and clarity on the structure of any mental health moratorium by establishing in law that a moratorium on debt collection in cases of mental ill health will exist; establishing the conditions under which the individual is deemed to be receiving mental health crisis treatment; establishing who can apply for the moratorium on the debtor’s behalf; establishing what must be contained in any application for a moratorium; and establishing the length that any such moratorium would last if granted to a debtor.

It was clear from my engagement with a number of organisations that, as I said, there is a variance of views. However, on balance, many mental health organisations are keen to see the moratorium outlined in the bill and for the provision to be broader than what has been proposed by the Government, so that we do not just deal with initial emergency treatment but go wider and deal with care in community spaces.

I will briefly touch on the other amendments in the group. Amendment 16, in the name of Colin Smyth, would compel ministers to make provisions in regulations for enforcement of the moratorium and for sanctioning of creditors who did not abide by the regulations. The amendment would sit quite neatly with what I have outlined in amendment 18 by ensuring that people were compelled to comply with the outlined moratorium.

I also support amendments 20 and 21, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which push the Government on how it will consult Parliament and this committee on any regulations pertaining to a moratorium, if a moratorium is not established through the bill. Regardless of whether my amendments are agreed to, it is vital that we have a debate on a moratorium and that such a moratorium is clearly scrutinised by the Parliament and, crucially, by the stakeholders that I have mentioned, particularly those in the advice and mental health support sectors, to ensure that the moratorium works, is enforceable and provides the most benefit to the people who need it.

I move amendments 18 and 18A.