Seòmar agus comataidhean

Public debt, which is debt that is owed to public authorities, including local authorities, is a growing issue for struggling households. Unlike private debt, it is not covered by Financial Conduct Authority regulation, which compels lenders to take measures to ensure that debtors are treated fairly, with consideration given to vulnerabilities.

Amendments 22 and 23 provide the committee with two options for addressing gaps in regulation. They would require ministers to provide regulations asking for local authorities that are pursuing debt to engage in a reasonable manner and with due regard to the position of the debtor. In particular, amendment 23 includes a provision that would ensure that debtors would get help to maximise their income through identified income maximisation services, which would help with servicing the debt that is owed to local authorities and would help debtors to get free of debt by ensuring that they fully accessed their potential income.

Amendment 22 is a more detailed version of the pre-action requirements and is based on rent arrears regulations. Amendment 23 offers a more simplified approach that might offer wider flexibility to ministers in that space, and it includes the aforementioned detail on income maximisation.

I believe that it is important that we have this debate about how to support people in this area. I have lodged my two amendments to provide options to the committee for discussion.

We were looking at where the bulk of public debt falls, which is on local authorities, and we found, through some of the work that we have looked at, that there are often variances in how local authorities pursue debt and in the support that they give to people who require to repay that debt. Organisations such as Aberlour Child Care Trust have piloted a number of such schemes across Scotland, including in Dundee, to address how local authorities might interact with people differently in that space. In the light of that work, we were keen to bring forward regulations that ensure that there is a more uniform approach among local authorities.

On Mr Whittle’s point about singling out or targeting local authorities, I do not think that that is the intention. It is about public debt more broadly, but it is also about the fact that the lion’s share of debt that is collected—whether council tax, housing rent or school meal debt—is collected via local authorities. That is why the burden falls so heavily on local authorities.

That said, we recognise that the regulations would come with a potential financial implication for local authorities because of what they seek to do, and we would be keen to push the Government on the support that it offers to local authorities in that regard, as it has done with things such as school meal debt.

As I have said, the policy intent is to provide for regulations on actions that local authorities must take prior to pursuing debt that is owed to them and to require ministers to make provisions so that the debtor is aware of what is going to happen and has full support to maximise their income prior to the debt being collected.

Public debt is a significant and pressing issue in Scotland. As I mentioned, Aberlour has done a huge amount of work on the issue, and it highlighted in 2023 that 55 per cent of low-income families in Scotland that are in receipt of universal credit had at least one deduction from their monthly income to cover debts to public bodies.

Amendments 22 and 23 will begin the process of ensuring that public debt and debtors are treated fairly and with the same consideration that is required in relation to regulations on private lenders. The amendments seek to make the process around public debt collection fairer by creating more space for regulations that ensure that local authorities provide debtors with adequate information on the nature of their debt and the support that is available to them through debt advice packages. Similar actions were taken on rent arrears through Covid legislation, and these amendments are very much based on that.

Particularly important, given the scale of public debt, is that the duty to engage with income maximisation services would greatly help people who are in debt to boost their incomes and start to get out of a cycle of problem debt, and it would help local authorities to create more income for families to service the debts that they owe public creditors.

I move amendment 22.

I wish to respond briefly. I have set out in detail the intent behind amendments 22 and 23, which is to ensure that people have all the support and advice that is required prior to the commencement of debt. Some important projects are on-going. I note that my amendments have been lodged after a long discussion with Aberlour, as I have said, and with support from Citizens Advice Scotland. It is important that we take a step forward on these important issues at this stage.

On amendment 29, perhaps this is a difference of opinion, but it was our intent that the rates that the 10 per cent surcharge exemption provision would apply to would be all rates and not just non-domestic rates. I appreciate that the minister has arrived at a different position in that it applies only to non-domestic rates, but it is our view that the surcharge should be limited across all rates. That position is supported by Citizens Advice Scotland and Aberlour.

It is important that, as a package, the amendments would provide more clarity across all 32 local authorities and would provide more support for people to break out of a cycle of problem debt.

I seek to withdraw it.

Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 23 moved—[Paul O’Kane].

Amendment 26, in my name, deals with minimum protected balances for debtors. As we have heard, minimum protected bank balances provide individuals with a level of security in case of hardship and prevent them from being pushed into desperate circumstances by aggressive debt pursual. However, the value of that protected balance can be retained only if there is a measure of uprating; otherwise, as inflation continues over time, the protected balance may become less and less valuable to the debtor. The amendment therefore clarifies that ministers should examine the level of protected balances on an annual basis without creating an automatic uplift. It would create a presumption in favour of the uplift, but it would allow for extraneous circumstances and parliamentary scrutiny in order to give proportionality.

The amendment deals with minimum protected balances as set out in section 73F of the 1987 act, and inserts an obligation on ministers to—as I said—increase the minimum protected balance each year. The amendment is similar to other protections as outlined in this group, as it protects the balances of people who find themselves in problem debt and are trying to break out of that cycle. We know that the principle of uprating is used across various different parts of Government policy, in particular for annual uprating of social security payments, which are frequently uprated by inflation to provide income security for vulnerable individuals in difficult financial times, as we have just been through.

As I said, the affirmative procedure means that there is not an automatic process of uprating; rather, it can be scrutinised by Parliament with reference to specific economic circumstances in each financial year. However, it will be assumed that the provision would create a presumption in favour of uprating of minimum protected balances.

Good morning to the panel. Following on from that point, I am interested in how the current process is working in transferring people from personal independence payment to adult disability payment or child disability payment. How quickly is the authorisation process working for the people who are being transferred? Does anyone have views on, or insights into, the current process?

If there is further information, that would be helpful to the committee.

Does anyone else have a view, based on the work that you are doing with other groups?

That was really helpful, and you have, I think, raised an important point about capacity more broadly, and about building the capacity that will underpin these services.

In relation to harder-to-reach groups, Dr Howe mentioned people who feel inhibited to access PrEP for many reasons. I know that the Terrence Higgins Trust has looked in some detail at the transgender community, intravenous drug users, heterosexual men who have sex with men, and black and minority ethnic populations. How do we encourage greater access for those groups?

Good morning. In the opening remarks and through the conversation, we have spoken about PrEP, which it is important for us to consider further. The Scottish Government has been developing an online PrEP clinic, which would allow people to order the medication without having to go through specialists, as we heard. I ask the witnesses to provide an update on the progress of that.

Thank you for that very comprehensive overview for the committee. Members might not always have been fully aware of the issues.

I do not know whether anyone else wants to add anything, but I was wondering, Dr Howe, whether you have a view on rurality and, say, the Highland area and the impact of this approach with regard to getting the service out more widely in a geographically challenging area.