Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a similar basis, I will not move that amendment.

Amendment 21 not moved.

I will be relatively brief. My fundamental view is that, although we can provide people with the ability to do things, that does not necessarily mean that they will have the wherewithal, understanding or knowledge to take up those possibilities. That is particularly true when people are having to deal with potentially complicated financial matters at a point when they are in severe distress.

Amendments 24, 27 and 28 are about ensuring that people are provided with debt advice and information in a timely manner, so that they can take up the provisions that the bill will provide for. Amendment 30 would ensure that the Government collected and published data outlining whether people had taken up that advice.

In a sense, my amendments are quite simple: they are about ensuring that people have the information and that we understand how that information is being used.

I move amendment 24.

I will follow on from what Paul O’Kane and Colin Smyth have said. The key concern with the bill is not about the principle or its intent. The need to provide debt moratoriums for people who are in distress is well understood, and those arguments are well made. The issue is that this is a framework bill that does not provide much clarity on what impact a moratorium would have and on what the Government would be required to bring forward.

Section 1(2) includes various criteria regarding the regulations that the Government may bring forward, but there is no requirement for it to do so, nor does the list limit the range of things on which regulations may be made.

Indeed, under section 1(3), the Government will be able to make regulations that affect “any enactment”—any act of Parliament—and for any purpose. It is a very broad set of powers, and there is no clarity on precisely what will be introduced or what its impact will be. Given that we are talking about debt, which is a fundamental part of the way in which our economy works, and about its impact on individuals, it is important that any regulations that the Government introduces under the bill are properly scrutinised. That is the intent of my amendments 20 and 21.

Amendment 20 would create a duty to consult before regulations are introduced. I have stipulated the types of organisations and agencies that the Government should consult. I contend that one might want to go further than that and clarify the type of consultation that ought to take place.

Amendment 21 sets out a time period and would place a requirement on the Government to come back to a committee of the Parliament to consult with it regarding the issue. If the measures were being introduced through primary legislation, that is exactly what the Government would have to do. It would have to consult widely with the relevant agencies and seek feedback, and there would have to be a stage 1 report.

The Government will say that the bill has been framed in the way that it has been framed in order to provide flexibility, so that it can get the measures right. However, although that may suit the Government and enable it to do its work, it will not enable the sort of public scrutiny and the detailed inquiry that the committee has been undertaking with the primary legislation. The reality is that the detailed measures will not get that level of scrutiny. Ultimately, we need steps such as a stage 1 report, stage 2 amendments and stage 3 finalisation to ensure that we get the measures right. To go back to a previous point, when we are talking about matters of financial distress and debt, we are talking about matters that are of fundamental importance and an area where there can often be unintended consequences. Therefore, quite simply, that level of scrutiny is required.

Furthermore, I would like the Government to consider whether it should limit the powers that are being conferred under section 1. The fact that we have an unlimited list and such broadly framed regulation-making powers is not appropriate. At the very least, the powers should be referred to in the long title of the bill—that is not unreasonable. It is not reasonable for ministers to seek powers under any piece of legislation, not just this one, that will enable them to introduce regulations on any matter that they so desire.

The fundamental principle is that people need to be provided with advice in a timely manner. I hear what the minister is saying about not wanting to put undue pressure on already stretched services, but I contend that that probably suggests that there is a need for more help and advice to be provided. Rather than the proposal creating an issue, I think that it highlights a need that requires to be met.

I recognise that there are implications, and the amendments are very much probing amendments. The minister is offering to have further discussions, and I am very happy with that. It is about maintaining good information that can be used and deployed by anyone, and perhaps there is a way through with that in mind.

On that basis, I will seek to withdraw amendment 24 and will not move the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 24, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

After section 2

There is a lot of merit in the proposal to exempt people who are doing useful things, both economically and socially, and people who are vulnerable or who are having to use accommodation through no fault of their own. However, my concern is about how the exemption would work and be policed, enforced and verified. Would we ask people to prove their reason for staying? What would stop people saying, “Just tick the box when you register because no one’s going to ask”? My concern is that the exemption would be exploited by people who do not have good intentions. I absolutely recognise that the amendment has good intentions, but I worry about people who do not.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, in that I am a director and sole shareholder in a company that holds retail interests. I know what it is like to have to implement changes and new charges in a small business. Sometimes it is easy, but sometimes it is not so easy.

I wish to make two fundamental points in speaking to amendments 38 and 39. First, we need to consider the practical realities for very small businesses in implementing new charges. There is also an important point about the interaction between the proposed levy and VAT, including the sometimes complex nature of having to comply with VAT rules and, for many small businesses, having to pay VAT. The levy potentially adds to that complexity.

On the first point, as somebody with a retail background, I recall changes in the VAT regime and the introduction of the bag charge. Neither of those things was unwelcome—indeed, the VAT changes were very welcome at the time—but they were not always easy to implement. I remember spending one night until midnight in my shops, trying to get my tills working properly for the next morning, and that was not straightforward; it was also stressful. We should bear that in mind when we are asking for changes to be made not just for businesses but often for activities that sit alongside main businesses. The proposals might well represent a very significant additional administrative burden.

There are many forms of very small accommodation throughout Scotland that are important for our mix and our offer as a country. They often consist of just one or two bedrooms, and they are very much not the main economic activity—they might be on a farm, for instance. Those businesses are essentially run from a school exercise jotter and a cash tin. The assumption that is being made in this case, which is often made when Government makes such proposals, is that the change is as simple as adding a button to the till or adding a parameter to a computer system. Sometimes that is the case, but not for the smallest businesses. My amendments therefore seek to create a category, defined either by number of rooms provided or by a turnover threshold, that would exempt such businesses. My amendments would exempt from the scheme the very smallest businesses, which would find it difficult to administer the levy.

Secondly, as far as we are aware, the levy will be liable to VAT, and we need to be mindful of the interaction with it. Most other countries in Europe do not have VAT levied on accommodation. Pam Gosal’s amendments, both in their purposes and in highlighting that interaction with VAT, are therefore very important. I do not think that members should be under any illusion: VAT is not necessarily a straightforward tax, either to administer on behalf of Government or to administer on behalf of businesses. It is often a struggle for people to ensure that they can pay their VAT bill. It requires a degree of cash-flow management, which is a burden that we are placing on businesses. The levy will not just add a charge; there will be 20 per cent on top of it, too. In imposing the levy, we are adding complexity, and we need to consider the smallest businesses.

On Pam Gosal’s amendment 16, although we need to be mindful of the time and cost that might be required of businesses, I note that, with other taxes and levies, we do not give money back to businesses. When I was in business, I might have liked it if HM Revenue & Customs had given me a rebate for the time that it took me to prepare my tax returns—unfortunately, it did not. I wonder what precedent that would set. However, the point about giving consideration to time and cost to businesses is important.

My amendments are probing amendments. I recognise that they might not—

Will the minister give way?

I am not the minister, Ms Gosal—unfortunately.

I was merely pointing out that, when it came to preparing my corporation tax and VAT, I was unable to claw back money for that. I really appreciate the point that we need to be mindful about the time and cost that will be required by businesses to prepare for the levy, but we need to ensure that we do so in a consistent manner.

As I was saying, although I recognise that my amendments, as drafted, might not be practical, the principle is about ensuring that we recognise the smallest microbusinesses, give consideration to them and, where appropriate, seek to exempt them.

Of course.