Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sir Mike, do you have a comment on that?

Good morning to our panel. I kick off with some questions specifically on the mental health moratorium, in particular the eligibility criteria, which Sarah-Jayne Dunn mentioned earlier.

The mental health moratorium working group recommended that only people who are subject to compulsory mental health treatment should be eligible for the moratorium. That is quite a narrow definition, as Sarah-Jayne mentioned. It is narrower than the criteria in England and Wales, which cover non-compulsory crisis treatment. Is the definition that was recommended by the working group wide enough to support people who are facing mental health challenges when it comes to debt?

It could still be quite challenging for somebody who has a mental health problem to do that within 12 weeks.

Becca Stacey mentioned the breathing space scheme in England and Wales and your organisation’s involvement in developing that. What lessons can we learn from that with regard to the eligibility criteria in Scotland?

Do you have a view on whether the criteria that are being recommended by the working group should be narrower?

I am sure that my colleagues will have questions on those issues.

Yes, that is right.

Do you have a view on the criteria for the mental health moratorium? The working group recommends that it should apply only to those who are subject to compulsory mental health treatment. Do you think that that is too narrow?

Alisdair MacPherson, do you have a view on that?

Good morning, panel. I will kick off with questions on the mental health moratorium, starting with ones on the mental health moratorium working group’s recommendations for eligibility criteria. The group has recommended that only people who are subject to compulsory mental health treatment should be eligible for the moratorium. That is quite a narrow definition—narrower than the criteria in England and Wales, which cover non-compulsory crisis treatment. Do the witnesses have a view on that recommendation by the working group? If you do not agree with it, what do you think the eligibility criteria should be?

Katie McLachlan, you mentioned the moratorium in your opening comments, so do you want to start the ball rolling?

You have strayed into my second question, so I am just going to go for it now. The six-month period was extended from six weeks. Do you think that that should be changed now? Presumably, based on what you are saying, the two are connected, so should the mental health moratorium period be the same as the standard moratorium period? What should that period be? The six-month period has been in place for some time, and a number of respondents to our call for evidence said that the mental health moratorium should be six months, while others said that that was too long. Do you have a view on that?