Y next item of business is a debate on motion 12070, in the name of Tom Arthur, on bankruptcy and diligence Scotland Bill at stage 1. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons and I call on Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion up to 14 minutes, minister. Thank you. I'm grateful for the opportunity to address the chamber today on the general themo Wizard of The Bankrupty and Diligent Scotland Bill, and, in doing so, we move the motion in my name. This is not a big bill, and it is not a radical reform. This reflects the fact that our bankruptcy system in Scotland is widely perceived as meeting our needs, but it does represent a chance to make things better for a small number of individuals withfer severe debt problems and severe mental health issues. Llywodraeth ym Gweldol a Llywodraeth yn gyllideb yn gweld, ac mae cyhoedd Gweldol wedi'i dod i gael gyflym iawn i ddweud i cael fyddfa o'r cymysgafol cyfwydau cystecholu. Pan wlawn i gael cymysgafol ac cyffredinais cymysgafol o'r cymysgafol yw'r defnydd. Pan wlawn i gael i dd Wayd Pwys yn Loryfffoil y Comysgafol ac pan ddim yn cymysgafol gan cyfwydiannol cynnig pwysig ymgylch, ac wedi dd Statiwyd yn cyd-dweud ym lyf hyn. The proposals in this bill come from stakeholder-led groups who looked at each of the statutory debt solutions to determine what improvements could be made. They have been subject to extensive public consultation. They reflect those stakeholder recommendations that have achieved a level of consensus and where the change requires primary legislation. The stakeholders involved each represent their own areas of interest and therefore have come from different perspectives. Creditors, advisers representing those who are struggling with debt, trustees and sheriff's officers were amongst those working together to make improvements to our debt solutions and diligence. I would like to pay tribute to the work of all stakeholders whose recommendations are being brought forward and enabled by the bill. The bill will create the enabling power for a mental health moratorium to help to improve the lives of people who are struggling with debt and serious mental health issues. The mental health moratorium meets a recommendation made in the social justice and social security committee report, Robin Peter to pay Paul, on their inquiry into low-income and problem debt. The bill is intended to enable specific proposals for the moratorium based on the advice of the mental health moratorium working group. I am very grateful to Tom Arthur for giving me. Does he not recognise that the very fact that this is an enabling bill, rather than a bill that sets out criteria and mechanisms and thresholds, makes it quite difficult for us to scrutinise the bill as to whether or not it will deliver on the intent that it sets out? Does he recognise that that is a weakness, as the Parliament considers it this afternoon? I think that the member makes a fair point, and it is something that I will turn to as I progress through my prepared remarks. I would like to commend the members of the mental health moratorium working group. The members of that working group also included mental health professionals, who were able to contribute professional expertise in the field of mental health and draw lessons from the mental health crisis moratorium introduced in England and Wales in 2021. The whole problem with the recommendations of the working group is that, if the Government eventually produces those as their specific proposals, it will give people in the situation of suffering mental health and financial crisis less protection in Scotland than people in a similar situation in England and Wales. That cannot be right, can it? I will come on to further detail of what we would take forward in the regulations, but the detail of how that will work in practice will be set out in regulations. I want to know that I accept the recommendations of the economy and fair work committee that those details should be scrutinised by the committee ahead of stage 3 of the bill. We have recently completed a consultation on proposals for those regulations and the feedback that is being analysed. At a very high level, I can confirm that the majority of respondents were in favour of most of the proposals, subject to the caveat that responses were qualified by their narrative comments and that we have agreed to allow a short extension to accommodate those stakeholders who have asked for additional time. I can, however, add that one point in which it is clear that comments will need to be carefully considered is in terms of the eligibility criteria for the moratorium on which there are a range of views, and that is also noted in the stage 1 report of the economy and fair work committee. The protections that could potentially be offered to someone who is eligible for this scheme are quite significant, and I therefore want to be cautious against setting the eligibility criteria too widely. We do not want to discourage creditors from lending to the group that we are most trying to help. That is something that I am keen to avoid, and I am therefore looking to find a good balance. We already have a standard moratorium in place that currently gives those struggling with debts six months protection from creditors. It provides them time to decide how best to deal with their debts, and for many this standard moratorium will be sufficient. The committee's report recommends that we should increase the protection for persons under a mental health moratorium, specifically in relation to eviction and the installation of prepayment metres. It remains in my view that we already have measures in place in Scotland to protect people from eviction, including a statutory requirement for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, to consider the reasonableness of granting an eviction in all cases, including where there are arrears of rent. However, I will look into the matter to provide assurance on this point. Pre-payment metres may be more difficult to address, but I can confirm that. I am writing to the United Kingdom Government on that, and I am happy to consider what further action might be needed here. I will keep the committee fully informed. The working group recommended that the moratorium would not be appropriate where a debtor lacks the capacity to consent. I note that the committee has recommended that that should be reconsidered. That was an issue discussed in the recent consultation. I will look at that again in light of the committee's views once I have had a chance to consider the consultation responses. I will also look at the committee's concerns about the public register and how that can be introduced in a way that addresses its concerns. I am mindful that that is well as protecting the interests of the individuals entering a mental health moratorium, but we also need to protect the legitimate interests of creditors. I will continue to look for a solution that can meet both of those objectives. I appreciate that concerns have been expressed about the extra pressure that may be placed on the advice sector by introducing a mental health moratorium. The advice sector has been helping to shape proposals, and I will continue to consider the potential impact on the sector as we seek to finalise the detail behind the scheme. I can also confirm that the Scottish Government will be working with the advice and mental health sectors to develop clear guidance and training to enable them to deliver the mental health moratorium. We will work with them to ensure that the tools that they need are available. When I gave my evidence to the committee, my colleague Kevin Stewart recommended that we should look at the Belift Experience Forum to seek input from them relevant to our proposals for the mental health moratorium. I can confirm that we have engaged with that forum and are arranging an event with them to do that. Other provisions in the bill make minor and technical amendments to the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016, but it would serve to provide clarity and improve the operation of the bankruptcy process. The bill will provide more efficient recovery processes to assist businesses and local authorities to collect debts from those who can pay, whilst importantly protecting those who are unable to pay. The bankruptcy and diligence provisions in the bill implement measures that were supported by stakeholders in response to a consultation carried out between August and October 2022. That consultation sought feedback on proposals from members of the working groups in stage 2 of the Scottish Government's review of the operation of existing statutory debt solutions. I am pleased to note the committee's support for the measures that are set out in the bill. I have noted the committee's recommendations, but amendments should be introduced at stage 2 to allow the discharge of trustees where debtors have not co-operated in their bankruptcy, also on the charging of statutory interest and recall of bankruptcy, and to extend the time in which a sheriff's officer could never warrant to cite a debtor in a petition for sequestration. I will look at those matters further in the light of the committee's report and consider whether amendments might be appropriate in those matters. There are some other matters raised by stakeholders in their evidence to the committee that we will look at but which can be addressed through secondary legislation. That would include such matters as the minimum period for a reapplying for bankruptcy under the minimum assets procedure and the minimum income for earnings harassment. As I said to the committee, I think that where things can be addressed in secondary legislation, that is often the best way in which to address them. I am committed to further engagement with stakeholders on those matters since, as the committee notes, there were also some concerns about unintended impacts raised in the evidence sessions. The working groups involved in looking at each of the statutory debt solutions also made recommendations that can be dealt with through secondary legislation. That bill is therefore part of a package of legislation, and together we will make important changes to our debt solutions. I expect to start bringing forward regulations later this month, and I will bring forward further regulations over the next few months. That will include important changes to protected trustees. As I have said, that bill is a part of a wider programme of reform, and we have commissioned an independent review to assess how far current statutory debt solutions meet the needs of a modern economy. That work has been taken forward by Yvonne McDermid, OBE. Yvonne brings a wealth of experience to this work, having served as chief executive at Money Advice Scotland for many years. Yvonne has been setting the foundations for this review, and we will shortly commence a set of stakeholder meetings to inform the work. In summary, that bill brings forward small but important changes to bankruptcy and diligence. The introduction of a mental health auditorium is an important step, and we will help those with the most severe mental health conditions and financial challenges. I very much look forward to hearing members' views this afternoon, and I ask them to support the bill at decision time. Thank you, and members may wish to know that we have time in hand this afternoon, and we hope to give back time where interventions are taken. I now call on Clare Baker to speak on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. Up to 13 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee in the role, as convener, in the stage 1 debate on the bankruptcy and diligence Scotland bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who responded to our call for views and the witnesses who gave evidence during our stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. I would also like to thank one parent family Scotland and the Poverty Alliance for engaging with the committee. Hearing the issues faced by those with lived experience of debt and mental health issues was valuable for my appreciation of the complexity of the issue and the reality of people struggling with their finances and debt. We recognise that it would not have been easy for them to share those experiences, and I sincerely thank those involved for being honest and open about their challenges. While the introduction of a mental health moratorium is widely supported, the committee has to be satisfied that it will support those who need to access this mechanism. Lastly, I would like to thank the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for highlighting relevant points from their robbing Peter to pay Paul low income and debt trap report. That is recognised as an important piece of work and we should all across all committees consider how we can give effect to their recommendations if the opportunity arises. As you can see from our stage 1 report, the committee is supportive of the bill's aims. The introduction of a mental health moratorium would be beneficial to those who need it, and we welcome the minor and technical reforms and modifications to both the Bankruptcy Scotland 2016 act and the law of diligence, Scotland's formal debt recovery mechanism. However, we were disappointed that the lack of detail made available to us during stage 1 scrutiny of the mental health moratorium as we were unable to discuss proposals in detail with stakeholders. More information on the Scottish Government's proposed policy direction was provided when the mental health moratorium consultation was published in November 2023, but that unfortunately came far too late for us to discuss in depth with our witnesses. We acknowledge that most of the detail pertaining to the mental health moratorium will be brought forward in regulations. We welcome the minister's undertaking to produce draft regulations ahead of stage 3 and to share them with the committee. We look forward to scrutinising them in detail. I recognise that the Government intends to run a further full consultation on the draft regulations, which will provide the committee with additional time to scrutinise regulations. One of the key areas for discussion this afternoon will be the criteria for qualifying for a mental health moratorium. Although the committee supports the introduction of a mental health moratorium, we are concerned that only a very small percentage of Scotland's population stands to benefit from the proposals. I recognise that the mental health moratorium working group agrees that only those who are subject to a compulsory treatment order or those receiving compulsory treatment under the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 should be eligible. We did hear evidence from some witnesses that it was preferable to start with a small cohort to ensure that the scheme works properly before possible expansion. However, one parent family Scotland and the poverty alliance said that the compulsory treatment order criteria would only help a very small number of people. The policy memorandum estimates between 112 and 500 people, but, as it is based on a more open entry criteria as it compares to breathing space, uptake is likely to be at the lower end of the scale. The policy memorandum also reports that one in two adults with debt have mental health problems and that one in four people with mental health problems are also in debt. We heard from South Lanarkshire Council that, for the mental health moratorium to have the biggest impact, it should be accessible to people who are receiving treatment in the community, not just those in hospitals or other institutions. It was also suggested that Scotland's standard moratorium of six months would provide sufficient respite for people struggling with mental health challenges. It was even suggested that it would be preferable, as it is easier to apply for compared to the information processes that would be required for a mental health moratorium. It does raise the question of how significant the introduction of a mental health moratorium is. Yes, it will be valuable for the small number of people who can access it, but we should recognise that the system that we already have in place does provide a degree of respite. Indeed, in replying to the committee, the minister argued that the current standard moratorium will be sufficient for many. During the pandemic, we saw the increase of a standard moratorium rise from six weeks to six months. Although the committee welcomes the minister's assurances that there are no immediate plans to reduce the standard moratorium, we are aware of a previous commitment that the increase would be temporary. The committee would be concerned if the criteria remains narrow and the standard moratorium was to return to six weeks, that that would leave many debtors in a vulnerable situation. The committee concluded that widening the entry criteria would enable more people to qualify for support, avoiding the unnecessary distress that might exacerbate someone's mental health issues. Although the Government's response so far does not appear convinced by our argument, there is to be further analysis of consultation responses, and the committee will scrutinise those once available. The committee does recognise that a mental health moratorium could not apply to everyone who has a mental health condition and debt challenges. However, we believe that the right balance has not been struck, and the policy risk being not sufficiently effective. The committee has identified three alternatives to the proposed entry criteria that we would encourage the minister to consider. The first is using the severely mentally impaired criteria from council tax legislation. While that is a recognised term in the local government finance act 1992, we strongly suggest that that term is stigmatising and outdated, and we draw this to the attention of the Scottish Government in the hope that the legislation can be updated. We welcome that the Government has said that it will look for an opportunity to amend that term in primary legislation. Notwithstanding the term, the criteria that is used by local authorities for assessing council tax should be considered. The second alternative is to use the debt and mental health evidence form that is currently used by the money advice sector to evaluate the impact of someone's mental health on their ability to manage their finances. That recognises the role of the professions who are supporting people in financial difficulties and supports their ability to make a judgment of a person's capacity to manage their situation. Thirdly, the committee proposes using similar criteria to the debt risk scheme in England and Wales, which is also known as breathing space. The mental health breathing space is open to anyone who is receiving mental health crisis treatment, as well as those who are receiving emergency or acute treatment. Entry to the scheme must be certified by an approved medical health practitioner. The advantage to replicating the scheme is that it already exists and it is in operation. The most recent figures show that just under 1,500 people accessed a mental health breathing space. The committee recognises that it is not a straightforward comparison. The standard moratorium in England is shorter than that in Scotland, but the English and Welsh system is also a tested system that appears more realistic about who will need to access the system. The breathing space moratorium goes further than the proposal set out in the mental health moratorium consultation by the Scottish Government in other respects. The committee heard from Alan Mackintosh from advice talks that breathing space also stops cars being repossessed, stops evictions and repossessions, and stops pre-payment meters being forcibly installed. The minister might want to reflect on those differences, and I appreciate that he referred to that in his open statement. His reply to the committee describes the protections as quite significant, but they are not offering as much protection as the UK's breathing space moratorium. While the committee understands the regulation of the energy sector, including the use of pre-payment meters, is reserved and we welcome the commitment from the Scottish Government to liaise with the UK Government on that issue, we would urge the Government to look at other areas around evictions, repossession and joint and several liability, and we would welcome that further views are being sought. The committee was made aware of an issue regarding mental health capacity. Potentially a small number of people who meet the entry criteria for the mental health moratorium might be unable to consent to the moratorium, as they do not have the capacity or have a legally recognised representative to do so for them. Academics from the University of Aberdeen agreed that further consideration of debt or capacity is needed. That is another area in which, in the minister's response to the committee, he reports that further views are being sought through more consultation. Others have raised that the bill contains only enabling powers with much reliance on details to follow in regulations. That has made the scrutiny of the committee difficult, and mental capacity is likely to be one of the many areas that we will return to during scrutiny of draft regulations, which we expect to see prior to stage 3. Consideration of the mental health moratorium revealed the possible development of a public register of people who access a mental health moratorium. That is of great concern to the committee. During the evidence session with the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, we explored the risks around stigmatising people who are in need of a moratorium. The committee is concerned that exposure on a public register may stop individuals from accessing the support that they need. We have asked for more clarity from the Scottish Government on that proposal, and we look forward to receiving an update on potential areas of contention, such as how long someone's information would be stored on the register and who can view or access that data. Sections 2 to 5 of the bill cover minor or technical fixes that have been identified by the Scottish Government as necessary for the Bankruptcy Scotland 2016 act, and we welcome those changes. However, whilst taking evidence, we heard that additional reform to bankruptcy legislation would be welcomed by stakeholders. One-year required reform is that of minimum asset process bankruptcy. Minimum asset process bankruptcy is a route into bankruptcy for individual debtors with low income and few assets. It is a simpler and cheaper process appropriate for those circumstances. Currently, it is only possible to apply for a minimal asset process bankruptcy once every 10 years. The Social Justice and Social Security Committee argued that people should be able to apply for a minimum asset process bankruptcy every five years, bringing it in line with full administration bankruptcy. The committee is in agreement and we await the outcome from the Scottish Government's discussions with stakeholders. Sections 6 to 10 of the bill make reforms to the current law on formal debt enforcement. Those changes were recommended by the diligence working group. The committee is broadly supportive of those reforms, and we draw the Scottish Government's attention to the proposals outlined in our report. In closing, I would particularly like to draw the minister's attention to the protected minimum amount seized in diligence against earnings, such as wage investments. That is a form of diligence that requires the employer of a debtor to make a deduction from a debtor's net earnings. The amount taken from earnings depends on how much someone earns, with the percentage of money seized increasing as earnings increase. Currently, the amount protected from any creditor action is £655.8. The minister will be aware of calls for the protected minimum amount to be increased to £1,000. That would bring earnings investment in line with bank arrestments. The Robin Peter to Pay Paul report recommended the increase. As we are in a cost of living crisis with those individuals and their families who are on the lowest incomes feeling the impact of inflation and rising prices most sharply, we should take this opportunity to increase the allowance. Most of the debt in this category is council tax debt. In 2021-22, 83 per cent of charge for payments were for council tax debt. A survey from advice Scotland by Alan McIntosh found that 59 per cent of wage arrestments were for council tax. 94 per cent of respondents said that wage arrestments left them unable to pay essential bills each month, with 76 per cent of them falling into arrears and unable to pay other debt. Creditors are entitled to seek repayment of debt, but it should not be unduly harsh. The committee supports increasing the protected minimum amount as being reasonable and urges the Scottish Government to consider how this bill can be used to deliver that change. I have not been able to cover every aspect of our consideration, although members might think that I have given it a good effort this afternoon of the bankruptcy and diligence Scotland bill, but I anticipate that other points will be covered by my colleagues from the committee. I will conclude by confirming that the Economy and Fair Work Committee supports the general principles of the bill and looks forward to receiving more detailed information from the Scottish Government in advance of stages 2 and 3, should the Parliament approve the bill's general principles at decision time this evening. I now call on Murdo Fraser up to 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by reminding members of my register of interests in that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, albeit not currently practicing. I echo the thanks of the committee convener who has just spoken to all those who gave evidence to the committee about the bill, to Spice for their very helpful background briefings, and to the committee clerks for their assistance in the preparation of our report. I think that it speaks for itself that this was a report that was agreed unanimously, and there is very little political disagreement between members of the committee as to our approach to the bill. I am something of a veteran of committee consideration of bankruptcy legislation in this Parliament. In session 2, I sat on the committee that scrutinised the Bankruptcy and Diligence, etc., Scotland Act 2007, and then in session 4, the Subsequent Bankruptcy and Debt Advice, Scotland Act 2014. Here we are with yet another piece of bankruptcy legislation seeking to improve and update the law in an area where there is always a need for changes to be made. Before I come to the detail of the bill before us, it might be worth taking a moment just to reflect on the wider policy background to bankruptcy law. The term bankruptcy is normally seen as a pejorative one that carries negative connotations. Someone who is described as a bankrupt is often seen as somebody who has failed. They have not been able to meet their financial obligations. In reality, bankruptcy should be seen as something positive. Bankruptcy exists to provide a protection for individuals who fall into debt and the relief from those debts. If the option of bankruptcy did not exist, people who found themselves in the situation where they had run up too many debts would never be able to escape them and would be pursued by their creditors on an indefinite basis. They would never have the chance to wipe the slate clean and start afresh. That is what bankruptcy provides. Individuals can declare that they are unable to meet their financial obligations. A trustee will then be appointed to administer their affairs and agree settlement with creditors. After a set period of time in our current law that stands at one year, the debtor will be deemed to be free of those debts and able to resume control of his or her financial affairs. It is an acceptance in law that people do make mistakes in life. The businesses sometimes fail. No one should be punished permanently for that, but everyone descends and deserves a second chance. Does Moral Fraser agree that it would be a beneficial thing for the overall culture of enterprise in this country if we had a less stigmatising approach to bankruptcy, especially when it comes to businesses? Moral Fraser. That is a very interesting intervention from my colleague. I would agree with that, too. If you look at the experience in the United States, businesses of successful entrepreneurs very often fail a number of times before they are ultimately successful. People regard that as run-of-the-mill as part of an entrepreneurial culture. He makes a fair point about the need to see business failure as not always a negative, although, of course, there are negative consequences often for the creditors. However, as I may be alluded to, there is a potential moral hazard here, because if bankruptcy is seen as too easy, it can be a tool for individuals to act irresponsibly or even recklessly on run-up debts knowing that they will not have to repay them. What bankruptcy law has to try to do is strike a balance between the interests of the creditors and the interests of debtors. There are some popular misconceptions about who those creditors might be. In most bankruptcies, personal bankruptcies, the largest creditors are usually public agencies such as HMRC or local councils. The most common debt that leads to diligence proceedings in Scotland today is council tax. If we go too far in shifting the balance towards the rights of the debtors, what we are doing is potentially depriving public services of much-needed revenue. I wonder whether you might agree with me that there is quite an interesting contrast in approaches now taken between public agencies and private businesses. The banks now, in some ways, are taking a much broader view about supporting people through financial difficulties. There are actually quite often councils that can be some of the most aggressive agencies in pursuing debts, and that is something that we need to think about as we think about this issue in the round. I think that that is a very fair point that Mr Johnson makes. In fact, in the evidence given to the committee, some of the strongest wording evidence against some of the additional protections for debtors came from, I think, the City of Edinburgh Council in the evidence that it gave us. To be fair, that might be a reflection of the financial pressure that councils feel themselves under, although they have to try to recover whatever sums are due to them. There is also a risk of bankruptcy legislation going too far in protecting the debtor in that it creates an active disincentive for mainstream financial institutions to be involved in lending to those who may be deemed financially vulnerable. That means that those individuals cannot then access finance from profitable sources and therefore are left with no option but to go to the unregulated loan sharks who operate outwith the law, and that cannot be in anyone's interest. That demonstrates why there needs to be a careful balance when drawing up bankruptcy rules, and that balance was reflected in the evidence that the committee heard on the bill before us. As we have heard from the minister and the committee convener, this bill makes what are in the main fairly minor and technical reforms to existing bankruptcy legislation. The most significant reform in the bill on the one that took up most of the committee's time was the introduction of a specific protection for debtors who have a mental illness with the creation of a moratorium on debt recovery action. That is not a novel concept. It reflects the breathing space scheme, which already exists in England and Wales, where individuals receiving crisis treatment, encompassing those in compulsory treatment, as well as those with conditions of comparable severity, who are receiving crisis, emergency or acute treatment without compulsion, are protected from bankruptcy proceedings. As we have heard, the committee received widespread support from stakeholders for the principle of a mental health moratorium. However, we also heard that there was concern at the lack of detail about how such a moratorium would operate in practice. The mental health moratorium working group agreed that the entry criteria should only apply to those subject to compulsory treatment orders, therefore excluding individuals with severe mental health issues who were in receipt of inpatient care and treatment on a voluntary basis. The approach was criticised by a number of those who gave evidence, including one parent family Scotland and the Poverty Alliance, who felt that the approach was too narrow and would only help a very small number of people. The alternative suggestion was the use of severely mentally impaired, which currently exists in council tax legislation, but there are concerns that this language is now outdated. The committee's concern, as we heard from the convener, is that, in asking us to agree the general principles and pass the bill at this stage, without any detail as to how the moratorium would work in practice, essentially we were being asked to write a blank check to the Government. We therefore asked the Government to provide more detail ahead of stage 2 of the bill as to how the scheme would work in practice. I think that he sets out the challenge very clearly. Is there not a concomitant risk that many debtors are aware of the fact that mental health may provide a method of getting a pause? Is there not a serious risk that, if we go through the bill without defining exactly what it is that we want to do, we end up with unintended consequences of a huge number of people seeking to take advantage of a loophole that is not really intended for them? Mr Ewing, with his usual lawyer-y background, makes a very fair point in relation to the potential unintended consequences. I was very pleased to note in his letter to the committee last week that the minister has reiterated his undertaking to ensure that the draft regulations that he intends to bring forward will be shared with us before stage 3. I welcome that assurance, because it is in my view essential that Parliament has the opportunity to see those regulations before voting on the bill in its final form, although some of us might want to go even further than that in terms of putting more detail on the face of the bill. That was the major reform in the bill. There were a number of other minor changes in addition being introduced, which largely we found to be uncontroversial. An important point made by witnesses was about the lack of capacity in the money advice sector to ensure that individuals facing serious financial challenges had people to turn to to get support, and I would encourage the Scottish Government to address that particular matter. There was some discussion in committee around the time limits for the minimal asset process, MAP bankruptcy. Those applies were better to have low income and very few assets, and it is a simplified procedure. At present, it is only possible to apply for MAP bankruptcy once in 10 years, but some witnesses have told us that they should be reduced to five years in line with full administration bankruptcy, making it easier for debtors in that category to get relief. There was some opposition to that. City of Edinburgh Council expressed concern that it might be used by people to write off council debts more easily, which reflects Mr Johnson's point earlier, but it is something that the Scottish Government should give consideration to. I have time for three other points that I would like to cover. The question of discharge of trustees was alluded to by the committee convener. ICAS told us in evidence that it would like to see trustees able to be discharged once they are taken all reasonable steps to deal with debtors who cannot be found, who are uncooperative. Otherwise, we end up in a situation where trustees have to hold a position indefinitely, despite the fact that they cannot take any action because they cannot contact the debtor. That seems to be very sensible reform, and I would encourage the Scottish Government to take it further. Secondly, there is an issue around the number of days in which a petition for bankruptcy can be served. As the current law currently stands, a petition must be served no more than 14 days before a hearing and no fewer than six days before it, giving an eight-day window. The evidence from the Society of Messenger's Arms and Sheriff's Officers was that that creates a real practical issue for them, particularly dealing with debtors living in remote and rural areas such as the Scottish Highlands. They suggested extending that window to 21 days, and that was a very sensible and practical change that could be made. Thirdly, and finally, we heard some evidence around the arrestee's duty of disclosure, where the bill requires arrestees to respond to all attempts to arrest wages and accounts. That will present significant resource implications for institutions, including the banks. In that west group suggested an alternative approach that might reduce the administrative burden, and I hope that the Scottish Government will look at that. That is a relatively modest and welcome piece of legislation. There are reforms here that are necessary and that we would like to see progress, and I hope that the Scottish Government will work with stakeholders and the committee to ensure that our on-going concerns, particularly around the operation of the mental health moratorium, are addressed, and I am pleased to say that the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the general principles of the bill at stage 1. Thank you, Mr Fraser, and I now call Daniel Johnson. Mental health and debt all too often go hand in hand and lead to absolutely disastrous social consequences, both for people who are immediately affected but for a wider society. Therefore, the need to legislate in this area is clear. It is why Scottish Labour is broadly supportive of the bill, and we will be supporting it at stage 1 in terms of the general principles. However, I think that it is important to note that we have concerns about the mechanisms by which people will trigger such a moratorium, the threshold at which it may be obtained, and, thirdly, the protections that are afforded to those who choose to do so. Overall, perhaps more importantly, I have concerns about the approach that is taken by the Government in this bill. It is essentially a legislating approach but leaving the detail and all of the matters that I have just set out to be detailed in secondary legislation, therefore denying us the possibility of scrutinising them here today. I think that that is problematic. However, that is an important area because we know that poor mental health go hand-in-hand with money problems. I think that that is self-evident. Indeed, we know that people with mental health problems are three and a half times more likely to be in debt. That leads to a cascading situation in which one in turn impacts the other, leaving our society and families devastated along the way. That is all the more so as we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis, in which families' bills are going up and up and those pressures are at mount. That is why it is important, and we welcome the intent and the provisions such as they are, and set out. However, first of all, I think that I would like to just ask the question around the mechanisms. By definition, the people that we are talking about lack capacity. The people that we are talking about are in the most deep of mental health crises, as set out in policy memorandum and the mental health moratorium working group. We have to ask ourselves whether they actually have the capacity or even the physical means. I will just take the intervention for a second. To do so, I have the Royal Edinburgh hospital in my constituency. I am contacted by people there. Very often, it is quite far down the line that they even have the means of communication to do so. If those are the people that we are talking about, I would just question whether they have the capacity but actually, as I say, also the physical means to take out such a moratorium. I am very happy to give way. Does he agree, though, at the end of this process, of this legislation, that people in Scotland, in the distressing circumstances that we are outlining, ought to be no less protected than people living in England and Wales? Surely that is the threshold at which we should be judging the detail of the bill around the moratorium. I think that Mr Kerr makes a valid point that we need to, if we are approaching this legislation, ensuring that we are doing the most that we can. If there are examples elsewhere, particularly close at home, we should be looking at what we can do. Indeed, I think that we need to be questioning whether legislation is not going as far as the temporary provisions that we enacted recently during Covid. I think that we need to ask ourselves whether the bill goes far enough. The point that I was just touching on about the capacity also leads on to the threshold point, because we do not have clarity. While I understand that the Government will publish draft regulations before stage 3, it is very hard to understand precisely what group of people this will apply to. As we look at the proposals from the mental health and moratorium working group, their suggestion is those undergoing compulsory treatment orders. In other words, in colloquial terms, those who are essentially sectioned, that is an extraordinarily high threshold. As we all know that it is only people in the most severe forms, the most acute forms of mental health distress, those who are likely to harm themselves and others will find themselves in that situation. Indeed, I agree with what the minister was saying about the need to find a balance, but I would suggest that that threshold is too high by the same troke, and I do understand that he is happy to give way. Brian Husserl. Very grateful for Mr Johnson for giving way. Would he also recognise, then, that if we take it outside of that criteria, which I think most of us would agree with, that there is an issue of resource that has to be addressed there? Daniel Johnson. That was the very point that I was coming to. While I think that a broad, just, essentially, those undergoing mental health treatment would be far too low, that would, for example, include me as somebody undergoing on-going mental health treatment. My concern actually is not so much that people with ADHD or autistic spectrum disorder might not need this, but actually the fact that many of those people who find themselves in those situations where their conditions are leading to dire financial situations quite simply cannot access the resource, the help, the clinicians, as Mr Whittle is alluding to, who might be able to provide them with the diagnosis and the help that they need. I think that we do need to look at what the criteria is. I think that it needs to be tied the draw-up, but we also need to look at the access to the people who might well end up as gatekeepers. I commend the committee for their work. I think that there are suggestions about other criteria that are well-made, such as those used in England and Wales for the breathing space. While I take the comments of the convener as she made them about the stigmatising nature of the terminology, there is a severely mentally impaired category from cancer tactics, which is clearly a workable one, and I would ask why we are not using it. We also need to ask ourselves how the moratorium will work in practice. We need to understand what protections and provisions it will take. Will it pause contact from creditors? Will it freeze interest in charges on debts? I think that questions such as car payments and car loans, which are the forms of debt that so many people will have been entering into prior to the point of mental health crisis, are the sorts of questions that need to be answered and, quite simply, we do not. However, I think that there is, as Mr Kerr alluded to, a risk that we may legislate for protections that are currently less than those available in Scotland on a temporary basis, or less than those in England and Wales. Moreover, I have severe concerns about the nature of this bill indeed. As I was looking at the bill itself in preparation for this, first of all, I was struck by the lack of specificity. We do not have any of those points about the mechanisms, thresholds or protections that are set out here, even in principle. However, when you look at section 1, subsection 3, and you look at what the scope of regulations that can be brought forward by ministers, I have to say that I am quite concerned. In subsection 3, it states that regulations may, under the section, make different provisions for different purposes, modify any enactment and include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision. That is an extraordinary scope that essentially enables ministers, albeit with a tenuous link to this bill, to make changes to any act of this Parliament and do so for different purposes. I just find this quite concerning. Do not even have the guide rails of principles, of criteria to guide what those provisions may be made under, I think that this is quite concerning. I think that we need to guard against this sort of legislation, which seems to be coming forward more frequently from this Government. After all, while I take the points being made by the Government about need to get this right, I would argue that it is important to get those details right before you publish a bill, before it is put in front of Parliament, because that is what this place is for. As it was pointed out in one of the previous interventions, there can be unintended consequences. Thresholds around mental health criteria and issues such as debt often have impacts that cannot be foreseen. It is precisely for those reasons that we have Parliament, so that we can test those so that we can amend them. We know, quite simply, that secondary legislation does not afford Parliament the same benefits in terms of interrogating legislation and critically amending it, let alone taking evidence that primary legislation does. Would it not have been better to have those things published and properly scrutinised by the committee in this stage 1 report, rather than waiting to laugh at the event? I just say that, while we absolutely commend the intent of this, the broad purposes of this bill, I think more importantly that I have huge concerns about this in terms of a way of legislating and, indeed, whether or not it leaves a wide open door for Governments that may not have the benign intent that this one claims to. I remind all members who are seeking to speak in the debate to please ensure that they have checked that they have in fact pressed the request to speak buttons. With that, we move to the open debate, and I call on Colin Beattie, to be followed by Stephen Kerr and Mr Beattie. I am pleased of the opportunity to speak in today's debate in stage 1, Bankruptcy, in Dilgin Scotland Bill, most particularly as I am a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which considered this bill. The objectives of the bill seem quite simple. Many of the changes are very much of a technical and minor nature, which appear to require little debate. However, the major area that has been the focus of attention is the changes that are intended to help and improve the lives of people who are struggling with problem debt and have serious mental health issues. That is the area that I will primarily focus on. In principle, the proposal to provide a moratorium to give breathing space for those who have serious mental problems will give them a chance to recover and to better handle their situation when they are able to do so. However, there are a number of issues that are needed to ensure fairness and justice. As we now know, people with mental health problems are three and a half times more likely to be in debt and half the people who are in problem debt are experienced in a mental health problem. The cost of living crisis has exacerbated the link between money issues and mental health. While the bill is focused on the more extreme side of the scale, research from the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute shows that one in six adults in the UK have experienced suicidal thoughts due to the cost of living crisis. That makes it very clear why the proposed bill is a necessary one. The current legal framework for statutory debt solutions allows people in debt, including those with mental health issues, to apply for a six-month moratorium against diligence, giving someone with debt problems time to consider the best solution to their financial situation. During this time, the debtors are expected to continue making payments towards any debts due while the moratorium is in place. The moratorium prevents creditors from taking particular forms of recovery actions for a set period of time. Section 1 of the bill would give ministers power to make regulations to introduce a mental health moratorium. There is little included that indicates how the moratorium would actually work. While leaving the detail to the regulations will allow flexibility to adapt legislation to changes, it means that specifics of how that will work are not set out. Clearly, eligibility is a key factor. It seems likely that those who are subject to a compulsory treatment order under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003 would be eligible and also those receiving treatment under the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995. After that, it becomes less clear and understandably so. Mental health is a complex business, and there must be a clear line in this bill as to who is eligible without grey areas or ambiguity. In England, the debt respite scheme breathing space criteria is wider than the proposals put forward by the Scottish Government. Breathing space is open to anyone who is receiving mental health crisis treatment, and perhaps the Scottish Government will consider using a similar criteria going forward. That would cover people receiving crisis treatment, which would include those receiving compulsory treatment, as well as those who are receiving crisis emergency or acute treatment without compulsion. There is also the question of who would sign off in such a mental health moratorium. The Scottish Government's consultation proposes that eligibility to sign off would be certified by a mental health officer, a reporting medical officer, a community psychiatric nurse or a similarly qualified professional, and that seems reasonable. There has also been some debate on the length of the moratorium, and I think that the Government proposes that the initial stage of the moratorium should last as long as the person is receiving treatment followed by a six-month follow-on period to allow the person to deal with their debt problems is reasonable. My only question being, what happens if the person has a long-term condition or indeed a permanent condition? What is the backstop to deal with that? Details remain to be seen as to how the actual freeze will work, how will diligence be stopped, I assume interest will be frozen and credit or contact ceased. I look forward to more information on that as the bill progresses. Does he also share concerns that I have and other people have expressed about the Government's stated intention to create a public register of those who would make use of the scheme? No such criteria exists in England and Wales. Does he agree with me that he ought not to exist in Scotland? In terms of stigma, it is very important that that is handled very sensitively. I recognise the sensitivity of the public register. I think that there will be further debate and discussion on that going forward. Other concerns exist that this mental health moratorium might put additional pressures on an already stretched money advice sector. While it is not anticipated that there will be an enormous volume of debtors availing themselves of this facility, there will be a need for practitioners across the entire debt advice sector to receive appropriate training and education to ensure that the best possible advice is given. There may well be a cost attached to that. Just to add to the complexity of this area, there are many individuals subject to a compulsory treatment order who have appointed an individual as a power of attorney to handle their affairs when necessary. Is it then necessary to restrict this service only to those who have mental capacity to consent and those who have legally recognised representatives? What happens to those in debt who do not have that capacity? I will just briefly run through one or two other points arising from the bill. The minimum asset process bankruptcy is a way to bankruptcy for individual debtors with a low income and few assets. Currently, one can only apply for such a bankruptcy every 10 years. The suggestion is that this be reduced to five years. There are mixed views in this, with some stakeholders supporting and some rejecting. Far more work needs to be done to ensure that the appropriate period is fixed on. I am running out of time, so I will just run forward. I look forward again to seeing further information on the detail of the bill in the further stages as it goes forward. In the meantime, the intentions of the bill are beneficial to creditors who suffer from serious mental health problems and offer a fair option in difficult circumstances for both creditors and debtors. I support the general principles of the bill. It is a pleasure to follow Colin Beattie, who gave a considered and thoughtful speech highlighting many of the issues of concern about the bill that I wish to reiterate. The proposed legislation is a bill with good intentions. Of that, there is no doubt. I am sure that it will have unanimous support across the chamber when we get to decision time this evening, but it is severely lacking in detail. What exactly are we to scrutinise today in this stage one debate? The idea that we ought to take a view about modernising our law in relation to how we treat people who are suffering severe mental health issues in relation to their financial affairs. Surely we would all agree with that, but surely also when we got a bill in front of us we should be looking more to the substance of what is being proposed to deal with the issue. Murdo Fraser has said that we on these benches will support the bill. As I said, I think that it will be unanimously supported, but we need more detail. News laws cannot just be made casually. We do not have a great reputation in this Parliament for making solid and robust law. We do not have a revising chamber. We have got to get to the detail of any bill so that we do not produce bad or weak law. We should be very, very wary of rubber stamping such vague bills as the bill that is in front of us this afternoon. For example, who is to be helped? How are they to be helped? How long are they to be helped for? What mechanisms will be used to provide the help? We have no idea about what additional resources will be required in the public sense or indeed in the private sense to be able to fulfil the requirements of the bill because they just do not exist as specific substantial details. We are all left to discuss today in a worthy principle, and everyone in the chamber already agrees on it, namely that we should update our existing bankruptcy legislation and introduce some mental health moratorium for people suffering from mental health issues. However, I do not think that we should accept any provisions that emerge on the basis of this bill that leave at risk Scots in a less protected position than people in England and Wales. I am afraid that none of us would support a bill or the details of any bill that would leave our citizens in a worse off position than their fellows in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what I fear that we will see happen if the Scottish Government, as is its pattern, accepts the recommendations of its own working group, specifically in terms of the entry criteria. Well covered, and I congratulate the convener and the committee for the excellent stage 1 report that they produced. That is well covered in paragraph 50 of their report, as is and in paragraph 72, the scope of the protections. The request of the economy and fair work committee in paragraph 76, if the minister wants to look it up, I think that the minister should agree to that today. He should agree today to commit to the request of the committee. The reason that I have to ask this is because there is nothing in the bill that spells out the detail that we are all badly missing. Section 1 of the bill gives ministers power by regulations to establish a moratorium on debt, recovery action in relation to individuals who have mental illness. The policy memorandum produced by the minister goes even further, most succinctly. Further work will be taken forward within government and with stakeholders to develop the details of the scheme, which will cover specific areas such as the criteria for entry to and exit from a moratorium. The specific protections afforded by a moratorium and the duration of those protections, so the substance of the bill is still to be worked out. Therefore, our role as parliamentarians in scrutinising what the government is proposing is largely fatuous. However, I have to say that this is a familiar trick from the SNP and Scottish Greens in office. They bring forward framework legislation, which empowers ministers—I think that Daniel Johnson is right to highlight his concerns, which we should all share about the extent of those powers. It sounded very like Henry VIII powers to me as he read that section of the bill. However, they bring forward framework legislation, empowering ministers that yes, of course— Alice Rowland, could we please have Dr Rowland's microphone? I want to hear what the member is saying, my apologies, about framework legislation. He does kind of present it as if this is a uniquely Scottish phenomenon. Would he not acknowledge that framework legislation is a feature of legislation in Westminster as well? I am not presenting it as anything of the sort. I do not like framework legislation whoever produces it. I just happen to think that the Government party, Alice Rowland, produces more of that stuff than is palatable, frankly, in a Parliament where we should be scrutinising the substance of detail and empowering ministers all the time to introduce the detail of secondary legislation. However, we all know that this Parliament can barely cope with the secondary legislation that it already has, more and more secondary legislation with a completely inadequate means of scrutinising. It could not be called robust the way that we deal with secondary legislation. I am happy to give way to Keith Brown. I thank Stephen Kerr for giving way. Just given the contempt that he has repeatedly shown in his speech for the ability of this Parliament to legislate and the unjustifiable faith that he has in the Westminster sisters to graduate and his description of the factuous natures, how can he possibly be considering voting for us today? Stephen Kerr, I do not know if Keith Brown is listening at all. I did not mention anything about Westminster. I did not hold up Westminster in time. In fact, I said the opposite. I said very clearly to Alice Rowland that I do not like framework legislation, whoever produces it, because frankly, I think that the whole point of this Parliament is to be a counterweight to the executive. We should not be trusting in ministers to produce detail and secondary legislation when no Parliament, no Parliament, Keith Brown, has the capacity to properly scrutinise secondary legislation. I just want to clarify. Mr Kerr, in his remarks, has been keen to stress the importance of parity with the position in the rest of the UK. The scheme that he speaks of so favourably was made under regulations and provisions similar to a framework bill. I am not really unsure what the particular issue is that he is trying to address, particularly given when it is receiving evidence that the position that the Government has set out of determining this through regulations was supported by Citizens Advice. Once again, I have no idea. I am delighted to hear how the SNP holds Westminster up with somehow the standard against everything that we do in this Parliament has to be measured. My goodness me, this is a breakthrough moment for the union that the SNP set their stall out on the basis of what happens in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Of course, the former leader of the SNP at Westminster is desperate to get in the House of Lords. Maybe that is because he also has such a high feeling, high esteem for Westminster. Well, the fact is that secondary legislation is in an adequate way of bringing forward these sorts of measures. They should, as Fergus Ewing rightly says— Take in, I have been very generous. Please bring your marks to close within the next 30 seconds. I will close in the next 30 seconds. There are lots more to be said about secondary legislation, but I respect the fact that I do not have the time. Let me conclude by saying why I am voting for the bill. I think that Keith Brown might be interested to listen to this. The reason I do it is because there are some worthy things in the bill. In an ever-changing society, the imperative of dynamic legal frameworks is self-evident. It is incumbent upon us as legislatures to ensure that our legislative framework adapts to continue to get by fair and efficient solutions. I think that the 30 seconds have passed, but I think that we will get the general just. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I now call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Fergus Ewing. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to support the general principles of the bill today. I joined the committee when it was partway through its deliberations, but I have found all of that scrutiny very, very interesting indeed. I would like to thank all those who have engaged with the committee. In particular, I would like to thank the minister for listening, because one of the difficulties that I had around what we were doing here was that there had not been enough engagement, in my opinion, with the voices of lived experience. I am glad that the minister has put that to rights, and that the voices of lived experience will also be heard when it comes to the formatting of the regulations. The bill will bring forward stakeholder-led recommendations to introduce improvements to current insolvency solutions and deck recovery processes. Stakeholders and those with practical experience in the money advice and mental health sectors consider that there is a strong link between problem debt and poor mental health. Poor mental health can be caused by problem debt and poor mental health can impact an individual's ability to manage their money or to make signed financial judgments and decisions or to make employment and a regular income that can service debt. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reports that one in two adults with debt has a mental health problem. Half of adults with a mental health problem have debt and one in four people with a mental health problem is also in debt. Experience in the money advice sector also shows that individuals with mental health problems often do not seek early help with debt issues, which may be attributed to a stigma surrounding mental health. That can lead to problems before action is taken. It is also generally acknowledged that the threat of creditor action or pressure from creditors can exacerbate existing mental health issues. Good resources already exist, Presiding Officer, for creditors, including Citizens Advice Scotland's mental health and money good practice guidance for creditors. As we know, good advice is often ignored. The bill will bring forward stakeholder led recommendations to introduce improvements to current insolvency solutions and debt recovery processes. Its aim is to help and improve the lives of people who are struggling with debt, which may be exacerbated by the difficulties that they face on a day-to-day basis. More efficient recovery processes will assist businesses and local authorities to collect debts from those who can pay. The measures in the bill have been and are being very much designed with and by the stakeholder community, which I think is extremely important. I recognise that the bill is only one part of a programme of work to improve bankruptcy and diligence. The Scottish Government will introduce changes through secondary legislation, some of which it is hoped and I hope will be laid before Parliament during the progress of the bill. The Government has also commissioned a longer term review to assess how far current statutory solutions meet the needs of a modern economy. I am glad that the minister has mentioned that, as he has accepted an appointment to lead stage 3 of that wider review, there will be some matters that merit further consideration, I am sure, as part of that review. Outwith the scope of the bill, I hope that the Scottish Government will take cognisance of the work done in Lord John Scott's mental health law review and to take the advice of many stakeholders to remove all of the current discriminatory terminology that currently exists in legislation to describe people who have poor mental health. Phrases such as severely mentally impaired, which is used in the council tax legislation, which has been mentioned by other members, are outdated, antiquated and severely stigmatising to many people. I recognise that the work to change that legislation will take time, but it is absolutely galling that stigmatising language still exists in legislation. I know that some of that law has existed for decades or even centuries, but that stigmatising language must be cast into the dustbin of history once and for all. Here is where I disagree with some of the contributions today about legislating, because there are many people in this place who believe that everything should be in primary legislation. I do not. I believe that we have a role as parliamentarians to scrutinise not only primary legislation but to scrutinise secondary legislation, and there is the ability to do that in this place. If there were more opportunities to put certain aspects into secondary legislation, then we would not have to deal with the phrases of decades and centuries ago. It would have been easier to put phrases such as severely mentally impaired into the dustbin of history a long while ago if those phrases had been in secondary rather than primary legislation. I am sure that that is something that we could all agree upon in terms of modernising legislation and guidance as we go forward. For me, the key aspect of getting us this right is listening to the voices of lived experience. I am very pleased that the minister has agreed to do so and that the Government will take its views forward as it progresses with the regulation stage. Presiding Officer, I apologise for being late because of an unavoidably being detained on a personal matter. It was in the 70s that I first read a reflection that the late distinguished First Minister of Scotland made at that point, which was that Scotland was the only country in the world with her own legal system but which lacked a legislature. He believed profoundly that this Parliament should exist to fill that gap, to remove that anomaly, so that we could make laws in Scotland and do so regularly and not in the form of the Law Reform, Miscellaneous Provisions Act, which was the case before devolution. I think that we all support that. At the heart of the debate, I think that it is crystallising a very simple question. How do we make good law? How do we avoid passing law that may have unintended consequences? How best to achieve that? Yes, framework bills are not helpful to that, but as Mr Stewart has just said, you cannot put everything in the face of a bill. There is a happy medium to be grasped here. I do not think with respect to the minister that he has achieved that. Not many people will remember the Scottish Law Commission Bankruptcy report of 1982 being something of an anorak in bankruptcy law. I do. It led to the 85 act, which was a model of clarity and Sir Scotland well for many years to see the accounts of bankruptcy inclined to nod at that point. We made one big mistake, which was to create a mechanism whereby people with no assets and very modest debts could be made bankrupt with accountancies' practices receiving a very large payment, which often exceeded the amount of the debt. The estimated cost of that was £250,000, because George Leslie Care, a friend of mine, the accountant of bankruptcy, envisaged only business bankruptcies, but that created a market so that people in the schemes went bankrupt so that accountants could get an advance in fee. It ended up that the cost of that was £20 million. As it happened, I ran a campaign with Tom Shields of the then Herald Diary and the tacit support of Leslie Care, although he does not mind that slight breach of etiquette at this point. We got it stopped. To be fair, Michael Forsythe, who passed the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 1993, credited me with perhaps the momentum to end that abuse of public funds. It served no purpose at all, and it was ended. I mentioned that because unintended consequences are a big issue. I spent more than 20 years as a slister and about 10 years as an accredited specialist in bankruptcy law. Rightly or wrongly, I acted mainly for the debtor and mainly for businesses that were about to or had basically finished. Cases where there was usually a family home owned by the debtor, family children, all of whom were innocent. What I wanted to put across was this, that this was high-octane stuff. Every single business that was facing serious debt problems had a main person, usually a male, in charge. That person was under enormous pressure. It is hard to convey just a much mental stress many of my clients were under. My job is often to preserve the family home by raising a mortgage. If a family member had a job, they could raise a mortgage by out-of-interest in the accounts of bankruptcy, hopefully to a relatively modest amount. They weren't supposed to do that, but that was often done, which was good grace on behalf of enlightened trustees. Yes, of course I will. Brian Whistle. I am very grateful to the member for giving intervention. He is very interested to hear his comments on this and his experience. As an aside, does he think that because of the fees that can be commanded by those administrators, we actually put people into bankruptcy too easily? I think that there is an element to that, but I just wanted to finish the point that I was making, if I may, which is that very many of those people who faced loss of their business, loss of their dignity, loss of their status, loss of their self-esteem and their self-worth, were under incredible stress. Very often they did not have any mental problems, but I could sense, as a non-expert at the entire layperson, that they were now beginning to suffer from mental stress because of the extreme pressure that they faced. In fact, I cannot think of anyone who perhaps was absolutely rational at all times in those situations. It is very hard to do that. The point that I am making, Minister, is that if we create this measure and the clarity of the criteria that gatekeeping is not crystal clear, then it is just human nature that people who want more time will say, well, I do have mental illness. Of course, there is a mental health sign-off process, paragraph 57 of the report deals with that, and that is quite right. That may not be an impediment to those who are determined to get a pause, and why should it? If they do have a mental health issue, fine. However, the potential for abuse seems to me to be here, and it is our duty as legislators to deal with that. There may be a few other short points. We have an excellent scheme called the debt arrangement scheme, which is the debt payment plan. I think that we are a bit ahead of England, or at least we were in my time, and the current bank structure is nodding, so that point must be true. However, I wonder if there is not an alternative just to encourage greater take-up of the DAS, because it is a diligence stopper. It freezes interest. Very often, it can reduce the quantum debt that is paid. Would that not be an alternative, perhaps, which could be used by widening the circumstances in which DAS is available? I will not go into more technicalities, I do not have the time. I think that the problems of definition are acute. Perhaps there is a case for following the English example, although not perfect, because it has been tried over a relatively short period and perhaps tested to some extent. There is also the question about what protections will there be as one of the points was made of the committee. Where is the meat and the bone? Unless you know what the protections are, the whole thing is hopelessly nebulous. Is it about the total amount of debt? Is it the length of repayment? Is it the length of the pause? There does need to be clarity for the creditor's point of view. Not all creditors are rich or government, although most are. Yes, I will take the minister if I have time. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am very grateful to Fergus Ewing for his very considerate contribution, bringing his vast experience to bear in this. One of the distinctions between the proposed mental health moratorium and the existing moratorium is the two aspects of it, particularly the mental health treatment phase, which is indefinite, and the criteria that is originally proposed were for alignment with existing mental health statute. I wonder whether the member has any particular reflections on that. He has raised concerns about potential abuse. Does he think that there is such a criteria that can give confidence in having that indefinite protection of moratorium? Briefly, I wish the minister well, but my main point is that I think that these are difficult questions and postponing them until a later date does not seem to me to be the right solution. If they can be answered prior to stage 3, I think that that really would be doing parliamentary service. It would potentially, minister, avoid the risks that I have identified as potential risks of becoming actual ones. I wish him well on the task that I once pursued, and I very much hope that he will give some thought to the points that I have made this afternoon. Other members, I thank the committee and the clerks for preparing the stage 1 report on what is a really important piece of legislation. It is very helpful for those of us who were not part of the committee considering that the report was so well put together. As has been mentioned, I want to add that I personally very much support legislation that would actively seek to support debt management strategies. The convener, Claire, set out very well the contributions that this piece of legislation could make. Possibly it might be helpful to add in that I do not think that I have read anything or spoken to anyone that suggests that some of the things that have been talked about by other members has ever really been seen as something that would be abused but more as a positive step. As my colleague has said, Scottish Labour will support this legislation at stage 1 this evening as we do agree with its general principles and aims, the introduction and legislation of a mental health moratorium is welcome and it is right that those suffering from poor mental health are provided with those greater protections that all members have been speaking about. Having read the stage 1 report, the evidence and the spice remote report among discussion with people on the committee, it is clear that this would be a positive and welcome step. As I have said, Scottish Labour is also supportive of the proposed 2 stage approach to the moratorium period with an open-ended first phase, allowing an individual to focus on recovery from a serious mental health condition rather than exacerbating the problem with continuous-day worries. Prioritising the mental health of the individual in such situations is of paramount importance, as other members have said, speaking to people with that lived experience. Again, we believe that we have found common ground with the Government in this area. As you know, assistance advice bureaus across the country provide high-quality debt advice, free of charge and to people in their time of need. When they say, and I quote, we must recognise that when someone has a mental health crisis or when their mental health is so bad that they need to take time out and pause, that is not the time to think about their debts. We ought to listen, and that means not only establishing this moratorium in legislation but explaining how it will operate in practice. That has been some of the questions that members have had for the Government so far. On this point, as has been noted, I find myself in full agreement with the committee's recommendations, as my colleague also mentioned, Scottish Labour shares the committee's concerns on the lack of detail on how the moratorium will operate in practice, and its view that there must be sufficient time to scrutinise detailed proposals. That would be helpful, as many of the other members have said. The bill leaves a lot of detail to be laid out in regulation, and those should be provided in draft form before stage 3. I appreciate, in his letter to the committee responding to the stage 1 report, that the minister acknowledges the committee's concerns and suggests that he will seek to address them moving forward. I look forward to his comments on that, but it is important to note the contributions that were given by South Lanarkshire Council during the evidence-taking process. Therefore, it is not clear at this point who will be able to use a mental health moratorium, how an application will be made, and what effect it will have, or how long it will last. For those who will be in a position of having to deal with that, it would be very helpful for them. There is undoubtedly a concern. The Scottish Government has set out a well-intentioned, I believe, well-supported proposal, but where it lacks detail, it is fair to say that there is still a fair amount of work to be done to address the concerns that are raised by the committee and other stakeholders and members in the chamber today. Furthermore, eligibility in relation to the moratorium is another clear area where we believe that the Scottish Government ought to revisit its position. As it stands, only those receiving compulsory treatment would be eligible for mental health moratorium. I know that a couple of the members mentioned that and are far more familiar perhaps with the exact wording, but my understanding is that the approach is thought to be not proportionate to the scale of the problem. I agree with the committee's proposal that the criteria should be widened. Going back to a statement that I made earlier on as I started, I think that the clearer terms for this so that people understand that would be helpful, but I also understand that there has never been any evidence from other areas that this has been widely abused or anything, so I think that it would be helpful and it can be managed well. As the minister notes in his response to the stage 1 report, early indications from consultation did suggest that this was an area of legislation where support was not widespread and concerns were held around the entry criteria. As I have said, it is welcome that the minister has recognised those concerns and will move forward with them. In calling for his extension of eligibility, we recognise that that would require an expansion of debt advice services. I think that other members have mentioned that. It is all very well for us to recognise that we might want to change the legislation, but we know that debt advice services are quite stretched. Those working in the debt advice sector are already working to capacity. They must be given the training and support that is required to properly deliver those reforms as they come through the different stages that are passed in the Parliament. Systems advice Scotland believes that there should be more partnership working across mental health and money advice services. A lot of members would agree with that. That could be achieved by example of embedding money advice services in mental health settings or working closely with local community teams and local community groups. That is an important part of any legislation and how it works in practice. The community-based approach can be applied across various disciplines and to tackle various issues, but I am strongly of the opinion that that is a key area where communities and those most in need would feel the benefits. I want to just mention that the points about the uprating of the allowances that were mentioned by the convener are quite important. I do not have time to go into them myself, but I have not been on the committee and come into the papers and read about it. I think that that would be an important thing for the Government to look at as well. In concluding, I reiterate my party's support for the general principles of the legislation. The key aims of the bill are well-intentioned and have been mentioned. The aims are shared across the chamber and we have identified that stakeholders broadly support that. I hope that the minister will address some of the issues that have been raised by the committee and members in the chamber today. I again thank the clerks and the committee for the stage 1 report. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have heard some interesting and informed contributions, first of all, of Murdo Fraser from his experience as somebody who is legally qualified from Fergus Ewing. Both of them are legally qualified and have been a partitioner in this area in the past and from Colin Beattie with his financial expertise, but I was going to concentrate a little more on the general situation that has given rise to the need for this bill in my view and some of the general points that underlie the general principles, which is the subject of a stage 1 debate. We are currently living through two major crises that are absolutely dominating the quality of life in our country and that is the cost of living crisis, including something that we do not talk about so much anymore, the cost of energy crisis and the mental health crisis, two problems that are made worse by each other. The Covid-19 pandemic, also Russia's invasion of Ukraine, has helped to unleash economic uncertainty across the world and this is particularly true in Scotland where the additional uncertainty and the massive costs of Brexit have reached even more havoc on the economy, impacting businesses, employment and individuals across the country. Those factors have contributed to producing a cost of living crisis that is pushing many Scottish households into financial destitution. For some unsustainable debt has become a very unfortunate consequence of this and we all know the strain that we have heard that that can place on a person's mental health. Scotland is in the midst of a rapidly worsening debt crisis with a report published by Step Change Scotland's debt charity showing a 27 per cent increase in average unsecured debt levels in just one year, rising from £12,730 in 2021 to £16,174 in 2022. For that reason, the bill could not be more timely given its central aim of alleviating, in a small way, the struggles of grappling with debt and potential bankruptcy, two challenges often compounded by mental health issues. It is worth mentioning, however, that the changes to debt enforcement rules in the bill are not hugely dramatic or, as we have heard, particularly contentious but pragmatic. All the measures in this bill have undergone public consultation at least once and have received broad support. They would require transparency from entities such as banks or employers regarding unsuccessful attempts to arrest a debtor's assets while also ensuring that debtors themselves are entitled to a debt advice and information package ahead of relevant hearings among other changes. They are fairly straightforward changes, ensuring greater transparency for all involved. There was an interesting question raised by Stephen Kerr in relation to Colin Beattie's comment about her register. Unless any of the lawyers present want to correct me, it is a case that bankruptcy is always public and transparent, whereas that would be a public register that should also include references to people's mental health. I would share that concern. I would be interested to see how the Government manages to reconcile the issue between the impact on individuals of having their mental health situation made public and the need for transparency. Scotland has always had distinct laws on the rest of the UK regarding debt recovery, and I believe that the bill signals the beginning of a more compassionate and humanistic approach to debt recovery in the country, one that protects the dignity of our fellow Scots when they are at their most vulnerable. That is further shown by the mental health moratorium, which the bill proposes, which would provide individuals with serious mental health issues regarding legal protection and a freeze on debt enforcement actions—one of the most important actions that can be taken to try to alleviate the stress and the impact on someone's mental health—a shield to protect their citizens when they are potentially at their most vulnerable. I take on board the points made by a number of members about the need for more specificity, and I do not envy the minister's task in trying to get something that is objective and that might satisfy some of the concerns that are already expressed. That specific tool, which is recommended by the working group in the development of the bill, recognises the strong link between problem debt and poor mental health. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reports that half of adults with debts face mental health issues, as we have heard, while one in four individuals with mental health problems is in debt. There is clearly a symbiotic relationship between debt and poor mental health. As lawmakers, we need to make laws that reflect that. The bill's significance lies in that commitment to improving our existing system to protect the most vulnerable at a time when it is truly needed. It is also important to remember that the bill is under consideration today and represents only one aspect of a broader programme dedicated to improving how we deal with bankruptcy and diligence. As my understanding again, as we have heard, the Scottish Government intends to introduce additional changes through secondary legislation—a perfectly proper, legitimate and transparent process that is subject to democratic scrutiny—with some secondary legislation that is expected to be laid before Parliament during the course of the bill's progression. Further to that, I understand that the Scottish Government has undertaken a longer-term review to assess the adequacy of current statutory solutions in the increasingly challenging time on which we live, so we can continue to ensure that we are providing the necessary protection, support to guide individuals out of the throes of problem debt. There has been some discussion as to whether we simply mirror what happens in England and Wales in many of the important respects. I think that there are important ways in which debt collection in particular in Scotland is much more humane and has developed over time. I do not think that we should throw that baby out with the bathwater nor do I think that it is a good course of action to denigrate this Parliament and simply say, let's do what is done by another Parliament. I have confidence in both the Government and the Parliament's ability to legislate properly in this area. To conclude, let our decisions on this bill reflect our commitment to improve the current system along compassionate lines. It is a different world that we live in now from which we lived in very recently in terms of the prevalence of mental health, many of the instances of which are due to the pandemic. Let's also build an effective legal framework. As I said earlier, the changes in the legislation have already seen broad support from the public, so let's make sure that it receives broad support from this Parliament as well. I now call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Emma Harper and Ms Chapman. We are all well aware that the actions that we take and decisions that we make can change people's lives. Some of what we do might seem small and insignificant, and yes, some of those things might be small, but they could have significant positive impacts on a few people's lives. I think that this Bankruptcy Intelligent Scotland Bill will be exactly that. In the midst of technical changes to our bankruptcy laws is the potential to make the lives of people who are struggling with debt and poor mental health much more manageable. So on behalf of the Scottish Greens I welcome this legislation. I'd like to thank all of those individuals and organisations who contributed in various ways to the economy and fair work committee's scrutiny of the bill. I appreciate the consideration and time devoted to helping us get to grips with the details of the proposals in the bill, and I'm especially grateful to those who have challenged us to be bolder and to go further, to deliver benefits to even more people who are struggling with poor mental health and debt issues. Like many others this afternoon, I will focus my remarks on the provisions relating to the mental health moratorium.  That was made very clear to us by participants in the engagement session we held with one parent families and the poverty alliance. The personal stories of mental health issues spiralling out of control because of the pressures of debts alongside other issues associated with family, work, physical health and so on were emotive and very affecting. As Becca Stacey from the Money in Mental Health Policy Institute said too, we know that people with mental health problems are three and a half times more likely to be in debt, and half of the people who are in problem debt are experiencing a mental health problem. So it's a vicious circle, debt and poor mental health being clearly linked and reinforcing. It is also clear that, despite the work undertaken to shift perceptions and actions taken by creditors when dealing with people suffering from mental health issues, some still continue to demand repayments, common debts or council tax benefits over payments, overdrafts and utilities. Given that public sector or publicly regulated nature of these, this is very disappointing. Some creditors also insist on on-going payments, even if repayment on the debt is never likely to be complete. I have a constituent who is a cleaner works of the public services and who has invested a small amount of money from his parents, which he used to buy a flat to rent out. His tenant hasn't paid the rent for a very long period of time and has said that he's not doing so because he knows that he can't be evicted. My constituent, thus, is in a situation of facing himself severe mental stress. He's not wealthy, he's a creditor, so it's a two-way street, isn't it? We've got to have surely a balanced system, otherwise society and contracts don't function as they should. Maggie Chapman, I can give you the time back. I think that Fergus Ewing raises an interesting point, but to try and bring tenants' rights into this debate is maybe a little bit shy of the mark. We need to make sure that society as a whole supports everybody and that homes are for living in, not for making profit. People struggling with debt told us in committee that they also now get repeated contact from creditors, by texts, emails as well as letters, sometimes on a daily basis. Such pressures can only add to stress and anxiety even if the communications were not threatening. The incessant demands and pressures have significant negative impacts on people's wellbeing. For these and other reasons, the introduction of powers to create a mental health moratorium is very welcome. Having a clear mechanism to ensure that creditors cease diligence proceedings while someone focuses on improving their mental health is necessary. I look forward to further discussions on potentially freezing interest repayment charges, restricting contact from the creditor and the like. I support calls to include these informal forms of debt enforcement in the moratorium. As we've heard, the bill is enabling legislation with details of the mental health moratorium to be determined by regulations currently being developed following the conclusion of the recent consultation. I welcome the minister's commitment to keep the committee informed as regulations are developed so that we can effectively scrutinise them. I believe that we will effectively scrutinise those. The significant area of concern with the moratorium proposal is that eligibility criteria are drawn far too narrowly. We heard from many witnesses and people with lived experience that many people who do not have compulsory treatment orders would benefit from accessing the much needed support under the moratorium. We've heard already this afternoon details of alternative approaches for widening the eligibility criteria, so I won't rehearse those here. I do appreciate that the minister has said that more time is required to analyse consultation responses on the issue. I hope that we can agree wider criteria as the bill progresses through subsequent stages. I think that there is general agreement on the committee for that. Linked to that, I do not agree with the view held by some, including that expressed in the consultation document on the operation of the moratorium, that we should start small, make sure that the scheme works properly and then consider expanding it once we have sufficient experience under our belts. The approach risks, I think, the success of the scheme as a whole. If only a handful of people can benefit from a moratorium because of the tightness of the eligibility criteria, then we won't actually get the evidence or experience we need or understand where it is failing. We don't want this legislation to fall flat at this first hurdle. On other proposals contained within the bill, I share the concerns expressed by many this afternoon about the creation of a public register and the stigma associated with this. I look forward to further information on this from the minister in due course. I welcome the minister's commitment to look for an opportunity to amend the stigmatising phrase, severely, mentally impaired. I echo the calls from financial advice and support organisations and others to ensure that front-line debt advisers and mental health professionals get the appropriate specialist trauma-informed training and support required to ensure that they are adequately equipped to support people struggling with both mental ill health and debt. I don't have time to address all the other proposals in the bill, so in closing, Presiding Officer, I thank the convener and the other colleagues on the Economy and Fair Work Committee for their work undertaking on this bill to date. I thank the clerks for pulling together everything that we've discussed and I look forward to our future discussions on that detail that we've talked so much about this afternoon in the coming months. I'm pleased to speak at the debate. I'm not a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, but I do have an interest in ensuring that we get a bankruptcy and a solvency. We have to get it right for people in communities across Scotland who are facing financial harm. I therefore welcome that the bill will bring forward stakeholder-led recommendations to introduce improvements to current insolvency solutions and debt recovery processes. I thank all the committees and the members of the committees and the clerks for their scrutiny and everybody for providing evidence as we take forward this legislation. Countries around the world have been facing unprecedented challenges and a strain on their economies in recent times. Scotland has not been immune to this, not least from the Conservative-created cost-of-living crisis. The Covid-19 pandemic introduced a huge uncertainty with a far-reaching impact on business and employment arrangements for thousands of people in Scotland. Now that we're in the midst of this cost-of-living crisis, placing many households under extreme financial difficulty. Unfortunately for many, unsustainable debt will be the regrettable consequence. It is right that the process that we put in place to address this is adequate and that it treats people fairly. It is essential that we look to maximise the effectiveness of our systems that provide the necessary protection and support to help all those people to navigate their way out of the pressure of problem debt. We have good mechanisms in Scotland with far-sighted reforms, including the 2015 placing high-quality consumer debt advice at the centre of the system. The debt arrangement scheme has been a major success and remains the UK's only statutory debt repayment solution. Reforms introduced immediately prior to the onset of the pandemic have been an enabler for the scheme to grow, allowing more people to take control of their debt through a manageable payment programme. A Scottish Government committed to a policy review of Scotland's statutory debt solutions with the aim of further enhancing and improving our system. The first stage of the policy review dealt with the priorities to be taken forward to help to address the immediate impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The second stage of the review was undertaken by stakeholder-led working groups, which threw on a wide range of expertise and knowledge from representatives of all sectors, including in the debt landscape. I welcome that those stakeholder groups made up of people with lived experience have informed the approach to the bill. The bill contains powers that would allow Scottish ministers to create a mental health moratorium—others have already described that as well this afternoon. There are steps at charities such as Change Mental Health and the Samaritans. They have welcomed those steps. The power, if used, will protect people with serious mental health issues from debt recovery action. The idea of a moratorium providing special protection to those with serious mental health conditions achieved broad support in the bankruptcy and debt advice review consultation. I will give way to Stephen Kerr. Stephen Kerr mentioned Change Mental Health. She cited them as being in support of the bill. In principle, I am sure that they are, but she will have received a briefing, as I have, where they outline specific areas of concern, at least four or five. One of them is the eligibility, one of them is the mental health moratorium registered—a public register, and it goes on like this. Does she recognise that the lack of detail and substance in the bill is a stumbling block to those of us who want to see real progress, who want to see Scots treated on a fair basis and certainly no less fairly treated than people in England and Wales? Emma Harper, I can give the time back. I thank Stephen Kerr for that intervention. What I would respond in that is that Change Mental Health is really supportive of how we take things forward. What I would support is Kevin Stewart's statements about lived experience being part of how we inform this as we take it forward at stage 2. I am confident that the committee will know how to address the bill and the issues that have been raised up in stage 1, and then, as we move forward after the debate today. I would like to think about enabling power in the bill that establishes the moratorium that is included in the bankruptcy and diligence Scotland bill. Responses to the economy and fair work committee show strong report for the principle of such protection, if understandably raising questions over the details. I want to pick up on one other point that some organisations have touched on regarding bankruptcy debt and employment. We are all too aware, particularly over Covid and in the current cost of living crisis, that many people have fallen into unsustainable debt with around 700,000 people in Scotland reporting levels of unsustainable debt. However, due to that debt and even bankruptcy, people are being negatively impacted in terms of their ability to obtain certain types of employment. That in turn creates a vicious cycle. As people cannot get employment, they cannot pay their debt. Whereas if certain vetting and employment practices were changed, then people would be able to establish payment plans to manage their debt in a more sustainable way. We therefore ask the minister whether he would consider entering some kind of dialogue with the UK Government to explore whether certain types of debt could be omitted from, for example, government and civil service vetting. This bill is only one part of the programme of work to improve bankruptcy and diligence. The Scottish Government will introduce changes through secondary legislation, some of which is hoped will be laid before Parliament during the progress of the bill. The Scottish Government has also commissioned a long-term review to assess how far current statutory solutions meet the needs of a modern economy. Yvonne McDermott, OBE, accepted an appointment to lead stage 3 of that wider stakeholder review, and there will be some matters that merit further consideration as part of review, which is welcome. The bill is yet another example of how Scotland is making the process of bankruptcy and solvency fairer for those in that situation. I welcome the bill and I will support it at stage 1. I am delighted to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. The laws that deal with issues such as insolvency are both vast and complex, which is unsurprising for an area of law that can affect people's wellbeing so significantly. For people who are suffering with mental health issues, debt is something that will only make this worse. We know that one in two adults suffering with debt have mental health problems, and the Covid-19 pandemic still carries a legacy of financial challenges and increased debt for many individuals. Given that, the law society is right to highlight that changes to the law in that area are overdue, so that the bill can be welcomed as part of the wider strategy to improve debt solutions and diligence. The bill would introduce minor and technical changes to the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016, and those are to be welcomed. Much of the debate around the bill focuses on proposed mental health moratorium, which would provide additional protection for specific groups of debtors. The moratorium would be similar to an existing debt respite scheme in England and Wales, which provides a breathing space for those who are receiving treatment for mental health crises. Although many stakeholders who provided views are highly supporter of the principle, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government did not set out any details of their proposed moratorium until the consultation was launched last November. While we now have the rough sketch of how the moratorium might work, it remains the case that many important details will be decided through secondary legislation. It is at least welcome that the Government plans to reveal those draft regulations before stage 3, but it would have a lot of better scrutiny if more details on those regulations had been revealed sooner. One key aspect that is still to be decided is who the eligibility for this moratorium with the current proposals restrict this to those who are currently subject to a compulsory treatment order. On that issue, the committee rightly recommends that the Scottish Government consider a wider approach. That would include mirroring the approach that is taken in England and Wales with the debt respite scheme. That option is also backed by groups including Change Mental Health, and it is something that I hope the Government considers. Other stakeholders such as Nat West have warned of potential side effects from extending the scope too far, and it is clear that there is a balance to be struck on that issue. An effective moratorium must also provide the right level of protection for those that need it. For example, Poverty Alliance highlights the importance of stopping creditor contact. It points out that creditors sending regular text messages and letters reminding people that their debts are constantly increasing will only make their mental health issues even worse. For the moratorium being proposed by the Scottish Government would not stop contact nor would it freeze interest charges or threats of eviction. If the moratorium is going to be effective, it cannot provide a half-hearted level of protection. It should not be less ambitious than the existing debt respite scheme, which offers additional protection such as freezing contact from creditors. I therefore hope that the Government can listen to the advice of stakeholders and to the committee's recommendations that the Government should reconsider what that moratorium would protect against. As my colleague Murdo Fraser highlights, much of the debt in diligence proceedings is owed to public bodies such as local government. The ultimate recovery of this debt, where possible, is something that is often in the public interest. It is clear that carefully drafted moratorium will be one that is able to strike the right balance between the rights of debtors and rights of creditors. In conclusion, the Bankruptcy and Diligence Scotland Bill is an important piece of legislation, which makes small reforms with important consequences. Mental health issues and debt go together all too easily. Financial strain is a key driver of poor mental health and anyone struggling to cover essential bills is at a higher risk of developing issues such as anxiety and depression. It is only right that those individuals are given the protection that an effective mental health moratorium could provide. However, this Government still has work to do in order to ensure that this moratorium is effective and that onus now lies with them to address the issues that Parliament has highlighted today. I hope that the Scottish Government will take a constructive approach and work with MSPs and other stakeholders to ensure that this bill can live up to its full potential. The principles behind the bill are ones that all parties can get behind and I hope that all members can join the Scottish Conservatives in backing the Bankruptcy and Diligence Bill at stage 1. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and I thank the minister and the committee for the work that has been done on this technical but very important subject. I reflect back on Murdo Fraser's comments, which I found quite helpful in outlining the reasons why we need bankruptcy legislation and highlighting the balance that is required between protection and allowing people to have that fresh start, but also recognising the issue of moral hazard, and particularly the points raised about the fact that, for many of the people who find themselves in a situation, much of that is due to the public purse. It is also important to recognise the impact that legislation in this area can have on the behaviour of financial institutions with regard to their willingness to lend. Those points were well made. While the issue is of course about bankruptcy measures relating to individuals and not businesses, I thought that the contribution from Stephen Kerr was about the need to foster that entrepreneurial culture and spirit and the need to get that balance right in that regard, so that people feel able to start businesses and then, if they fail, have the ability to move on and apply their learnings to support the broader economy, which was very well made. Turning to the specific measures in the bill before us, I think that it is true to say that households across Scotland are facing enormous pressures on their budgets and household financial resilience, which is already low before the pandemic, with more than 600,000 people in debt. Now, you gave poll conducted for Citizens Advice Scotland, which suggests that more than 60,000 people in Scotland have either got into debt for the first time or seen existing debts get worse over the course of the pandemic. While the cost of living crisis has increased those pressures for everyone, inflation has been felt most acutely, of course, by low-income households who have little or no disposable income to absorb those increases.  Living with mental health needs can increase the risk of poverty. 50 per cent of adults struggling with debt also have a mental health issue, and many of the income shocks that can lead to problem debt can also have a huge impact on mental wellbeing from loss of employment to bereavement, termination of welfare payments and relationship breakdowns. I am pleased that the legislation is recognising that link. I am also pleased that the Scottish Government will be holding a lived experience session at the end of February to hear first hand from those who have experienced severe mental health issues and debt challenges. I look forward to hearing the feedback from the event and understanding that this is something that was recommended by the committee. A moratorium on debt repayment can provide the space required for recovery and hold the vicious cycle of increasing debt and worsening mental health. The Government has said that the aim of those legislative changes is to help to improve the lives of people who are struggling with problem debt and serious mental health issues. There have been calls and evidence taken during stage 1 that there are some changes that must be made to ensure that the legislation achieves its aims. As it stands, the moratorium will only apply to those in compulsory treatment. Comments have been made about the breathing space project in England in Wales, in which this Parliament, of course, should make its own decisions. It is always instructive to learn from what others are doing. That process is, of course, open to anyone who is receiving mental health crisis treatment. The committee heard evidence from those who are in favour of widening eligibility. I would be interested to hear the Government's response to the recommendations in that area. Of course, those who are in crisis need that support, and it should be given at the earliest opportunity. The Government's commitment to providing advice to individuals via the channel of their choice is welcome, but evidence suggests that there are concerns around the capacity of money-advised services. Organisations such as the Greater Easter House, Money Advice Project, GMAP and Financial Included, among others of my own Glasgow Proven constituency, included. It was reassuring to hear the minister mention that in his opening remarks, and I look forward to hearing how the Government will ensure that the sector is supported to deliver the required services going forward. The needs of those with mental health issues are often complex and engagement can be difficult as a consequence. As well as capacity, there is a need for us to support the sector to develop and test ways of working better with those facing difficulties with their mental health. Citizens Advice Scotland has indicated that there should be more partnership working between money advice and mental health services, and I am keen to hear how the Government can support collaborative working in that area. There is also scope for clearer guidance and training for mental health professionals and money advisers to allow them to effectively support people to enable those in need to access the mental health moratorium. Guidance should also be available to creditors to make their role and responsibilities clear, and it is good to see that the Scottish Government is listening and agrees that clear guidance and training should be provided, and it will be good to see what that guidance looks like in practice. I welcome the legislation and look forward to seeing how those recommendations go forward and to seeing how they will be incorporated into the bill. If the concerns are identified across the chamber, they are taken into account. That could be a productive step in addressing the mutually reinforcing relationship between poor mental health and poverty. Thank you very much indeed, Mr McKee. We now move to the closing speeches. I am disappointed to note that one member who was participating in the debate is not in the chamber for the closing speeches. I will expect an explanation and an apology for that. Katie Clark is around seven minutes, Ms Clark. It is a pleasure to wind up this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and, indeed, to follow Ivan McKee, who was correct to talk about the financial struggles that many people in Scotland are currently facing. In the last Parliament, the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee recommended that the Scottish Government review the debt solutions available to people with problem debt. We supported that recommendation, and, while we broadly support the provisions in this bill today, we believe that far more needs to be done to address how we deal with those who find themselves in debt, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis. We believe that there are many other areas of bankruptcy law that need updated. There has been discussion about some of that today, in particular some of the thresholds, for example in relation to wage arrests. As somebody who has not been sitting on the committee, I would be interested to hear from the minister whether there are further proposals coming forward following on the recommendation in 2019. We do have some issues with some of the drafting of this bill, and I believe that many of the clauses are too widely defined, which we hoped will be an issue that will be addressed in amendments. We agree that the Parliament needs to see the detail before stage 3. As Daniel Johnson says, we support the general principles of this bill, but, like many others in this chamber, we hope that it will be strengthened as it goes forward. I was not involved in the scrutiny process of the bill, but many of the criticisms that I have heard today—indeed, which occurred to me when I looked at the black letter of the bill before us—are criticisms that I have heard many times in relation to bills that come before this Parliament, a lack of detail provided on the face of the bill and a lack of detail provided to the committee that is charged with scrutinising the proposals. I do not think that it is acceptable that the Scottish Parliament is continuously put in this position, but I hope that, in relation to this bill, some of those criticisms are addressed as this particular bill goes through this Parliament. As Colin Beattie said, much of the focus of this debate has been on the proposals relating to the mental health monitorium. Labour supports the principle of establishing a mental health monitorium on debt recovery action. Much of the detail, however, on how the proposed mental health monitorium will operate in practice, is being left to secondary legislation. Indeed, the minister made very clear that this is enabling legislation. We believe that this detail should have been provided on the face of this bill today, and, as we say, we hope that there will be amendments to give clarity going forward. However, if it remains the case that the bill is much as currently drafted, we hope that, given the level of detail that it is going to have to be incorporated in regulations, the affirmative procedure is used in considering any secondary legislation. As Stephen Carr and indeed a number of Conservative members pointed out, the proposals that are presented to this Parliament give those with mental health problems potentially less protections than south of the border. Keith Brown suggested that it would not be acceptable simply to mirror legislation from south of the border, and I agree with him on that point. The law of bankruptcy is very different in Scotland and always has been from south of the border. I think that it is completely legitimate to say that it is actually quite shocking if we end up with poorer protections than south of the border. However, I agree with what Keith Brown was saying, relating to the public register. I think that those are important points to be put on the record. I believe that the provisions in relation to that need very careful consideration, given the human rights implications for those impacted who often will be some of the most vulnerable in our society. The convener of the committee outlined the range of evidence that the committee took to engage with those who work in the debt sector and again made clear the disappointment of the committee at the lack of detail provided to enable the committee to carry out their role to scrutinise the proposals. She spoke about the small number of people who may benefit from the proposals in particular in relation to the monitorium and highlighted the high numbers of people who are in debt and who have mental health problems and indeed the high percentage of those who have mental health problems who are in debt, a point that was very well reinforced by Kevin Stewart. We note the representations made by Change Mental Health that the eligibility for entering a mental health monitorium is too narrow, a point also reinforced by the convener of the committee. As I say, we support in broad terms the proposals in this bill. In particular, we support the proposal to allow the minimum asset bankruptcy to take place every five years. We think that this is consistent with the approach that has been discussed today to enable the possibility of people who get into difficulty a fresh start. Murder Fraser highlighted the lack of capacity in the debt sector. That is a very important point, which has been made by a number of members. Indeed, in the past, there have been very strong representations in this Parliament, for example, for a debt amnesty for low-income families and those in receipt of benefits. There have been calls for debt advice levies on financial benefits and a range of extra resources to front-line advisers. I believe that that issue is essential to this debate, because whatever legislation we have in place, we have to recognise that those who seek to rely on the legislation are at a particularly vulnerable point in their lives. They are often very vulnerable people and it is essential that there is a framework around the legislation so that it is enabled to be used appropriately. I apologise to the chamber and especially to the minister for my late arrival in the chamber. I wish I could come up with some wonderful reason for that, unfortunately. I was simply misreading the start time of this particular debate, but to be fair, as was pointed out to me, I was earlier than I am usually late. I start by echoing the thanks of the committee convener to all those who gave evidence to us about the bill, to Spice for the very helpful background briefings and to the committee clerks for their assistance in the preparation of the report. As has been demonstrated in this debate, the committee agreed to report unanimously with very little discourse through the evidence gathering process. There have been some very interesting speeches today. For a technical bill, perhaps that was rather unexpected. I would highlight the experience of Fergus Ewing and Daniel Johnson's intervention. To my colleague Murdo Fraser, with his usual attention to detail, he helped to frame the implications of the bankruptcy law and the negative connotations of the term bankruptcy. He highlighted that bankruptcy provides a solution for those who find themselves in a situation that have not been able to meet the financial obligations, avoiding the need for debtors to be pursued by creditors indefinitely. In effect, it is offering a way to clear the dex, so to speak. All the while, we need to understand that there is a balance to be sought between creditors and debtors. In evidence, we heard that in cases we are considering, it is predominantly public bodies such as HMRC, local councils and especially council tax arwares that are often the main creditors. That throws up that need to balance the needs of debtors against the collection of funds that support public services. To the bill itself, as has been mentioned by committee members, it is mostly a minor and technical change to existing bankruptcy legislation. Much of the evidence taken in the disgusting committee centred around the debtors with significant mental illness and, therefore, their capacity to adequately attend to the debt recovery processes against them, which we all agree is a very legitimate reason to support a moratorium on the recovery of said debt. Others in the debate have cited a similar scheme in England and Wales, breathing space, where individuals receiving what is termed crisis treatment are afforded such protections. That includes those subject to compulsory orders, but it crucially includes those suffering from conditions of comparable severity receiving crisis, emergency or acute treatment without compulsion. However, again, during our evidence session, the committee heard that the proposed entry criteria should not only apply to those subject to compulsory orders, excluding those with severe and significant mental health conditions that are voluntary. The narrowness of that criteria was criticised by several agencies that gave evidence such as One Parent Family Scotland and the Poverty Alliance. The concern was that that approach would only help a very small number of patients, including many who would also need that particular service. Furthermore, there was concern as to the resource required to make such a mental health moratorium work in practice. The interaction with Daniel Johnson highlighted the need for the Scottish Government to furnish us with more information and that it allows sufficient time for detailed parliamentary scrutiny prior to the commencement of the stage 3 bill. My colleague Stephen Kerr is highlighting the need to not create law in this kind of vacuum and the limitations of secondary legislation. There is no point delivering a bill that cannot be practically delivered no matter the intention or the good intention of the Scottish Government. The suggestion is that mental health experts be allowed to certify a required level of impact from mental health problems using a similar form to the debt and mental health evidence form currently used in the monetary advice sector. They consider using entry-level criteria similar to the ones used by, as I mentioned, breathing space in England and Wales. In doing so, it is important that the resource issue is addressed both in terms of mental health support and ensuring that the money advice sector is adequately resourced to attend to the potentially expanding workload. It was noted that the proposed moratorium may put additional pressures on the money advice sector and that this sector was already operating under significant restraints. Once again, raising the issue of the need for the Scottish Government to address the resource requirement to make the implementation of the bill practical. Training and guidance to the sector must form a big part of the bill's implementation. It was also noted from the Delegate Powers and Reform Law Reform Committee that moratoriums are meant to be temporary and that the bill fails to specify a maximum duration. However, we do support a two-stage approach with an open-ended first phase to allow the individual to focus on recovery without having to contend with the serious worries of debt. We welcome the experiences from the minister that there will be no plans to reduce the standard moratorium for its current six months. Initially, the committee discussed that the compulsory treatment—those in compulsory treatment—who do not have the capacity to consent to mental health moratorium or have a legally recognised representation to do so for them will not be able to access the scheme. Therefore, we ask the Scottish Government to ensure that this process allows for access to all those who are eligible. I would also like to note that, on the other side of the issue, there are creditors and any delay in payment of those debts could jeopardise some businesses. Just a note in delivering a bill that creditors' needs are also not overlooked. The bill might not have impacted many individuals. However, the protection that it will afford to those who need it is significant to them. The committee, as has other members, has raised concerns over the lack of detail from the Scottish Government and how the bill will be implemented. It is therefore welcome that the minister has committed to delivering those details prior to stage 3. I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee clerks and to my fellow committee members for their work done in bringing this report to Parliament. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking all members across the chamber for their contributions and what I thought was a very thoughtful and considered debate. I also reiterate my thanks to the committee, the committee members, clerks and all who have given evidence, and indeed to all who have engaged with the Scottish Government through the stakeholder working groups and the recent consultation. This is one of those particular areas that naturally creates a great deal of consensus because it deals with one of the fundamental architecture of what underpins a functioning state, the ability to enforce contracts. There is an important balance to be struck at that has been reflected in this debate between the interests of debtors who we want to ensure at maximum protection but also the interests of creditors. That word credit with its origins and trust and the confidence that it is needed for creditors and a functioning system of insolfency is absolutely vital because without that trust and without that confidence we could unintentionally harm the very people we want to protect and deny access to credit to those who we want to ensure can have access to credit. This is a debate in a bill that cuts to some very fundamental issues despite the short and indeed technical nature of it. I would also like to reflect on a number of outstanding contributions right across this debate and, in particular, comments from my colleague Kevin Stewart. I think that Fergus Ewing made a very powerful s