Official Report 137KB pdf
Members will remember that we agreed to produce a letter to be sent to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, reflecting the evidence that we have received in this area and our thoughts on it. At our previous meeting we discussed this item more than the item that we have just dealt with, so many amendments may not be required. However, I will go through the document paragraph by paragraph, and members can indicate if they wish to make changes.
Paragraph 2 uses the words "not necessary to delay", but I think that there was some disagreement about that.
I wanted to make a similar point. The statement
I am absolutely happy with the wording of paragraph 2, because I think that it is vital that alternative methods are developed.
Jamie Stone and I were a little concerned. I take the deputy convener's point that the abolition of poindings and warrant sales will force the development of alternative methods. However, it would be more sensible to start introducing those first, although I do not suggest a time scale of anything like three years—perhaps six months. We need to think about the resource implications and practicalities of alternative methods of creditor protection.
I was concerned that the people who argued for the current system were not energetic in their search for alternatives. Although it is logical to say that poindings and warrant sales should not be abolished until a new system is in place, I did not detect any great urgency to do that. Perhaps that should not be used as an excuse to delay the legislation. However, the committee has to make a balanced judgment about whether paragraphs 2 and 3 reflect the seriousness with which we addressed that question. This is the main issue with which the Parliament has to wrestle when it decides whether to support the bill.
I agree. I do not think that there was any widespread support in the committee for a three-year timetable, which was a time period that was almost plucked out of thin air. As Sylvia Jackson pointed out, such a time scale is ludicrous. Six months or a year might be acceptable; if people had three years, they would wait for a couple of them before rushing out an alternative. If people realise that the bill is likely to become law, they will probably start to focus very quickly on finding alternatives. If everything goes to plan, Tommy, when is the earliest that the bill could become law?
A stage 2 committee report will probably come before Parliament in April or early May, which means that the legislation could come into effect in the new local government financial year.
So if the bill were to be implemented in the next few months, there is no reason why alternatives could not be in place for 2001 or 2002.
The deputy convener's point about that issue is critical. I am worried that if poindings and warrant sales remain in place, alternatives will not be found; however, if those measures are abolished, the energy to find alternatives might emerge.
I think that the word "vital" should remain in paragraph 2, because creditors might feel that we are deserting them if we say only that it is hoped that alternatives will be found. It was made clear to the committee that both creditors and debtors have a problem, and I am sure that abolishing poindings and warrant sales will sharpen the wits of the people who are owed money or who are charged with coming up with alternatives. The present system is not working well, and another needs to be found. As a result, paragraph 2 should stay as it is.
In an effort to reflect the debate within the committee, should we leave the wording of paragraph 2, but change the phrase "three years' time" in paragraph 3 to "a specified time"?
A short time.
At least that would express our view that there should be a transitional working-in time to find alternatives, which is the balance of the argument, not whether poindings and warrant sales should be abolished before an alternative is in place.
My only concern is that if we say that alternatives should be found at the earliest practical opportunity, people might reply that the earliest practical opportunity is three years away. We should remove the reference to a three-year time scale in that paragraph so that it reads, "An alternative view within the committee is that the Bill should abolish poindings and warrant sales to allow for alternatives to be introduced at the start of the financial year 2001-02". That gives a very specific time scale and allows reasonable time for alternatives to be found.
I apologise for being late—it was the railways' fault, not mine. As I was not here for the first item of business, I wish to register my dissent to paragraph 18 on the paper on section 2A. As for this paper, I agree that we should not specify a time scale, but should still express our concern that alternatives need to be found.
My point is similar to Kenny Gibson's. If we are going to specify a time scale in paragraph 3, it should be the beginning of the next financial year, which, according to Tommy, sets the most achievable deadline.
As we are trying to reflect the committee's discussions in this report, it is reasonable to include the fact that some members believe that the bill should be put on hold to make sure that alternatives are in place, but that that should be done as speedily as possible. Members who think that the only way to find alternatives is to get rid of poindings and warrant sales support paragraph 2; paragraph 3 only reflects the alternative view. Those members might accept the insertion of a phrase such as "as speedily as possible" or "within as tight a time scale as possible" in that paragraph.
My concern is that people might have the best will in the world to find alternatives, but might find it difficult if there are no resources. It might be better to move paragraph 6 on adequate resources so that it follows the paragraphs on the alternative views of committee members.
Paragraph 6 is about support for debtors, not about dealing with creditors.
Does paragraph 3 include creditors?
Yes.
I did not realise that. I thought that it was general.
It might defeat the object to start talking about resources, because a member's bill cannot have any cost implications.
We are talking about two separate issues. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are about the time scale for abolishing poindings and warrant sales and the impact on people's ability to recover the money that they are owed. Paragraph 6 refers to the provision of support for debtors to prevent their situation becoming a crisis. People should receive such support early enough to be able to negotiate alternative forms of payment so that they do not reach the stage where a poinding or warrant sale might be used.
I am sure that that issue will be debated whether or not the bill becomes law.
On a point of clarification, convener. Private members' bills are allowed to require resources; the only difference is that any financial element must be discussed within three months of the bill's introduction. There is no such time scale if there are no cost implications.
We still need to find a form of words for paragraphs 2 and 3 which reflects the committee's debate about which should come first. Most members feel that if poindings or warrant sales are abolished, an alternative system must emerge. However, that view needs to be set against people's slight anxiety that alternatives will not be in place if poindings and warrant sales are abolished, which will have implications for local authorities in particular.
Unfortunately, not all the committee members—and none of the Liberals—are here today. If they were, there might be some opportunity for compromise. I am concerned that, if paragraph 3 does not give a specific time scale, people may give that paragraph more weight than the committee intended. People will think that poindings and warrant sales may be abolished only after three years, yet that date was plucked out of thin air. I do not think that Donald Gorrie was thinking of three years specifically—he could have said two years. If we say "at the earliest practical opportunity" we face the question, "How long is a piece of string?" A set timetable is important.
Would it be reasonable to include "within a specified timetable" and to expect the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to specify that timetable when it revisits the bill?
That would be a fair compromise.
This is an official meeting, which will be recorded in the Official Report, so we will be able to refer to our discussion and so clarify that we had the shortest time scale in mind, rather than the longest. No one will be able to say that the Local Government Committee was worried about the time scale in the sense that it thought that it should be elongated.
If we specified "for the start of financial year 2001-02", would that reflect the view of committee members—including those who are absent?
Donald Gorrie was considering the practicalities—he thought that it might be difficult to come up with an alternative system before a specified time. Obviously, we cannot read his mind, but I think that he was broadly sympathetic to the bill—as are at least 10 of the committee's 11 members.
Colin, are you suggesting that we include a specific time scale?
Yes. Let us make it specific; that will allow those people who want an end to warrant sales to feel more comfortable. I suggest that we include "for the start of financial year 2001-02" or "in time for financial year 2001-02".
That would concentrate minds.
Yes, it would.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. Is everyone happy with paragraphs 4, 5 and 6?
Yes.
What about paragraph 7?
This may seem pedantic, but I think that we could amalgamate paragraphs 7 and 1. Paragraph 1 says that we believe in the principles and paragraph 7 outlines the fundamental principle—the letter seems to repeat itself.
I am happy with that. I am glad that we specify the impact of the sales on families. Does the committee agree to combine paragraph 7 with paragraph 1 and renumber the remaining paragraphs accordingly?
Members indicated agreement.
As paragraphs 2 and 3 are linked, perhaps we could label them 2(a) and 2(b). That would make it clear that both paragraphs related to creditors.
That seems to be a fair suggestion. The convener and the clerk will consider the way in which the paper reads and ensure that it hangs together.
I ask the committee to consider a change in wording of paragraph 9, so that it would read "The committee notes", rather than "The committee accepts". I do not think that it has been proven that the bill would have a major adverse effect on council tax collection levels, although everyone accepts that it might have that effect. It is important that we say that the committee "notes" rather than "accepts" that. If the committee is said to accept that the abolition of poindings and warrant sales would have a major adverse effect, it might be argued that the committee was irresponsible to support the bill and its early implementation.
I was going to make the same point. I endorse Tommy's comments. We should amend the paragraph to read "notes the assertion".
I was going to say something along the same lines. During the discussion, I asked the Scottish Law Commission whether collection levels were lower in areas where poindings and warrant sales were not enforced. Its representatives said yes, but gave no specific examples, and there was no evidence to show whether the poverty or deprivation of those council areas had been taken into account.
Members seem to take the view that the paragraph should read "notes", rather than "accepts". The fact that the paragraph refers to the joint Executive-COSLA officer group, rather than to COSLA itself—COSLA is still developing its position—is a ground for not simply accepting the assertion. I suggest that we take on board Kenny's points and replace "accepts" with "notes".
I checked this with the West Lothian Council representative in COSLA, who told me that he was not aware that the views referred to were COSLA's position—he intends to raise the matter with COSLA. The abolition of poindings and warrant sales is a highly political issue and there is concern that the political representatives in COSLA may not have been consulted appropriately.
Of all committees in the Parliament, the Local Government Committee will give the most significance to what COSLA has to say on the matter. COSLA members are being consulted this week and will report next week.
I want to add to Bristow's point about consultation. Alex Neil, John McAllion and I, as the sponsors of the bill, will visit West Dunbartonshire Council next Monday to meet the council leader and the staff from the central recovery unit. We will discuss how they are able to cope with the abolition of poindings and warrant sales in the area. Our visit will demonstrate the cross-party thrust of this legislation.
Are there any other comments on this report? If not, do members agree that we should submit it to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee?
Members indicated agreement.