Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, May 4, 2023

Official Report 986KB pdf

---

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP Bill 15A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments. Group 1 is on content of documents. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2, 16, 17, 25 and 26.

Section 1—Assignation of claims: general

At stage 2, the committee agreed to a number of amendments that were lodged by Jeremy Balfour that were intended to replicate a provision that was made in section 2(4) of the bill. That provision enables a condition that has to be specified to be specified by “reference ... to another document”. The amendments that were made at stage 2 were designed to add comparable provision in respect of requirements to identify a claim, encumbered property and a secured obligation in certain documents.

I said at stage 2 that, although I did not think that those amendments were strictly necessary because the context was different, we had no objection to making the changes if stakeholders considered that such clarification would be helpful. There were, however, some technical deficiencies with the amendments, and I indicated that they would need to be adjusted at stage 3. Amendments 1, 2, 16, 17, 25 and 26 correct the technical deficiencies that we identified.

Amendments 1 and 2 address the unintended consequence that was created at stage 2 that meant that section 1(2) of the bill suggested that an assignation document “must” include “reference ... to another document”. That was never the intention, and amendments 1 and 2 will ensure that it is not compulsory to refer to another document. Instead, the provision will simply permit reference to be made to another document.

Amendments 17 and 26 seek to remove the references to data that were inserted at stage 2. Such references are unnecessary, due to the default definition of a document that is contained in the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Under that act,

“‘document’ means anything in which information is recorded in any form”.

Therefore, the reference to data is redundant. It is also confusing to mention it in some places and not in others, and it could lead to other references to “document” in the bill being construed more narrowly.

Amendments 16 and 25 simply update some cross-references in the relevant sections, which, as a result of another amendment that was made at stage 2, are no longer correct.

I move amendment 1.

We will support all the amendments in this group. I put on record my thanks to the minister for taking what I was looking to do at stage 2 and ensuring that it will work in practice. I am grateful for his and his officials’ work around those points and look forward to supporting the amendments in due course.

I call the minister to wind up.

I thank Mr Balfour for his constructive engagement throughout the process.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Assignation of claims: insolvency

We move to group 2, which is on insolvency. Amendment 3, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 4 to 7 and 19 to 23.

At stage 2, Jeremy Balfour also lodged a number of amendments that changed the definition of insolvency for the purpose of the bill. Those amendments were agreed to. At the time, I set out my concerns about them.

In short, I was concerned that some were unnecessary and that they did not appear to take a cohesive approach. Given the complexities in this area of law, I was therefore keen not to rush into any changes but to instead take the time that was needed and available to consult with relevant academics and the Accountant in Bankruptcy, safe in the knowledge that we would be able to adjust the definition at a later stage, if it was agreed that any changes were appropriate. Having taken the opportunity to consult further following stage 2, that view has only been reinforced.

I can give members a flavour of the views that were expressed about the amended definition of insolvency. The Accountant in Bankruptcy’s office advised that, although the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Act 2014 repealed discharge on composition in bankruptcy, it did not abolish composition more generally. One of the academics who were consulted noted that composition at common law is still possible.

Concerns were expressed that the amendments that were made at stage 2 did not take account of international private law. A contract can provide that Scots law is to apply, even where a party is not Scottish. The provisions as originally drafted cover situations that take account of cross-border issues by using non-technical language with ordinary meaning. Removing the terminology of composition was therefore considered to leave an undesirable gap.

In relation to the stage 2 amendments that limited company voluntary arrangements to those that included the claim or property, we received advice from other insolvency academics that CVAs do not necessarily operate in that way. They are principally focused on debt and do not have to specifically involve the debtor’s property. However, it was also clear from our initial consultation, in the limited time that was available, that the issues, especially in respect of protected trust deeds, are not simply issues of technicalities or semantics. They raise substantive policy issues, too. That is why we intend, using the time that is available to us over the course of the next year and the powers in the bill, which are there for this very reason, to consult properly on the issues and lodge informed amendments, where necessary.

Amendments 3 and 19 reverse the amendments that were made at stage 2 in relation to the definition of insolvency for individuals. Amendments 4 and 21 remove the provision that a company voluntary arrangement constitutes the insolvency of an assignor or provider for the purposes of those provisions in the bill only if it includes the claim or the encumbered property in question.

Will Tom Arthur take an intervention?

One moment, please.

If further consultation suggests that any further finessing of the provisions is required, we will of course be open to that, but these amendments respond now to the advice that we received from the Accountant in Bankruptcy and a number of specialist insolvency academics.

Does the minister agree that concerns about that have been raised, both by the Law Society of Scotland and by practitioners? I welcome the further review, but will the Scottish Government commit to consulting not only academics but those who are practising in this area of law day in, day out?

Yes, I am happy to give that undertaking. I will touch on some of that further on in my remarks. I recognise that there is a complexity to this and a range of views, which is why it is important that we take the opportunity over the next year to consult further. With the regulation-making provisions in the bill, we can act on the outcome of that consultation and engagement, if necessary.

In relation to the stage 2 amendments that added to the definition of insolvency the making of an order sanctioning a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, the consensus is that they might be worth retaining, at least in the meantime and possibly permanently.

Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 enables companies to apply to the court for an order sanctioning an arrangement or reconstruction that is agreed with the majority of members or creditors, should they find themselves in financial difficulty. That issue has been discussed previously, and the view that was taken was that the provisions under part 26A mainly refer to companies in difficulty, as opposed to those that are actually insolvent. We were minded towards the view that the amendment in question could therefore be too broad. Having consulted further, we agree that relevant financial difficulties might, in practice, mean that the company is technically insolvent, in that the position is comparable to certain arrangements that are already listed in sections 4 and 47, which also do not require actual insolvency.

Although we are therefore content to retain the amendment, it was erroneously inserted into the definition of when an individual is insolvent, when it is actually about a company restructuring plan. Amendments 20 and 23 therefore correct the stage 2 amendment so that it applies to company insolvency provisions.

In the course of consultation with the academic experts, a couple of other issues were identified. First, the matter that is dealt with by amendments 4 and 21 in relation to company voluntary arrangements also applies to arrangements under part 26A of the 2006 act. Amendments 6 and 23 address that.

Secondly, from the perspective of international private law, it made sense to replicate the provisions in sections 4(6)(a)(vi) and 47(3)(a)(vi). Those sections include analogous arrangements worldwide in the list of circumstances for which an individual is deemed insolvent. Amendments 7 and 23 therefore make comparable provision for corporate persons.

Amendments 5 and 22 simply fix the places in which conjunctions appear as a result of the stage 2 changes.

I hope that members will appreciate that the amendments in this group have been based on consultation with experts in the time available. However, that is not the end of the story, and I reiterate my remarks to Jeremy Balfour: we intend to explore the matter further to ensure that the right result is reached. I ask members to support these amendments.

I move amendment 3.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments 4 to 7 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 13A—Report on waiver of defence

Group 3 is on a review of the act. Amendment 8, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 34.

At stage 2, four non-Government amendments were lodged that would have placed a duty on the Scottish ministers to review and report on the impact of the legislation. Two of those were agreed. The first requires us to prepare and publish a report that sets out the impact of the waiver of defence clause in section 13(1). The second requires us to undertake a review of the act as a whole, with particular reference to the impact on sole traders and small businesses, and report on that review after the end of the review period.

I was not in favour of either amendment at stage 2. They seemed to be very inflexible. In particular, a formal review of the waiver of defence clause after a prescribed period seemed unnecessary, given the lack of any indication of current or future problems; that it involves dictating now the use of future resources, when there may never be any issues with the provision; and that attention may be better used elsewhere.

Both the Government and the Parliament have the ability to carry out a review at any time that it becomes apparent that such a review is appropriate. That facility, combined with a commitment to engaging regularly with stakeholders on any issues to do with how the legislation operates in practice, seemed to me to be a more proportionate and responsive approach. However, I recognise that the general review amendment, at least, reflected a recommendation of the stage 1 report.

Rather than seek to reverse those amendments, I have lodged amendments to make them work more reasonably. My amendments combine the review duties. If there is a requirement to review the act as a whole, that can include a review of the operation of the waiver of defence clause. There is no need for a separate review. In addition, combining the duties into one review will be more economical for the public purse. However, amendment 34 ensures that the review will cover that issue.

Most important, unlike in section 113A at present, the revised review period will be pegged to the point at which the main provisions of the bill come into force, as opposed to the point at which it receives royal assent. We already know that the bill will not come into force until well into 2024, because the registers need to be available, the various regulations need to be in place and the section 104 order to bring financial instruments within the scope of the provisions needs to be agreed. If we stick with the royal assent formula for the clock to start ticking, there will be more than a year within the review window in which the legislation will not even have come into force. That simply does not make sense.

15:15  

Amendment 34 will also extend the review period from three to five years. The original recommendation of the committee was ambivalent on that point, recommending three to five years. We think that the latter is more sensible. We need consider only the past three years to realise that the disruption caused to business by the pandemic would likely have rendered any review premature, because many relevant business activities would have been different from normal for a substantial period of the review period. The change to five years builds in some flexibility to what is otherwise a prescriptive approach and it should, I hope, ensure that there is sufficient time for the legislation to bed in properly before the review takes place.

I move amendment 8.

I thank the minister for his engagement on the issue. As he knows, I moved some of those amendments at stage 2.

As he outlined, amendment 8 removes the requirement on the Government to report on the waiver of defence. The minister knows that I argued strongly at stage 2 that such a requirement was appropriate. There was some suggestion that that may cause difficulties, but we do not know. I felt that it was important to have in place a sound reporting mechanism to ensure that the impact of the waiver of defence clause is given consideration and, indeed, that steps are in place to ensure that MSPs can question Government about the impact of that should any negative impacts be identified that require mitigation.

The minister indicated that there are options for review, and I note his comments in relation to the overall review. However, in my view, having reporting expectations on that aspect set out in the bill removes the challenges that we as MSPs may face further down the line.

Again, as the minister outlined, amendment 34 makes alterations to reporting. It removes the requirement for the Scottish Government to report on the effectiveness of the legislation and its impact on sole traders and individuals within three years of royal assent. As he said, that requirement is replaced with a duty to report within five years from the point at which sections 1 and 40 of the legislation come into effect. That is disappointing, as we believe and argued that three-year reporting offered a good balance between embedding the legislation and giving good protection from any difficulties with it.

For those reasons, we will vote against the amendments.

We will support the Scottish Government. Amendment 34 is a backstop and the safety that we require. If we look back over the past 20-plus years of the Scottish Parliament, it is fair to say that, collectively, we have not been good at post-legislative scrutiny. Often legislation that we think will work well does not do so in practice.

The reason that amendment 34 is important is that although in theory we might think that MSPs and committees will look at legislation, review it and take evidence on it, in practice, sadly, that often does not happen. We therefore need a more formal basis for that. I am persuaded by the minister’s argument with regard to extending that to a five-year period because of how things will work in practice.

Given the other amendments on protection for individuals, I am more relaxed than I was at stage 1. With the guarantees that the minister has given, we will support the two amendments.

First of all, I would like to very much agree with my colleague Carol Mochan. I would also like to reflect on an important point that Jeremy Balfour raised, which is that one of the key functions of this Parliament is to review legislation. That was one of the arguments for bringing the Scottish Parliament into being, because there was, frankly, a lack of time to do that in Westminster. It is therefore always disappointing when we hear from ministers that we do not have time to do that or that it is unnecessary to put review sections in legislation.

I welcome the fact that the minister is maintaining the review, but I would ask whether there is a need to think about how the Government reviews things more systematically, because a review should be incorporated in legislation as a matter of course.

Critically, though, I also want to push the minister on this point: why is it a problem to name-check specific issues that have already been highlighted throughout the legislative scrutiny process? What is specified in legislation—both in the bill and more generally—is not prescriptive about how much work needs to go into such a review nor about the length of the required reporting period. It simply says that a review of those topics will occur. Amendment 34 is not prescriptive. All that is required is for the review to contain those topics.

I invite the minister to wind up

I thank members for their comments. In particular, I thank Mr Balfour for his support.

I have listened to both Carol Mochan and Daniel Johnson. I will just clarify what amendment 34 says and what it proposes to insert:

“(1) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the review period—

(a) undertake a review of the operation of this Act, and

(b) prepare a report on that review.

(2) The report must, in particular, set out—

(a) an assessment of—

(i) the impact of allowing the debtor to waive the right to assert defences as provided for in section 13(1), and

(ii) how well the provisions regarding statutory pledges are working in relation to sole traders and small businesses, and

(b) the steps (if any) that the Scottish Ministers propose to take as a result of the findings of the review.”

Therefore, amendment 34 does exactly what the Scottish Labour Party seeks: it takes the two reviewing requirements that were inserted at stage 2, combines them so that a single review can be undertaken more efficiently and extends the review period to five years.

As matters stand, the clock starts with royal assent. If we assume that Parliament passes the bill this afternoon, that would be at some point in summer. By then, we will already be one year into a three-year review period, even though the legislation is still not in operation. The standing amendments from stage 2 are therefore technically deficient, whereas amendment 34 offers a far better solution.

I ask the Scottish Labour Party to reconsider its opposition to amendment 34. It delivers exactly what it wants: it specifically prescribes the requirements for waiver of defence and the impact on sole traders, which was the intention of Ms Mochan’s amendment at stage 2. It also allows the review period to operate in such a way that we would not have a year in which the legislation is not in force but it is still being counted as part of that review period.

I ask Scottish Labour members to support amendment 8. It is proportionate and it delivers what was agreed to at stage 2 but in a much more effective and economical way.

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. As this is a first division in the stage 3 proceedings, I will suspend business for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

15:22 Meeting suspended.  

15:28 On resuming—  

We will proceed with the division on amendment 8.

The vote is now closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

My app is saying “Vote failed. Could not connect.” I would have voted yes.

Thank you, Ms Whitham. I will make sure that that is recorded.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)

Against

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 21, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Section 14—Right to withhold performance until information as to assignation is provided

15:30  

Group 4 includes minor and technical amendments—[Interruption.] If that was a point of order from Jackie Baillie, I am afraid that she is too late.

Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10, 15, 27, 32 and 33.

Amendments 9 and 10 are of a minor and technical nature, and they correct an oversight. At stage 2, amendments were agreed to section 14 of the bill regarding the right to withhold performance until certain information about an assignation is provided. Those amendments made provision for how the rules in that section apply to co-debtors. The amendments should also have been applied to the case where the request relates to any condition attached to the assignation. That is achieved by these amendments, which means that there will be consistency across section 14 that a co-debtor can withhold performance only when awaiting a response to a request that they have made.

On amendments 15 and 32, two amendments were agreed at stage 2 that had the effect of adding trustees and agents to the definitions of secured creditor and assignee. At the time, I set out my concerns about those amendments being both unnecessary and confusing. The general law of agency already applies without agents needing to be expressly mentioned, but, in any event, there is also provision made about representatives in section 116(2) of the bill, which explicitly provides that someone who is required to do something can have someone else do it for them.

I have considered whether we can reasonably maintain the provisions as amended at stage 2 if they could be said to be unnecessary but harmless. However, we feel that, although they are well intentioned, they are, in fact, actively problematic. Legislation does not normally deal expressly with trustees and agents, since the general law deals with that suitably, and it would be cumbersome to always have to mention every possible representative capacity in which a person could act. Mentioning trustees and agents here, in the way that has been done, could have unhelpful consequences for other legislation.

More directly, those stage 2 amendments mention agents in relation to assignees but not assignors, suggesting that an assignor could not appoint an agent, which is not the intention. The same issue arises in relation to providers, where the change that has been made implies that they could not appoint an agent. Further problems could also arise, such as that an agent may be authorised to undertake one task but not another, yet the amendment includes them wholesale, which risks empowering an agent to act beyond the authority that the person appointing them has authorised.

Amendments 15 and 32, therefore, reverse the amendments that were made at stage 2 by removing the references to “trustee or agent” from the respective definitions of secured creditor and assignee. However, I emphasise that that does not mean that trustees or agents will be unable to act. The former Scottish law commissioner responsible for the bill has confirmed that he agrees with our approach on the issue.

On amendment 27, section 76 sets out the circumstances in which a secured creditor must make an application for the removal of an entry from the statutory pledges record. One of the circumstances is a situation in which diligence has been executed against the encumbered property of the statutory pledge. In the course of consulting further with the Scottish Law Commission’s working group, as promised in respect of a non-Government amendment that was lodged with regard to this section at stage 2, it was flagged that execution of diligence is the starting point and is not the same as the realisation of the property as a result of the diligence. Amendment 27, therefore, replaces the reference to execution with enforcement in section 76, on the basis that it is arguably premature to tie the commencement of diligence to the making of an application for the mandatory removal of an entry from the statutory pledges record, because, often, diligence is executed but realisation of a property never happens, for one reason or another.

Finally, we have identified a discrepancy between parts 1 and 2 of the bill. In part 1, it is stated that, where two or more persons are co-assignors or co-assignees in relation to a claim, a reference to an assignor or assignee is to be read as meaning all of them. The equivalent interpretation section for part 2 of the bill does not include comparable provisions. Amendment 33 will rectify the position so that the same rule is applied to co-providers and co-secured creditors of a statutory pledge.

I move amendment 9.

As no other member has asked to speak, I invite the minister to make any further comments in winding up.

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 31—Searching the assignations record

Group 5 is on fees. Amendment 11, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 29.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s stage 1 report recommended that not-for-profit money advisers be exempted from the fee structure that will apply to searches of the assignation record and the statutory pledges record in cases in which those advisers do not charge individuals for their services. Amendments that were intended to achieve that aim were agreed to at stage 2. I did not support the amendments, on the basis that the fees that will apply for registration events and searches in the two new registers will be the subject of consultation before the fee structure is established in regulations under the bill. In my view, that consultation remains the best vehicle for a proper examination of all the issues.

On a practical level, at stage 2, individuals acting as consumers were removed from being able to grant a statutory pledge under part 2 of the bill. It is unclear to me why, if that change is made, not-for-profit money advisers would be routinely searching the register of statutory pledges on behalf of individual consumers.

There is also some doubt about whether searches of the register of assignations would be of much assistance to not-for-profit money advisers. Where debts have been assigned in a bulk assignation transaction, it is highly unlikely that the debtor’s name will appear anywhere on the register, and, in any event, the register can be searched only by reference to the assignor of the debt, not the debtor.

In addition, the system has been designed so that the debtor is not expected to search the register. That is why the bill provides that a simple failure to search the register does not mean that the debtor is acting in bad faith if they make payment to the original creditor.

Having said all of that, I appreciate the spirit behind the intention of the amendments that were made at stage 2, and I accept that, as likely usage will be de minimis, there is no real harm in them. Registers of Scotland has raised some valid logistical issues about how eligibility for an examination would work in practice, but they should be capable of being addressed outwith the bill. Therefore, I am not seeking to overturn those amendments, but I want to address a potential unintended consequence.

As the bill stands, the exemptions can be read as applying to searches made by not-for-profit money advisers who do not charge individuals for services, regardless of whether the search in question is being carried out for an individual or a corporate body. My amendments would clarify that the exemption would apply only where the search in question is being carried out by a not-for-profit money adviser on behalf of an individual who is receiving their services pro bono.

I move amendment 11.

Thank you, minister. You have left colleagues speechless once again. I do not know whether there is anything that you want to add in winding up.

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Section 33—Extracts and their evidential status

Group 6 is on extracts. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 13, 30 and 31.

The Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012 makes provision that enables a request for an extract from the land register to be limited to a specified point in time. In turn, the keeper has a duty to meet such a request, but only where it is “reasonably practicable to do so”. At the suggestion of Registers of Scotland, amendments 12 and 30 make equivalent provision in respect of the two registers that are provided for in the bill. That is a sensible and proportionate measure.

Amendments 13 and 31 are consequential amendments that take account of the fact that an extract will therefore no longer always be evidence of the contents of the register at the time that it is issued. It might instead be evidence of the contents at a specified point in time.

I move amendment 12.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 34—Assignee’s duty to respond to request for information

Group 7 is on assignation: information rights. Amendment 14, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Section 34 requires a registered assignee to provide information about certain matters to specified people with a relevant interest. A concern was raised by a member of the Scottish Law Commission working group that the bill does not hold the registered assignee liable for failure to provide relevant information that is not expressly covered by the duty in section 34. We have therefore looked again at what information we require the registered assignee to provide. We do not think that it would be reasonable to hold the registered assignee liable unless there is a clear requirement to provide information on a particular matter and it is information that is within their knowledge.

The example that was raised as a particular concern was whether the claim had been further assigned by the registered assignee. Amendment 14 therefore adds a further subsection to section 34(1) so that a registered assignee is required to answer a query as to whether a further assignation document has been granted by them. As that information will always be within their knowledge and as it is relevant to the question whether that person continues to hold a claim, we consider it reasonable that that information should be provided in the limited circumstances covered by section 34.

I move amendment 14.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

Section 39—Interpretation of Part 1

Amendment 15 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 43—Constitutive document

Amendments 16 and 17 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 43A—Competence of individual acting as provider of a statutory pledge

Group 8 is entitled “Pledge: sole traders etc”. Amendment 18, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

When the principles of the bill were debated in this chamber at stage 1, I gave an undertaking to remove the ability of individual consumers to grant a statutory pledge. That was in response to the concerns that had been expressed by Citizens Advice Scotland and the money and debt agencies about the possibility that predatory lenders would abuse the new statutory pledge by offering loans to vulnerable consumers using ordinary household goods as collateral. Those concerns were echoed by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in its stage 1 report.

However, there was also consensus that, in changing that provision for individuals, sole traders should not be stripped of the ability to benefit from using the statutory pledge. The promised amendments to exclude individual consumers were passed at stage 2. As such, an individual can now grant a statutory pledge only if acting in the course of their business or the activities of a charity or unincorporated association. In such a case, the assets also have to be permitted assets. The most crucial part of that role is that it means that, for sole traders, the asset has to be a business asset—one used wholly or mainly for the purposes of their business.

To ensure that we would fully protect ordinary household assets from being pledged, we also imposed a minimum monetary value. That provides an added protection for sole traders in respect of assets that are used for a dual purpose—for example, assets that are used primarily for business purposes but occasionally for personal purposes. We set that threshold at £3,000, which was significantly higher than the comparable threshold of £1,000 that the bill as introduced included for individual consumers. Importantly, there is also a power to amend the threshold at any time.

15:45  

An amendment was passed at stage 2 that provided that the monetary limits for the value of property to be pledged should be subject to annual update in line with the retail price index. At the time, I said that, although that was well intentioned, we think that it is unnecessary to make provision in that way. Notwithstanding the recent cost crisis, inflation in the past few years has been relatively low and the current figure is expected to fall. The threshold that was introduced at stage 2 is significantly higher than the comparable £1,000 threshold that applied to individual consumers at introduction. That new threshold is set at £3,000 and there is a power allowing the threshold to be increased further, as and when appropriate. Crucially, that threshold is not the primary means of protecting ordinary household items from being pledged. That is achieved by excluding individual consumers altogether and by allowing only sole traders to pledge business assets. Therefore, the situation is now very different from the one that the committee commented on its stage 1 report.

To amend the figure in the bill annually would mean that affirmative regulations would have to be brought before the Parliament. Since the rise would often be of a negligible order, we did not believe that that would be the best use of parliamentary time. Any approach that tied the figure exactly to an inflationary calculation would also lead to unmemorable figures such as £3,277.63, rather than the clarity and simplicity of having a threshold such as £3,000 or £3,500, and so on. For those reasons, I thought that it was not necessary or appropriate for there to be a requirement for the annual uprating of the threshold, as opposed to simply an ability to adjust the figure.

I have other concerns about the amendment that was made at stage 2. Importantly, it did not provide for the threshold in the bill to be changed. We believe that that would lead to significant confusion, which could not even be avoided by ministers using the separate powers that exist to change the figure in the bill. The way that the provision works means that any new figure that is inserted under that power would have to be read as if it were further increased by inflation. Therefore, there would be double counting, and people still being told by the bill that the threshold was a figure that was not actually the threshold. I do not think that that is an acceptable outcome, although I appreciate the good intentions behind the provision.

Even though the threshold is not the primary means of preventing ordinary household goods from being able to be pledged, it is right that it keeps pace with inflation over time. However, we already have a mechanism to ensure that that happens. I remain strongly of the view that it would be more efficient to simply update the figure as and when it is required, taking into account the level of inflation at the time. Depending on the rate of inflation, the figure in the bill may have to be amended more often if inflation is higher, but less often if inflation is lower. That is altogether a more flexible and responsive approach, which also avoids all the significant technical difficulties with the detail of the amendment that was made at stage 2.

In short, the threshold should rise over time. However, we are best to do that using the existing power in the bill, rather than through an annual formula-driven approach, especially one that people are left to work out for themselves. We have a common aim, but a different means of achieving it. For all those reasons, amendment 18 reverses the changes that were made at stage 2 and removes the provision that the threshold should be read as subject to annual update in line with the retail price index. I ask members to support it.

I move amendment 18.

I acknowledge the protections on household goods that were brought into place at stage 2 and I thank the minister for the discussions that have been had on the matter.

As the minister said, amendment 18 removes the changes introduced by my stage 2 amendment, which was about annual uprating. I have listened closely to what the minister has said. As he acknowledged, the bill is quite technical, and so in some ways, a lot of what he has done so far in the debate has been to tidy up amendments. I am wondering whether he could have tidied up some of the detail, because I believe that the committee report made recommendations about the reference to the retail price index. There was agreement across the parties at stage 1, and quite broad agreement at stage 2, that that would be helpful. Including in the bill an automatic annual uprating of the figure, with reference to the retail price index, would ensure that the figure can be increased. There could also be a power to round the figure up, if that was what the minister was suggesting was needed.

We must ensure that the Scottish Government sets a date by which it must look again at the figure—that was the point of linking it to the retail price index. I appreciate that the minister sees that as overkill, but I believe that it would be helpful to say in the bill that Parliament must regularly update the figure, and it seems sensible to link that to the retail price index.

Overall, I find my stage 2 amendment justified and think that the bill could have been tidied up to make it work, but I thank the minister for his remarks on the matter.

Of all the areas in the bill, this was probably the most controversial one that we looked at while taking evidence and in our stage 1 report.

I supported the stage 2 amendment that the minister now seeks to overturn because I, and everyone on the committee, felt that there had to be a mechanism to allow the figure to increase as time went on. Having listened to the minister today, I am persuaded by his debating skills to support amendment 18, which Conservative members will do.

I am sure that if Scottish ministers do not increase the figure as time goes on, there will be pressure from outside groups, third parties and the Opposition for the figure to increase. We can therefore be assured that the amount of money will go up. At the same time, I take the point that how the figure will change will not be written in the bill, so people will not have absolute clarity. I also understand that we might end up with some really strange numbers, depending on what the inflation rate is.

Taking all those considerations into account, the Conservatives will support the Government’s amendment 18.

I proposed at the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that an automatic inflator should be included in the bill. It is disappointing that the minister has not been more innovative in his response and that he has simply extracted a measure that is, as he has admitted, well intentioned. I am glad that he at least recognises that, but he must also recognise other Government practices, such as the fact that most benefits in the social security system are uprated every April in line with the consumer price index. That was the spirit in which this measure was introduced.

If the minister does not think that the stage 2 amendment was well drafted, perhaps he could give a commitment that the Government will undertake a review of the threshold figure every financial year by statutory instrument and that it will be uprated accordingly. It is true that an automatic formula might produce odd figures, but that could be adjusted by saying that the figure will be rounded to the nearest £100, in order to simplify the procedure.

Perhaps that could be an alternative mechanism to achieve the outcome that we agree is needed as a safeguard. Some sort of double lock could be created by committing to a statutory instrument to review the figure every financial year, so that it can be inflation proofed, as is done with social security benefits.

I reiterate the points made by my colleagues Carol Mochan and Paul Sweeney.

I say to the minister that an inflation rate of even 2 per cent, which is the Bank of England’s target rate, would in effect mean a figure being worth 10 per cent less after five years because of the effect of compound interest.

Although I accept that what will be in the bill will give ministers the ability to increase the figure, it does not mean that they must or that they will. The minister understandably objects to some elements on the grounds that they would be time consuming or because he does not want to overcomplicate things, but having an automatic mechanism to deal with the matter would make life simpler for the Government.

In the spirit of what Paul Sweeney said, and although I understand that there may be technical problems with what was in the bill after stage 2, it would have been better to tidy up the provision to create a simple, straightforward mechanism to ensure that uprating does happen, not just that it can happen.

For me, the key point about this amendment is the starting point. When the committee looked at this and extrapolated the figures to show where inflation would have taken the initial sum, it went from £1,000 to about £1,300, and it is fair to say that everyone in the committee was surprised by such a low threshold. The starting point, which we have already agreed, is now to be £3,000. That is extremely important for safeguarding all of our constituents and consumers.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will take it in a few seconds.

I am quite content now to have that starting point, and the minister has said already that the figure can be amended on an annual basis, which would be very useful.

The committee convener makes the important point that the threshold has been increased substantially, and we should welcome the Government’s response to that. I am not, in any measure, trying to make an intervention on that in bad faith, but we all want to achieve the same aim, which is efficient legislation. Section 43(2A) is a measure to ensure that the depreciation of the real value of the threshold is not eroded over time. We know that there are many instances in which Government is just busy and neglects to keep things up to date, and that provision is just a way of making sure that the figure is automatically adjusted so that we do not get into a situation, 10 years down the line, in which the threshold has been forgotten about, and people have their possessions taken as a result of neglect to keep the legislation up to date. If there was a mechanism by which the Government was compelled every financial year to uprate it through statutory instruments, that would be a satisfactory remedy, if the proposed amendment is not effective.

I genuinely accept Paul Sweeney’s point, and we had a fairly large debate about that in committee. The minister has already put comments about the issue on the record today, and I like to think that all five members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee will ensure that we keep it very much to the fore in the years to come, particularly in this parliamentary session, while we are all still here.

I call the minister to wind up the debate on this group.

I thank all members for their comments and contributions today and for their constructive engagement throughout the process. I welcome the support of Mr Balfour and his party, and I recognise the amendments from Ms Mochan and the inception of the idea from Mr Sweeney as well intentioned. I recognise that, within our various strategy frameworks, we have automatic uprating mechanisms but, equally, there are areas where we are able to uprate only through Scottish statutory instruments or, in the case of UK legislation, SIs. There are a number of places where that can occur, such as council tax reductions or earnings arrestment thresholds under diligence legislation. It is important to recognise—and this makes it slightly separate and not quite as directly comparable to the other areas—that the £3,000 threshold was part of a suite of measures to protect individuals. The first and most significant measure, of course, was the removal of individuals acting in their capacity as a consumer from the scope of the legislation with regard to statutory pledges. I think that Mr Balfour made reference to perhaps the most contentious issue overall when the bill was introduced.

The second element is the protections that exist for those individuals acting in their capacity as sole traders or as businesses, namely, that goods can be pledged only if they are wholly or mainly for the purpose of business use. In itself, that would, in the main, exclude household goods. Notwithstanding that, we have increased the threshold to £3,000, which is significant. Of course, we retain powers through the legislation, subject to the agreement of Parliament, that will allow for uprating to take place.

I recognise Paul Sweeney’s suggestion that, over a period, there is a risk that the legislation will be neglected and uprating will not take place. However, Parliament has agreed amendments to ensure that a review of the legislation will take place within five years of its coming into effect and, notwithstanding that, nothing precludes Parliament from conducting post-legislative reviews into the legislation.

I am satisfied that the measures that we have in place will safeguard individuals acting in their capacity as sole traders or as businesses. I am satisfied that we have been able to reach a balanced approach through the changes that we have made to the legislation, which remove individuals acting in their capacity as consumers but allow for sole traders to benefit from the provisions around statutory pledges, with additional protections that recognise the concerns that were raised.

It is a matter that we will keep under review, and we have the power to respond should it be required in the near, medium or long term and to uprate the £3,000 threshold. I ask members to support the amendment.

16:00  

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone did not seem to connect. I do apologise. I would have voted no.

Thank you, Ms Mochan. I confirm that your vote was already cast.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone did not connect either. I would have voted yes.

Thank you, Ms Minto. I will make sure that that is recorded.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

The result of the division is: For 90, Against 22, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Section 47—Creation of statutory pledge: insolvency

Amendments 19 to 23 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 56—Amendment of statutory pledge

Group 9 is on pledge: amendment of pledge. Amendment 24, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 28.

Amendment 28 arises from the concern expressed by Registers of Scotland that there was an inconsistency between section 56(5), which deals with when amendments to a statutory pledge take effect, and section 86, which deals with when an amendment to a statutory pledge can be registered.

Section 56 is a stand-alone rule about when the change to increase a statutory pledge takes effect in certain circumstances. It does not introduce any overriding stipulation about what can be registered. The intention behind section 86 is to restrict registration of amendment documents to those cases in which an amendment document requires to be registered in order to take effect. Where the secured obligation is being increased, registration is required only if the current extent of the obligation is clear from the face of the register, and people would therefore be misled if that was left unchanged. However, it is clear that the lack of symmetry between the two sections is potentially confusing.

Amendment 28 is intended to make the interpretation of section 86 clearer by instead cross-referencing to section 56. Importantly, it has not changed the result in policy terms.

In looking at all this, we came to the view that section 56(5) was not as clear as it could be about when things take effect where the amended document does more than one thing.

To take one example, let us say that an amendment document removes property A from the pledge and replaces it with property B. The removal of property A would not ordinarily need to be registered to take effect, but the addition of property B would. We think that the bill should be clear about whether the rule about the amendment applies only when registration covers the removal of property A too, or whether it just covers adding property B. We would not want to leave a gap meaning that the creditor has no security over anything for the short period. We understand that this situation will happen rarely, as there are established drafting techniques to capture the addition of future property.

Amendment 24 closes any potential gap. It provides that the default position should be that the two things take place at the same time, but it allows the parties to contract out of that if they so wish.

The ability to contract at will, of course, is confined to the extra element of the amendment, which, if it were being done in a separate document, would not require registration to take effect. It will therefore always be the case that adding property or increasing the secured obligation, to the extent that this is clear from the register, will require effective registration.

I move amendment 24.

Thank you, minister. No other members are seeking to speak. Is there anything that you wish to add to wind up?

I have nothing further.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

I call amendments 25 to 34, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move the amendments and ask whether any member objects to a single question being put.

For clarification, was amendment 34 excluded from that bloc?

It was not, but if that is your preference, I have no objection to—

I wish to exclude amendment 34 from the bloc question.

Thank you, Mr Whitfield. Does any member have an objection to a single question being put on amendments 25 to 33? There is no objection.

Amendments 25 and 26 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 76—Mandatory application for removal of an entry from the statutory pledges record

Amendment 27 moved—[Tom Arthur]—agreed to.

Section 86—Application for registration of amendment

Amendment 28 moved—[Tom Arthur]—agreed to.

Section 102—Searching the statutory pledges record

Amendment 29 moved—[Tom Arthur]—agreed to.

Section 104—Extracts and their evidential status

Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[Tom Arthur]—agreed to.

Section 111—Interpretation of Part 2

Amendments 32 and 33 moved—[Tom Arthur]—agreed to.

Section 113A—Review of the Act

Amendment 34 moved—[Tom Arthur].

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 88, Against 21, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 34 agreed to.

That ends the consideration of amendments.

As members will be aware, at this point in proceedings, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish Parliament elections. In her view, no provision of the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill relates to such a subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.