Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1401, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, which seeks agreement that the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill be passed. I call Tommy Sheridan to speak to and move the motion.
I do not imagine that this item will take up much of Parliament's time. The issues have been clearly debated. I am disappointed that what could have been a day of major celebration has been soured, but I am extremely pleased that the Parliament will vote to get rid of one of the most degrading and inhumane systems of debt recovery in Scotland. It has long been a commitment of those who campaign for social justice to ensure that the barbaric practices of poindings and warrant sales be cast into the bin of history.
It is important to address one point that sheriff officers often use in support of the retention of poindings and warrant sales. They tell us that, if poindings and warrant sales were not available, loan sharks would take over. Brothers and sisters, I have here a letter from Rutherford & Macpherson, sheriff officers. The letter is to a woman in Drumchapel whose council tax arrears were £256.17. She received the letter from the sheriff officers, indicating that the warrant against her allowed for the opening of shut and lock-fast places, although at least four days' notice must be given before the date of the intended entry.
She was given notice that the sheriff officers intended to come to her home and force open her door, to enforce repayment of the debt. The poinding was to be arranged for seven days after the date of that notice. In bold type, the letter said that to avoid that happening, the sheriff officers required 50 per cent of the sum that the woman owed. That woman was on benefits, yet she received a letter from Rutherford & Macpherson telling her that she would have to come up with £128 to avoid a poinding. Letters such as this mean that we must get rid of poindings and warrant sales, because of the fear and terror that they induce legally.
I have concerns about the alternatives to poindings and warrant sales and I hope that the minister will address them. I hope that he is honest enough to agree that there was a specific reason why Christine Grahame and I left the cross-party working group that was considering alternatives to poindings and warrant sales. The remit of that group is to identify a workable and humane replacement diligence against movable property to that of poinding and warrant sales and to make recommendations for implementing legislation to be brought forward during the parliamentary year 2001-02.
At the meeting during which I left that group, I moved an amendment to that remit. I said that the remit was too narrow and that I did not think that the will of Parliament was to introduce an alternative method of attaching movable assets. To attach a movable asset, it must first be known what movable assets somebody owns. To find out what movable assets somebody owns, their house must be entered and to get into their house, sheriff officers must be able to force open shut and lock-fast places. My concern was that the narrow remit would put the group in danger of suggesting an alternative to poindings and warrant sales that would be, in effect, poindings and warrant sales.
The amendment that I moved was reasonable. It suggested that we delete "against movable property"—taking out three words of the remit—so that the remit would be to identify a workable and humane replacement diligence to that of poinding and warrant sale. No mention is needed of movable property. That was my amendment. I challenge the minister to tell me why he refused to allow that amendment to be put to a vote, and why he refused to allow that remit to be widened. He will not be able to tell members that that was not the case, because what I have outlined was the exact sequence of events. I am not prepared to associate myself with a working group that has a restricted remit to come up with alternative diligence against movable property.
I disagree 100 per cent with David McLetchie, because he is a Tory and he supports warrant sales. However, at least he was quite honest about that. In his mind, the working group is about coming up with another form of poindings and warrant sales. Many new Labour members have told me privately that that is not the idea, but that is why Christine Grahame and I walked out of the group. It is incumbent on the back benchers in new Labour to find a solution. Those members must believe me; I am not misquoting the remit of the group, I am reading from it—it is here in black and white. I am telling members the remit and the restriction. I am telling them that I was not allowed to move an amendment to that remit. If any member wants to contradict that explanation of the course of events, they may.
There is cause for celebration today, because Parliament is saying that it will get rid of poindings and warrant sales. However, the delay in implementation of the bill sours that celebration. I hope that Parliament will be more decisive in its action in defence of the poor in future.
Finally, I want to thank Mike Dailly, the principal solicitor at the Govan Law Centre, without whose assistance the bill would not have been drafted and we would not have not got here. I thank also people such as Betty and Davie Currie, Mary McQuade, Betty McEachran and Brian Lewis. Their names might not mean anything to people in the chamber, but they were the backbone of the anti-poll tax campaign to prevent poindings and warrant sales during the dark days of despair under the Tory poll tax.
I thank people in the anti-poll tax unions, who fought long and hard against the sheriff officers and who formed physical walls of human solidarity with people they had never met before, because they were willing to support them against legalised humiliation. Their victory is inherent in the bill. It is they who deserve applause and congratulation—if it was not for the fight outside the chamber, the bill would never have been debated inside it.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill be passed.
Tommy Sheridan can be rightly proud of proposing the second member's bill to complete its passage through the new Scottish Parliament. I will not use what little time I have in going over old ground about the right time for commencement—we will abolish something that is simply no longer acceptable in this day and age. Parliament can take pride in the fact that it has agreed that poindings and warrant sales should be abolished.
However, we all know that we cannot simply leave things there. Taking pride in a job well done means finishing the job—today's business does not do that. We cannot just leave a gap. Parliament is not in the business of creating loopholes in the law, which would—make no mistake—be exploited. Some members might be willing to turn a blind eye to the situation. They might be content to make it easy for some people who can pay their debts to get away with not paying, but the vast majority of members are not content to do that. We cannot create an opportunity for some people—whether that means a business that does not pay its VAT or an individual who does not pay their council tax—to evade their responsibilities while the majority of people fulfil theirs. That is simply not just. Let us therefore put in place a proper replacement—a humane and effective replacement—and do the whole job.
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee said rightly that there must be a replacement in place when we abolish poindings and warrant sales. Jim Wallace has told Parliament—I remind members again today—that the Executive has taken up the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's challenge to find a workable and humane alternative. Devising such an alternative is a difficult task. It does not lend itself to Tommy Sheridan's approach, which is high on rhetorical flourish, but low on factual accuracy. Indeed, so far he has shown himself to be unwilling to work with us to find solutions.
The working group that was set up to find a solution has been working hard to achieve its goal within a tight time scale. It is of great regret that Mr Sheridan and Christine Grahame, having accepted the invitation to join us on the basis of the remit for the working group, walked out for their own political reasons. As stunts go—
As the minister knows, the first date that was set for a meeting of the working group was cancelled. I was unable to attend on the second date. I attended the next meeting, which was to ratify the remit. That was the first time that I had seen the remit, which has been read out correctly by Tommy Sheridan. I was unhappy with it because it reflected neither what my party nor what the Justice and Home Affairs Committee understood the remit of the group would be. We wanted to discuss a workable alternative—full stop. We did not want to discuss a workable alternative diligence against moveable property.
I understood that the invitation to join was issued on the basis of the remit. If Christine Grahame and Tommy Sheridan chose to walk out for their own reasons, that is their business. As stunts go, it hardly made headlines at the time and it will not affect the working group's progress. If Mr Sheridan and Mrs Grahame will not play and do not want to find solutions, that is their business, but those who are prepared to do the hard work and find the workable and humane alternative that is sought by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee include the Scottish Consumer Council, Money Advice Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland. Those organisations have no interest in melodrama, but they have a serious interest in the daily drama of debt because they know and represent the people who are struggling with debt day in, day out.
The minister could not hold a candle to the people who wrote the report of the improving debt recovery working party and who wanted an early implementation date.
I will respond to Mr Sheridan, even though he has chosen to make an intervention from a sedentary position. I will not contest what he says—my point is that those organisations are willing to work with us to find a humane and acceptable workable replacement. That is the difference between those organisations and Mr Sheridan.
Mr Gray, you must wind up.
The working group now meets every second week and is working hard to bring together diverse interests. It is co-operating to find a solution that will work for everybody. The people on the group are giving up their time because they are committed to finding an alternative that will work, that will not leave a loophole and that will be humane.
The working group has been willing and waiting to hear what the group that Tommy Sheridan talks about has to say on its much-vaunted alternative solution. Members can see that from Angus McKay's letter, which Mr Sheridan has copied to them. Mr MacKay has repeated today the statements in that letter but, until today, we had yet to hear anything at all from Tommy Sheridan's group—apparently because the members of the group are not able to agree among themselves. The paper—launched as the group's position—carries a disclaimer to the effect that it does not represent the group's position. I do not know what that makes it, but in Mr Sheridan's mind, its defining characteristic seems to be that it is 47 pages long.
You must wind up now, Mr Gray.
The paper is neither a complete solution nor a competent legislative proposal for Parliament to consider. No sudden flurry of activity in the last two days—two months after he flounced out of the working group—can hide Mr Sheridan's failure to progress a solution.
The bill is a good start, but it is half of a reform—the easy half. I urge members to support the motion. Then let us finish the job properly.
Before proceeding, I must—[Interruption.]
I remind all members that they should not speak to each other across the rows of benches, whether to members of their own party or to those of other parties.
Earlier, I said that I would give speaking times and I have indicated what the times will be for opening speakers. Members should keep to those times; otherwise I will not be able to call all the members who wish to speak in the debate. I now call Alex Neil, who has four minutes.
On behalf of the Scottish National Party, I congratulate Tommy Sheridan for having brought the bill before the Scottish Parliament. Although it would not have been possible to achieve that without the list of organisations and individuals that he mentioned, he has put a great deal of energy and compassion into the bill. We unashamedly congratulate Tommy Sheridan for the courage and determination that he has shown.
Let me set the record straight on why Christine Grahame and Tommy Sheridan walked out of the working party: it was a direct result of the Executive's double dealing. The purpose of the working party was to come up with an alternative to poindings and warrant sales, not to come up with a replacement that would be, in effect, all about poindings and warrant sales.
If the Executive's proposals are, de facto, poindings and warrant sales, that will spell the end of the Lib-Lab Executive. Such proposals will be totally unacceptable to the people of Scotland and, I hope, to Parliament. Parliament has voted to get rid of poindings and warrant sales—it would be unacceptable to have poindings and warrant sales presented to us again in two years' time with a new name.
The work that was done by our working party involved not only Tommy Sheridan, John McAllion and me, but the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland, Communities Against Poverty, Easterhouse citizens advice bureau, Glasgow Anti-poverty Project, the Govan Law Centre, the Scottish Human Rights Centre and so on. I am sure that those organisations will take great offence at some of the remarks about our report that were made by Angus Mackay and Iain Gray.
Donald Gorrie hit the nail on the head—poindings and warrant sales do not achieve the objectives either of social justice or of effective debt recovery. As Donald said, we are penalising 98 per cent of the population to try to catch 2 per cent—those who can pay but will not pay. The current poindings and warrant sales system cannot even nail the 2 per cent who can pay but will not pay.
As Tommy Sheridan said, this should have been a very proud day for the Scottish Parliament. If we pass the bill, we will be able to say that Parliament has done something for the people of Scotland. However, it would be far better then to come forward as quickly as possible with a humane, effective alternative system, with positive action to encourage and help those who are in debt today.
I hope that Iain Gray will read our report in detail. It is not about spin, it is all about substance. It covers the inadequacy of the social security system, the problems with the social fund, the barriers to advice, the need for early intervention methods and the inadequacy of legal services in dealing with the problem. The report suggests the need for disclosure orders to replace poindings and warrant sales. It discusses the system of local authority debt collection, debt enforcement, multiple debts, reforms of summary warrant procedure and bank arrestments. That is a series—
Will Alex Neil take an intervention?
I need to finish. That is a series of substantial recommendations.
I urge the minister to take the report's recommendations on board. Let us stop the insults and get some action from the Executive.
If we pass this bill, it will be a cause for celebration and the achievement of many people's long-held objective. I must inform the chamber that, not long after the election, I phoned an old friend in the Strathclyde Poverty Alliance. I said, "How about the introduction of a member's bill to abolish poindings and warrant sales?" He replied, "Actually, I think somebody's beaten you to it." I therefore congratulate Tommy Sheridan not only on getting the bill introduced, but on getting ahead in the queue of members who might have wanted to introduce such legislation.
My commitment to this issue goes back a long way. I will explain why I think Tommy Sheridan and Christine Grahame should have remained on the working group. I understand the points that they made then, and later, about the remit of the working group, but it would have been sensible for them to look beyond the mere words on the paper, because it was inevitable that, as night follows day, the remit would be blown apart at the first meeting, as indeed it was.
Is the member's evidence today that he voted for the remit and then decided to ignore it?
I cannot recall whether there was a vote, but I was quite content with the remit because I knew that it could not possibly last more than a couple of minutes. It was disappointing that Tommy Sheridan could not see beyond the mere words and could not take the opportunity that was presented to him.
Euan Robson heard what David McLetchie, who is on that group, said in the chamber. He made it clear that we will end up with something that has the same processes of enforcement as have poindings and warrant sales. Is he wrong?
No, he did not say that. The processes are part of the main issue. I heard Tommy Sheridan say earlier that it is impossible to make an attachment to property without entry to property. That is simply not the case. There are ways of making attachments without entry. Mr McLetchie referred to the need to make an attachment to property and obtain a sale thereafter. It will emerge in due course that there are ways of doing that that do not necessarily involve all the iniquities of the present system. It is extremely disappointing that the members who left the group could not see beyond the narrow remit and could not make a contribution.
I will not detain the chamber for too long. What we are doing today is a cause for celebration and I offer my congratulations on the bill to Tommy Sheridan. In discussing this subject, we should hold in our minds the sort of point that he drew forcibly from the experience of the lady in Glasgow who received a letter from the sheriff officer.
A key thing that must happen in years to come is a revolution in the attitude of creditors. There are far too many creditors who regard the payment of a massive lump sum as the only way forward. That is not the case. We must adopt a culture of payment by instalment, of advice and of management. I am convinced that if we had a far more effective and humane system of diligence, 98 per cent of people would never reach the stage that has to remain for the 2 per cent who would defraud the general public and remove services from the poor. Such people exist—I have seen them personally.
I call Phil Gallie. I apologise to him, as I should have called him earlier.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—there is no need for an apology.
We congratulate Tommy Sheridan on sticking to his principles and driving through a bill that he thinks is important to him, to the people he represents and to Scotland. By its nature, politics means reaching agreements. I believe that we drive toward the same objectives; we want to help people, protect those who are worst off in society and recognise the practicalities of society. Today and throughout the debate on the bill, the Tories have stuck to our principles and objectives.
When the Justice and Home Affairs Committee scrutinised the bill, it was clear that the Tories would not stand against the principle of getting rid of poindings and warrant sales. We did not object to that. We identified with the Justice and Home Affairs Committee reports. We made no mistake then and our arguments have been consistent with those that we made then.
We have to look at the reality, which is that people can convert their capital wealth into movable goods. As Euan Robson suggested, it may be the sharks in our society who do that, but they are a minority that the Executive must guard against in legislation. We go along with that.
I noted Dennis Canavan's remarks about Scottish Tories in the past and his 10-minute bill. He knows as well as I do that, apart from that moment of glory, there are not many 10-minute bills at Westminster that see the light of day. He will take some comfort today because the bill will be passed. It will not be opposed by us.
Given the examples I brought up earlier, I have some sympathy with Tommy Sheridan's example of the individual faced with a massive council tax debt that had to be paid there and then. However, councils are obliged to find, and should follow up, easier methods of payment over a period of time. I wonder why that debt reached such a level. Local authorities probably use warrant sales more than anyone, other than customs perhaps.
My party applauds the fact that Tommy Sheridan's bill is going through. We note Alex Neil's comments about the need for haste. The bill states that it can come into force on an earlier date than that quoted in the bill. I say to the Deputy Minister for Justice—I am sure his good faith will stand behind my appeal—that if the date can be bettered, everybody in this chamber would applaud that.
We now move to the open part of the debate.
I am delighted to see that consensus has at long last broken out, because this is undoubtedly a good bill.
"It shall no longer be competent to enforce payment of a debt by poinding or warrant sale".
Those are good words and they are to be applauded. I have no hesitation in joining in the general congratulations to Tommy Sheridan on introducing the bill.
I do not wish to introduce a churlish or sour note, but listening to Tommy Sheridan this afternoon I sometimes felt a slight sense of irritation. He sometimes tries to give the misleading impression, no doubt for political purposes, that he alone, or possibly with a few colleagues, has fought for and wanted the bill. Sometimes he tries to give the impression that he alone is the voice of the poor and the disadvantaged. That is simply not true. It is on the record.
Many of the members of my party made it absolutely clear that if there was ever any suggestion by anyone that the bill should not be passed, even for a good motive, we would not stand for that. I say to John McAllion that when the chips were down we did not need lectures on the use of our consciences. We were clear on what should be done. Many of us made it clear that if there was ever any suggestion, even for good motives, that there should not be a fixed date for implementation, we would not accept it. Ministers knew that and it was, I think, the position of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
I am the first to concede that the legal profession can be conservative and slow. I have no doubt that we are doing the right thing today, to ensure a fixed date and to focus our minds on that. In fixing the date, we are not making some accommodation for the privileged or for the maintenance of the status quo, we are simply taking a proper and responsible approach. I am not rehearsing the arguments because the minister has done so already. The right thing, and the really good thing, that we have done today is to abolish poindings and warrant sales and to say, "Focus your minds. On that date it will disappear."
I repeat that today is a very good day for us. This is a good piece of legislation. I do not accept that any sour note should sound on what we have done. We have done a good thing and we should be proud of it. I commend it to the chamber.
I too am quite disturbed about the tone of the debate at certain points this afternoon. From the Labour benches, the tone has been catty. Ministers have not taken interventions from Mr Sheridan, despite their having repeatedly insulted him and his compatriots in their gallant move. Ministers acted rather like kids playing ring and run in the street; they could not face his interventions.
I am sure that no one on this side of the chamber approves of this preposterous delay. We do not need to wait so long. The legal machine grinds, but it can be speeded up. I would like to pay tribute to the three men who have powered this bill through and got it this far, despite coming under heavy sniper fire. They are Tommy Sheridan, Alex Neil and John McAllion. This Parliament should be extremely proud of them. They all worked exceedingly hard.
In particular, I hated the catty references to Mr Sheridan's not attending this or that. Nonsense. He worked very hard. I also hated the ludicrous reference to my colleague Christine Grahame and Mr Sheridan flouncing out of a meeting. Mr Sheridan and Ms Grahame have never flounced in their lives.
Certainly not together.
We will perhaps hear about that later, Christine.
My colleagues have, quite rightly, shown indignation about this issue. This is not a Parliament of the posh. Most of us originate from the ranks of the sans culottes; some of us had fewer culottes than others. Nowadays, we may be able to afford the occasional decent jacket, but we must not forget where we came from.
During the previous debate, I met a member in the corridor outside who was almost in tears. I will not name her and embarrass her, but I asked her why she was not speaking in the debate against warrant sales. She said, "Because I can't. My mother underwent a warrant sale." To this day, the stain of humiliation has stayed with the daughter. She did not contribute to the debate.
We will do a good thing by passing the bill, but the delay is too great. I have become very tired of dainty doily words such as diligence, which covers up for the brutal breaking down of people's doors, the entry of their homes, and the selling off of their bits and pieces of furniture. As Mr Sheridan has pointed out, 90,000 more families will suffer that because of this delay. The delay should never have occurred. Those members who vote for it will take themselves down. We have achieved a greater whole, but we must speed up. There is no reason for not putting these proposals into practice much earlier than is planned at present.
I am delighted that the next vote in this Parliament will be in support of the—unopposed, I hope—motion in Tommy Sheridan's name:
"That the Parliament agrees that the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill be passed."
As somebody once said, I like that. Tommy Sheridan deserves a great deal of credit for getting the bill to this stage.
I am sorry, depressed even, that poindings and warrant sales will not be abolished until 31 December 2002—if indeed that is what happens on 31 December 2002. Dennis Canavan was right to try to put the debate into its political context. For decades, the political and legal establishment of Scotland and the UK has been talking and failing to do anything about abolishing warrant sales. Down at Westminster, they always had the excuse of the lack of parliamentary time. Once we came to Holyrood, that excuse disappeared and they had to come up with another pretext. It was never a question of time; in reality, it was a question of political will.
Do the political and legal classes of Scotland have the political will to abolish poindings and warrant sales? That is the real test and it will reach a conclusion on 31 December 2002 when the Executive finally comes forward with whatever it has decided will replace poindings and warrant sales. We will be watching. Any alternative cannot be workable and humane if it involves seizing the movable property of poor people to address debt.
The purpose of the process is not to recover debt, because the poor cannot afford to pay the debts that they owe and their possessions cannot meet them; the purpose of the process is to humiliate and intimidate poor people. That process cannot be workable and be humane. That is the test that the Executive's proposal must pass.
I do not believe that abolishing poindings and warrant sales without a replacement would create loopholes that would be—as the minister said—exploited. That leads us to the argument about the phantom figure that Mr McLetchie conjured up: the rich chancer who drives about in his Jaguar XJ6, refusing to pay his debts because there is no system of poindings and warrant sales. Euan Robson claimed to know those people well from his activities before he came to the Parliament. What escapes both Euan Robson and David McLetchie is that such people have been refusing to pay their debts all the while we have had poindings and warrant sales. Poindings and warrant sales are no deterrent to such people because they have been refusing to pay and getting away with it, regardless of the existence of such measures. Getting rid of poindings and warrant sales would not affect that small group in any way. The real chancers who drive about in Jaguar XJ6s are likely to be Tory politicians, rich lawyers or people who own firms of sheriff officers across Scotland.
I agree with David McLetchie on one point, which is that the system of poindings and warrant sales is central to the operation of the free market system. I readily accept that that is the case. The free market system depends on putting the interests of profit before the interests of people. I have always accepted that, under a free market system, property will come before people. It was to turn those values on their head that the Labour party came into existence and that I joined the Labour party. I remain true to that principle—we should turn those values on their head. Property does not come before people—people come before property. Poindings and warrant sales are wrong and should be abolished. I welcome the fact that they will be abolished in the future.
To Angus MacKay I say that I know that there are tough choices to be made on both sides of the argument. Since the new Labour revolution overtook my party some years ago, its consequences have sometimes come close to breaking my heart. It always seems to be that the tough choices are about coming down on the people who are in trouble, who live in poverty and who deal with debt. Why do we have to be tough on them rather than on the people who get them into debt without having to face the consequences? I am looking forward to the day when we legislate against the credit companies who create the debt—people such as the representatives of the Provident who go around at Christmas time, knocking on the doors of the poor and telling them to take the credit so that they can do things for their kids.
If the Executive's proposal—when it is eventually produced—is the abolition of seizing the assets of poor people, it will be a cause for rejoicing. If that is not what the Executive proposes, it will not be a cause for rejoicing and the Parliament will have to return to the issue.
I call Tommy Sheridan to respond to the points raised in the debate.
I hope that Euan Robson does not mind if I take his comments as an example of what is wrong with politics in this country. They provide an example of why so many people are turned off by politics and why they think politicians are all the same, feathering their own nests and ignoring the wishes of ordinary people. The problem is, as Euan said, "We accepted the remit, but it was only words on a piece of paper, so we then got on with ignoring it." Politics is supposed to be about transparency, honesty and agreeing a set of aims and objectives and setting about achieving them. If it is the case that the remit of the group that Euan talked about was not worth the paper it was written on, why the hell was the paper wasted by writing on it?
The amendment that I submitted to the group remit was simply to delete the three words "against movable property". If those words had been deleted, we could have sat down honestly, openly and transparently and tried to work towards an alternative but, frankly, saying "We accepted the remit but we did not really mean it" is what is wrong with politics. I am afraid that that response is not a good answer.
I do not know whether the Minister for Justice was listening to the debate, but I find incredible the accusations that others and I do nothing, that we are not willing to take part in the group, that we are negative and that we just talk a good game. By the way, there is a 47-page report in front of Iain Gray, yet he has the audacity to say, "The only thing that recommends it is its 47 pages." The people who contributed to "Improving Debt Recovery in Scotland" are head and shoulders above people like me and the majority of other MSPs in this room—head and shoulders above.
I point out to Mr Sheridan that the views expressed in the report to which he refers are not the collective view of all the contributors or organisations. The disclaimer expressly states:
"The views expressed in this report are those held by particular individuals contributing to report chapters."
Chapter 9 was written by Mike Dailly, in which he says:
"A progressive and humane solution to this problem will never be found in a diligence against household goods."
That is repeated in the recommendations, but the report does not rule out an alternative diligence against movable property. That is what Tommy Sheridan was charged with coming up with in the working group, but by his behaviour he failed to participate in it. He is not faithful to the terms of the remit, or even to the recommendations of the report that he calls in aid.
I thank David McLetchie for that short intervention. I was about to say that the individuals—the individuals—who contributed to the report "Improving Debt Recovery in Scotland" are head and shoulders above the politicians in this room. In some instances, those individuals represent organisations, but in others the organisations have not endorsed their views—they write as individual contributors.
If David McLetchie reads the disclaimer to which he referred, he will see that it reads:
"The author(s) of individual chapters are footnoted. Authors include community activists with direct experience of debt, welfare rights and money advice professionals, solicitors and advisers working in the field of social welfare law, representatives of the small business community, representatives of churches, and politicians. Views expressed are not necessarily endorsed by the contributor's organisation."
Does he know what that is called? It is called honesty. It is called transparency. It is called writing down on the wee piece of paper—[Interruption.] David McLetchie would prefer to write something down and then ignore it, which is what Euan Robson said.
The point is that there was no duplicity in the remit, but the remit was inevitably going to be extended because of the nature of the subject. There was no intent to deceive. Tommy Sheridan was unable to see beyond the words of the remit on the piece of paper. That is the problem, and it is his problem.
It is Orwellian stuff to say that I was not able to see beyond the words on the paper. When we say that the words in the disclaimer represent honesty, everybody laughs and scoffs. I say to Euan Robson that perhaps that is the problem with politics in general.
I did not understand when I proposed an amendment to the remit of the working group and the minister refused even to take it and allow it to be voted on that he was saying that he refused to accept an amendment to the remit. Come on. Let us get real, for goodness' sake. The problem is that the Executive has dilly-dallied for more than 16 months while the people named in the report of the improving debt recovery working party have worked damned hard to produce a relevant report that addresses all the issues to which Alex Neil referred.
Gordon Jackson said that he was irritated quite badly during my speech. I think that he doth protest a bit too much. Gordon, I would be irritated too, if I were a member of Glasgow Braendam Link—which meets in Govan town hall—the Govan Unemployed and Community Resource Centre, the Govan Community Organisations Council or the Govan Law Centre. If I were a member of those groups, which represent the people of Govan, I would be irritated. They all wanted an April 2001 implementation date, but their elected member voted against that. Maybe Gordon doth protest too much because the community organisations in the area that he represents disagree with him on implementation.
I repeat that there is cause for celebration here today. I hope that we will pass a bill that gets rid of poindings and warrant sales from Scotland once and for all. However, the celebration is soured by the matter of the 90,000 families who will continue to face poindings and warrant sales until 31 December 2002.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—