Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3534, in the name of Jim Wallace, which seeks agreement that the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill be passed, and one amendment to that motion. Will those members who want to contribute to the debate please press their request-to-speak buttons now?
It is evident that a considerable amount of time and hard work has been spent on the bill. That is proper. The way in which any society deals with debt is a matter of fundamental importance and the bill is crucial to a great many people in Scotland. How we tackle the problem will have a real impact on our goals of promoting social inclusion and protecting people's rights in a balanced way.
In developing the bill, people with widely differing interests and perspectives have pulled together to achieve a consensus approach and create a new framework for dealing with debt. They have put debt management before debt enforcement and delivered the alternative to poinding and warrant sales for which the Parliament called. They have worked to deliver an approach that empowers individuals to deal with their own debt problems with both practical support and dignity. It is an approach that will also get more debt paid in a managed way and avoid the time and cost of enforcement.
I want to express gratitude to everyone who has taken part in the search for this new way forward. It would be invidious, and time would not permit, to name everyone. However, it is important to mention all who served on the working group that produced the report "Striking the Balance: a new approach to debt management", which was chaired ably by Angus MacKay. I thank the Social Justice Committee not only for its evidence and preparation of the stage 1 report, but for its detailed consideration at stage 2, and I thank its members and the officials who serve it. I thank the officials in my department, the bill team and, not least, my deputy Dr Richard Simpson, who has devoted a considerable amount of time, energy and thought into dealing with the bill.
The working group's report, "Striking the Balance: a new approach to debt management", proposed just that. It was supported by the vast majority of people across Scotland who took the time and trouble to respond to the consultation, and the bill was based on that report. As I have said, the Social Justice Committee's intense reflection, consultation and debate on all the issues and problems that have been raised has been time and effort well spent. The bill is better as a result. There has of course been compromise, but I believe that the outcome is all the better for that, because it has taken all interests into account as it tries to strike the fair balance.
There was agreement about the need for less costly ways, in terms of both personal distress and money, of achieving repayment of debt without the need for formal enforcement. The bill creates the foundations for a national debt arrangement scheme. We now have the results from the consultation exercise, which were published last week, and we will introduce the necessary regulations, taking account of those results, as soon as we can. If we could have, we would have done things in a different order but, regrettably, that was not possible. However, as a result of an amendment passed this afternoon, we intend that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the regulations by affirmative resolution procedure.
There was also general agreement about the need for appropriate enforcement for people who have the means but who are unwilling to pay their debts—the "can pay, won't pay" brigade. That is not just for creditors' benefit, but for decent, ordinary people who pay their bills and are fed up with subsidising chancers who think that they can get away with not paying. In line with the Parliament's clear wish, the bill treats domestic and commercial situations differently. The entirely new court procedure for judicial scrutiny of individual circumstances is designed to ensure that an exceptional attachment order will be available only in genuinely exceptional circumstances. Numerous steps are in place so that it will be granted only for the few difficult "can but won't pay" cases—the ones who are well able to meet their liabilities and should not be able to leave it to everyone else to cough up.
The Executive's commitment to finding better ways of tackling debt is clear. It is demonstrated not only in the bill but in our investment in front-line money advice. That is the backbone of our new approach. The Executive's additional £3 million funding per year will deliver at least 100 additional money advisers across the country, accessible locally to all for free. People are already benefiting from that investment in money advice, and our separate investment of an extra £500,000 per year in training and quality assurance will ensure that that advice is provided to a consistently high standard.
As for Linda Fabiani's proposed amendment to the motion, the Executive firmly believes for the reasons I have outlined that the bill meets the remit set by the Parliament. However, we have already made it clear that we intend to monitor the new system carefully and to review how it works in practice once it has bedded down. The working group recommended that we should do so once the scheme had been up and running for three years, and we intend to follow that sensible proposal.
It has been a long haul. However, although we have come a long way in the past two years, it does not finish here. The bill is part of a bigger picture, of which the debt arrangement scheme is another, very large part. Members will be aware that we also intend to reform the wider enforcement system. We want to promote further reform to ensure that, across the board, we have an effective, efficient, workable and humane enforcement system in Scotland. The bill proceeds on that basis and is a huge leap towards achieving that goal.
I resent and reject the assertion that perhaps only one person in the chamber has a monopoly of conscience on the matter. The contribution that many people in all parties have made to the bill shows how much we want to take and are taking action to help people who genuinely cannot pay and to ensure that they do not face enforcement. The bill will ensure that they are directed towards money advice that will help them to get out of their predicament. We are also investing substantial extra money in that advice. As a result, arguing that the bill will not protect the most vulnerable is as misleading as it is unfair.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill be passed.
It has been a long day and I will be mercifully brief, not least because a number of colleagues wish to speak in the limited time that is available. First, I place on record my thanks to the convener of the Social Justice Committee for her even-handedness and good humour throughout stage 2 of the bill.
I thank the clerking staff of the Social Justice Committee for hard work above and beyond the call of duty and all those who submitted written and oral evidence. I must also thank my colleague Linda Fabiani, whose contribution has been restricted due to family bereavement and ill health. Last, and probably least, I thank Robert Brown for keeping me supplied with paracetamol throughout the day.
The purpose of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill was to put in place measures to protect the debtor. Indeed, the bill has been welcomed by almost all organisations that have given written or oral evidence including Citizens Advice Scotland, the Institute of Credit Management, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Sheriff Court Users Group, the Scottish Legal Action Group and the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers.
In particular, the Scottish Sheriff Court Users Group welcomed the plan to set up a national debt arrangement scheme that
"could provide the cornerstone for an effective system of debt collection in the 21st century".
However, concerns were expressed in the committee about the bill's ability to separate those who cannot pay from those who will not pay. One such case is the exceptional attachment order, which was criticised throughout by the Scottish Legal Action Group as being "not exceptional enough". Indeed, as the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers and others have pointed out, exceptional attachment orders will eliminate some current so-called diligence stoppers.
Unfortunately, the Executive would not support measures to that end at either stage 2 or stage 3. For example, I lodged amendments 134 and 135 at stage 2 to attempt to ensure that attachment and arrangement became a two-stage process. Indeed, Mr Sheridan lodged amendment 69 at stage 3 to ensure that people on benefit would be excluded.
Although the SNP remains unhappy about that aspect of the bill and indeed about some aspects of the debt arrangement scheme, we feel that it is important to consider the bill in the round. The debt arrangement scheme will make a difference to thousands of Scots who are currently in debt. By balancing the thousands of people whose lives will be improved against those who the Executive has repeatedly asserted will amount to a few, we have concluded that we do not wish to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead the SNP seeks to amend the bill to ensure that, within a year of royal assent, the Scottish Executive will have carried out research that proves conclusively just how exceptional—or not—exceptional attachment orders are.
A few minutes ago, the minister said that he would monitor the system carefully. We do not believe that that is enough. As a result, I move amendment S1M-3534.1, to insert at end:
"but, in so doing, expresses reservations that the Bill does not fully fulfil the will of the Parliament as expressed on 6 December 2000 during the passage of the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to institute ongoing research into the effects of the provisions of the Bill and report the results of this research to the Parliament at its first meeting after the first anniversary of the Bill receiving Royal Assent."
I will probably be even more brief than my colleague Kenny Gibson. I congratulate everyone on lasting the pace; it has been a long day. I also thank those who gave written or oral evidence and, of course, our wonderful clerking team. I should say now that we will support the Executive.
I would like to hark back to something that was said during the stage 1 debate on the bill. Trish Godman spoke about how easy it is to get into debt. She talked about people finding themselves with debts that mount until they are put into the invidious position of being called to account. I said at the time that I would collect samples of the credit offers that were made to me. I have them with me today: £25,000-worth of credit from CapitalOne; £15,000 from Lloyds TSB; and limitless credit on the Providian Visa Platinum card and on Morgan Stanley's Platinum card.
I do not know why on earth the RAC would want to offer me credit, but it does—£25,000. Marks and Sparks also offered me £25,000, as did MBNA. Even the National Farmers Union of Scotland offered me money. I say to the minister and colleagues across the chamber that it is little wonder that people right, left and centre can get into difficulties when offers of credit are made as readily as that.
I support the Executive's attempts to try to address the situations that were outlined by Mr Sheridan. Jim Wallace rightly said that Mr Sheridan does not have a monopoly on the issue—we felt for the people who had suffered in those situations and we tried to do something about it. The bill is the best that the Executive has come up with. I am grateful that we will have opportunities in future, when we consider the regulations that will be laid before the Parliament, to examine the issue again.
I join colleagues in thanking the Social Justice Committee clerks and others for their support during the passage of the bill. Apart from anything else that can be said about the bill, the process has been a good one. The minister listened to a number of the concerns and, as we have seen today, a number of issues have come back at stage 3 in the form of appropriate amendments.
Today is a good day for the Scottish Parliament. If the bill is passed, it will represent a well-balanced bill, one that I described during the stage 1 debate as
"the most comprehensive and liberal system of debt collection in western Europe."—[Official Report, 19 September 2002; c 13904.]
In many ways, the bill is a great experiment. It is based on the belief of the Parliament and the Executive that most people want to pay their debts. It is a belief that people should be helped to put their affairs in order and that those who are able to pay their debts but do not do so require to be forced by legal process to do just that.
The debate has been lengthy. I am bound to say that, at one or two points, it was marked by a degree of bad temper and exaggerated comment. Jim Wallace and Lyndsay McIntosh touched on that. I hope that we will not see that happen again in future debates on the subject.
The subject is one in which all members in the chamber feel that they have an interest and on which they can contribute. It is fair that the chamber should pay tribute to Tommy Sheridan and his colleagues for introducing the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill, which was a landmark bill in the Parliament. However, as Jim Wallace rightly said, that does not give the movers of that bill a monopoly on morality or anything else of that sort.
We have ended up with a bill that is workable and which sets a proper balance. The bill reflects the way in which people outside the chamber view things. On the whole, people do not expect to enter into arrangements and not pay their debts. They do not expect to be let off with things or to have exceptional arrangements made for them. Nevertheless, we are all aware that people enter into arrangements which, because of changes in circumstances or for other reasons, prove to be beyond their ability to repay. Lyndsay McIntosh rightly drew attention to the credit side of the issue and the way in which debt is so readily obtainable in our society without, it would appear, a responsible attitude being taken by many of the lending institutions.
The bill has been a long time in the making. It has dominated the activities of the Parliament from an early stage. The passage of the bill has happened in a most effective fashion. We now have a bill that, if it is passed, will last—although time will tell. Clearly, in the light of experience and as time goes by, amendments will need to be made, but I think that it will work. The proof of the pudding will be in the debt arrangement scheme, which stands at the centre of the bill.
The debt arrangement scheme is what makes the bill and, hopefully, debt arrangements in Scotland different from the arrangements that are in place in other countries. I think that the bill will work and that it will act as an example to other countries. I would like to believe that it will make a major contribution to the social history of this country. I support the bill.
Quite a number of members have asked to speak in the debate. It has been a lengthy day. I ask them to keep to overviews and not to fight too many past battles.
I take it that you refer to me, Presiding Officer.
I thank the committee clerks, who worked tirelessly during the passage of the bill. Stage 2 of any bill is fraught with difficulties, so it is to the clerks' credit that the process was relatively smooth and calm. I thank other staff, including catering and security staff, whose quiet efforts in the background helped to make the task of scrutinising the bill that little bit easier. I also thank all those who gave evidence to the committee. There were far too many to mention—although Kenny Gibson made a good attempt—but they all made a worthwhile contribution and gave us much-needed clear information about the impact of various sections of the bill. Finally, I thank the minister and his team for their stewardship of the bill through its stages.
Members from throughout the chamber welcome both the ending of poindings and warrant sales and the opportunity to provide a replacement for outdated legislation. I congratulate Mr Sheridan on his contribution to making that possible. However, he was not alone and many members supported his campaign.
We must end the continual attempts to suggest that the bill merely reintroduces poindings and warrant sales by another name. That is not the case. The bill will enable creditors to pursue debt in cases where people can afford to pay but choose not to. I believe that the people of Scotland will agree with the Executive on that matter. In my speech in the stage 1 debate, I said that ordinary people in Scotland understand that individuals should take responsibility for their debts. If Mr Sheridan and others think that that is not the case, they are sadly out of touch with the people of Scotland.
Despite what has been said today, the bill as amended delivers significant improvements on the original bill. I am pleased that, during stage 2, the Executive accepted the need to draw a clearer distinction between those who provide money advice and those who administer the debt arrangement scheme. That change is important, as is the introduction of a pilot scheme to ensure that those who are at the edges have access to money advice, if that is appropriate.
Mr Sheridan stated today on the radio that he would shame members who chose to support the bill. He has passed up an opportunity to engage meaningfully and constructively in the development of the bill and instead has constructed a string of disingenuous arguments to claim that the bill will result in the poorest in our society being served with exceptional attachment orders. That is simply not true; the bill will protect Scotland's poorest people and, I believe, it will succeed in its aim to deliver a more humane form of diligence which, at its heart, takes into account the debtor's ability to pay.
Part 1 of the bill is highly commendable because the debt arrangement scheme is necessary. It is unfortunate that Scotland has no jurisdiction over consumer credit, although I suspect that Lyndsay McIntosh received the offers that she mentioned as a result of her postcode.
I have only three minutes.
On a point of information. One of the letters was addressed to me at the Scottish Parliament and was from the NFUS.
I hope that I will gain some extra time for that, Presiding Officer.
Seven seconds.
Part 2 of the bill deals with exceptional attachments and sales, which are really just poindings and warrant sales by another name. We had a lesson on legislation from Karen Whitefield. I want to quote from two pieces of legislation and ask her whether I mislead Parliament when I say that poindings and warrant sales still live. The first piece of legislation lists as articles exempt from poinding
"implements, tools of trade, books or other equipment reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of his household in the practice of the debtor's or such member's profession, trade or business".
The second lists
"any implements, tools of trade, books or other equipment reasonably required for the use of the debtor in the practice of the debtor's profession, trade or business".
The first piece of legislation is the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 and the second is the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill.
Will the member give way?
No. Karen Whitefield is having a lesson.
The 1987 act permits
"the opening of shut lockfast places, if necessary for the purpose of executing the poinding",
while under the power of entry and valuation, the bill allows that
"An officer may open shut and lockfast places for the purposes of executing an attachment."
That is a cut-and-paste approach to legislation, putting sections straight from the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 into the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill. I have no problem with making the procedure more humane, but the bill does not abolish poindings and warrant sales. It cannot do that when whole sections of it are imported straight from the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. The truth cannot be avoided, no matter how Executive members twist and turn in the wind. Poindings and warrant sales remain; they are simply renamed.
I lodged an amendment to make the bill honest. The long title says that the bill abolishes poindings and warrant sales. Amendment 89 sought to put it honestly in seeking to insert:
"rename the diligence of poindings and warrant sales as ‘attachment' to provide for the auction of attached articles".
Section 10 states:
"There shall be a form of diligence over corporeal moveable property for recovery of money owed; it is to be known as attachment."
It used to be known as a poinding. Whatever the bill does, it does not abolish poindings and warrant sales; it renames them. There are good things in the bill, but its long title is misleading.
Although the Presiding Officer told me that my amendment 89 was technically defective, I do not accept that and I shall pursue the matter. It is essential that the Parliament does not mislead the Scottish public. The long title says that the bill abolishes poindings and warrant sales, but it does not.
I have been called to speak as the convener of the Social Justice Committee. I am therefore conscious that, as I rise to commend the bill and support its passing by the Parliament, certain constraints are placed on me against my engaging with some of the wilder fringes of the debate thus far.
On behalf of all members and the Social Justice Committee, I record our thanks to Jim Johnston and his clerking team for the difficult job that they did. They worked with great efficiency, courtesy and good humour at all stages, no matter what pressures were brought to bear on them. I also thank the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre for the support and back-up that they offered to members. I thank the staff of the official report, who managed to follow the debate and make sense of it for the broader public. In particular, I thank all those who gave evidence—both written and oral—and I thank the minister for his willingness to engage in dialogue with the committee. I believe that all those people made an important contribution in allowing the committee to give thoughtful consideration to the bill at stage 1 and stage 2.
In addition, I thank the Social Justice Committee's members. Regardless of what has been said today, all the committee members approached the job at stage 1 and stage 2 in a serious way. They took seriously their role to undertake independent scrutiny of the bill and when we agreed or disagreed, we did so based on what was said to us, rather than on who said it. The true independence of the committee was in its listening rather than in members' expressing their support for any individual who took a position on the bill.
The bill is important, and we are at the end of a long and considered process that began long before publication of the bill, which sought to introduce a humane and workable alternative to poindings and warrant sales. I believe that the bill offers significant help to those who have been lured into unaffordable debt. It is important that a degree of consensus—which I believe exists throughout the Parliament—was apparent in the committee's desire that real money advice be provided as early as possible in order to prevent people from getting into multiple debt and to help them to sort out the problem if they have got into that position.
During the course of the debate, I re-read some of my speeches. The main charge against the old system was that it allowed those who could not pay to be humiliated, thereby putting pressure on those who could pay. However, we must recognise equally that we cannot allow those who can pay to hide behind the difficulties of those who cannot pay. Throughout its stages, the bill has sought to make that distinction; I believe that it has achieved that and that it separates those who cannot pay from those who can.
There is a broader issue of irresponsible lending and an issue about encouraging sensible borrowing. There must be an important confidence-building process of encouraging people to seek help at an early stage by using, for example, money advice groups and credit unions. We must consider the issue of affordable credit to prevent people from getting involved in the extremes of money lending. We might be brought back to those broader issues in another place.
However, I believe that the bill's substance addresses the distinction between those who can and those who cannot pay, and that it maintains the important provision that those who cannot pay will not be used as they were previously, which was to persuade those who could pay to pay.
There are anxieties about regulation and I welcome the ministerial commitment to involve Parliament through the use of orders that will be subject to affirmative procedure. I believe that that important commitment and concession by ministers will allow the monitoring protection for which people have asked. The debt arrangement system will be monitored to ensure that it does what we intend it to do and in effect will express Parliament's will to abolish warrant sales and poindings and support the bill's provisions. Therefore, I will welcome the passing of the bill. The challenge thereafter will be to ensure that the bill's provisions and regulations work effectively for people in our communities.
Karen Whitefield made a point at the Social Justice Committee meeting of 12 June 2002 when speaking to David Ancliffe. She said:
"There has been considerable media interest in the bill; indeed, it has been suggested that its measures are nothing more than poindings and warrant sales by another name. I am interested to find out whether you agree with that suggestion."
Pauline Allan, representing Money Advice Scotland, said a little later in the meeting:
"If the exceptional attachment order is retained, we also have concerns about the fact that the proposed process for poinding some goods is one stage shorter than the previous process. As a result, it is worse than the old poindings and warrant sales."
Karen Whitefield responded:
"So you are suggesting that, if the provision remains in the bill, we will need amendments to ensure that the measure is not so draconian and that we protect those who genuinely do not have the ability to pay."—[Official Report, Social Justice Committee, 12 June 2002; c 3012 and 3013.]
Pauline Allan said yes to that.
I am sorry, but Karen Whitefield had her time. I have only three minutes.
Graham Blount, who works for Church Action on Poverty and is the Scottish co-ordinator of the debt on our doorstep campaign, says in an e-mail:
"Debt arrangement schemes have the potential to be of great benefit, but powers to freeze interest and to order composition of debts are essential to an effective debt arrangement scheme."
He goes on to say:
"We also believe that a clear indication of Parliament's expressed wish to exclude the poorest from exceptional attachment orders would be the best response to claims that warrant sales are simply being renamed."
Therefore, when Karen Whitefield says that members are somehow trying to warp reality by suggesting that exceptional attachment orders are poindings and warrant sales by another name, she has many more targets at which to aim. The people who work on the ground and who provide the debt advice at the coalface—including Citizens Advice Scotland, which is utterly opposed to exceptional attachment orders—say that the Executive has fatally undermined the good intentions behind the bill. That is why the SNP amendment deserves support. If the SNP amendment is not supported, the bill deserves to be voted against. It is rich to hear Jim Wallace and Lyndsay McIntosh tell us about their concern for the poor in relation to exceptional attachment orders. Where were they when it came to voting on the abolition of poindings and warrant sales? They could not support the proposal then, but suddenly they are greatly concerned about the poor.
The truth is that the Executive is reintroducing a form of warrant sale and that it is allowing sheriff officers forcibly to enter debtors' homes and remove their goods. That is fact, not fiction; it is warrant sales by another name. That is why Karen Whitefield should be ashamed of supporting exceptional attachment orders. She should be even more ashamed after being unwilling to defend those who are in receipt of benefits against being subject to exceptional attachment orders. She had the chance to do so, but she is prepared to subject the poorest people in Scotland to exceptional attachment orders. She should be ashamed of herself, as should the other Labour members who voted for exceptional attachment orders.
I accept entirely that the ministers and all members care about the poor and are trying to do their best. The question is whether what is in the bill will achieve what we want for the poor. As Johann Lamont correctly said, one of the problems is helping the poor who are trying to pay their debts while not letting off the chancers who can pay and do not. Some parts of the bill are still unsatisfactory from the point of view of people who find it difficult to pay but who are doing their best. However, Robert Brown tells me that the bill is a great step forward and I have great confidence in him.
Although I disagreed with much of what she said, I congratulate Karen Whitefield on fighting her corner with great gusto, which was good.
In the end, I will give the ministers the benefit of the doubt. However, if it goes wrong and it turns out that they have not delivered what they promised they would, they will be criticised for that. They promise us that the bill will work.
Does Donald Gorrie accept that the committee got an important commitment from the minister to the effect that the regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure? That means that the bill, as enacted, will be monitored and that the time to address concerns will be when they develop. The bill, rather than being what some people have represented it as being, offers a huge challenge to the Executive.
That is a fair point. That commitment is one of the factors that will sway me to vote for the bill because it offers a chance for the operation of the act to be examined better.
I am sure that the ministers' hearts are in the right place, but I am not sure that the advice that they receive is always of the best. Some of the people who are in the front line in relation to debt perhaps see the issue more clearly than some of the people who advise ministers.
I look forward to good scrutiny of the bill by Johann Lamont's committee and others and I hope that the bill does some good. As others have said, the debt arrangement side is good; however, some of us have doubts about the business of exceptional attachment orders.
I will confine my remarks to exceptional attachment orders and the reasons for my continuing opposition to them.
Those who support exceptional attachment orders argue that they are different from the old system of poindings and warrant sales. Although I accept that there are differences, the question is whether the differences are great enough to satisfy Parliament that we will not be letting poindings and warrant sales return in a different guise.
Section 46 of the bill authorises the attachment, removal and auction of a debtor's assets from his or her house. That is exactly the same as a poinding and warrant sale. Section 47 gives sheriff's officers the right to force entry into debtors' households. That is exactly what happened with poindings and warrant sales. The system of exceptional attachment orders comes nowhere near being different enough from the poindings and warrant sales system to convince me that it is worth supporting.
Those who support exceptional attachment orders argue that they are different from poindings and warrant sales because they will apply only to those who can afford to pay their debts, but who will not do so because they are lazy wasters. This afternoon we debated whether, by rejecting amendments 45 and 69, the Parliament has exposed thousands more poor people to exceptional attachment orders—that is the key to the debate. It was argued by some that if someone is too poor to be on the debt arrangement scheme, they will be too poor to have an exceptional attachment order applied to them. However, I did not hear a scrap of evidence that supported that argument and it is certainly not the view of Citizens Advice Scotland or the debt on our doorstep campaign, who take a contrary view and are much closer to the poor than any of us in this Parliament. I am more inclined to listen to their advice.
Among all the matters that the bill says a sheriff must take into account before granting an exceptional attachment order, the only initiative that is capable of resolving the outstanding debt is a debt arrangement scheme. If we are to exclude thousands of people from such schemes, we can offer them all the advice and information that we can and sympathise as much as possible, but if their debts remain unresolved, their creditors will be entitled by the bill to apply for exceptional attachment orders, which sheriffs will have no option but to grant. That is my reading of the bill.
I accept that everybody here is trying to do what they think is the right thing in accordance with their consciences, but I do not accept the argument that divides those who are in debt into workers who are hard-working and who pay their debts, and unemployed wasters who want to avoid paying their debts. For years, the Tories have divided the poor into the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, but I will never accept that argument and I resent anyone in the Scottish Parliament using it in the 21st century.
We move to closing speeches. I would like to be finished by 2 minutes to 7.
That gives us a lot of time, Presiding Officer.
In the past 40 minutes, we have had some heat, some light and some interesting comments. For example, Robert Brown described the bill as a "comprehensive and liberal system", which makes me wonder what his definition of "liberal" is. We have even heard Lyndsay McIntosh make a strong case for the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to be devolved to Scotland.
However, if we look at the bill, we see that the Executive has been pretty fly in the way in which it has presented the bill to Parliament. It has, in effect, cobbled together two bills: one to set up a debt arrangement scheme, which would undoubtedly have the Parliament's overwhelming support; and a bill to reinstate some aspects of poindings and warrant sales, which has generated much opposition throughout the chamber.
If what I have said is not the case, I hope that the minister will be able to support our amendment, agreement to which would mean that we could bring the bill back in a year, check out the workings of the exceptional attachment order and find out whether it is poindings and warrant sales by a new name or, as the Executive has said, the turning of the page to a new chapter in dealing with debt in Scotland.
I begin by thanking the Social Justice Committee for its work on the bill. I worked with the committee on stage 2, which was a pleasure. We considered the issues in great detail and we have done a good job in drawing together some of the committee's concerns. What is perhaps most important is that the regulations—which must flesh out some of the important aspects of the process—will be subject to affirmative procedure and Parliament will have the opportunity to debate them.
There is no disagreement in Parliament on the bill's intention, which is to have a humane system that ensures that those who can pay are made to pay and that those who cannot pay are protected from a system that was not good, not effective, was inappropriate and made people suffer inappropriately. That is what we are achieving; it is certainly the bill's intention. I hope that everyone accepts at least that intention as valid.
Debt is increasing and we know that it is a problem—an increasing problem—for many people. There must be realistic ways of paying such debts and different solutions are required for this century. We believe that what we will do today in introducing both the debt arrangement scheme and free nationwide practical help for everyone who wants it will—together with our wider measures of, for example, supporting credit unions—produce significant change in the way we approach debt, in the way we support those who are unable to pay and in the way we protect them from fruitless enforcement. That fruitless enforcement was the most unpleasant aspect of the previous scheme. Although I acknowledge what Christine Grahame, Tommy Sheridan and others said about the fact that they do not believe that the scheme is different—
Dr Simpson, it will be helpful if you could continue until 19:00. You have another minute and 40 seconds.
Of course, the bill incorporates some of the language of previous acts, because it needs to tackle some of the same problems. However, as a whole—the bill should be taken as a whole—it will be different from the old system. The Social Justice Committee concluded that that was the case and, despite the comments and quotations that Tommy Sheridan has given us, so did Money Advice Scotland, the Scottish Consumer Council and many others.
If only Christine Grahame, Tommy Sheridan and others would open their minds, consider the bill in the round and consider the way in which it will be interpreted, they would see that we have a humane and workable system—an alternative in which the whole Parliament believes. We have heard the points that were made in the debate and we have taken on board the points that were made at stage 1.
As I have another 50 seconds left, I conclude by thanking the bill team for two reasons. To produce a bill is difficult in any case. However, because we passed the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Act 2001 before we got into the process of the bill, we have had some difficulties and the process has been compressed. That led to some of the difficulties in the subordinate legislation to which the Subordinate Legislation Committee referred. That is not the right way round for the Parliament to deal with legislation. In this case, it led to difficulties about the consultation process being able adequately to inform members for stage 2. That is one reason why the regulations will be particularly important. I support the bill.
I am grateful to you for keeping to time, Dr Simpson.