Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill: Stage 1
Presiding Officer, I feel that you have let the Parliament down by selecting the Executive's amendment for today's debate. I can ask only that other members' bills are better protected by you from the Executive's wrecking amendments.
I hesitate to interrupt you, Mr Sheridan, but you cannot make criticisms of the chair. We had an exchange on a point of order on this matter. All that we can say is that the amendment is in order. What to do with the amendment is a matter for political argument in the chamber.
You will find that the spirit of my words is accepted by the majority of members.
I would like John McAllion to sum up in this debate and apologise that I shall not take any interventions during my speech.
This bill is part of a long journey. For 300 years, those with power have had access to legal terror. Poindings and warrant sales have been establishment tools of intimidation and fear—tools wielded by the unaccountable and often ruthless sheriff officers to punish the poor for the crime of being poor. Poindings and warrant sales have never been about recovering or resolving debt; they have always been used to humiliate, degrade and frighten the poor. In 1893, the Labour party in Scotland committed itself to abolishing poindings and warrant sales. More than 100 years later, perhaps it is fitting that Scotland's first Parliament for 300 years has the chance today to seize the opportunity and vote for abolition.
As members consider the simple motion that is before them today, I invite them to think of its sponsors and supporters—those who have campaigned hard for abolition. I thank Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, who drafted this bill, convinced of its necessity by his everyday reality of dealing with the multiple debt problems that confront so many people in the Govan area. I thank John McAllion and Alex Neil, co-sponsors of the bill who have worked together with me in a cross-party team that has been determined to deliver at least a little more protection for Scotland's poorest families. Regardless of party identities, we have been united in a common cause against the modern-day barbarism of poindings and warrant sales. Three separate cross-party committees have asked this Parliament to support the general principles of this bill.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress, representing 800,000 trade unionists in Scotland, issued a press statement on Tuesday in which Bill Speirs, the general secretary, said:
"The entire Labour and Trade Union movement in Scotland, including the STUC, has been firmly opposed to the barbarism of warrant sales for many years. I well remember in 1989, as part of the campaign against the poll tax, marching with the leadership of the Scottish Labour Party behind a banner which read ‘Scrap Warrant Sales'. So I cannot believe that the Executive, unless it is under pressure from its Liberal Democrat members, is backsliding on this."
Bill ends his appeal to the Scottish Parliament by saying:
"The poor cannot wait for the Parliament to ponder."
We have Citizens Advice Scotland and Money Advice Scotland on our side, representing those in the front line of debt advice and help throughout Scotland. Also on our side we have the Poverty Alliance, the Communities Against Poverty Network, the Lothian Anti-Poverty Alliance, Child Poverty Action Group Scotland, Glasgow Braendam Link, the Scottish Sheriff Court Users Group and scores of other grass-roots organisations that work daily with Scotland's poor, Scotland's socially excluded and Scotland's dispossessed.
I ask the Parliament to listen to the poor who had the courage to give evidence to the parliamentary committees. Their evidence is now part of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's report and stands as a moving testimony to the reality of poindings and warrant sales as they affect the poor—as opposed to the marble-mouthed pontifications of those in privileged positions of economic security who would not know a poinding or warrant sale if it punched them on the nose.
During the past financial year, 23,000 poindings took place and thousands more are taking place in this financial year. I ask members to think of the likes of Mary Ritchie from Govan, who is living on benefits and got herself into arrears of £225 in council tax. She offered the sheriff officers £5 a week in repayment, but they refused it. They demanded a £75 lump-sum payment. Fortunately, Mary got in touch with the Govan Law Centre, which was able to intervene and deliver a repayment schedule of £3 a week from Mary's benefits. What about the countless others who do not know who to get in contact with and who do not know where to seek help? They are the ones who are exposed to the ruthlessness of the sheriff officers.
Sheriff officers use the poinding to demand lump-sum payments, forcing those in debt to get themselves into even more debt and then to allow themselves to be exposed at the hands of legal or illegal loan sharks.
Colleagues, this is the first member's bill and it is the first test of the sovereignty of the parliamentary committees, which have listened to all sides. They have listened to the privileged elites and to the legal establishment: the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission, the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers, which represents Scotland's sheriff officers. I have often referred to them as Rottweilers in suits, but I must qualify that statement: many Rottweilers are often better behaved.
How pathetic, then, that the Minister for Justice relies upon a report by the privileged and exclusive Law Commission rather than the studied reports of the parliamentary committees. On page 3 of the Law Commission report, at paragraph 1.11, the commission acknowledges the contribution of
"Mr Roderick Macpherson, an experienced messenger-at-arms, who provided us with invaluable comments on the practical implications of our proposals".
The same Roderick Macpherson is referred to in a letter from the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers of 11 January to all its members. That letter said that a firm of solicitors, McGrigor Donald, was working hard on the society's behalf to combat the bill and that a team had been formed, including Roderick Macpherson, to work to defeat my bill. It is in black and white. The Law Commission's report is not an independent set of suggestions to improve the debt recovery system; it is a tainted report designed to defend the privileged elite of sheriff officers.
That unaccountable bunch of bullies presented evidence to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to the effect that the removal of poindings and warrant sales would not lead to sheriff officers being financially disadvantaged, saying:
"Generally, we do not derive our income wholly from poinding and warrant sale."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 11 January 2000; c 570.]
In the minutes of its annual general meeting last year, however, the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers admits that its members' very livelihoods are at stake—it must combat the bill because 23,000 poindings last year brought in £1.6 million for sheriff officers.
I remember sitting through all the committee deliberations. It was a privileged experience to see this new democracy at work, with the parliamentary committee system at its very soul. I remember Karen Whitefield's honest comment. During an evidence-taking session, she said that she was opposed to the bill at the beginning of the process, but after having listened to the evidence she was convinced that it must be passed as soon as possible. That is an example of how the parliamentary committees can work.
In the Local Government Committee, Johann Lamont put it eloquently when she said that the choice facing the committee was to delay implementation and wait—and wait—for some alternative to be put in place, or to support the bill, giving it an implementation date some months down the line and forcing an alternative to be brought in. Rather than a spur to payment, what about a spur to change? I am proud that Johann used those words.
On 28 January, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities passed a motion in support of the bill inspired by West Dunbartonshire Council, which has already banned poindings and warrant sales. Instead, it has benefit maximisation teams and cold-calling teams to discuss maximising income with people in debt. The local authority's debt has been reduced by 35 per cent, and £1.4 million has been brought in by 2,500 cases. West Dunbartonshire Council has banned poindings and warrant sales—it is taking that action now. What is to stop the rest of Scotland's local authorities following suit and banning warrant sales as well?
I have little time, so I will appeal to Labour members in particular. In my opinion, the Tories will never represent the poor, so I do not appeal to them to back my bill. The Liberals talk a good game. They talk about how good the committee system is, but when faced with a bill that has the support of not just one, but three, committees, they are not even prepared to back the motion. I will appeal to Labour members, who may come from a tradition. Did they enter politics as Labour party members to vote against a bill to abolish poindings and warrant sales?
I ask Labour members to examine their consciences and not to be bullied on this matter. I urge them to support the recommendation of three independent cross-party parliamentary committees, to support what the STUC and their own communities are saying, to take the opportunity today to support Scotland's poor and reject the Executive's wrecking amendment, and to vote for the bill today. [Applause.]
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill.
Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Jim Wallace to speak to and move amendment S1M-772.1.
I congratulate Mr Sheridan on introducing his member's bill, particularly as it is the first such bill in our Parliament's short history to reach stage 1 debate, and on moving his motion with customary vigour and rhetoric. It is well recognised that the bill deals with a fundamentally important topic and one that we all know is close to his heart and to the hearts of many members in the chamber.
There is much common ground on this issue, not only as between the Executive and Mr Sheridan—although that was not always clear from his remarks—but across the Parliament. Like him, we abhor archaic and inhumane aspects of the system of poindings and warrant sales. Like him, we want to end the indignity that is faced by those most vulnerable people who are genuinely unable to pay their debts. Like him, we want to consign poindings and warrant sales to the history books. Mr Sheridan's track record is long and widely known, but I do not believe that he can claim a monopoly on the issue. Indeed, a commitment to protect and safeguard the interests of vulnerable citizens in our community is shared widely across this Parliament and not least in the parties of the Executive.
There is significant common ground and I hope that Mr Sheridan will have common ground with me when I say that what the people of Scotland want is justice and fair play when it comes to debt recovery. That must mean protecting those suffering from genuine hardship, such as Mary Ritchie from Govan and the others to whom he referred in his speech. On the other hand, it must also mean that those who can pay their debts do so. The majority of people in Scotland who can pay their debts do so—and usually do so quickly—but there are some who consistently refuse to do so, albeit that they can, until they are forced.
Before the Deputy First Minister leaves the issue of common ground, which I agree exists in the chamber, will he indicate that the Executive is prepared to withdraw the amendment and let the bill proceed?
I will make my own speech in my own time and Jackie Baillie will wind up for the Executive.
The sense of fair play to which I referred would be offended if avoidance by people who can pay but refuse to do so was made easier, placing greater burdens on those who do pay their bills. Unfortunately, Mr Sheridan's bill makes that easier.
Another factor that we must take into account is that the debts incurred by businesses during commercial transactions must continue to be honoured if our economy and commerce is not to be distorted. Again, Mr Sheridan's bill would create a loophole, although that might not have been an intended result.
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee itself identified the problem. In its report it says:
"The Committee remains conscious of the danger, however, that immediate abolition of poindings and warrant sales could cause disruption and unintended negative consequences."
Of course, the committee went on to say that, those concerns notwithstanding, the bill should be passed. Unfortunately, that is not something to which I can readily agree, and there are a number of reasons why.
First, what do we do with a bill that is manifestly incomplete and was recognised as such by the lead committee? We must work up an alternative that works and achieves the goals that we are all aiming for. Although it is a matter for the Presiding Officer, amending the bill to incorporate the alternative set out in the Executive's amendment would not be possible.
Secondly, passing the bill without putting in place an alternative—
Will Mr Wallace give way?
No. I have a very short time for my speech. I shall keep going as I have a lot to say.
Secondly, passing the bill without putting in place an alternative to poindings and warrant sales would send a dangerous message that the payment of debt has in some way become voluntary.
Thirdly, what is the chance of credit being given if the chances of getting money back are slim? In those circumstances, it is inevitably people on low incomes who will be thrust into the hands of the loan sharks. The most vulnerable will suffer. Everybody wants to protect the vulnerable, but Mr Sheridan's bill as it stands would create more difficulties than it seeks to resolve. The better solution is to ensure that people who genuinely cannot pay are not subjected to enforcement action, but to ensure that it is still available to be used against those who can pay but try to avoid their liabilities.
Mr Sheridan argued today, and has done so previously, that the abolition—
Will the minister give way?
No. I have a short period of time and Mr Sheridan did not take any interventions. The lady might get a chance to make a speech herself.
Mr Sheridan said that the abolition of poindings and warrant sales without an alternative would not leave a gap in the debt recovery system, but that is not the case. It is not true that everyone would be susceptible to other forms of diligence. There are people who have no bank accounts to arrest or whose bank accounts are never in credit. There are people who do not own land, building or houses. There are the self-employed, whose wages cannot be arrested. Even if one of the existing alternatives is available, surely Mr Sheridan is not suggesting that it is better to make someone bankrupt or to threaten their home to recover a relatively small debt.
I also fear that the financial consequences could be devastating. Indeed, the total effect on local authorities of simple abolition is estimated in the region of £120 million per year. Tommy Sheridan quite properly pointed to the experience in West Dunbartonshire. He will recall that Jack McConnell recently said that before any statutory warrants are issued it should be commended to all local authorities in Scotland that there ought to be some examination of those against whom a debt is being pursued. That ought to be taken up by local authorities throughout the country.
I have explained why we are unable to agree to the bill, but the status quo is not an option either. Much has been made of committees' reports. As much as anyone else, I respect the committees of this Parliament. Roseanna Cunningham's Justice and Home Affairs Committee said in paragraph 48 of its stage 1 report on the bill:
"The first step is for the Executive to acknowledge that poindings and warrant sales must go, and that efforts should be concentrated on finding a workable but humane alternative. The Stage 1 debate provides an ideal opportunity for the Minister for Justice to take that step."
In the spirit of that committee finding I acknowledge that poindings and warrant sales must go and that efforts should be concentrated on finding a workable but humane alternative, so I will say what we intend to do.
Our amendment states that before the summer we will put in place secondary legislation to add to the list of goods that are exempt from domestic poinding and warrant sale. More important, it states that before the end of parliamentary year 2001-02 we will introduce legislation to abolish the present system of poinding and warrant sale and replace it with a modern and humane alternative. That is a firm commitment that the Parliament will rightly hold us to.
The key elements of the reform will be protection of the vulnerable debtor—those who genuinely cannot pay—and vigorous pursuit of those who can pay but are reluctant to do so. In so doing, we will support the interests of those who pay their bills regularly. We also intend to establish a working group to give effect to those principles. It would be a working group primarily of this Parliament, with a wide membership. I hope that Mr Sheridan would agree to be a member of that group. [Members: "Oh."] If one wishes to go forward in a cross-parliamentary way, that is not an unreasonable proposition. [Interruption.]
Order.
I will also ask members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, and the Local Government Committee to be included. The committees have indicated that an alternative is necessary and we are inviting them to join the Executive in identifying the elements of that alternative.
It will be important to have an independent external perspective, including someone with practical legal experience. I have also canvassed Kaliani Lyle of Citizens Advice Scotland to see whether she would be willing to be a member. I am pleased to say that she will be. A timetable for the group's work is important. We would want it to report by December 2001 at the latest.
Will the minister give way?
No. I am just about to conclude.
This matter is a challenge to the Parliament. We were elected with high hopes about the quality of the legislation that we would pass. We were expected to pass considered and comprehensive legislation. Unfortunately, as I have explained, this bill does not meet that test, despite its laudable intentions. There is an injustice to attack and Mr Sheridan deserves credit for putting the issue so firmly on the agenda. However, this bill does not offer the best way of moving forward. What the Executive has proposed is a far better way.
We want to ensure that in the lifetime of this Parliament we pass radical but responsible legislation that abolishes the system of poinding and warrant sale and puts in its place a modern alternative of which we can all be proud. We will then provide an important protection for the poor and vulnerable in our society, while ensuring that those who can pay their debts, properly incurred, do so. In the spirit of this Parliament working together to achieve those objectives, I move amendment S1M-772.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:
"notes that the Scottish Executive will:
(a) during the 2001/02 Parliamentary year bring forward legislation to introduce a new system to:
(i) abolish the present system of poindings and warrant sales which in many of its aspects is archaic and inhumane and replace it with a modern system that protects those who can't pay, ending the indignities they suffer, and supports the interests of those who pay their bills regularly;
(ii) ensure that those who can pay but won't are rigorously pursued, including for debts incurred in the course of business;
(b) in the meantime, introduce secondary legislation to expand the list of goods exempt from domestic poindings and warrant sales; and
(c) establish a working group to consult widely and develop proposals for reforming the law of diligence against moveables, including proposals for debtor protection and debt arrangement schemes;
and for these reasons, while agreeing to the principle of abolition of the poindings and warrant sales system, does not agree to the general principles of the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill."
That was one of the most disappointing and depressing speeches I have heard in this Parliament in the past year. There is very clearly a majority in the Parliament for getting rid of poindings and warrant sales, and for doing so as a matter of urgency.
There are two big issues at stake in today's debate. The first is the common ground on getting rid of poindings and warrant sales. The second is whether we are engaging in the new politics of Scotland or whether we are just playing a waiting game—talking about but not implementing the spirit of the new democracy in Scotland. Jim Wallace talks about another working party. We have had three working parties of this Parliament—cross-party working parties called parliamentary committees. They have spent hour upon hour on a cross-party basis interviewing people. They have read reams of written evidence and listened to hours of oral evidence.
Will the member give way?
No, as I have only five minutes.
Three cross-party working parties have come to the same conclusion independently. That conclusion is that poindings and warrant sales should be abolished—and as soon as possible. Furthermore, the lead committee—the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—has recommended that to give the Executive and others time to introduce other measures, a delay in implementation of the bill should be agreed.
In none of the arguments that Jim Wallace advanced today do I see why he cannot vote for the principle of this bill, be prepared at stage 2 and afterwards to lodge amendments on timing and the safeguarding of the interests of small businesses, and use the time gap that is recommended by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to introduce any additional legislation that is required.
I will tell members why the Executive is against this bill. It has nothing to do with high politics or principle. The Executive is against this bill for only one fundamental reason—because the name of its promoter is Tommy Sheridan and not the Executive.
The reasons for abolishing poindings and warrant sales are well recorded by the committees. Tommy Sheridan referred to Karen Whitefield, a member of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee who said quite openly before evidence was taken that she was sceptical about abolition. She was sceptical for one of the reasons that the Deputy First Minister mentioned in his speech: that the abolition of poindings and warrants sales might mean that the poor people who are affected by them would no longer be entitled to credit.
After evidence was taken—the minister will know this if he has read the committee's report—Karen Whitefield and others were persuaded, on the basis of the evidence that was received from the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others, that abolition poses no threat to the creditworthiness or credit rating of poor people. If the minister had read the evidence the committees have taken, he would know that that was the conclusion of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.
Warrant sales and poindings are barbaric. They are outmoded and they are immoral. They are a direct attack on the poorer sections of our society. They are not designed to deal with those who can pay but will not. The people who are the victims of warrant sales and poindings are those who want to pay but do not have the means to pay.
What happens when the bully boys—the sheriff officers—come to the door? Read today's edition of The Herald.
Some water, Alex?
Thanks very much. [Laughter.]
On page 7 of The Herald, somebody called Alec—and it is not this Alec, and I do not think that it is that Alec, Alec Salmond—was the perfect fit for a profile of Mr Average until depression cost him his job a few years ago. He faces the prospect, on Monday, of sheriff officers arriving at his house and seizing the tumble dryer, the television and the hi-fi, which have already been valued at £80 for the lot. That is exactly what it will cost for the sheriff officers to come and poind those three items in the first place. Poindings do not recover debt.
Jim Wallace should read the story. At the end there is a plea from Alec and his family to abolish poindings and warrant sales and, in doing so, introduce what he calls "just a wee bit of humanity" into the system. The present system strips people of their dignity and it strips us as a community of our humanitarian principles. Not only that, it does not achieve its principal aim of recovering debt.
Research findings from the Scottish Executive's own central research unit demonstrate that only 22 per cent of the debt is recovered, excluding the expenses of the sheriff officers, which are often not covered. In 82 per cent of cases of individual poindings and warrant sales, not enough money was recovered to pay the sheriff officers, never mind pay off the debt. Let us live up to the expectations of the Scottish people. Let us, in this Parliament, demonstrate that we do not care whose name is on the bill. This is not Tommy's bill, it is not Alec's bill, it is not John's bill—it is the people's bill. It is our responsibility to pass it.
We have great sympathy with many of the examples that Alex Neil has given. Having said that, we do not follow the line of supporting Tommy Sheridan's bill, and I will try to explain why. I congratulate Tommy. He is following his principles. He is full of emotion about this issue, and I quite understand that. His presentation today was excellent, but, as far as I am concerned, it was ill founded. Again, I will try to justify that comment as I go through my speech.
The aims of all politicians are broadly the same. The way in which we achieve our aims provides the basis for political argument and division. Irrespective of the emotion, our objectives may well be the same. During recent periods of Tory government, the issue of poindings and warrant sales was considered. Major reforms were implemented to remove factors causing stigma and humiliation. It was determined at that time that abolition would harm rather than help those who are the worst off in society.
We have considered these issues closely over recent weeks. We have considered the evidence taken by the committees, and have taken on board the points that were made. Although we express sympathy, we feel that the people whom Tommy Sheridan considers that this bill is aimed at helping would be the worst sufferers if the bill were implemented.
Will the member give way?
I apologise but I have only a few minutes.
I remember debates in the House of Commons on the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill in 1993, and it is encouraging to note that the realities and responsibilities of government have apparently changed the minds of so many people in the Labour party and the Liberal party—although SNP members are pointing out to me that Liberal members seem to have deserted the ship. There are none here, with the exception of the Deputy First Minister.
I apologise. I will not give way but I acknowledge that Nicol Stephen is here.
To be fair, I do not charge Labour party members with abandoning long-held principles on the issue. I acknowledge that their long-held role as the Opposition forced them into making many claims that were ill thought out, but that were made in their efforts to win a general election. Today they acknowledge that we were right and they were wrong. Given past deliberations, this late amendment has been presented in the most deplorable way and, because of that, it is unlikely that we will support it.
We believe that where a person is legally entitled to payment of a debt and the debtor does not make payment in reasonable time, the law must provide a means whereby the creditor can obtain payment. Such a system must be fair to both creditor and debtor. At the instigation of the Thatcher Government the Scottish Law Commission reviewed laws that had been in place for over a hundred years—laws that I acknowledge fit some of the descriptions used for poindings and warrant sales today. Those descriptions show that, to some extent, those who promote today's bill are trapped in a time warp.
The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 brought changes in wage arrestment that ensure that no one has their entire weekly wage or monthly salary taken. Time-to-pay orders and directions were introduced. The act increased the range of goods exempted from valuation and sale in poindings and warrant sales. In that area I accept that there is scope to bring the legislation up to date with modern living standards. That would address the very emotive issues that Alex Neil raised, referring to The Herald today. Many people I have spoken to are blissfully unaware of those changes and that is a factor in the general public's attitude to warrant sales.
I want to eradicate a further misperception. It is frequently suggested that only Scotland has a system of reclaiming debt from people's moveable assets. That is not the case. In Europe 22 countries have similar systems, and many other democratic countries have such systems in place.
Tommy Sheridan has argued that sequestration is an alternative route to take, but it can be costly. If used in the business context, it leads to a cessation in trading, which does not help either small businesses or those employed in them. If the threat of sheriff warrants is removed, there is nothing to stop people turning their assets into personal possessions. The effect of the proposed change, without real alternatives being put in place, would be to remove credit facilities for people in the lowest income brackets. We are not prepared to condone that or to condone a move that will bring untold difficulties to those who strive to make a success out of small businesses.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate even if, earlier, Tommy Sheridan pronounced my name in a Sunday way—which associates me with a certain useless chancellor who could not even pronounce his own name.
I am happy that the position of the Executive has changed from what seemed to be direct opposition to proposing an amendment that outlines its commitment to abolishing poindings and warrant sales and makes helpful suggestions about the way forward. As a Labour back bencher, and I believe representing the views of many of my colleagues, I urge the minister, even at this late stage, to withdraw the amendment, to make it clear that this Parliament wants warrant sales and poindings to go. I further say, in all seriousness, that if the minister does not withdraw the amendment, I believe that I and many of my colleagues will vote to ensure that they go.
We must take note of the fact that three parliamentary committees—the Local Government Committee, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—heard evidence, deliberated and expressed some reservations, but took the view that the bill's principles should be supported.
Let there be no mistake: there was no collective rush of blood to the head; no emotional spasm; no mass enchantment with the person who promoted the bill; no desire to create a cheats charter; and no desire to capitulate—I believe that was the word used—to Tommy Sheridan. It would be helpful if the new politics could stretch a little further than individuals and highlight the political issues that we are debating. This was a clear decision, taken deliberately and thoughtfully. Its significance should not be underestimated.
I am grateful to Johann Lamont for giving way, because this is an important debate.
All of us, on a cross-party basis, wish to pay tribute to the people who have, over many years, argued the case for the abolition of warrant sales and poindings. It stretches back to Jimmy Dempsey, Dennis Canavan and many others. It is important that we all recognise that this is not a new subject. If the Executive had a point to make, it could have made it much earlier.
I am in the Labour party. I know that poverty is not a new issue and that dealing with poverty is not a new issue for those of us who have fought long and hard to deal with those matters. The view of the Local Government Committee was that unless the decision to abolish was taken, there would be no need or pressure to find an alternative. It is known as concentrating minds. It is clear to the Local Government Committee, and I believe that it is the view of many Labour MSPs and others, that the level of stress and distress caused by this process is unacceptable. In effect, warrant sales and poindings humiliate, with no evidence of benefit, the poor who genuinely cannot pay in order to put pressure on those who can pay.
I will make serious points about issues that the committee process and some of the debate on this issue have generated. We should challenge the idea that the poorest in our communities are waiting for the opportunity not to pay their debts. We will all have examples of constituents who, far from attempting to avoid paying what they owe, will sacrifice and do without to ensure that they are debt free. We know that many struggle to pay. We know that many, especially among our elderly, suffer to pay. I would contend that, if people wish to learn the skills of tax avoidance, they should look not to the poor, but to those who pay handsomely for advice that reduces their tax responsibilities.
I emphasise the importance of the point that we need to develop an alternative means of collecting debt. People see that as fair: people should pay what they owe if they can afford to pay. It is in the interests of the poorest in our communities that local government collects council tax from those who can afford to pay in order to deliver the services that the poorest in our communities require.
Tommy Sheridan has indicated that the bill is incomplete. He has said that sanctions are required. That is the challenge for us. Good government is not just about identifying problems and then wringing our hands; it is about finding solutions. What we should do today is to draw a line by saying that we wish to abolish warrant sales and poindings and that we will abolish them. Tommy Sheridan has flagged up the issues. It is now the job of our committees, the partnership Executive and the Parliament as a whole to develop a package that will secure the rights of those who seek to recover debt and stop the current system that so cruelly tests the poorest in our communities.
I urge Parliament to agree to the principles of the bill in the sure and certain knowledge that we will revisit the complexities and difficulties of it. We must agree to the principles so that we can get on with the job of developing a system of debt collection that does not have at its heart such deep injustice.
I quote from a previous debate on a bill to abolish warrant sales, a bill proposed by Margaret Ewing in the House of Commons in 1990. Brian Wilson, who is a Labour minister in the UK Government, said that
"we should acknowledge unanimously that the warrant sale is a peculiarly Scottish evil. It is a dreadful system. It has no redeeming feature."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 February 1990; Vol 166 c 1189.]
I agree with Brian Wilson that it has no redeeming feature—it is one of the few times that I will agree with him. I am sure that Brian would agree with me today. Like many others, I am at a total loss to understand the stance taken by the Executive on this issue. In my view, the opponents of warrant sales are entitled to look sceptically at the record of successive Administrations until now, to look sceptically at the current Executive's rhetoric and to continue with that sceptical stance into the future despite the minister's assurances.
Consider the amendment that is before us. First, it asks us to abolish the present system. That is a fine statement of principle, so why not take the opportunity right now to do so? Secondly, it says that we need to ensure rigorous pursuit of debts. Passing this bill will not prevent that from happening. If the Executive thinks that there will be deficiencies in the remaining procedures, it is entirely open to it to do something about it before implementation of the bill.
The amendment goes on to say that, in the meantime, there should be secondary legislation. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee's recommendations suggest a delayed implementation to allow any other measures to be put into place. The amendment goes on to talk about establishing another working group. Well, pardon us all if that does not sound hugely innovative. The minister has told us of the potential membership of that group, but he has not told us of a proposed time scale for the group. In any case, there is nothing to stop it happening today, when we pass the bill, as I intend that we should do.
The amendment ends on a note of breathtaking surrealism, agreeing the principle of abolition but not agreeing the principle of abolition. We are in serious Lewis Carroll territory here. Not one of the Executive's reasons for refusing to support the bill stands up in reality.
There is another iniquity inherent in this refusal to support the bill. The committees took extensive evidence, both written and oral, from a large number of organisations over a considerable number of meetings, sometimes at major cost to their business programmes. We did that because all of us recognise the importance of hearing all sides of the argument.
We took on board a number of the concerns about the imbalance that abolition might introduce into the debt recovery system. Three different committees independently came to almost exactly the same conclusion: pass the bill but delay implementation, precisely to allow any resulting imbalance to be addressed by the Executive, but within a reasonable time scale. Indeed, I would argue that the conclusions and recommendations in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's report are carefully thought out, responsible and, above all, reasonable.
The Minister for Justice referred to paragraph 48 of our report. I would refer him to paragraphs 47, which is helpfully highlighted for his interest, and 49. We considered those recommendations to be enormously important. In my view, all the committees have acted responsibly. For the Executive to take the view outlined in this rather churlish amendment would mean that a colossal amount of work and time, not just of members but of hard-pressed clerking staff, had been, in essence, totally wasted. It would send a message that the considered views of the committee are to be set at naught, even if they are truly representative of a cross-party consensus—which, on this issue, is clearly the case.
I strongly urge the Executive, even at this eleventh hour, to allow its amendment to fall. To do otherwise does a disservice to the committees, to the Parliament as a whole and indeed to the people of Scotland, who almost certainly would find this piece of legislation utterly appropriate and totally welcome.
It is safe to say that I will agree with my pal from Pollok—just as well, as she is sitting beside me.
I welcome the debate and I do not underestimate the difficulties that we face in it. It has been recognised from the start that there are complexities relating to the bill. There is the fundamental fact that we in Scotland face a two-edged sword: we must deal with people who want to get out of debt but cannot and we must deal with people who can pay but will not, because they know how to work the system.
I would like to make a few points absolutely clear. I have not an ounce of sympathy for those who dodge their debts nor for those who are in employment, but who expect others to shoulder the consequences of their dishonesty—there is evidence on that. Nobody in Parliament should give such people succour. I recognise that, even in the most impoverished communities, there remains a central moral imperative that one must pay one's debts. There is no running away from the fact that we need sanctions and compulsion. The Executive should recognise that.
As convener of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, I must recognise the evidence that the committee heard. We heard a considerable amount of evidence from the Department of Social Security. I asked DSS officers whether the biggest spur to payment is a solicitor's letter indicating that legal action will be taken against a person, rather than the threat of poindings and warrant sales. They said that that was correct.
The committee heard, above all else, about the perniciousness and ineffectiveness of warrant sales. The citizens advice bureau in Easterhouse outlined the recent case of an elderly couple who had council tax arrears of £81. By the time they came to the citizens advice bureau, their goods had been poinded, after sheriff officers had demanded that they increase their payments from £15 per week in order to prevent the warrant sale. Not so long ago, I dealt in my office with the case of a disabled 80-year-old woman who was on the phone in tears because she had received a letter from a sheriff officer. The council apologised, but we must prevent such things from happening again.
If the Executive does not withdraw its amendment, I will ask Jim Wallace to come with me to Easterhouse to explain to the people—
Mr Jim Wallace indicated agreement.
We might organise that trip.
Minimal debts trap people in a cascading spiral that causes and reinforces exclusion. For those who are caught in such circumstances, we must devise a system that removes the terror that results from the unscrupulous and brutal treatment that they face.
I welcome much of what Jim Wallace said. It concurs with much of the evidence that was taken by the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. He said on the radio this morning that Scotland is made up of fair-minded people. I am in no doubt that the vast majority of ordinary people believe that they should pay their debts, but they also believe profoundly that we should outlaw processes that degrade and terrify people.
I have argued for support of the bill since it was introduced. I will support it today because we must ensure that poindings and warrant sales will not be part of the alternatives that are put before us. I have argued with Tommy Sheridan all my political life and I will, no doubt, continue to do so, but that offers no solution to people who have been excluded, isolated and impoverished after 18 years of that Tory lot. The Labour party has always allied itself with those who are impoverished and dispossessed. That is part of our history and it will be a continuing commitment. Today we are allied with the poor and the dispossessed.
On a point of order. A number of weeks ago Sir David Steel ruled that members must treat each other with respect. Could you please remind members of that ruling? Mr Wallace has treated Roseanna Cunningham disrespectfully by uttering what I consider to be an obscenity during her speech. I would tell you the exact word, but I do not want to repeat it. I could write it down for you.
I did not hear anything of that nature, but we will check the Official Report. I would be grateful if Ms White would write to me.
There is no bill more fitting than the one that we are debating to be the first member's bill in the Parliament. It underlines the determination of our Parliament to change Scotland for the better. It is right that one of the first acts of the Parliament should be to abolish the draconian and barbaric system of poindings and warrant sales, which have been used to terrorise and intimidate the poorest and most vulnerable people in Scotland for generations. It is an outrage that the Labour-Liberal Executive should come forward at this stage with an amendment that will change the principles of a member's bill. The time for amendments is in committee at stage 2.
As I said earlier today, if the Executive wins this vote, it will mean that no member's bill will ever become law unless it has the support of the Executive—that is an intolerable situation. Evidence to the committees has shown that warrant sales are not an effective means of collecting debt. Of the 23,000 poindings that took place last year, only 503 resulted in warrant sales.
Poindings and warrant sales are not about collecting debt. They are used to intimidate and humiliate. In many cases, all that working-class families have is their pride and dignity. They may be in straitened financial circumstances and in debt; pride and dignity is sometimes all that remains. Poindings are used to humiliate and degrade them. They are used to strip away that dignity and reduce people in the eyes of their neighbours.
The people of Scotland will be astounded and appalled that the Labour Executive, which moved with such alacrity over the abolition of section 2A, should now seek to put a brake on an issue that goes to the heart and soul of the decent and civilised society that we wish to create in the 21st century. I do not seek to rerun the debate on section 2A, but the people of Scotland will be angry and mystified at why that issue should have been progressed so quickly, with so little discussion, debate or detail, yet on warrant sales and poindings, which were dissected by three committees of the Parliament, the Executive claims that it needs more time. The Executive has known about this bill since August.
This is the day on which MSPs must stand up to the Executive and stand up for the committees and the people of Scotland. All of us who are in political parties recognise that there are times when we have to trim or rationalise on a personal position. Today is not one of those times. I tell Labour members that they cannot, in good conscience, rationalise support for poindings and warrant sales, as this amendment asks them to do. This is the time not for Executive diktat but for individual conscience. They will never be forgiven if they vote for the Executive amendment to maintain poindings and warrant sales in Scotland.
I am in favour of the general principles of the bill that is before Parliament. The evidence that was given to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee made it clear to me that there is no place in a just and fair modern Scotland for poindings or warrant sales. That is not to say that the enactment of the bill will not create additional problems. All societies must ensure that there are sufficient means to enforce the payment of debt.
We must ensure that local and national taxes, by which we fund our public services, are not avoided. To neglect that duty is to neglect the sense of community responsibility that everyone faces to put something back into our communities and society. It is for that reason that time must be taken to consider the range and types of powers that would replace poindings and warrant sales.
However, the evidence convinced me that poindings and warrant sales are not the best or fairest way to ensure that that sense of community responsibility prevails. Evidence from the Department of Social Security showed that between 1 April 1999 and 30 September 1999, the Child Support Agency was granted 191 liability orders, to the value of £750,000. The debt that was recovered after the execution of poindings was £20,000, and the debt that was recovered after warrant sales was less than £2,000.
Poindings and warrant sales are not directly effective as a method of recovery. The only argument is whether they are effective and sustainable as a form of threat. If they are, we must consider whether such a threat is consistent with the values of a modern Scotland, which has expressed its aims of eradication of poverty and extension of opportunity.
The majority of people who are affected by poindings and warrant sales come from poor and deprived backgrounds. They reach financial crisis not through choice, but through unfortunate circumstances. For those people, being faced with the prospect of losing what few possessions they have is not a constructive way out of their difficulties, but merely an invitation to get into greater difficulties by borrowing money from lenders who charge high interest, not all of whom are unofficial loan sharks. It is especially ironic that the people who pay most for credit in our society are the very people who can least afford to.
The Law Society of Scotland gave evidence to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee that the abolition of poindings and warrant sales could lead to some unscrupulous methods of debt recovery. I leave the chamber to ponder the merits of that observation.
I am in favour of strong and structured ways of recovering debt. I am also in favour of enabling and supporting financial support mechanisms within communities, such as credit unions, which help to prevent debt from occurring by encouraging regular saving patterns. I agree that people should spend responsibly and within their means. I also agree that money advice services should be made available, so that people with debt are supported and shown some light at the end of the tunnel.
The evidence that was presented to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee illustrated the need for debt recovery. That is why, while I welcome the principle of today's bill, I also welcome the Executive's commitment to combating and eradicating poverty. That is why I welcome the Executive's commitment to developing and supporting Scottish credit unions. If debt is truly a function of poverty, we must tackle the underlying causes of debt as well as dealing with its consequences. That is why I call on the Executive to withdraw its amendment.
On a point of order. I understand that the First Minister's press officer is briefing the press that the Executive will withdraw its amendment. Should not the Executive be telling the Parliament that that is the case, given that this is the day on which the Parliament has grown up and spoken for the Scottish people?
I have been in the chair for some time, so I have no idea what the First Minister's press officer is doing. I am sure that that point will be covered when the Executive winds up. We will check the matter when I leave the chair, to find out what is happening—
It is a matter of parliamentary privilege. I understand that members of the Executive have a responsibility to tell Parliament before they tell the press. This is a clear point of order.
I understand that. As I said, we will find out the truth behind this when the Executive comes to it, unless Mr Wallace—
On a point of order. Surely—
Sit down please, Mr Neil.
It is point of order.
I will call you for a point of order.
The minister should tell us now. Will the Executive withdraw the amendment? Yes or no?
I understand your point, and if you had let me finish, I would have said that we will find out the truth when the Executive winds up, unless Mr Wallace wishes to tell us anything now. Mr Wallace?
Obviously, there will be a reply on behalf of the Executive, and I do not want to pre-empt what Ms Baillie will say.
I have been listening to the debate and—to be fair to the more constructive comments from members behind me rather than the comments from those on my left—to the arguments for withdrawing the amendment. Ms Baillie will make an announcement formally but, given the arguments that have been presented, that is certainly what I was minded to do.
On a point of order. That answer refers to the amendment, but what causes me concern is the fact that a press officer is giving a briefing. The Deputy First Minister has not responded to that point. Can he give an assurance that the press is not being briefed at present?
Mr Gallie, as I have already indicated, I will look into that matter.
On a point of order.
If it is the same point of order, Mrs Ewing, I will not take it.
It is a serious point of order. I suggest that you suspend the meeting, Presiding Officer, until we have a clear statement so that we know what we are debating. There is no point in making speeches asking the Executive to withdraw its amendment if the withdrawal is already being announced to the public.
No.
We now move to the closing speeches. Unless you have another point of order, Mr Sheridan, I must ask you to sit down.
I was simply going to ask that you move on, Presiding Officer, because one member who should have the right to speak is John McAllion.
There are several members who have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate. As I was about to say, we are moving to winding-up speeches and so I will not be able to call those members. I apologise for that. I call Euan Robson to wind up for the Liberal Democrats.
On a point of order. Some months ago, the Presiding Officer made a ruling that only those members who had sat through the opening speeches were allowed to take part in the debate. I respectfully suggest, Presiding Officer, that you do not call Mr Robson, who has not had the courtesy to sit through the opening speeches and some of the other speeches. It is an outrage that he is allowed to speak.
Please sit down. I call Mr Robson.
On a point of order. During the point of order before that one, the Deputy First Minister indicated that he was minded to withdraw the amendment. All we need is confirmation of the position.
We will no doubt hear that in due course. We will now hear Mr Robson winding up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] Order.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.]
Order.
It is fair to say that this has been an interesting debate. It is clear that members throughout the chamber hold the view that the system of diligence in Scotland needs to be modernised. I repeat the view of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—[Interruption.]
Mr Gallie, I realise that you are about to try to make another point of order. I caution you to ensure that it is a new point of order, rather than one that has already been raised.
Phil Gallie I have a point of order that is genuine, just as it should be in a serious debate such as this. Tricia Marwick raised a point about the presence of an individual during the opening speeches. I recall that the Presiding Officer made a judgment on that matter.
There is a convention that members who are called to speak will have been in the chamber for the opening speeches. That it is helpful and the member's presence during opening speeches is taken into consideration. On several occasions, members from all parts of the chamber who for one reason or another have not been in the chamber for the opening speeches have still been called to speak. That will apply again today. Please continue, Mr Robson.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to take the opportunity to apologise to members if I missed one of the opening speeches. I recall being here throughout two of them; it is sometimes difficult to find out who is opening and at what time.
The report of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee said that
"poindings and warrant sales are an inhumane and anachronistic method of enforcing diligence, which is outwith the bounds of what should be morally acceptable in modern Scotland."
I concur with that completely. Throughout the Parliament, there is little dissent from that view.
I have taken some encouragement from today's proceedings. I spent some 15 years dealing with debt—albeit in the gas industry. I remind Tommy Sheridan that he ought to be careful not to prejudge the views of people before he makes statements about what they may or may not do on a particular occasion.
What my former colleagues and I knew well was that people are often faced with multiple debt—not debt that was confined to a particular industry. Those people shuffle their debt around. If the warrant arrives from the council, another bill goes unpaid, or people fall into the hands of loan sharks. For that reason—and from practical experience—I fully support the need to abolish poindings and warrant sales and to have a general review of diligence, which is something that never took place when control was held at Westminster. It is important that this Parliament has addressed the issue early on.
As we heard at the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, warrant sales and poindings are an ineffective form of debt recovery because people shuffle debt around. Such measures need to be replaced for that reason alone, never mind their inhumanity.
I welcome Jim Wallace's speech. He gave a clear statement that the Executive will abolish poindings and warrant sales, which is an objective that my party supports. The key issue this afternoon is how to achieve that shared objective. The Executive made one proposal; the Justice and Home Affairs Committee made another, which I believe remains a practical alternative. Should the minister choose to seek agreement to withdraw his amendment, there is a means of creating an alternative system and a humane method of debt recovery.
I have stressed my personal preference for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's proposal and I will welcome the day that poindings and warrant sales are consigned to the history book where they belong.
I hope that members will forgive me, but I propose to race through this speech to give others time to make contributions.
I congratulate Tommy Sheridan on his achievement in getting the first member's bill through this Parliament. However, my colleagues have outlined the Conservatives' position in opposing Mr Sheridan's bill and I will explain why we are doing so.
When the bill came before the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, we were not unsympathetic to much of its content. I do not dispute the fact that warrant sales can be embarrassing and humiliating ordeals and I do not disagree that Mr Sheridan has witnessed more sales than most sheriff officers. Furthermore, I am sure that many members have taken the time to read the various briefing notes that have been circulated and can readily understand the emotional attraction to an outright abolition.
However, our principal objection to the bill is the lack of distinction between personal and commercial debt. Abolishing poindings and warrant sales outright will leave a gaping hole that will be abused by an admittedly small but unscrupulous couldn't-care-less brigade. The size of that brigade would grow.
Will Lyndsay McIntosh give way?
I am sorry, but no; I said that I would race through my speech.
Such exploitation would do greater damage to the very people Mr Sheridan seeks to protect.
Will Lyndsay McIntosh give way?
No, I am sorry.
We all understand that we cannot get blood out of a stone; some people living on the margins simply do not have the resources to pay off their bills. In my years in the district court, I have seen evidence of that many times in the case of fine repayments.
Any illusions that members might harbour that I am hard as nails would be in tatters if they knew the extent to which I have gone to ensure that repayments were within the means of fine defaulters, and that they—and I mean women in particular—were not left to make the choice between feeding their family and paying off a fine. Times without number I have directed reductions in payments and offered advice on the nearest place in which to make payments to avoid the additional cost of the bus fare to the court. We are far from unsympathetic to the cause.
However, I have also had to listen to a tissue of lies and hard-up stories from people in good gear who are simply not prepared to cut their coat according to their cloth. They have the trappings of a must-have mentality and to hell with the consequences. Before we had signs similar to the familiar and often-ignored exhortations to switch off mobile phones before entering the court, officials sometimes had to wait while fine defaulters organised their social calendars on their mobile phones. There is a huge difference between people who cannot pay and those who will not pay. People who can but will not pay are adding to already difficult circumstances for those who are genuinely at the margins. We would prefer some distinction to be made between those two categories.
Our other concerns centre on the additional burdens placed on those who struggle to abide by the law and pay their way. We do not want to pave the way for a debtors charter. That would only harm the people whom Mr Sheridan wants to help. Without the regulations that are in place, which are probably ripe for improvement, sources of reputable credit facilities will dry up, driving people into the clutches of illegal moneylenders with repayment schedules that cannot be met. That cannot have been the intention behind the bill.
Finally, in the absence of poindings and warrant sales, I must query what remedy there will be for small businesses, which also sometimes operate at the margins, to recover debts from persistent bad payers. How do we encourage would-be entrepreneurs and future captains of industry to dive in and put their or, worse, our money where their mouth is when we have removed the legal recourse for them to get what they are due?
Will you wind up, please?
I am on the last line.
As previously stated, we understand the motivation behind the bill and have a genuine sympathy for its objective but, regrettably, we cannot support it.
It is with some pride that we can say that we have at least debated the abolition of poindings and warrant sales. However, it would have been a matter of real pride to have been able to stand before Parliament today summing up a debate that marked a definite and unequivocal end to warrant sales in Scotland. It would have been a matter of pride if we, as members of this first Scottish Parliament, had spelled out an immediate end to the indignity, the fear and the licensed bullying that allows the courts to seize and put on public sale the possessions of the poorest in our society.
Instead, it is a matter of national shame that the Parliament should even be considering an amendment—a Labour amendment—that will preserve the right of the state to auction off the few possessions of the poorest in an act of public humiliation. Looking round the chamber, I see that most of my colleagues are from a political background that championed the poor, the unfortunate, the down-trodden and the underprivileged. They are politicians from a history that fought proudly to protect the humanity and dignity of ordinary people. They are politicians from a history that has fought since the time of Keir Hardie against a range of social injustices including warrant sales. I am, therefore, at a complete loss to understand why the Executive has proposed this tawdry amendment, which ultimately will preserve the warrant sale.
Has Lloyd Quinan listened to the debate? Did he listen to what Labour MSPs said? Is he aware of what Labour MSPs will do, if necessary, to ensure the abolition of warrant sales and poindings? He should have changed his speech and he should have listened to what people had to say. That is what is known as debate, democracy and the new politics.
We had the delight of listening to Jim Wallace saying that he had a desire to end indignity and that he abhorred warrant sales, while he spuriously defended the minority of the minority to the detriment of the many. There were scare stories about people who will not pay, much like those told by the Tories, who have demonised a whole section of our community on the basis that there are benefit cheats.
I refer members to the case of Rita Borthwick of flat 1/2, 3 Sir Michael Street, Greenock, who was poinded last month for the princely sum of £4—an amount that she had paid. She had come out of hospital two days previously, having had a heart by-pass operation, and is housebound. The argument from the Liberals is that there are people who will not pay, against whom we must direct our actions. The fact is that because of administrative incompetence—an administrative error—someone who paid her bill in 1995 has had a poinding and will have a warrant sale. I tell Mr Wallace that the only reason why that is happening is the existence of an inequitable structure.
From the remarks made by the Deputy First Minister, it seems that his concerns are about due diligence—the ability to recover from those people who are refusing to pay. I suggest that the case that I mentioned is one of someone who has paid. Many people in similar situations suffer the same indignity because of the existing barbaric structure. I suggest to Mr Wallace—and hopefully to the Executive—that he withdraw the amendment and withdraw it now.
I say at the start, in response to a point made by Alex Salmond, that no one in the Executive, nor indeed a member of staff of the Executive, has briefed the press this afternoon; it is for this Parliament to hear first any view from the Executive.
Let me say clearly—some colleagues on the SNP benches are perhaps hard of hearing—that the Executive is entirely opposed to the present system of poindings and warrant sales as a means by which to recover debt. We are committed to the abolition of poindings and warrant sales. For that reason, my colleague, Jim Wallace, has asked me to advise the chamber that he will call on the Parliament to agree to the withdrawal of the Executive amendment. [Applause.] I thank the chamber for its evident support for the Executive's position.
In this debate, we have heard many horrifying examples of the application of this form of diligence, which, without doubt, is truly archaic, inhumane and deeply offensive.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the circumstances of the announcement that we have just heard from Jackie Baillie, can we have some information about when that decision was taken, so that we can determine exactly what happened with the press at the given time?
That is not a point of order for me.
This form of diligence has no place in a modern, progressive society, and I hope that everyone in the chamber believes that it must go.
I joined the Labour party because it consistently championed this and similar causes, as have other parties represented in this chamber, not only because of its fundamental belief in social justice and the decent treatment of all people, but in particular because our roots are grounded in protecting the worst-off people in our society.
I will turn to the principles underlying the Executive's position. First, we agree that the current system of poinding and warrant sales must be abolished. It needs to be replaced by a modern system that protects those who cannot pay and that ends the indignity and public humiliation that some of our people have to suffer.
Secondly, we recognise that there are people, including businesses, who can pay but do not. There are people who abuse the system and we should have no patience with them—they should be pursued vigorously. However, as the committees recognised, abolition is to be supported, but the immediate implementation of abolition by itself may cause unintended negative consequences.
The committees have recommended that an alternative, humane diligence against moveable property is found. I sense that Mr Sheridan, in his welcome comments about his pride in Johann Lamont's contribution at the Local Government Committee, accepts the need to put an alternative in place.
The Executive is committed to doing just that. We will establish a working group to consult widely on developing an alternative system of diligence and will introduce legislation to Parliament in 2001-02.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important for me, we will consider improving debtor protection and debt arrangement schemes. It is essential that we build on the excellent work of voluntary organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland and Money Advice Scotland in debt counselling. It is essential that we help people to manage their debts more effectively and prevent them from getting into debt in the first place.
The disadvantage of the bill's approach is that it does nothing to help those who cannot pay to get out of their debt. Indeed, it might make it more difficult for those in need to obtain credit. It exempts those who can pay but will not pay, including business debtors. As members have heard, the financial implications for the public sector could be significant—loss for local authorities of £120 million has been mentioned—but that is not a reason to preserve the status quo. We can learn from the positive examples of local authorities, such as West Dunbartonshire Council, that have sought alternatives to poindings and warrant sales. That good practice will be drawn on and analysed in the context of the working group's deliberations.
We are not asking the working group to examine poindings and warrant sales. We are committed to the abolition of poindings and warrant sales. The group's purpose is to find a more humane alternative and to consider how best to protect people. That is the territory that the working group should be in. It should examine money advice services, credit unions and other preventive measures. I do not share Roseanna Cunningham's concerns about working groups. Members of her party welcomed the outcome of the homelessness task force report.
Let us be open and inclusive. Let us design a new system together. There is much in Mr Sheridan's bill to be commended. The Executive, by withdrawing its amendment, wants to take these issues forward in collaboration with the Parliament. The Parliament is of one mind: poindings and warrant sales must go. They are offensive and inhumane. We can send a signal about that. Let us abolish them. Equally, we must acknowledge our responsibilities as a legislature to put in their place a workable, humane system that will protect those who cannot pay and that will ensure that those who can, do.
This has been a short, fascinating and perhaps groundbreaking debate. I congratulate Tommy Sheridan on getting his bill to its stage 1 consideration in the Parliament. I thank him personally for allowing me to sum up on his behalf. It is not a privilege that I am often given and I am grateful for it when it comes, even if it comes from the Scottish Socialist party.
I also thank all the members who have spoken in support of the bill: Alex Neil, Johann Lamont, Roseanna Cunningham, Margaret Curran, Tricia Marwick, Lloyd Quinan, Karen Whitefield, and—I think—Euan Robson, although I was not quite sure about his position. Those members represent different parties but share the same values and the same passionate commitment to the abolition of poindings and warrant sales that characterises the Scottish Parliament. It was appropriate that it was mainly women who spoke in this debate, since it is mainly women who are in the front line when it comes to poindings and warrant sales.
What can I say about Phil Gallie and Lyndsay McIntosh? I suppose that I can thank them for at least thinking about not voting for the Executive amendment that is to be withdrawn, but I condemn them and their party for being the last in Scotland to cling to the idea of using these obscene poindings and warrant sales against the poor.
I am delighted that the amendment that was lodged only yesterday, confirmed as being in order by the Presiding Officer this morning and moved by the Deputy First Minister, has, rightly, justly and finally, been abandoned—as it should have been much earlier. I do not want to overstate the case, but this has been a difficult problem for the Executive; back-bench rebellions always are. I have been warned to let people know that I am not the leader of this back-bench rebellion. The press should know by now that no rebellion that I lead is successful.
All kinds of accusations will be levelled at the Executive over its handling of this issue. However, there is no cause for political gloating, only for political rejoicing. Tommy Sheridan said that this was the first test of the Parliament's sovereignty and legitimacy. I am proud to say that the Parliament has passed the test and beaten the Executive. It was for days such as this that I entered Scottish politics, so let us enjoy them and revel in them when we have them.
I congratulate the Executive on having the wisdom to recognise the limits of its political authority. Genuine leadership sometimes consists of recognising and accepting defeat. The Executive will be wiser, more experienced and a better Executive following what has happened this week, and it should take great encouragement from that. The withdrawal of the amendment allows the Parliament to function as it was intended to function by those who created it—the Scottish people.
Our system of pre-legislative hearings is one of the aspects that makes this Parliament unique. Three different parliamentary committees have listened to the people of Scotland's views on this bill. Those all-party committees were unwhipped; MSPs were acting together but individually exercising their judgment on the basis of the evidence that was placed before them, and all of them came to the conclusion that the Parliament should approve the general principles of this bill. That is all that Tommy Sheridan and the supporters of this bill are asking the Parliament to do. If we vote to approve the general principles of the bill, and if we support our committees, we will show the world that the parliamentary committee system of the Scottish Parliament works. Above all, we will take the first legislative steps towards ending the obscenity of poindings and warrant sales as a weapon against the poor in the 21st century.
The Deputy First Minister argued—as did others—that the Parliament would be wrong to abolish the system without replacing it with an alternative. That argument has come mainly from the Scottish Law Commission and sundry commercial lawyers, some of whom are sitting in the gallery watching our proceedings. The Scottish Law Commission is on record as saying that after long and exhaustive study it believes that there is no alternative to poindings and warrant sales. It has argued for reform of the system, to humanise it and make it less harsh, but it is impossible to humanise a system that is, by its nature, dehumanising. As many other members have said, the system strips our fellow citizens of the last vestiges of dignity that they hold as human beings.
The legal mind abhors the prospect of there being no ultimate legal deterrent; it wants a debt recovery system equivalent to Trident. However, this is a political issue. It is not a matter for lawyers. It is a matter for the whole of Scotland—and the whole of Scotland is telling this Parliament that there is no moral, social or political case for poindings and warrant sales. This Parliament should take that fact on board and act on it.
It was argued early on—by some unidentified source from within the Parliament—that the bill is a cheats charter. If anybody thinks that, they are really saying that to be in debt and to be unable to pay that debt is the equivalent of being a cheat. Some 95 per cent of those who are pursued by poindings and warrant sales are the poor who cannot pay because they are unable to pay, although they want to.
Tommy Sheridan told us to listen to the poor. In our committee, we heard evidence from the poor. They spoke about the effects of poindings on ordinary people and about the fear, shame, powerlessness and depression that hit people. One woman said that she could barely hold herself together and that she jumped every time something came through the letterbox. A 78-year-old woman told us, through her daughter, that
"they need to stop Warrant Sales . . . drop the terrible way of taking your possessions . . . I cry when I hear someone is having a warrant sale. So bless you for stopping them."—[Official Report, Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, 17 November 1999; c 311.]
More people will bless this Parliament if we agree the bill at stage 1 today.
John Reid is fond of saying that the difference between him and Tony Blair is that if they come across tables and chairs in the street, Tony Blair thinks that it is an outdoor bistro whereas he thinks it is a warrant sale. [Laughter.] The Labour party came into existence to right wrongs such as warrant sales, and a commitment to abolish poindings and warrant sales was in Keir Hardie's manifesto. We have had to wait for another of Keir Hardie's manifesto commitments—the establishment of a Scottish Parliament—to become a reality before we have been able to turn our attention to the abolition of poindings and warrant sales.
This Parliament exists to abolish things such as poindings and warrant sales. I ask members not to fail the Scottish people and to vote to agree the general principles of this important bill. [Applause.]
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
I must put that question to the chamber. Are members agreed that the amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment, by agreement, withdrawn.