Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
We move to stage 3 proceedings on the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill.
Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 50A; the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate; the supplement to the marshalled list, which contains five manuscript amendments; and the revised groupings that I have agreed, which are printed on pink paper to differentiate them from the groupings that were printed on 29 November.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division on an amendment. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. All other divisions will last 30 seconds.
Section 1—Discharge of debtor
Group 1 is on the bankruptcy discharge period. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
I seek members' approval for amendment 12, which will update section 1(2). The Enterprise and Culture Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee agreed that the period of time for which a sequestration should last should be changed only in the primary legislation. At stage 2, amendment 90 removed the reference to the affirmative procedure for changing the discharge period. Amendment 12 will remove the power itself.
I move amendment 12.
As the minister said, amendment 12 will remove the ministerial power to vary the bankruptcy period, which the bill will reduce from three years to one year. It would be unusual for Conservative members to oppose measures to restrict ministerial powers, but we make an exception in this case.
The central policy intent behind the bankruptcy part of the bill is to reduce the bankruptcy period from three years to one year, but the case for doing so has not yet been proven. The Enterprise and Culture Committee received no convincing evidence as to why that policy intent should be followed through in legislation. Indeed, the only reason that seems to have been given for the proposal is that it will bring the legislation into line with the legislation down south. That is an insufficient policy reason to convince us that the proposal is the right way to proceed. Since a similar change was introduced south of the border, the number of personal bankruptcies has surged.
I do not know whether one year is the correct bankruptcy period, but it might be useful to have available to ministers a subordinate legislation power to increase the period from one year to two years, three years or whatever, in the light of experience, without members having to come back to the chamber to pass primary legislation.
We oppose amendment 12.
I reaffirm that my proposal has the support of the Enterprise and Culture Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee and that we have agreed that the proposed process is the proper one by which the Parliament should return to matters in future if there is a requirement to do so. I argue that such a requirement will not arise in any event.
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
As this is the first vote, I suspend the meeting for five minutes while the division bell is rung.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 77, Against 12, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Section 2—Bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings
Group 2 is on bankruptcy and minor and technical amendments. Amendment 90, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 91, 13 to 16, 35, 36, 25, 37 and 194 to 202.
The 19 amendments in group 2 are all minor technical amendments relating to sequestrations, and make drafting improvements or changes that are consequential on changes that were made at stage 2. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to speak to each amendment in detail.
Amendments 90 and 91 clarify the period during which a debtor's gambling may be considered when deciding whether their conduct should mean that a bankruptcy restrictions order is made against them.
Amendments 13 to 15 update provisions on bankruptcy restrictions undertakings so that they more closely mirror the same provisions relating to bankruptcy restrictions orders.
Amendment 16 is simply a drafting amendment that inserts an "or" that was missing from an amendment that was agreed to at stage 2.
Under the bill, the Accountant in Bankruptcy will administer debtor applications for sequestration and will be required to update the register of inhibitions when an application is refused or when appeal against such a refusal is unsuccessful. That requirement is not necessary, as there will be no prior entry on the register. Amendments 35 and 36 remove that unnecessary duty.
Amendment 25 corrects a reference in proposed new section 53A of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. In proposed new section 53A(5A), the reference to "subsection (6) above" should read "subsection (4) above".
Amendment 37 removes the reference to receiving orders in section 7 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. Receiving orders were abolished by the Insolvency Act 1985, so they are no longer able to be used as a ground to establish apparent insolvency.
Amendments 194 to 202 remove the word "permanent" from references to "permanent trustee" in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
I move amendment 90.
Amendment 90 agreed to.
Amendments 91 and 13 to 15 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Duties of trustee
Amendment 16 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
After section 15
Group 3 is on bankruptcy and vesting of estate in trustee and effect on dealings. Amendment 64, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 86 and 88.
I apologise in advance for the fact that I will need to start in 1997 to explain the amendments, which need a bit of explaining. I ask for the patience and forbearance of colleagues as I explain why reform is needed.
In 1997, the courts made a decision in the controversial case of Sharp v Thomson. In that case, when the selling company became insolvent, the buyers of a property lost out, because the receiver of the company kept both their new home and the money that they had paid for it. That was—I am sure everyone would agree—clearly wrong. The courts eventually found a way to give the buyers justice, but to do so they had to tie the law into a knot.
The Minister for Justice in 2000 asked the Scottish Law Commission to look into the issues that had been raised by that case. In doing so, the commission also took into account the 2004 decision of the courts in the case of Burnett's trustee v Grainger, which dealt with a similar problem in a sequestration. The commission identified a short gap during which a buyer in good faith can lose out if the debtor is bankrupted between the date on which the price is paid and the date on which the new title is registered. In Scotland, a person buying a house or land pays the price against delivery of a title deed, but he or she does not become owner until the disposition is registered in the land register. That may take up to three weeks, mainly because of the delays involved in the payment of stamp duty land tax.
During that gap period, the seller holds both the property and the money. If the seller becomes insolvent, right to the property and the money transfer to the trustee for the creditor. Both the buyer and the trustee then have a legal right to the property, and the first one to register becomes the true owner. The situation is sometimes called the race to the register. I see that some members recognise that term. The buyer can be ruined if the trustee wins that race. Luckily, that is not likely to happen, but the case of Burnett's trustee v Grainger made it clear that there is nothing in law to prevent it happening.
Amendment 64, therefore, has four elements. First, it inserts two new subsections into section 31 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, the effect of which is to handicap the trustee in the race to the register by providing that the trustee in sequestration may not register the property until 28 days after the date of sequestration. That will ensure that a prudent buyer in good faith will win the race.
Secondly, it inserts new paragraph (aa) into section 31(8) of the 1985 act, which makes it clear that the law as settled in Burnett's trustee v Grainger still stands, as that case turned on the nature of the diligence of adjudication and the bill abolishes adjudication. That will ensure that there will still be a race to the register and, therefore, that the new protections in amendment 64 work as intended.
Thirdly, amendment 64 makes a small change to section 32(8) of the 1985 act, the effect of which is that, where property acquired by a debtor after bankruptcy passes to the trustee under section 32, any dealings with the debtor in relation to that property are void. That will settle a point that has long been regarded as unclear. The provision was included in the bill at stage 2, but it fits best with the other changes that are made by amendment 64.
Finally, amendment 64 makes a further amendment to section 32 of the 1985 act. Section 32(9) of that act sets out the circumstances in which dealings with a sequestrated debtor are not to be treated as void, such as in the purchase of moveable goods in good faith. The protection in section 32(9) will be extended to cover the particular circumstance that is set out in proposed new section 32(9ZA). When people buy a property and the transfer is complete only when a deed is delivered, it is possible for them to buy in good faith, pay a fair price, take all reasonable steps to find out whether the debtor was sequestrated and still lose out, because it can take up to seven days before a search of the register reveals a sequestration. The new provision will protect third parties who find themselves in that situation. Such third parties will be allowed to keep the property in question and the trustee in sequestration will receive whatever was paid for the property. That is a better deal.
Amendments 86 and 88 are consequential on amendment 64, and are technical, tidying-up amendments.
I move amendment 64.
I thank the minister for his explanation. It took me back to halcyon days spent in conveyancing tutorials when I was a law student. However, to be serious, amendments 64, 86 and 88 deal with important issues. I welcome the fact that the legal anomaly that has existed for some years will be addressed by the Executive's amendments. They will receive our support.
Does the minister have anything further to add?
I want to put on record our thanks for the assistance of Professor George Gretton of the Scottish Law Commission in helping us to get through the legal and technical details.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Section 16—Income received by debtor after sequestration
Group 4 is on bankruptcy and income payment agreements. Amendment 17, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 18.
I seek approval of amendments 17 and 18. People who can pay, should pay. That is as true for bankrupts as it is for everyone else. The bill, therefore, sets up a system of income payment orders and income payment agreements. Income payment orders will be imposed by the courts and come with tough sanctions. For that reason, debtors will be able to enter into voluntary income payment agreements. The bill as introduced did not provide for what would happen if a debtor breached an income payment agreement, which is not right. Amendments 17 and 18 rectify that.
Amendment 18 provides for the trustee to apply to the sheriff to convert the remaining period of an income payment agreement into an income payment order, if the debtor breaches the agreement. A debtor may stop making payments under an income payment agreement after he is discharged, even though the agreement runs beyond the date of his discharge.
Amendment 17 allows the sheriff to consider an application to convert an income payment agreement into an income payment order after the debtor has been discharged. That is the only situation in which a sheriff will be permitted to make an income payment order after the date of the debtor's discharge.
I move amendment 17.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 17—Debtor's home and other heritable property
Group 5 is on bankruptcy and notice of abandonment. Amendment 29, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 30 and 31.
Amendments 29 to 31 deal with the process by which a trustee in sequestration can abandon heritable property such as a house to the debtor. The bill introduces provision for the trustee to give a formal notice of abandonment of property to the debtor. No onus is placed on the trustee or the debtor to make the notice available to anyone else. When giving evidence to the Enterprise and Culture Committee at stage 1, the Law Society of Scotland said that the letter of abandonment should be registered, so that the buyer could see a complete picture in the purchase searches. That would reassure everyone that the debtor had good title to sell.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to introduce a duty on the trustee to register the notice of abandonment of heritable property in the property registers, as requested by the Law Society. There followed discussions between my officials and the Registers of Scotland. I have lodged these further amendments to ensure that the registration process fits better with the existing system, while still delivering the policy of giving proper notice to buyers.
The stage 2 change will make a difference only in cases where the trustee has registered his title in the property registers, which happens only in a minority of cases. Usually, the trustee relies on his appointment to give him the right to deal with property. The property register will, therefore, show the debtor as the registered owner, but a search of the register of inhibitions will reveal the appointment of the trustee, and the prospective purchaser will have doubts about the debtor's title to sell. It is more appropriate to register a certified copy of the notice of abandonment in the register of inhibitions. That will ensure that a prospective purchaser who searches the register—as all sensible buyers of land should do—will uncover both the sequestration and any abandonment notice. The amendments will, therefore, give the purchaser reassurance in even more cases than were provided for by the stage 2 amendment.
I move amendment 29.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Modification of provisions relating to protected trust deeds
Group 6 is on bankruptcy and the power to specify debts not discharged under protected trust deeds. Amendment 65, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
The impact on credit unions of the current increase in the number of protected trust deeds was raised during the stage 1 debate. During stage 2, members lodged amendments to provide for credit union debt to be preferred—that is to say, paid first—in a trust deed and for the debt not to be discharged by sequestration. I said that I was happy to consider the concerns that members expressed, after which the amendments were either withdrawn or not moved.
I agree that trust deeds do not always work as they should. I have consulted on planned regulations, which when made will fix many of the problems that the credit unions have identified. I agree that credit unions play a key role in helping people who suffer from financial and social exclusion, and I want to act to help them if trust deeds are causing them a problem. For that reason, I met the credit unions, which were supported by Jackie Baillie and Christine May. I heard enough at that meeting to persuade me that there are issues that need to be explored and that it may indeed be the case that the trust deed regulations should do more to help them. I agreed, therefore, that the Executive would consult next year on a proposal to give credit unions special treatment under trust deeds. I also agreed that I would lodge an amendment at stage 3 to ensure that the trust deed regulations that are enabled by section 18 can give credit unions special treatment, if that is shown to be justified.
Under the Scotland Act 1998, providing for preferred debts in an insolvency process is a reserved matter. However, saying that debts are not cancelled by a personal insolvency process such as a trust deed is a matter for this Parliament. Section 29 of the bill does something similar for student loan debt in relation to sequestration. Amendment 65 has the effect that trust deed regulations may provide for the extent to which a debtor is discharged from his or her debts by a trust deed, and could be used to provide that a trust deed does not discharge a credit union debt.
I move amendment 65.
The issue of credit unions was raised by the Enterprise and Culture Committee and debated at stage 2. The minister has lodged amendment 65 to address some of the committee's concerns, which we welcome, but there is a wider concern about protected trust deeds. The committee considered the way in which the bill deals with them, and there is a concern that the Executive has not properly joined up its thinking on the future of protected trust deeds with the other reforms in the bill. Protected trust deeds are valuable, not least because they are administered by the private sector, not by the Accountant in Bankruptcy. We need to address the future of protected trust deeds in a comprehensive manner, working with the insolvency profession. That approach is required, and it is regrettable that it is not happening in tandem with the bill. However, we are happy to support amendment 65.
I thank the minister both for the productive meetings that he, Jackie Baillie and I have had with the credit union movement and for the efforts that he has made to address the movement's concerns.
The whole chamber knows how important the credit union movement is to ensuring that there is responsible credit and responsible saving in some of our poorer communities. However, the extension in provision of financial products for which credit unions allow has meant a consequential increase in bad debts. The fear that being able to recover no more than 10p in the pound, which could lead to the insolvency of credit unions, has been the real driver behind the efforts that have been made on the issue.
I am more than happy to support what the minister is doing and I hope that he, Jackie Baillie, the credit unions and I can continue our dialogue and extend it to our colleagues down south in respect of their responsibilities.
At all times in this process, I have sought to engage with all partners, from whatever sector of the industry they originate, including insolvency practitioners and their representative organisations, which this morning indicated their support for amendment 65. The consultation that I propose as part of the process will provide different stakeholders with a welcome opportunity to have their say. I have firm views on how I would like the process to evolve, but I remain open-minded about it and will happily take on board the views of others, especially those of professional organisations and the individuals concerned.
It will be possible to consult on the student loan option and it might be possible to consult on the preferred debt option, if the United Kingdom Government is willing to give us the green light. My officials are due to meet the credit unions on 7 December to consider what further evidence can be provided. More detailed advice on the scope of the consultation will follow. The chamber should welcome that, as well as the opportunity that it will afford to all stakeholders to ensure that credit unions—which do a valuable job in promoting financial inclusion and giving access to loans for some of the more financially excluded of our fellow citizens—can do their job properly and help to promote financial inclusion in its widest sense. I ask members to support amendment 65.
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Before section 23
Group 7 is on bankruptcy and the minimum debt limit. Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 22.
The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 set the debt threshold above which someone can be sequestrated at £1,500. The bill as introduced set the same threshold for the attachment of land and the sale of attached land. There was concern both in the chamber and among some external stakeholders that the threshold for land attachment was too low. I listened to those concerns and lodged an amendment at stage 2 to raise the lower limit to £3,000, which meant that it would be possible to bankrupt a debtor for a smaller debt than is needed to attach their land. That would create an incentive for creditors to use bankruptcy to get at the value in said land—a theme to which I will return later in the debate.
The point that I emphasise now is that bankruptcy is worse in many ways for the debtor than land attachment. In particular, it affects all of the debtor's property, including land, and can easily lead to the loss of their home. It makes sense, therefore, to raise the debt threshold for sequestration to at least the same level as that for land attachment, which is what amendment 19 does. The qualifying debt limit of £1,500 for creditor petitions could be changed by regulations, but the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 does not provide a similar power for the limit that relates to debtor applications. It makes sense to enable both limits to be varied by regulations, if required. As well as raising the limits to £3,000, amendment 19 gives the Scottish ministers the power to vary the limit for debtor applications by regulations.
I appreciate the importance of the debt limit. Amendment 22 will ensure that regulations to change the thresholds will be subject to affirmative procedure and will, therefore, be appropriately scrutinised by the Parliament.
I move amendment 19.
We welcome the Executive amendments. Concerns were raised about the minimum debt limit by members of many parties and people outwith the chamber. We will debate land attachment at a later stage. There is some difficulty with the limit that we set. Do we need the wisdom of Solomon to decide whether it should be £15,000, £3,000 or £3,100? There was general acceptance that £1,500 was far too low. Whether someone has a household debt or has to take an emergency flight, a debt of £1,500 can easily be racked up on a credit card or elsewhere.
Time will tell whether £3,000 is an appropriate threshold, which is why we welcome not only the increased threshold but the opportunity to vary it. The appropriate limit is a fluid matter: what is appropriate at this juncture might not be appropriate in a year or several years' time. However, amendment 19 is an advance on the threshold of £1,500, which is far too low.
I welcome the member's support. It will be important to return to the limits, not simply in this debate but in the fullness of time. The regulation-making power that we propose is the right one in such circumstances.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Section 23A—Continuation of sequestration proceedings pending approval of debt payment programme
Group 8 is on bankruptcy and the power to continue petition for sequestration pending payment of debts. Amendment 20, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 21, 23 and 24.
At stage 2 I lodged an amendment that will allow sheriffs to continue proceedings in sequestrations if a debt payment programme under the debt arrangement scheme is applied for. Karen Gillon lodged an amendment that went much further and sought to give sheriffs discretion to continue petitions for sequestration more or less indefinitely and to grant only if reasonable. That amendment could have led to long delays in the sequestration process: such delays in making decisions would have harmed the interests of debtors and creditors, so the amendment was withdrawn and I gave a commitment to consider the matter further. I am not in favour of giving sheriffs open-ended discretion to continue cases, but I can see the sense in giving them a bit more leeway.
A debtor might be able to arrange to pay off, or otherwise satisfy, his or her debts given a little time. Amendment 21 will allow sheriffs to continue a petition for up to 42 days if debtors can satisfy them that they are likely to be able to pay their debts within that period. Although the amendment will allow some extra time for the debtor, it still provides for a definite period, which will give creditors a clear end date for proceedings and prevent unnecessary and lengthy delays where there is no realistic prospect that a debt will be paid off.
Amendment 20 is consequential on the introduction of the provision in amendment 21. To allow continuation of a petition will have implications for the duties on trustees in particular. A trustee must offer to hold a statutory meeting at which the creditors can take decisions about the estate that is to be administered. The 1985 act states that notification is to be issued within 60 days of the date of sequestration. Many people take that to be the day on which sequestration is awarded, but the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 makes it clear that in a creditor petition, the application date for bankruptcy is registered by the court. That can have implications for the trustee, who cannot send a notification until the hearing about the award of sequestration is settled.
If a hearing is continued for more than a few days, as can happen, the 60-day time limit will run out quickly. The trustee would have to go to court and ask for more time, which would be a waste of money and the resources of the court. It is necessary to clarify that the notification is to be issued within 60 days of the date of the award of sequestration, for which amendment 23 provides.
I move amendment 20.
I ask Murdo Fraser and Karen Gillon to be brief.
I notice that the minister did not mention amendment 24 in his remarks. I ask him to clarify his intentions in that amendment because I find it to be completely incomprehensible. I am not sure whether it is badly drafted or its intention is mistaken.
Although I will not oppose amendment 21, I draw the minister's attention to concerns that have been expressed by the Law Society of Scotland, of which I am a member, although not a practising member. The Law Society is concerned that a continuation of sequestration proceedings could have a number of negative effects. First, it would allow the debtor to continue trading and dealing with others, which would give them the potential to run up more debts. Secondly, it would delay the vesting in the trustee of the estate the assets of the debtor for the benefit of all creditors. Thirdly, it ignores the many interconnected time limits that are set down in bankruptcy legislation and would therefore jeopardise the proper operation of the sequestration process. The Law Society says that if the measure is to be passed, there must be proper analysis of the impact on sequestration and a proper review of time limits. I ask the minister to address those points when he winds up.
I thank the minister for lodging amendment 21. Although I appreciate Murdo Fraser's comments, it is important to get right the balance between the creditor and the debtor. It was clear in evidence that the committee received that sometimes the petition to court is the key that the debtor needs to take action to find alternative means of payment. The continuation that is offered by amendment 21 will allow people who can make alternative arrangements to pay their debts without proceeding to sequestration and bankruptcy. Those can be difficult steps for people to take, so I welcome the amendments in the group and hope that Parliament will support them.
I will speak first to Murdo Fraser's point. The significance of the changes that will be made by amendments 23 and 24 is that the time limits will run from the date on which sequestration is awarded. In a creditor petition, that date is different from the date of sequestration. The date of sequestration in those cases is the date on which the sheriff grants a warrant to cite the debtor to appear at a hearing to determine whether or not to award sequestration. The award of the sequestration might happen days—or, in some cases, weeks—after the date of sequestration. That will happen if the sheriff continues a sequestration under proposed new sections 12(3AA) and 12(3B) of the 1985 act, which will be inserted by the bill. In such cases, the sequestration could be awarded up to 42 days after the date on which the warrant to cite is granted. The time could possibly be longer under proposed new section 12(3B).
It makes sense to set those time limits in relation to the date of the award being granted rather than to the date of the sequestration. Otherwise, the trustee could be put in the position of having to do things with unreasonable haste after the award of sequestration is made. That is the relevance of amendment 24.
Karen Gillon asked about amendment 21. We have gone some way towards the position in the amendment that Karen withdrew at stage 2. The sheriff can continue a case when the debtor can demonstrate that he or she has a reasonable chance of paying off, or otherwise satisfying, the debt within six weeks. Six weeks is the defining period. I ask colleagues to support amendment 20.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Amendment 21 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 29A—Certain regulations under the 1985 Act: procedure
Amendment 22 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 31—Register of Floating Charges
Before I move to the next group of amendments, I intend to use my power under rule 9.8.4A to extend the time limit for that group only. The debate must finish by 10.05.
The ninth group of amendments is on floating charges. Amendment 38, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 39 to 48.
The amendments all relate to part 2 of the bill, which deals with floating charges. Some of the amendments in the group are more substantial than others; I will deal with those first and then with the technical amendments.
Amendment 39 will give Scottish ministers the power to make regulations as to the form of documents and notices, the particulars that they are to contain and the manner in which they are to be delivered to the keeper. Amendment 41 is consequential on amendment 39. Taken together, they will extend the power so that it will be possible for the register to be operated electronically.
In lodging amendments 42, 43, 44 and 45, we have again listened to stakeholders. Amendment 42 will clarify the alterations to the terms of the document that have to be registered. They include alterations to do with the ranking of the charge with any other floating charge or fixed security, or the specification of property that is subject to the charge, or the obligations that are secured by the charge.
The new provision is subject to the existing minor exception in section 36(2), which will enable an agreement between the secured creditors in which the debtor is not a participant to be registered, provided that the debtor will not thereby be adversely affected. In that case, the document of alteration will not have to be subscribed by the company that is granting the charge.
Amendments 43 and 44 are consequential on amendment 42. Amendment 45 will clarify for the purposes of section 36(3)—which covers the granting by the floating charge holder of consent to release the property from the scope of the charge—that property is not to be regarded as released from the scope of the floating charge because it has ceased to be the property of the company that granted the charge.
Amendment 46 will remedy a problem that was identified by my good friend and colleague Murdo Fraser at stage 2. It provides that, if there is an insolvency in another European Union state that is the company's main centre of interest, that will trigger the crystallisation of a Scottish floating charge, which will mean that any searcher of the register, on seeing such a notice, will be aware that foreign insolvency has triggered crystallisation of the floating charge. Amendment 38 is consequential on amendment 46.
Part 2 is exceedingly complex but it is important, so we will continue to work with our stakeholders to ensure that the provisions work well. In fact, we were doing that right up to this morning. If necessary, we may need to adjust the provisions using our ancillary and transitional powers.
I turn now to the technical amendments. Amendment 40 will clarify the meaning of a document granting a floating charge to reflect the fact that it is a company that grants a floating charge, albeit by means of a document.
Amendment 47 will repeal section 140 of the Companies Act 1989, which is consequential on the repeal of part 18 of the Companies Act 1985 by section 39(1) of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill.
Amendment 48 will ensure that industrial and provident societies are subject to the ranking sections of the bill in the same ways that companies are.
I move amendment 38.
I want to thank the minister for addressing the concerns that I expressed at stage 2 on the impact of floating charges.
Amendment 38 agreed to.
Amendment 39 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 32—Creation of floating charges
Amendment 40 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 33—Advance notice of floating charges
Amendment 41 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 36—Alteration of floating charges
Amendments 42 to 45 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 38—Effect of floating charges on winding up
Amendment 46 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 39—Repeals, savings and transitional arrangements
Amendment 47 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 42—Industrial and provident societies
Amendment 48 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 43—Scottish Civil Enforcement Commission
Group 10 is on replacement of the Scottish civil enforcement commission with the advisory commission. Amendment 93, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, is grouped with amendments 94, 96, 98 to 110, 112 to 116, 118 to 120, 122 to 129, 131 to 147, 176, 207, 180, 189 to 193 and 203 to 205.
Amendment 93 is the principal amendment in the group—the others are consequential. I thank the clerks of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, who worked to ensure that the amendments were ready. The work was complicated by the number of amendments that were consequential on the principal amendment. It was not just that the clerks did their job; they worked long into the night to ensure that Parliament would be able to debate the amendments. Members will soon decide whether to agree to them.
The principal question is this: do we wish to create yet another commission—a Scottish civil enforcement commission—to supplant what is currently a well-regulated and well-run profession? Why are we seeking to do that? If it ain't broke, why are we seeking to fix it?
To be fair to the Executive, the proposal did have some logic at the outset. The intention behind creating the Scottish civil enforcement commission was to ensure that there would be regulation not only of sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms—or judicial officers, as they will be called—but of debt-collecting agencies. There is merit in that idea and I commend the Executive for it. However, difficulties came to light because many matters relating to debt collection are reserved; for example, matters relating to consumer credit cannot be dealt with by this Parliament. We were then left with the idea of the Scottish civil enforcement commission, but such a commission would not address the problem for which it was to be created at significant cost. All it would do was replicate what we already have. At that juncture, the Executive should have seen the error of its ways and, rather than press on, withdraw and leave the profession to run itself.
If the amendments in the group are not accepted, we will be creating yet another commission—Mr Swinney is the man who usually comments on such things. According to the Finance Committee, the set-up cost will be £1 million and the annual running cost will be £650,000. That money will be spent, even though we already have a self-regulated system that costs the state and the taxpayer not one penny. Will taxpayers get any added advantage? No—not unless we regulate additional debt-collecting agencies that currently come within the ambit and jurisdiction of Parliament. There will be a huge cost but no additional benefit.
At the same time, the ethos and integrity of a group of individuals will be undermined. Those people will come together as judicial officers—or whatever name we will call them by. They have done a good job serving the people of Scotland and the judicial system of Scotland, of which they are a vital part.
Those are the circumstances that led me to lodge amendment 93. We should not create yet another commission at huge cost and we should not seek to undermine the ethos and integrity of a profession that has served the people of Scotland well for centuries.
I move amendment 93.
I am sympathetic to Mr MacAskill's amendments, not least because—as Mr MacAskill said—a Scottish civil enforcement commission appears to be the single most expensive way of tackling the problem that was identified by the Executive in relation to regulating officers of court. From a value-for-money perspective, it is rather worrying to read in the policy options paper, which was considered prior to the Executive's arrival at the decision to create another quango, the explicit recognition that such a commission was the most expensive option on the table. It was suggested that costs might be reduced by imposing new functions at a later date to increase economies of scale. It is rather bad policy not only to choose the most expensive option but to use a throwaway line that suggests that the commission might take on other functions.
There is another reason to support Mr MacAskill's amendments: the Executive, having talked about a bonfire of the quangos and a moratorium on the creation of new non-departmental public bodies, has not really been able to explain why it is appropriate in this instance to create another NDPB, at significant expense, as Mr MacAskill said. I understand that the cost of running the commission would be about 10 times the cost that is currently borne by the profession itself. The policy that underlies the sections to which Mr MacAskill's amendments apply has not been thought through properly.
I, too, speak in support of Kenny MacAskill's amendments. The Finance Committee, of which I am a member, discussed the issue in its stage 1 report and said that it is not convinced that the option of creating an NDPB is the correct one. That opinion was informed by the committee's inquiry into accountability and governance issues, which considered not only commissioners and ombudspeople but wider issues relating to NDPBs and other arms-length public bodies. The committee found major problems in the accountability, governance, oversight and scrutiny of NDPBs.
I wish that all members had had a chance to read Linda Costelloe Baker's evidence to the committee, in which the former legal services ombudsman set out in great detail the problems that she had had with her arm's-length body, including a lack of monitoring and financial scrutiny and, underneath it all, a lack of accountability. That is why the Finance Committee recommended that the Executive consider whether implementation of bills, including the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill, which will establish the Scottish civil enforcement commission, should be deferred until the Executive has completed its review of the scrutiny of public bodies. That suggestion was supported by the whole committee. I am disappointed that the Executive did not respond positively to the committee's suggestion.
I have heard, anecdotally, negative things about messengers-at-arms, particularly in relation to poinding. However, as Derek Brownlee said, the evidence is convincing that a job that is currently being carried out for £60,000 a year would be done by a Government body at a cost of £650,000 a year, plus £1 million in set-up costs. We do not need another NDPB doing a task that is already being performed perfectly adequately. That is why I urge Parliament to support Kenny MacAskill's amendments.
I recall a lengthy discussion on this issue in the Enterprise and Culture Committee. A great weight of evidence was considered in a thoughtful manner by the committee. I do not recall divisions on the matter; nor do I recall contributions along the same lines from Mr MacAskill's and Mr Brownlee's colleagues in the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party. I suggest to members that if they were to support Kenny MacAskill's amendments they would be flying in the face of the carefully weighed-up deliberations of a committee of this Parliament—[Laughter.]
Mr Stone is absolutely correct, because the amendments have been lodged at the very last moment, with no discussion and no notice to anyone with an interest, including, I understand, the Court of Session.
Will the minister give way on that point?
Let me make the point.
The amendments seek to take the Scottish civil enforcement commission out of the bill and replace it with some kind of advisory commission. As Jamie Stone said, to date—ever since it was first consulted on in 2002—there has been strong support for the creation of a Scottish civil enforcement commission including, dare I say it, from the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers. The principle of having a Scottish civil enforcement commission was agreed at stage 1, and no one lodged amendments on the matter at stage 2.
Does the minister accept the genuine concerns of the Finance Committee, and the committee's suggestion that there should be no commission until the conclusion of the review of scrutiny of public services?
The Executive recognised that in its discussions and deliberations with the Finance Committee on the financial memorandum. The principle of the Scottish civil enforcement commission was never in doubt. The Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers supported the principle, but we are now told that it considers it to be a bad idea. It has changed its tune. With all due respect to my good friend and colleague Kenny MacAskill, he had no clear explanation for why that might be the case, although he did hint at it. Perhaps I can help him with that. Could it be that the society is unhappy that I have not guaranteed that court officers will be able to form partnerships only with other court officers? That might explain the late amendments. I will have more to say about that when I oppose Kenny MacAskill's amendments 52 and 206, which will be debated later.
To introduce proposals on this scale, at this stage, without any proper consultation—[Laughter.] Members may laugh—if that is what we can expect from a putative SNP Executive, I despair.
Since Kenny MacAskill is determined to take us down that road, the amendments are in front of us and we must deal with them. They propose to set up a new advisory commission on judicial officers and, in a very unclear way, to divide up the functions of the Scottish civil enforcement commission. Mr Ballard mentioned the financial memorandum; Kenny MacAskill's proposals are accompanied by no financial memorandum. They will not be much cheaper—if they are cheaper at all. Not unusually for a nationalist member, Mr MacAskill is asking us to write him a blank cheque.
Despite what Mr MacAskill says, the amendments, if agreed to, are almost certain to lead to a public body of sorts, which would cost as much as the commission but would have none of its advantages. For example, they would remove any role for the commissioner of public appointments in Scotland or the Scottish public services ombudsman. They would lead to public money being spent with no direct accountability to Scottish ministers or to Parliament. The amendments would remove the requirement for an annual report—something that I thought members would generally feel was a good thing. The amendments would not create a coherent new scheme, although that is no surprise, given the lack of notice, consultation or a financial memorandum, never mind anything else.
I will give members examples of the technical problems. There would be no scrutiny by Parliament of regulations that are made by the Court of Session and the amendments would have the effect that Court of Session orders would be enforced as if they were sheriff court decrees. How would that work? A new advisory commission on judicial officers would do nothing that the Scottish civil enforcement commission could not, but what it would do, it would not do as well. Importantly, it would not do something that the commission will do, in that it lacks the wider remit to actively develop the enforcement system towards greater effectiveness, efficiency, fairness and transparency. I argue strongly that that is not in the public interest. Contrary to what Mr MacAskill said, the commission will consider debt collection. That will be part of its functions and is covered in section 99 of the bill.
If I stand for any interest in this debate, it is the public interest that comes with an NDPB and which we would miss under Kenny MacAskill's proposal. Our proposal is about appointment processes, ethical standards and complaints to the Scottish public services ombudsman, all of which are in the public interest. I do not stand for any sectoral interest and am surprised to see the Greens, nationalists and Tories all standing for it. We stand for the public interest. I ask members to reject the amendments.
The guffaws with which Jamie Stone's intervention was met say it all. There is no requirement to comment on that.
I agreed with a great deal of what Mark Ballard said, and I am sympathetic to it, but he is in danger of perpetuating a myth about sheriff officers that has persisted since the days of the poll tax.
What about Alex Neil's silence in committee?
I have always felt that we should in debates focus on fundamental principles, especially at stage 3. However, if Mr Stone wishes to get into gratuitous insults, what about parties that have flip-flopped and which gave commitments to the electorate but have reneged on them? We need go back only to the single transferable vote in local government and the abolition of tuition fees. On and on go the Lib Dem promises.
I think Mr Ballard's comments on sheriff officers were made unintentionally. Sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms do an excellent job in Scotland. They impose interdicts upon husbands who are battering their wives and they get back children who have been abducted by errant fathers. There were difficulties during the time of poindings and warrant sales, but the sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms were simply imposing the law that legislators created. They implement what parliamentarians create and they do so effectively and efficiently.
Will Kenny MacAskill give way?
Not at the moment.
There may have been instances during enforcement of the poll tax in which sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms acted unacceptably but, in the main, they did so—
Would the existence of a Scottish civil enforcement commission have been a good thing or a bad thing in those dark days of poll tax debt enforcement?
It would not have made any difference. As a practising agent who was involved in the poll tax campaign—along with Mr Sheridan—I remember doing what was appropriate, which was to write to the sheriff principal objecting to various methods. When we did that, the sheriff principal called the sheriff officers in and dealt with it. We did not need a civil enforcement commission with a start-up cost of £1 million and annual running costs of £650,000 thereafter; we had a sheriff principal who dealt with the problem as part of his job.
Will Kenny MacAskill give way?
No—I have taken enough interventions for the moment.
Mr Wilson made the legitimate point that there are problems in respect of the amendments being lodged at a late stage. However, today's manuscript amendments are in Mr Wilson's name and were lodged as a result of understandable political pressure in respect of land attachment—which we will debate later—from broad areas of civic Scotland including, I think, an editorial in today's edition of The Herald that castigates what Mr Wilson seeks to impose on Scotland. He lodged manuscript amendments because of Cabinet discussions yesterday lunchtime, so for him to criticise amendments that were lodged timeously is breathtaking and puts even Mr Stone to shame.
The amendments in the group are not ideal, but that is because Mr Wilson has reneged on various undertakings that he gave when he met sheriff officers. Thereafter, the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers sought to speak to Executive civil servants and to negotiate with them, but the civil servants refused to enter discussions. They refused to discuss and debate the matter, not with some outraged citizen who was acting errantly and abhorrently, but with an organised body that is part of the judicial process in Scotland. To be frank, they dealt with the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers in a contemptuous manner that is unbecoming of an Executive. Thankfully, that will change next May.
If there are consequential problems with the amendments in the group, they were brought about by the Executive's failing to listen, discuss and act reasonably, never mind its going back on clear commitments that the minister gave to sheriff officers.
Does Kenny MacAskill have evidence for that latter charge?
We certainly have. The Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers has made freedom of information requests to see minutes of its meetings with the Executive. Perhaps the minister is not releasing them or perhaps, in civil service speak, notes were not kept. However, the evidence is clear and, if Mr Wilson feels that the people in the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers who are advising me are telling lies, he should say so.
The fact is that Mr Wilson gave commitments upon which he reneged and, thereafter, civil servants acting on his behalf failed even to meet the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers to discuss the matter and negotiate on it. That is unacceptable and shameful and it is why we need to allow sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms to continue to do the good job that they have done to date and do away with the provisions for an unnecessary commission—a new quango that the Executive seeks to introduce at huge cost to the taxpayer.
The question is, that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 65, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 93 disagreed to.
Section 44—Information and annual report
Amendment 94 not moved.
Section 45—Publication of guidance and other information
Group 11 consists of minor and technical amendments with regard to judicial officers. Amendment 95, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 97, 1, 66, 2, 3, 117, 121, 130, 51, 67 to 69, 9 to 11, 178 and 179.
The amendments in the group, which are all minor and consequential, relate to the Scottish civil enforcement commission and judicial officers. Most of them simply clarify and improve the language of the provisions that they amend; others are consequential on amendments that we made at stage 2.
Two amendments in the group merit particular explanation. Regulation of the new profession of judicial officer will be a central function of the new commission, and amendment 51 expands the range of powers that will be given to the commission's disciplinary committee for cases in which a judicial officer has been convicted of an offence. The amendment will enable the disciplinary committee to make an order restricting a judicial officer's functions or activities for a period of time.
As we are all aware, the use of personal information must be closely regulated. Amendment 97 endorses that by amending section 46 to provide that information that is published by the commission and which relates to informal debt collection must not be in a form that enables the identification of judicial officers or persons against whom diligence has been executed.
I do not propose to take up the Parliament's time by explaining the minor amendments, but if any member has questions I will endeavour to answer them.
I move amendment 95.
Amendment 95 agreed to.
Section 46—Published information not to enable identification
Amendment 96 not moved.
Amendment 97 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 50—Electronic publication
Group 12 concerns electronic communications. Amendment 49, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 50, 53 to 56 and 58 to 60.
There should be no barriers to using electronic communications for the various processes that are created in the bill unless there is a particularly good reason for using paper, and the amendments in the group make some necessary changes that arise from that principle.
Amendment 49 changes section 50 to clarify that, when something is done in writing under part 3 of the bill, which concerns enforcement, it can also be done electronically. As a result, section 50 will become a more general provision and it is therefore appropriate to move it to the end of part 3, which is what amendment 50 will do.
Amendments 53 to 56 relate to the land attachment part of the bill. Section 81 sets out which documents must accompany an application for a warrant to sell land. Amendment 53 will make it possible for those documents to be transmitted electronically and will clarify that the requirement for a signature under section 81 can be satisfied by a certified electronic signature. Amendment 54 will ensure that it is possible for a creditor by electronic means to intimate in writing to a tenant that notice has been given of the termination of a debtor's right to occupy the land. Section 106 sets out which documents must accompany an application for foreclosure and amendment 55 will allow those to be transmitted electronically. Section 123 provides that an application for a satisfaction order under residual attachment should be accompanied by a copy of the schedule of residual attachment and may be accompanied by other documents. Amendment 56 will enable those documents to be in electronic form.
The final amendments in the group will insert new definitions into section 199. Amendment 59 defines the term "certified electronic signature" and amendment 60 defines the term "electronic communication". Both terms are defined by reference to the Electronic Communications Act 2000. Given that the definitions will apply generally to the bill, section 186(4) is no longer needed, as it provides a similar definition for the money attachment part only; amendment 58 will remove that section.
I move amendment 49.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
Amendment 50 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 51—Judicial officers
Amendment 98 not moved.
Section 52—Appointment of judicial officer
Amendment 1 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 53—Annual fee
Amendment 99 not moved.
Section 55—Regulation of judicial officers
Group 13 is on ownership and control of judicial officer businesses. Amendment 206, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, is grouped with amendment 52.
The minister made some pejorative remarks about special pleading by sheriff officers. To put the matter in context, amendments 206 and 52 seek to introduce into the bill the rules that regulated sheriff officers previously. Back in 1991, when the rules were created—in secondary, not primary legislation—it was made clear that sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms should hold a commission and that there is an ethos that goes with being a member of the profession, which is part of our judicial system. Members who have been solicitors or advocates—there are many of them—will be aware that people in the judicial system have a responsibility not only in how they operate, but to the court. That duty surpasses any duty that they as individuals have to their clients, partners or others with whom they work. People in the system understand that there is a higher ethos because of the responsibility of the job or office that they hold. That is why, back in 1991, the rules made it clear that people had to hold a commission and could not simply be a silent partner or a limited company that was based wherever.
As I said, amendments 206 and 52 seek not to introduce new measures, but to restore the previous status quo, which was introduced in secondary legislation. What happened was that, in the wisdom of those elsewhere and perhaps even here, we acknowledged that, in the modern world, there was a need for solicitors firms to be able to become limited liability partnerships. We did not realise at the time that the consequence would be to open up an opportunity for access to be gained to sheriff officers firms. As far as I am aware, it was not envisaged or intended that firms of judicial officers, sheriff officers or messengers-at-arms would be able to become limited liability partnerships. The aim was to deal with the Law Society of Scotland and the legal profession. However, a loophole opened up, an opportunity was seen and various firms moved in. Some individuals have made substantial amounts of money and firms have acquired shares in or ownership of various other firms. That is not appropriate.
As we made an error in the introduction of limited liability partnerships, we should seek to return to the principles for the operation of judicial officers that existed not just under the 1991 regulations, but from the outset in Scotland. If amendments 206 and 52 are rejected and we go with the minister's proposals, we will compound an error and open up the opportunity for debt collection agencies to move in. We will give an opportunity not simply to those who wish to have the protection of limited liability status in operating a sheriff officers practice in Scotland; we will give it to the vultures—the predatory practices and companies that seek only to maximise the money that they make. Those companies have no ethos of support for the Scottish judicial system, but simply want a return on their investment.
It would be a retrograde step if judicial officers in Scotland did not have a commission from and a responsibility to either the Scottish civil enforcement commission or the court under the auspices of which they operate, but instead were convinced that their responsibility was to the shareholders and the head office, whether that is in Delaware, Detroit or south of the border here. Let us not forget that a great many vultures are circling various practices and judicial officers firms in Scotland, because debt collecting agencies can make a substantial amount of money by collecting council tax or whatever. Many of those firms seek to get a share of the pie. As I said, they do not seek to do the work responsibly and effectively, as happens under the current ethos of the judicial officer system in Scotland; instead, they simply want to make a fast buck.
Amendments 206 and 52 would restore the previous status quo and would protect not only sheriff officers firms and individuals, but the ethos and integrity of the Scottish judicial system. As I said, people in the system have a responsibility to the court and not simply to shareholders, wherever they are located.
I move amendment 206.
Mr MacAskill has a fair case, but he does himself and his case no favours in overstating it. Frankly, the use of terms such as "vultures" does nothing to persuade other members to support him. The Enterprise and Culture Committee considered the issue at stage 1. Those who have ownership of a firm of sheriff officers or judicial officers need not themselves be qualified—an argument has not been made for that. We already have firms of sheriff officers that are owned externally and I am not aware of any problems or difficulties that have arisen as a result. There is therefore no evidence to suggest that a problem is likely to be created. We should oppose unnecessary restraints on trade if we are in favour of promoting business. Therefore, we will oppose amendments 206 and 52.
The Enterprise and Culture Committee had a lengthy debate on the issue. I recall that the convener did not have anything to say in dissent on the matter. It is important to remember the client group with which the officers deal—generally, they are not the sort of people who know how to complain to the sheriff principal. Therefore, better regulation is essential, which is why the new commission is essential.
I am grateful to the members of the Enterprise and Culture Committee for clarifying the issue. One reason why I changed direction on the matter during the summer is precisely because of representations that the Enterprise and Culture Committee and other external stakeholders made to me. To the best of my knowledge and contrary to what Mr MacAskill said, no one in the sector is saying no to limited liability partnerships.
It is usual to regulate the business arrangements of professions in one way or another, because few professionals operate as sole practitioners and it is commonplace for them to form business associations such as partnerships. Those business arrangements must not work against the public interest. There should be no split loyalties and people who profit from the business should therefore be held to account for their part in any malpractice. I therefore intend to ensure that all persons who direct judicial officers in their functions are subject to scrutiny by the civil enforcement commission, which we debated previously. That is a clear and reasonable policy that is designed to protect the public interest.
I accept that the policy could be implemented in various ways. We could say that officers must go into business only with each other in what we could call all-officer firms. Alternatively, we could say that non-officers should have to pass some kind of fitness check, such as a police check, or that non-officers could become associate members of the profession. Perhaps the right approach is a mix of all three possibilities, to allow different types of businesses to prosper in the marketplace. It is important to be flexible whatever we do. That is why I propose that Scottish ministers shall have a power, under section 55(2), to make regulations prescribing the types of business organisations that officers can form and related matters. I believe that to be clearly in the public interest.
If the bill is agreed to today, I will consult on proposals for regulating the business activities of officers, and encourage contributions from everyone with an interest, so that we can find the best solution together. Kenny MacAskill's amendments 206 and 52 would cut across the power in section 56 and remove all the options bar one—the all-officer firm. Why? My answer to that would be special pleading. The amendments serve the interests of one group of court officers at the expense of others and are part of an attempt by traditional court officers in all-officer firms to handicap other court officer businesses that have found a way to bring in partners with other skills and other capital. Those businesses are among the most successful in the sector but would be forced to reorganise if we pursued an all-officer firm policy.
Those businesses tell me that there is room for everybody. We are keen to find a solution that means that everyone can be properly regulated, whether or not they are in an all-officer firm. Those businesses are no keener on encouraging the sharp practices that were referred to by Mr MacAskill than anyone else is. I agree with Murdo Fraser that it is highly inappropriate to describe them as vultures. I think that they deserve a say in the coming consultation in the same way as the traditional court officers do. I want to keep an open mind with regard to that process and I hope that others would wish to do the same thing. That is the correct approach to the matter and, therefore, I ask Kenny MacAskill to withdraw amendment 206.
I will use my power under rule 9.8.4A to extend the debate on this group by two minutes, which is the time that you have in which to respond, Mr MacAskill.
Points were made by Mr Fraser and the minister with which I have some sympathy. To be fair, the sheriff officers were not seeking to be luddite; they have advised me that they were prepared to consider certain percentages and so on. The problem was that the minister refused to negotiate or discuss the matter with them, which meant that, accordingly, they were left with no option but to pursue the route that was offered by my lodging of amendment 206, which is a take-it-or-leave-it approach. The tragedy is that there might have been room for some compromise, to which Mr Fraser alluded. That was not on offer, however, and the Executive is to blame in that regard.
I want to make it clear that I am not referring to the existing sheriff officers firms that operate in Scotland as vultures. Having met those firms, I think that their ethos is different from that of other firms and that it is not particularly beneficial. However, when I say that the vultures are circling, they most certainly are. They are looking at the money that is made by existing firms, such as those that operate beyond the existing practices of commissioned officers only, and are aware of the money that can be made. We already have a problem with predatory lending practices in the area of consumer credit. If we create a situation in which predatory lending combines with the predatory recovery of debt, we will compound the problems of consumer credit, which is encouraged by those furth of our shores who have no interest whatsoever in the welfare of our people and who do not care about the consequences of debt, such as divorce, crime or suicide.
We will have no control over judicial officers whose responsibility is not to the Court of Session, the sheriff principal or the people of Scotland but to people who want to maximise revenue and return. Just as those companies are predatory in their lending practices, they will be predatory in their recovery practices. Unless we support amendment 206, we, as a people, will rue the day.
The question is, that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 20, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 206 disagreed to.
Amendments 100 to 104 not moved.
Amendment 66 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 105 to 108 not moved.
Section 56B—Information from professional association
Amendments 109 and 110 not moved.
Section 58—Investigation of alleged misconduct by judicial officer
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 112 to 114 not moved.
Section 59—Suspension of judicial officer pending outcome of disciplinary or criminal proceedings
Amendments 115 and 116 not moved.
Section 60—Commission's duty in relation to offences or misconduct by judicial officer
Amendment 117 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 118 not moved.
Section 60A—Commission's power in relation to judicial officer's bankruptcy etc
Amendment 119 not moved.
Section 61—Referrals to the disciplinary committee
Amendment 120 not moved.
Amendment 121 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 122 to 128 not moved.
Section 62—Disciplinary committee's powers
Amendment 129 not moved.
Amendment 130 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 131 to 136 not moved.
Amendment 51 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 137 to 140 not moved.
Section 63—Orders under sections 59 and 62: supplementary provision
Amendments 141 to 143 not moved.
Section 64—Appeals from decisions under sections 52, 59 and 62
Amendments 144 and 145 not moved.
Section 65—Judicial officer's actions void where officer has interest
Amendments 67 to 69 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
After section 66
Amendment 52 moved—[Mr Kenny MacAskill].
The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 20, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 52 disagreed to.
Section 67—Effect of code of practice
Amendment 146 not moved.
After section 67
Amendment 147 not moved.
Section 70—Land attachment
Group 14 is on service of the debt advice and information package. Amendment 4, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 5 to 8.
The Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002 introduced the debt advice and information package. The package contains information about enforcement as well as contact details for free local money advisers who can help sort out any debt problem. The package helps people with debt problems when they need help the most. I would argue that the package is more than just a piece of paper and that it is part of a wider effort that the Executive is engaged in to tackle problem debt, which includes funding for more than 130 new front-line money advisers.
The bill says that the new diligences of land attachment and residual attachment are competent only if the creditor has given a copy of the package to the debtor either before, or on service of, a charge to pay the debt. A charge to pay lasts for up to two years, which could mean that the package was provided long before the immediate need. Accordingly, the time limits were changed by amending the bill at stage 2. The amendments in the group bring land attachment and residual attachment into line with changes that were made at stage 2 for other diligences. They provide that the package must be served within 12 weeks of either the registration of a notice of land attachment or an application to the court for a residual attachment order.
I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to introduce new section 73CA of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, which will require the creditor to provide the debtor with the debt advice and information package before the expiry of a 48-hour period that begins either with the serving of the copy of the final decree, where property has been arrested as security for a claim in a court case, or with the service of the schedule of arrestment in other cases.
I lodged amendment 8 to ensure that the creditor does not provide the package before the start of the 48-hour period. If the creditor provided the package earlier, that might allow the debtor time to move funds, so the amendment clarifies that the package must be served during that period.
I move amendment 4.
I welcome amendment 4, which, again, follows long deliberations by the committee. I am grateful to the minister for the time that he took to consider the representations that were made in evidence from Money Advice Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland and others. Too often, debtors fail to take advantage of the support that is available to them, perhaps because they feel intimidated, or for other reasons. I commend amendment 4 to the Parliament.
I do not think that any response is necessary, minister, so I will go straight to the question.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment 5 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Group 15 is on competency of land attachment. Amendment 148 is the only amendment in the group.
The bill introduces the new diligence of land attachment, under which a debtor's main dwelling-house can be attached and sold for a debt of £3,000 or more. That merits sober consideration because the consequences are extremely serious. We must ensure that the law provides a fair and effective means for creditors to recover their money, but we must also protect debtors from unfair or punitive recovery methods.
In the minister's comments on amendment 4, we heard about some of the steps that he has taken to protect people's homes. Amendment 148 proposes a hierarchy of diligence, not to let debtors off the hook but to ensure that creditors do not use such a serious recovery tool as their means of first resort. According to the Scottish Law Commission, when a creditor has a choice of different legal procedures, preference should normally be given to that which involves the least coercion. In its 1985 document, "Report on Diligence and Debtor Protection", the commission expressed the view that bank arrestments and arrestments against earnings are less intrusive than poindings and warrant sales. In its 2000 document, "Report on Poinding and Warrant Sale", the commission states:
"where a creditor had an option of using more than one diligence to recover a debt, the law should facilitate his opting for arrestment or earnings arrestment rather than poinding and sale."
That principle was brought into practice by the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002, which introduced a hierarchy of diligence for exceptional attachment orders, which replaced poindings and warrant sales.
The 2002 act also provides that the creditor must show the sheriff not only that they have taken reasonable steps to negotiate settlement of the debt but that they have executed or attempted to execute a bank arrestment or earnings arrestment first.
Land attachment ultimately involves the loss of the debtor's home. It is a far more coercive measure than even poinding and warrant sale. My amendment 148 proposes that the creditor must attempt other forms of diligence—including exceptional attachment—before they can attach the debtor's home. It is better for the debtor to lose high-value possessions from within their home than to lose the home itself. The amendment mirrors the relevant provisions in the 2002 act and is consistent with the principle behind other forms of diligence.
I note that the minister has lodged manuscript amendments, which will be considered later, but I will be interested to hear his response to the points that I have made.
I move amendment 148.
We are very pressured for time, so I ask for three-minute speeches.
I will be brief. Christine May's amendment 148 would introduce a hierarchy of diligence and ensure that the creditor used other means to try to recover their money before they attempted to sell the debtor's house. It would not prevent the attachment and sale of a family home, which we will discuss in the debate on group 17, but in the meantime, a hierarchy of diligence is better than what is in the bill at the moment. The introduction of a hierarchy would bring the bill into line with previous legislation. We will support the amendment.
I will try to be equally brief. The part of the bill on land attachment is one of the most contentious parts, and the committee considered it in some detail at stage 1. We recognise that concerns have been expressed about it throughout civic Scotland. Many members will have been lobbied by Citizens Advice Scotland and other bodies that have concerns.
A range of amendments have been lodged on the matter. I can see what Christine May is trying to achieve with amendment 148, but I am not attracted to it. In practice, it would be difficult to implement and enforce a hierarchy of diligence. For that reason, we are not inclined to support amendment 148, but we will support some of the other amendments on the matter when they are considered later.
We will support amendment 148. It makes sense to us to have a hierarchy of diligence so that every effort is made to ensure that creditors use the full range of approaches to debt recovery before they use the ultimate sanction and impose homelessness.
The evidence to the committee made it clear how vulnerable people are when they have huge debts. There is a tendency for them to ignore their debts, not to open their mail and not to admit that there is a problem. That suggests that we need a far less heavy-handed approach. The creditor's aim is to recover as much of the debt as possible, but in the end a heavy-handed approach can be counterproductive. A hierarchy of diligence would ensure that every effort was made to use less punitive methods of debt collection first.
Members' having exercised considerable self-restraint, I am able to be more generous to you, minister.
I would not wish to get preferential treatment. I will be as brief as I can.
I fundamentally agree with everything that Shiona Baird said. That is why I am introducing the crystallisation of debt and, potentially, debt relief to the debt arrangement scheme, which is the single most significant element of the bill.
The sale of land to repay debt is a serious matter for the debtor. I therefore made sure that the bill includes strong debtor protections, two of which I just mentioned. Like others, I understand why Christine May believes that land attachment should be a diligence of last resort and proposes that it should be at the top of a hierarchy of diligence. However, I do not agree that her amendment 148 would improve the bill.
We must see land attachment in its context. It is a diligence that is used to enforce court judgments. Any diligence comes at the end of a long process—as Shiona Baird suggested—and the debtor will have had many chances to sort out the problem that led to their land being attached. In many cases, they will have ignored representations. However, it is possible to stop a land attachment even after it has started. The debtor has at least six months in which to get legal advice and pay, or put in place an arrangement to pay, and they will be given the address of a local money adviser who can help them to do that.
If we make creditors use other diligences first, the debtor might have to pick up the bill. I do not see much point in forcing a creditor to try to arrest a bank account if they strongly suspect that little or nothing will be recovered.
There are other reasons why the amendment would not work, however well intentioned it is. It borrows the language of section 48 of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002, but there is a critical difference. Under the 2002 act, the court considers the evidence and gives permission to attach the home. In land attachment, the creditor would have to take the risk that the court would decide that the attachment was unlawful months after the event. That is not fair to creditors.
Even if there was time today to consider a hierarchy of diligences—I and others have been criticised for lodging last-minute amendments—the list in amendment 148 is too short. It does not mention ordinary attachment, money attachment or, crucially, inhibition, which is another diligence that affects land. The omission of inhibition would have an undesirable effect. Inhibition is a personal bar on the debtor's disposing of land. It does not attach land. The one purpose of land attachment is to enforce the breach of an inhibition, so the exclusion of inhibition from such a hierarchy would make it unworkable.
Careful work would be needed to ensure that all the diligences fitted into a hierarchy, even if that were for land attachment alone. I agree with Murdo Fraser that that cannot be done today. In any event, the process would be technical and complex. If the Scottish Law Commission had been able to do that work, I am sure that it would have done it before now. That is not to say that I am not predisposed to doing such work in due course, but it would require consideration by all practitioners and consensus and buy-in across the board. That is not possible in the debate on amendment 148, so I ask Christine May to withdraw her amendment.
I thank members and the minister for their comments. Having listened to the minister and considered his amendment 209, which was lodged after my amendment 148, I am persuaded that he takes on board the point that I make and that he is concerned to discuss with others how such diligences might be ranked. Given that, I ask to withdraw amendment 148.
No.
No.
No.
That takes care of the question whether the Parliament agrees to withdrawal.
The question is, that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
The result of the division is: For 28, Against 74, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 148 disagreed to.
Section 72—Notice of land attachment
Group 16 is on minimum debt limits for land attachment. Amendment 149, in the name of Christine May, is grouped with amendments 151 and 152. I would be grateful if Christine May completed speaking to the amendments in three minutes.
For most home owners, losing the family home is the ultimate sacrifice, which they would wish to avoid at all costs. As we have said, the new diligence of land attachment will allow a home to be put under threat for a debt of as little as £3,000. Amendments 149 and 151 would increase the debt limit to £5,000.
Increasing the figure to £5,000 would offer low-income debtors some protection. Citizens Advice Scotland's research shows that one third of its debt clients had debts of less than £5,000. Increasing the limit would decrease the risk of a creditor pressuring a debtor to take on further, potentially unsustainable, borrowing to avoid losing their home.
In introducing a stage 2 amendment, the minister told the committee that the limits for bankruptcy and for land attachment should be the same. The policy intention of that is to ensure that creditors do not find it easier to bankrupt people than to attach their land. Accordingly, any increase in the land attachment figure is likely to result in an increase in the bankruptcy limit, too. If amendments 149 and 151 are agreed to, such an increase could be done by regulation. Increasing the debtor limits could be problematic, but £5,000 is seen as a reasonable compromise, given the bill's new section 14A, which relates to low income, low asset clients.
Amendment 152 proposes to increase the figure for the not-worth-it test from one third of the debt that is owed plus expenses to a minimum of £5,000. At the same meeting that I mentioned, the minister said that land should not be sold for small debts. Amendment 152 would ensure that there was sufficient equity in a dwelling-house to realise a minimum of £5,000 plus expenses, rather than allow a debtor and their family to face homelessness in order for a debt of as little as £1,000 to be recovered.
Increasing the limits would not be the whole solution, but it would ensure that a serious step was not taken for a small sum of money.
I move amendment 149.
Amendments 149, 151 and 152 would increase from £3,000 to £5,000 the debt limit for granting a land attachment. As Christine May said earlier, land attachments are a far more coercive measure than poindings and warrant sales, as they involve the ultimate loss of a debtor's home. Christine May's amendments do not address the principle of land attachment of the family home, which will be discussed later. However, the amendments would make the situation marginally better than that which the Government proposes, so we will support them.
Surely it is draconian to include a diligence that will result in homelessness on accruing a debt of just £3,000, although, to be fair, the minister raised the ceiling from £1,500 to £3,000. Christine May's amendments would afford greater protection overall to debtors who face land attachment. In view of ever-rising house prices, will the minister reconsider the Executive's policy intention of keeping the limits for land attachment and sequestration the same? It would not help if the amendments adversely affected people with low incomes and low assets so that they could not access bankruptcy until their debt reached the higher level. Facing up to debt sooner rather than later will always benefit both parties.
I do not disagree with Shiona Baird's last point, although arguments can be made about having the limits out of kilter. I introduced provisions for no income, no asset clients to access debt relief that were not in the bill originally.
The amount of debt that is needed before land can be attached and sold was debated widely at stage 2, when the lead committee agreed to my amendment to double the debt limit to £3,000. It is right to keep a close eye on the debt limit—I do not dispute that. The limit cannot be so high that creditors have an incentive to bankrupt the debtor or so low that debtors lose their land as the result of a relatively small debt.
I told the committee and I repeat that I am not stuck on £3,000. I would consider a higher figure if the argument for change were overriding. I understand and respect the concerns of members who have spoken about the impact of the diligence. In the next group of amendments, we will consider amendments that I believe will offer Christine May all the assurance that she needs.
If the minister does not have a problem with the actual debt limit, how did he arrive at the proposed debt limit? The average house price is £135,000. Is the limit a percentage of that?
It is a fact that the process is relatively arbitrary. I doubled the previous limit of £1,500 to £3,000 and kept the debt limits for land attachment and bankruptcy together because we do not want to give creditors a perverse incentive to bankrupt debtors as opposed to using the more debtor-friendly system of land attachment. That was the rationale.
The arguments in favour of a higher figure are not any better or more reliable today than they were a few weeks ago. Increasing today the debt limit, which was agreed at stage 2, would not be rational. A strong argument remains in favour of keeping the land attachment and bankruptcy debt limits in line with each other. The Parliament considered the issue this morning. There is no strong argument for raising the bankruptcy limit now. As I explained, if the attachment debt limit were £5,000 and the bankruptcy limit were £3,000, many creditors would find it easier to bankrupt a debtor than to attach land.
I have said before, and it is worth repeating as many times as needed, that one reason for introducing land attachment is that it is better for home owners than bankruptcy. The reason is simple: in a sequestration, ownership of the home automatically transfers to the trustees for the creditor. A land attachment is only a security and can be stopped by a time-to-pay measure. Later, I will move amendments to make it clear that people who make a reasonable request for time to pay will have that time.
I do not support amendments 149, 151 and 152, but I am happy to keep a close eye on the issue that Christine May has raised.
I would consider changing the debt limits for bankruptcy and land attachment at any stage, using the powers that I am asking for. The argument that Christine May has made can, therefore, be reconsidered after the bill becomes law—as I hope that it will today. I therefore ask Christine May and those who agree with her to work with me to ensure that the new diligence of land attachment strikes the right balance. I have an open mind about the limits. I believe that the limits should be the same, so that there is no perverse incentive to bankrupt rather than attach—such an incentive would mean that people would lose their home because it would transfer automatically and be vested with the trustee in a sequestration application.
I say to Christine May and those who support her that they should work with us. We will consult, if necessary, and will change the limits if there is demand for that. I ask her to withdraw amendment 149 and not to move amendments 151 and 152.
Amendment 149 was lodged before the minister lodged his amendments, which will be considered later. Having listened carefully to what he said, especially his willingness to engage in dialogue after today, I am satisfied that he has taken on board the points that I have made. I look forward to having those discussions with him and urge the members who have supported me in the debate to join me in that dialogue. I seek to withdraw amendment 149.
Does any member object to Christine May withdrawing amendment 149?
Yes.
The question is, that amendment 149 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 74, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 149 disagreed to.
Section 81—Application for warrant to sell attached land
Group 17 is on attached dwelling-houses and statements on land attachment. Amendment 208, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 150, 209, 153, 154, 210, 211, 157, 158, 177 and 212. This group includes all the amendments that are printed on the supplementary marshalled list.
I will be brief. I hope to come back to the non-Executive amendments in the course of the debate.
As has been said, this is a bill for enterprise. Land attachment is one of the new diligences that will give businesses the modern and effective enforcement system that they should have. I repeat that people who can pay, should pay and that people who will not pay their debts must face what follows, even if that means that, as a last resort, their home is attached and ultimately sold.
Of course, we must tread carefully where homes are concerned. Land attachment must be part of a well-balanced package that offers help and support to people who have debt problems. In the run-up to the debate, I tried to explain the 21 debtor protection measures that can be taken prior to any home being sold, and I believe that the bill, as it appears today, offers a well-balanced package. Indeed, it ensures a better balance between the interests of creditors and debtors.
I will need to say more about why land attachment strikes the right balance in reply to what is likely to be said by members who have lodged amendments in this group. However, before I do that, I will say why my amendments should be agreed to.
I have listened to the concerns of members such as Gordon Jackson and Christine May, among others. I have also listened to the concerns that were expressed to the lead committee. Although I have not seen the convener of that committee all morning, I note that he has lodged amendments in this group. I do not agree entirely with what has been said, but there is good sense in it that ought to be recognised by people such as me. That is a reasonable way to proceed.
Gordon Jackson has proposed that the Executive reviews the take-up of land attachment in reports to Parliament after 15 months. That is something that we can and will do; however, 15 months may be on the short side if we are to have useful information to guide policy. The Executive will, therefore, write to Parliament on the take-up of land attachment 18 months after the bill comes into force. We will also lay out the facts and figures for all to see and discuss.
Is the minister at least prepared to agree that the take-up of land attachment would not tell the whole story as far as the operation of this part of the bill is concerned? The concern of most homelessness and anti-poverty charities is that the threat of land attachment would force debtors to take loans from other sources and dig themselves into a deeper debt hole in order for the land not to be attached. The figures may not, therefore, show just how bad an effect land attachment could have.
I am conscious of that concern. That is why I have introduced debt crystallisation and, prospectively, debt relief into the debt arrangement scheme. That will give debtors access to good, solid, free money advice to encourage them to use a system that would stop, if not prevent, the land attachment process. I am conscious of those concerns, which is why I have done all that I have for no income, no asset clients. At the point at which the debtor enters the scheme, debt crystallisation will stop the debt rising and interest rates increasing. I want to ensure that that will lead, prospectively, to debt relief—something that does not exist currently. I have taken all those concerns on board.
Gordon Jackson has also proposed that the Scottish ministers take a power to vary the matters that the court can take into account in deciding whether to grant a warrant to sell a home, with particular regard to factors that might cause homelessness. Selling a home and homelessness are, of course, not the same thing. That, too, is a sensible proposition. I believe that the evidence from the review will show that sales are rare and that sales of homes are rarer still—a point that was made earlier. However, no one can know how a new diligence will work until it is used. What if land attachment did not work as it is expected to work? I would want to be able to return to the Parliament and ask it to agree the changes that might be needed to address any imbalance. Therefore, I would like to take even broader powers than Gordon Jackson suggests. In that way, the Executive would be able to tackle any unexpected effects of the attachment of land and homes, not just the possible problems with homelessness, which have been mentioned, important though they would be.
Executive amendments 208 and 209 accordingly add a new power to section 81 that will enable ministers to specify that a creditor may not apply to the court for a warrant to sell the dwelling-house. That could be used to exempt sole or main residences from the sale stage of the diligence. It could also exempt primary, as opposed to secondary, residences and could be used widely to protect the debtor's interests above and beyond the 21 debtor protections that I have already built into the process.
Executive amendments 210 and 211 add a new power to section 87 that will enable ministers to change the matters that the court can take into account when it is asked to grant a warrant to sell a dwelling-house. The power could be used to make the sheriff pay more attention to the risk of homelessness or it could go further. Sheriffs are already required to take such matters into account when they make a decision, and they do so. Importantly, those powers could be used at any time. I do not propose any time limit on their use into the future; it will be possible to use them at any time that it is thought necessary. They are not tied to a particular report or to one problem. I therefore ask Gordon Jackson and Alex Neil to withdraw their amendments.
I move amendment 208.
As everyone can see, I am not Alex Neil, but I will do my best. I will speak to amendments 150, 153 and 154 in my colleague's name, and against amendments 208 and 209 in the minister's name. We support the amendments in Gordon Jackson's name.
Figures from Citizens Advice Scotland show that the average unsecured—and I stress the word "unsecured"—debt of their clients in 2006 was more than £13,000 and that most people in Scotland have unsecured debts in excess of £3,000, which is the trigger for a land attachment. That is most people in Scotland. I have a quote from Citizens Advice:
"Without the exemption of the primary dwelling house, land attachment will be a significant step backwards in modernising diligence."
Amendment 150 would exempt the principal dwelling-house, but why should it? A land attachment virtually converts an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Notwithstanding the trigger limit of £3,000, that is unjust. Because of the nature of secured debts, they come with favourable interest rates and unsecured debts attach high interest rates. Ironically, that means that the trigger for a land attachment could be reached very quickly, for example, on one credit card debt. Indeed, it would positively encourage higher interest rates to allow creditors to activate land attachment proceedings in a race against all the other creditors, or, as the Law Society of Scotland put it so eloquently:
"Once people hear how land attachment is going to work, there will be a queue."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 21 March 2006; c 2853.]
So what about the can pay, won't pay debtors? There is a range of effective options for dealing with them at the moment, such as land attachment against second and subsequent homes, inhibitions, bank and earnings arrestments, attachment orders of all varieties, and bankruptcy itself. Alex Neil's amendment 154 makes it explicit that, in all cases, the sheriff should consider all the debtor's circumstances before moving to apply a land attachment. At the moment, the sheriff simply has to "have regard" to those circumstances, and he can only defer and not reject a land attachment.
The only defence that a debtor has to stop a land attachment is that it would be "unduly harsh". I submit that for the majority of ordinary people who would have this kind of debt, a land attachment would be unduly harsh in all circumstances. If that was true, no land attachments would succeed. I do not know how a sheriff could apply that test.
As for the minister's last-minute, fig-leaf amendments, they contain the words "may" and "could". The provision is not mandatory, it is discretionary and it uses too small a word. It would not be binding. It is simply a fig leaf to cover up and try to jettison our worthy amendments, which are backed, I might add, by Citizens Advice Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, Shelter Scotland, Money Advice Scotland, Govan law centre, Castlemilk law centre, and, indeed, the editor of The Herald. What more can I say?
Will Christine Grahame therefore join me in asking the minister to use his winding up remarks to agree to consult those various bodies when he is drawing up the detailed regulations?
Christine May had a good try at throwing the Executive a lifeline, but if the minister withdraws his amendments, our amendments will make the bill clear. We are at stage 3, not stage 2. These proposals have been made over and over again and it is as plain as a pikestaff that the procedure proposed by the minister would be most unjust. The rich who try to avoid their debts will still be able to do that, while ordinary Scots who have credit card consumer debts totalling more than £3,000 after Christmas, including interest, could trigger land attachments. There is no protection for the people.
I heard what the minister said earlier: that losing a house over a relatively small consumer debt is more debtor-friendly than sequestration; but that is not better than sequestration.
Will the member give way?
Let me finish. Someone could lose their house and still have other personal debts; they would not have cleared the slate in the way that they would have through a sequestration. They would have lost their house because of a small debt and all the other debts would remain. Tommy Sheridan was quite right to say that people who know that they are going to lose their houses will get consolidation loans at higher rates or will go to doorstep loan sharks who will provide them with the money to keep their home; otherwise they will face homelessness.
I would like to explain what I was seeking to do with amendments 157 and 158. By and large, I agree with the minister that the bill is balanced and offers a lot of protection. As the minister seems to accept, the difficulty arises because no one can tell precisely what is going to happen. Any legislation of this nature is, to some degree, a leap in the dark. The Executive thinks that the provision will result in a certain number of people losing their homes. Other organisations believe that the Executive has got that wrong and that it will result in a great many more people losing their homes. Clearly, only time will tell us that.
My amendments seek to do two things. Amendment 157 seeks to make it mandatory for the Executive, after 15 months, to look into how land attachment is operating. I have listed the things that that inquiry should tell us. If, having carried out that inquiry, it turned out that no great harm had been done by the bill, so be it. If, on the other hand, there was a real problem with homelessness, as many legitimate agencies fear, amendment 158 would give the Executive the power to make the necessary changes in order to combat the evil that the survey had discovered. For the avoidance of doubt, I say to Christine Grahame that my amendment 158 does not make that power mandatory either; it also uses the word "may". It is a power that can be used by the Executive and I drafted it that way after consultation with some of the bodies that Christine Grahame mentioned. We can never make it mandatory for the Executive to make those changes; we can only give the Executive the power to make them because we do not know whether the changes will be required.
Will the member take an intervention?
Members seem to be queuing up, as someone said about something else.
Does the member accept that the idea of a survey after 15 months to establish whether or not land attachment has had a negative effect on the level of homelessness or indebtedness throughout Scotland might not be able to show the depth of the problem? For example, if the Parliament had decided to abolish warrant sales based on the number of warrant sales that were taking place, it would not have abolished them at all. It was the fear that the use of warrant sales would lead to consequent problems that led us to agree to abolish them. Does the member agree that such an inquiry would not show the depth of the problem?
I heard Mr Sheridan make that point to the minister and I have some sympathy with it, in that I understand what Mr Sheridan is saying. Of course, certain things will not show up in such a survey, and I accept that some people will get into debt in other ways to avoid a land attachment—there is a logic to that. Having said that, just because we cannot find out everything by using a survey does not mean that we should not get whatever information we can get. So to a limited extent—and I accept that it is limited—amendment 157 seeks to get that information. Only after that should the Executive take the power—not a mandatory power; it cannot be mandatory—to make the changes.
In fairness to the minister, the Executive seems to have answered that. By lodging amendments 209 and 211, the Executive is seeking to take the power that I wanted it to take, and the minister would say that it is taking a broader power than I was asking for. In fact, the Executive's amendment places the power in a different section; the Executive is better at the law than I am, so it has put the provision in the right place. However, my point is that Executive amendments 209 and 211 accept what my amendment 158 is asking for. It would be irrational of me to insist on moving amendment 158 when the Executive has taken all the power that I wanted it to take, and more.
My only remaining reservation—I say this frankly—is that my amendment 157 would make it a statutory requirement to conduct the survey. The minister says that, in two years, we will get the information without that statutory requirement. I would have preferred that to be explicit in the statute. That is not unusual; it happened in legislation on homelessness and in a number of other pieces of legislation. Where we wanted to monitor something, there was a statutory requirement, and I would have preferred the minister to have had a statutory requirement in this case. However, if he gives me his assurance that the Executive will do that survey and give us the information, I do not suppose that I will die in a ditch over that distinction.
Members may wish to note that, if needs be, I will allow the debate on this group of amendments to continue this afternoon, as permitted by the timetabling motion. As a considerable number of back benchers wish to speak, the time limit for speeches will be three minutes.
I want to address the amendments in the minister's name, and express the genuine cross-party concerns about land attachment, the unintended consequence of which could indeed be homelessness. Aside from the impact of homelessness on whole families, which we know to be costly in terms of human and financial resources, what is proposed could run contrary to Executive intentions elsewhere. That said, the minister has acknowledged those concerns and has introduced useful manuscript amendments, one of which could be used to exempt the sole or main residence from the sale stage of the diligence and another of which could be used to make the sheriff pay more attention to the risk of homelessness.
I had hoped that the minister would have gone further, given his evident commitment to strengthening key parts of the bill to provide for enhanced debtor protection, but his amendments offer some comfort. However, I wish to ask him three specific questions, which I hope he will address in summing up, to give us some additional comfort.
First, if problems are identified within two years, will ministers have the power to act, and will they do so? Secondly, what will he be seeking to lay before Parliament by way of information? It has already been pointed out that simply to count the number of attachments and the number of sales would be insufficient to get a flavour of how land attachment is actually operating. Will he therefore, as part of that process, commit to monitoring the implementation of land attachment with organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland? Finally, what circumstances will trigger ministers to use the powers contained in the manuscript amendments? Answers to those questions would make more sense of the amendments.
Yesterday, this Parliament did Scotland proud by voting for the St Andrew's day holiday. Today, on St Andrew's day, the Executive parties will make the shameful decision that a family home can be forcibly sold for a debt of £3,001. Without exception, the organisations that help people in debt are opposed to that draconian measure. Alex Neil's amendments will remove the family home from land attachment. As Citizens Advice Scotland said:
"Without exemption of the primary dwelling house, land attachment will be a significant step backwards in modernising diligence."
If the Executive prevails today and the bill is passed, Scots law will prevent a debtor's furniture and cooker from being sold, but will simultaneously allow the sale of a family home, so that there would be no place to put the furniture or the cooker.
The Executive's proposals are wicked and shameful, and they will lead to increased homelessness and threatened homelessness. The minister's late amendments will perhaps take effect in two years' time, but they are couched in maybes, mays and coulds. Whatever the minister says at this point is not worth the breath. Citizens Advice Scotland does not believe that the Executive amendments are sufficient, and the SNP agrees.
I urge MSPs to think of their constituents, to examine their consciences and to support Alex Neil's amendments, which will protect the many thousands of people who are in debt every year from losing their homes for as little as £3,001. Forty years ago this week, a Labour Government was in power when the whole of the United Kingdom was shocked by "Cathy Come Home" and by the problems of debt and homelessness. Today, Scotland will be shocked that members of a Labour Government are prepared to countenance pushing people with small debts into homelessness by selling their homes from under them. Shame on them.
The Green group will support Alex Neil's vital amendment 150. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the diligence of land attachment is still in the bill, despite all the representations from the groups that are most aware of the consequences of that section, which were eloquently highlighted by Christine Grahame.
The last-minute lodging of amendment 209 by the minister indicates a realisation that land attachment is unacceptable, but that late amendment does not address the threat of the sale of the dwelling-house for at least, and possibly beyond, the next two years, as far as I understand it. If the minister is sufficiently concerned to introduce a late amendment, why could he not go that step further and accept amendment 150, in the name of Alex Neil, saving himself and his Labour and Lib Dem colleagues from another charge of inconsistency for compromising the good work of the Scottish Parliament in making the prevention of homelessness a priority?
By supporting amendment 150, we can help to improve the financial efficiency of the Executive, because it will not have to introduce affirmative legislation at a later date. I appeal to the good sense of members to consider the full consequences of losing one's home for a debt of just £3,001. The inscription on the mace in front of us reminds us to act with compassion, integrity, justice and wisdom. I urge members to vote for amendment 150. They know that it is right.
I would now like to take the opportunity to speak to amendment 154.
You will need to be brief. You have about 20 seconds to speak to it.
Amendment 154 is small but significant. It gives sheriffs the flexibility to consider all the circumstances of a case before making a decision on granting land attachments.
We will also support Gordon Jackson's amendments. It is imperative that some condition is built into the bill to allow monitoring of the impact of the quite draconian provisions that are being put in place.
It is a simple moral issue. I have yet to find anyone outside this Parliament with whom I have discussed the issue who does not express absolute amazement and incredulity that the Parliament and the Executive could actually be considering removing people's houses for a debt of £3,000. That is ludicrous. It is a simple moral issue and has zero to do with party politics.
The argument advanced by some of my colleagues—that we must have a severe provision so that we can get hold of the chancers—is dealt with in the note that we received from Citizens Advice Scotland. It points out that there are all sorts of alternative ways of dealing with chancers, and that the chancers are clever enough to put their houses in somebody else's name anyway. As I do not have time to read it out, I refer members to that note from Citizens Advice Scotland, which sets out all the alternatives.
The minister is at the last milestone before Damascus and he has had a vision, but he has not been converted. Instead, he has said to the Almighty, "Oh, well, that's interesting. I might think about it in two years' time." It is pathetic to come up with a manuscript amendment that is so feeble. It hits at the heart of democracy. We are here to legislate. What we are being asked to do is not to legislate, but to give a minister the power to legislate in a wee while if he thinks that that is right. We are abdicating our power. If we support bills such as this there is no point in our coming here; we could stay at home and let the ministers get on with it. This is an important moral issue and I beg members not to worry about who is making what proposal or to stay with whips and scorpions. For heaven's sake, if we have a conscience, we must vote with our conscience for something that is morally sound.
I referred earlier to my concerns about land attachment, which have been echoed around the chamber. I do not intend to repeat all the points that have been made. It is worth commenting that, when the committee considered the bill at stage 1, there was no evidence whatsoever of any demand from any quarter for the introduction of the new diligence. The credit industry and debt recovery agencies did not say that it must be introduced, so it is difficult to see what justification there is for it. Having said that, I understand what the minister has said about the bill requiring to be a balance. The difficulty is that if we make diligence too hard for the creditor, it will go straight for bankruptcy, under which the family home is not protected. Therefore, there is a balance to be drawn. It is not quite as simple as saying that we cannot have any form of diligence against property.
Will the member elaborate on how the family home is protected, considering the test in the bill? The only protection that exists is the unduly harsh. For everyone who loses their home it is unduly harsh, so what is the protection?
The point is that I do not believe that the bill protects the family home, because any creditor owed a debt of more than £3,000 can petition for sequestration, which has the result that the family home becomes available. I am trying to make the point that there is no protection for the family home in the bill.
There is another point worth making. Sometimes the debate is presented along the lines of those who seek to recover money being large companies and credit agencies that attack the poor. We must remember that the great majority of diligences—more than 80 per cent in Scotland—are instructed by the public sector. By far the largest users of debt recovery are local authorities seeking to recover council tax and business rates. We need to remember that when we debate the issue.
There is a balance to be struck. I welcome the Executive amendments, although I feel that they have not gone far enough. There are some attractions in Alex Neil's amendment 150, but the difficulty is that if we exempt the dwelling-house completely from land attachment, it will encourage creditors to go straight for bankruptcy. I do not believe that that is in the wider interest of either the debtor or society, so I oppose amendment 150.
Amendment 154, in the name of Alex Neil, is a sensible amendment to ask the sheriff to have regard to all the circumstances in the case. We will support both that and the amendments in Gordon Jackson's name. They build in a review process, which is a sensible additional approach.
As other members have said, the land attachment provisions are by far and away the most controversial of the bill, as they give creditors the right to force the sale of a family home for a debt of as little as £3,000. As members well know, advice groups and housing charities are up in arms about the proposition, suggesting that it is vastly more draconian than measures that the Parliament rejected by passing the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Act 2001.
The bill clearly has to strike a balance between the rights of creditors and debtors. It must protect debtors from unscrupulous creditors and creditors from unscrupulous debtors. Land attachments are way out of kilter in that, and the balance has not been struck. The bill introduces a thoroughly draconian practice that is potentially humiliating to debtors; there will be a real prospect of them losing their homes. There is the possibility that people will get unsecured loans that are in effect secured against their homes, and they will pay a far higher rate of interest as a consequence.
Gordon Jackson said that if no great harm is done by the bill, we have nothing to fear. He might want to check the Law Society of Scotland's evidence. Its representative said:
"Once people hear how land attachment is going to work, there will be a queue."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 21 March 2006; c 2853.]
People will be queuing at the door to try to enforce it. The reality is that it will be a measure not of last resort for creditors, but of first resort.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have the time.
As other members have made clear, the rich will avoid their debts, and it is vulnerable debtors who will be penalised most by the measure. There are far better alternatives than land attachment: lodging an inhibition, earnings arrestments, bank arrestments, and attachments on luxury goods—we should remember that the essence of the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Act 2001 was to ensure attachments on luxury goods and not household items.
The minister says that he will see after 15 months whether there is evidence that there has been increased risk of homelessness, but that will be far too late. How many people are going to be made homeless before the minister intervenes? The bill threatens the good work that the Parliament has done—and can be proud of doing—to tackle homelessness. In one measure, we risk undoing a great deal of the progress that we have made. The Scottish Socialist Party supports all the amendments to rescind the measure, and we attach our concerns to the worries about what is a grave attempt to undermine the rights of debtors in Scotland.
I suspend consideration of amendments, because it is time for general question time.