Chamber and committees

Good morning and thank you for inviting me along to give evidence on these four Scottish statutory instruments, which all relate to the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023. The act is derived from the Scottish Law Commission’s report on moveable transactions.

The draft Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023 Amendment Regulations 2025 do a number of things. First, the instrument ensures that the definition of insolvency contained in the 2023 act is appropriate and is in line with the overall policy intention of the legislation. Secondly, it makes necessary minor technical amendments and corrections to the act, for the purpose of giving full effect to the act as intended.

The then Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, who led the legislation through its parliamentary stages, signalled at stage 3 that, in light of stage 2 non-Government amendments to the definition of insolvency and subsequent Government amendments at stage 3 to modify the amended definition, there would be benefit in taking time to consult further in order to get that right, and that the powers in the act could be used to make any necessary further amendments. The changes to the definition of insolvency that are before us reflect that consultation.

The other changes are essentially technical and arose from further scrutiny of the 2023 act after it had been passed. Some inconsistencies were identified and the amendments ensure that those are addressed.

The second SSI—the draft Registers of Scotland (Fees and Plain Copies) Miscellaneous Amendments Order 2025—sets the fees that the keeper of the registers of Scotland will charge for use of the register of statutory pledges and the register of assignations, and for the provision of copies of and extracts from those two new registers, which were established under the 2023 act.

Registers of Scotland consulted on those fees last year, when a registration fee of £80 was proposed. That figure was based on the principle of cost recovery and used estimates of registration volumes that were derived from detailed stakeholder engagement over a number of years.

Respondents viewed the proposed fees as being prohibitively high and excessive, to the extent that the registers might not be used, impacting on the intended legal reforms under the act. The consultation prompted further engagement between Registers of Scotland and key stakeholders. More detailed information was obtained regarding the likely use of the two new registers, which allowed the anticipated volumes of applicants to be revised upwards. The result was a lower register of assignations registration fee of £30, as is set out in the order, with a £30 registration fee for an initial, or single, statutory pledge within a statutory pledge document, and a £5 fee for each additional statutory pledge for which a separate registration application is made.

Fees for making corrections to the register of statutory pledges, which include discharging statutory pledges from the register and correcting any mistakes that were introduced into the register by the applicant, are kept low, at £10. It is hoped that those fees will encourage users to maintain entries for statutory pledges over time, ensuring that the register is accurate and preventing it from becoming cluttered.

The fees for plain copies and extracts are in line with those charged by the keeper of the registers of Scotland for the other registers that are under her control, and searches of the two new registers are charged at £3 per search, under the existing Registers of Scotland (Fees) Order 2014.

The third SSI—the Moveable Transactions (Forms) (Scotland) Regulations 2024—provides for the form of a pledge enforcement notice and a correction demand for use in relation to statutory pledges, as created under the 2023 act.

The fourth SSI—the Moveable Transactions (Register of Assignations and Register of Statutory Pledges Rules) (Scotland) Regulations 2024—sets out rules for how the two new registers will operate on a practical level. That includes the making up and keeping of the registers; procedures in relation to registration and correction; and the form of documents and information to be used in connection with the registers. It is of particular note that the regulations set out that both registers will be electronic; they also set out the information that the applicants will be required to provide when making applications for registration.

I am happy to answer any questions about the SSIs.

The keeper will be watching that as part of her on-going business and engagement with ministers. The same would apply to the whole range of fees that ROS charges for various services. I do not think that there is any specific trigger for a review, but there would be a process—annually, I think—whereby there would be the opportunity to engage on that.

That is a good point. The best plan is for us to take that away and reflect on it, and then come back to you. As I said, when individuals were taken out of the scope of the bill, the sense was that there was no requirement for that, because the vast bulk of money advice agencies would be operating on behalf of individuals. However, you are right that a sole trader could find themselves in that position. I will go and check what that situation looks like at the moment. I do not know whether we have got any data on how many searches we might expect money advice organisations to undertake, but I suspect that it would not be a big number in the grand scheme of things. We will reflect on that, engage with the keeper and respond to the committee.

There is provision for that to be done. I suppose that your question is why people would do that. People on both sides of the transaction have an interest in keeping the registers up to date, as they reflect their commercial reality. Does anyone else want to comment?

Putting that information up is a necessary part of the process, is it not? The whole point is to make that information visible.

The question is whether there is an onus on the registers to verify information that they are presented with. Indeed, it is not even information that is the issue, because the information will be accurate; it is the intent behind the information. I suppose that the answer to that is that the register can only check what is in front of it.

The information might also be commercially sensitive. I assume that we do not put every invoice on to the register.

That is a good point. The registers would make that information easily available for anyone who chose to search for it. You are absolutely right that raising awareness of the change is important.

Jill, would you like to comment on what we have done specifically in that regard?

In general, Registers of Scotland brings in enough revenue through its various activities to cover its costs, which, from a public finance point of view, is very welcome. That is the principle to which we operate in order to understand the costs of running the service and the likely number of transactions. We used that to arrive at a fee structure that would allow ROS to cover its costs as a consequence.

The initial £80 was based on an estimate of the number of transactions. That estimate was then revised as more work was undertaken in order to have a more thorough understanding of that. We estimate that there will be 25,000 transactions or thereabouts over the period of a year once the registers are up and running. If we do the calculations on that, with our estimated running costs, which are close to £1 million when everything is up and running, we come to that schedule of charges. That is why it is there.

It is about getting the balance right with regard to what people will feel is reasonable. Extensive consultation was undertaken on the matter, and many of the points that you raise were made. That was part of the reason for reducing the £80 charge to £30. I am not sure how many sheep you can buy for £30, but, in the grand scheme of things, if you are running sizeable transactions with many other fees involved, and borrowing against assets, I would expect that that figure would not be a significant issue.

As we move forward, there will be scope to revise the fees depending on whether more, or fewer, transactions come through, or how we see the costs working through.

That is a good question. I will undertake to log in and see how it works to verify that. My experience of other registers that Registers of Scotland provides is that they are very easy to use and very accessible, but others may have different views on that.