 I ask the chamber to come to order. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the Moveable Transaction Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments that members should have, the bill as amended at stage 2 is SP Bill 15A, the martial bliss and the groupings of amendments. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request-to-speak buttons or enter the letters RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments and at group 1, contact of documents, I call amendment number 1 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 1 and to speak to all amendments in the group. At stage 2, the committee agreed to a number of amendments lodged by Jeremy Balfour, which would intend to replicate a provision made at section 2, 4 of the bill. That provision enables a condition that has to be specified to be specified by reference to another document. The amendments made at stage 2 were designed to add comparable provision in respect of requirements to identify a claim, encumbered property and a secured obligation in certain documents. I said at stage 2 that, although I did not think that those amendments were strictly necessary because the context was different, we had no objection to making the changes if stakeholders considered that that clarification would be helpful. However, there were some technical deficiencies with the amendments, and I indicated that they would need adjusting at stage 3. Those amendments were therefore correct the technical deficiencies that we identified. Amendments 1 and 2 addressed the unintended consequence, created at stage 2, but meant that section 1, 2 of the bill suggested that an assignation document must include reference to another document. That was never the intention, and the amendments will ensure that it is not compulsory to refer to another document. Instead, the provision will simply permit the reference to be made to another document. Amendments 17 and 26 removed the references to data that were inserted at stage 2. Such references are unnecessary due to the default definition of a document in the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010. Under that act, document means anything in which information is recorded in any form. As such, including reference to data, is redundant. It is also confusing to mention it in some places and not others, and could lead to other references to document in the bill being construed more narrowly. Amendments 16 and 25 simply updates some cross-references in those sections, which, as a result of another amendment made at stage 2, are no longer correct. In that, I move amendment 1. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I just briefly say that we will be supporting all of these amendments in this section? Just to put on record, my thanks to the minister for taking what I was looking to do at stage 2 and making sure that it will work in practice. I am grateful for his and his officials' work around that, and I look forward to supporting those in due course. I thank Mr Balfour for the user-constructive engagement through the process. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 2, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I move to group 2 on insolfency, and I call amendment 3, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I call on the minister to move amendment 3 and to speak to all amendments in the group. At stage 2, Jeremy Balfour lodged a number of amendments that changed the definition of insolfency for the purpose of the bill. Those amendments were agreed. At the time, I set out my concerns about them. In short, I was concerned that some were unnecessary and that they did not necessarily appear to take a cohesive approach. Given the complexities in this area of law, I was therefore keen not to rush into any changes and instead take the time that was needed and available to consult with relevant academics and the accountant in bankruptcy, safe in the knowledge that we would be able to adjust that at a later stage if it was agreed that any changes were appropriate. Having taken the opportunity to consult further following stage 2, that view has only been reinforced. I can give members a flavour of the views that they expressed about the amended definition of insolfency. The accountant in bankruptcy's office advised that, while the Bankruptcy and Dead Advice Scotland Act 2014 repealed discharge on composition in bankruptcy, it did not abolish composition more generally. One of the academics consulted and noted that consumption at common law is still possible. Concerns were also expressed that the amendments made at stage 2 did not take account of international private law. A contract can provide that Scots law is to apply even where a party is not Scottish. The provisions as originally drafted covered situations that took account of cross-border issues by using non-technical language with ordinary meaning. Removing the terminology of composition was therefore considered to leave an undesirable gap. In relation to the stage 2 amendments that limited company voluntary arrangements to those that included the claim or property, we received advice from other insolfency academics that CVAs do not necessarily operate in this way. They are principally focused on debt and do not have to specifically involve the debtor's property. However, it was also clear from our initial consultation in the limited time available that the issues, especially in respect of protected trustees, are not simply ones of technicalities or semantics, the raised substantive policy issues too. That is why we intend using the time available to us over the course of the next year and the powers in the bill, which are rare for this very reason, to consult properly on the issues and bring forward informed amendments where necessary. Amendments 3 and 19, therefore, reverse the amendments made at stage 2 in relation to the definition of insolfency for individuals. Amendments 4 and 21 remove the provision that a company voluntary arrangement CVA only constitutes the insolfency of an assiner or provider for the purposes of those provisions in the bill if it includes the claim or the encumbered property in question in one moment, please. If further consultation suggests that any further financing of these provisions is required, then we will of course be open to that. However, those amendments respond now to the advice received from the accountant in bankruptcy and a number of specialist insolfency academics. I'm happy to give way to Mr Balfour. I'm grateful for the minister for his intervention. Would he agree that there have been concerns raised both by the Lost Society of Scotland and also by some practitioners around this? I welcome the further review, but will the Scottish Government commit to consult not only with academics but with those who are practising this day-in, day-out? Yes, I'm happy to give that undertaking or touching some of that further on in my remarks, but I recognise that there's a complexity to that and there are a range of views, which is why it's important that we take this opportunity over the next year to consult further with the regulation-making provisions within the act. We can act upon the outcome of that consultation and engagement, if necessary. In relation to the stage 2 amendments, which added to the definition of insolfency, the making of an order, sanctioning a restructuring plan under part 26A of the company's act 2006, the consensus says that it may be worth retaining at least in the meantime and possibly permanently. Part 26A of the company's act 2006 enables companies to apply to the court for an order, sanctioning an arrangement or reconstruction, agreed with a majority of members or creditors should they find themselves in financial difficulty. That issue has been discussed previously and the view taken was that provisions under part 26A mainly refer to companies in difficulty as opposed to those that are insolvent. We were minded towards the view that this amendment could therefore be too broad. Having consulted further, we agree that relevant financial difficulties may, in practice, in fact mean that the company is technically insolvent and that the position is comparable to certain arrangements that are already listed in sections 4 and 47, which also do not require actual insolfency. While we are therefore content to retain this amendment, it was erroneously inserted into the definition of when an individual is insolvent, when it is about a company restructuring plan. Amendments 2020-23 therefore correct the stage to amendment so that it applies to company insolfency provisions. In the course of consulting with the academic experts, a couple of other issues were identified. The first issue identified was that the matter dealt with by amendments 4 and 21 in relation to company voluntary arrangements also applies to part 26A arrangements. Amendments 6 and 23 therefore address that. The second issue identified was that, from a private international law perspective, it made sense to replicate the provisions at section 46A6 and 47A6. Those sections include analogous arrangements worldwide in the list of circumstances for which an individual is deemed insolvent. Amendments 7 and 24 therefore now make comparable provision for corporate persons. Amendments 5 and 22 simply fix where conjunctions appear as a result of the stage 2 changes. I hope that members will appreciate that the amendments that I am bringing forward in this group have been based on consultation with experts in the time available, but that is not the end of the story. To reiterate my remarks to Mr Balfour, we intend to explore the matter further to ensure that the right result is reached. I therefore ask members to support the amendments, and I move amendment 3. Thank you, minister. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 4 to 7 on block. Moved on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 4 to 7? No member objects, and therefore the question is that amendments 4 to 7 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I turn to group 3 review of act. I call amendment 8 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendment 34. I call the minister to move amendment 8 and to speak to both amendments in the group. At stage 2, four non-government amendments were lodged, which would have placed a duty on Scottish ministers to review and report on the impact of the legislation. Two of those amendments were agreed. The first of these requires us to prepare and publish a report setting out the impact of the waiver of defence laws in section 131. The second of these requires us to undertake a review of the act as a whole, particularly with reference to the impact on sole traders and small businesses, and report on that review after the end of the review period. I was not in favour of either of these amendments at stage 2. They seemed to me to be very inflexible. On the review of the defence of waiver clauses in particular, I thought that a formal review after a prescribed period of time seemed unnecessary, given the lack of any indication of current or, indeed, future problems. It is dictating now the use of future resources when there may never be any issues with this provision and attention may be better used elsewhere. Both the Government and the Parliament do, of course, have the ability to carry out a review at any time that it becomes apparent that one is appropriate. That facility, combined with the commitment to engaging with stakeholders on a regular basis, on any issues with how the legislation operates in practice, seemed to me a more proportionate and responsive approach. I recognise, though, that at least the general review amendments reflected a recommendation at the stage 1 report. Rather than seek to reverse those amendments, I have instead brought forward amendments to make them work more reasonably. Those amendments therefore combine the review duties. If there is a requirement to review the act as a whole, that can include a review of the way that the waiver of defence clause provisions are operating. We do not think that there is any need for a separate review. Combining the duties into one review that is carried out at the same time will also be more economical for the public purse. Amendment 34 does, however, ensure that this issue is one that the review will cover. Most importantly, unlike section 113A at present, the revised review period will be pegged to the point in time at which the main provisions of the bill come into force, as opposed to when the bill receives royal assent. We already know that the bill will not come into force until well into 2024. That is because the registers need to be available, the various regulations need to be in place, and the section 104 order to bring financial instruments within the scope of the provisions needs to be agreed. If we stick with the royal assent formula for the clock to start ticking, there will be more than a year of time within the review window in which the legislation will not even have come into force. That simply does not make sense. Amendment 34 will also extend the review period from three years to five years. The original recommendation of the committee was ambivalent on this point, recommending three to five years. We think that the latter is more sensible. We only need to consider the last three years to realise that the disruption to business caused by the pandemic would likely have rendered any review premature because many relevant business activities would have been quite different than normal for a substantial period of the review period. The change to five years builds on some flexibility to what is otherwise a prescriptive approach and should hopefully ensure that there is sufficient time for the legislation to bed in properly before the review takes place. The minister for the engagement knows that I moved some of the amendments at stage two. Amendment 8, as he has outlined, removes the requirement of the Government to report on the waiver of defence. The minister knows that I argued strongly at stage two that I thought it was appropriate because there was some suggestion that that may cause difficulties, and we do not know. A sound reporting mechanism is in place to ensure that the impact of the waiver of defence clause is given consideration that I felt was important. Indeed, steps are in place to ensure that MSPs can question Government over the impact of the clause, should there be any negative impacts identified and that require mitigation. He indicated that there are options for review and I note his comments in terms of the overall review, but, in my view, having reporting expectations on this set out within the legislation removes the challenges that we may face further down the line as MSPs. In relation to amendment 34, again, as you have outlined, a reporting amendment altered. Amendment 34 removes the requirement for the Scottish Government to report on the effectiveness of the legislation impact on sole traders and individuals within three years of royal assent. That requirement is replaced, as you have said, with a duty of report within five years from the point where section 1 and 40 of the legislation committee affect. I think that that is disappointing, as we do believe and we did argue that the three-year reporting offered a good balance for embedding the legislation but good protection on any difficulties with the introduction of the legislation. For those reasons, we will vote against those amendments. We will be supporting the Scottish Government in regard to that. The reason for that is because you have brought in amendment 34, which I think is a backstop and a safety that we require. It is fair to say that, if we look back over the past 20-plus years of the Scottish Parliament, one of the things that we have collectively not been good at is post scrutiny legislation, and often legislation that we think will work well in fact just does not. The reason why amendment 34 is important is that we can in a few think that MSPs' committees will look at this and review it and take evidence, but in practice that sadly does not often happen. I think that we need a more formal basis for that. I am persuaded by the minister's argument in regard to extending that two- or five-year period because of how it will work in practice. I think that with the other amendments that are in place as well in regard to protection for individuals, I am more relaxed than I was at stage 1 of this. With the guarantees that the minister has given, we will on this side be supporting the two amendments. First, I agree with my colleague Carol Mocken, but I also reflect on a very important point that Jeremy Balfour just raised. One of the key functions of this Parliament is to review legislation. It is one of the arguments for bringing the Scottish Parliament into being because, frankly, there was simply a lack of time to do that job in Westminster. I therefore feel that it is always disappointing when we hear from ministers that we do not have time or it is unnecessary to put these review clauses in legislation. I welcome the fact that the minister is maintaining it, but I would just simply ask whether or not there is need to think about how the Government does this more systematically, because I think that it is something that should be incorporated as a matter of course in legislation. I would also like to push it on the point. Why is it an issue to name check specific issues that have occurred through the scrutiny or been highlighted through the scrutiny of legislation? Ultimately, what is specified in legislation, both here and more generally when that occurs, is not prescriptive about how much work needs to go into that review nor the length of reporting that would be required. Simply that the review on those topics occurs. I would just like to push the Government, because I do not think that it is prescriptive. I think that all that it would require is for the report to contain those topics. I thank members for their comments and Mr Balfour for their support. I have listened to Daniel Johnson just to refer to what the amendment says, what it is inserting. The Scottish ministers must, as soon as it is reasonably practicable after the end of the review period, undertake a review of the operations of this act and prepare a report on that review. Two, the report must in particular set out A, an assessment of one, the impact of allowing the debtor to waive the right to assert defences as provided for in section 131. Two, how well the provisions regarding statutory pledges are working in relation to sole traders and small businesses, and B, the steps that any of the Scottish ministers propose to take as a result of the findings of the review. The amendment does exactly what the Labour Party is seeking. It takes the two reviewing requirements that were inserted at stage 2. It combines them into one so that it can be more efficiently undertaken and extends the review period to five years. As things currently stand, the clock starts with royal assent. That would be assuming Parliament parties bill this afternoon, at some point in the summer. We are already one year into the review period, of a three-year review period, when the legislation is not in operation. The amendments that stand from stage 2 are technically deficient. That is a far better solution. I would ask the Labour Party to reconsider their opposition. That delivers exactly what the Labour Party wants. It prescribes specifically in legislation the requirements around waiver of defence and indeed the impact on sole traders, which was the intention of Ms Malkin's amendment at stage 2. It allows the review period to operate in a way that we would not have a year when the legislation is not enforced, but that has been counted as part of the review period. On that basis, I would ask the Labour Party to support the amendment, which is proportionate. It delivers what was agreed at stage 2, but it does support in a much more effective and economical way. That will include Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 8, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. My app is saying that vote failed could not connect. I would have voted yes. I will make sure that vote is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 8 in the name of Tom Arthur is yes, 89, no, 21. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The question is that we now move to group 4, minor and technical amendments. I call amendment, if that was a point of order from Jackie Bailey, she's too late, I'm afraid. Group 4, minor and technical amendments. I call amendment 9 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I invite the minister to move the amendment and speak to all other amendments in the group. Amendment 9 and 10 are of a minor and technical nature and correct and oversight. At stage 2, amendments were agreed to section 14 of the bill regarding the right to withhold performance until certain information about an asignation is provided. Those amendments made provision as to how the rules in that section applied to code letters. The amendments should also have been applied to the case where the request relates to any condition attached to the asignation. That is achieved by those amendments. That means that there will be consistency across section 14 that a code letter can only withhold performance where awaiting a response to a request they have made. Turning next to amendments 15 and 32, two amendments were agreed at stage 2, which had the effect of adding trustees and agents to the definitions of secured creditor and asignee. At the time, I set out my concerns about those amendments being both unnecessary and confusing. The general law of agency already applies without agents needing to be expressly mentioned, but in any event there is also provision made about representatives at section 162 of the bill, which explicitly provides that someone who is required to do a thing can have someone else do it for them. I have considered whether we can reasonably maintain the provisions as amended at stage 2 if they could be said to be unnecessary but harmless. However, we feel that, while well-intentioned, they are in fact actively problematic. Legislation does not normally deal expressly with trustees and agents, since the general law deals with that suitably. It would be cumbersome to always have to mention every possible representative capacity in which a person could act. Mentioning trustees and agents here in the way that has been done could have unhelpful consequences for other legislation. More directly, those stage 2 amendments mention agents in relation to asignees, but not asignors, suggesting that an asignor could not appoint an agent, which is not the intention. The same issue arises in relation to providers, where the change that has been made implies that they could not appoint an agent. Further problems could also arise such as that an agent may be authorised to undertake one task but not another, and yet the amendment includes them wholesale. Risks are empowering an agent to act beyond the authority that the person appointing them has authorised. Amendments 15 and 32, therefore, reverse the amendments made at stage 2 by removing the references to trustees or agents from the respective definitions of secured creditor and asignee. However, I emphasise that that does not mean that trustees or agents will be unable to act. The former Scottish Law Commissioner, who is responsible for the bill, has confirmed that he agrees with our approach on that. Turning now to amendment 27, section 76 sets out the circumstances in which a secured creditor must make an application for the removal of an entry from the statutory pledges record. One of the circumstances is where diligence has been executed against the encumbered property of the statutory pledge. In the course of consulting further with the Scottish Law Commission's working group, as promised in respect of a non-government amendment lodged to this section at stage 2, it was flagged that execution of diligence is the starting point and not the same as the realisation of the property as a result of the diligence. Amendment 27 therefore replaces the reference to execution with enforcement in section 76, on the basis that it is arguably premature to tie the commencement of diligence to the making of an application for the mandatory removal of an entry from the statutory pledges record. As often diligence is executed, but realisation of the property never happens for one reason or another. Finally, we have identified a discrepancy between part 1 and part 2 of the bill. In part 1, it is stated that where two or more persons are co-assigners or co-assignees in relation to a claim, a reference to an assignor or assignee is to be read as meaning all of them. The equivalent interpretation section for part 2 of the bill does not include comparable provisions. Amendment 33 rectifies the position so that the same rule is applied to co-providers and co-secured creditors of a statutory pledge. On that, I move amendment 9. Amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I move to group 5. I call amendment 11 in the name of the minister. Group with amendment 29. I move amendment 11 and speak to the other amendment in the group minister. In the committee's stage 1 report, it recommended that not-for-profit money advisers would be exempted from the fee structure, which will apply to searches of the assignation record and the statutory pledges record in cases where those advisers do not charge individuals for their services. Amendments intended to achieve that were agreed at stage 2. I did not support the amendments on the basis that the fees, which will apply for registration events and searches into two new registers, will be the subject of consultation before the fee structure is established in regulations under the bill. That consultation remains, in my view, the best vehicle for a proper examination of all of the issues. On a practical level, at stage 2, individuals acting as consumers were removed from being able to grant a statutory pledge under part 2 of the bill. If that change is made, it is unclear to me why not-for-profit money advisers would be routinely searching the register of statutory pledges on behalf of individual consumers. There is also some doubt over whether the searches of the register of assignations would be of much assistance to not-for-profit money advisers. Where debts have been assigned in a bulk assignation transaction, it is highly unlikely that the debtor's name will appear anywhere on the register. In any event, the register could only be searched by reference to the assignor of the debt, not the debtor. In addition, the system has been designed so that the debtor is not expected to search the register. That is why the bill provides that a simple failure to search the register does not mean that the debtor is acting in bad faith if they make payment to the original creditor. Having said all of that, I appreciate the spirit behind the intention of the amendments made at stage 2, and I also accept that, as lightly usage will be de minimis, there is no real harm in those amendments. Registers of Scotland have raised some valid logistical issues about how eligibility for an examination would work in practice, but those should be capable of being addressed out with the bill. I am therefore not seeking to overturn those amendments, but I want to address a potential unintended consequence. As the bill stands, the exemptions can be read as applying to searches made by not-for-profit money advisers who do not charge individuals for services, regardless of whether the search in question is being carried out for an individual or for a corporate body. Those amendments would therefore clarify that the exemption would apply only where the search in question is being carried out by a not-for-profit money adviser on behalf of an individual who is receiving their services pro bono. I move amendment 11. Thank you, minister. You have left colleagues speechless once again. I do not know whether there is anything that you want to add in your wind-up. Nothing further. No, the question is therefore that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed. We move to group 6. Extracts. I call amendment 12 in the name of the minister group with amendments 13, 30 and 31. I put the minister to move amendment 12 and speak to all the amendments in the group. The Land Registration Act 2012 makes provision that enables a request for an extract from the land register to be limited to a specified point in time. In turn, the keeper has a duty to meet such a request but only where it is reasonably practicable to do so. At the suggestion of the registers of Scotland, amendments 12 and 30 make equivalent provision in respect of the two registers provided for in the bill. That is a sensible and proportionate measure. Amendments 13 and 31 are consequential amendments to take account of the fact that an extract will therefore no longer always be evidence of the contents of the register at the time it is issued. It might instead be evidence of the contents at a specified point in time. On that, I will move amendment 12. Thank you again. No other members wish to speak. Is there anything that you wish to add by way of wind-up minister? Nothing further, Presiding Officer. No, the question then is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 13 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 12. Minister to move formally. Moved. Thank you. That is the question that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. We move to group 7, Asignation Information Rights. I call amendment 14 in the name of the minister in a group of its own. Minister to move and speak to amendment 14. Section 34 of the bill requires a registered assignee to provide information about certain matters to specify to people with irrelevant interests. A concern was raised by a member of the Scottish Law Commission working group that the bill does not hold the registered assignee liable for failure to provide relevant information that is not expressed or covered by the duty in section 34. We have therefore looked again at what information we have required the registered assignee to provide. We do not think that it would be reasonable to hold the registered assignee liable unless there is a clear requirement to provide information on a particular matter, and it is information that is within their knowledge. The example that was raised as a particular concern was whether the claim has been further assigned by the registered assignee. Amendment 14 therefore adds a further subsection to section 34.1 so that a registered assignee is required to answer a query as to where a further assignation document has been granted by them. As this information will always be within their knowledge, and as it is relevant to the question of whether that person continues to hold the claim, we consider it reasonable that that information should be provided in the limited circumstances that are covered by section 34. I move amendment 14. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed. I call amendments 15, 16 and 17, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 15 to 17 on block. I ask any member to object to the single question being put. There are no objections. Therefore, the question is that amendments 15 to 17 are agreed. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Group 8 on the pledge soul traders etc. Amendment 18, in the name of the minister, and the group of minutes own. I invite the minister to move and speak to amendment 18. When the principles of this bill were debated in this chamber at stage 1, I gave an undertaking to remove the ability of individual consumers to grant a statutory pledge. That was in response to the concerns that had been expressed by Citizens Advice Scotland and the money and debt advice agencies about the possibility that predatory lenders would abuse the new statutory pledge by offering loans to vulnerable consumers using ordinary household goods as collateral. Those concerns were also echoed by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in their stage 1 report. However, there was also consensus that in changing this for individuals, soul traders should not be stripped of the ability to benefit from using the statutory pledge. The promised amendments to exclude individual consumers were passed at stage 2. As such, an individual can now only grant a statutory pledge if acting in the course of their business or the activities of a charity or unincorporated association. In such a case, the assets also have to be permitted assets. The most crucial part of that role is that it means that for soul traders the asset has to be a business asset, one used wholly or mainly for the purposes of their business. However, to ensure that we fully protect ordinary household assets from being pledged, we also imposed a minimum monetary value. This provides an added protection for soul traders in respect of assets that are used for a dual purpose, for example primarily for business purposes but occasionally for personal purposes. We set that threshold at £3,000, which was significantly higher than the comparable threshold of £1,000, which the bill has introduced, including for individual consumers. Importantly, there is also a power to amend the threshold at any time. However, an amendment was also passed at stage 2, which provided that the monetary limit for the value of property to be pledged should be subject to annual update in line with the retail prices index. I said at the time that, while well-intentioned, we think that it is unnecessary to make provision in this way. Notwithstanding the recent cost crisis, inflation in the past few years has been relatively low and the current figure is expected to fall. The threshold that was introduced at stage 2 is significantly higher than the comparable £1,000 threshold, which applied to individual consumers at introduction. That new threshold is set at £3,000, and it is a power allowing the threshold to be increased further as and when that is appropriate. Crucially, that threshold is not the primary means of protecting ordinary household items from being pledged. That is achieved by excluding individual consumers altogether and by only allowing soul traders to pledge business assets. The situation is therefore now very different from the one in which the committee commented in its stage 1 report. To amend a figure in the act annually would mean that affirmative regulations have to be brought before the Parliament. Since the rise will often be of a negligible order, we did not believe that this was the best use of parliamentary time. Any approach that ties the figure exactly to an inflationary calculation would also lead to unmemorable figures such as £3,277.63, rather than the clarity and simplicity of having a threshold at £3,000 or £3,500 and so on. Those were the reasons for why I did not think that it was necessary or appropriate for there to be a requirement for annual operating of the threshold, as opposed to simply an ability to adjust a figure. However, I have other concerns about the specific amendment that was made at stage 2. Importantly, it did not actually provide for the threshold to be changed on the face of the act. We believe that this would lead to significant confusion. This confusion could not even be avoided by ministers using the separate powers that exist to change the figure on the face of the act. The way that provision works, any new figure that is inserted under that power would itself have to be read as if further increased by inflation. Therefore, there would be double counting, as well as people still being told by the act that the threshold is a figure that is not actually the threshold. I do not think that that is an acceptable outcome. I appreciate the good intentions behind the provision, even though the threshold is not the primary means of keeping out ordinary household goods. It is absolutely right that it keeps pace with inflation over time, but we already have a mechanism to ensure that that happens. I remain strongly of the view that it would be more efficient to simply update the figure as and when required, taking into account the level of inflation prevalent at the time. Depending on that rate of inflation, the figure on the act may have to be amended more often if inflation is higher, but less often if it is lower. That is altogether a more flexible and responsive approach. It also avoids all of the significant technical difficulties with the detail of amendment that was made at stage 2. In short, should the threshold rise over time? Yes, but we are best to do so using the existing power in the bill, not an annual formula-driven approach, especially one in which people are left to work out for themselves. We have a common aim that is simply a different means of achieving that aim. For all those reasons, amendment 6 reverses the changes that were made at stage 2 and removes the provision that the threshold should be read as subject to annual update in line with the retail price index. I ask members to support it, and in that I move amendment 18. Can I start by acknowledging the protections around household goods that were brought into place at stage 2? I acknowledge the minister's discussions around that and thank him for doing that. As he said, amendment 18 removes stage 2 about the annual uprating. I have listened quite closely to what the minister has said. As he has acknowledged himself, it is quite a technical piece of legislation. In some ways, a lot of what the minister has done so far today has been tidied up amendments. I wonder whether we could have tidied up some of those, because I believe that the committee report made recommendations about the retail price index reference. At stage 2, we agreed that there was quite broad agreement that that would be helpful, and certainly at stage 1 it was across the parties. The automatic updating annually in terms of reference to the retail price index ensures that it is explicitly within the bill. There would be an expectation about the ability to increase that figure, but there would be the delegated powers to perhaps round the figures up if that was the point that you were making in your remarks. We need to ensure that the Scottish Government has a reason and a date that it has to look at. That was the purpose of linking it to the retail price index. I appreciate that the minister sees that as an overkill, but I believe that it would be helpful to have in the bill that the Parliament has to regularly update it, and it would seem sensible that it would link it to the retail price index. Overall, I would say that that amendment was justified and that there would have been tidying up that we could have done to make that work, but I thank the minister for his remarks in that regard. I think that it would be fair to say that, of all the areas within the bill, this was probably the most controversial that we looked at when we took evidence and in our stage 1 report. I did support the amendments that are now seeking to be overturned at stage 2, because everyone on the committee felt that there had to be a mechanism there to see that figure increase as time went on. Having listened to the minister this afternoon, I am persuaded again with his debating skills to support the amendment. I am sure that, as time goes on, if, for whatever reason, the Scottish ministers did not increase the figure, there would come pressure from outside groups, from third parties and from opposition groups to see that figure go up. That gives us a way forward to reassure that the amount of money will go up, but, at the same time, I take the point that it will not be on the face of the bill with any changes and it will mean that there will not be an absolute clarity in regard to what people will look at that bill and understand it to be. We could also end up with some really strange figures depending on what figure inflation is. With all those considerations taken in, we will be supporting the Government's amendment in regard to this. It was my proposal at the Delegated Personnel Reform Committee that an automatic inflator was included in the bill. It is disappointing that the minister perhaps could not have been more innovative in his response simply to extract this measure, which, as he admitted, was well intentioned. I am glad that he at least recognises that, but surely he recognises that other practices across Government, for example, most benefits in the social security system are uprated every April, according to the Consumer Prices Index, and that was the spirit in which this was being attempted to achieve. If he does not think that this particular amendment was well drafted, perhaps he could at least give a commitment that the Government will undertake to review the threshold every financial year by statutory instrument and uprate it accordingly, okay, maybe an automatic formula will produce odd figures, but even then that could have been adjusted to say round it to the nearest £100 and so on, so it simplifies the procedure. Perhaps there could be an alternative mechanism to achieve the outcome that we agree is needed to safeguard it, create a double lock, if you like, would be to commit through statutory instrument every financial year to review the figure so that it can be inflation-proofed accordingly, and similar practice is undertaken for social security benefits. Thank you, Mr Sweeney, and I call Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I mean, just really to reiterate the points that have been made by my colleagues Karen Watkins and Paul Sweeney, and just really to point out to minister, even 2 per cent, which is the target rate targeted by the Bank of England, over five years would in effect mean that any figure is worth 10 per cent less over that five years because of compounding. So while I accept that what is going to be in this bill gives the ministers the ability to do it, that means that they can do it. It doesn't mean that they will or have to. I think that as much as the minister understandably objects to some other elements being about time consuming and about not overcomplicating things, surely this having a mechanism to deal with this, that it happens automatically, makes life simpler for the Government. So very much in the spirit of what Paul Sweeney was just saying there, while I understand that there may be technical problems of what was there, surely it would have been better to have tidied that up and ensured that there was a mechanism to make it simpler, straightforward and ensure that it does happen, not just ensure that it can happen. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I call Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer, just on this particular amendment. I think that the key point for me in this particular one is the starting point. When the committee examined the figures to extrapolate where inflation would be and what the initial sum would have been, it went from £1,000 to about £1,300. It is fair to say that everyone in the committee was quite surprised by such a low threshold. The starting point, which we have already agreed thus far, is to be £3,000. That is extremely important in terms of safeguarding of all of our constituents and of safeguarding consumers. I am quite content now to have that starting point, but also with what the minister has said already in the record, that that can be amended on anio basis. I think that that would be very much useful. I will take the amendment. Paul Sweeney. I think that the committee convener is for taking that intervention. I think that he makes an important point. The threshold has been increased substantially. We should welcome the measures that the Government has responded to. I am not trying to make an intervention in this in bad faith in any measure. I just think that we all want to try and achieve the same aim, which is efficient legislation. This was a measure to ensure that the appreciation, if you like, of the real value of this threshold, was not eroded over time. We know that there are many instances where the Government is just busy and it sometimes neglects to keep things up-to-date. That was just a way of making sure that that was automatically adjusted and, before we know it, we are not in a situation 10 years down the line where it has been forgotten about and then people are having possessions taken as a result of a certain neglect to keep the legislation up-to-date. Even if there was a mechanism by which the Government was compelled every financial year to up-rate it through statutory instrument, at least that would be a satisfactory remedy if the proposed amendment is staged to us as effective. I generally accept at the point that Paul Sweeney is making a fairly large debate about this in committee, but I am quite sure that the comments that the minister has already put in the record today, and I would like to think that the members of the Delegated Pills and Reform and Committee, all five of us in the committee so far, will ensure that we will be keeping this very much to the fore in the years to come, particularly in this session, whilst we are all still here. I thank all members for their comments and contributions and for their constructive engagement through this process. I welcome the support of Mr Balfour and his party. I recognise the amendments from Ms Malkin and the inception of the idea from Mr Sweeney as being well-intentioned. I recognise that we have, within our statutory frameworks, automatic up-rating mechanisms that are equally of our areas in which we are only able to up-rate through SSIs, if in the case of UK legislation, SSIs. There are a number of places where we risk a car when we are in regard to council tax reductions or earning harassment thresholds, for example, under diligence legislation. It is important to recognise what makes this slightly separate from some of the not-quite-as-directly-comparable is that the £3,000 threshold is part of it, the suite of measures to protect individuals. The first and most significant, of course, was the removal of individuals acting in their capacity as a consumer from the scope of the legislation in regard to the statutory pledges. That was, I think, Mr Balfour made reference to what we would have been the most contentious. That was overall the most contentious issue when the bill was introduced. The second element is the protections that exist there for those individuals acting in their capacities as sole traders or as businesses, namely that goods can only be pledged, which are wholly or mainly for the purpose of business use. That in itself would exclude household goods in the main. Notwithstanding that, we have increased the threshold to £3,000, which is significant. Of course, we retain powers through the legislation subject to the Government of Parliament, which will allow for upgrading to take place. I recognise the point that, over a period of time, the member suggested that there is a risk that the legislation is neglected and upgrading does not take place. Parliament has agreed amendments to ensure that a review of the legislation will take place within five years of it coming into effect. Notwithstanding that, there is nothing that precludes Parliament from conducting its own post-legislative review into the legislation. I am satisfied that the measures that we have in place will safeguard individuals acting in their capacity as sole traders or as businesses. I am satisfied that we have been able to reach a balanced approach through the changes that we have made to the legislation, which remove individuals acting in their capacity as consumers, but allow for sole traders to benefit from the provisions that are in statutory pledges with additional protections, recognising the concerns that were raised. Of course, that is a matter that we will keep on the review, and we have that power to respond should it be acquired in the near, medium or long-term to upgrade the £3,000 threshold. In that, I would ask members to support the amendment. Thank you very much. Minister, the question is amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote, and members should cast their votes now. And that is the vote closed. Point of order, Carol Mawr. My phone didn't seem to connect. I do apologise. I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Mawr, and I can confirm your vote was already cast. Thank you. Point of order, Denny Minter. My phone didn't connect either. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Minter. I'll make sure that it's recorded. And the result of the vote on amendment number 18 in the name of Tom Arthur is yes, 90, no 22. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendments 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, all in the name of the Minister and all previously debated. I invite the Minister to move the amendments 19 to 23 on block. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 19 to 23? There are no objections. The question is that amendments 19 to 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. We move to group 9. Pledge, amendment of pledge. I call amendment 24 in the name of the Minister. Group with amendment 28. Minister to move amendment 24 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Starting with amendment 28, this arises out of the concern expressed by Registers of Scotland that there was an inconsistency between section 565, which deals with when amendments to a statutory pledge take effect, and section 86, which deals with when an amendment to a statutory pledge can be registered. Section 56 is a standalone rule about when the change to increase a statutory pledge takes effect in certain circumstances. It does not introduce any overriding stipulation about what can be registered. The intention behind section 86 is to restrict registration of amendment documents to those cases where an amendment document requires to be registered in order to take effect. Where the secured obligation is being increased, registration is only required if the current extent of the obligation is clear from the face of the register and people would therefore be misled if that was left unchanged. However, it is clear that the lack of symmetry between the two sections is potentially confusing. Amendment 28 is intended to make the interpretation of section 86 clearer by, instead, a cross-referencing to section 56. Importantly, it does not change the result in policy terms. In looking at all of this, we came to the review that section 565 was not as clear as it could be about when things take effect, where the amended document is more than one thing. To take one example, an amendment document removes property A from the pledge and replaces it with property B. The removal of property A would not ordinarily need to be registered to take effect, but the addition of property B would. We think that the bill should be clear about whether the rule about the amendment only applying on registration covers the removal of property A 2 or whether it just covers adding property B. We would not want to leave a gap, meaning that the creditor had no security over everything for a short period. We understand that that will happen rarely as there are established drafting techniques to capture the addition of future property, but amendment 24 closes any potential gap. It provides that the default position should be that the two things take place at the same time but allows the parties to contract out of that if they so wish. The ability to contract out will, of course, be confined to the extra element of the amendment, which, if it was done in a separate document, would not require registration to take effect. Will, therefore, always be the case that adding property or increasing the secured obligation where the extent of it that is clear from the register will require effective registration? On that, I move amendment 24. Thank you very much, minister. No other members are seeking to speak. Minister, is there anything you wish to add by way of wind-up? Nothing further. Thank you. The question is amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Parliament is agreed. I call amendments 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. All in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 25 to 34 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put? There is an objection in relation to which amendment in particular. The point of order is made for clarification. The 34 was excluded from that block, was it not? It wasn't, but if that is your preference, you have no objection to the other being taken on block. We would wish to exclude amendment 34 from the block question. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. So does any member have any objection to a single question being put on amendments 25 to 33 on block? There is no objection. Therefore, the question is that amendments 25 to 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Parliament is agreed. The minister has already moved amendment 24, so the question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes on amendment 34 now. And the vote is closed. And the result of vote on amendment number 34 in the name of Tom Arthur is yes, 88. No, 21. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. That ends consideration of amendments. As members will be aware at this point in proceedings, the Presiding Officer is required, understanding orders to decide whether or not, in her view, any provision of the Bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish Parliament's elections. In the case of this Bill, in her view, no provisions of the Moveable Transactions Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the Bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. The next item of business is a debate on motion 8810, in the name of Tom Arthur, a Moveable Transactions Scotland Bill. We invite any members wishing to participate to press the request to speak buttons. I would invite members leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly. I call on the minister to speak to and move the motion around seven minutes. I would like to begin by thanking the members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their helpful and careful consideration of the Bill. I have very much welcomed the committee's thorough scrutiny of the Bill. It is clear that members have appreciated the importance of getting things right, but they have also appreciated that the process is not always straightforward. I also want to thank the committee clerks for all their hard work and those stakeholders who contributed views and opinions as part of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. The Bill is a Scottish Law Commission Bill, and I would therefore also like to thank it for the considerable work that went into the law reform project. In particular, I would like to thank Professor Andrew Steven and the members of the Scottish Law Commission's working group on this project. Even though Professor Steven is no longer a commissioner, he and his colleagues have given very generously of their time, insight and expertise throughout this process, and it has been much appreciated. I would also like to put on record my sincere thanks to the Scottish Government officials and the Bill team for their sterling work on this. The Scottish Government has also had some very useful engagement with stakeholders across a range of perspectives. I met with the Federation of Small Businesses and I met twice with representatives of the consumer advice and money advice sector. Their practical experience was important in helping me to reach policy decisions on the content of the Bill. They were mixed but some strong views on the inclusion of individual consumers in the Bill. We listened carefully to those views and to those of the committee and the Bill was amended as a result. Despite any concerns about individuals, it was clear that there was consensus that the law in Scotland on movable transactions is outdated and the changes proposed in the Bill would make a significant and positive difference for businesses in Scotland. The Bill is a product of extensive consultation and consideration, both by the Scottish Law Commission and the Scottish Government over the past decade or so, and at its heart is the aim of modernising the law of Scotland relating to movable property transactions, which is vital to the economy of any country with a developed legal system. I would just like to briefly remind the chamber about some of the key provisions in the Bill and what they are intended to achieve. Part 1 of the Bill reforms the law in relation to the assignation of debt. It will introduce a new register of assignations, which will provide an alternative to intimation, as a means for assigning debt. That should be of considerable benefit to businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has indicated that 3,500 small businesses in Scotland fail each year, not because the business is unsustainable but because the firm cannot get its customers to pay invoices, which they are due. The late payment of commercial debts interest act 1998 was introduced to give small and medium-sized enterprises the right to claim interest in late payments. However, it understood that 80 per cent of small businesses do not do so for fear of jeopardising business relationships with customers who often have greater bargaining power. That information was set out in the policy memorandum to the bill, but I think that it would be as repeating today. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way. I think that the issues that have been highlighted through the amendment stage are notwithstanding. It strikes me that this is probably the most important area, in that, for this to work, it can be effective to deliver whatever it wants. We need these registers to be efficient and operate in the way that is intended. That is very much an oversight in terms of delivery. Could the minister set out whether he first agrees with that insight and what steps will be taken to ensure that the registers are efficient and effective? Of course, there will be regulations forthcoming. The ambition is to have the registers up and running by summer of next year. It is, of course, Registers of Scotland, which is an NMO that is directly accountable to the Parliament and will be directly accountable to the Parliament on this, as well as all of our other functions. I know that members of the committee have had the opportunity—I have certainly had the opportunity as well—to see a demonstration of the alpha and beta versions of the software or the registers themselves. I think that that will be a very efficient system that it will be straightforward to use. I have no doubt that, given the outstanding work that Registers of Scotland do in delivering across a range of areas, it will have that continued engagement with stakeholders to ensure that the registers deliver on the intended outcome straight out in statute. Indeed, I know that Parliament will not maintain a keen interest in how the registers actually function. Of course, we will have the review period, as agreed for, through amendments to consider not just the operation of the bill—the specific provisions highlighted in the bill for sole traders, for example, or the waiver of defence—but, more widely, how the registers are operating in practice. I want to just come back to some of the comments from the FSB, because, in its written evidence, it provided a worrying update on the figures that I was referring to earlier, and I believe that the issue is becoming more acute. Over one in 10 Scottish firms, the late payment is now threatening the viability of their businesses. The ability of a business to assign the debts owed to them is a vital way of improving their cash flow, and that is the lifeblood of many businesses, especially micro and small businesses and new startups. The present system is cumbersome, expensive and often impractical, and it does not work in respect of future claims. I would like to once again quote from the Federation of Small Businesses written evidence to the committee at stage 1, because that is a key sector of the economy that this legislation will help. It said that the need for Scotland's small businesses to be able to access such finance options is plain. There is a maxim that it is not a lack of profitability that kills businesses but a lack of cash, and small firms' cash flow is often interrupted by the late payment of sums owed to them. The provisions in part 1 of the bill are intended to address the current problems businesses face. Part 2 of the bill deals with security over movable property. In Scotland, there is no such thing as a mortgage over movable as opposed to heritable property in the way that there is in England. Businesses here are faced instead with adopting difficult alternative arrangements that are often impractical and invariably more costly. For example, the current system of pledge requires the delivery of the property to the creditor, yet businesses require possession of the assets such as vehicles, plant and machinery in order to trade. It is understood that at least one major financial institution will not lend on plant and machinery in Scotland because of the current state of the law on movable transactions. Others will lend but have a higher rate of interest due to the complex workarounds. That is simply not good enough. It needs to change and the bill will change it. We heard this in evidence at stage 1 from UK Finance when he said that, in terms of lending against wider assets, the register of statutory pledges will be an important step forward. Large, including global, businesses seeking to borrow on the strength of extremely valuable stock that is subject to Scotland's law are again genuinely only able to do so on the basis of a floating charge at present. The most obvious example of that would be whisky stock. The new regime would allow specific fixed security to be taken against such assets, facilitating new lines of finance. In their view, too, the absence of first charge security attracts greater risk and with a higher cost of funding for the lender, which will inevitably need to be passed on to the customer business, either in whole or in part, introducing the possibility of having specific security over a range of wider assets through the register of assignations and the register of statutory pledges would help to close that gap for smaller businesses in particular. I am convinced that the provisions in the bill will result in reforms to the law, which will be of benefit to businesses across Scotland and improve the lending environment to facilitate business growth. I move that the Parliament agrees that the Movable Transactions Scotland bill be passed. I thank the Scottish Government for bringing forward this bill. It is a really important bill for business and for the commercial side here in Scotland. As the minister has outlined in his opening speech, I think that it will allow people to trade easier and quicker and more efficiently. I do think that we have been relying for far too long on English law and, certainly, the evidence that the committee took at stage 1 was simply as a work around people having to use contracts that were not really fit for Scotland's law. I think that those changes and the bill will really help. I think that there has been a really good working relationship on the committee with the Law Commission and with the Scottish Government. I think that it shows that the Parliament can work together to bring forward changes that will benefit business here in Scotland. I think that there needs to be a wider consideration, both by the Scottish Government and by the Parliament, about how we look at law commission reports and bills. That has been a long time in coming and there are quite a number of other bills in the pipeline waiting to come through that will not bring great political excitement but will radically change how people can work and live in Scotland. I appreciate that there is another one already before the committee, but I hope that the Government will keep bringing those forward over the next three years so that we can deal with some of the backlog that has built up over the last number of years. When we considered our evidence at stage 1, there were two areas that raised concern within the committee. The first one was in regard to making sure that we did not, through the back door, include individuals in regard to that. Clearly, we want sole traders and partnerships to be able to facilitate the benefits of the bill. However, what we did not want was particularly people misusing the law and then putting individuals into that. Clearly, we have had amendments from different parties around that. I do think that, on balance, we have just about reached the right stage in regard to that. I hope that individuals will not be drawn into that. I think that we are for 3,000 figure and we have also taken out individual household goods. We have protected ourselves in regard to that, but, at the same time, we are allowing individual sole traders and partnerships to benefit from that. The second area, and the minister will feel like I am a broken record on this, is around financial instruments. I do still think that this could have been in the bill, but I did not want to bring forward amendments at stage 3 in case it caused any legal problems. However, financial instruments are one of the big areas that this has to cover. I do appreciate that there is on-going work between the minister and the UK Government and, hopefully, once the bill becomes an act and once all the work is going on for the next year, that things can be progressed quickly on both sides in regard to that. I was pleased that, at stage 2, the minister gave a commitment that he is committed to this and that he will work with his officials with the Westminster Government to achieve that, but it would be helpful in his closing just to re-emphasise that again and be assured that I will be lobbying my UK colleagues at Westminster to make sure that there is no delay in regard to what is happening there. Overall, I think that this is a good bill. I think that it is a better bill, thanks to the scrutiny of the committee, and I look forward to it working in practice as soon as possible. I must almost in a sense apologise to those who put in those hard yards for being something of an interloper, but this is an important bit of legislation. For those on the outside, it might seem dry, it might seem technical, but having run a small business, I can tell you that it is really very important. Can I welcome the words from the minister reflecting the comments from the FSB, because they are absolutely right? Many small businesses find getting up and running, or just staying running, incredibly difficult because of their inability to finance. The simple reality is that, for many small business owners, they might be set up as a limited liability company, but the reality is that the only way that they can gain finance is by putting up their house as collateral. If that is in some small way, eases that freeze up provides more options than it is welcome. I think that it is also right that we actually bring the law up to date. I actually found it surprising that assignations were not possible. Those are not just important for things such as invoice finance, which is critical for small businesses, many of whom will be transacting with large corporate entities that will force them on to terms that might not reflect the reality of their cash flow, but on that corporate note, assignations are a critical part of a broad range of corporate transactions. The fact that that is not possible simply makes doing business in Scotland more difficult. It is possible to set up and run small businesses is a good thing, but facilitating business full stop in Scotland has to be a good thing. I think that there were a number of concerns raised through the passage of the bill, and I am pleased in broad terms that those have been addressed. I think that the concerns raised by Mike Daly in the Government Law Centre and others about the possibility of reintroducing warrant sales through the back door was a very real concern. I think that the £3,000 threshold, I think that the removal of individuals and making that explicit that this is not open to private individuals, and indeed the emphasis about primary business use in terms of the assets that are being used, I think, are all welcome. I would have preferred an automatic mechanism for the upgrading. We all know that inflation can undermine the value of things over time, and indeed oversight could mean that that threshold, which I think Stuart McMillan was right, is very fundamental and important, just through neglect could be undermined. However, I do note that the Government's commitment to that review, and at the very least after five years that will be reviewed, but I think that a mechanism would have been better. Likewise, I think that the Carol Mockins amendments in times of the specifics of the review, and I did hear what the minister said, I think regret that those were overturned. On the more technical points, I would just urge that we have continued interest in oversight in those registers. Fundamentally, for this to work, it's all well and good, I think, seeing beta testing of software, but ultimately, once this is up and running, ensuring that it's operating will be absolutely critical. Likewise, I think that what we need to ensure is that review period does take in all the key concerns and issues that have been flagged. It's been good to hear that on the record today from the ministers. I would also just like to finish up by ending up on some broader reflections. I think that there is a need, I think, to set out in a more standardised way what we think good practice is in terms of legislative review. Every single bit of legislation that we have in front of this place, we have the same arguments. It's really important that we have a review period and the Government says that it will be onerous and cumbersome and, of course, just trust us to get on with it. I think that we might need to reflect on that and maybe come up with a standard form of how we think that that is done. It's not over burdensome on Government, but at the same time does ensure that we keep a watch. I think that we can all agree that we're much better off if we proactively look at those things rather than fall back. I'm pleased that there is that time period here, but that's not always what we manage to gain when legislation passes. The final point is one raised by Jeremy Balfour, and it's a really critical one. The law commission does excellent work. It does that on-going tidying up that review work of the law that is so critical in terms of ensuring that our law is well functioning. However, I would note that there are 34 reports that the law commission has authored that remain outstanding on action. That's 15 per cent of all the work that it has done since its inception. I think that we need to look carefully at how that gets done, not just because there are things like the compulsory tenants associations that I would like to see in terms of ensuring that there are common repairs, but a broad range of other things, which are important. I think that we need to see that commitment from the Government to make sure that there is parliamentary time to take through those important bits of tidying up legislation, and I will leave it on that remark, Presiding Officer. Thank you. We now move to the open debate, and I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Carol Mockam. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Today I'm not speaking as the convener of the committee, but certainly as an SNP member, but I do want to put on record my regards and thanks to committee colleagues for the way in which we have conducted ourselves and the level of scrutiny of the bill throughout the process. I would also like to use some of the time to highlight the aspects of the delegate of powers and law reform committee's work on the bill, and the positive impact that I generally believe that the committee has had on the bill. I also want to acknowledge the positive way in which the Scottish Government has engaged with the committee, and it is also willing to take on board many of the concerns and issues that have been raised by the committee throughout the process. I think that the point has been touched on already as well regarding the Scottish Law Commission. As we know, when the SLC bills tend to be non-party political, non-partisan, there are more technical bills, as Daniel Johnson has alluded to. The fact that our committee has seen the number of those bills come in has highlighted the positive impact on the extension of the remit of the delegate of powers and law reform committee. It has provided that space for some of those SLC bills to be looked at, to be scrutinised, and then be implemented after the relevant scrutiny. However, I accept the point that Daniel Johnson has just made regarding the number of bills that are still on reports sitting there at the SLC. There is still a large amount of work to be done to update the Scottish Law and a wide variety of areas. I was at an event a number of months ago, and it is very unusual for someone to say that you are one of the people from the delegate of powers and law reform committee. I want to talk to you about a bill. I was at an event here in Parliament, and the very first person I spoke to, he said to me, he said, this bill that you are looking at, this moveable transactions, said that that is a hugely important piece of legislation. I said, well, certainly, it has just come into the committee and we have started the process and we are very much enjoying what we are doing with the scrutiny of the bill. The individual then said, as soon as that bill is implemented, we will be using that from day one. So it is going to touch upon Daniel Johnson's point as well, and also Jeremy Balfour's. Jeremy Balfour touched upon the issue of the workarounds that have been utilised so far and in the use of the English law, whereas this bill will actually ensure that more money is spent in Scotland, more money will be spent in the Scottish economy, and that can only be a good thing. So from the outset, the committee was clear that the bill proposes important reforms that could benefit individuals and also businesses across Scotland with access to credit and finance. However, the committee's scrutiny did raise a number of issues that the bill has introduced. I genuinely am pleased that some of the recommendations that have been taken forward, the removing of the ability of individuals to grant a statutory pledge, the taking into account the concerns heard about the potential for the bill to open up a further high-cost credit market and that we consider the protecting of consumers. Secondly, the raising of the value threshold for the statutory pledge items is £1,000 to £3,000. That certainly will further reduce the risk of household items or to be taken, and that is a good thing. Also, the requiring that only a simple electronic signature is required is making it easier to actually conduct business. I also believe that it is important that the two registers that are established by the bill are extended to include financial instruments. The committee sought regular progress updates on this throughout the scrutiny of the bill from the UK and Scottish Governments on the section 104 order, which Jeremy Balfour touched on. I think that Jeremy Balfour's final comment that he said earlier on was the issue regarding this and a quote. This is a good bill, and I would like to see it implemented as quickly as possible. If the Scottish Government did have that in the bill and the bill was then challenged at some point, that would have hampered the implementation of the bill. The process that has happened is right, so the bill can be implemented, but I absolutely agree that we would like to get an update on the section 104 discussions between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. We are certainly happy to support the bill today. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank all the members across the chamber for debating this very technical bill. As a latecomer to the committee, I recognised that quite early on. Scottish Labour at all stages has supported the modernisation of the legislation and we have recognised the positive impact that this is likely to have on access to credit and finance for many different groups and individuals. I think that my colleague Daniel Johnson laid that out quite well. We have worked hard alongside consumer and money advice organisations to get this right, and I am satisfied that, for the most part, we have achieved that. As I said, a latecomer to the committee, I think that it is important for me to come into that committee at that stage, the work that they have done and the report. It really is a thank you to the minister, to the delegated powers and law reform members that I came in to work with, and to the clerks for all the support that they gave on this, because some of the technicalities were quite difficult to work through, but everybody took the time to support each other to make sure that we got it right, because it was seen as such an important piece of legislation. I would, of course, like some of the Labour amendments to have reached the final stages of the bill. I think that we genuinely put them in place, particularly at stage 2, to improve the functioning of the bill, but I recognise that the minister has shown that he recognises that we were doing that in good faith. When the legislation was announced, there were concerns raised by various stakeholders, and that was a priority for myself and for Labour colleagues about the potential unintended consequences. I asked our question early on in the chamber, and the minister and I had a discussion about that. It was associated with the drafting of the bill and how that might affect people negatively, but I think that from today we can see that we worked hard on those, and I do recognise that in the bill. As stated, we agree with the legislation and look forward to its introduction as it removes a key competitive disadvantage that Scotland had in comparison to its friends in England. I trust that the process has moved forward with the concerns of small businesses and soul traders in mind and, as I said, the unintended consequences have been removed. I applaud the co-operation between all the parties to get us to this point. We in Scottish Labour will continue to scrutinise the bill, and I am sure that the minister will recognise that and the operation of the bill to ensure that the commitments that he has made today in the chamber are kept, and I look forward to doing that. I want to begin by thanking all those involved in the discussions, debate and scrutiny of this legislation over the course of the past few months. In particular, I thank the law commission for its report on movable transactions published back in 2017, which contained 203 recommendations for change. Our current laws relating to movable transactions are older than many countries in the world, so I am very grateful to the commission for all its work on the subject to update our legislation. I am pleased that we will today modernise Scots law in relation to transactions concerning movable property. The Law Society of Scotland has also provided ongoing and useful information and views on different components of the bill, and I am grateful to them for their insight. The bill, as several of my colleagues have said already, is technical in nature, and I thank the Delegated Powers Law Reform Committee for its forensic scrutiny at previous stages. I also thank Tom Arthur, the minister, for his engagement with me on the issue over the past few months. As someone not involved in the development or formal scrutiny of this legislation, both the committee's work and the conversations that I have had with the minister have been invaluable for my better understanding of the different elements of the bill. As we have heard, this bill seeks to modernise our laws in relation to transactions concerning corporeal and incorporeal movable property. Simply put, it will make it easier for businesses to raise finance using their movable property, such as vehicles, equipment, intellectual property, future invoises and so on. This legislation is vital for the efficient and effective operation of businesses. Enabling them to raise finance by using assets and selling debt owed to them or by granting security of a movable property will be a valuable tool for them to manage cash flow and potential financial pressures. Making those kinds of transactions more efficient, less expensive and less complicated than they currently are is certainly to be welcomed. As the minister and others have stated so plainly earlier, businesses, perhaps especially smaller businesses, who find themselves in the position of having to fold, often do so not because of lack of profitability but because of lack of cash flow. As we have heard from the whisky industry among others, the introduction of the statutory pledge with a straightforward online registration system will improve the lending environment for this and other industries, better supporting those important components of our economy. So-called idle commodities can, with a passage of this bill, be made active and active part of businesses' operations. On one of the areas of dispute today that of the automatic operating of the £3,000 threshold, I do appreciate the concerns expressed by Carol Mocken and her colleagues and the view that an automatic operating would be beneficial. It is certainly true that things like this could slip through the cracks, so I will join with Carol Mocken and others to ensure that we do not let this happen in future, and I know that she and her colleagues will be at the Government to ensure that that is the case in future years. Finally, Presiding Officer, I would like to place on record again my thanks for all of the work that Citizens Advice Scotland, Step Change and other consumer and money advice groups have done over many months to ensure that consumers were excluded from this bill, especially now at a time of the unprecedented cost of living crisis, including consumers in this legislation would cause harm, however unintentional. We will be pleased to support the legislation at decision time. Today's bill will support smaller businesses to raise finance, help them to maintain income and address rising business costs by modernising and simplifying the law on borrowing against movable, physical and intellectual property. Overall, the bill will lead to greater access to finance for businesses in Scotland. Our economic growth and prosperity over many decades has been a result of entrepreneurial, talented and motivated workers in every sector, geography and demography, working in a culture that rewards and celebrates innovation and initiative. The economic strategy recognises that and the challenges that Scotland faces over the next 10 years and what has been described as a decisive decade. In this decisive decade, growing and proving the seeds and providing the seeds for success for small and medium-sized businesses will be pivotal to moving our aspirations. This bill will form part of the steps that we need to take to meet those aspirations. The bill will give new opportunities to small and medium-sized enterprises and other businesses, allowing them to raise finance by securing funds against largely untapped assets such as vehicles, plant and machinery or even whisky stores. At the moment, Scotland's law on movable transactions is a long way behind international standards, which makes some transactions difficult or even impossible to execute here, necessitating the use of cumbersome, complicated and therefore expensive workarounds or, indeed, the use of English law, which takes longer and is more expensive for companies in Scotland. We need to give our support to the passing of this bill because if it does not progress, Scotland will fall even further behind those established international standards. I believe that the Scottish Government has worked constructively and effectively with the committee and the views of the many organisations that gave evidence. The amendments from the Scottish Government to the bill at stage 2 got the balance right protecting individual customers but not denying small businesses and sole-traisers the opportunity to utilise the provisions in the legislation. Committee members from across the political spectrum expressed their support for the principles of the bill and, as stated, I believe that the stage 2 process should have cemented that support. For those reasons, I urge members to support the passing of this important legislation that will help Scotland's businesses, help our economy and help us to meet our aspirations to deliver economic prosperity for all of Scotland's people and places. Thank you very much. We move to winding up speeches and I call on Michael Marra. The legislation that we have been considering today, although overdue, is welcome. Indeed, we have heard this afternoon that it has been welcomed across the chamber, and if the bill passes this afternoon, as we have been expected to do, it will bring us up to date with English and Welsh counterparts, which is something that I am sure we will all welcome. Behind the technical terminology that is used to discuss and debate some of these matters, there are real people whose lives and livelihoods will be impacted if the bill passes today. I thought that the minister spoke eloquently to the need and the difference that he can make in that regard. We consider the sole trader hoping to get their business up and running, or the small business owner, wanting to raise funds without fear of losing their home. All of those people have the potential to contribute to our economy and to our society in valuable ways. All too often, we see in our society a wealth accrue to the already wealthy, those with significant heritable property and significant assets much more able to secure ready credit, while those without are locked out. That is not the kind of economy that many of us in this chamber want to see, and the more change that we can do to change that, the better. As a country, we are facing severe economic challenges with soaring interest rates, stubbornly high inflation and eye-watering energy prices. The Financial Fairness Tracker Survey commissioned by Aberdeen Financial Fairness Trust and published in February of this year found that one in five households in Scotland are currently living in serious financial difficulty, the equivalent of half a million Scottish households. Unfortunately, those headwinds show no signs of abating just yet. Research published by the Research Foundation in January 2023 estimated that Britain was only at the midpoint of a two-year income squeeze, and it is vital that we recognise the particular context that we find ourselves in the additional pressures on the households and the businesses in this case that we are discussing today and at this time. I want to place on record my thanks to my Scottish Labour colleagues, Paul Sweeney and Carl Mawkin for their work on this Bill at stages 1 and 2, and indeed to all members who participated in the committee process and also in the debate today. The scrutiny of the Bill, and I have to say that in particular my fellow Labour members' concerns for sole traders and individual consumers have undoubtedly fed into the discussions with the Minister and the amendments that have enhanced the Bill as it stands today. Raising the minimum threshold for an asset to £3,000 in line with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee will afford greater protection to consumer and to sole traders alike. It is disappointing, as outlined by Daniel Johnson and others, that the Government reversed the amendment proposed to the Scottish Labour at stage 2 and agreed to by committee that the minimum threshold of £3,000 be updated annually in line with inflation. I remain unconvinced, I have to say, by the minister's arguments in this area. We have heard and I have to say around the backlog highlighted by various members of the law commission bills. I think that that talks to some of the challenges in terms of finding the time, whether it be in committee or in Parliament, that we often hear from Government ministers, that we struggle to find time to make good on some of the promises of work that is required. Transparency appears to have become the word of the moment in this place. I cannot imagine why, but I would urge the Government to consider its timeframe for reporting on the impact of the legislation to ensure that transparency, but to protect sole traders and individuals. I am sure that none of us want to see the rights of individuals negatively impacted. A timious review would certainly help that. The Government can rest assured that members on those benches will continue to scrutinise the operation of the legislation when it comes into effect. We are happy to support it and I hope that it has the support of Parliament today. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I suspect that, like me, you are a bit of a woning Keating fan. As woning Keating putic, you say it best when you say nothing at all. I am slightly tempted that we have almost said enough in regard to this particular bill, but, as a politician, I feel that I just have to say a few more words. I particularly want to thank those who have made this bill possible to start with the Law Commission. Over 30 years ago, just up the road, I started listening to lectures by Professor George Gritten. Understanding every fourth word, I think, was a real challenge when he came to give evidence to the committee at stage 1. I have to confess that I am not sure that I understood much more than he said in my second-year law lectures. The Law Commission did pretend and immense amounts of work. I think that, as I said in my opening remarks, we need to look up a pipeline in regard to how we prepare it. However, my thanks go to the Law Commission, my thanks go to Scottish Government officials for producing this bill, to the minister for bringing it through Parliament, and to all those who gave evidence to the committee, and to my fellow committee members, to the clerks and to the team here in the Parliament that make our work as easy as possible. At one point, I want to reflect on the point that was picked up by Daniel Johnson in his opening statement. I said earlier that I think that across the chamber, we need to look up post a legislative scrutiny. I can see a number of bills that were passed by previous parliaments under the right intention, but you go back and see and practice how they are working for individuals, for communities, for charities, companies, whoever, and we are not, but because... I am very grateful to the member for giving me... Does he think that we could not come up with some sort of proforma review stipulation that we could put into legislation to make it more straightforward? Are there principles that we could agree on, both in terms of timeframes and contents of reviews, to make it more straightforward so that we do not get into this negotiation bill by bill? I think that it is something that we should look at. There are committees up and running that we can look at and maybe bring forward recommendations on either understanding orders or whether there is a plo that if it goes into legislation. I just think that, often, we as parliamentarians move on and we sometimes forget what has happened. In my part, obviously, each Parliament brings in new MSPs who are not aware of the history of what has gone on before. However, to finish on a positive, I think that this bill is something that will help business here in Scotland. I think that it is a bill that we can all support and I look forward to it partying in a few minutes time. I thank everyone who has contributed this afternoon in recognising Mr Balfour's point that the reality of politics is that the debate is not over when everything is said, but only once everyone has said it. I think that it has been a useful debate that we have had and had an opportunity to explore a range of issues. The bill is indeed sizeable and, to some, as has been noted earlier, may seem dry and technical. There is also some complexity, not least in respect of the insolvency provisions that we considered earlier, but a detailed and methodological approach is what is needed to address the particular challenges of reforming law that is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. I hope that it is clear that we have listened carefully to what has been said by stakeholders and by the committee and other MSPs at both stage 1 and stage 2. I hope that it is clear, too, that the bill matters. It matters to the estimated 360,910 private sector businesses operating in Scotland as of March 2022. The vast majority of those businesses are 98.3 per cent, or small, with less than 49 or fewer employees. It is clear that cheaper and less risky access to finance will provide a boost to those businesses, not just in terms of survival and making ends meet, but also in terms of development and growth by improving the facility and the ability for businesses to innovate and expand. Anything that can be done to improve the environment in which business in Scotland operates should be welcomed. Although the bill is legal and specialist, on the ground it is intended to deliver real and practical help to businesses across Scotland. I was happy to lodge amendments at stage 2 to implement some of the committee's thoughtful recommendations, particularly in relation to individual consumers. I have also been pleased to support some of the amendments that were made by the committee at stage 2, and we have agreed some adjustments to them today to ensure that they work as intended. I hope that members will appreciate on reflection why we have needed to reverse some of the other amendments made at stage 2. However, some of those reversals have come with commitments, namely to consult further in respect of the definition of insolvency and to keep the threshold for encumbered property forceral traders under regular review, so that it takes account of inflation. If the bill is passed today, as I sincerely hope it will be, there is still a lot of work to be done before the provisions will be capable of coming into effect. The provisions in relation to both assignation and statutory pledge rely on the creation and operation of two new registers, which will be run by registers of Scotland. Considerable progress has already been made on the necessary technology and development in terms of progress. We are in a very good place, with the necessary funding also in place. Quite detailed regulations will also need to be in place to set out the rules regarding use of both the registers. Again, progress is being made here, and I would like to take the opportunity to find those in register of Scotland who are undertaking this work and for their close and helpful co-operation with officials in the Scottish Government. As I mentioned, I have undertaken to consult on the complex issues around how we define insolvency for the purposes of the legislation. That will take place over the course of the next year, with any necessary regulations being made in time for the provisions coming in to force. As I expected, it has been made this afternoon of the need to ensure that the provisions in the bill extend also to financial instruments and financial collateral. Extending the bill to financial instruments and financial collateral is something. I hope that I have been very clear in this that I am absolutely and fully committed to achieving it. We will be working with the UK Government to have this in place so that we have a necessary section 104 order to achieve this. That is for it. I very much welcome Mr Balfour's remarks and his intimation that he will be encouraging his Conservative colleagues in the UK Government to continue their constructive engagement. I also thank the work of the committee in taking an interest in this and taking the step of engaging, seeking to engage directly before the UK Government. I think that this is something where we are absolutely united in recognition of the benefits that this will confer on the Scottish economy and we want to ensure that we can achieve that section 104 order in the smoothest manner as possible so that these provisions are ready to come online when the new registers are in place next year. Consultation will also need to be undertaken on the issue of the fees for using the registers and again we will be relying on and working with registers of Scotland on this aspect of the legislation. There is, as I said, still a lot to be done but our target is to have all of the necessary consultations, regulations and function registers completed by next summer and at that point we will commence the main provisions. Importantly the bill incorporates powers so that we have the tools and flexibility to ensure that provisions can be kept up to date. Some of the powers are likely to be used rarely but, nevertheless, as time passes and we gain knowledge and experience of how the registers are being used and the extent to which they are being used, Scottish ministers will have the ability, subject to the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament to, for example, specify the type of case for which registration of an assignation would be compulsory, to provide a model notice of assignation, to refine what constitutes a seriously misleading inaccuracy in the registers, to extend the categories of persons who are entitled to make an information request, to add to the kinds of incorporeal moveable property over which it is possible to grant a statutory pledge. I could go on but I hope that that illustrates that subject to what it is reasonable to delegate efforts have been made to future proof this bill to help it stand the test of time. From that perspective, although I did not feel a review duty was necessary, I have always been of the view that the legislation should and would be reviewed as necessary and the Government does look forward to the opportunity to review it in due course. Finally, I would like to repeat my thanks to all those who gave evidence to help improve the bill during its parliamentary process. That, as has been highlighted, demonstrates the Scottish Parliament working at its best, details scrutiny from the committee, considered engagement with our range of stakeholders. This legislation, which I appreciate has taken a long time to come to fruition, is something that the Parliament can collectively be proud of. I once again want to put on the record my sincere thanks to the law commission, to stakeholders, to the committee and to everyone who has contributed towards getting the bill into the state it is today. I commend the motion in my name. Thank you. That concludes the debate on moveable transactions Scotland. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders. The decision time will be brought forward to now. I invite the minister for parliamentary business to move the motion. The question is that decision time will be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? Presiding Officer, I am terribly sorry to return to something that I raised last week, but I would seek your guidance in that, once again, we have on the benches of the Conservatives only three members in the chamber at decision time. I wonder if, Presiding Officers, we would consider looking at this issue of attendance at Parliament in person rather than remotely, unless there is good reason. Thank you, Ms Graham. Ms Graham will be aware, as are all members, that the facility exists whereby members can exercise their vote remotely, and that is a matter for the members. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business, and can I encourage members to refresh their devices? I have, can I please call Edward Mountain online for a point of order? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was one of the people that was very keen on seeing the ability to have virtual contributions and virtual voting. I believe that the point of order that Christine Graham has raised now twice goes against the whole principle of what this Parliament stood for and what this Parliament is trying to achieve. It is no more than a political cheap shot at people who are not attending the Parliament. I wonder if the Presiding Officer could give me further guidance on whether she thinks continued points of order of this are appropriate for the Parliament. Excuse me, Members. Members, I will hear Mr Mountain, and I regard that as discurtyus, disrespectful and unhelpful. Mr Mountain, I would be grateful if you could please repeat your last point. I cannot comprehend why the chamber is finding it difficult, why some people might want to contribute virtually, especially considering that some people have long ways to go and have other things to do, but have followed the debate all afternoon, as I have done. I find it actually discurtious for Christine Graham to continue to raise these points when it is something that the Parliament agreed as a whole to do. I wonder if you could give me guidance on that, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I will reiterate, as I said previously, that this is a facility that exists, and it is wholly within the gift of members to decide where they will be participating. I would be grateful if Members could ensure that they have refreshed their devices following the vote earlier. The question is that motion 8810, in the name of Tom Arthur, on Moveable Transactions Scotland Bill, be agreed, and Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion 8810, in the name of Tom Arthur, is yes. 111. There were no votes against. There were no abstentions. The motion is, therefore, agreed, and the Moveable Transactions Scotland Bill is passed.