 The next item of business is a stage 1 debate on motion 7210 in the name of Tom Arthur on Moveable Transactions Scotland Bill. I'd be grateful if members wished to speak in the debate. We're to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion to 10 minutes, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to open this stage 1 debate on the Moveable Transactions Scotland Bill. I would like to be expressed my thanks to the members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their careful consideration of the bill and to the many stakeholders who have contributed to their work. I particularly want to express my gratitude to the Scottish Law Commission and, in particular, Professor George Cretan and Professor Andrew Stephen. They led the commission's diligent and thorough review, lasting some eight years of the issues surrounding Moveable Transactions law in Scotland. The fact that the work took eight years is a reflection of the complexity of this niche and highly technical area of law. The context of the commission's report was that there is significant support for reform and modernisation of Scottish Moveable Transactions law among those who use it since it is out of date and inadequate by international standards. Moveable Transactions law enables the use of assets to raise finance by selling debts or by granting security over movable property. For example, a business may wish to acquire funding by transferring to a financial institution its claims to payment of its existing and future customer invoices. That would be done by means of an assignation and practice usually a sale of the claim. The current law of Scotland on Moveable Transactions dates from 1862 and requires intimation to all debtors if a claim is assigned. That is cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive. As a result, assignation of consumer debt is usually carried out in Scotland under English law or via other complex legal workarounds which do not require intimation to the debtor. I would also add that the law in France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States do not require intimation to the debtor. The current Scottish requirement for intimation to the debtor also precludes the assignation of future claims, since a business will not know who its customers will be in six months' time. The bill will enable the assignation of invoices already issued and those to be issued over a particular time period in order to raise finance. Such seed funding may be critical to the development and help particularly of new businesses. I am grateful for the minister giving way. Does the minister have any concerns about the practice in Scotland where the payment of the debt continues to be made to the original creditor and then passed on to the assignee? Are there any concerns in relation to that mode of business operation? That has been long-standing, but one of the opportunities through this reform will be to provide greater clarity through the statutory register. Under the bill, it will become possible for assignations of both current and future claims to be registered in a new register of assignations to be maintained and operated by the register of Scotland. The system of invoice factoring works in practice on the basis that an invoicing factoring company will normally give the entity that is assigning the debt 80 to 90 per cent of the money due. That will provide cash flow to that entity and will hopefully permit it to develop and expand. When the invoice factoring company has collected all of the debt, it will pay the balance of the money due less its fee. Clearly, in such cases, a party that has assigned the debt will not receive 100 per cent of its money, but it will receive most of it timidly without having to pursue it itself, and early payment may be crucial to its survival and success. The registration of the assignation in a public register will permit searching to find out if a last known holder of a claim to a debt has assigned it or still holds it. Debtors will not be expected to search the registered row and their protections for debtors who pay the wrong person in error. The other main reform relates to the use of movable assets as collateral for loans, which, under the current law, is difficult and expensive. The current law is predicated on the idea that possession of a movable asset has to be handed over to a creditor if it is used as collateral as a pawn arrangement. Clearly, that will not work for businesses as they need to retain assets such as vehicles, equipment and intellectual property in order to be able to function. Legal workarounds are used to circumvent this problem, but they are complex, expensive and again involve the use of English law. We understand that at least one major financial institution will not lend on plant and machinery in Scotland because of the state of the law on movable transactions here. Under the bill, businesses will be able to use those assets as collateral to obtain loan finance without giving up possession of them. That would be done by means of the new statutory pledge. The statutory pledge will be created by the registration of the document that constitutes the pledge and a new register of statutory pledges, which will also be maintained and operated by the registers of Scotland. That would lead to greater and much easier access to finance for businesses in Scotland, thus benefiting the general economy. The bill will not only modernise movable transactions law in Scotland, but it will leapfrog most comparator jurisdictions. I am aware that the committee has heard evidence from Citizens Advice Scotland and money advice agencies who have suggested that the bill should only apply to businesses and not to individual consumers. They have also suggested that, if the bill is to apply to individual consumers, the consumer protections in the bill should be strengthened. When the economy committee took evidence on the proposals in the last Parliament, the vast majority of respondents indicated that they thought that the consumer protections in the bill were adequate. We have always been clear that the main benefits of the reform of law relating to movable transactions in Scotland would be felt by businesses, since it would make it much easier for those businesses to raise finance to invest in their future development. We understand that comparator jurisdictions extend their movable transactions law to individuals as well as to businesses. We do not, however, believe that the provisions of the bill would be utilised by individuals to any great extent. It was never the intention, as a matter of policy, that individuals would have been able to pledge ordinary household goods as collateral for a loan under a statutory pledge. It is also very unlikely that financial institutions would lend money using ordinary household goods as collateral, since such items are likely to depreciate in value very quickly to the point where their value may not cover the amount of loan. If individuals were able to use ordinary household goods as collateral for statutory pledge, the other kind of movable property owned by most people, which might be used in relation to statutory pledge, mainly for acquisition purposes, would be motor vehicles. We understand, however, from UK Finance, which incorporates the asset-based finance association, that its members are unlikely to move from using higher purchase to statutory pledge as a legislative means to finance car acquisition. That is because, first, they are used to using higher purchase since the Higher Purchase Act 1964, which has been enforced for nearly 60 years. Second, their computer and other systems are set up for higher purchase. In addition and contrary to initial indications, it does not appear that high street banks have plans to introduce new borrowing arrangements based on the statutory pledge for individuals and would continue to use its existing consumer loan products. The application of the bill to individuals has been something to which the Government has given considerable thought. While we have seen no hard and fast evidence that the provisions of the bill on statutory pledge in particular would be abused by predatory lenders, we do not believe that the usage of the bill by individuals would be significant. That does not justify the risk, however small, in view of the potential for distress. We therefore propose the removal of the application of the part 2 statutory pledge provision of the bill from individuals, though not to so traders, by stage 2 amendment. Very careful consideration will have to be given to appropriate stage 2 amendments to ensure that we get the balance right in relation to sole traders. The Federation of Small Businesses has highlighted that sole traders and other smaller unincorporated businesses should be able to access finance using the provisions of the bill, even if its application to individuals is removed. We are therefore keen to ensure that sole trader and smaller unincorporated businesses should be able to benefit from the reforms such as all other businesses in Scotland, and we will have that in mind when bringing forward stage 2 amendments. Consideration could be given to extending the application of movable transactions law to individuals at some point in the future with strength and consumer protections if a convincing argument was made in support of such an extension. The bill has been described as a win-win for Scotland. For the relatively low cost of the establishment of two new registers, it will provide important modernised technical legal machinery through which finance can be made more readily available to businesses over Scottish movable assets. If implemented, the bill would make various types of commercial transactions more efficient, less expensive and less complicated than they currently are with the introduction of the two new registers. It will assist businesses to raise finance to enable it to invest and expand, and we will benefit the Scottish economy generally. In that note, I will conclude by moving the motion in my name. I can confirm that there is time in hand this afternoon for interventions. I now call on Stuart McMillan on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to highlight just one of the responsibilities of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is to scrutinise Scottish Law Commission bills. Those bills can often be perceived as being quite technical, and members may think that our scrutiny is consequentially quite dull and technical, but the bills that the past committees have looked at and the one in front of us today, the movable transactions Scotland Bill, are interesting and hugely important pieces of legislation. Without going into too much of the technical detail, the bill will reform two elements of law on movable property. That is property such as cars, machinery and whisker barrels, to name just three examples. It will reform the assignation of claims and also the law of pledges. Assignation of claims simply means the transfer of a claim from one person to another, usually the right of payment of a debt. A pledge is a type of security usually for a loan which is taken over movable property and works in a similar way to a mortgage on a house. Under the current law, an assignation can only be completed by letting the person who owns the debt know about the assignation, which is known as intimation. A pledge can only be granted under the current law by delivering the property that has been pledged to the person granting the loan. The bill changes that by creating two new registers as the minister touched upon the register of assignations and also the register of statutory pledges. The bill will enable the registers to be used to grant assignations of claims as an alternative to intimating the assignation to the debtor and to grant statutory pledges over movable property. There was almost universal support among the business community for the reforms proposed in the bill. The committee heard that the current legal infrastructure was from the 19th century and that reform in this area was needed drastically and as quickly as possible. Others noted that Scots law was behind the law in many other jurisdictions, in this area and the English law, but sometimes it has to be used rather than Scots law due to current barriers. I attended the CBI event in the Scottish Parliament last weekend. One of the guests at the event indicated to me that the organisation that they work for will be using, if providing the bill passes through the Parliament and becomes law, they will be using this piece of legislation on day one. That can only be a good thing for the Scottish economy because it will keep money in Scotland's economy. We heard about the current requirements for intimation, which could be cumbersome and costly and complex trust arrangements that are used to get around the current legal requirements. We also heard of the difficulties for businesses because of the requirement to physically be in possession of the pledged item. Witnesses told us that, if implemented effectively, the legislation would provide significant benefit to the Scottish economy, allowing more finance to be provided to more Scottish businesses through a wider range of finance options. The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland told the committee that the most common forms of finance that has been acquired by small businesses in recent years were overdraft facilities, credit cards and asset finance. Although the bill could be seen as being technical, it could have a significant impact on the financing options that are available to the small business sector. However, while there was support for the introduction of the registration of a statutory pledge among the business community, there were concerns about the impact of the reforms on individual consumers. I note the comments from the minister in his opening comments, and I am sure that colleagues within the committee will certainly welcome the comments from the minister. I am grateful to Stuart McMillan for giving way on that point. Did the committee have an opportunity to consider how individuals can be removed from the bill, given the sole trade position and, indeed, small partnership position, where individuals are in effect in law? That was something that came up in the evidence, and the committee members, when we were discussing it, it was clear that it would be complicated to try to manage. With the stage 1 report and the recommendation that we made in the report, we acknowledged that it would be difficult and challenging. I think that the comments from the minister earlier on acknowledged that, too. However, any amendments that will come forward will be scrutinised in great depth by the committee, as I am sure that the member would appreciate. However, that acknowledgement was, if any, much there. As a result, advice organisations were united in their call for consumers to be excluded from the reforms in the bill relating to statutory pledge as the best way to protect consumer interests. I note certainly the letter that the minister has sent to the committee in this regard. Obviously, it might be as a committee that did highlight the issues regarding consultation, which I am going to come on to shortly, the issue of consultation after the SLC produced its bill and then, obviously, that further engagement with the consumer credit organisations. I think that it is fair to say that the committee received conflicting evidence on the risks to consumers of the proposed reforms, and the extent to which protections in the bill were adequate. However, there were conflicting views on the extent to which individual consumers granting a statutory pledge would be protected by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the current financial conduct authority regulations. Ultimately, the fact that the committee recommended that individuals not acting in a business context should be excluded from the bill is something that we have already touched upon. The committee also recommended further changes to the bill to increase protection for consumers in the event that they were not excluded from the bill, including increasing the threshold of an asset that could be granted as a pledge from £1,000 and recommending that the bill should be amended to specify that essential household goods are excluded from items that could be pledged. The committee also heard evidence about how the registers would operate in practice, including the fees that would be charged for accessing them. One concern that was raised was that the registers might contain an icon information if they were not updated regularly. As a result, the committee recommended that the bill is amended to require certain updates to be made to the registers timiously or within a specific time frame such as asignation or, in particular, the discharge of a pledge. We noted that a lot of the detail about the operation of the registers would be contained in regulations, and we stressed the importance of fairly sight of the draft regulations. As the chamber will be very much aware, in this particular bill, the Delegated Person Law Reform Committee has got two functions. One, the policy, which is unusual for our committee, but secondly, the usual part was about looking at the regulations in the second legislation. One final issue that I wanted to cover is an element of the original draft bill from the Scottish Law Commission that does not appear in the bill that is considered by the committee. The bill does not include the asignation of claims or financial instruments such as shares and bonds. In the policy memorandum that the Scottish Government indicated, it is clear that those arrangements were beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Instead, the Scottish Government has indicated that it has asked the UK Government to grant an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, and the order would have the same effect as if the provisions had been included in the bill. We therefore complete the full extent of the reforms that are recommended by the SLC. Stakeholders stressed the importance of the reforms applying to shares and that the requirement to take ownership of shares and the responsibilities that can come from that is a major barrier to the Scottish businesses using them as security. There were calls for the financial instruments reforms to be progressed with great urgency, and the committee is very much aware of the has been regular correspondence between both Scottish and UK Governments to try to have this matter resolved. We know that the Scottish and UK Governments are currently also having those discussions, but we certainly still urge both Governments to resolve the question of whether section 104 order is required. If it is concluded by both Governments that such an order is required, the committee recommends that the Scottish Government pursue that with the UK Government as a priority. Before I close, I thank all those who have contributed to the committee's scrutiny of the bill, whether in writing or by appearing before the committee during one of our evidence sessions. As members know, the committee's scrutiny is only as good as the evidence that it actually receives, so we genuinely are very grateful for the time and energy that is given to help the committee in its work. I also want to thank fellow committee members for their scrutiny and for our excellent clerking and legal team for their assistance. I want to thank the minister and his officials for the evidence that they provided to the committee and for the Scottish Law Commission for proposing the bill. The committee did note that the significant concerns from the consumer and money advice organisations about the bill's proposals have only been identified at the stage of parliamentary scrutiny. The letter from the minister seems to indicate something different with that. We therefore recommend that, when the Scottish Government is considering introducing a bill to give effect to an SLC report and significant time has passed since the SLC's original consultation on its proposals, further consultation should be taken. I am sure that that will be very much the discussion that will continue beyond today, certainly between the Scottish Government and the consumer organisations. However, as a committee, we are clear that the bill is proposing important reforms that will benefit businesses across Scotland and that they are likely to have a beneficial impact on access to credit and finance. Nonetheless, there are important issues to consider regarding the impact of those reforms on individual consumers and how they can best be protected. We look forward to working with the Scottish Government on the issues in advance of stage 2, and, with that, I certainly recommend and commend the stage 1 report to the chamber. Thank you very much indeed, Mr McMillan. I now call Jeremy Balfour for a generous eight minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'll do my best to keep two eight minutes. I want to first of all thank, as always, the witnesses who came along and gave evidence. 30 years ago, I listened to Professor Gretton as an undergraduate law student, and I think that I needed slightly more 30 years on, but maybe not as much as I should have. However, I want to thank Cain and all the other witnesses who came along to thank the clerks for bridging together the report so well. I think that it is fair to say that there is consensus amongst us as a committee in regard to this, and we look forward to the speedy progression at stage 2 and 3 of the bill, as it will, to bring some major reform to allow partnerships, sole traders and companies to be able to borrow money in a quicker and more simple way. I wonder if I can, Deputy Presiding Officer, to follow in two comments made by the convener in a more general way. There has been quite a delay from when the Scottish Law Commission drafted the bill and to when it came to Parliament for its stage 1 proceedings. I put no thought at the minister's door since he was not even elected when the report was finished. However, I think that the Scottish Law Commission is doing valuable work, and we, as a Parliament, need to find time for our bills. If there is a delay, as the convener said, we need to look at whether we need to do further consultations with interested parties. I also read with interest the minister's response letter to the committee, but I think that we need to follow up to ensure that everybody feels part of the process and that everybody gets their say. As the minister said in his opening remarks, this is a fairly technical bill, and I am sure that the amendments that come forward at stage 2 and stage 3 will deal with some of the areas that need to be tidied up. I am sure that other members will comment on those. I wonder if I can limit my comments to three areas that I think we need to look at as a Parliament at stage 2 and stage 3. The First Minister has dealt with that as the convener. That is in regard to whether individuals should be able to go on this. I really welcome the comments not only by the minister this afternoon, but in his letter as well. He is absolutely right that this will take quite careful drafting at stage 2 to ensure that we do not exclude partnerships and, particularly, sole traders. There are better legal minds in this room today than I do, but there is no clear definition of what a sole trader is compared to an individual. We all understand it in practice, but we have to make sure that the drafting comes forward in a way that does not exclude those individuals. However, at the same time, it gives protection to individuals who this bill, as the minister also said, was never intended to do. I look forward to the Government coming forward with its amendments so that we can scrutinise that as a committee, absolutely. I am very grateful to Jeremy Balfour for giving way on that point. Was he taken by the suggestion of either a minimum limit of value or perhaps an indication from an individual about whether it was a business as compared to a non-business to cause that demarcation to exclude from the bill? I think that we can probably do this in several different ways so that it can be a belt and braces approach so that we actually make sure that we do not include people or exclude people. I am sympathetic, but if that section stays in around £3,000, that number is increased to a substantially higher figure. I think that it is worth exploring the idea of a self-declaration form. However, I remember that we would be aware that some small businesses use personal bank accounts, and that can be a confusing aspect in regard to that. If you look at a personal bank account, what is personal and what is business? I think that those types of areas will have to be worked through in stage 2 and stage 3. However, I am grateful that the minister is bringing us forward, and I think that he will find cross-party support for the amendment that he brings forward. Perhaps the one area that is the elephant in the room is that in regard to finance instruments, stocks and sales. There will be partners such that want to use those new regulations and law. However, what we are talking about is fairly large companies doing fairly large financial deals that will be mostly using us. If we are going to be excluding the former bill and looking to Westminster, I would like to know a bit more about why the Government has come to this view. There are different legal views around the Scottish Law Commission, and the witnesses gave evidence to us on two different views as well. I understand the comment that the minister will make to me that the Government does not share legal advice, and I understand that and respect that. However, I wonder whether, in some way, he can give a wee bit more—maybe not today, but even in a letter to back to the committee, just a wee bit more—in regard to why he thinks that the bill is not. If we could do it within this legislation, I think that all of us would agree that that would be the quickest way to do it, because we have the amendments absolutely. Rather than addressing this point, I want to commend Jeremy Balfour's enthusiasm to test the limits of the devolution settlement, so let's hear more of that. On the substantive point, I will reflect, if there is any more information that I can provide, but he recognises his own contribution, the restrictions that the ministerial code places upon me with regards to what I can share. I am grateful for the minister, and I look forward to him reflecting over as he eats his turkey on Christmas day. The final area that I would like to touch on, and this does show how technical the bill is and how nervous I am, is that around electronic signatures. Again, that might seem a slightly legal point, but the evidence that we took, and if we are going to try to encourage small businesses and partnerships to use that, how will we sign off on a document? I think that we just need to look at it again. I know that I am grateful for the minister to address that in his letter to the committee. I am not sure that I am absolutely convinced by his arguments. Again, I think that the same world ministers can come back and look at this at another time. I think that we need to get this bill as right as possible at stage 2 and stage 3, so I perhaps will come back to this and explore this further as the bill proceeds through its parliamentary procedure. In conclusion, I generally want to thank the committee and the minister for his engagement so far. I think that if we can keep working together on this, we can get a bill that will allow companies, individuals and partnerships to be able to borrow quicker and easier. As someone already has said, it will be a win-win for Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, I rise to support the bill at stage 1. Labour will be supporting that because we agree with the general principles of this innovation and thank the Scottish Law Commission for their work in the public interest in developing this clear deficiency in public policy in Scotland, which has been iterated by colleagues so far in the debate. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Delegated Powers on Law Reform Committee for the work in which they have done, along with myself, to look at the bill and to identify clear areas where there were concerns that had previously been identified. That demonstrates the work of the Parliament in its earnest, where it is addressing clear deficiencies in drafting and to work constructively and collegially to address those to ensure that we have the best possible legislation on the statute books. Of course, as the minister alluded to, the clear concern that came out loud and clear from all the evidence that we heard in the committee was the risk to consumers, which was clearly a law of unintended consequence. The bill had been developed and drafted with businesses in mind. It is clear that there was a competitive disadvantage to doing business in Scotland and this would address it. There were concerns about the ability to utilise assets that were held currently in stock, i.e. a form of waste for business and allow businesses to effectively raise liquidity against those assets. The most obvious example in relation to Scotland would be whisky barrels maturing. Millions, tens of millions of pounds of assets cannot be utilised for the benefit of further investment and development of industrial growth in Scotland. In that respect, the bill will serve a great advantage for the Scottish economy and to further the development of industry in our country. I welcome the minister's indication that, in respect of the key areas of concern that were highlighted by witnesses to the committee around consumers, the Government will take action at stage 2 to carve out consumers from the legislation, and that is very welcome indeed. We certainly, at the committee and also as a party, Labour were standing ready to offer amendments if the Government weren't going to do that, and of course they were comforted by the minister's comments in that regard. There was a real worry about the way in which this process had developed as well. I think that was alluded to by colleagues earlier on in the debate whereby the length of time this has taken to develop is the best part of a decade from the initial process starting with the Scottish Law Commission to arriving in the Parliament for stage 1. I think that that is something that we all need to reflect on about the efficiency of the development of Scottish Law Commission bills and indeed the potential for obsolescence whereby we only actually happened upon these major issues in terms of consumers quite late in the day in the overall process. I think that that has been highlighted by citizens advice Scotland, step change money advice Scotland Christians against poverty, which were there clear that there has been a distinct lack of consultation with consumer and money advice stakeholders since the process for developing this bill started in 2010. I think that that is something that we need to reflect on in a spirit of continuous improvement. In our respect of this fail, yes, happy to give way. I am very grateful to Paul SUNY to give way on that point. He is of course aware that the standing orders provide a special vehicle for the Scottish Law Commission bills to come into this Parliament. Does he feel that it may be necessary to look at that to see what caused the delay in particular with this case, which states back to reports from, I believe, 2017? I think that my colleague Martin Whitfield for raising that point. I think that it is, in respect of his committee, something that we could work collaboratively on to identify opportunities for improving the Parliament's processes, working more collaboratively and constructively with the Scottish Law Commission to improve the efficiency of legislation. I know that there is a reservoir of reports from the Scottish Law Commission that are yet to reach this Parliament, and that certainly is not serving the public interest as well as it might be. In that respect, I think that we could increase parliamentary time available for Scottish Law Commission bills. We could look at ways in which we can speed the next without that process and also ensure that we are continually testing and adjusting the pool of people in the stakeholders we are engaging to ensure that we do not end up having to retrofit draft bills quite late in the day with provisions that are quite substantial and potentially very risky for the wider public. In that respect, I think that that is an important contribution to make to this debate today. I do have some concerns about the point raised by the minister in relation to sole traders. Whilst harms to consumers was definitely a very big risk of unintended consequences, I think that the committee itself wrestled with the dilemma about how to identify the threshold between individual actors and corporate actors, particularly in the gig economy and increasing changes to our economic structures. Indeed, that was a point highlighted by Alan McIntosh in his evidence. He made the point, obviously, that I would pay particular tribute to Alan's contribution, Mike Daley and Miles Fitt, in particular, in highlighting those concerns to the committee. In relation to business debts, they have expressed continued concern that the bill would allow statutory pledges to be called up in relation to self-employed consumers without a core order being obtained. I think that that is a major concern that we would look to see the Government push further on amendments to address, because I think that that would introduce all sorts of potentially perverse behaviours in practice that could be deeply damaging. Indeed, some of the examples that were used, such as statutory pledges over farmering livestock, for example, did not seem particularly convincing. Indeed, even in that case, where there is animal welfare olympiclations, the supervision of the courts would be probably prudent to say the least. I also think that there is a concern about courts, or certainly using unconventional and informal remedies to take possession of the movable property of a debtor could result in wrongful loss for someone of their property and, in worst case scenarios, potentially public order disturbances and criminal offences. To that extent, I think that the Government should go further on amendments to look at introducing court orders in relation to self-employed traders. Indeed, to not do so would probably be a mistake and potentially introduce further risks on many burner consumers who are forced to become self-employed. The gig economy potentially issues around things like taxi drivers, for example, or people working in the hospitality sector. Those are areas that the Government needs to investigate further with further consultation. I would highlight in particular provisions that may assist the committee as recommended. With the mind of consumers in particular, there was a proposal from the committee that the minimum threshold for an asset would be introduced. The recommendation of the committee should be no lower than £3,000 and also be tied to anual inflator associated with the retail prices index. That may well be a prudent measure to introduce in relation to businesses, because that would help shelter sole traders, people operating with a start-up who might be, in the case of using the family car for business purposes as well as for personal use. In relation to Jeremy Balfour's point, there might also be a mechanism whereby people self-declare in the same way that they might do for car insurance, whether they are using the asset for personal use or for business use or a combination thereof. That might help inform a more intelligent application of the provision for raising a statutory pledge. That is where the key opportunities lie to further improve the bill. Labour stands ready to assist the Government in making this as good a legislative mechanism as possible to ensure that it achieves all the required efficiencies to ensure that our competitive position as an economy is enhanced, while also ensuring that we do not have any unintended consequences that could visit pretty damaging harm on people in Scotland. With that, we support the bill and look forward to further amendments that are working constructively with the committee. I move to the open debate. I call for Bill Kidd to be followed by Katie Clark for around about six minutes. I thank the clerking team for the DPLR, the legal support group, who are very much behind any success that we might have in the DPLR and my MSP colleagues on the committee. I would also like to thank those working at the Scottish Law Commission for their extensive efforts in laying the groundwork for the bill in the 2017 report on movable transactions. While I am thanking people, I want to make sure that everyone remembers the committee clerks who supported the examination and scrutiny of the bill in its first stage. Its accumulative work has taken us to a place where we can now bring forward substantial changes to existing legislation. Those changes will enable us to modernise how businesses and individuals in a business context can raise funds without facing the arduous legal complexities and barriers that are currently in place. The law firm Brodys pointed out that this is the most major piece of legislative reform for Scottish businesses seeking to raise finance for over 50 years. Ultimately, the reason why we are discussing this topic today is because we want businesses to prosper in Scotland and not be held back by laws that do not fit modern business and finance practices. It is common for well-established businesses to seek loans to promote growth across many different legal systems. Those loans can be secured against property owned by businesses or sole traders, and that is the case here in Scotland. The DPLR committee has recommended that the bill's remit is kept to businesses and individuals acting in a business context, such as sole traders and start-ups. I appreciate that careful consideration needs to be given to ensure that, when excluding individuals and customers from the scope of the bill, we do not exclude sole traders or early start-up businesses. In the context of the movable transaction bill, we are focused on updating legislation on how funds can be raised and secured for businesses against their movable property. Of course, we are not talking about properties such as buildings or land. Rather, movable property covers things such as machinery in a workshop, fleet of vehicles or even intellectual property. The DPLR committee has seen in its scrutiny of the movable transaction bill that the law in place currently determining how businesses can raise funds has unfortunately resulted in unnecessary difficulties for Scottish businesses. It is important to highlight that the current law surrounding this topic of raising funds secured against movable property, as has been mentioned, dates back to the 19th century. It is easy to see how as society and business practices have evolved, the laws in place have become increasingly difficult in practice and inadequate for the 21st century. Although the bill is admittedly complex in its nature, it is incredibly important for creating opportunities for Scottish businesses to grow, prosper and, in turn, strengthen the Scottish economy. The bill seeks to remove unintended consequences of current law that disadvantaged small and medium-sized Scottish businesses, which are seeking to raise funds through securing loans against movable property, such as I have said, against the fleet of vehicles or specialist machinery, or even against due credit or future income, such as due or future invoices. Currently, if a small business secures a loan against its incoming or future invoices, that loan could not be realised or legally effective until each customer or debtor of the given business was notified of the details of that loan agreement. That would mean that the customer would receive financial information about the company to whom the old payment for an invoice, despite not being a stakeholder, having the expected position to legitimise such insight into a company's financial situation. That is just one example of how securing loans against movable transactions, such as machinery, is currently an unappealing method of raising finances for Scottish businesses. The Scottish Law Commission suggests that the uncertainty of the current law means that financiers may even charge Scottish businesses more for services in establishing movable transaction agreements than they would charge an English business. Another difficulty in raising finance that this bill seeks to address is that, in most cases, movable property would have to physically be moved to the creditor for the duration of the loan agreement. That is, of course, unworkable for many businesses and would need to rely on those assets to generate income to grow their business and pay back loan agreements. Raising finance secured on a business's movable property becomes significantly less attractive when they have to transfer the property to the creditor for the duration of the agreement. That requirement is not something businesses face in other countries, and it has been argued that this 19th century law consequently puts Scottish businesses at a disadvantage. Through the creation of a new statutory pledge and a register of pledges, this bill sees those disadvantages removed so that businesses have more options for raising finances without losing the means to generate income from their loan-secured movable property. The committee has asked that the bill is amended to require the updates of assignation or discharges of a pledge and made timidly to the registers. Loans secured against movable goods are an important finance-raising tool for many small to medium-sized enterprises. Small to medium-sized businesses account for 99.4 per cent of all private sector businesses in Scotland and 40.2 per cent of private sector turnover in March 2022. Therefore, it is important that we modernise movable transactions legislation so that businesses in Scotland have the same range of opportunities to pursue sustainable growth. That will, I believe, result in a stronger Scottish economy and improve prospects for new and existing businesses in Scotland. I thank you very much. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and it is a pleasure to get the opportunity to contribute in this debate. I believe that four members of the committee have scrutinised the legislation. I congratulate them on the work that they have done, because it seems from the debate so far and, indeed, from the Government's response that they have already had quite a considerable impact on the legislation. It is vital that we ensure that that scrutiny continues, because, as has been said, those are complex areas of law. Often, legislation can be drafted in ways that can have unintended consequences. I very much hope that we will ensure that there is effective consultation as we go forward and that this Parliament plays its scrutiny function. It is very clear from the contributions that have taken place so far that there is very much a willingness to look at the issues on a cross-party basis. Many of the issues, as we have said, are technical, but the wish of this Parliament is that there are effective forms to ensure enforcement where there are debts, but that that is done in a way that protects individuals and consumers. To do that, we need to make sure that legislation is drafted in an appropriate way. I very strongly welcome that the Government is now looking at the issue again. As the committee made clear, it believes that individuals who are not acting in a big business context should be excluded from the bill. I have to say that, reading the report, the evidence that they heard was very powerful. Mike Daley from the Government Law Centre said in evidence, I would go as far as to say that if the bill was passed, including consumers, in the way that is proposed, there would not just be legal problems but a question about morality that would have to be asked. I think that that does reinforce that it is essential that we get the detail of this legislation correct. Warrant sales were, of course, a feature of Scots law for many decades. Many in this chamber, I suspect, were in many demonstrations and other events involved in the discussions that led to the inhumane, pointing and then sale of debtous possessions as a routine part of the legal system in Scotland being abolished. Indeed, my father told me about a book that he was reading about Sky, where his family came from, and there was mention in that book of a baby being pointed. My granny said that that was our postman. Yes, there were exceptions to the use of warrant sales, tools of trade, et cetera, but we know from our history that, often, ordinary working people were put in horrific situations by diligence and by sale of goods acts and by the legislation that we had in this country. Therefore, I find it surprising that there has been so little public debate about the provisions of the bill, albeit that I accept that the protections in the bill as drafted at the current time are more significant than those that previously existed before the abolition of warrant sales. Of course, there was a £1,000 value threshold for assets for individuals' consumers in the bill, as is being presented to us. However, I understand that there were numerous representations to the committee that this £1,000 threshold should be increased and that, at the committee, after hearing evidence concluded, that, ideally, individuals would be excluded from their legislation so that individuals not acting in a business context would be completely excluded. However, if that did not happen, there should be a raising of that threshold to not less than £1,000. I hope that, as we go forward and as those who are working on amendments look at the bill, they take from this debate today that we want the full exclusion of individuals and consumers unless they genuinely are acting in business purposes. The debate is taking place and the contributions from my colleague Martin Whitfield and others in relation to sole traders and others acting in a business capacity are listened to very carefully. I urge the Government not to come forward with any proposals in haste because the consequences on individuals of vetting law in this area are so severe. It was the heat of the poll tax campaign that brought to public attention a practice that existed in Scotland literally for centuries. It was the use of poll tax debt and the recovery of poll tax debt by Warren Sales that brought it to the fore of Scottish political debate. It is the poor that are subject to those forms of action. Often, their voices are not heard in this debate, so I hope, as we go forward, that the scrutiny that takes place and the consultation that we need does not just involve the business community and indeed the legal profession but fully includes advice agencies, consumers rights organisations and indeed those undertaking advice work in working class communities, in deprived communities and for those who are likely to be at the brunt of the legislation. I am pleased to speak in support of the principles of the move of old transactions bill. It is fair to concede that the bill does not exactly have the most toe-tapping of titles, but it is an important bill, nevertheless, for Scotland's SMEs. My support reflects my membership to both the finance and economy committees and previous life experience of running SMEs in various sectors. Of course, I bow to the expertise on show today from all the members of the DPLR committee. I believe that the bill is an important addition to secure transactions legislations and stage 1 satisfies in some part the call of Professor Orkin as Kelly for a modern secure transactions law that meets the requirements of being simple, transparent, efficient and flexible and does so by providing freedom to parties in creating their transactions. I hope that the legislation contributes towards a reduction in the cost of credit for many thousands of SMEs across Scotland. I am not alone in my hopes, Professor Louise Gullifer stated in her own submission to the consultation. There is a great deal of research showing that a functional and friction-free secure transactions law improves access to finance, both in terms of making finance available to those who could not previously access it and also reducing the cost of finance. A present around the world not only in Scotland, unincorporated businesses are often adversely affected by the inefficiency of secure transaction laws. I believe that the bill starts the process of correcting some of the current weaknesses, although I respect the wisdom of the DPLR committee members here regarding the definition of sole traders. I look more closely at some of the elements of the bill questions and I wouldn't say concerns arose in my mind. Firstly, the proposal to operate a dual system for assignment of claims means that it will be possible to assign claims either by intimation to the debtor or by registration in the new register of assignations. Given two routes are possible, it means that it is inevitable that the register will not be comprehensive but, to what extent, we do not yet know. At a common sense level, it seems to me that operating a dual system may potentially create unintended consequences. Dual systems are more complex and we know from other types of legislation that complexity often goes hand in hand with loopholes. I would be interested to hear from the minister how far scenario planning or other forms of review have been undertaken thus far to assess the potential for unintended consequences. As I understand it, where a transfer of receivables is made effective against third parties through registration, there will need to be protections put in place for the debtor who, if not notified of the transfer, will not know who to pay or may completely, innocently act incorrectly in some manner. I know that the minister is aware of this, but is he able to offer reassurance that the bill contains appropriate protections for the debtor? I have one further area where I would like to seek comment from the minister. It is probably known here that I have raised on a number of occasions the ongoing problems that exist with Scottish limited partnerships. There seem to be more than enough loopholes in existing law that enables SLPs to operate with impunity should their owners wish to engage in criminal practices. The issue with SLPs is that they are able to avoid much of the scrutiny of regular small limited companies yet to have their own legal personality. Thousands of SLPs are registered with no identified owners that make no financial filings and thus are completely opaque. Governance of them resides with Westminster and thus far they have shown little regard for tightening the rules around them. That said, I am therefore uncertain if the bill, as it stands, is sufficiently watertight for this type of partnership. Perhaps the minister would be willing to meet me and discuss the situation, either to set my mind at rest or consider some amendment at a later stage in the legislative process. The questions that I have raised, however, do not detract from the fact that I think that this is a well-intentioned bill. It is an important bill proposing much needed reforms. My hope is that it will enable Scottish SNEs to use their assets to raise finance by selling debts to them or by granting security over movable property. Fundamentally, businesses need—none more so than at the present time—secure and critical cash flow and limit the need to pursue much more expensive routes to finance or, indeed, find that they have no other viable alternative route. I am very supportive of the proposals thus far. I am pleased to be able to speak on behalf of the Scottish Greens in this stage 1 debate, and we will be supporting the principles of the bill at decision time later today. I want to begin by thanking the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their work on the bill over the past few months and for producing their detailed report earlier this month. As someone not involved in the development of or formal scrutiny of this legislation, that report has been very useful to better understand the different elements that we are talking about. I would also like to thank Citizens Advice Scotland, Step Change and the other consumer and money advice groups that have sent me information or had conversations with me about the bill. I find it quite extraordinary sometimes that in this country we still rely on laws that are older than many countries in the world. I thank the Scottish Law Commission for their considerable work over the last decade on the subject to update our legislation. As others have already said, the bill seeks to modernise our laws in relation to transactions concerning corporeal and incorporeal movable property. Put simply, it will make it easier for businesses to raise finance using their movable property, vehicles, equipment, intellectual property, future invoices and so on. This process of assignation could release funds that are vital to businesses to smooth out any cash flow issues they might have and to keep operating. It could also be particularly beneficial for small, medium and micro businesses who might be rich in corporeal assets such as intellectual property but poor in other assets. Given Scotland's IP-rich R&D and innovation spaces, that could be transformational. As we seek to support resilient local and regional economies with diverse and sustainable sectors, I am sure that the legislation will be instrumental and will provide significant benefit to the Scottish economy as a whole. I would be interested in exploring what options might be available to ensure that the legislation can enable prioritised finance for SMMEs, but that is for later discussions. I will follow with interest the ongoing discussions about both how we will be able to distinguish between sole traders and individuals and the points made about the provisions for assignation of claims over financial instruments. However, there is one more area that I would like to address this afternoon. That is the minister's commitment to remove consumers in general or individuals from the bill. I thank the minister for taking seriously the concerns that are expressed by Citizens Advice Scotland and other money advice bodies and for listening to many of us in this chamber who have urged him to act on those concerns. The potential for harm to be done to consumers might be very small, but the negative impact on people's lives could be devastating. Maureen Wightfield I am very grateful to Maggie Chapman for giving way. The Government has suggested that there is very little evidence that this would be used for that, but is not the reality that we know that there are people out there who will seek to exploit any provision in lending money to people who are in challenging circumstances to repay it? That potentially could have been an incredibly damaging vehicle for certain elements of our community who would be exposed to that. Maggie Chapman I thank Maureen Wightfield for that intervention. Yes, I do agree. Even if the numbers are larger, we might think about how many people might be affected by that. Even if it was only one or two people and they suffered devastating consequences, it is worth removing individuals from the bill for that reason. That is generally an excellent example of the parliamentary scrutiny process and the open dialogue that we in the Greens have with the Scottish Government, both of those processes working well to make our legislation better. However, I also think at points to the need to consider, as the DPLR committee has suggested, to review how we ensure consultation and other engagement processes are up to date. It is clear that so much has changed since the process for developing this bill started over a decade ago. We need to ensure that other legislation that takes considerable time to develop for good reason, considerable time to develop and draft before the parliamentary scrutiny process begins do not encounter the same issues that this bill has. In closing, I appreciate that there is still detailed and technical work to be done, particularly as we have heard with reference to the drafting of those amendments to remove individuals from the bill but still enable sole traders to raise the finance they might need to sustain and improve their businesses. I thank those tasked with this important work, and I look forward to following their progress. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to thank those who gave evidence to the committee and the clerks who have prepared the report. As a DPLR committee substitute, I had the pleasure of attending the first evidence session that the committee conducted where evidence was presented by the Scottish Law Commission. I will therefore focus my contribution on that evidence. I have to admit that I was transported back to being a first-year accountancy student at Aberdeen University studying business law, where my only memories of the sale of goods act was the Paisley snail case, or Donahue v Stevenson. The Scottish Law Commission considered that Scots law is outdated and cumbersome and needs reforming to bring it up to international standards on movable transactions. The current legislation makes some transactions difficult or sometimes impossible to execute in Scotland, resulting in businesses having to use complicated workarounds that take longer and are more expensive. The bill, as we have heard, proposes modernising the law on borrowing against movable property and intellectual property and creating an easier way for businesses to sell unpaid invoices to banks or other financial organisations. If the bill has not progressed, there is a distinct possibility that Scotland will fall further behind international norms as small businesses and companies will be unable to access finance easily. Professor Andrew Stevenson of the Scottish Law Commission in his introduction said that the bill will make a difference to two areas—assignation and security over movable property. The last law reform in statute on assignation was in 1862, and he went on to say that on security or movable property more widely, the bill would be the biggest reform since the sale of goods act 1893. In September 1893, Beatrix Potter was in Dunkeld, where she penned the first draft of the tale of Peter Rabbit. I am sure that many in the chamber will know and love the story of Peter, a mischievous rabbit who disobeyed his mother, ate too many vegetables in Mr MacGregor's garden and, to escape, had to squeeze under a gait losing his blue jacket and shoes in the process. Apart from being written in the same year as the legislation, the movable transaction Scotland Bill is proposing to reform. Why am I mentioning the tale of Peter Rabbit? Well, what you might not know is that Beatrix Potter's book was turned down by many publishers. Some didn't like the illustrations, some felt it too long, others too short, so she decided to publish the book herself. On 16 December 1901, the first 250 copies of her privately printed The Tale of Peter Rabbit were ready for distribution to family and friends. Beatrix Potter was lucky enough to have the assets to be able to fund the publication herself, but many women in Scotland, just now with fantastic ideas, are unable to get the necessary finance because of the constraints of the cumbersome 1893 legislation. In 2019, more than three-fifths of new business startups were done so by men, so, therefore, fewer than two-fifths by women. It is often the case that a woman seeking business startup finance does not have the heritable property, land or buildings needed as security, but has a very good business idea or creative project. To be able to raise finance over movable property that she has, perhaps her tools, a finished artwork or returning to Beatrix Potter, her intellectual property, that might solve the problem. Items of value could form the security of the loan. As Lady Payton, chair of the Scottish Law Commission, said in evidence, this new statutory pledge would solve her problem and more women would be able to access finance. There is valuable international evidence that a modern movable transaction law helps women enter business. The report by the World Bank from 2019 secured transactions, collateral registries and movable asset-based financing. It has a whole section on gender finance. The World Bank report gives examples of women entrepreneurs, such as Constance Swanaker in Ghana, an artist and founder of a small business designing furniture and home accessories, who could not move forward, but was able to obtain a loan through movable asset-based financing. This loan has allowed Constance to expand her business, hiring 30 more employees. I would love to see something like that happening in Scotland. Another important occurrence in 1893, the year that the bill is proposing to modernise was introduced, was the registering of Drab and Bowie as a trademark for a whisky-based liqueur by James Ross of Broadford Sky. My next paragraph, I apologise if I insult anyone, but I am sure that you understand why I am saying that. Though not produced in my constituency of Argyll and Bute, where I have heard some argue that the best Ushgebeia is distilled, Drab and Bowie remains a hugely important Scottish import. Whisky maturing in bonded warehouses is another example of where the bill's proposed reforms on the delivery of possessory pledges could have benefits as Paul Sweeney has highlighted. Professor Stephen noted that it is not currently clear under Scots law that a possessory pledge can be done by notifying to a custodiar. The bill will provide the necessary clarification and perhaps help our whisky industry. In his evidence, he said, the statutory pledge lets one go a step further and grant security of the whisky in the company's own warehouse rather than in the independent third party warehouse. That is a definite step forward. Greater access to business finance will support innovation and productivity in line with our national strategy for economic transformation. That is a route to a strong economy with good secured and well-paid jobs and growing businesses, which will maximise Scotland's strengths and natural assets to increase productivity and international competitiveness. Scotland must continue to be a nation of entrepreneurs and innovators, embracing the opportunities of new technology, boosting productivity and focusing resources on innovations that will all improve our economy and our society. Presiding Officer, to conclude and I hope my voice does not give up on me. The bill will make various types of commercial transactions more efficient and less expensive. Businesses will be able to take full advantage of their own assets to raise finance rather than relying on more riskier and expensive types of borrowing. This greater access to business finance will support innovation in line with our national strategy for economic transformation. Congratulations on my need to insert a literary reference into this afternoon's debate. With that, I call Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Martin Whitfield around six minutes, Ms Dunbar. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to follow Peter Rabbit, and I'm not even going to try to, I don't think. Presiding Officer, can I first thank the committee for all the work that they've undertaken so far in getting to where we are today? I will not pretend to be an expert in accountancy because I only ever got to O-grade, but I did pass my O-grade on accountancies. I'm delighted to be able to take part in today's debate on stage 1 of the Moveable Transactions Bill. At its core, this is a simple bill. It simplifies the law to allow business to use moveable property other than land and buildings to access finance for business investment. The bill will support smaller businesses to raise finance, helping them to maintain income and address rising business costs. Scottish moveable transaction law is widely considered to be out-of-date, inflexible and adequate. Scottish law on moveable transactions is a long way behind international standards, which makes some transactions difficult or even guiney or impossible to execute. In turn, this necessitates the use of cumbersome, complicated and therefore expensive workarounds, which takes longer and is more expensive for companies in Scotland. If the bill is not progressed, Scotland will fall even further behind international standards, and individuals and companies will be unable to avail themselves of the means of access and finance more easily as proposed in the bill. Competing jurisdictions, in particular England and Wales, have moveable transaction laws already, which are more commercially friendly than is the case in Scotland, in particular Scotland's laws president. There is a significant support for reform and modernisation of Scottish moveable transaction law among those who use it, in particular the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Small Business Federation and CBI, who have already added their support. The benefits of the bill will be wide-ranging, and it will incentivise entrepreneurship, support in lifelong skills development, remove barriers to participation in the labour market, so that everyone is enabled and empowered to participate in our economic success. It will embrace the opportunities of new technology, boosting productivity and focusing resources on innovations that have and will make a difference to our economy and our society, and it will bolster economic investment here in Scotland. Presiding Officer, while it is important to get the bill right for businesses, we must ensure that consumers are also adequately protected when taking the bill through. I am aware that the minister recently met with Citizens Advice Scotland and some of the debt advice agencies and listened carefully to what they had to say about the application of the bill to consumers. That was following concerns being raised from the likes of CAB and others over whether the bill should apply to individual consumers, as well as over the threshold for a grant of statutory pledge. I welcome that the minister has committed to raising the monetary threshold under which it will not be possible to grant a statutory pledge from £1,000. Although I did hear Paul Sweeney saying that the committee has recommended £3,000, I am no expert, so I will take an intervention. I do not know if I will be able to answer it. Paul Sweeney, I thank the member for everything that is interesting. I want to clarify that the committee has recommended a minimum of £3,000, but it is potentially up to £5,000, based on the evidence that is heard. There is a flexibility. We will look forward to the Government perhaps proposing an amendment, if not perhaps the committee might propose an amendment at stage two. We will see what happens. Jackie Daubart. I thank Paul Sweeney for that intervention and I was not aware of that. Thank you very much for intervening. I also welcome the commitment that a statutory pledge should not be possible in the instance of ordinary household goods. However, I would ask the minister to clarify how that particular commitment will be incorporated into the bill at stage two. I did not quite hear if he covered that in his opening speech and I apologise if I missed it. I thank Mr Barford for giving way. What we are proposing at stage two is to remove individuals from the scope of the statutory pledge, but with the exception of those acting in their capacity as a sole trader. As has been heard in the debate this afternoon, we will have to be careful consideration given to the drafting around how we define a sole trader, but that is something that I am very happy to engage with the committee and members more widely across the chamber on the head of introducing its amendments. Thank you very much minister and thank you for the clarification. If the law on movable transactions, both assignation of debt and security over corporal and incorporeal movable properties, is not reformed, then individuals and businesses will continue to operate at a disadvantage in Scotland. As a result, businesses and individuals in Scotland would continue to be restricted in using their movable assets and debts to raise finance. The Federation of Small Businesses has indicated that three and a half thousand small businesses in Scotland fold each year because their invoices remain unpaid. Reform of the law relating to assignation of debt in Scotland, indeed in the form of this bill, will permit businesses to more easily transfer to a bank or other financial institution its unpaid customer invoices by means of an assignation and obtain immediate finance. If no action is taken, assignation of debt in Scotland will remain governed by legislation dating back from 1862, which makes the process cumbersome and expensive, and in turn makes it impossible to assign future debt. If the bill is not passed, it would remain the case that if a business wishes to assign its unpaid invoices to a financial institution in order to raise finance, there has to be written intimation, notification of the assignation to every invoiced customer. That is cumbersome, expensive and often impractical, since there may be numerous debtors. In addition, it cannot be done in respect of future claims such as invoices due by existing customers in the future, where the debtor cannot yet be identified. The effect is that some Scottish businesses elect to enter into contracts governed by English law in order to avoid the need for intimation. Invoice financiers can therefore charge more for their services in Scotland than they might in England. As has been demonstrated, the bill is essential for business here in Scotland to ensure that we are key international players and to attract business and investment here to Scotland, and I look forward to it moving forward. Thank you, Mr Dunbar, and I call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Paul McLean in around six minutes, Mr Whitfield. I am very thankful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to follow Jackie Dunbar and indeed her mention of and indeed the Deputy Presiding Officer's mention of literary comments earlier on, because of course the Donahue and Stevenson, the legal intervention, which was very much welcome, it was of course in 1932, 90 years ago this year. I would like to thank the Delegated Powers Law Reform Committee for their work on this stage 1 report, which, along with the clerks and those they gave evidence, is a phenomenal piece of work for a bill introduced in May this year. Of course, that states back to the Scottish Law Commission's work that resulted in their publication back in 2017. To be fair, the convener did a slight disservice to his committee because, as well as looking at this piece of legislation, they also had to undertake the subordinate legislation that flows from this. A huge ask of a committee, which I think stands to a great tribute to the committee and what they've achieved with more than anything. Stuart McMillan, I thank Martin Whitfield for taking the intervention. I actually did a comment about that during my contribution. Martin Whitfield. My fault for not listening properly and the member's fault for cutting off my compliment to the committee there, because I was also going to take the opportunity to mention the financial and public administration committee, who did undertake work in relation to that. Indeed, I think passed on the four pieces of evidence that they received. However, I think that it does raise a question that, perhaps, this chamber needs to look at at some stage in relation to the standing orders and the excessive rules about how Scottish Law Commission bills come to this place, because it has taken an enormous length of time. We've heard from, I think, every contribution the huge benefit that this bill can potentially give to the Scottish economy and, in particular, the small businesses in the Scottish economy as a way of raising finance. I know it doesn't sit with the remit of the current minister, but it will be interesting to hear his thoughts on this and in relation to why this particular bill has taken so long. Indeed, the awareness of the other bills that are sitting in abeynts at the moment would be helpful to hear on that point. I would like to take my time, the short time that I have left. Stuart McMillan I thank Martin for taking the intervention once again. I know that, certainly, as the committee, we did have that discussion around the timescale, and we came to a unanimous viewpoint on that. We also recognised that, in the last session, with the amount of work that the Central Parliament and the delegated powers as was, we had to deal with in terms of leaving the EU and also Covid. It was a recognition that those two huge incidents would probably have played a part in the delay of the legislation. Stuart McMillan Mr Workfield, I can give you that time back and more. Stuart McMillan I am very grateful, Presiding Officer, because it allows me to then make mention of the pressures that exist on committees across the Scottish Parliament, which has been noted in areas outside of this chamber, but is becoming an important element of the work in about how this Parliament holds to account the Government and the resources that are available to do that properly. I am very grateful for that. I would like to take the opportunity to look in some detail at the minister's letter of 12 December, which I thank him for managing the publication before this debate, which is important. First, in relation to questions that have been raised by the minister, I would like to push further in the work that is being done with the Government at Westminster as to where they are at, as to whether they are going to support the requests of the Scottish Government about amendments that are needed in another place to ensure that laws can be brought up to date. I would because it would be reminiscent of me not to mention the UNCRC, as I do in so many discussions, but to urge the minister perhaps to press the Westminster Government much harder to get an answer to this than is perhaps happening on other matters. The other thing in relation to the assignation of debt by consumers, I realise and recognise and actually am very grateful for the indication from the Government that individual consumers are going to be removed from this, because, as Maggie Chapman rightly said, if it even only affected one or two people, it is absolutely wrong. I do believe that there are people out there who would take the opportunity to exploit the financial challenges that a lot of people in Scotland find themselves under because of the cost of living to a detrimental effect. I will later on return to sole practitioners about the ideas of how individuals can be excluded, but with regard to the actual financial conduct authority and the financial instruments that are going to be created under this, is the minister aware whether or not the collateral arrangements will fall under the consumer credit agreement in respect of sole traders in particular? With regard to the payment of the debt normally being in Scotland made to the original creditor and then passed on, I was very grateful that the minister took an intervention on that and clarified the situation. Is he of concern going forward? Is the minister of concern going forward that that will actually change under the new bill, with payments being made not to the original shop or contractor but to somebody else and whether or not that might cause commercial problems for some particular small traders if that puts off customers coming into their shop? Let me phrase it that way. I would also like to take a small amount of time just to mention and thank the step change, Citizens Advice Scotland, Money Advice Scotland and the CAP for their huge work. I find it interesting that such an unforeseen consequence could come about so late in the day. I am aware that the Government has indicated that it is in correspondence back in 2020, I think that it started. However, I would like to thank those organisations because they did highlight a problem that appears to have gone unnoticed for a significant period of time. Again, I think that it speaks volumes to the committee that this was raised, that the Government has listened and that it will be changed. However, that brings to the very challenging question of how you exclude individuals but keep in sole traders and conscious of time. Let me ask whether or not the minister in summing up will be able to give some indication of how they intend to remove an individual but still protect sole traders or protect individuals but still allow sole traders access to this important finance that is going forward. This is an important bill. It is about modernising legislation. Sometimes old legislation is not bad if it works properly, but in this case there appears to be substantial evidence to show that it is holding back investment opportunity, particularly in our small businesses. I very much welcome its arrival and support at stage 1, but I think that the committee and this debate have shown that there are changes that are needed before stage 2. It will be interesting, as always, to see the amendments that are brought forward, both by the Government and by others around this Chamber, to try and make this fit and proper going forward. So, as others have said, we can free the finance to give those with interesting ideas, with interesting businesses the ability to grow from being perhaps sole traders to who knows maybe multinationals. I am very grateful to you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Workfield. I call Paul McLean, who is the final speaker in the debate, after which we will move to closing speeches in everyone who has been participating in the debate and will be expected to be in the chamber. With that, Mr McLean, in around six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the committee for their work in preparing for this bill. My first job after leaving schools with the TSB in Huntington—I was with the TSB for two years. There were some good career choices at a banker and then a politician. I then moved to the Bank of Scotland, where I spent the next 20 years working in the branch network, financial adviser and laterally in business and corporate banking. The companies that I dealt with were from small one-person businesses to small SMEs to larger scale businesses with hundreds or indeed thousands of employees. What was key to all of them was access to finance. There are nearly 360,000 private sector businesses operating in Scotland as of March 2022. Some businesses are with new employees, that is that sole proprietors or partnerships are compromising only the owner manager or companies compromising only the employee director. That accounts for around about 70 per cent of all private sector enterprises in Scotland and 14 per cent of employment. There have been some good points made today around the discussions about sole trader and protections and access to finance. I think that that will be an on-going topic as we discuss the bill. We can see the scope to support and grow our small business sector. There are some key sectors across Scotland in that, in East Lothian, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, tourism, key areas that require asset finance. The Economy and Fair Work Committee also just published their inquiry into retail and town centres in Scotland. One of the key findings was that of funding mechanisms and how additional support can be provided as seed funding to assist to setting up an on-going and free generation projects. As they become established and develop plans and projects for their town centres, that is key. Again, one of the key things is access for the ability to borrow and grow and expand the workforce and business earning capabilities. Mark Whittle just talked earlier about sole traders and small businesses moving on to larger and larger employees, and I think that that is an incredibly important part of it. As we have heard, the bill will implement the Scottish Law Commission report on moveable transactions published in December 2017. Again, Mark Whittle made a good point about how it can take five years to get to this point where it has made its legislation. The Scottish Law Commission made 203 recommendations to the Scottish Government, broadly accepting the division proposed by the SLC to reform and modernise the law on moveable transactions. The bill has the potential to make a transformational impact for small businesses, particularly around the ability to facilitate invoice financing, as the current legal structures in Scotland are not optimal for doing that. The bill also encompasses law relating to the resignation of the right to performance and obligation, typically the right to be paid money, security of our corporeal moveable properties such as vehicles, equipment, whisky, livestock and, importantly, security of our certain kinds of incorporeal moveable property, specifically intellectual property, which includes copyright, trademarks, design rights and patent. I am very grateful for Paul McLean on giving that way. On that point in re-election to intellectual property, does he have any concerns that perhaps firstly the value of valuing intellectual property is incredibly difficult, but more importantly with the registration there may be a challenge to protecting the intellectual property with information having to be made public earlier than perhaps a company or indeed an individual might wish? Paul McLean, I agree with that. That was one of the points that I was going to raise to the minister, because it has not been a legal expert, but that is a concern that I have raised in terms of this before the bill, so it is something that the minister could pick up. Just coming back to that and talking about finance, it enables business and individuals to use their assets to raise finance by selling debts owed to them or by granting security of our moveable property. In those ways, business can secure crucial cash flow finance, and that was used many, many years and has been used many, many years in the banking sector. If businesses cannot fully exploit their assets other than heritable property to raise finance, they might otherwise have to resort to seeking finance under riskier and more expensive types of funding. That leaves back arrangements, trusts or licensing which are inevitably more expensive to effect. English law is sometimes also used instead which involves Scottish businesses having to register in England. For example, a business may in wish to acquire funding by transferring to a finance institution its claims to payment of its customer invoices. That would be done by means of a diagnostic nation. Alternatively, it might want to retain assets such as vehicles, equipment and intellectual property, but to use those as collateral to obtain loan finance. Individuals might wish to use vehicles to secure finance also. As we have heard, Scottish law in this area is badly outdated and duly restrictive and unfit to meet the needs of modern Scottish business. It is mainly non-statutory and it is unclear in some important aspects that we have heard about today. It has been in the books as we have heard since 1862. The bill will make various types of commercial transactions more efficient, less expensive and less complicated than they currently are. That will lead to greater access to finance for business in particular and to individuals in Scotland. I thank Paul McLean for taking the intervention. I am sure that he will agree with me that the bill is yet another example of the SLC work similar to in the past when we had the legal writings, counterparts and delivery Scotland bill into the Parliament, which I will speak to you in an act that actually helped in terms of business transactions. Paul McLean, I agree with the member. When we talk about the name of this bill, it is not the most sexiest bill that is coming up. The differences that it can make and what is the implementation in the previous bill that the member has mentioned are incredibly important. I know that the bill has been milken by witnesses who stated the legal infrastructure that Scotland relies on from the 19th century. Dr Jonathan Hardman, who is a senior lecturer in company law at the University of Edinburgh and a member of law society, indicated that form in this area was needed drastically and as soon as possible. Reflect on the potential for the development of new high-cost credit market, sits as advice Scotland's strategic lead from financial health miles fit, described the bill as a short in the arm for the high-cost credit industry, which is always waiting for the next opportunity. In conclusion, the policy objective of the bill will contribute to the realisation of the Scottish Government's economic purpose. We already have a strong dynamic and productive economy that creates wealth and employment across Scotland. Our economy is competitive and we have good international trade, investment and export networks. We are considered an attractive place to do business. The bill will help us in this regard. We now move to closing speeches. I call Foshley Paul, Sweeney, for around six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that whilst opening speeches perhaps focused on some of the concerns and deficiencies, I think that it's been great to see the debate evolve over the course of the afternoon to focus on a lot of the opportunities culminating in the speech by the member for East Lothian just passed there about the opportunity for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. He mentioned his experience working at TSB in Bank of Scotland. In fact, my mum worked for both those banks as well. So I think that there is a similar expression of opportunity. I also perhaps highlight on how concentrated Scotland's financial services landscape actually is and a handful of big financial institutions. Whilst they have a lot of opportunities to open up increased financial packages for business lending, perhaps it's something that could be considered more broadly. I think that that is an issue that the committee actually highlighted when we took evidence, was that conventional financial institutions have highlighted the opportunities for business lending but didn't recognise the concerns about consumer risks because they wouldn't ordinarily enter into that space because the credit products that they offer would not be provided for people who are in distress circumstances. That's where there was a major gap in the consideration of evidence because there wasn't the right modelling done or the right consultation done because these people aren't going to advertise the fact that they're going to rip people off. The Wongas and the Bright Houses and all those other nefarious institutions aren't going to turn up at the committee and advertise or to the Scottish Law Commission advertise that they plan to prey on vulnerable people. Whilst highlighting that opportunity, which I think is commendable and absolutely correct, we have to also be cognisant that many of these risks don't present themselves as obviously as we might like. That was a major concern that only became apparent when the money advice agencies came forward and said that this is going to potentially open up a Pandora's box. I'm pleased that the Government, in that sense, has taken swift action to address those concerns, but again hopefully we can just be wary of that in the future. Nonetheless, I think that there's been a lot of very imposing contributions today, particularly from Jenny Minto, Maggie Chapman, talking about the risks that businesses currently face in a very difficult financial landscape where we're seeing increasing cost pressures on business and also, of course, the structural issues in which Jackie Dunbar referred to as well, particularly around invoes, financing, cash flow constraints, which have strangled and destroyed a lot of very great businesses in Scotland, which had a lot of potential to offer our country. To see the kind of landscape of destruction that has been caused unnecessarily because of that lack of access to finance is tragic and it really has stymied our economic potential. So to see our potential solution to that, or at least something that will help, will be a major opportunity. I think that 3,000 businesses were mentioned at fail every year due to cash flow constraints, so being able to liquidate that liability and pass it on to a business or a secondary provider who isn't under the same financial constraints will definitely be a boon for small, medium-sized enterprises across Scotland. I think that Maggie Chapman made an important point about the huge opportunity for businesses with intangible assets, which is such an increasingly important part of our economic model in Scotland. The big traditional industrial model that we had in our economy with big factories and assets that were property-based isn't really a feature as much and increasingly with small, medium-sized enterprises. It's the value of intellectual property, particularly when we look at the richness of our university sector and the spin-off companies that came out of that. The huge opportunities to raise increased finance are really exciting. Yes, absolutely. Martin Whitfield. Very grateful for Paul Sweeney giving way. Of course, when we talk and we have done so eloquently in this chamber about the gaming industry across Scotland, that is one of the very obvious industries that may potentially benefit from this over the long period of developmental time that's taken to produce a game, but the inherent value that's increasing as each of those steps in development take place. I thank Martin Whitfield for that intervention. He makes a really important point in the gaming industry. It's a good example of where Scotland is a great world leader in this field, but it increasingly has to sell the companies to overseas owners in order to raise the finance to bring the games to market. We're actually in a way seeing massive overseas ownership of a sector which Scotland leads the world in because the companies that grow out of Scotland can't raise the finance. They get to a certain level of financial gearing and then they hit a glass ceiling and then the only way to go like Grand Theft Auto, for example, now owned in New York, but it was developed in Dundee. It's a tragic situation when you think it wouldn't be great to have the global headquarters in Dundee rather than New York, because it's actually Scottish ingenuity that's driving this whole thing. These are examples where this could potentially be a real game changer, pardon the pun, for the Scottish economy. There were important points raised, for example, by Katie Clark, about the gap in understanding and development of this legislation. The voice of the poor is very often the last to be heard. This is an example of how this has happened in this process, where unscrupulous activity and predatory activity within our economy is very little understood by perhaps the establishment that develops these proposed bills. That is something that we need to take cognisance of going forward. It's been great that the Parliament has managed to effectively capture that issue. It speaks to the utility of this Parliament as an institution in the land that has effectively addressed the matter. The description was very apt of Mike Daley, where he said that this could potentially have seen the introduction of virtual pawnbroking, and to have that kind of thing happening in our economy in the cost of living crisis would have been absolutely disastrous. It's great that the Government has addressed this, and it is good that it has been addressed. We support that, but we also need to emphasise on the huge opportunities. To go back to the point that Mark Smith, the Maggie Chapman, has raised, is an opportunity for the Government to look at how the enterprise agencies and the investment bank could look to capitalise on this opportunity. It's not just down to the private financial sector to address products, but also for our state enterprise agencies to look at how they can capitalise on this opportunity as well. We can bring products that will help to grow the Scottish economy and improve our productivity. I would like to further emphasise Labour's support of the bill at stage 1. I thank you, Presiding Officer. I will probably disappoint when it comes to filling the full seven minutes, but I have very much enjoyed today's, or this afternoon's, debate, particularly Jackie Dunbar's mention of our O-level path in accountancy, because it gives me the chance to fes up and say that I didn't do particularly well in Professor Andrew Stevens' property law class, so when he appeared in front of the committee and I had the chance to question him on the issues around this bill, I did feel that I had to tread a little bit carefully in case I got any remedial lessons, but the evidence that we heard on the bill largely, of course, has been the focus on the challenges around individuals. I showed that this was a well-designed and much-needed piece of legislation. I also think that we, as a Parliament, have to be careful when we talk about the Scottish Law Commission bills, because the process for them coming to the DPL are committees meant to be where they are non-controversial. The truth is that the bill is not controversial, it is touched upon as a controversial issue, and that is around predatory lending, particularly to vulnerable individuals, but it is not the substance of the bill or its initial intentions that have caused that controversy, it has been as a result of the process. I think that part of that is certainly... Martin Whitfield. Very grateful to Oliver Mundell for giving way on this very point, because it also speaks to the strength and value of the committee system here within this Parliament that actually something that had gone, and this is not disrespectful, unnoticed in the work of the commission, which it does superb work on, found a voice and an opening here in this Parliament that then raised concerns with a group who were able to express those concerns. Absolutely, the reason for the standing order provisions for the commission's bill is because they are to be uncontroversial, but also this acts as a protection to it, and I think that it is a great compliment to the committee that it was through their work on it that this came to light and indeed has been accepted by the Government, and it is also nice to hear the last member of this committee speak in the debate. Thank you. I thank the member for that intervention. I think that that touches on part of the challenge, because the Scottish Law Commission are asked to do a certain job, they are not asked to do the job of politicians, and I think that when we start to talk about the morality of legislation and the politics of it, and some of the practical effects of the law, the fears that those can generate, that is our job and the process has worked this time. It is not for academics or those who are bringing forward those types of proposals to the Government and the Parliament to test out all of the aspects and all of the political challenges that come with it. I think that the process has worked this time because it has allowed a bill that is not fundamentally controversial to come to this Parliament quicker than it might otherwise have done, and it has allowed for all the issues within the bill to be tested. The minister has certainly worked well with the committee in recognising the challenge. Even if it was not as big an issue in practice as some witnesses felt, even if it was not as big an issue in practice as some members of the committee felt, if people are going to have confidence in this legislation, then we have to take the steps on the face of the bill to make it clear what the bill's intention actually is. I think that there are a couple of other issues that I was interested in, one that did not come up in this debate. I would ask the minister to look at or maybe touch on in his own closing remarks, and that is around a free search ability for money advice services that are acting on behalf of individuals effectively on a pro bono basis, because that was one of the other concerns that came out of the discussion. I know that the minister's letter on 12 December says that it is relatively small amounts, a £60 registration fee, a £4 search fee, but for an organisation like Citizens Advice that is operating across much of Scotland, when dealing with a lot of vulnerable individuals who may be doing a lot of searches trying to work out exactly who people owe money to, those sort of fees could start to add up. If we are going to create this type of opportunity for businesses, for lenders, then we have to be mindful that that can create disadvantages for other organisations who are acting in the wider public interest to try and support our constituents and people who are accessing finance across the country. I would ask to hear a little bit more on that. Beyond that, I simply want to reiterate the Scottish Conservatives support in principle for this legislation. I thank the minister again for the constructive way in which he appears to be proceeding at first stage 2. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking all members from across the chamber for their contribution to what I thought was a very stimulating and informative debate, and I reiterate my sincere thanks to the work of the DPRR committee. I am conscious that there has been some commentary on occasion from outwith this place, which perhaps questions how effective our committee provides scrutiny, but I think that the work that has been undertaken in this bill absolutely demonstrates the value of our committee system, and it is leading to better legislation, particularly given the nature of the legislation being an SLC bill. I am conscious that there have been many questions raised regarding process, as I indicated in my letter to the committee. That is a matter that I have raised with the community safety minister. I am conscious that, as a former member of the DPRR committee in the last session of Parliament, it was something in which there was close engagement with the Government on, and I will be happy to have a further engagement with my ministerial colleagues. I think that we would recognise that SLC bills by our nature are uncontroversial, but we cannot necessarily anticipate all eventualities once the legislation is introduced, and, as would be expected, attract wider public engagement and interest. However, of course, that is a process, and we will always learn from each SLC bill that we introduce. Let me touch on some of the points that were raised specifically by members. I want to note that Jeremy Balfour called for the speedy passage of the bill, and Katie Clark suggested that we must take our time to get the amendments right. I will attempt to strike a balance, but I will do so informed by the collective wisdom of the Parliament and the committee, because what is absolutely imperative is that we get that legislation right, because I think that we would all recognise the transformative potential that this bill has for businesses. One of the key issues that has been raised within this afternoon's proceedings follows on from my opening statement where I indicated the Government's intention to bring forward an amendment at stage 2, or amendments to exclude individuals other than sole traders from the provisions relating to a statutory pledge, particularly questions that were raised with how we would work in terms of the distinction between an individual and their capacity as an individual, or indeed an individual and capacity as a sole trader. I was rather hoping this afternoon that I certainly have benefited from mining the Parliament's collective wisdom and hearing various suggestions. We will consider carefully. I am, of course, happy to engage with any members individually, collectively and indeed to engage with the committee ahead of stage 2, because I am conscious that there can be challenges in having to go and draw fine lines, but I think that we are very clear in what the outcome is that we wish to achieve, which is that individuals are excluded, but those acting in the business capacity are included. However, given the reality, that can sometimes be a fine line, and even for individuals to distinguish when they are operating in their capacity as an individual or a sole trader. I will give way to Mr Whitfield. I am very grateful for the minister to give way. Perhaps consideration can be made about making it unenforceable if it is against an individual as compared to a sole trader who is trading, and that would allow the differentiation and the challenge where you have an asset that one person might be a household good musical instrument, but for another person may be a tool of their work. Indeed, and I know that that was one of the suggestions from Mr Swinney, was perhaps transposing the protections and the audit bill is introduced for individuals as consumers could potentially be applied to individuals as sole traders, or small businesses. Those are all points that I am happy to reflect on and to have engagement. The key priority for me is that, recognising that we have a shared outcome that we wish to achieve, is that we make sure that we get the drafting as precise as possible so that we can all have confidence that the legislation will give effect to what we want it to achieve. The question was raised by Mr Balfour around financial instruments. I touched on that in my response and I will reiterate that I will reflect if there is any more information that I can provide. On electronic signatures, he raises an important point about sole traders. Will they have the appropriate software and technology to allow them to use the form of electronic signature as prescribed in the bill? As I indicated in my letter, I am happy to give that further consideration and I will engage with the FSB on that particular matter. Turning on to some of the comments that were brought forward by Paul Swinney, who offered a range of ideas and very much welcomed his contribution, I think that Paul Swinney recognises clearly the value of the bill and we need to get it right. I very much welcome the support of the Labour Party in ensuring that we can make sure that the bill delivers what it wants. I also note that Katie Clark addressed the issue of unintended consequences. Clearly, an unintended consequence has been identified through the committee process. What we obviously want to do is in the process of amending the bill is not to lead to any other unintended consequences, hence I reiterate my commitment to engage closely. Michelle Thompson raised a number of points. I want to provide reassurance on the specific points that she raised. Although there will be a geosystem, we expect that the majority of Assyng nations would be through the statutory register, but the potential for intimation will still exist. That can be used in transactions where issues of confidentiality are more pressing on the matters of protection for debtors. I want to assure Michelle Thompson that debtors who perform to the Assignor in Good Faith, because they are unaware of the Assyng nation, would be protected, and debtors will not be required or expected to search the register error. Of course, I would be very happy to meet Michelle Thompson to discuss the matters that she raised further with regard to specific business models. I very much welcome the contribution from Maggie Chapman on recognising the potential of the bill to support businesses across Scotland. I also recognise that, along with other members, Ms Chapman raised questions with regard to the process and timescales. As I have indicated, that is something that we can collectively reflect on. I want to congratulate Jenny Mintle for perhaps the most creative speech of this afternoon. She raised some very important points. I would like to point out the potential of the bill to support more women into business. It is absolutely essential that we recognise that. It has a clear benefit, particularly in supporting one of our national industries in Whiskie, and the benefits of the bill will confer there. Martin Whitfield raised a number of points throughout his contribution to the bill. He asked for an update on section 104. We have having continuous engagement with the UK Government. I certainly will press the UK Government to continue to engage with us, to be happy to engage with us. From their perspective, I think that the regard is, as we all recognise, a complex and technical piece of legislation that they want to give careful consideration to. I am hopeful that, through a process of mutual engagement and respect that we can get at the outcome that we want, which is the inclusion of financial instruments in the legislation, as originally intended by the SLC. Another question that was posed by Mr Whitfield was about how we intend to remove individuals while protecting sole traders. I touched on that point earlier on. It is something that, of course, we all have to give careful consideration to, but I would reiterate that point. I am keen to hear all ideas into work constructively with members across the chamber. I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer. I want to touch on a point at Paul McClellan race, which I know is of interest to members, which was with regards to the use of incorporeal assets in terms of intellectual property. We just want to highlight that a pledge would be over, for example, a copyright patent, but it would not be necessary to describe the IP in detail on the face of the register, so we would want to provide that reassurance. Let me say that I very much welcome the contribution of members across the chamber this afternoon. I very much welcome the work of the committee, thank Parliament, thank the committee specifically, and look very much forward to continuing to work with members ahead of stage 2. That concludes the debate on moveable transactions. Scotland Bill, point of order, Stephen Kerr. I would like to seek your guidance on a matter of procedure in relation to scrutiny of the Government. I would like to understand what the options are for me as a member of this Parliament in relation to bringing ministers to this chamber in order to scrutinise them. This morning, the Scottish Government released statistics that show a sustained reduction in the number of teachers in Scottish schools, and it showed that the numbers were down by 92 since last year, despite an increase in the school population of 1,151 pupils. There is a great deal to unpack in the figures and the other figures that were released this morning, but in essence class sizes are up and teacher numbers are down. In 2007, there were 55,100 teachers in schools compared to 54,193 today, and despite an increase in the number of pupils from 692,215 to 705,874, there is definitely an issue here that deserves the scrutiny of this Parliament. It is calling out for scrutiny. There are consequences to the reduction in teacher numbers on pupils as they seek to make subject choices for the future, for parents on certain of the size of the class their children will go into, and for teachers, teachers who are stressed due to high workloads and whose morale has been sapped by the cabinet secretary's failure to get to grips with their justifiable concerns that have led to the current industrial action. Could I please ask you to advise me on how we can ensure that the matters in the summary statistics—I know that the SNP members do not like to talk about these things, but they are important matters for consideration. I am seeking the guidance of the Presiding Officer. How can we ensure that the matters in these summary statistics for schools in Scotland can be addressed here in full in this chamber? How can I, as a member, question the cabinet secretary and bring the cabinet secretary to the chamber on these important matters, as our constituents would expect? Thank you, Mr Kerr. I will remind members that under rule 8.17 a member may in any proceedings question whether proper procedures have been or are being followed by making a point of order. I would be grateful if members could make that at the forefront of any contribution. I would say to Mr Kerr that there are many opportunities across the week, and there are different mechanisms that the member may use to put questions to the Scottish Government. That concludes the debate on moveable transactions Scotland Bill at stage 1. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. Thank you, members. The next item of business is consideration of motion 6641 on a financial resolution to the Moveable Transactions Scotland Bill, and I invite John Swinney to move the motion. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. I am minded to accept a motion, not quite yet. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 7236, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to this week's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 7236 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. I am now minded to accept a motion, without notice, under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders. The decision time be brought forward to now, and I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion. Thank you. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, there are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 7210, in the name of Tom Arthur, on Moveable Transactions Scotland Bill at stage 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 6641, in the name of John Swinney, on a financial resolution to the Moveable Transactions Scotland Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time, and we'll move on to members' business.