 Mynd y cyfle ddechrau, mae'r fighazaussiadau diwethaf yn ffOS1, 4664 yn Bremen, mewn i'rregisiadeg y byd ei ddechrau ar gyfwysig y ffOS1, 4664 yn FfOS1, 4664 yn Fos1, 4664 yn Fos1, etc. Rwy'n meddwl, mae hi'n tych yn faith i sylwodau, ddyf i ddym ni'n gwneud, wrth gwrs ddaf yn erbyn popethau. Mae'n ddilladau i ddilladau i ddilladau, ddyf i ddilladau i ddilladau i ddilladau, a doddaf yn ddilladau i ddilladau, Members asked to speak. Therefore, the question is that motion 1, 4, 6, 6, 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Next item of business is stage 3, proceedings on the Prescription Scotland Bill dealing with the amendments. Members should have. The bill is amended at stage 2. That is SP Bill 26A, the martial list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The yn gweithio i faith yÙn yn 30 sgwrdd. Felly, erdoedd wedi gŵr yn gweithio i faith unrhyw o'r sy'n rhaid i dda i'r gwp. Rwy'n cael ei bod i'r cysylltu'r arfer o amlyg ar gyfer hynny o amlwg. I call amendment 1, the name of Neil Findlay. Group with amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Neil Findlay is pleased to move amendment 1 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Thank you. I move amendment 1 and my name and speak to all amendments in the group. There are a number of commonsenture forms in the bill. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee accepted them unanimously. My firstly, there are areas that I believe are needed for the further changes. The chief among those is that the amount of time authorities can chase council tax arrears and reserve social security benefits and tax credits, including the recovery of overpayments. That period in Scotland is as long as 20 years. If you think of things that have gone on in your life in 20 years, think of what it would be like if you had a debt, possible one that you were not aware of. ac, at any time with little warning, see that debt called in by a creditor. You may have no records or recollection of that debt and it might be for a debt you may not know you even ever had. That cannot be right, but that is what is being proposed for debts that are owed for council tax and reserved benefits to the DWP. Why the Scottish Government appears to be taking their line from the DWP in this matter, I do not understand. Indeed, why is the Government proactively seeking the endorsement of the DWP, as the minister did in her letter to them? When in England, the prescription period for the same benefits is six years, the intention of those amendments is not to reduce the amount of money that councils have access to. Scottish Labour has been fighting relentlessly over the years for sustainable and meaningful solutions to the chronic underfunded funders of Scotland's local authorities. That is about the collection of debt payments within a reasonable timescale. Let us be clear, the proposed exemptions do not mean that the pursuer has 20 years for the recovery of the entire debt or 20 years from when the debt was incurred, it is 20 years from your last payment or even the acknowledgement. This situation will leave people in Scotland open to penalties, potentially for decades. After the event and question has occurred, even if they are not aware, it actually happened. We know that many debtors in Scotland have already been pursued for council tax arrears or benefit over payments more than five years after they allegedly happened. The CAB has shown us numerous case studies where clients have been pursued for debts that they have never been notified about and they have historic records from councils and the DWP produced very little to back them up. That causes stress, anxiety and family pressure. On Tuesday, we had ministers and many of the rest of us rightly lay into the DWP on its shambolic handling of universal credit. At the same time, we have the minister writing to Esther McVeigh of all people and seeking her advice on how they can agree the line and give answers to Parliament about a more punitive debt recovery system in Scotland. Why is the Government asking for five years for Scottish social security payments but 20 years to continue for reserved benefits? Those amendments bring us more in line with England and Wales. They are supported by Citizens Advice Scotland, the Government Law Centre, Step Change and Money Advice Scotland and welfare rights organisations and the Scottish Law Society. Finally, with amendments 5, 6 and 7, we are offering a compromise where we can delay the introduction of the five-year prescription by five years to allow local authorities to collect the affected debts. I hope that the chamber will support those amendments and ensure that we have a fair, humane and timuous debt recovery system. Have you concluded or is it an intervention? I have concluded. I have concluded. Please sit down. I have two members who wish to speak. Graham Simpson, who will be followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you. I will try to keep it brief. All the amendments in this group and the second group relate to section 3 of the bill. Section 3 says that all statutory obligations to pay money should fall within five-year prescription. It lists some exceptions, which section 3 says should remain subject to 20-year prescription only. The stage 3 amendments all relate to the exceptions in section 3. The policy debate is whether those types of debts, council tax and reserve social security benefits should be subject to five- or 20-year prescription. This set of amendments, all from Neil Findlay, who I have to thank personally for his time on the DPLR committee, deal with exceptions for council tax. The question is to allow councils 20 years to recover debts or limit it to just five. Here I think that the submission from COSLA is compelling. The committee wrote to all councils asking for their views. COSLA have said that any attempt to impose a five-year prescription period would have significant consequences financially and in terms of the social contract between citizens and their local authority area. I wish to carry on. Moving to a five-year prescription period for local tax would undermine those aims. Councils would be forced to secure court decrees through affirmative court proceedings, which would increase costs for councils, citizens and the Scottish court service. Condensing the prescription period would potentially mean that local authorities will not have the space to be flexible and come to individual payment plans with a debtor, instead having to acknowledge the debt through early court action resulting in decree. More than £2 billion of council tax debt is currently owed across Scotland, and £1.2 billion of that relates to debts that are more than five years old. That is money that could be spent on local services. Making the prescription period for those debts five years would likely force a change in the way that councils recover that debt. For those reasons, we do not support Neil Findlay's amendments. I intend to be brief. I am a member of the Delegated Pousers and Law Reform Committee. I would like to put on record my thanks to my fellow committee members and the clerks, legal advisers and researchers who have certainly, for me, shared light on what is quite a complicated piece of our law. As I said at stage 2, where nearly all of those amendments were discussed and rejected, I have a great deal of sympathy for the aims and motivations behind us, but the concerns that I have at stage 2 remain, which is fundamentally that of unintended consequences. With regard to council tax, COSLA has been very clear on their position. It was interesting that, if I recall an evidence that we had from Mike Daley, he floated the idea of potentially a compromise where there would normally be a five-year prescription, but in exceptional circumstances where fraud was suspected, there could be a 20-year prescription. Those are the kind of ideas that merit further investigation. Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity in this piece of legislation, which is narrowly defined and technical, to fully explore all those areas. Although I am sympathetic to the intentions and motivations behind those amendments, unfortunately, there has not been enough work done on them to make sure that we are in a position where we can be absolutely sure that there are no unintended consequences. With regard to the position relating to reserved benefits, again, I am sympathetic to that, but clearly there are unintended consequences that we have not been able to fully explore. I would just gently say to the Labour Party that the best solution is for benefits to be completely devolved to this Parliament, something that Labour resisted absolutely during the Smith commission process. Let me begin by saying that the bill is about the practical difficulties that the negative prescription has had in practice. It is not an appropriate place to make substantial policy changes in specific areas. It is not a shortcut for Neil Findlay to make far-reaching and unrecognised changes to the recovery of council tax. The bill's aim is not to change the position of council tax, as Mr Findlay has alluded to, but to maintain the status quo as it is currently understood. Local taxes form a substantial source of income for local authorities paying for essential services such as education, housing, roads, etc. Cozzler has told the committee that a 20-year prescription period for recovery of arrears allows local authorities to quickly begin the recovery process at minimal cost to taxpayers, all the while protecting those who owe arrears by entering into long-term arrangements. All of that would be jeopardised by changing and shortening the prescription period. I will give way. Does she accept that the current regime for recovering council tax debt is pernicious? Every member in the chamber probably has case work of people who have lost their job, who have been a student and not a student, who have moved out of shared accommodation, who have split up with their partner and found themselves in the tyranny of sheriff officers knocking at the door. Does she accept that there is a powerful case that we made as early as June 2016 of fundamental reform in the way that council tax is administered to prevent the dire circumstances in which many people have found themselves? I take the member's point on that, but the bill is not the place to address those issues. The First Minister has said that it would be extremely rare for an action to be raised on an account that is more than five years old. However, it is common for debt to be repaid in small amounts over a period of more than five years, particularly as council tax debt is a recurring obligation. Just because local authorities have 20 years before the debt owed is extinguished by prescription, that does not mean that they can wait 10, 15 or even 19 years before attempting recovery. Scots law recognises the separate doctrine of delay. If local authorities were to wait unduly before seeking to recover their debt, that defence might be available to the debtor to bar the pursuer for enforcing their rights. The committee wrote seeking further information and received an impressive number of responses. 26 out of the 32 local authorities and not one agreed that changing the prescription period was appropriate. Instead, they were all adamants that no change to the status quo should be made and this even includes 10 councils under Labour leadership. Among the points made by local authorities were that the policy reasons that justify accepting taxes payable to the Crown—HMRC and Revenue Scotland from the five-year prescription—apply equally to taxes payable to local authorities. In other words, there should be no distinction made between taxes owed to central government and those owed to local authorities. I will give way. Sorry, Neil Findlay. Because there is a distinction in relation to benefits, you want a 20-year period for reserved benefits but five years in Scotland, why do not you bring them in to line? Minister? In the case of the reserved benefits, that is because Scottish ministers have complete control over the policy, they have control over the processes. Scottish ministers do not have control over the policies or the processes of councils or of the DWP, but I do think that the member really ought to explain to the chamber why he thinks that all the councils in Scotland are wrong on this issue, and he is right. Does he take no account of the views of councils on this issue? Your own colleagues are telling you that this is not appropriate. They also pointed out that any change to prescription— Would you both please sit down if the member is not taking his intervention? Do you sit down? They also pointed out that any change to prescription by reducing it would like to force a change in the way that councils recover the debt, making it potentially more expensive to recover the money that is owed, and that is all to the detriment of those who use and rely on our local services. Not only that, however, but local authorities are also concerned about the fact that, in the case of those who use and rely on our local services, changing prescription by reducing it will create an incentive to those who wish to avoid paying their taxes in the first place. Local authorities continue to recover a significant amount of arrears each year. More than £2 billion of council tax debt is owed across Scotland, and more than £1 billion relates to debts that are more than five years old. Even though we are told that we are reaching the end of austerity, that money is vitally needed for local services and not just the debtor. At the beginning of the week, we have had Labour's community spokesperson Alex Rowley talking about an end to austerity for local government and a renewal of powers for our councils. At the end of the week, we have Neil Findlay not only making it more difficult for local government to collect vital sums of money that they are owed, but we also have him making it even easier for those who do not want to pay council tax to do so. Point of order. Minister, please sit down. Point of order, Mr Lindhurst. The point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I wish to refer to the minister's referred to concept of delay in Scotland's law of preventing the raising of— That's not—I'm afraid that's not a point of order. So I want to know what he's referring to. Not point of order, Mr Lindhurst. Thank you, minister. Presiding Officer, tell me how fair it is to the millions of hard-working Scots who struggle to pay their council tax every month. Mr Findlay, on Tuesday in this chamber, talked about his time as a front-line housing officer. He said that he saw daily the struggles and challenges faced by people just trying to get by. How does this amendment help them if all it achieves is to force local authorities to raise individual court actions as they have told us that they would to recover the debt? It is because these amendments would make it easier for those who won't pay and more difficult for those who need more time to pay that I urge Neil Findlay not to press his amendments. Thank you, and I call on Neil Findlay to wind up and Mr Findlay to press or withdraw your amendment. Presiding Officer, I'm sure that the minister welcomed her briefing from Esther McVay because it seemed to provide the entirety of her speech. The reality is that the five-year period can be rolled over if a payment is made or if an acknowledgement is made. Therefore, it is absolutely true. That is no barrier, so the minister is, frankly, wrong on that. The consultation, when you write out to councils—well, it's hardly a surprise if you write out to council chief finance officers that there's going to come back and say, we want to collect money, of course they are going to say that. Let me say this. Isn't it welcome that, on some issues at least, the Government listened to COSLA on something? I hope that they listened to COSLA on the budget. I hope that they listened to COSLA on council workers' pay. I hope that they listened to COSLA on testing for primary kids, or is it only selectively that they listened to COSLA? I think that it is. What happened? We pulled tax debt. What did the council chief finance officers say about pulled tax debt? We dealt with that, because the Parliament agreed to deal with it. The minister again is wrong. That is about putting in place a decent, fair regime for debt recovery in Scotland, in line with England. What we are going to have now, and the Government are pursuing, is a more punitive regime for Scotland, so much for standing up for Scotland. Mr Finlay, could you just say you're pressing your amendment? I'm sure you are, but could you just say you're pressing your amendment? I shall be pressing my amendment. The question is, amendment 1, we agreed to, all we all agreed. We are not agreed, there will therefore be a division, and as this is the first division of the stage, the Parliament will be suspended for five minutes. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 1. This is a 32nd division, and members should cast their votes now. They voted yes, 27, no, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I will now move on to group 2, in a call amendment 2, in the name of Mark Griffin, in a group on its own. Mr Griffin, please, to move and speak to amendment 2. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My amendment today is the same as the one that I submitted at stage 2. I am with Drew with the agreement of the committee. As I explained then, I am seeking to reduce the prescription period for reserved and EWP debts to five years. This amendment removes the exception to the rule, to the five-year rule that the Government wishes to pursue. And to be clear, this was something that was missing earlier today, that would not consolidate the debt recovery process into five years, but would mean that recovery must begin in those five years. Not only is my amendment consistent with the law commission's original principle that all debts should be covered by a five-year rule, but it would put the rules in line with those debts owed to Social Security Scotland, our new system, built on dignity and respect. In the joint briefing, support my amendment, Citizens Advice Scotland, Money Advice Scotland and Step Change explain that, if passing its current form today, the prescription bill will afford the DWP a more privileged status to recover debts than Social Security Scotland. Given that DWP debts do not have an explicit place in the 1973 act, the Government's exception means that Scots law would go further and explicitly extend the powers of the DWP. The DWP may implicitly rely on paragraph 2A of schedule 1 in that act, but to explicitly spell out new rights accepting it from the five-year rule would go further. I am sure that that is not the intention of the chamber or our desired policy outcome, which is why I am asking members to support my amendment today. At stage 2, I asked the minister what is the Scottish Government's view on treating DWP debt the same way that we will in Scotland. The minister's response was that it was a matter for the DWP and that that bill is not the place to change it. That is patently wrong. That is a prescription bill and it devolved Scottish Parliament. That is precisely where we change it. It is for this Parliament to decide on our own laws, governance and debt collection, not for the DWP to dictate a timescale and for the Government to passively accept that demand. The minister told the committee repeatedly, wholeheartedly, to rely on the DWP's evidence, that it was the DWP's view that a five-year rule would cause hardship through overzealous and rapid recovery. Still, since then, the minister has even written to Estimac Vaill of all people of this Tory Government for answers to the points that I made at stage 2 meetings. That is unbelievable. The minister is either looking for the DWP to tell her whether she should support the five-year rule or she is looking for the DWP to tell MSPs that they are wrong. Minister. The reason that the Scottish Government was seeking clarity on some of those issues is that Mark Griffin himself had said that he thinks that this amendment would only affect a very small number of people. In fact, the reality of it is that it is 413,000. What does the member have to say to that? Mark Griffin. That was a good answer from Estimac Vaill that the minister read out. It is clear that the Scottish Government does not know why it opposes Labour's amendment. It is only doing what Estimac Vaill tells them. However, the DWP's assertion that they would need to collect all debts within the five years is wrong. It is built on a misconception of both the bill and how the five-year rule works. The DWP, even if the bill passes unmodified, has a plethora of tools to collect debts and, believe me, it does. Earnings, bank attachments and deductions from live benefits, even seizures are used in some ways or another before it relies on a court process. As citizens advice Scotland reiterate, if the debt is called or acknowledged or even a single payment is made using those recovery mechanisms, that five-year window restarts up to the hard 20-year limit that the bill will introduce. At stage 3, I told the committee that the DWP should get its house in order. If it is doing its job and paying people the right benefit, it can surely recover debts in a timuous fashion. Waiting years to chase up its debts or being given another 15 years to recover debts is wrong. Should it not have its house in order to collect those debts within five years? We know that the DWP would prefer recovery through its reserve powers not through a court decree or document of debt. However, if it did exercise its right under the proposed amendment, it would have five years to take action. That is far more reasonable than 20 years. Crucially, it is in line with the position of this Parliament in relation to its own social security act. In May, the then Minister for Social Security said that, if Parliament's view is that five years is generally a fair and equitable period to allow for the recovery of debts, the Scottish Government's view is that it fits best with the aim of treating people with dignity and respect by that general rule. Where there has been an overpayment, people should expect the agency to act promptly in deciding whether to recover it. Surely, after Parliament agreed accordingly in April, the same principle applies to DWP debts. This debate is in stark contrast to the one that we had on Tuesday. Just two days ago, the whole chamber, apart from the Tories, collectively condemned the UK Government and the DWP in particular for their handling of universal credit and the misery and poverty that is causing. Today, we have the Government doing the bidding of the DWP and Tory Government. The DWP and Tory Government of the Rape Clause, the two-child limit, the benefits freeze, sanctions, the bedroom tax and everything else to import far longer periods for recovery for reserved social security debts than our own Scottish social security agency would have. I move amendment 2 in my name. Before I call Tom Arthur, I remind members that, if they want to speak in relation to amendment 2, it is helpful if they press the request to speak once as soon as we move on to that amendment. The arguments put forward by Mr Griffin are almost identical to the arguments that he put forward at stage 2. As I said at that point and as I said in responding to Neil Findlay earlier this afternoon, I am sympathetic to the motives and the intentions, but clearly there is a concern for unintended consequences given that there are reserved benefits. The question that I posed to Mark Griffin at stage 2 was, what engagement Mr Griffin have you had with the DWP to clarify those points? His answer was, none. Can I ask him if, ahead of stage 3, what work has he done to clarify that? Ultimately, there is a danger of unintended consequences and it is our responsibility and duty as legislators to fully investigate those matters. That is all that I have to say. Have you concluded? I have concluded. I am sorry, he has concluded, Mr. He has concluded. I call the minister, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to begin this section, but again, by reiterating, the aim of this bill is not fundamental reform of the law of negative prescription but rather to fix problems that have arisen in practice. The amendment from Mark Griffin, the amendment that Mark Griffin has lodged, departs from the status quo. I listened to the speech that Mark Griffin made in the chamber on Tuesday, in which he urged MSPs to act to help people who are suffering. If we look at his amendment here today, what it does is change the length of time in which the DWP can recover overpayments of reserved benefits, reducing it from the current 20 years to five. Why does this matter? Because it would force the DWP to take debtors to court so that they can have the same amount of time that they already have under the current system. In terms of the potential impact, the value of debt owed to the DWP over five years old currently stands at just over £1.2 billion, and that belongs to 413,000 debtors. For those who are able to pay off their debts, but only in periods of time of over the five years, say six, seven, eight or more years, Mark Griffin's amendment would have an enormous impact on them, making them face even more hardship. That is a large amount of families to increase hardship on. That is especially so, given that the rate of deductions taken from benefits is set out in legislation and other debts can take priority. It was only on Tuesday that Mark Griffin talked about the growing number of arrears as a result of universal credit. It will mean that debtors now not only have to pay off their debt but may also have the extra expense of legal proceedings over and above the original sum. They will also have to pay an annual judicial rate, and the interest on that is 8 per cent. To put that into context, the current base rate of interest in the UK is 0.75 per cent. Not only that, because the debtor will then have a mark on their credit score, that will affect their ability to gain credit in the future. Writing about wider income pressures, the head of advocacy at the Carnegie UK Trust Douglas White recently pointed out that, for many, credit is something to be relied on as part of normal life, and debtors, as a result of Mark Griffin's proposed changes, may then find it more difficult to pay for unexpected bills. Mark Griffin has suggested that it is unfair to have a debt hanging over someone's head for 18 years before the DWP takes action. Does he not realise that Scott's common law recognises the doctrine of delay, and that law sits alongside negative prescription but separate from it? That bill does not affect it. What that means is that, if a pursuer were to wait 18 years before raising an action, as he suggested, the debtor would be able to rely on this defence to bar a pursuer for enforcing their rights. What Mark Griffin is doing— Excuse me a minute, Ms Lamont, when the member is not taking intervention, please resume your seat. Please resume your seat. She's not taking—she's waved your—are you taking this intervention? No. Please resume your seat. I've asked you to resume your seat politely. Thank you. Minister continue. What Mark Griffin is doing is trying to alter the behaviour of the DWP by changing the period of prescription from 20 years to the shorter period of five years, but—this is the important point to you—you may want to listen to this without fully understanding and taking cognisance of the unintended consequences. There has been no widespread public consultation on what this amendment would mean. I will take an intervention. Neil Findlay. All of the case put forward by the minister, does she think that the CAB Scotland would be putting forward that case if what she says is correct? Does she think that the Government Law Centre would, the Scottish Law Society would, step change would? The minister is wrong and she knows it, and she's trying to blank out all the advice that we've heard from the money agencies. More difficult. Scottish ministers are not in control of the policies and the processes of reserved benefits. I would assume that that would be clear to the Labour Party. Am I a fan of universal credit? No, I am not. I'm on record as saying that. Is this bill the place to make changes and try to control that? No, it isn't. It is not. I assure the chamber that I have the debtor firmly in my mind as I think about this. When I say that the unintended consequences of this are likely—very likely—to increase hardship, please take consideration of that. Mr Findlay, please sit down. This is a very passionate debate, which I understand. I want courtesy. We have an intervention system that is up to the member. I don't want shouting across the chamber. It doesn't do anybody any good service. Minister, please. You'll have to conclude. This amendment would mean that there would be unintended consequences, which could be extremely far-reaching. After all, it only seems like common sense that being told that you have more time to recover a debt if you take a court action will result in more court actions. This bill is intended to bring clarity to the area of the law, and accepting this amendment would, I believe, only create uncertainty, and it is highly undesirable. For those reasons, I urge Mark Griffin not to press his amendment. I now call Mark Griffin to wind up. Would you press or withdraw this amendment? I have to say to Tom Arthur that I looked carefully at the DWP evidence. I also looked at the evidence carefully from Citizens Advice Scotland, Step Change Scotland, Money Advice Scotland, from the Government Law Centre and members who gave evidence. The key to all that is, after reading that evidence, I came to the informed position that I have now, that I will be pressing my amendment. The difference between this side and the Government side is that I have come to my own conclusion and I am not reading from a DWP script. This amendment would mean that recovery action would have to be taken within five years for reserved DWP debts. If any action was taken to recover debt within that five years, that five-year period would then extend to another five years from the point of collection. If a single payment was made that clock then starts again, another five years for the time of collection. If an acknowledgement is made of the debt, that five-year clock starts again, another five years to collection, up to a hard limit of a total of 20 years as set out in the bill. That seems a very sensible position to take. That is the position that this Parliament took in relation to social security Scotland debts. The reasoning behind that from the Government at the time was that that was considered to give people dignity and respect and the ability to challenge decisions. We know from our extensive casework that there are many occasions where the DWP makes overpayments to people through agency error. Where is the ability to summon to look back 20 years to be able to challenge a DWP decision on overpayment as to whether it was their fault or whether it was the agency's fault? Who keeps those records for 20 years? I urge members to support the amendment for the reason set out not just by me but by the Government Law Centre, Citizens Advice Scotland, Money Advice Scotland and the whole range of public debt advocates and to reject the DWP arguments that the minister brings to the chamber today. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There is not an agreement. Therefore, there will be a division. This is a 60-second division. Forgot to cast your votes in that 60 seconds. It is kind of important. The result of the division is, yes, 29, no 81. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Now, amendment 3, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 1, Mr Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. This is another 60 seconds. It is a 30-second division and members should cast their votes now. The result of that division is, yes, 29, no 81. There were no abstentions. That amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 4, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 1, Mr Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. This is 30 seconds. Members should cast their votes now. The result of that division is, yes, 29, no 81. There were no abstentions. That amendment is not agreed. Amendment 5, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 1, Mr Findlay, to move or not move. Amendment 6, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 1, Mr Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 7, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 1, Mr Findlay, to move or not move. The question is not moved. That ends consideration of amendments. Thank you. Before we move on to the debate, as members will be aware, at this point, the proceedings that the Presiding Officer is now required to consider understanding orders, whether or not in his view any provision of the the Bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchises for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the bill, the Presiding Officer has decided that, in his view, no provision relates to protected subject matter, therefore the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed as stage 2. Next item of business is a debate on motion 1, 4, 6, 6, 5 in the name of Ash Denham on the Prescription Scotland Bill at stage 3. Before I invite Ash Denham to open the debate, I call on Humza Yousif to signify Crown Consent to the Bill. I call on Humza Yousif. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty having been informed of the purpose of the Prescription Scotland Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. We now begin the debate. I call on Ash Denham, minister, to speak to and move the motion. I am pleased to be here today to open the debate on the Prescription Scotland Bill. I would like to thank members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their work in considering this bill and the work of the clerks supporting it. I would also like to thank David Johnson QC and Gillian Swanson, whose work at the Scottish Law Commission informed this bill. The aim of the bill is to increase clarity, legal certainty and fairness in the law of negative prescription. In civil law, the doctrine of negative prescription serves a vital function. It sets time limits for when obligations and rights are extinguished. This serves the interests of individuals where, after a certain lapse of time, it is fairer to deprive one of a rights rather than allow it to trouble the other. It serves the public interest because litigation begun promptly encourages legal certainty. The law of negative prescription cuts across many policy areas, and we saw this today when we discussed Mark Griffin's amendment. Negative prescription is just one piece of a jigsaw, but an important piece. It is worth bearing in mind that the intentions of this bill are to resolve certain issues within the law of negative prescription that have caused difficulty in practice not to make changes in specific policy areas. What does the bill do? We have already heard about what section 3 does not do, so I would like to begin by explaining to everyone what it does. It extends the five-year negative prescription to cover all statutory obligations to make payment that are not already subject to that rule. This new general rule significantly simplifies the law in this area because there are currently some such obligations that are not subject to five-year prescription. It means that the list of specific obligations does not have to be continually updated. As we know, there are exceptions to this new rule, such as taxes, council tax and DWP overpayments, which maintain the current position. Negative prescription is about the extinction of obligations after they become enforceable, but it is difficult to say that there is an enforceable obligation unless you know who to enforce it against. When you may be entitled to damages, it is only fair that if you do not know who is responsible, the clock should not start to run until you do know or can reasonably be expected to know who caused the loss, injury or damage. Section 5 of the bill does just that for five-year prescription because it makes little sense for the prescription clock to start running when the creditor is aware of the cause of their loss but does not know who is responsible for it. If it is fair to creditors that the five-year clock will not start until they discover the identity of the person responsible, it is also fair to defenders that the 20-year clock does not carry on indefinitely against them. It is a feature of the current law that both the five-year and the 20-year prescriptive periods run from when an obligation becomes enforceable. For obligations to pay damages, that means when the loss, injury or damage occurs. As a result, a long period of time can pass after the act or a mission before the 20-year period starts to run. Another feature is that the 20-year prescription can be interrupted and the clock reset, so it is possible for a very long time to pass before an obligation finally prescribes. The bill will address both by making the 20-year prescription in relation to obligations to pay damages begin on the date of the defender's act or a mission, while also making the 20-year prescription a true long stop by preventing it from being interrupted. Where proceedings are on-going, when the 20-year period expires, then the prescriptive period is extended until the proceedings are finished. I am grateful to the committee for their work in clarifying how this extension would apply to property rights. As time is running out, I will briefly mention some of the miscellaneous provisions that are set out in the bill. First, the bill allows parties, once a dispute has arisen, to agree to extend once only the five-year prescriptive period for up to a maximum of one year. That is so that they can negotiate an end to their dispute without the need to resort to legal proceedings, meaning that they can avoid the expense of protracted litigation. Second, the bill seeks to take account of claims that are made in sequestrations and company administration receiverships, both of which are not covered by the definition of relevant claim and so cannot stop the prescription clock. I would like to conclude by saying that the approach that is taken in the bill is not one of wholesale reform. It is, after all, one piece of the wider jigsaw that is Scots law. The focus is on those areas that have been identified by the Scottish Law Commission as causing difficulty in practice, and it is those areas that the bill addresses. Prescription plays an essential part in Scots law balancing the interests of creditors on the one hand and debtors on the other. I believe that this bill strikes a fair balance overall, redressing causes of unfairness for creditors and debtors, while also serving the wider interests of fairness, justice and certainty. I move that the Parliament agrees that the prescription Scotland bill will be passed. I now call Graham Simpson. Five minutes, please, Mr Simpson. The prescription bill has made its way through the parliamentary process until this point, barely noticed. Members can be thankful to the DPLR committee for doing the heavy work on this and protecting it from its intricacies. I thank the clerks of the committee. Members would have been none the wiser about it until Richard Leonard brought it to the First Minister's attention earlier today. A nation will be watching this session agog, no doubt, thanks to Mr Leonard. This bill may not have set the heather on fire until today, but it is important nonetheless. Gordon Lindhurst spoke at length—well, it certainly seemed that way during the stage 1 debate. Mr Lindhurst. In fairness to myself, my contribution or non-contribution having been mentioned, it does not member agree with me that it would be helpful for the minister to clarify what she meant by the suggestion that the 20-year time period in fact might be meaningless in the question about the five and 20-year prescription because of some concept of delay in Scots law. That seems to, if anything, if it is not there to make the argument for Neil Findlay's amendments that have been rejected. I think that intervention is also at length, but I will give you some of your time back, Mr Simpson. I think that I agree with that. You can no doubt see why Mr Lindhurst's catchphrase is a dry pause. The bill is a Scottish law commission bill that aims to amend the law relating to the extension of civil rights and obligations by passage of time. Is he okay back there? It concerns negative prescription only. That is the time limit within which a person who is aggrieved must raise their claim in court. If the time limit is missed, the ability to pursue the claim is lost. The bill would amend the current law found in the prescription limitation Scotland Act 1973. That says that some legal obligations are affected by five-year prescription, some are only affected by 20-year prescription and some are never brought to an end by prescription. In other words, there are some cases where you have five years in which to take action, others where you have 20. It is important to strike the right balance. Most of the bill is not controversial, but we have heard earlier the areas that have been. I do not propose to go over those, because we have had that debate. However, let me give you another example of why the bill is so important, and it is not council tax or benefits. It is the case of Morrison versus ICL plastics. That stemmed from the tragic explosion at the Stockline Plastics factory in Glasgow in May 2004, in which nine employees were killed and many left seriously injured. The case centered on a nearby business, David T Morrison and Co, which had suffered significant damage from the explosion. When it sued ICL plastics who owned stockline for its loss, ICL defended the claim on the basis that it had already prescribed. In essence, Mr Morrison was told that he was too late to receive justice. The case revolved around the interpretation of the existing legislation and what was the start date, what start date was, on which the loss, injury or damage occurred. While Morrison believed that the start date was in 2013, when it found out the explosion was ICL's fault, ICL argued that the start date had begun in 2004, when Morrison had initially suffered the loss. The Supreme Court, by a majority of three to two, found in favour of ICL. The bill allows the pursuer to know who caused the loss before the prescription period begins. It will mean that, in future, people like David Morrison, trying to seek recompense for damage, suffer due to negligence, will not be told that it is too late. That is a welcome change to the law. We support the bill. Prescription may well be a technical area of law, but it is one that undoubtedly has very direct and real human consequences. Reform and protecting people from unreasonable pursuit of debt is both the right thing to do, but it will also protect some of the most vulnerable people and the most difficult of circumstances. Labour will support the bill this evening and supports what it sets out to do, but it is far from perfect. That is why we sought to amend it, to make it fairer and to make it more just. We are disappointed that the Government did not support our amendments, and that is undoubtedly a missed opportunity. I would like to thank the many people and organisations, the DPR, the committee and the clerks for the informed debate that we have had on this important issue, sharing insights and experience that has undoubtedly been of use. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the Scottish Law Commission, whose work prompted the bill's introduction in the first place. Prescription encourages people to enforce their rights promptly before it becomes too difficult for the person or organisation defending a claim to gather appropriate evidence. Delay can cause the quality of evidence needed to defend a court case to deteriorate. Bills and bank statements become damaged or destroyed. Frankly, who here keeps their bank statements for more than a couple of years, let alone 20? Witnesses might have died or become untraceable, or simply might not recall the facts. Having an unduly long time limit might leave people to be pursued for debts after a length of time that anyone would consider to be unreasonable, leaving people vulnerable to high penalties many years after they first incurred them when they may not even be aware or receive notice of those debts at all. The prescription bill before us therefore makes positive changes such as the amendment of the test of discoverability, which will ensure that three criteria must be fulfilled before a five-year prescription period begins. Those changes are positive and will make a real difference, but that is also why the Government's failure to back our amendments is so disappointing, because they render their approach inconsistent. As the bill currently stands, council tax and benefits payments administered by the Department for Work and Pensions are exempted from the five-year prescription period, making them subject to the 20-year period. The bill makes it clear that it is unreasonable for individuals and private companies to be subject to a 20-year prescription period. If it is unreasonable for individuals and private companies to pursue debts and those circumstances, why does the Government believe that it is acceptable for state bodies, whose very existence and purpose is to support people? Why is it reasonable for the state and for the Government to be exempted from a five-year prescription period? If five years is right for the Scottish social security debt, surely it is reasonable period for UK social security debt. That consistency and double standard best encourages and facilitates bad practice and inefficiency from the state—the state that should be leading by example, not looking for get-out clauses. It is deeply unfair that people begin to be pursued for a debt and charged interests that they were unaware of for up to 20 years. That is why we propose to reduce the amount of time local authorities have to notify people who are in debt before that debt expires. We do not believe that there is too much to expect our public bodies to be able to organise their finances in that reasonable time, recognising that that would be a significant change of bill. We offered a compromise. We offered to the Government a delay of the introduction of a five-year prescription for cancer tax by five years—a grace period, if you like—that would have given local authorities 10 years to get their affairs into order. Given the evidence for removing the exemption from cancer tax for the five-year prescription, it is compelling, which is why Sisters Advice Scotland, Step Change, Money Advice Scotland and, indeed, the Lost Society have supported it. Let me turn to the advice that the Government sought. Not too long ago, people were being hounded for a historic full-tax debt. Why, then, is this Scottish Government enabling historic injustices to be repeated? Why is this Scottish Government taking its cues from the UK Government? In Let's Be Clear, we are talking about debts accrued through the public's benefit system. Debt is incurred through, among other things, the roll-out of universal credit. Why on earth are SNP ministers seeking advice from a Government as reviled as this current Tory Government in Westminster? In a policy area where that Government is willfully impoverishing people and writing, asking for advice from Esther McVeigh, the very minister responsible for so much of that damage that is being done through the roll-out of universal credit. That is, frankly, shocking. The SNP should be ashamed that they are taking their policy cues from this shocking and shameful Conservative Government. I'm afraid that this bill is far from perfect. I'm sorry, I have to keep please. It contains many good measures and we will be supporting it, but this is undoubtedly a missed opportunity. Thank you very much. I call Liam McArthur, Mr McArthur, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I know that time is short. I don't want to speak for long, but I think that the controversy surrounding the amendments earlier on this afternoon perhaps make it worthwhile me setting out some thoughts on that core issue of dispute. Before I do that, can I join with others in thanking the Scottish Law Commission for their work on this, the DPLR committee for the scrutiny work that they've carried out so diligently and put on record Scottish-level Democrat support for legislation? I believe that it will help modernise and bring a greater degree of clarity to the law surrounding prescription here in Scotland. Establishing a cut-off point for claims to be raised or rights to be asserted has the advantage of providing certainty, giving individuals and businesses a chance to organise their affairs and plan for the future. Even for those pursuing a claim or a debtor an obligation, they will benefit, I believe, from the enforced discipline of making any claim in good time. In terms of the perspective of exemption of council tax and business rates from the five-year prescription, I accept that the case may be more nuanced, and we heard some of that played out this afternoon. CAS and others working to support those who find themselves in financial difficulty do have concerns with such an exemption, as indeed does the law society. Although councils, like others, have to be required to do everything possible to pursue debts in a timely fashion, I struggle to accept that the 6 per cent penalty charge that attaches to unpaid council tax would act as a disincentive on the collecting council. I cannot see a council adopting a strategy, and that effectively would be what it is, to deliberately delay collections in order to increase penalty charges. The cause was concerned that introducing a five-year prescription would, quote, disincentivise payment and lead to a decline in year collection. It seems to me to be credible and worthy of our consideration. Even with the grace period that was set out by Daniel Johnson in his comments earlier, it would potentially inhibit current work to collect outstanding debt at a time when every council in Scotland is having to deal with budget cuts. On that basis, my party was not persuaded by the case that was put forward by Neil Findlay earlier. We would, of course, be interested in the outcome of any future consultation on that specific issue in due course. For now, however, I can confirm that Scottish Liberal Democrats will be supporting the legislation at the same time shortly. Thank you very much. I call the minister to close and wind up the debate for the Government. I would first off like to begin by thanking all the members for their contribution to what has been an important debate. I have listened to what has been said and I welcome the support offered for the provisions of the bill by members from parties across the chamber. In closing the debate, I will pick up on a few of the provisions of the bill that have been discussed this afternoon, which aim to bring clarity, legal certainty and fairness to the law of negative prescription in Scotland. As mentioned already, section 3 extends the five-year negative prescription to cover all statutory obligations to make payment that are not already subject to that rule with some exceptions. That general rule provides a more straightforward means to establish whether an obligation prescribes after five years or after 20 years. We have already spent a lot of time on this this afternoon discussing some of the exceptions to the general rule, so I will not go over that again. However, it is enough to say that there are some exceptions to this rule, obligations that are primarily of a public nature, and they maintain the status quo. Section 5 of the bill is an important section because it is the one that has caused some anxiety for practitioners. The bill seeks to restore a more equal balance between a pursuer and defender where damages are sought. It does this by laying out a three-part test that, when met, begins the five-year prescription clock. It will now not start until pursuers discover the identity of the person responsible for the loss, injury or damage caused and could reasonably be expected to have identified the person responsible. Equally for defenders, the 20-year prescription clock does not carry on indefinitely against them. It creates a fine balance between the rights that a pursuer seeks to enforce their obligation and the duties of a defender to undertake their obligation. In the case of obligation to pay damages, the 20-year prescriptive period begins on the date of the act or a mission giving rise to the claim. It makes the 20-year prescription no longer amenable to interruption, either by relevant claim or by a relevant acknowledgement, while allowing the 20-year prescriptive period to be extended where a relevant claim has been made during the prescriptive period. By the end of that period, the claim has not been finally disposed of and the proceedings are on-going. Finally, I want to mention the extension of the five-year negative prescription period by agreement that the bill allows. That provision recognises the need to balance the interests of legal certainty with a way of resolving disputes that does not require going to court in the first instance. Such agreements can be entered into only after a dispute has arisen and allows the prescriptive period to be extended by a maximum of one year. I was glad to see the committee recognise the merit of such agreements at stage 1. In summary, I would like once more to thank members who have contributed to today's debate. I am pleased to hear members express their support for the principles of the bill, and that is to provide certainty, clarity to those areas of the law of negative prescription that have caused practical difficulties in operation. The provisions of the bill protect those who have a claim from running out of time in which to proceed with it, change the current situation of possible perpetual liability, including for those who have historic council tax debt and make clearer which obligations prescribe after five years. I commend the motion in my name. Thank you very much, minister. That concludes the debate on the prescription Scotland bill at stage 3, and it is time to move on to the next item of business.