Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting of 2024 of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. The sole item of business this morning is consideration of the bankruptcy and diligence Scotland bill at stage 2. I welcome Tom Arthur, Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, who is accompanied by three Scottish Government officials. I also welcome Daniel Johnson and Paul O'Kane MSP, who are not members of the committee but are here this morning to lodge and speak to their amendments. Officials seated at the table are here to support the minister, but are not permitted to speak in the debate on amendments. Members are reminded to direct their comments or questions to the minister. Before we begin, I will briefly explain the procedure for anyone who is watching. All amendments lodged have been grouped for debating purposes into nine separate groups, as listed on the published groupings of amendments for stage 2, published on the promise website. Each of the nine groups will be debated in turn. After an amendment has been moved, it can only be withdrawn with the agreement of the committee, and I will ask for agreement. If the committee does not agree, there will be a vote. Once committee members are allowed to vote, voting will be by a show of hands. Members should keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote, and I will then read out the result. In addition to the amendments, the committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill. I will put the questions on each section at the appropriate points. We will now start stage 2 amendments. I will begin by calling amendment 18 in the name of Paul O'Kane, which is grouped with amendments 18A and amendments as shown in the groupings. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning to colleagues in committee and to the minister. I begin by offering my apologies on the need for a manuscript amendment. In my haste to get amendments lodged before the deadline, I failed to note a typographical error in my original amendment 18, which set the moratorium recovery period of 30 days. Let me be clear that that was an error, and I support the longer period, which is now noted in the manuscript amendment, so that was just an explanation to the committee of the need, first of all, for amendment 18A. I will turn to the wider amendment and its purpose. I understand that the committee has discussed this at length in terms of the evidence that is heard, and indeed through its proceedings at stage 1. I understand that there is not universal agreement on the provisions that should or should not be included in the moratorium, and there is, of course, a variance of views. I also understand that there has been a degree of debate around the need for it on the face of the bill or in regulations. Essentially, I have brought those amendments because I believe that it is important that we have more detail in terms of how a moratorium might work and who a moratorium might best serve. By doing that in the face of the bill, we can have certainty, and we can have clarity in terms of that moratorium more widely. 18 and 19 are brought so that we can have a clear debate on that this morning. I am happy just to speak briefly to what my intended amendment would do in terms of that moratorium. My amendment would give greater permanence and clarity on the structure of any mental health moratorium, including establishing in law that a moratorium on debt collection in cases of mental health will exist, establishing the conditions under which the individual is deemed to be receiving mental health crisis treatment, establishing who can apply for the moratorium on the debtor's behalf, establishing what must be contained within any application for a moratorium, and establishing the length that any such moratorium would last if granted to a debtor. I think that what is clear from my engagement with a number of organisations is that, as I said, there is a variance of views, but on balance many mental health organisations are keen to see the moratorium outlined on the face of the bill and indeed to be broader than what I think has been proposed by the Government, so indeed to not just deal with initial emergency treatment but to go wider into perhaps the community spaces as well. I wonder if I can convene or just perhaps briefly touch on the other amendments in the group, if that is acceptable to you. Yes, the group has been taken as a whole. So amendment 16 in the name of Colin Smyth compels the minister to make provisions under any regulations for enforcement of the moratorium and sanctioning creditors who do not abide by regulations. I think that sits quite neatly in terms of what I have tried to outline in my amendment, ensuring that people are compelled to comply with the outlined moratorium. I am also supportive of amendments 20 and 21 in the name of Daniel Johnson, which I think seek to, if we do not have a moratorium in terms of the face of the bill, but seek to push the Government and how it will consult with Parliament and with this committee on any regulations that pertain to a moratorium. I think that it is absolutely vital this morning, regardless of whether my amendment proceeds or not, that we have this debate and discussion on a moratorium that is scrutinised clearly by Parliament and, crucially, by the stakeholders that I have referenced in my comments this morning, particularly in the advice sector and in the mental health support sector, to ensure that it is going to be a moratorium that will work, can be enforceable and can get the most benefit to the people who need it. On that basis, I am happy to move the amendments. I now invite Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 16 and all the other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 16, in my name, provides that where regulations are brought forward under subsection 2e, they must provide for sanctions for creditors who do not abide by the moratorium and a complaints process for debtors. Section 1 of the bill provides that Scottish ministers may, by regulations, make provision about the consequences, if any, for creditors who abuse the moratorium. I believe that there must be a firm commitment to introducing sanctions for those who ignore the mental health moratorium. The existing plans advise that a debt advisor may inform the relevant authorities or regulatory bodies about a creditor's misconduct without any detail on who this authority or regulatory body would be. The Scottish Government needs to set out what the practical consequences are for creditors who do not adhere to those obligations and advise which relevant authority or regulatory body will be responsible for enforcing those consequences. Given that without proper sanctions, integrity of the moratorium may be compromised, as we have seen occur in England and in Wales. My amendment 17 provides that where a mental health moratorium is established by regulations, it may not make provision for making information about applicants publicly available. That means that there cannot be a public register but also that this information could not be published in another way. There have been serious concerns raised to the committee that creating a public record of someone's significant mental health issues could create undue stigma. Going through a mental health crisis can be daunting enough for someone without the added worry that this could be made public. This could deter people from applying for the scheme and severely limiting its effectiveness, which might already be very limited given the very tight proposed criteria. The initial mental health moratorium consultation highlighted that the Scottish Government was considering the development of a public register of people who accessed a mental health moratorium if that can be done in a way that does not unduly stigmatise them. However, it is not clear how that will be achieved and there is scepticism that there is any capacity to build a public register in a way that would not cause undue stigma. Furthermore, mental health moratoriums operating across the rest of the UK do not use a public register. In my view, there is no requirement for one in Scotland. I am very supportive of the other amendments in this group from Paul O'Kane and Daniel Johnston, who highlight the real concerns that this committee heard and very much speaks to the view that the committee took that the current criteria on a mental health moratorium is far too restrictive, and that should change either in the face of the bill or through a process that allows Parliament proper scrutiny on that particular criteria. Thank you, Mr Smith. I now invite Daniel Johnston to speak to amendment 20 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I am following on from what Paul O'Kane and Colin Smith were saying. The key concern with this bill is not the principle or its intent. The need to look at debt moratoriums for those who are in distress is well understood and well made. The issue is that this is a framework bill with very much clarity in terms of how this will impact or even what is required of the Government to bring forward. If you look at section 1 subsection 2, there are various criteria regarding what the Government may bring forward regulations on, but there is no requirement for them to do that. Nor is that a list that limits the range that regulations may be made. Indeed, if you go on to subsection 3 of that same section, you will see that the Government is actually able to make regulations on any enactment, any act of Parliament and for any purpose. This is a broadly stated set of powers. There is no real clarity about precisely what will be brought forward or what their impact will be. Given that we are talking about debt, given that it is such a fundamental part of the way that our economy works and, indeed, its impact on individuals, it is really very important that any regulations that are brought forward by the Government under this act are properly scrutinised, which is the intent of my two amendments. First of all is amendment 20, which is creating a duty to consult before regulations are brought forward. I have stipulated the types of organisations and agencies that the Government should. I would contend that we want to go further than that in terms of clarification, in terms of the type of consultation that ought to take place. Amendment 21 sets out a time period and a requirement for the Government to come back to a committee of Parliament to consult with them regarding that. That is essentially because, if that was primary legislation, those measures were being made through. That is exactly what the Government would have to do. They would have to go out and consult widely with the relevant agencies and seek feedback, and they would have to have a stage 1 report. While the Government will say that the legislation has been framed in this way to provide flexibility about getting it right, it may suit them and enable them to do their work. What it does not enable is that public scrutiny, that detailed inquiry—this committee has been undertaking regarding the primary legislation—is that the detailed measures will not get that level of scrutiny. Ultimately, in terms of getting it right, you need steps such as a stage 1 report, stage 2 amendment, stage 3 in terms of finalisation in order to ensure that we are getting it right. I will come back to my previous point. Fundamentally, when you are talking about matters of financial distress and debt, you are talking about issues that are of fundamental importance but, secondly, often have unintended consequences. I would say simply that this level of scrutiny is what is required. Furthermore, I would like the Government to consider whether or not it should limit the powers that are being conferred under section 1 of the bill. The fact that we have an unlimited list and such broadly-stated and broadly-framed regulation-making powers is not appropriate. At the very least, they should be contained within the long title of the bill. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I do not think that it is reasonable for ministers to seek powers that essentially enable them to bring forward regulations on any matter that they so desire under any bit of legislation, let alone this one. The issues that are highlighted in this group go to the heart of what was a focus of a discussion at stage 1 in our committee when we took evidence. This is the whole question of the mental health moratorium, which everyone agreed needed to happen, and how that should be captured in legislation, whether we should leave it to the Scottish Government to bring forward regulations as the bill provides, or whether we should have more specificity, if that word, in the bill as to how that would be set up. In that respect, I am very grateful to Paul O'Kane for bringing forward his amendment, which sets to put on the face of the bill more detail as how the mental health moratorium would operate. That is a very welcome amendment, and I am reminded to support it. I appreciate that the Government does take a different view that it would prefer to put these matters into regulation. If the Government is not minded to support Paul O'Kane's amendment, I would nevertheless urge the ministers to support the other amendments in this group. Daniel Johnson makes a very important point about the need for regulations that are brought forward to be properly consulted on with relevant parties and to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny of those before they come into law, given the importance of the matters that we are discussing. The points made by Colin Smyth are very reasonable in addition in relation to protections that we put in for creditors in relation to the operation of the moratorium. I am certainly minded to support all the amendments in this group, but we are interested to hear what the minister has to say. I invite the minister to respond to the group. Good morning to the committee and thank you, convener. Let me put on record my thanks to members for the proposed amendments number 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 in relation to section 1 of the bill. The bill has been outlined and currently provides an enabling power to implement a mental health moratorium by regulations. There is a sound reasoning for having the detail of the moratorium process in regulations. As has been acknowledged by this committee and others, the mental health landscape is multifaceted and the treatment for those with mental health issues is ever evolving. As a result, achieving a balance between protecting those vulnerable individuals with mental health issues and the rights of creditors is a complex task. Stakeholders understandably expect a review of the moratorium to be undertaken after a reasonable period of time has lapsed since this introduction. Such a review may identify improvements to the moratorium process, such as widening the eligibility criteria further. Amendments 16, 17, 18 and 19 would alter that approach by requiring specific provisions being included on the face of the bill, as well as requiring specific provisions being included or specifically prohibited from inclusion within the regulations. Having specific provisions on the face of the bill, as with amendments 18 and 19, will mean that any improvements identified from a review will require to be made through future primary legislation. That, in turn, would take longer to implement than changes being made through secondary legislation, and I would wish to avoid any unnecessary delays in making improvements to the system. As for that reason, the expert working group and stakeholders agree that having the details in secondary legislation is the most reasonable approach to take. It is also the reason that the details of the mental health crisis briefing space scheme in England and Wales are in secondary legislation. While I understand the desire to have aspects of the mental health moratorium prescribed in the bill, the provisions in amendment 18 have not been consulted on and their unintended consequences would need to be considered. That is where I would agree with the principle of amendment 20 on ensuring that we get the process correct through consultation. The bill currently provides section 1 to E that the regulations establishing the moratorium may include provisions about the actions that creditors must, may or may not take during a moratorium and the consequences, if any, for creditors for taking or failing to take such actions. I believe that this is the correct approach rather than requiring sanctions to be stipulated in the regulations, as stated in amendment 16. I am mindful that many creditors who will be impacted by a mental health moratorium have their own regulatory bodies who can impose their own sanctions, such as a fine. It may be best to utilise consequences that are already established than convoluting them with their own. That was the approach proposed in the consultation, which received 77 per cent support from respondents. It is also the approach taken in England and Wales and that is the reason the expert working group recommended mirroring it. As I have said before, a review of a mental health moratorium may include that such an approach is not sufficient and, if so, regulations can be amended accordingly. It is better therefore to have a flexible approach to this bill when requiring sanctions to be stipulated in regulations. The bill also includes provisions at section 12g to the effect that the regulations establishing the moratorium may make arrangements for the recording of and access to information that the moratorium is applying in relation to an individual. There is no provision restricting what approach should be taken with respect to accessing that information. I understand and I fully sympathise with the concerns raised about a public register for the mental health moratorium and the potential to stigmatise the individual. I have not committed to having a public register. I am listening to the various concerns raised and I am determined to achieve the right balance. I am sure that the committee will understand that I must also consider the rights of creditors and we want to ensure where possible that potential future lenders are where someone is in a mental health moratorium prior to lending, as is the case under the existing standard moratorium. That would be of benefit to the creditor but also the individual themselves as they could be borrowing beyond their means of public exacerbating their difficulty. I am happy to give way. When the committee took evidence on this, our understanding is that in England a different system is used in terms of the register and is the minister considering the effectiveness of that system, which I understand is not a public register. Yes, I am happy to confirm it. We are considering the system that is provided for in the regulations in England. That is why I accept that a fully public register may well not be the answer here, but I think that it would be better for the bill not to restrict the options available for the recording of and access to information relating to a mental health moratorium. We avoid any unattended consequences of restricting what we can do in the regulations that would be consistent with addressing the concerns expressed by the committee. If it is the Government's view that a register should not be fully publicly accessible, which the minister has said, what is wrong with having safeguards in the bill to prevent that happening? The point that I would make on the specific amendment is the risk of unintended consequences around the actual specific drafting of the amendment and the language that is used. There is concern at habit, it might unintentionally, because I know that it would not be your intention, Mr Smith, but it could preclude the possibility of a register equivalent to or comparable to what is used in the equivalent scheme in England. It is not through a lack of sympathy with the policy in time. The point being is that we can address these issues within the regulations, but I am happy to give further consideration to the points that you raise, but I am going to come to later on in my remarks what I think is a way forward with regards to the other issues that have been raised in the amendments from Mr O'Kane. With respect to amendment 20, the Scottish Government has consulted fully with the appropriate stakeholders, such as debt advice agencies, throughout the process of developing this bill and regulations and will continue to do so. I have also committed to provide this committee with a draft copy of the mental health moratorium regulations prior to stage 3, so that members will have an opportunity to propose amendments if they believe that it remains necessary. Those regulations will be subject to wider public consultation, which brings me on to amendment 21. I am open to considering what enhanced processes we can put in place beyond our commitment to sharing draft regulations ahead of stage 3. However, I am concerned that the process outlined in amendment 21 could be overly onerous and lead to unnecessary delays in the introduction of the mental health moratorium. I would ask the member to withdraw his amendment, but I would be happy to discuss further with the member and any other member who may be interested in advancing stage 3. I would ask Colin Smyth, Paul O'Kane and Daniel Johnson not to press their amendments, and we are able to do so for the committee not to support them. However, what I do think we can achieve, and I think that the central concern that has been expressed, is about the level of engagement that Parliament will have with regard to the regulations. I accept that as a fair and legitimate concern. What I would suggest is a way that we could address that. I would be happy to give way to Daniel Johnson in just a moment, is to discuss ahead of stage 3 what would be a satisfactory process for parliamentary engagement on the regulations, both with regard to the immediate priority of being able to introduce those regulations and have the scheme operational, but also to have clarity on what the process will be for Parliament's involvement in reviewing those regulations at an appropriate point. On now, I am happy to give way to Daniel Johnson. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way. I just wondered if the minister might reflect on two important principles just in terms of a process. First of all, the ability for Parliament to look at a form of regulations that also has the ability to inform its redrafting or revision, so whether that is in draft form or in some sort of amendable form. Secondly, I just wonder if the minister might reflect that, given the potentially quite substantive impact that some of those regulations could have, is that the ability for a relevant committee to actually look in detail and perhaps take evidence on those same regulations, and just whether or not those principles are ones that he would concede and seek to bring forward in amendments at stage 3? I think that Mr Johnson makes fair and reasonable points. That is why I have said that I am not opposed to the principle of exploring how we can develop a form of super-affirmative procedure that would address the concerns that the committee has, but at the same time allowing us to retain that flexibility at commerce regulations. I fully sympathise and appreciate the points that have been raised about what is in detail in the face of the bill. The simple concern that I would have in those circumstances is where we can identify improvements. We would be in a situation where we would not be able to implement those improvements because it would require primary legislation, certainly. I thank the minister for giving way. While I, too, would like to see Parliamentary scrutiny over all aspects of that, the key thing for me is that flexibility within the system and ensuring that the voices of lived experience, as well as those in the front line, are able to have their say in making changes if it is found that the system is not flexible enough. In terms of the regulations themselves—I am pleased that the minister has said that he will give us advanced sight of those before stage 3—what does the minister intend to do in terms of continuing to take stock of how the regulations are working? When would he think that it would be a good time to review the system to see if those regulations are working? Obviously, if that is in primary legislation, the minister will not have the ability to do that to the same degree, but he will have regulations in secondary legislation. Is there a commitment to review the system quite quickly after the regulations are in place? Yes, but what I would also say is that, in terms of how AIB operates with its statutory responsibilities, there is a continual process of review that is always on board, giving the way in which the landscape can evolve. Certainly, when introducing a new measure such as a mental health monitorium and careful monitoring, that would be part of that. That would be happening anyway as routine business. If there was a desire, I think that there is something that can inform conversations if members are agreeable ahead of stage 3 on what enhanced parliamentary scrutiny would look like. Again, I would be happy to consider proposals for a requirement to review within a defined period. Clearly, there is always with putting commitments to review in legislation. I need to make sure that we would not be committing ourselves to review prematurely, which would just be an exercise in conforming to statute, but not adding real value. Certainly, I could recognise the desire for that to take place within what would be regarded as a reasonable timescale. I do not think that it is strictly necessary, but if there was an appetite from Parliament, that should be there to provide that level of reassurance, specifically on the regulations in terms of formalising what that approach would look like. However, the key point that I want to close on is that it would be asked not to press the amendments, but to work with me ahead of stage 3 to identify what a suitable process of parliamentary oversight and engagement on regulations would be so that we can retain that flexibility that the regulations provide, but ensuring that Parliament has that opportunity to engage. I will now invite Paul O'Kane, if he wishes to respond to the debate, and to press a withdrawal amendment 18A. Just to reiterate the purpose of my amendment 18, I think that what is clear from the debate is that people want to see clarity and certainty in terms of a mental health moratorium that goes beyond what has been proposed in the bill at stage 1. The framework that I had used in my amendment has modelled some of the areas that were looked at by the committee report and looks at how we expand it, as I said, beyond just that formal sort of emergency care. I think that community settings are important in this as well in acknowledging that people are treated in communities and can access treatment for crisis in a variety of ways, and I think that it is important that we reflect on that. I also have said at the outset that there is a variance of views among those who have been consulted, and we would acknowledge, for example, that change mental health has been very supportive of the approach that I have taken in this amendment. However, citizens advice Scotland to sit within the working group has said that it perhaps has to be done in a different way that would allow the flexibility that the minister has described. On reflection, it is clear to me that putting something in on the face of the bill gives certainty and clarity, although I appreciate the point that the minister is making about flexibility. One of the arguments that has been made to me, convener, is that mental health law will change and has gone through a process of consultation around its changes. I do not think that that is insurmountable in terms of putting something into other legislation where it can then be amended if mental health law changes, for example. However, I recognise the point that colleagues have made around people's lived experience and those who are in the sector who have a view on that and may want to inform how we change the regulations around the moratorium in a more flexible way. I would certainly recognise all that. I also recognise the minister's offer in terms of wanting to try and find something of a consensus on a moratorium that is wider. It reaches more people and gives people the support that they need in terms of crisis debt. I think that there remains a debate about whether we do that on the face of the bill or whether that is done in regulation. I am encouraged by the minister's willingness to have further discussions on any secondary legislations that he would want to bring forward and anything that he would want the committee to scrutinise and Parliament to scrutinise, so I am encouraged by that. I am willing to have that conversation, as colleagues are, as well. However, I would clearly want to reserve the right to do further consultation with stakeholders and to reserve that right to bring back a proposal at stage C if that would be the right thing. I think that my colleagues, Daniel Dawson and Colin Smyth, have clearly outlined the strength of their amendments and the importance of those amendments. I will wrap my comments up there. I am happy to press my manuscript amendment on the basis of its changing amendment 18. The question is amendment 18A, which was the manuscript's amendment, to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The next question is, does Paul O'Kane wish to press or withdraw amendment 18, as amended? On the basis of what I have said, I will withdraw. Is everyone agreed or is there a member object? I now call amendment 19, in the name of Paul O'Kane, which is already debated with amendment 18. Paul O'Kane, to move or not move. I now call amendment 16, in the name of Colin Smyth, which is already debated with amendment 18. I am not clear from the minister if the committee is setting out sanctions for creditors in regulations, but, in light of the commitment that we will see those regulations before stage 3, I will not move the amendment. I call amendment 17, in the name of Colin Smyth, which is already debated with amendment 18. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. Again, I am not clear if the minister is committing to safe gas being placed in the bill over public registers, but I welcome the opportunity to have further discussions about whether they can be placed in stage 3, so that I will not move the amendment at this stage. I call amendment 20, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which is already debated with amendment 18. Daniel Johnson, to move or not move. In light of the commitments that were given by the minister, and indeed around his commentary on the key principles, I will not move amendment 20. I call amendment 21, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which is already debated with amendment 18. On a similar basis, it is not moved. I call amendment 22, in the name of Paul O'Kane, which is grouped with amendments 23 and 29. Paul O'Kane, to move amendment 22 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and I move the amendment in my name. Public debt, which is owed to public authorities such as local authorities, is a growing issue for struggling households, and unlike private debt, it is not covered by FCA regulation, compelling lenders to take measures that ensure debt is treated fairly and with consideration to vulnerabilities. Amendments 22 and 23 provide the committee with two options for addressing gaps in regulation. They would require ministers to provide regulations asking for local authorities who are pursuing debts to engage in a reasonable manner and with due regard to the position of the debtor. In particular, amendment 23 includes a provision to ensure that debtors get help to maximise their income through identified income maximisation services, which will help with both servicing the debtor to local authorities and help debtors to get free of debt by making sure that they are accessing the fullness of their income. Amendment 22 is the more detailed version of the pre-action requirement and is based on rent arrears regulations. Amendment 23 offers a more simplified approach that may offer wider flexibility to ministers in the space, including the aforementioned detail on income maximisation. I believe that it is important that we have this debate in terms of how we support people in this area. However, I have sought to bring two amendments to provide options to committee for discussion. I will give way to Brian Will. I am very grateful to Paul O'Kane. I think that the general principles of what your amendments are 22 and 23 are, I think, a broad agreement with that. I think that there is another clarification around the fact that you are highlighting local authorities. I think that we recognise in the evidence that we took that the majority of the debt in this area falls to local authorities. However, I wonder why we are singling out local authorities to be treated differently than any other debtor and why we do that. The regulations that they currently stand do not support similar treatment from local authorities. I thank Brian Will for his question. I think that what we were taking to do is to look at where, as he rightly says, a bulk of public debt falls in terms of local authorities. Very often, I think that what we found through some of the work that we have looked at is that there can be variances in how local authorities pursue debt or the support that they give to someone who requires to repay that debt. Working with organisations such as Aberlibber, they have piloted a number of those sorts of schemes across Scotland, not least in Dundee, around how local authorities might interact differently in the space. I think that it was part of that work that we were keen to try to bring those regulations forward to make sure that there was a more uniform approach within local authorities. In terms of Mr Whittle's point about singling out or targeting local authorities, I do not think that that is the intention. I think that it is about public debt more broadly, but I think that it is about the fact that the lion's share of debt that is collected, whether that be council tax, housing through rents or school meals or et cetera, is collected via local authorities. I think that is why it falls so heavily on local authorities. As I said, we have recognised that that comes with a financial implication potentially to local authorities in terms of what they seek to do. We would be keen, obviously, to recognise that and to push the Government in terms of the support that it offers to local authorities in that regard, as it has done with things such as school meal debt. As I have said, the policy intent is to provide for regulations and actions that local authorities must take prior to pursuing debt owed to them and requiring ministers to make provisions so that the debtor is aware of what is going to happen and that they have the fullness of the support to maximise their income prior to the debt being collected. Public debt is a significant and pressing issue in Scotland. As I have mentioned already, Aberlywer has done a huge amount of work on this and highlighted in 2020 that 55 per cent of low-income families in Scotland in receipt of universal credit had at least one deduction from their monthly income to cover debts to public bodies. I think that it is clear that those amendments will begin the process of ensuring that public debt and debtors are treated fairly and with the same consideration as is required of regulations on private lenders. Those amendments seek to make the process around that public debt collection fairer by creating more space for regulations that ensure debtors are provided by the local authority will have adequate information on the nature of their debt and the support that is available to them through debt advice packages. It is clear to me that similar actions were taken on rent arrears through Covid legislation and that is very much where those amendments have been based. Particularly given the scale of public debt, the duty to engage in maximisation services would greatly help those in debt, potentially boost their incomes and start to get out of a cycle of problem debt. It would help local authorities to create more income for families to service their debts owed to public creditors. Amendments 2022 and 2023 are drafted as the member acknowledges in similar terms. Those amendments seek to introduce an enabling power to require Scottish ministers to set out in regulations what local authorities need to do before they commence debt recovery action. I think that the main essence of those amendments is to ensure that debtors are better informed about the debt itself, the help that is available and the potential consequences if they do nothing and a local authority should be doing more to help and support them. I would agree with this in principle. The Scottish Government has recognised this and is working with COSLA on the migration to best practice on debt assistance and collection, noting the principle set out in the collaborative council tax collection report, published by the Improvement Service and Step Change Scotland. That aims to use the existing flexibilities available to local authorities to take a compassionate and proportionate response to recovery of arrears. As the committee may be aware, £200,000 was recently allocated to Citizens Advice Scotland and the CAB network by the Scottish Government to provide pilot projects in free local authority areas. The projects will provide additional debt advice to individuals with a focus on council tax arrears and will support best practice in relation to council tax debt collection in their local authority area. This pilot should provide us with invaluable information and help us to establish what is likely to work in the future. While I understand why amendments 22 and 23 have been brought forward today, they have not been consulted on and we therefore do not know whether taking a regulation making power and making statutory provision about this is the right approach. I think it would be better ideally to wait to allow the pilot projects to be completed and learn lessons from those before we decide how to move forward rather than doing this through a statutory provision. Amendment 29 would remove the local authority's ability to add a 10 per cent surcharge on to debt where the person is receiving a council tax reduction or the Scottish child payment. Again, there has been no consultation on this matter. We do not know what the impact is likely to be or how this would work operationally. For example, what happens if the debt occurred prior to the person being in receipt of those benefits? We do not know how many ratepayers with a non-domestic rates debt are in receipt of their council tax reduction or the Scottish child payment from this amendment, but we anticipate that the numbers would be very low. Based on available data, we know that the ratepayers for the majority of non-domestic properties are organisations and where the ratepayers are individuals, the properties that they occupy are generally in receipt of the 100 per cent release mostly through the small business bonus scheme. We need to be cautious here with amendment 29 and understand what issues we are trying to fix and then work together to determine how to address that. In that spirit, I am happy to consider the use of these issues further and to discuss these with the members to see if we can agree in the most appropriate way forward. I would also like the opportunity to learn more from the pilot project that I mentioned earlier. On that basis, I would ask Mr O'Kane not to press his amendments. Should he choose to do so, I would ask the committee to put it. When the pilot projects are due to conclude and when it would be possible to take evaluation of the pilot project? Commenced in November, I think that we were expecting some initial data in the coming months on the back of Bab. I would be happy to come back to the committee on that specific point. I will provide more details on writing to the member ahead of stage 3, should he wish to reserve his position. On that, I will include the convener. Does Paul O'Kane wish to respond to the debate and do you wish to press or withdraw amendment 22? If I could just briefly respond, convener. I have set out in some detail the intent behind amendments 22 and 23 in terms of ensuring that people have all the support and advice required prior to the commencement of debt. I think that there are important projects on going and I would note that my amendments have been the result of a discussion, a long discussion, with Aberlour Children's Charity, as I referred to, but also with some support from Citizens by Scotland, so I do think that it is important that we take a step at this stage on these important issues. On amendment 29, I think just briefly to say that it was our intent through this amendment and perhaps it is a difference of opinion, but that the rates applied to would be all rates and not just non-domestic rates in terms of the 10 per cent surcharge. I appreciate that the minister has arrived at a different position in that it only applies to non-domestic rates, but it was our view that the surcharge should be limited across all rates and that was supported by Citizens by Scotland and Aberlour Children's Charity. I think that it is important that those amendments together as a package provide more clarity across all 32 local authorities and provide more support for people to break out of a cycle of problem debt and on that basis. The pilot project, I refer to, will conclude at the end of this month, so we would hope to provide information quite shortly. Thank you very much. Do you wish to press or withdraw amendment 22? I will withdraw amendment 22. Are we in a member object? And I call amendment 23 in the name of Paul O'Kane. Are we ready to wait with amendment 22? Do you wish to move or not move? Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Can I ask members in favour to raise their hands now? Can I ask members who are voting against to raise their hands now? And any members who wish to abstain to raise their hands now? The result of the vote on amendment 23 is yes to four against and two abstentions, and so the amendment is not agreed to. That does not add up to the numbers that have been given because there are nine of us. Just run it again. Apologies. What I have is yes, two, five, no, two abstentions, and so amendment 23 is not agreed to. We will move on to amendment 24, which is in the name of Daniel Johnson, grouped with amendments 27, 28 and 30. I invite Daniel Johnson to move amendment 24 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and I will be relatively brief. I mean, I just have a fundamental view is that you essentially, you can provide people with the ability to do things, but that does not necessarily mean that they have the wherewithal understanding and knowledge in order to take up those possibilities. I think that that is particularly true when you are dealing with what is potentially complicated financial matters and at a point in time when people are under severe distress. The amendments 24, 27 and 28 are essentially about ensuring that people are provided with debt advice and information in a timely manner so that they can take up the provisions that this bill will provide for. Then amendment 30 is an amendment that would ensure that the Government collects and publishes data which outlines whether or not people are taking up that advice. In a sense, it is quite simple. It is about ensuring that people have the information and that we understand how that information is being used. I thank Daniel Johnson for using his amendments to highlight the important role that the debt advice and information package has for those hard-experienced and debt issues. I certainly welcome his desire. I am sure that it is one that we all share to make improvements to the current processes. I do, however, have some concerns about the approach that has been taken in amendments 24, 27 and 28. One of those concerns is about ensuring that the information provided during the discussions held by creditors is to a high standard. The Bankruptcy and Debt Advice Scotland Act 2014 introduced a requirement for anyone considering statutory debt solutions to have received advice from a qualified adviser. The Government wanted to ensure that the advice was accurate and consistent and that each individual's circumstances could be considered. I would want us to ensure that it is the case for anyone who is giving advice about debts in this context. We need to make sure that we maintain those high standards. I also have concerns about a creditor's ability to hold a discussion on the content of the debt advice and information package. If a creditor was simply to read from the package then, I am not sure what value that would add. Some creditors may decide to train their staff to hold such discussions, but we would need to be sure that those were accurate and to a high standard. That comes with a cost. Other creditors, particularly smaller creditors, would likely pass on the discussion to an alternative contact. That may be from the debt advice sector and we would need to be clear that the debt advice sector could handle an increase in demand. We have heard that they are already under pressure and I would caution against adding more pressure to them at this time. Using an alternative contact may also result in delaying the creditor from pursuing the debt while they wait for the discussion to take place. When we talk about creditors, particularly where diligence is concerned and we have touched upon this already this morning, we tend to think about local authorities, which is only to be expected, as they are the biggest users of diligence. However, it is worth bearing in mind that anyone who is trying to recover a debt can use diligence provided to follow the correct process. That includes the local plumber or joiner, including credit unions, and it could be someone who lent a family member money. If we are going to introduce new requirements, we need to think about how it involves all creditors, not just local authorities. Amendment 30 would require a review of the impact of the debt advice and information package in providing support to individuals experiencing debt recovery action. I am happy to look at alternative ways to encourage people to get the help they need and where to find that help, as well as explaining the consequences of doing nothing about the debt. Amendment 30 has highlighted some ways that we can do that, for example through online videos and instant messaging. I welcome those suggestions. I would be happy to conduct further discussions with the member to further understand what his concerns are and to ensure that those are included in the reviews of the document. I am also happy to look at alternative ways to encourage people to get the help they need and where to find that help, such as considering the proposals that the member has suggested. However, I remain to be convinced at this stage that I need to legislate that this review should take place. I touched on earlier the way in which AIB operates, where there is an on-going process of review and learning engagement, but I would be happy to discuss that in more detail with the member. I would ask him not to press amendment 30, and, given the concerns that I have outlined already, we are already in the process of reviewing the advice and information package. I would ask a member not to press the other amendments either. Thank you. I invite Daniel Dawson to reply to the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 24. I think that the fundamental principle here is that people need to be provided advice in a timely manner. I hear what the minister is saying about not wanting to put undue pressure on already stretched services, but I would contend that that probably suggests that there is a need for greater help and advice to be provided. Rather than that being an issue, I think that it highlights the need that needs to be met. I recognise that there are implications to this, and those are very much probing amendments. Given that the minister is offering to have further discussions, I am very happy to do that. I think that this potentially is just about essentially maintaining good information that can be used and deployed by anyone, and perhaps there is a way through with that in mind. On that basis, I will withdraw those four amendments. It is amendment 24 that, at this point, you can withdraw on any member's object. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Now I call amendment 7, in the name of the minister, group with amendments 1 and 8. I invite the minister to move amendment 7 and speak to all amendments in the group. Communer, the Scottish Government wants to ensure that the current Scottish statutory debt solutions remain fit for purpose and continue to be updated to reflect in modern society. All three of these amendments have come from the recommendations made in the committee's stage 1 report. Amendment 7 comes from the recommendation to consider the Law Society of Scotland's suggestion in relation to the payment of interest to where sequestration is recalled. That suggestion was that, within the first six months of the sequestration, recall may be awarded on the basis of full repayment of the debts without interest being charged. But where debts are repaid more than six months after the sequestration begins, interest would have to be paid in order for a petition or application for recall to be successful. The Scottish Government believes that it is important and beneficial for a debtor to be able to follow a recall process, which enables them to extract themselves from an insolvency process, where they need not have been made bankrupt and are able to settle their debts in full. It is also right that creditors should have their debts settled as quickly as possible. Where there is an undue delay in settlement of those debts, they should be entitled to be compensated with the payment of interest. It is accordingly important, as in bankruptcy generally, to seek to strike a balance between the rights and interests of debtors and those of creditors. I believe that payment of interest on creditors' debts, where those are paid more than six months after the award of sequestration, where recall is being sought, strikes that fair balance and brings clarity to an area of the law where I know there has been some doubt up to this point. Amendment 8, again from the committee recommendation, will provide sheriff's officers with more time to cite the individual to appear at a hearing in a sequestration case. That is achieved by removing the upper limit on the window for citation, which is currently 14 days before the hearing date set by the court. Amendment 1 would also provide sheriff's officers with more time to cite the individual. However, that would be achieved by increasing the upper limit to 21 days instead of removing it completely. Amendment 8 removes the upper limit completely, which will make it competent for sheriff's officers to serve the warrant, citing the individual on any date from the date the sheriff grants a warrant up to six days before the hearing date. Amendment 8 will therefore provide greater scope for sheriff's officers to competently cite the individual by giving them as much time as possible to serve the warrant on individuals, especially in more rural areas where the individuals work away from home frequently and require multiple visits from sheriff's officers to ensure that the warrant is personally served on the individual. The change introduced by amendment 8 will have no adverse effect on debtors, as it will effectively mean that an individual in problem debt could have more notice before having to appear at court when currently allowed, giving them more time to get appropriate advice. With the support of the principle of amendment 1, that only allows for a limited extension of the time in which a petition can be served on an individual. However, as stated previously, amendment 8 will extend this further and be more beneficial to all parties involved, including debtors. Having engaged with SMASL, who originally raised this with the committee, we have concluded that the upper limit on the window for citation should be removed rather than extended. The Government's amendment will allow a petition to be served from the date the sheriff grants a warrant to cite up to six days before the hearing. Therefore, I would ask the committee to support amendments 7 and 8, and I would invite Mr Fraser not to press his amendment. Thank you. I now invite Mr Fraser to speak to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I should perhaps have put on the record earlier in terms of my register of interests and a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although I am not currently practising as a solicitor. I have put forward a number of amendments this morning that pick up issues that we identified in our stage 1 report as a committee. Some of those are intended as probing amendments, so I might not press them to the vote. That particular one picks up the points covered in paragraphs 122 to 125 of our committee report and follows on from evidence that we heard from the Society of Messenger's Arms and Sheriff Officers about the limits that existed in law in terms of the timing for serving bankruptcy petitions and the difficulties that caused them, particularly in remote rural and island communities, on issues that the minister has just identified. My proposal contained in amendment 1 was that the petition period be extended to 21 days. I listen carefully to what the minister has had to say on the matter. I also note the commentary that has been provided to the committee by Dr Alastair Macpherson and Professor Donna Mackenzie-Skeen of the University of Aberdeen on the issue who are more supportive of the minister's approach to this, contained in his amendment 8, rather than my own amendment, and I, of course, would also defer to legal experts on this issue. On that basis, I would be happy to support the minister's approach and not press my own amendment. Thank you. I invite the minister to close the debate or respond to any points. No further comments could be there. The question is that section 7 is agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 3 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call of Amendment 1, in the name of Murdo Fraser. Are we to be debated with amendment 7 to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. Call of Amendment 8, in the name of the minister. Are we to be debated with amendment 7 to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 8 is agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 4 and 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We will move on to Call of Amendment 2, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which is grouped with amendments 3, 9 and 10. Murdo Fraser to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendments 2 and 3 deal with the issue again. It was identified in our stage 1 report as a committee that relates to the issue where a debtor cannot be traced or is found to be uncooperative and therefore a trustee seeks to be discharged from their responsibility. That is an issue where evidence was given to the committee by ICAS who were keen to see a change in the law here to end up avoiding a situation where a trustee in effect ends up in place in perpetuity. Coming at cost to the trustee, you might inevitably be a professional person or body. There was no avenue for an insolvency practitioner in that particular scenario to get that discharge. The purpose of my amendments 2 and 3 was to try to address that particular point and allow trustees in that situation to be granted the right of discharge with particular safeguards put in. Again, as with the previous group that said that the minister has his own amendment, so I shall be listening with interest to what the minister has to say in this particular group, but in the meantime I'm happy to move amendment 2. Thank you. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 9 and other amendments in the group. Convener, both government amendment 10 and Murdo Fraser's amendment 3 are seeking to introduce a process to allow sequestrations to be transferred to AIB where a debtor fails to co-operate with their trustee. They both address a recommendation, as we've heard and made by this committee. They are, however, some important differences between how the two amendments achieve this, and those differences mean that, while I support the principle of amendment 3, I would invite the member to withdraw it and for the committee to support my amendment 10. My amendment 9 is ancillary to the changes in amendment 10 and is intended to avoid introducing any doubt about the current position under the 2016 act. While Murdo Fraser's amendment 2 is also complementary to his or her amendment, it seeks to change the current position under a trustee's resignation and entitlement to fees when dealing with an untraceable debtor, and so I cannot support it. Turning to the main amendments in this group, it is not unreasonable to expect a bankrupt debtor to co-operate with their trustee in return for relief from debts. However, we accept it in some cases of serious or long-term non-co-operation. There is an issue with this leaving trustees in some cases unable to be discharged and having to carry out nugatory administrative tasks. Under the provisions applying to bankruptcies made on or after 1 April 2015, the discharge of a debtor from bankruptcy is within accountant and bankruptcies discretion. If a debtor co-operates with her trustee, they can ordinarily expect to be discharged from bankruptcy and see their debts witting off after one year. Whilst accountant and bankruptcy's general policy position has been to refuse discharge in instances of non-co-operation, the accountant and bankruptcy recognises that it is not appropriate to defer discharge indefinitely, where the failure to co-operate is not significant to the administration or a likely final outcome of the case. For example, where contributions have been paid but some of the paperwork is missing. An advice letter was issued to trustees in August 2023, addressing this point, and accountant and bankruptcy therefore does not refuse discharge in all cases of non-co-operation. However, this leaves those cases where the non-co-operation is more substantial. This can leave the trustee in Limbo, despite having done everything that they could have reasonably been expected to do to get the debtor to engage with the process. Private trustees accept these appointments. They have chosen to act as trustee, sometimes in exchange for the fee from the creditor. There is a reasonable expectation that they will make all reasonable efforts to engage with the debtor over a reasonable period of time and that they should be able to demonstrate that they have done so. Ultimately, if a debtor steadfastly refuses to co-operate, a case will reach a point that there is no benefit to anyone for the trustee to remain in post, unable to carry out the statutory functions of their office. Turning to the amendments themselves and the differences between them, my amendment 10 provides that where a debtor has not co-operated with their trustee. As a result of that non-co-operation, the trustee has been able to carry out their statutory functions and a period of five years has elapsed when the trustee may apply to accountant and bankruptcy for authority to resign from office. If this is granted, the accountant and bankruptcy will be deemed to be the trustee and will take over the case. A period of five years is considered to be appropriate. It may be apparent much earlier that an individual is unwilling to engage with the process of their sequestration but we expect that trustees will have made some effort to persuade a debtor to co-operate and a period of five years is sufficient for most cases to deal with assets, contributions and aquarenda. It is true that some cases take longer to complete but that is not necessarily due to non-co-operation and is not inconsistent with the debtor's discharge at an earlier date. We think that it is important that this function is a function of last resort, designed to deal with the most serious cases of persistent and continuing non-co-operation and not something that should be used lightly. It is also worth noting that my amendment would allow any part of that five-year period that predates the changes in the bill to be counted, meaning that cases where non-co-operation is already an issue will be included, provided, of course, that the other tests are met. By contrast, amendment 3 in the name of Murdo Fraser does not specify any minimum period of time over which non-co-operation would require to be established. Under amendment 3, a trustee could apply to resign at any time even very soon after the sequestration has been awarded. As I have said, my view is that a minimum period of time should elaps before the trustee may seek to resign to ensure both that the power is only available for cases of true and long-term non-co-operation. Similarly, under my amendment 10, trustees will also have to provide evidence of the non-co-operation and show that they have made reasonable efforts to secure the debtor's co-operation before the accountant in bankruptcy would be able to grant authority for the trustee to resign office. The amendment includes a process for review by the accountant in bankruptcy and, if necessary, for onward a fuel to the sheriff. Review and appeal are available for the trustee, the debtor or a creditor who objects to the trustee's application being granted by the accountant in bankruptcy. Amendment 3, by contrast, does not require the trustee to provide evidence about the debtor or demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to secure co-operation, nor does it provide any rights of review or appeal. It also does not give AIB any discretion in the process, so where a trustee applies for change, it seems that the accountant in bankruptcy will be compelled to grant that application without hearing from any other affected parties. I do not think that this is a fair way to approach this process and I think that it is important that the AIB, as decision maker, is able to hear from all interested parties on any given application and for those decisions to be subject to review or onward a fuel. The accountant in bankruptcy must also have some discretion to refuse applications for discharge where AIB takes a different view of the case. In terms of how the trustee should be released from the sequestration, I consider that the trustee should resign, as provided for in my amendment 10, rather than be discharged as proposed in amendment 3 and also in amendment 2, as regards untraceable debtors. Resignation is more appropriate where the case is incomplete and the office of trustee remains necessary. When trustees resign, they are entitled to outlays and remuneration for work done as trustee up to the date of their resignation and to be paid out of any funds ingarred from the sequestrated estate or contributions. However, if there is an amount that is not paid because those funds are insufficient, the trustee, after their resignation, must make a claim in the estate as an ordinary creditor should anything be subsequently ingarred. My amendment 10 also makes some administrative processes discretionary where a case has been transferred to accountant in bankruptcy under provisions. The intention here is that the ball is effectively put into the debtor's court. As long as the debtor refuses to cooperate, nothing else will happen and they will remain bankrupt. As soon as the debtor cooperates, it will be in the power of accountant in bankruptcy to complete whatever actions remain outstanding and to grant the debtor's discharge. It is important that there should be a route out of bankruptcy and that people should not remain bankrupt for longer than they need to be. However, I remain of the view that this should not happen until they have made reasonable efforts to engage with the process. Finally, my amendment includes a provision providing the same administrative discretion in cases that meet the same conditions but where the accountant in bankruptcy is already a trustee. This is not the case with amendment 3, which leaves an undesirable disconnect between cases managed by AIB as a trustee and cases managed by a private trustee. Amendment 9, in my name, makes a small change to section 142 of the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016, consequent to amendment 10, to maintain the current position and to avoid any implication that this process is different with a trustee resigning in the case of a debtor who cannot be traced. I would ask at the committee to support my amendments 10 and 9 and I would ask Mr Fraser not to press his amendments and if he chooses to do so for the committee to reject them. Thank you. I invite Murdo Fraser to wind up and press or amend amendment 2. Thank you, convener. I listened very intently to the minister's detailed explanation of the matter. He makes a reasonable case, I think. I would be interested in hearing the views of ICAS, who raised this originally with the committee, on what the minister is proposing as a way forward, but we do have the opportunity to revisit this at stage 3. I am happy not to press my amendment at this stage and support the minister's amendment, but we would obviously reserve the right to come back at stage 3 with a further amendment, once we have had the opportunity to consult with some stakeholders on the matter. Thank you. Does any member object to the withdrawal of amendment 2? I call amendment 3, in the name of Murdo Fraser. I am ready to debate with amendment 2. Murdo Fraser to move or not move. I move amendment 9, in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 2. Question is that amendment 9 is agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 10, in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 2. Minister to move formally. I move. Thank you. Is amendment 10 agreed to or agreed? Yes. Mae'n cymdeithasol i gyfarithiau 11, iawn i Gwp ond hafta hwnnw, ac mae'n dweud gwaith yn cerd 미ol 11. Mae Gwp y Sisiwch Cymru yn ysgolwyddiol. Mae hampon i maes cymdeithasol i gyd yn ysgolwyddiol. Erbyn i ddiddordebu cymdeithasol i gael os yna i gael, mae'n gweithio ar hyn o gyfer lleiwyr cyd-sloes arbennigol bwyd, sy'n ôl ffordd 2007. Mae gyfnodd iawn yn unrhyw o bwydur i ymddiadau yr ysgolwyr, but it is accountant and bankruptcy's responsibility to supervise both trustees and commissioners. It is therefore inappropriate to have commissioners in cases in a case where accountant and bankruptcy is the trustee. Cases with commissioners are fairly unusual, so the anomaly, which since 2007 has allowed commissioners to be in office even when the accountant and bankruptcy is the trustee, has not caused any major difficulties in practice. However, it is clear that the current situation is not what was intended in policy terms. This amendment is intended to return the position to what it was prior to 2007. It was that no commissioners may be elected when the accountant and bankruptcy is the trustee in sequestration, and in a situation where a commissioner already holds office, that commissioner would cease to hold office if the accountant and bankruptcy then becomes a trustee. Amendment 11. The question is, will amendment 11 be agreed to or are we all agreed? Amendment 12, the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 25 and 20. Colin Smyth will move amendment 12 and speak to members in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 12, in my name, which I move, would increase the protected minimum earnings amount and earnings investment to £1,000 to bring it in line with bank account assessments. This would give much-needed respite for those in debt at a time so many families are facing a cost-aliving crisis. The committee received significant evidence of people experiencing severe hardship because of funds being taken off their wages to pay debts. One survey from advice Scotland provided to the committee highlighted cases where people were unable to pay for the essentials had fallen into arrears and were left unable to pay other debts. Respondents to that survey also reported a deterioration in their mental health. One woman said that she was struggling to keep her head above water because of the amount the courts were taking off her wages. Another reported being stuck in the vicious circle of being unable to pay the current year's council tax due to wage-arrestments to pay off previous years. Some had considered leaving their jobs to escape arrestments. Unfortunately, too often, advice agencies are increasingly finding that earning arrestments are unduly harsh on people in debt. For example, they do not discriminate between the composition of the household that those who have their earnings arrested live in, so they apply whether someone belongs to a single person household or a household where there are three children and only one earner. Raising the minimum threshold to £1,000, which, again, stresses in line with the protective minimum balance for the arrestment of funds in bank accounts, could make a real difference to people. It is important to point out that that does not reduce the amount that creditors can recover just the time period that they are able to do so. Amendment 25 relates to bank account arrestments and clarifies the position in relation to whether social security benefits can be attached by a bank account arrestment. My clear policy aim in this amendment is to protect funds that are deriving from social security payments automatically and without the need for any challenge by a debtor. There is currently a mechanism by which a debtor can challenge unduly harsh arrestments, and that should extend to funds that are deriving from social security benefits, but it does necessitate an application to court. We know that it is not always the case that benefits have been protected. There is well-known case law that showed that to be the case, such as Woodsview Royal Bank of Scotland, albeit that was accepted some time ago. There are also more recent cases such as North Lanarkshire Council v Crossing in 2008, where it was confirmed that benefits were attached. More recently, in Edinburgh Sheriff Court last July, the court held this to be the case in Mackenzie versus Edinburgh City Council. What is frustrating for advice agencies is the fact that when funds in bank accounts are arrested, often the creditor still refuses to release funds despite the law saying that benefits do not lose their character as benefits when paid into a bank account and that people often need to go to court to get their funds back, which was the case in Mackenzie versus Edinburgh City Council. That is despite most social security law having specific alienability clauses in them that say that benefits cannot be alienated from the person that they were intended for and cannot be attached. The amendment that I proposed would aim to restate this law in the debtor Scotland act 1987. It would basically state that where the funds in an account wholly come from social security benefits, they cannot be attached. Where the funds are not wholly benefits and are mixed in with other income such as earnings, they could still be attached and people would need to use the existing remedies under the act to apply to the court for some or all of the funds to be released. It would also protect banks who attach funds in good faith without knowing they were benefits or they would have no liability to the person the funds were owed. This provision would be especially helpful for people on benefits and advice agencies, as it would clarify the law for creditors and particularly local authorities who are responsible for the vast majority of bank account arrestments. They would know in future where people can show the funds in their account are wholly benefits, then the funds should be released to the person who owns the account. Although the first £1,000 in bank account arrestments are protected anyway, where people's benefits amount to more than £1,000, which might be the case if they are receiving housing costs or adult disability payments, that would ensure that their full benefits are protected. Equally it would protect people who receive backdating of benefits, for example in things such as adult disability payments when they win an appeal. I believe that this was always the intention of Parliament and it has always been the approach that the courts have taken, but my amendment would reinstate this. I now invite Paul O'Kane to speak to amendment 26 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 26, in my name, in this grouping deals with minimum and protected balances for debtors. Minimum and protected bank balances, as we have heard, provide individuals with a level of security in case of hardship and from being pushed into desperate circumstances by aggressive debt pursue. However, the value of that protected balance can only be retained if there is a measure of upgrading. Otherwise, as inflation continues over time, the protected balance may become less and less valuable to the debtor over time. The amendment therefore clarifies that ministers should examine the level of protected balances on an annual basis without creating an automatic uplift. It would create a presumption in favour of the uplift but allows for extraneous circumstances in parliamentary scrutiny to give proportionality. The amendment deals with the minimum and protected balances that are set out in section 73f of the Debtor Scotland Act and inserts the obligation upon ministers, as I have said, to increase the minimum and protected balance each year. The amendment is similar to other protections that are outlined in this group in terms of protecting the balances of people who find themselves in problem debt and trying to break out of the cycle of problem debt. We know that the principle of upgrading is used across various different parts of Government policy, particularly around annual upgrading social security payments, which are frequently upgraded by inflation to provide income security for vulnerable individuals in difficult financial times, as we have just been through. The affirmative procedure, as I have said already, means that it is not an automatic process of upgrading but rather can be scrutinised by Parliament with references to specific economic circumstances of each financial year. However, it would be assumed that that provision would create a presumption in favour of upgrading of minimum and protected balances. I thank members for their amendments. Those amendments would amend the Debtor Scotland Act 1987, affecting the powers that allow creditors to obtain repayment of debts by arresting earnings from an employer or attaching funds deposited in a bank account. It is all intended to place some limitations on the use of these powers to protect debtors who are struggling to pay their debts. I am going to ask the committee not to support those amendments at this stage and I will explain my reasons for doing so. However, I would hope to work with members and others to identify a way forward to deliver at least some of the intent of those amendments before stage 3. I agree in principle that diligence needs to include sufficient protections for debtors from undue hardship. These matters need careful consideration to ensure a balance between the interests of debtors and creditors and the impact of applying them in practice on the employers and banks who are also affected by their use. I do not believe that there has been sufficient consideration of the changes and consequences proposed by these amendments. As we have heard, amendment 12 increases the monetary threshold which an earnings arrestment can take effect. Where a person earns less than £1,000 per month, it would remove the ability to recover the debt through an earnings arrestment altogether. For those earning above the threshold, it would reduce the amount that a creditor can recover each pay period to repay the debt. That is an area that has been raised on several occasions. I appreciate that the committee included a recommendation within its stage 1 report asking that the Scottish Government consider such a change. I would like to reassure the committee that I have been exploring this and gathering information to allow me to assess the potential impact it would bring. Ministers already have the power to change the earnings arrestment figure through negative procedure regulations. That has been the method considered appropriate for the figure to be updated. The Scottish Government has reviewed the earnings arrestment tables in schedule 2 of the 1987 act every three years. With the exception of last year when we brought forward the review, recognising the pressures that the cost crisis and high inflation were putting on families. This approach is sought to maintain the correct balance between protecting those in debt and subject to an earnings arrestment and the creditors seeking to recover the debt. Over 90 per cent of earnings arrests are served by local authorities seeking to recover unpaid council tax. They have found this diligence to be the most effective means of recovering debt. I have heard concerns from COSLA, and I understand that I have also written to this committee, outlining concerns about changes to the current system of earnings arrestment and the potential impact that this would have on the council's ability to deliver services to its communities. Local authorities are clear that they use earnings arrestment as a last resort when someone has refused to engage with them over the debt. The IRRV, the Institute of Revenue, Rating and Valuation, has written to me and advised that around 30 million was collected from 34,000 successful wage arrests last year. While data is limited, if we assume, and I offer this purely for illustrative purposes, but if we assume that each of those arrests affected an individual earning at least £1,000 a month, then the potential loss to local authorities could be around £26.5 million. That is an alarming amount in very much a worst-case scenario, but even on more cautious estimates, there is a substantial cost. We also know that the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Services are major users of earnings arrestment for the pursuit of unpaid court fines, with 838 issued in the last quarter for which figures have been published in October to December 2022. The Society of Messengers at Arms and Sheriff's Officers has also raised concerns about the lack of evidence supporting increasing the monthly threshold of £1,000 when giving evidence. I hope that the committee will appreciate that I cannot simply ignore those representations in the same way that I cannot ignore the call for earnings arrests that are too harsh. I need to find a good balance in this. If we make earnings arrests in effective, there is a risk that creditors will simply resort to pursuing bankruptcy more often, and that is something that I would like to, and I think that we would all be agreed in this, we would all want to avoid. I have not found a solution yet, but I am continuing to look in this. As I have said, this is an area that can be addressed through existing powers in the 1987 act, and regulations have regularly been made to increase the thresholds and bans. I would like more time to reflect on this and bring forward any considered and appropriate proposals at a later date through regulations. I have seen the recent letter from Dr MacPherson and Professor Skeen, which sets out some ideas that are worthy of consideration to me. It is just that the minister refers to a later date, and I think that the committee's concerns around this did come from feeling that the cost of living crisis was having undue pressure on households who were in debt, and there were additional pressures that were current and that were a swift response. I would just be concerned about the timescales of a later date if I were to see any changes. I appreciate the point that you make, convener. It explains why we took the extraordinary step of having an operating of the thresholds a year ahead of schedule. As I have stated, we do have the power through regulations to do that, to achieve that. The point of making this specific instance before the committee today, when there is an amendment being considered, which can be addressed through regulations, is the representations that I have had and that I have outlined from various key stakeholders, including local government. I certainly appreciate the intent behind the amendment and I sympathise with its objectives. As I set out, I cannot ignore these significant representations that have been made, which is why I want further time to be able to engage with these stakeholders to see if we can identify a position of consensus. That is also, as well as I touched on, to fully understand what some of the unintended consequences may be. I feel that that is a responsible approach to take given the representations that have been made to me and I know have been made to the committee as well. Turning to amendment 25, I understand that it seeks to put a recent decision of the share of court on to a statutory fitting. The aim of this is to prevent attachment of funds in a bank account when those funds are solely derived from social security benefits. I am sympathetic to the same, but I believe that it needs further consideration and consultation with stakeholders. In particular, there are practical considerations on how banks would apply the rule and identify funds that are wholly from benefits. Of course, I want to ensure that any amendments along those lines are on the right side of the social security reservation. There are already provisions in the 1987 act for an application to the sheriff for the release of funds where an arrestment is considered on Julie Harsh. This existing protection requires the sheriff officer to consider the source of the funds and to provide some of the protection for this amendment rule. Of course, it needs a court application and it does not operate automatically and I would want to acknowledge that. I am happy to consider further what needs to be done in addition to the existing protection. I am therefore grateful to the member for bringing forward amendment 25 as it highlights some of the issues that we need to consider and consult on. The amendment lists eight social security benefits as included, but we need to consider whether others should be included or not. The amendment requires the funds to be wholly from benefits and leaves the facts of this to the judgment of the creditor before funds are released. That might be difficult in practice. How would any change here interact with the protecting minimum balance as well? Again, the letter from Dr Macpherson and Professor MacKenzie's scheme sets out a number of issues that we need to consider here. There will no doubt be other practical and technical matters to consider with all entrusted parties, and we will not be a part of the division at this time and in this form. Finally, in the group amendment 26 proposes to create a requirement on ministers to review on an annual basis the protective minimum balance when bank account assessments are executed and operate this figure if it is materially lower by an inflation-adjusted figure and amend this through affirmative regulations. The protective minimum balance is an important protection for individuals so that only funds above the minimum and a bank account can be attached by a creditor. The figure for the protected balance was increased to £1,000 as recently as November 2022 following changes made by the Coronavirus Recovery and Reform Act 2022. That was a significant increase of roughly 52 per cent from the figure that applied before then. That was done very much from the viewpoint of wanting to protect universal credit payments. We need to consider the interaction of all the various protections in the bill. 2022 act also gives ministers powers to further vary the figures by regulations made by negative procedure. I believe that this power approved just two years ago is the appropriate method rather than the automatic changes in affirmative procedure required by amendment 26. As mentioned at a committee evidence session by the Society of Messengers at Arm and Sheriff's Officers there is no statistical of evidence available to confirm if the current figure is correct and the impacts it has had. That highlights that we need more detailed and longer-term investigations and consultation with stakeholders that would be required to establish what, if any changes are required or using the existing powers available. I do however entirely agree that the protected minimum balance will need regular updating and as I've outlined we do have the means to do that and have been able to do it previously. For all those reasons I ask the member not to press amendments 12, 25 and 26 but if we do press them the committee does not support them. I invite Colin Smyth to respond and to press or withdraw amendment 12. Thank you convener amendment 12 as you mentioned convener is in line with calls that were made by the committee to update the updated level protected from coronavirus at a time the Government talked about a cost of living crisis. The minister did make reference to COSLA's concerns and any points that are only used as a last resort. I have to say I take the figures quoted by the minister with a huge pinch of salt. It would be an enormous leap of faith to say that increasing protected minimum amount will have the impact that the minister refers to. Not least because local authorities have other methods of recovering debt other than using most earnings arrestments will still remain effective in recovering debt even at an increase to £1,000 but local authorities will also continue to use bank account arrestments, attachments, exceptional attachment orders, charges for payments, direct deductions from benefits and ultimately sequestration to recover debts. I also believe that an point that has not been made is that increasing would encourage a more collaborative approach from councils with advice agencies and provide more of an incentive to refer debtors on to get their benefits maximised to help them pay their debts and to help them reduce their liability for council tax arrears and also to help them enter into repayment plans with their creditors so there will be positive effects. Another factor that has not been mentioned in the debate because the discussion has been very much focused on the impact on councils. It is the impact on residents and the fact that increasing the protecting minimum wage arrestments will become affordable for far more people and be an awful lot more sustainable and this is likely to reduce the number of people having to revert to solutions such as sequestration where creditors usually receive a nildividant or protected trust deeds which also produce very low dividend or debt arrangement schemes where creditors only receive £78 in the pound. In many cases, by increasing the minimum and protected amount, the amount of overall debt many councils recover in relation to individual debts could increase. I think another factor that has to be considered is that by increasing the protected minimum amount, the effect will be, earnings arrestments will be more affordable for people and allow more people to escape that vicious cycle of debt where they can't pay their current on-going council tax and therefore accrue more arrears. The effect of this will be increased in the year collections of council tax and that will reduce the funds that local authorities require to service debts. It is crucial to point out that failing to increase the level that is protected to a reasonable level and indeed annually skews the balance very much in favour of the creditor because the level protected falls in real terms unless it does rise in an annual basis. I take on board that it may be desirable to make additional changes to the correspondence that we received yesterday that suggests a number of improvements to mitigate the impact of my amendment such as increasing the percentage of recovery rates beyond the protected amounts. I would certainly look at that for stage 3. On amendment 25, it is clear that that point has been accepted that the current law is not robust enough and I haven't had any argument against strengthening this. I think that the principle of this amendment is robust and I take on board the need for maybe further changes and I would be happy to discuss those with the minister and hope that we can find a way forward to this amendment and also amendment 12. On the other amendment in this group, amendment 26 from Paul O'Kane, I will very much welcome this amendment. There seems little point in a minimum protected balance if the value of that is eaten away over time. The amendment from Paul O'Kane provides that ministers must bring forward the minimum protected balance in line with inflation, where the sum is considered to be materially below the inflation-adjusted level. That seems a common sense approach. It is interesting that the minister's response talked about recent increases in the figure related to bank accounts and I think that that does kind of back up my point in amendment 12 that we haven't seen a similar approach to the level in wage arrestments. At this stage, it can mean that I won't press my amendment 12 in the hope that we can find a way forward to those wage-arrestment figures in line with those that we have for bank accounts. The member wishes to withdraw amendment 12. Does anyone wish to object? Thank you. I now call amendment 25, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 12. Colin Smyth to move or not move. Not moved. We'll move on to amendment 13 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 4, 14, 5 and 6. Minister to move amendment 13 and speak to all amendments in the group. Can we now be Scottish Government thanks to the member who has proposed amendments 4, 5 and 6, which I will shortly address? I'll turn first to my amendments 13 and 14. The purpose of these amendments is to enable a creditor or an officer of court to serve an arrestment schedule, or current maintenance schedule, electronically, where the arrestee or employer has expressed to the creditor or officer of the court that they are willing to receive documents in that way. This new option on how to serve an arrestment is in addition to existing methods of service by personal delivery and by post. It has been brought to my attention by Alan McIntosh, who I know of at the committee that it's an engagement with, as currently drafted, may have some potential unintended consequences encouraging personal service which was not the policy intention. I would thank Mr McIntosh for his observation and would intend to remedy this at stage 3 to reflect policy intention of providing an additional method of service by electronic means. Electronic forms of communication are part of a modern society and it seems reasonable to extend this to the service of an arrestment or a person's earnings schedule. Arrestment schedules are predominantly served on banks with creditors seeking to recover debt from a person's bank account. It is hoped that introducing this amendment will help to simplify the process for banks where they choose to receive the schedules electronically. There is no change to how a debtor is notified about an arrestment. Erlands arrestment and current maintenance arrestments are used by creditors to recover a debt through a person's bank account. The person's employer is notified of the arrestment through an arrestment schedule which is currently either hand-delivered to the employer or sent by post. Sheriff officers have reported that it is becoming increasingly difficult to serve an arrestment schedule personally because of the hybrid working models that have resulted in offices being staffed less frequently providing less opportunities for a sheriff officer to serve the relevant documents. Introducing the ability to serve these documents electronically will provide an alternative methods of service, which I understand employers have indicated to sheriff officers that they would welcome. Most employers use technology in receiving an arrestment electronically will make this simpler for many employers. The amendment also introduces a technical amendment to section 75 of the Debtors Scotland Act 1987. It will ensure that an earnings arrestment schedule or maintenance arrestment schedule can be competently served on an employer on a Sunday or public holiday if service is by post or transmitted electronically. I would now like to turn to amendments 4, 5 and 6. Those amendments would remove the requirements for the arrestee, often a bank or the employer to notify the creditor in all instances when no property has attached or an earnings arrestment has been unsuccessful. Replace it with a requirement to only notify the creditor where the creditor specifically requests confirmation. They would also remove the requirement for the notification to be sent within a defined period of the arrestment schedule being sent, replacing it with as soon as a reasonably practicable following receipt of a request from a creditor. I want to caution against agreeing to these amendments as they have the potential to delay creditors from receiving important information, but they would not be the case under the current draft in sections 6 and 7 of the bill. The bill is laid will strengthen the effect of section 70A of the 1987 act. That will be achieved by requiring the employer to notify the creditor where an earnings arrestment has been unsuccessful within 21 days of the arrestment schedule being served. It will also strengthen the effect of section 73G of that act by requiring the arrestee to notify the creditor why no property has been attached within three weeks of the arrestment being executed. In both circumstances, in the bill as introduced, the employer or arrestee will only be required to respond once. We would anticipate they would do this at the time they are actioning the arrestment and learn that it is unsuccessful. For the creditor, learning that an arrestment has been unsuccessful will determine what their next steps should be. The member's proposed amendments would also remove the defined deadlines for the arrestee to confirm to the creditor why nothing has attached and for the employer to notify the creditor of an unsuccessful earnings arrestment. That would leave the period of response open to interpretation by different arrestees and employers to the detriment of the creditor. Government bodies such as HM Revenue and Customs and Councils who use the temporary warrant procedure would be prevented from requesting information under the proposed amendment 4. I would caution against this, as without access to information, some actions which could be stopped may continue where it is not in the interest of any party. The Scottish Government want diligence procedures which are fair to all parties involved. The effect of the current warrant sections 6-2 and 7-2 of the bill will ensure that creditors are provided with the information that they require within a defined timeframe. That will enable them to decide whether further action is necessary and remove the need for speculative repeat service of arrestment on board parties. The county and bankruptcy will continue to liaise with banks, employers and sheriff's officers to minimise the burden on the arrestee and employers while balancing the information requirements of the creditors. For those reasons, the Government does not support amendments 4, 5 and 6 and I would ask to move amendment 30. I invite Murdo Fraser to speak to amendment 4 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendments in this group pick up on points that we discussed in our stage 1 report, paragraphs 1-2-7 through to 1-3-4. The bill in section 6 and 7 introduced a new duty of disclosure on the part of the RSD. The RSD being the person who is in possession of the assets belonging to the debtor, usually a bank or a financial institution will be required to tell the creditor where diligence has been unsuccessful. That's a new requirement that has been introduced. The RSD must tell the creditor whether that arrestment has been successful within a specified time period of 21 days. The issue with this, as we heard in evidence as a committee, is that it will have significant resource implications for banks and other financial institutions. That west group, in their submission to this committee, said that that would mean that they would have to respond to around 70,000 arrestment requests that they receive every year. There would be no particular useful purpose in telling creditors that those requests have been unsuccessful. Therefore, it seemed to be an unduly onerous requirement to put upon financial institutions. Now, what I am proposing in my amendments is, in effect, halfway house. It's not about removing entirely the obligation of disclosure. It is trying, however, to qualify it and ensure that it is less onerous on the financial institutions. My amendment 4 relates to cases where the RSD must disclose information in relation to bank arrestments which have been unsuccessful. It provides that the RSD disclose information to the creditor where the creditor requests that information, where it does not apply to summary warrants and as soon as reasonably practical. Amendment 5 amend section 7 of the bill so that a person must only respond to specific requests which are made. Amendment 6 says that they can only need to respond as soon as reasonably practical after the request has been received rather than 21 days. To me, this strikes a reasonable balance. What is being introduced in the bill is a new and onerous requirement upon RSDs to report. The costs of that might well be significant. I don't know if the minister can enlighten us on how much they assess the additional costs of that will be. I'm not talking about, in my amendments, removing that requirement altogether but it is qualifying it and trying to strike a balance between the interests of the creditor and the interests of the RSD. It seems to be a reasonable set of proposals as I would move my amendment 4. Thank you very much, convener. I take on board the amendments 1340 and allow the use of electronic means for example for arrestment schedules which is understandable and is a better use of technology but I would ask that the minister say a bit more about how he intends to tackle that unintended consequences that were highlighted by Alan McIntosh. McIntosh identified that the amendment removes the requirement that a Erlin's arrestment schedule can only be issued personally if there is a reason why it cannot be served on an employer by registered or recorded delivery letter. This is important because the current cost to do so by posters is £42.91 whereas the cost of personal service would be £86.02 which is double the cost where over £50,000 Erlin's arrestment is served in 2022-23. The cost implications of this change are significant and we would ultimately land on the debtor. I hope that the minister will confirm whether or not he is considering reintroducing the requirement that the use of postal services should remain the preference ahead of issuing it personally and it should only be used if postal services cannot be or electronic means can be given that cost to ultimately the debtor. I invite the minister to wind up. Thank you. I thank Murdo Fraser and Colin Smyth for their comments just to clarify for Colin Smyth and I saw it to do this in introductory marks. I am very grateful to Mr McIntosh for raising this point. Potentially unintended consequence that has been identified is not the policy intent. The policy intent was to add that additional option. It was not to create a situation but it was materially different to the existing process. So the question that Mr Smyth puts I say we will look to bring forward an amendment that stays free to remedy that to show that the policy intent is met and the unintended consequence does not materialise that Mr McIntosh has identified and I say I'd be very happy to engage with a member directly ahead of stage three to provide that reassurance but we will address this at stage three and I am grateful for what has been brought to the Government's attention. On the points that Mr Fraser raises I appreciate the approaches taken in trying to identify a halfway house. The Government has been engaged and consulted on a range of these proposals. I recognise the issue that is raising with regards to the implications for arrestees. That is why I touched on in my earlier remarks that we are committed to the process of engagement to minimise what the administrative implications would be. I would note, of course, that the arrestee will already have to identify whether there was will already have to undertake a process being subject to that process so there is always a risk that in terms of not being required to report if someone follows up to go and identify whether their arrestee has failed. There is a duplication of work that has already taken place but I would want to reassure the member and the committee that we are committed to engaging constructively to ensure that this measure can be implemented as effectively as possible and to minimise any additional administrative requirements but we do think that it is an important provision to strengthen the existing processes and to support the rights of creditors. On that basis, I would ask the committee not to support the amendments. Thank you. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. So now I call amendment 26 in the name of Paul O'Kane already debated with amendment 12. Paul O'Kane to move or not move? Move. Can I ask members in favour to raise their hands now? Can I ask members who are voting against to raise their hands now? And any members abstaining? All members have now voted. The result of the vote on amendment 26 is two, yes, seven, no, and so the amendment is not agreed to. I now call amendment 4 in the name of Murdo Fraser already debated with the committee that we are committed to engaging with the committee in the name of Murdo Fraser already debated with amendment 13. Murdo Fraser to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. There will now be a division that we are not agreed to. Can members in favour raise their hands now? Members against. It's four and it's five. All members have now voted. Four, yes, five, against. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. I call amendment 14 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 13. Minister to move formally. The question is amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 5 in the name of Murdo Fraser already debated with amendment 14. Murdo Fraser to move or not move? Move. The question is amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Can I ask members in favour to raise their hands? Can I ask members against? Thank you. All members have now voted. The result of amendment 5 is four in favour five against. The question is amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Can members who are in support raise their hands? Members who are against. The result of amendment 6 is yes. Four, no, five. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is that section 7 is agreed to. Section 7 is agreed to. I call amendment 27 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 24. Daniel Johnson to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 28 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 24. Apologies that should have said amendment 28. I think possibly I said 24. The question is now that section 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 29 in the name of Paul O'Kane already debated with amendment 22. Paul O'Kane to move or not move? On the basis that the minister and I have a difference of opinion I won't move. The question is that 29 is agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will have a division. Can members in favour raise their hands now? Can members who are voting against all members who are abstaining? All members have voted. The result of amendment 29 is yes, 2, 6, no and 1 abstention. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is that sections 9 and 10 are agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 15 in the name of the minister and a group of its own minister to move and speak to amendment 15, the one that we are all waiting for. Happy to oblige, convener. The amendment will allow arrestments of ships to found jurisdiction to take place on a Sunday and brings it into line with other forms of ship harassment. Arrestment to found jurisdiction is an action brought specifically to establish jurisdiction in Scotland. Changes to other forms of ship harassment in Scotland were made in 1993 and 1994 following a recommendation from the Scottish Law Commission which allowed those forms of ship harassment to be made on any day. However, no such change was made to arrestment to found jurisdiction. Consecretly, this form of ship harassment could not be executed on a Sunday. It's clear that this has created a gap which could be exploited by someone owing a debt if the ship docks in Scotland on a Sunday with the intention of leaving later that day. If the creditor was unable to establish jurisdiction on the ship when it docks in Scotland then he would not be able to rely on the other forms of ship harassment to secure their claim and prevent the ship from sailing again that day. A row of ship harassment are not carried out frequently, they can cover claims of significant value. This amendment allowing all forms of ship harassment to take place on a Sunday will support creditors attempting to recover debts to their owed in move amendment 15. Thank you. Do you have any other members who wish to contribute? Does the minister make wish to make any other comments? I thank you for the offer, convener, but I'm nothing further to add. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 30 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 24. Daniel Johnson to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It's not moved. Sorry if there was. Sorry, apologies. The question is that sections 11 and 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? 11 to 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? So that ends consideration of stage 2 of the bill. I'd like to thank everyone at the meeting this morning. I now close the meeting.