Orders of the Day — Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 3:32 pm on 17 June 1992.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Ian Lang Mr Ian Lang , Galloway and Upper Nithsdale 3:32, 17 June 1992

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Today's debate may carry with it an air of familiarity for some hon. Members, given that the issue has been debated not once but twice in the Scottish Grand Committee where the principle of the Bill received broad support and, indeed, unopposed approval. Of course, I hope that that approval will be extended in the same spirit of harmony to today's proceedings.

The Bill is an important measure whose purpose is to secure the efficient conduct of sequestrations in Scotland in a manner that provides value for money to the taxpayer while protecting the legitimate interests of debtors and creditors. The need for reform of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 is widely recognised, and the Government's initiative in introducing today's Bill has been widely welcomed throughout Scotland, including by those professional bodies most directly affected by its provisions.

The new dimension injected into the proceedings today is reflected in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his colleagues, proposing that the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee. That is suddenly the fashionable cry about legislation. The possibility of referral to a Special Standing Committee is, of course, a reform of procedure introduced by a Conservative Government a decade or so ago but unused for about eight years. I have nothing against the proposition in principle. Where some new, broad issue of policy of widespread public interest is at stake on which the special expertise of outside bodies is needed, there may in future be a case for such references. However, that hardly applies in the present case.

It was the 1985 Act which constituted the major policy change, founded as it was on an important Law Commission report. Indeed, during an earlier discussion of the measure the hon. Member for Garscadden said: It was a long overdue and well considered modernisation of law which went back to an Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1621."—[Official Report. Scottish Grand Committee, 4 June 1992; c. 20.] Indeed it was—but it was a technically defective reform, and we are anxious to deal in the Bill with the imbalance that it created between the interests of debtors, creditors and taxpayers.