In many respects, amendment 69 is the crux of the matter that faces the Parliament. We are told by the Executive that exceptional attachment orders will not be used against the poor. Amendment 69 would ensure that that principle became a reality.
First, the amendment seeks to ensure that, in considering a debtor's circumstances, a sheriff considers not just the debtor, but the debtor's
Secondly, and most important, there are already benefits that are means tested. The Department for Work and Pensions has already decided that the people who receive such benefits are poor. Why, then, should we not ensure that individuals who are in receipt of those benefits are not subject to exceptional attachment orders? If the purpose of the orders is only to have a go at the apparent fly-by-nights who have loads of money but just refuse to pay their debts, we should remove those who are officially defined as poor from the remit of the exceptional attachment orders. That would allow the protection necessary to ensure that those who are in receipt of benefits do not have to face sheriff officers coming to their home, breaking down their door and removing their goods. Amendment 69 would provide an insurance policy against exceptional attachment orders being deployed against the poor.
For the cases of people on benefits who refuse to pay their debts, benefit arrestments are already available; whether those arrestments are moral is another discussion. However, if it can be proved that a debtor is in receipt of income support, a local authority will withdraw a case from a sheriff officer and apply forthwith for a benefit attachment for a prescribed amount of 5 per cent, which is the maximum that is allowed to be deducted from income support.
Therefore, to assure the chamber that we will not end up in a situation whereby those who are already clearly defined as poor will face exceptional attachment orders, I appeal to the minister to support amendment 69 in acknowledgement of the fact that it would provide an insurance policy that would remove, once and for all, people on benefits from the remit of exceptional attachment orders.
I move amendment 69.
I support amendment 69. In fact, the issue with which the amendment deals was first raised by my colleague Kenny Gibson at stage 1 and was supported at stage 2 by him and Linda Fabiani. As Mr Sheridan said, it is common for debtors to have their benefits reduced to pay debt. Wage arrestments also exist. Irrespective of whether one agrees with such measures, people who are on the edge of poverty can already have diligences taken against them.
I received a message from the Scottish working group of the debt on our doorstep campaign, which
"remains concerned that the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill does not, in its present form, achieve its policy objective, in that it fails to ensure that those who cannot pay their debts are excluded from exceptional attachment orders."
The group goes on to say:
"We also believe that a clear indication of Parliament's express wish to exclude the poorest from exceptional attachment orders would be the best response to claims that warrant sales are simply being renamed. We believe that Amendment 69 ... would do this effectively, by excluding people on means-tested benefits (which are used as a yardstick of poverty in many other areas, such as eligibility for school meals)."
I support Tommy Sheridan's amendment 69.
I, too, support amendment 69 and I agree that the key question about exceptional attachment orders is to whom they will apply. The policy memorandum assures us that a different regime will apply to the attachment and sale of the goods of debtors in domestic cases and that exceptional attachment orders will be used only as a last resort and in very exceptional circumstances. The intention is to deal with the poor who find themselves in debt by directing them into debt arrangement schemes that will cover their outstanding debts and make impossible the use of exceptional attachment orders against them.
Earlier in the meeting, however, Parliament in effect voted to deny the freezing of interest rates and the composition of debts as part of debt attachment schemes. In so doing, Parliament has potentially excluded thousands of poor people who are in debt from the protection of debt attachment schemes. As a consequence, such people are exposed to exceptional attachment orders because they will be excluded from debt arrangement schemes. I want the minister to respond to that point in particular.
Often, the people about whom we are talking have multiple debts and are in the deepest trouble. They are the people who are least able to pay off their debts, which is why amendment 69 is essential. If we are serious about making exceptional attachment orders apply only to those who can pay but will not, there is no problem with excluding the category of people about whom we are talking from the scope of the exceptional attachment order. Someone who is on income support, income-based jobseekers allowance or the working families tax credit is among the poorest people in the land. We keep hearing that there is no intention that exceptional attachment orders will apply to those people, so what is the objection to including that in the bill? If the amendment is agreed to, we can guarantee that exceptional attachment orders will be used
I am opposed in principle to exceptional attachment orders, but I do not suppose that there is much chance of persuading the Executive to abandon them at the 11 th hour. However, the least that we can do is to ensure that people on low incomes—the poorest of the poor—do not become the victims of exceptional attachment orders and the subsequent sale of their property.
The Scottish Parliament voted to abolish warrant sales and there was a widespread welcome for that throughout the country. Most people in Scotland, whether they had experienced warrant sales at first hand, witnessed them or heard of the barbaric practice, realised that, for the most part, the victims of warrant sales were people on low incomes and their families. The least that we can do is to ensure that, today, we do not simply turn back the clock and make the poorest of the poor the victims of exceptional attachment orders.
Section 46(4)(g)(iii) says that, in considering whether to make an order, the sheriff shall have regard to "the debtor's financial circumstances". That obligation ought to be extended to ensure that the sheriff has regard to the financial circumstances of the debtor's family or household before coming to a decision, because there might be other people who are dependent on the debtor.
The sheriff should be obliged to deny an application for an attachment order in circumstances where, quite clearly, the income of the debtor is below a certain level. That is the purpose of the second part of amendment 69. People who are on income support, income-based jobseekers allowance, the disabled person's tax credit or the working families tax credit are, by definition, on low incomes. Income support is the amount that the Westminster Parliament has set down as the minimum level necessary for subsistence. Are we not to give that minimum protection to people? If the Scottish Parliament cannot do that, we are ignoring the voice and the needs of the poor.
As I said, I am opposed to exceptional attachment orders, but the least that we can do, if we are not to get rid of them from the bill completely, is to ensure that the poor do not become their victims.
I can hardly add to what Dennis Canavan and John McAllion have said in support of amendment 69. Although those of us who oppose exceptional attachment orders have lost the battle against them—I accept that—we thought that we had won the fight against the
I support Tommy Sheridan's amendment 69. I have been remarkably modest in the number of my rebellions today, but I will certainly rebel on that amendment. As the paper from Graham Blount on behalf of the respectable people who are worried about the subject says, it is a litmus test of the Parliament. Surely we exist, amongst other things, to defend the weak against the strong. We must go the extra mile to help those who really need help. Amendment 69 does that.
One of the less attractive aspects of the Parliament, in which the Parliament is similar to many other organisations, is that a lot of people are against anything that Tommy Sheridan proposes simply because he proposes it. Tommy Sheridan is open to criticism for his politics and conduct in certain respects—we all are—but we cannot deliver politics on the basis that we instinctively oppose something that a certain person says. We must consider the merits of the case. In this case, the merits are clearly on Tommy Sheridan's side.
As Graham Blount's paper says, many people feel that the bill is merely cauld kail rehet—it is warrant sales in another form. It is grossly hypocritical. We are wrong to go down that track. We should defend the debtors. I appeal to members to vote with their conscience, or for the Executive to see the light on the road to Damascus. If the Executive can see the light on sectarianism, it can see the light on debt.
On such afternoons, when we are often mired in the arcana of drafting, we sometimes need to send a clear message to the people of Scotland. Many of our problems as a Parliament arise from the fact that we have been bad at sending clear messages. Amendment 69 sends the clearest possible message to Scotland: that, although many of us have huge reservations about the bill because it has not achieved what it should have achieved, something tangible and concrete is being offered to the poorest people in Scotland. That is a devastatingly simple message that the Parliament can send out. It would be a guarantee from the Executive and from each member that we had at least heard one plea and that we knew that the bill must be changed.
Surprisingly, I echo what Donald Gorrie said. Whatever our voting instructions say, amendment 69 is a matter of conscience. We must send out the message that at least one part of what the Parliament wanted to achieve in abolishing
I will argue against Mr Sheridan's amendment 69. The reason is clear. I agree that we have a responsibility to send a message to the people of Scotland. That message must be correct and accurate. During stage 1, time and again, the witnesses who came to the Social Justice Committee were asked, "Is the bill as it stands poindings and warrant sales by another name?" Every witness was asked that and every witness said, "No it is not." We send the wrong signal to the people of Scotland by telling them that the bill is something that it is not. It is not intended to introduce poindings and warrant sales by another name, and it certainly does not do that. If someone is too poor to enter a debt arrangement scheme, they are too poor to have an exceptional attachment order made against them. That is a fundamental point that will prevent any poor person in Scotland from having an attachment made against them. [Applause.]
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Conservatives support the bill; this is to do with what makes sense.
We have ensured that the bill will allow for pilot schemes, so that those who are excluded from entering the debt arrangement scheme will still be given an opportunity. If certain members think that their opinions are in keeping with those of the people of Scotland, but they want to set up a charter that would allow those people who have the money to pay their debts to refuse to do so, they are not in touch with the people in my constituency or anywhere else. It is wrong to suggest that people on benefit and who are undoubtedly poor do not want to pay their debts.
I have listened carefully to the points made in the debate, and I understand the intention behind them. I take exception, however, to Donald Gorrie's remarks that some of us who propose to vote against amendment 69 have no conscience. I find that wholly objectionable. I suggest that Donald Gorrie thinks very carefully before rebelling, because he is suggesting that his party and the Labour party—and, in this case, the
Mr Sheridan's amendment is a sweeping, blanket amendment, which would simply exclude 400,000 Scots from the potential to undertake credit. It tells those people that they are not creditworthy, because they will not be in a position to pay back their debt. We think that that is the wrong message to send out.
Can the minister confirm that, in certain circumstances, under the regulations that are applicable to the working families tax credit, and with the greater dependency culture that is being created by the present Administration down south, households with an income in excess of £50,000 can qualify for the working families tax credit? Can he confirm that it would be an absurdity if amendment 69 were accepted and if households with that level of income were exempted from the rules?
I think that it is not the working families tax credit but the child tax credit to which David McLetchie refers. Nevertheless, there are upper limits in some benefit systems, which are now very high indeed. We therefore believe that a sweeping amendment such as amendment 69 is inappropriate. Indeed, we do not believe to be the case the assumption that people who have taken on debts and who are on income support do not wish to pay their debts, no matter what amount. That assumption is patronising.
Amendment 69 would create unfairness between those who are on benefits and those who are just above the qualifying level. It would not deal with those who qualify for benefits but who do not take up their entitlement. It could have the unintended knock-on effect of making lenders wary of extending credit to people who receive the benefit specified. I know that Tommy Sheridan does not agree, but his amendment would create a culture in which more than 400,000 Scots would, in effect, be telling creditors that they were not part of the system or of the scheme.
The last time that we discussed this proposal in committee, we discussed its potential anomalies and how it might be open to abuse. For example, a debtor would be exempted just because their 18-year-old child living at home received a jobseekers allowance or because they had a lodger who was on benefit, on whose rent they relied. Those anomalies might not be intended, but they would be consequences of amendment 69 being agreed to.
The better course is to retain the existing provisions in the bill. It is much better for individual circumstances to be assessed on a case-by-case basis so that particular circumstances are taken into account.
The exceptional attachment orders will be exceptional. There is not a single member of the Executive who would have signed up to the bill if they had believed otherwise. That is the intention in the bill. I urge members to reject amendment 69.
When giving evidence to the Social Justice Committee on 12 June—a meeting that Karen Whitefield attended—Pauline Allan from Money Advice Scotland stated that the debt arrangement scheme, which we have tried but failed to amend, would exclude 70 per cent of Money Advice Scotland's clients. For Karen Whitefield to suggest that if someone is too poor for a debt arrangement scheme they will not be subject to an exceptional attachment order is utter nonsense.
When we followed up the information to which Tommy Sheridan refers, Money Advice Scotland indicated that it was not correct. That is why I lodged my amendment proposing a pilot scheme. People whose incomes were too low would not automatically be included in a debt arrangement scheme.
Exceptional attachment orders are not about penalising the poor. They are about ensuring that those who can pay do pay. What will Tommy Sheridan do to ensure that those who can pay their debts do so? That is what ordinary working-class people want.
The Executive appears to have been willing to pursue Money Advice Scotland because it was off line when it gave its honest evidence. Money Advice Scotland's evidence to the committee, which was supported by evidence from the Scottish Association of Law Centres, Citizens Advice Scotland and other organisations that gave evidence to the committee, was clear about the fact that the poor will be excluded from debt arrangement schemes.
Karen Whitefield asked how I would ensure that people pay their debts. The first thing not to do is to stigmatise 400,000 people just because they are in receipt of benefit. When the minister admitted that 400,000 people in Scotland are in receipt of means-tested benefits, he should have apologised for that. Labour has been in Government for five years, but it has done nothing about it. The fact that 400,000 people are in receipt of benefit is a shocking statistic. The Executive is suggesting that the rhetoric of
Christine Grahame referred to the letter from Graham Blount. That letter appears to have been sent to all MSPs, so I can only assume that they all received it. As Grahame Blount is now sending letters of this sort, he had better watch out. I am sure that the Executive will want to pursue the points that he has made about exceptional attachment orders.
Graham Blount says that the bill as currently constructed is seriously flawed and will not defend the poor. He and his colleagues work with and represent the poor. They told us clearly that the bill would not defend the poor unless two amendments were supported. The first was amendment 45, in the name of Robert Brown, which dealt with the freezing of interest and composition of debts. The Parliament rejected that amendment. The second is amendment 69, which would ensure that sheriff officers were not sent out to those who are already poor. Unfortunately, it seems that the Parliament will reject that amendment, too. That is why the bill should be rejected.
Division number 24
For: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Munro, John Farquhar, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Sheridan, Tommy, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harding, Mr Keith, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Ben, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Amendment 70 is designed to add some extra protection—as we have been trying to do throughout the afternoon—to the exceptional attachment order procedure. As the bill stands, the sheriff may make an order for a visit to a debtor's home for the purposes of giving money advice. I propose adding a stipulation that, before an exceptional attachment order is granted, contact should be made with the debtor in their home. That should ensure that an exceptional attachment order is not granted in relation to someone in debt whose circumstances do not allow them to pay that debt. The amendment is relatively straightforward and I hope that the minister will agree to support it. However, given what has gone before, perhaps he will not.
I move amendment 70.
Amendment 71 follows on from my stage 2 amendment 130. Its purpose is to provide an element of choice for those who do not want unnecessary intrusion into their home, while acknowledging that contact between a debtor and a debt adviser is crucial. Mr Sheridan's amendment 70, which would make a visit by a debt adviser compulsory, is inappropriate. Many debtors might not want a debt adviser turning up at their home. If the sheriff believes that such contact is warranted and if the debtor wants advice, the debtor should be able to call on the debt adviser.
As well as choice, practical issues are involved. As yet, we do not know how many exceptional attachment orders there will be. Visiting each debtor could impose a heavy burden on advisers, particularly if great distances are involved and the adviser does not possess a motor vehicle. In parts
I pointed out to Dr Simpson at stage 2 that, as he will know, general practitioners can see an average of seven times as many cases in the surgery as they can see when they make house calls. That is why patients are encouraged to visit their GP, rather than the other way round. However, the minister is implying that visits should be more or less the norm for those who will provide advice to people who might have to endure an exceptional attachment order. Will resources allow for that? If a debtor wants to visit the adviser, why should they not do so?
Contact could be made through other means. I acknowledge that, for many, telephone contact or letters might be inappropriate, although they might be effective for some. Why should we be inflexible? It is important that the debtor is helped without the undue distress and indignity that enforced visitation might cause. I urge members to reject amendment 70 and to support amendment 71.
Amendments 70 and 71 have contradictory purposes. Amendment 70 would make a home visit from a money adviser compulsory in all cases before the sheriff has decided whether to grant an exceptional attachment order. That is unwise, because it would prevent the sheriff from exercising discretion on an assessment in individual circumstances.
As Kenny Gibson has acknowledged, amendment 71 is framed in the same terms as amendment 130, which he lodged at stage 2. At stage 2, the Executive acknowledged that amendment 130 had been lodged out of a desire to ensure that there was no unwarranted intrusion into a debtor's home. At that time, I explained that the existing provision meets the working group's recommendation that a visit by a money adviser might benefit a debtor who was too frightened to open their correspondence or who was incapable of doing so. It was thought that the adviser would be likely to achieve greater success by communicating in person. That recommendation is central to the aim of reaching out, through the genuine assistance of money advice, to the most vulnerable.
I understand that many money advisers welcome the provision, because they regard it as an opportunity to reach people who are in need of their services. Others have expressed reservations about how they would go about presenting themselves to the debtor. I have
It should also be borne in mind that section 46(5)(b) allows the sheriff to make
"such other order as the sheriff thinks fit" before deciding whether to make an exceptional attachment order. That means that, if the circumstances of a particular case suggest that a different course is appropriate, the sheriff will be able to deal with the case accordingly. Amendments 70 and 71 should be rejected.
Division number 25
For: Canavan, Dennis, Sheridan, Tommy
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Ms Margaret, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Ferguson, Patricia, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Paterson, Mr Gil, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Ben, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Division number 26
For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Crawford, Bruce, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Harding, Mr Keith, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Ben, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Ferguson, Patricia, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan