Resumed debate.

We resume consideration of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill. We are dealing with group 17 of the amendments.

The provisions in the bill have always been about creating a balance between debtor and creditor. Those who have given evidence to us, as well as committee members, have accepted that that balance has entailed compromises being made. I pay tribute to the minister for the way in which he has listened and engaged in consultation and for the way in which he has adapted the provisions of the bill to meet many of the concerns that have been raised.

With regard to the group of amendments that we are debating, it ill behoves members of parties whose members that sit on the Enterprise and Culture Committee made no comment at the time when these matters were being discussed to generate such sound and fury as has been generated this morning without also recognising that the minister has made considerable effort to deal with the points that have been raised.

With regard to crystallisation of debt, the number of diligences that have to be taken into account before a property can be sold and support for debtors through money advice, everything possible has been done to give debtors the best possible chance of keeping their homes and repaying their debt. I hope that the minister will be able to answer Jackie Baillie's questions about what might appear on the face of the bill. Sometimes, if a provision is on the face of the bill, that makes it easier for people who have to use it and saves them from having to trail through what has been said during the debate.

I urge members to support the minister's amendments.

I want to talk about Gordon Jackson's amendments 157 and 158.

I welcome the deputy minister's manuscript amendments, which, in effect, do what Gordon Jackson sought to do with amendment 158, which is to give Scottish ministers delegated powers to introduce further debtor protections if land attachment results in an increase in homelessness. However, questions remain about how the Scottish Executive will know whether that has happened. No relevant court statistics are available at present. The latest civil judicial statistics are for 2002 and that service has been discontinued, pending a review by the Executive. How will anyone know how many land attachments or warrants for sale have been granted? More important, without the provision in amendment 157 how will anyone know the impact that land attachment has had on homelessness and debt recovery?

As Tommy Sheridan pointed out, we know that, when people were subject to poindings, they would stop paying their rent and utility bills to prevent a warrant sale. That explains why, prior to the abolition of warrant sales, there were 23,000 poindings but only 500 warrant sales.

Due to the power of land attachment, a debtor could be forced to stop paying their mortgage in order to pay off a land attachment debt. That could mean that the debtor and their family might be threatened with the absurd situation of becoming homeless through mortgage repossession when, in fact, their homelessness would have been caused by the land attachment.

Unless we monitor and record those statistics, no one will know the true impact of land attachment on homelessness. That is why amendment 157, in the name of Gordon Jackson, is absolutely necessary. It requires the Executive to publish a statement on the impact of land attachment within 15 months, setting out the impact of land attachment on debt recovery and homelessness.

Given that the minister is happy to support amendments that are similar to Gordon Jackson's amendment 158, which would create a power to introduce further protections for home owners, it makes sense that he should also be willing to provide a statement on the impact of land attachment. Without that statement, no one will know whether Scottish ministers should introduce additional protections at a later date. Therefore, it makes little sense to have that additional power without undertaking to do the necessary monitoring and research.

As others have said, the Executive has been happy to provide formal statements on fuel poverty under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and on the abolition of priority need tests under the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003. Further, I now understand that the minister will accept amendment 157. The bill contains many progressive features, but it will be improved by amendment 157, which is complementary to the minister's manuscript amendments.

I urge members to support amendment 157, in the name of Gordon Jackson.

The point that I tried to make to the minister earlier was about the evidential base that will be required to show whether land attachments are being abused and are leading to extra homelessness.

I now have the quotation that I was searching for this morning. When the minister addressed the Enterprise and Culture Committee, he talked about the similarity between land attachments and charging orders in England and Wales. He said that we do not have to worry that land attachments will lead to massive rises in homelessness or to people losing their homes, because the similar procedure in England has not led to that. He said:

"My information is that in 2004 there were 45,562 applications for charging orders in England and Wales, which related to the attachment of all types of properties ... but that there were fewer than 500 sale orders".—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 26 September 2006; c 3292.]

That is the point that we are making. It is the point that Elaine Smith made when she said that there were 23,000 poindings but only 500 warrant sales. The problem was not solved. To avoid warrant sales, individual debtors ended up getting deeper into debt because they did not pay their bills in order to avoid the nuclear option of the warrant sale. Frankly, warrant sales are like candy floss in comparison with land attachments. That is why I argue—unfortunately, I have been unsuccessful—that the minister's amendment 209 should be amended. Instead of "may", it should read "shall".

Will the member take an intervention?

I would love to hear Tricia Marwick's point, but the Presiding Officer is shaking his head.

There should not be an option. The dwelling-house must be removed from the application for a warrant to sell the attached land.

My final comment is on what Donald Gorrie said earlier. He expressed hope that there will be a conscience vote on the matter. If we agree to the provisions on land attachment today, we will do a huge disservice to all those who find themselves in debt throughout Scotland. We will hand a massive nuclear option to creditors, and they will use it. More and more people will get deeper into other debt to avoid losing their homes.

I will try to deal with all the points that were raised during the debate on the group. I was variously accused of being evil, wicked and immoral, but I am none of those things, and I point out that the bill and the provisions on land attachment are none of those things. We are all used to hyperbole in this place, but that is a hyperbole too far.

With all due respect to Donald Gorrie, he has no monopoly on morality in the Parliament. He cares no more and possibly no less than me or anyone else about our responsibility to people who are in debt. I do not accept the charge and I now stand to defend myself. It would be a surprise if I did accept the charge, because the principles and the morality of the bill have already been accepted by members of the Enterprise and Culture Committee. They agreed that what is proposed in the bill merits consideration and that there are circumstances in which homes should be sold. If I stand accused of being evil, wicked or immoral, so do they and many other members in the chamber.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No. I am going to defend myself, if Alex Neil does not mind.

I would agree with Tommy Sheridan's point on poinding if land attachment was the same as poinding. I give due recognition to the role that he played in dispensing with warrant sales and poinding, but there is a difference. With poinding, the creditor could go straight to a sale of the debtor's home, but with land attachment the court has to make an order, as is the case with exceptional attachment.

Land attachment has many debtor protections, some of which I introduced—I have counted 22 protections. The sale of a debtor's home will be rare, just as attaching goods in a debtor's home is exceptional. I accept that land attachment and sale are at the harder end of the enforcement scale, but attachment is not the worst thing that can happen to someone who owes £3,000—they can be made bankrupt. At present, creditors move from diligence such as earnings arrestment, which has a limited impact, straight to bankruptcy. Nothing is in-between, apart from the old and unfair diligence of adjudication, which the bill will abolish.

Tommy Sheridan talked about a rush to use land attachment, but the evidence does not support that and I stand by that. No rush to use charging orders—the equivalent measure in England and Wales—has happened. However, there has been a rush to use bankruptcy. More debtors than creditors used to use bankruptcy to obtain debt relief, but that has turned round in the past three years. Now, more creditors than debtors use bankruptcy to recover debts, particularly against land. I have used the time since the morning to obtain the latest figures to update members. In 2004-05, 50 per cent of applications were by debtors and 49 per cent were by creditors, but in 2005-06, the figures were 45 per cent against 54 per cent, and the projection for this year is 42 per cent against 57 per cent.

There has been a rush to use bankruptcy, under which the right to the debtor's home passes automatically to the creditors, along with almost everything else that the debtor owns. It is not guaranteed that a debtor will get their home back; bankruptcy goes much further than that. I will give just one example: people who have been bankrupt can struggle for years to obtain something as basic as a normal current account.

rose—

rose—

I give way to Christine Grahame as she wanted to intervene first.

Bankruptcy is horrendous, but under land attachment, the debtor will lose their home yet keep all their other debts. They will be homeless and will still have all the other debts, and we know that people who are at such a stage probably have a multiplicity of debts.

That is precisely the case—but only if the debtor wishes it to be. If Christine Grahame is saying that a debtor in such a situation would do better to apply for bankruptcy, she is brave, because that will not be the position in every instance.

Land attachment is a diligence. If a creditor uses it, the debtor is apparently insolvent at that point. The debtor can then apply for their own bankruptcy, if that is right for them.

I know that.

However, the reverse is not always true.

I know that.

I do not really want to conduct a debate with Christine Grahame.

I think that she is finished.

I cannot stress my last point too much. If attached homes cannot be sold, creditors can and will bankrupt debtors and are doing so. That is not speculation; I have given members the statistics. Bankruptcy is not that good for the creditor, either, as it is slow and uncertain and is an expensive way to recover debt. The problem is that the current system pushes creditors in that direction. I have given the creditor and the debtor a way out of that and I ask members to support the amendments in my name and amendment 157, in the name of Gordon Jackson.

The question is, that amendment 208 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division. We will have a suspension while the division bell is rung and members return to the chamber.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

We will now proceed with the division.

Division number 7

For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Frances, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Watt, Ms Maureen, White, Ms Sandra
Abstentions: Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Maclean, Kate, Sheridan, Tommy

The result of the division is: For 73, Against 31, Abstentions 3.

Amendment 208 agreed to.

[Amendment 150 moved—[Christine Grahame].]

The question is, that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 8

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Maclean, Kate, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Watt, Ms Maureen, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 40, Against 74, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 150 disagreed to.

[Amendment 209 moved—[Allan Wilson].]

The question is, that amendment 209 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 9

For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Watt, Ms Maureen, White, Ms Sandra

The result of the division is: For 78, Against 36, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 209 agreed to.

[Amendment 151 moved—[Christine Grahame].]

The question is, that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 10

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gorrie, Donald, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Maclean, Kate, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Morgan, Alasdair, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Watt, Ms Maureen, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Sheridan, Tommy

The result of the division is: For 34, Against 70, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 151 disagreed to.

[Amendment 53 moved—[Allan Wilson].]

The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 11

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watt, Ms Maureen, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Allan
Against: Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Leckie, Carolyn, Martin, Campbell, Sheridan, Tommy, Swinburne, John, Whitefield, Karen
Abstentions: Maclean, Kate

The result of the division is: For 103, Against 8, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 53 agreed to.