Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am mindful of the points that colleagues have made, but I do not think that it is necessarily helpful to have the sort of ruminating and backwards-looking inquiry that is often quite expensive and tends not to improve operational performance. The petitioners have highlighted a broader strategic issue, which is that in Scotland—and perhaps across the UK—we are incredibly inefficient at delivering major infrastructure programmes. This is yet another dog of a project that has gone on for far too long, and the huge administrative costs associated with the constant procrastination over it are completely unacceptable.

I would contrast that with the approach to the emerging structural problems that were identified on the M8 in central Glasgow at the Woodside viaduct. In the past year, Transport Scotland has introduced an emergency structural repair programme that has ridden roughshod over local public opinion in delivering the maintenance of the trunk road network, which is not necessarily what people in Glasgow want. In contrast, the A83, which is a vital artery and critical for access to the west Highlands at any time, has been stagnating on the back burner for a long time.

There is a broader issue. We need to use the petition as a device to keep pressure on the Government and Transport Scotland to ensure that the project is delivered in a timeous fashion. Although the Government has indicated that there is a timeline that runs into next year, which, on the face of it, sounds satisfactory, the petition may be a useful way of keeping a check on that and allowing the petitioners to continue to ensure that the project moves forward at a satisfactory pace.

The panel has given very compelling evidence so far on the need for this change, particularly on the issue of fair labelling; an extremely compelling point was made on that issue. I note that Dr Neal mentioned that she had drafted a clause in 2017. In trying to reach a set of firm proposals about how to take this forward, what remedy would be satisfactory to witnesses? I know that there has been discussion about having a statutory aggravator that could be coupled with a more general offence; would that be a satisfactory remedy?

In relation to a specific offence, is there an opportunity to consider the Scottish Law Commission’s current projects? It is doing projects on homicide and aspects of family law that come close to the topic in the petition, but neither covers the issue raised. Could those projects be adjusted in scope to incorporate the issue? A members’ bill could be introduced, if there was support for its drafting. Do any witnesses have thoughts about potential options to take the matter forward in a practical sense?

Inevitably, the minimum threshold will be a somewhat arbitrary figure, although modelling can be undertaken on, for example, the basket of typical household goods, which could assess the debt loadings that a typical household might take out on consumer goods.

One remedy that we have been considering is the inclusion of an automatic deflator in the legislation. In the context of the current high-inflation environment, the figure that would eventually be arrived at would automatically adjust to the retail price index or consumer price index, over time. Secondary legislation would not be required to uprate the amount, which would inevitably lag behind reality. Would the Government give consideration to that?

On that, inevitably we will come upon distressing situations in which a small business start-up might have overleveraged or might have a particularly aggressive lender that is seeking to cause destruction. That happened quite commonly after the credit crunch. A particularly egregious example was RBS, which destroyed many businesses. Had a more patient approach been taken, we could have had far more success and resilience in our economy.

It has been highlighted that a lender would not need a court order in order to seize items that had been pledged by a sole trader or a small business even if they had missed only one payment. In a cash-flow situation that was caused, for example, by a spike in energy bills such as we are seeing at the moment, a business might have to defer payment, but that could destroy the business overnight. Will the Government consider strengthening the position? Will there be a safeguard in the legal system, at least to allow for pleas to be made about the circumstances, before a lender is allowed to arrest property that could be critical to a business?

That is helpful clarification. The scenario that was painted was of a Brighthouse type situation in which there would almost be adverts with prices on every item of household goods and people could cash in and liquidate assets without having to take them from the home. That suggestion was made in the context of there being distressed household finances across the country and its possibly being a tempting proposition. It is helpful that the Government has indicated that it is willing to look at the carve-out for consumers.

I am happy to rest there, convener. I appreciate your indulgence.

You mentioned the difficulty in defining sole traders. It has been indicated that a couple of pieces of existing legislation—the Consumer Scotland Act 2020 and the 1974 act—include such a definition. A good example of where there might be difficulty is when a motor vehicle is used both as a family car and a taxi. Have you considered what remedies there could be in such a situation, and how we could better protect such traders? The FSB said that if consumers were to be carved out, that could exclude people who are raising finance who are sole traders or early start-up businesses. On the other hand, we have seen examples in which the seizure of business-critical equipment destroyed a business overnight simply because a particularly aggressive lender decided to close in on it. Have you considered how that balance could be better struck?

It is helpful to know that the Government is alive to the issue. We will obviously work through it, in due course.

I will touch on a particular issue that the committee has highlighted before, and which touches on the discussions that we have had about motor vehicles, as an area of particular focus. In its delegated powers report on the bill, the committee recommended that in relation to section 53(8), on acquisition in good faith of motor vehicles, instruments should be subject to affirmative procedure. The Government suggested in its response to the committee’s letter on that power that it is open to changing that at stage 2. Is that still the case?

That is welcome.

I will also touch on a matter that was raised by the Govan Law Centre in relation to particular sections of the bill. In his evidence to the committee, Mr Dailly raised concerns about section 63, which entitles a creditor to serve a pledge enforcement notice on a debtor if payment has not been made; and about section 65, which enables an authorised person such as a sheriff officer to enter someone’s home to remove moveable goods that are the subject of statutory pledges under section 66.

Mr Dailly’s interpretation is that that would give a creditor the rights to sell someone’s moveable goods at public auction and could lead to the emergence of what he characterised as a “virtual pawnbroking” scenario. That has been disputed by others—notably, the Scottish Law Commission, which was involved in drafting the bill.

What is the take of the minister and his colleagues on the Govan Law Centre’s highlighting of those sections of the bill as representing a risk that there will be the unintended consequences that have been described? Do those sections of the bill need to be further investigated?

Vacant and derelict land is a particularly acute issue in Glasgow. I think that the bulk of Scotland’s derelict land is in Glasgow, so it would be interesting to get insights from the Clyde Gateway urban regeneration company, which is the only urban regeneration company left in Scotland, about its work and the model that it has adopted.

It would also be worth while engaging with the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Building, which has proposed a demolition levy to promote the reuse and renovation of buildings. A major disincentive has been created through the tax system whereby the renovation and retrofitting of existing buildings is subject to 20 per cent VAT, but demolition and new builds are zero rated, so a handicap is imposed on what should be the right thing to do. That is why you often see otherwise pleasant-looking buildings being destroyed; it does not make any financial sense for the developer to renovate them. There are some perverse incentives out there that should be investigated, because addressing them could be part of the remedy.

I will preface my comments by referring members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of Unite the union.

As I represent Glasgow, I recognise a lot of the points that have been made, particularly the controversy over the low-emission zone restrictions that are planned for introduction next year. I understand that Glasgow City Council recently announced that enforcement of the LEZ will not apply to certain taxis until 1 June 2024, which is, in effect, an extension of one year. Is that sufficient time to allow non-compliant vehicles to be retrofitted with emissions reduction systems or fully replaced?