The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
The Official Report search offers lots of different ways to find the information you’re looking for. The search is used as a professional tool by researchers and third-party organisations. It is also used by members of the public who may have less parliamentary awareness. This means it needs to provide the ability to run complex searches, and the ability to browse reports or perform a simple keyword search.
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
Depending on the kind of search you want to do, one of these views will be the best option. The default view is to show the report for each meeting of Parliament or a committee. For a simple keyword search, the results will be shown by item of business.
When you choose to search by a particular MSP, the results returned will show each spoken contribution in Parliament or a committee, ordered by date with the most recent contributions first. This will usually return a lot of results, but you can refine your search by keyword, date and/or by meeting (committee or Chamber business).
We’ve chosen to display the entirety of each MSP’s contribution in the search results. This is intended to reduce the number of times that users need to click into an actual report to get the information that they’re looking for, but in some cases it can lead to very short contributions (“Yes.”) or very long ones (Ministerial statements, for example.) We’ll keep this under review and get feedback from users on whether this approach best meets their needs.
There are two types of keyword search:
If you select an MSP’s name from the dropdown menu, and add a phrase in quotation marks to the keyword field, then the search will return only examples of when the MSP said those exact words. You can further refine this search by adding a date range or selecting a particular committee or Meeting of the Parliament.
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
There are two ways of searching by date.
You can either use the Start date and End date options to run a search across a particular date range. For example, you may know that a particular subject was discussed at some point in the last few weeks and choose a date range to reflect that.
Alternatively, you can use one of the pre-defined date ranges under “Select a time period”. These are:
If you search by an individual session, the list of MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs and committees will update to show the information that was current at that time.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1119 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 25 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
Colin, do you have any thoughts?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 25 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
I want to get your thoughts on a problematic scenario that the bill would create. A lender would not need to get a court order to seize items that had been pledged by a sole trader or small business in the event that they missed repayments on their loan. Are you happy that greater protection—which might consequentially come with a higher interest rate—would not be needed? I suppose that it is a question of striking the right balance.
10:15Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 25 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
That would be appreciated, and if you had any proposals for appropriate or proportionate protections—with regard to, say, when a seizure could take place—that would be helpful, too. Mirka, do you have any thoughts on that?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 25 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
That is really helpful, particularly with regard to the best practice from mainstream lending institutions and what we could design to ensure that nothing could outflank it. Any further thoughts on that would be really helpful.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 25 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
Thanks very much for that. I appreciate those thoughts.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
I am conscious that we are up against it time-wise, so I will be quick. I have some questions about enforcement issues, which are a major concern.
Mr Dailly has raised concerns about section 63, which entitles a creditor to serve a pledge enforcement notice on a debtor if payment has not been made; section 65, which enables an authorised person such as a sheriff officer to enter someone’s home to remove moveable goods subject to a statutory pledge; and section 66, which gives a creditor rights to sell someone’s moveable goods at public auction. The main concern is for consumers, but there is potentially concern for small businesses too, as the removal of a critical piece of machinery might shut them down. The bill does not necessarily contain the range of protections that are needed. Something as simple as one missed payment could trigger enforcement action.
Looking at how the bill balances protections against unjust enforcement with the need for the statutory pledge to remain attractive to business lenders, do you think that it strikes the right balance?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
I want to build on the point that Mr Dailly made. On section 64, even if an individual consumer could agree with the creditor that a court order was not necessary, thereby bypassing the protections of a court, another respondent to the consultation has noted that,
“while a court order may be required before enforcement against a consumer, there were no obvious powers for a sheriff to rely on to provide protection.”
They add that
“Section 62(2)b) would allow enforcement against a pledged item if there has been a ‘failure to perform the secured obligation’”,
which is obviously wildly open to interpretation.
On the point about the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it does not seem clear that it contains protections in relation to specific enforcements.
Based on those points, where a consumer has breached the terms of a secured loan, it is not clear what argument they could use in court—if they even got to court—to persuade a sheriff to stop enforcement action. Do you have any views on how we can enhance that provision in the bill and what we could rely on in consumer protection legislation more generally that could be referenced in the bill as a safeguard?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
I will rest on that.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
An interesting point was raised about legislative competence. As the conversation has developed this morning, I have been thinking about interest rates. Mike Dailly mentioned the Roman cap on interest rates at 8 per cent. I do not know whether it would be legislatively competent to put a provision in the bill whereby we could cap a maximum APR that could be charged in relation to any form of security.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
If I want to buy a telly from John Lewis, I can do so with zero per cent interest over 24 months. That is an obvious incentive for me to make the transaction, and the shop gets the sale. That is a patient way of financing the purchase because the good will last a long time. On the face of it, it would not seem to be a problem for me to stick £1,000 against my telly, go off on holiday and pay it off over the 24 months. I would have free money, basically, to finance something that I wanted to do on a whim.
However, if we have that interest rate liability, it is clearly going to be targeted towards people who are financially distressed and are much more desperately in need of the money, which will be charged at an onerous rate of interest. It seems that it will inevitably be targeted to people who have no other avenue to access cheap finance.