���˿���

Yes.

Dr Hunter, do you have any comments?

I believe that Dr Neal has drafted the relevant amendment, so it is a question of offering it for the Government to adopt. I note, too, that Mr Tidy mentioned that

“amending the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for judges might be a more immediate goal”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 9 November 2022; c 16.]

That is worth noting as a potential action that we can recommend.

Yes, I think that that would be helpful.

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?

That is a helpful contribution, as we need to hone in on what practical measures would be most effective.

Dr Neal, your points about the Scottish Law Commission and the idea of a members’ bill are helpful, too, and I agree with your reasoning in that regard. If we already have a pre-built solution, how best do you think it could be taken forward? Would the Government have to be persuaded to adopt the measure and use its time to steer it through? Is that the clear action that we need to focus on to effect that?

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.

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.

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?

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?