���˿���

That is helpful background and provides some degree of reassurance on the commentary that we have heard on the proposed legislation.

Responses from law centres were mentioned. We have received a response from Govan Law Centre, which, in effect, compared the enforcement of statutory pledges to warrant sales. I assume that you do not think that that is a fair characterisation.

Particular sections of the bill have been highlighted in that regard. Section 63 entitles a creditor to serve a pledge enforcement notice on a debtor if payment has not been made. Section 65 enables an authorised person—in other words, a sheriff officer—to enter someone’s home to remove moveable goods, subject to the statutory pledge. Section 66 gives a creditor the right to sell someone’s moveable goods at a public auction.

Bearing in mind the fact that we have discussed the protections that we can introduce in relation to particular goods, household vulnerability and exposure, will you explain why the characterisation of the enforcement of statutory pledges as warrant sales is not fair? That will allow us to understand the context better.

That is certainly worth considering.

I also want to offer a couple of ideas. The issue is a very good candidate for a member’s bill—I am sure that the committee has noted that. It might be worth discussing that with the committee, and with your constituency and regional ���˿���, who might be interested in the idea of sponsoring such a bill. ���˿��� have certainly been working in that field and it might be of interest to them. That is another potential mechanism by which to achieve the remedy.

I will rest on that, for now, convener.

Certainly, when we look at alternative technologies that are available in other jurisdictions—particularly in London, where there is an automatic fare-capping system that was introduced five or six years ago—we see that there are solutions that could offer a remedy, particularly on intra-Scotland travel as opposed to travel to other parts of the UK. Perhaps it is worth inviting submissions from the likes of Transport for London about its fare-capping technology and how it has been rolled out. That could offer a basis for how a system could be delivered in Scotland.

It is harrowing to listen to your personal experience and to recognise how deficient the law in Scotland is on the matter. The committee has received a submission setting out the fact that the statutory provisions in other parts of the United Kingdom are much stronger in relation to the statutory offence of child destruction as an aggravating factor.

I think that the Scottish Government’s response did not address the primary aggravating factor of the death of an unborn child. It was concerned merely with the offence of domestic abuse, and there was no aggravating factor that could be defined in law. In some of the cases in Scotland in which that has happened, the sentences have been particularly light compared with those in other parts of the UK. Do you agree that that is an inadequate response from the Scottish Government?

It is interesting that there was an idea that issues in the petition have been conflated and that some issues were mixed up around devolved and reserved competences. I thought that it would be worth while trying to unpack that a bit. Certainly, I raised some questions around the interaction between Scottish ministers and UK Government ministers, particularly Alister Jack and Greg Hands. Is it worth inviting those ministers to offer a view regarding the Electricity Act 1989 and the provisions therein? I often think that, when we actually test some of these technical matters, they are often just devolved because people say, “That is probably better over there.”

We could add to that correspondence to the Scottish Government a question to ascertain its view on the fare-capping “tap in, tap out” technology. I know that it has been promoted for buses in Scotland, but I have not heard much in relation to rail.

You mentioned the idea of an amendment rather than the need for a discrete, completely new act. Can you develop your thinking on that a bit more?

When I read the papers for today’s meeting, I noticed that the Scottish Law Commission’s current work programme includes two projects—one on homicide and one on aspects of family law. Both come close to the topic of the petition, but neither covers the actual issue that has been raised. Another avenue to explore could involve a meeting with the Scottish Law Commission. The committee might be able to facilitate such a meeting to discuss those projects and the potential interface with the particular issue and the deficiencies that you have highlighted today.

It would perhaps be worth writing to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and to the 32 local authority education services to ascertain what provision they make within schools. That could help to establish a pattern of activity.