³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The question is whether there is an onus on the registers to verify information that they are presented with. Indeed, it is not even information that is the issue, because the information will be accurate; it is the intent behind the information. I suppose that the answer to that is that the register can only check what is in front of it.

The information might also be commercially sensitive. I assume that we do not put every invoice on to the register.

That is a good point. The registers would make that information easily available for anyone who chose to search for it. You are absolutely right that raising awareness of the change is important.

Jill, would you like to comment on what we have done specifically in that regard?

That is a very good point, and you are right. Engaging with the profession is one thing, but, as you say, in many cases, legal support would not be engaged in those transactions. I am happy to take that away to look at how we can raise awareness more comprehensively through business organisations and at how we can raise the profile more generally.

The distinction is that, when the scope of the bill included individuals, there would have been a clear case for money advice organisations being able to access the registers to operate on behalf of individuals, but as the scope is now limited to businesses, the feeling is that there is no need for advice agencies to act on their behalf. Is that right?

Good morning and thank you for inviting me along to give evidence on these four Scottish statutory instruments, which all relate to the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023. The act is derived from the Scottish Law Commission’s report on moveable transactions.

The draft Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023 Amendment Regulations 2025 do a number of things. First, the instrument ensures that the definition of insolvency contained in the 2023 act is appropriate and is in line with the overall policy intention of the legislation. Secondly, it makes necessary minor technical amendments and corrections to the act, for the purpose of giving full effect to the act as intended.

The then Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, who led the legislation through its parliamentary stages, signalled at stage 3 that, in light of stage 2 non-Government amendments to the definition of insolvency and subsequent Government amendments at stage 3 to modify the amended definition, there would be benefit in taking time to consult further in order to get that right, and that the powers in the act could be used to make any necessary further amendments. The changes to the definition of insolvency that are before us reflect that consultation.

The other changes are essentially technical and arose from further scrutiny of the 2023 act after it had been passed. Some inconsistencies were identified and the amendments ensure that those are addressed.

The second SSI—the draft Registers of Scotland (Fees and Plain Copies) Miscellaneous Amendments Order 2025—sets the fees that the keeper of the registers of Scotland will charge for use of the register of statutory pledges and the register of assignations, and for the provision of copies of and extracts from those two new registers, which were established under the 2023 act.

Registers of Scotland consulted on those fees last year, when a registration fee of £80 was proposed. That figure was based on the principle of cost recovery and used estimates of registration volumes that were derived from detailed stakeholder engagement over a number of years.

Respondents viewed the proposed fees as being prohibitively high and excessive, to the extent that the registers might not be used, impacting on the intended legal reforms under the act. The consultation prompted further engagement between Registers of Scotland and key stakeholders. More detailed information was obtained regarding the likely use of the two new registers, which allowed the anticipated volumes of applicants to be revised upwards. The result was a lower register of assignations registration fee of £30, as is set out in the order, with a £30 registration fee for an initial, or single, statutory pledge within a statutory pledge document, and a £5 fee for each additional statutory pledge for which a separate registration application is made.

Fees for making corrections to the register of statutory pledges, which include discharging statutory pledges from the register and correcting any mistakes that were introduced into the register by the applicant, are kept low, at £10. It is hoped that those fees will encourage users to maintain entries for statutory pledges over time, ensuring that the register is accurate and preventing it from becoming cluttered.

The fees for plain copies and extracts are in line with those charged by the keeper of the registers of Scotland for the other registers that are under her control, and searches of the two new registers are charged at £3 per search, under the existing Registers of Scotland (Fees) Order 2014.

The third SSI—the Moveable Transactions (Forms) (Scotland) Regulations 2024—provides for the form of a pledge enforcement notice and a correction demand for use in relation to statutory pledges, as created under the 2023 act.

The fourth SSI—the Moveable Transactions (Register of Assignations and Register of Statutory Pledges Rules) (Scotland) Regulations 2024—sets out rules for how the two new registers will operate on a practical level. That includes the making up and keeping of the registers; procedures in relation to registration and correction; and the form of documents and information to be used in connection with the registers. It is of particular note that the regulations set out that both registers will be electronic; they also set out the information that the applicants will be required to provide when making applications for registration.

I am happy to answer any questions about the SSIs.

As I have said, investment in new builds and large purchases are outside the scope of the policy. There has been a slight increase in the number of registered properties, and the number of individual landlords is broadly flat, so the policy is not having a detrimental impact on the sector in the way that some may posit.

I have pages and pages of data in front of me. We know the number of transactions. We know what is happening with revenue, we know how that plays out against the forecast that the SFC put together for the previous increase, and, indeed, for this increase, we know what the tax elasticities are in the assumptions that it has made. We know what the numbers of registered landlords and registered properties are, we know what the revenue forecasts are and we know how the reduction in ADS transactions compares with the shift in the overall number of LBTT transactions. We have a lot of data, and the data suggests that that is not having the detrimental impact on the market that some might suggest.

If there is any more data that the member thinks that we should be looking at, I would be interested to hear what that would be.

Indeed.

I do not think that we can express it in those terms. First of all, as I indicated, the data shows that the numbers of registered landlords and registered properties are staying flat—indeed, there has been a slight increase in the number of properties in the recent period. That suggests that the anecdotal evidence that landlords are leaving the market is just that—it is anecdotal. At this stage, the data absolutely does not support it. As I said, we have seen a reduction in the number of second homes over a period of time, and I think that that trend predates the increases in ADS. Clearly, the policy is moving in the right direction.

As you rightly say, the amount of revenue raised in the most recent period has been in excess of the SFC forecast, taking into account the behavioural changes that it has factored in, so that policy objective is being delivered. It is self-evidently true that the measure puts buyers who do not have to pay ADS in an advantageous position over buy-to-let landlords, which is clearly the policy intent.