³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Work is done on that, but, as I have said, these projects need to go through a process. If there is slippage on a big project, which is where the bulk of the money goes, you will need another big project that might or might not be moving faster. All of that gets balanced at that level, and then we make the calculation based on what the capital borrowing will be and what the capital budget is for the following year to ensure that those projects continue. However, you need to look at that sort of thing in, if you like, slower time and ensure that you have a rigorous process for getting the capital projects lined up, prioritised, funded and budgeted for, and then launched. Grabbing at projects at short notice is not the optimal or most cost-efficient way of doing that.

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.

The keeper will be watching that as part of her on-going business and engagement with ministers. The same would apply to the whole range of fees that ROS charges for various services. I do not think that there is any specific trigger for a review, but there would be a process—annually, I think—whereby there would be the opportunity to engage on that.

That is a good point. The best plan is for us to take that away and reflect on it, and then come back to you. As I said, when individuals were taken out of the scope of the bill, the sense was that there was no requirement for that, because the vast bulk of money advice agencies would be operating on behalf of individuals. However, you are right that a sole trader could find themselves in that position. I will go and check what that situation looks like at the moment. I do not know whether we have got any data on how many searches we might expect money advice organisations to undertake, but I suspect that it would not be a big number in the grand scheme of things. We will reflect on that, engage with the keeper and respond to the committee.

There is provision for that to be done. I suppose that your question is why people would do that. People on both sides of the transaction have an interest in keeping the registers up to date, as they reflect their commercial reality. Does anyone else want to comment?

Putting that information up is a necessary part of the process, is it not? The whole point is to make that information visible.

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.