���˿���

Clearly, we will vote for the regulations. However, I think that it is worth putting on the record three points—one is procedural and the other two are with regard to these particular regulations.

First, I think—the minister will know this, because I used to make the same point when he sat on the Social Security Committee—that it is unfortunate that, because of the way that the procedure is set up, we are asked to vote on things immediately after we take evidence on them. We need to consider whether that allows proper scrutiny. There could have been things that the minister or we, as a committee, wanted to go back and reflect on, but we are asked to make a decision immediately. I think that there should be a week between regulations being discussed with Government ministers and their being voted on. I appreciate that that is not the minister’s responsibility and he may not want to comment on it, but I think that it is worth pointing out that there is a lack of scrutiny.

Secondly, with regard to the regulations that we are discussing, I heard what the minister said, but I still cannot quite understand why those who fall into the category of the October birthday could not simply be transferred automatically. I do not see the logic in the argument that, if somebody was suddenly going to be transferred, somebody else would not apply. I genuinely do not see that, and I worry that there will be people who drop off the system and miss out on money in that regard. That is a slight concern. We will have to wait and see what happens in practice.

The third issue is when the payments will actually be made, which I raised in my questions. It seems slightly strange to me that we are getting rid of the four-week guarantee for payment, which treats people with respect and dignity. I worry that the agency is moving away from that. We saw really quite a large delay over the summer, particularly with regard to the best start grant, in people getting their applications processed and getting money, where appropriate, put into their bank accounts. We have ADP being rolled out at the same time as well.

We have seen those delays, but I have not really been reassured by the minister or by Social Security Scotland that we are not going to see such delays again. We are approaching Christmas and it is going to be a difficult time for many individuals. I am concerned that the money will not appear in people’s accounts at the appropriate time. I hope that I am wrong. No doubt, we will come back to this and look at it once it has happened.

We welcome the policy development but, with regard to the practicality of delivering it, the Government could have been slightly more ambitious and slightly more open and willing to help those who already have the benefit to continue with it.

Finally, one of the regulations that you have not mentioned removes the requirement for SCP to be paid within four weeks of getting the application. The draft policy note from April says:

“often this deadline cannot be met due to the high volume of claims Social Security Scotland manage”.

That was back in April, and we are now nearly in November. Has the position changed? Are you confident that people will get the payment within four weeks of applying? With all due respect to Social Security Scotland, it is all very well getting a letter every two weeks, but people want money in their bank account. Why has that regulation gone? Why can you not guarantee payment within four weeks?

Good morning. My question leads on from what we have heard already. I ask Colin Borland to answer first, and others can come in if they want.

At the moment, under Scots law, small businesses, individuals and partnerships cannot grant floating charges. I think that they are a bit of a blunt instrument and are perhaps not used as much as they were previously. Are your members saying that they would like the opportunity to grant floating charges over their assets, or will the proposals replace that?

The other area that I want to cover is how the new registers will work in practice. This question is for both of you. Are you satisfied that the registers that are set out in the bill will provide the information that is needed by lenders and those who will grant charges? Do you have any suggestions for how they could be improved?

I have a follow-up question, which, again, is to both of you. At the moment, the bill suggests that information updates to the register of statutory pledges will be voluntary. That means that, when a pledge is paid off, it will not necessarily show up automatically, because someone has to do it. Is that realistic for businesses? Will people do it, or will we end up with lists and lists of pledges that have been paid off but have never been taken off the register?

Good morning. You will have heard that I asked the first panel of witnesses about the voluntary nature of updating the register when a pledge has been discharged. Will that happen or will the register just build up more and more? Do you think that the voluntary approach will work, or would you like to see some statutory element to it?

The Scottish ministers will have the power to set the duration of registration for statutory pledges. In its submission, the Faculty of Advocates has suggested that asking creditors to set the timescale when they register would be a better approach. If the bill were changed, could you facilitate that?

Mirka Skrzypczak, among the partnerships and individuals you deal with, is there any appetite for allowing floating charges to be granted by them?

I want to come back to a point that Jennifer Henderson made, just to clarify what powers you have. When the land register was rolled out initially, there were arguments about whether the right piece of land was being registered, who owned what and where the boundaries were. With the registers under the bill, if somebody said that they did not take a security over something or that there had been fraudulent behaviour, would you have powers to investigate that or would you refer it to another body?

I want to move on to another area. Perhaps one or both of the witnesses will want to take this question. At the moment, the bill does not deal with shares and other assets such as that, because of the Government’s view that it does not have the legal competence to grant that. Do you have a view? Should the bill be extended to cover shares?