Hansard

I welcome the minister's speech, his view that the bill should be dealt with consensually and his statement that he will deal with it inclusively. I am also grateful for his commitment to address a variety of matters at stage 2.

The Parliament must reach a consensus on the bill. It is not the most exciting of bills, but it is important that we address bankruptcy and diligence. We are in the 21st century and the ground has changed under our feet. We must make Scotland more entrepreneurial and ensure that those who try and sometimes fail in business are supported in their efforts to try and try again until such time as they succeed.

We need to strike a balance. That important point has already been made. Society has changed: debt and credit are much more readily available and are used much more. We need to be extremely sympathetic to those who get into debt and towards the problems that affect them and their families, but we must also be aware that creditors suffer. If a bill is not paid to a small joinery firm it can go out of business, jobs can be lost and people can lose their livelihoods. We must strike a balance between debtors' needs and the needs of those who, through no fault of their own, have lost out because of the debts that others have incurred.

The Scottish National Party broadly welcomes the bill's thrust and ethos. A great deal of credit must go to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, which has identified many of the fault lines. I hope that the minister will take those on board, as he has said he will, and that we will be able to discuss them and reach a consensus on how to deal with them. The committee correctly flagged up issues of significant concern where change must take place. We hope to work not only with it but with the minister to reach a consensus that will enable us—as the Government has set out to do—to deal with bankruptcy, diligence and other matters not for five or 10 years but for the early part of this century. That is important for all—debtors and businesses alike.

We must accept that circumstances have changed. We have a property-owning democracy, as Mrs Thatcher wanted. Whether or not we like it, that is the circumstance that we face and we must address it. In our world, not only is credit more available but consumption is much more possible. Rather than condemn people for seeking more in this materialistic society we must try to protect them. We are where we are whether or not we like it and we must ensure that the law acknowledges that.

The SNP adds the caveat that it is important to address the consequences of debt, which are severe in Scotland. The Parliament and the Executive have to pick up the pieces of not only the problems that go with debt or the bankruptcies and sequestrations that follow but the personal hardships—broken marriages, depression and alcoholism—that can be fuelled by the debt into which people fall. The difficulty is that we are able to address the consequences of debt but we are unable to address its causes. Until such time as those who represent the people of Scotland in this Parliament have the opportunity to address consumer credit as well as deal with the consequences of consumer debt, we will be hidebound. The Enterprise Act 2002 did not go far enough in protecting our people from outrageous interest rates or advertisements that are designed to lure them in and sucker them. We must have the powers to address that. That will be a battle for another day but, if we are to address debt in Scotland, we must be able to tackle its causes every bit as much as its consequences.

Although it is important that we legislate, people must take personal responsibility. That has to be brought home to them. In Scotland, we perhaps dine out on the image of the thrifty Scot. That image certainly used to apply, but more and more people are getting into personal debt. It ill behoves people in my generation and those who are older to be too condemnatory, because we created the society in which credit is readily available and consumer goods are punted in television advertisements and an array of other media. However, people must acknowledge that, if they borrow or use credit, they have a responsibility to pay it back. Perhaps we have to consider not only education, which falls within the Executive's and the Parliament's domain, but greater cultural change to achieve an element of individual responsibility.

We have not quite reached a pandemic in this respect, but we should consider what is being added to the fuel that already exists. On gambling, we are only at the beginning of how things might develop with casinos and internet access. We do not know how the situation will develop, but there are extraneous factors that will fuel consumer debt further.

We are happy to go along with the general principles of the bill, subject to the points that were correctly identified by the Enterprise and Culture Committee. There is a significant problem with bankruptcy. There has clearly been an issue around the proposed reduction in the discharge period from three years to one year. Our view is that the balance is probably right. The courts will have the opportunity to become involved, and we should bear in mind the desire to support entrepreneurs.

I add the caveat that the entrepreneurial spirit that we seek to engender cannot simply be brought in by legislation, as is the case with changes relating to debt and responsibility. The Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning was quite right about that. Floating charges might be viewed with incredulity by the vast majority of our electorate, but they are important for businesses. Although they might be viewed with some scepticism, they are necessary if we wish Scottish businesses to be able to compete not just in the United Kingdom but on a pan-European and global basis. We need to give support in that regard.

Other matters have been highlighted by the Law Society of Scotland, which doubtless have been intimated to the minister. Despite what I said about the need to have our own distinctive consumer credit legislation, there are areas where we will now have to work with the Westminster Government. I will happily give the Executive my full support in any representations that it requires to make to the Department of Trade and Industry in England to ensure that there is some harmony on the matters that the Law Society and others have raised. It would be counterproductive not to act in that way.

Turning to enforcement, our view is that the nomenclature for sheriff officers should be whatever makes them happy. Whatever they wish to be called, it is fine by us. [Laughter.] We should not laugh or be too jocular about it—sheriff officers do a significant job. I was commenting to somebody from a citizens advice bureau earlier that there has been a great deal of condemnation of the sheriff officer profession, in particular with respect to what happened when the poll tax was in force. However, as an instructing lawyer, I remember how happy people were when they sought to return kids who had been abducted by errant fathers or other people. They do good work as well as sometimes having to do jobs that the rest of us might view as unhelpful.