Seòmar agus comataidhean

Well, I would not say that. At the start, they are—

It is a function of the environment in which we operate. If we were a normal, independent country and we had borrowing powers that we could exercise, we would be able to smooth that out, but, because we have very tight borrowing restrictions and we have to deal with—“the emergency stage” is probably too strong a phrase—the consequences of spending decisions that are taken at Whitehall, we need to balance the variables and try to predict what is going to happen down the road. The alternative would be that we had not received consequentials to anything like that extent, in which case we would be sitting here having a very different conversation. You would rightly be criticising us for not having taken steps to ensure that the budget came in on balance—which, again, is a requirement of a devolved Administration.

As I say, it is a function of the environment that we operate in. The alternative would be that we had come to committee in the autumn, earlier in the financial year, before those numbers were published, and said, “We expect to get £1.43 billion from the UK Government and we’re going to operate based on the consequences of that. We won’t make any changes in the budget—we won’t cut anything or impose any controls—as we assume that all that money will come flowing down the track.” If that had not happened, it would have been too late in the financial year to take steps on it.

As I say, the reason why these things move is not because there is a lack of policy coherence but because we need to operate in an environment in which there are many substantial unknowns. You asked what the central planning assumption was. We expected to get a number, but there is a huge variation around that. It always operates within a range. We said that the £1.4 billion was at the top end of what we expected that range to be and the range that we planned within. However, there is a huge variation and it could have been a much smaller number. If it had been, we would have had to put measures in place to react to that. If we were in a position where we did not have the borrowing constraints that we have because we are a devolved Administration, we would have been able to take a more stable view throughout the year and deal with the matter in a very different way.

Okay. I will see what we have and send it on to you.

We can endeavour to find the answer to that question if you are interested, convener—absolutely. However, the inquiries are independent and the cost base is driven by the activities that are undertaken by each inquiry.

The issue of how inquiries are budgeted for has been raised previously, but the Government’s position is that we respond to the costs that are incurred by the inquiry.

This is about ensuring value for money, too. The physics of projects does not respect year ends; projects move forward and continue. People do not stop work at year end and then restart—the project continues right through. When it comes to matching up the finances, we need to move the money from one year to the next through the process of bringing it back in and then allocating it back out again.

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.