§ Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 7, line 8, leave out from first ("a") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("statement of assets and liabilities")
§ Mr. Allan StewartI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 3 and 4, 12 to 17 and 20.
§ Mr. StewartThe amendments might look substantial, but in fact they are technical. The main point of significance in them is the new definition of the statement of assets and liabilities which appears in amendment No. 20. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for 76 Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), with cross-party support, raised in Committee. It was a seemingly simple change but, as my hon. Friend will see, it has given rise to several amendments. The amendments should make the legislation easier to understand by debtors and advisers and therefore make the legislation easier to operate in future.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)I am delighted to be able to speak for a few minutes.
As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, amendment No. 20 relates to a matter that I raised upstairs in Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the noble Lords on arriving at a form of words that achieves exactly what I failed to achieve in Committee. My hon. Friend will agree that the amendments that I spoke to in Committee were quite properly technically unsound. There was cross-party support in Committee for what I was trying to achieve. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spoke at length in Committee. I am very happy, therefore, that the amendments should become part of the Bill.
§ Mrs. EwingSeveral of the amendments relate to clause 3, which is a particularly significant part of the legislation. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
Clause 3 amends Section 5 of the 1985 Act to extend the grounds on which a debtor may petition for his own sequestration".The only aspect of the amendments that concerns me is that it could be interpreted that there is a reduction in access to bankruptcy. It was never the intention of my parliamentary questions nor indeed the intention of any hon. Member in Committee that there should be any restriction in access to sequestration, which all hon. Members accept is often the best way forward for an individual who faces severe financial pressures. The context of the Bill was to reduce the costs involved in sequestration. I seek an assurance from the Minister that none of the amendments restricts access to sequestration.
§ Mr. Allan StewartI thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his kind comments about the proceedings in another place, where the purpose of his original amendments was met. They certainly had all-party support.
I reassure the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on the point that she raised. The purpose of the amendments is to assist debtors and those who advise them fully to understand the scope of their obigations and the related offence provisions. No reduction in access is implied in the amendments.
§ Mrs. EwingIn the past few days, it has come to my notice that the Accountant in Bankruptcy is downgrading to 3,000 the anticipated number of annual bankruptcies in Scotland from the 20,000 that the Minister referred to in Committee last year. That is a huge drop. Most Members of Parliament know that many people, particularly those in small business, face bankruptcy. I seek an assurance from the Minister that severe restrictions will not be placed on those who seek sequestration.
§ Mr. StewartI can reassure the hon. Lady. She will agree that it is difficult to estimate the volume of sequestrations which might arise if the Bill is enacted. The amendments stand against the general background of the 77 routes by which a debtor can obtain access to sequestration. Those routes are increased by the Bill. I assure the hon. Lady that none of the amendments restricts access to sequestration.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.