³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The issue comes down to the two-tier system. The process works well in the majority of cases, but not everyone has signed up to the voluntary code.

Yes. First of all, it is important to recognise that the fees have not been increased since 2012, I believe. Inflation over that period has been 36 per cent. It is significant that we are looking at just more than half the inflation increase over that period being clawed back through the fee increase. That will flow through and be picked up on the creditor side. We reckon that there is about a 3 per cent reduction in the amount of money that creditors will receive through the process as a consequence of that change.

I think that it is a fair increase. As I said, it represents barely half of inflation over the period. It reflects increased costs and allows the process to continue to function and be administered effectively.

The regulations have been worked through over a period of time with the expert committee and various players in the sector that come at the matter from different perspectives in order to ensure that problems have—as I hope—been ironed out. Are there any consequences in particular that you have concerns or thoughts about?

First, I suppose that you could flip that around and ask what is the problem with having that requirement in regulations if it is working and everyone is happy with it.

Secondly, there is an issue in that there is the potential for operation of a two-tier system because not everyone is signed up to the voluntary code. It is worth noting a recent legal case in which the sheriff was clear that the voluntary code does not have a statutory basis.

On the specific example that you have mentioned—colleagues might want to talk to this—the reality is that AIB engages extensively throughout the process. You and I would see only the cases that get to the application stage, but an awful lot more cases are, I expect, headed off at the pass—if I can use that term—during the conversations that AIB has in order to ensure that people are able to work within the process and that they do not have to take cases to the final stage. Do officials want to add anything?

Do you mean for debtors?

I do not have that information in front of me. I assume that it is not secret.

We have taken some advice and have consulted on that. The conclusion was that, at the moment, if people charge fees to provide that work, misselling is being effectively combated by the existing process. There was also a danger that there could be unintended consequences if accountants or other professionals are not able to bring forward cases or point people in the right direction. On balance, and having sounded the matter out with sector stakeholders, we felt that we did not need to put that particular requirement into the regulations.

The voluntary code was a step in the right direction. It brought in the requirements that were felt to be necessary, and which have since proved to be necessary: I think that we would all agree that the voluntary code has been working.

However, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we have a two-tier system and not all providers are operating under the voluntary code. The reason for the change is to ensure that the remaining challenge is dealt with and that the requirements in the voluntary code are brought into legislation so that everyone has to comply with them. Along with other measures that are in the provision, that provides security and comfort to those who are involved in the process.

The regulations should offer more protection. As I have said, putting the voluntary code on a statutory footing removes the two-tier system and the potential for people not to apply the voluntary code. The regulations give clarity on the process so that everybody will know what it is.

Tomorrow, we will deal in Parliament with the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill. One of the provisions in that bill is on provision of a leaflet with information on the cooling-off period and so on, which is also helpful.

It is clear that the process that has been worked through was to bring in, through the consultation and through the expert panel, people who understand the process. As you have rightly identified, that includes debt advice charities and organisations and others. I hope that they will be able to reflect the perspectives and needs of debtors who will use the process.

I hear what you are saying. I do not want to cast aspersions, and I am not familiar with the providers or with anyone who might want to come into the market, but the other way to look at it is that you would want any providers of protected trust deeds to comply with the voluntary code. Protecting that and putting it in statute will ensure that other players that might want to come into the market are on a level playing field with everyone else. More important is that it would protect the debtors and creditors that are involved in the process. Putting the voluntary code on a statutory footing allows us to do that for any providers that are coming into the market or anyone who is already in it.