³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It is important to note that the bill changes nothing in relation to waiver of defence clauses. It simply puts the existing common law into statute.

I stress that the existing common-law position is that the ability of parties to agree to have a waiver of defence clause is subject to any legislation that restricts or prevents that, including any and all consumer protection legislation.

The correct place for the regulation of assignations of consumer credit agreements is consumer credit law. More generally, the place for protecting consumers from unfair contract terms is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That legislation holds that an unfair term in a consumer contract or a consumer notice is not binding on the consumer. The result is that the potential for a waiver of defence clause in a consumer context is checked by the consumer protection legislation—in particular, the 2015 act. An unfair term in such a consumer contract would not be binding on the consumer. The bill as drafted allows consumers the contractual freedom to contract as they feel appropriate, all with the consumer protections of part 2 of the 2015 act.

However, I appreciate that there are concerns, which have been raised with the committee, about the drafting of section 15. I am happy to consider that at stage 2, and we will be keen to study the committee’s thoughts and reflections in its report.

You will appreciate that the view that the Scottish Government has come to is that the matter is outwith our competence, and you will understand that I cannot go into the internal processes that informed that decision in front of the committee. That is the view, but we want those provisions to be in the legislation, which is why we have sought at the earliest stage to engage with the UK Government in relation to a section 104 order.

I hope that, notwithstanding the particular areas of concern that I know that the committee and stakeholders have raised, the general thrust of the bill and what it aims to achieve will command the broadest support across Parliament. Given that we can get to that place of consensus, I hope that the UK Government would be agreeable to engaging constructively on the matter through a section 104 order, to ensure that we can get financial instruments into the operation of the final legislation.

I am always keen to reflect on evidence that is given. As has been touched on, for security to be effective in relation to default, there has to be a means of acquisition of the asset. Clearly, the provisions are fairer and more consistent with provisions elsewhere within diligence. However, I want to give the issue careful reflection.

I am conscious of comment from Professor Steven that the committee received in correspondence—in particular, on the evidence that the committee received at the start of October. I will consider that carefully and look at the committee’s report.

To clarify, I say that I understand that protections exist by dint of other legislation—for example, the 1974 act. Perhaps Hamish Goodall wants to come in.

I note as an example the evidence that the committee received last week from NatWest. The reality is that the current arrangements in Scotland, given their complexity, do not make it as attractive an environment to offer such products as other jurisdictions, such as England.

Through the bill—I know that this has been commented on by witnesses—we are proposing to move from having a system that is perhaps significantly far behind what is available in other jurisdictions to having one that is significantly more advanced, up to date and modern. That would create the opportunity for those new products to be offered, which in turn would give business more options for raising finance. We recognise that that is extremely important.

Hamish Goodall will be able to comment on some of the evidence that we have received with regard to what lenders hope to do.

The rules will be set out through regulations. I am interested to see what views the committee comes to in its stage 1 report. There will be consultation and engagement on the rules. It is clear that there is a lot of detail still to come on the operation of the registers, but we want the system to be as user friendly as possible and to command confidence at the same time as being robust. Hamish Goodall might want to add something on that.

I am conscious of the concerns that have been raised by consumer advice and money advice stakeholders. I have studied carefully the evidence that was given to the committee at the start of October, and, as I said, I had a meeting with organisations that work in that area last week. I want to reflect carefully on those concerns, and I recognise that the committee will want to touch on other areas around the statutory pledge.

I also want to be clear at the outset that I will consider very carefully the committee’s stage 1 report, because I recognise that you have had to contend with evidence that, in some contexts, may be conflicting or may come from different perspectives. That includes some of the written evidence that you have received in recent days. I will want to fully reflect on that matter.

With regard to assignation in the context of consumer credit, Hamish may have up-to-date information.

I will not be in a position to provide early sight of the regulations. We must recognise that it is a live bill and it will be for Parliament to determine its final shape, should Parliament be content to pass it. However, we will, of course, consult on the rule making for both of the registers and, given that it would be an exercise of delegated powers, I am happy to keep the committee informed as the consultation and engagement process develops.

That speaks to the point about the principal actors who are going to utilise the bill and what their interests will be. Hamish Goodall expanded on the issue in some detail. Fundamentally, it will be in their interests for the approach to be self-regulating. However, as I have said, we have adopted a proportionate approach in which there is the flexibility to intervene if that is required at a later date.

Yes. That is what I alluded to in my response to Mr Kidd. I recognise that that point has been raised in evidence to the committee. I come back to the point that the option would have to be considered in terms of affordability and cost, but, as I have said, I am happy to consider it and am keen to see the conclusions that the committee draws.

I would be happy to reflect on that. As you highlighted in your question, there are two approaches: either we develop an automatic mechanism or we have periodic uprating that would be effected by statutory instrument. However, with regard to an automatic instrument there would be a wider range of considerations on matters such as its design and its reference to other statistics—for example, the RPI, which you mentioned. I would be happy to consider the matter in general and to come back to the committee on it in my response to its stage 1 report.