Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have friends who have children of the age when this is perhaps happening. It is a serious issue, because those young people have said to me that, when they go out, they make preparations with one another to make sure that drinks are not being spiked. If young people are looking out for one another, and raising the issue as a concern among themselves in those groups, it must be taken to be a serious issue by the police.

I would be interested in getting some feedback from the police, as Fergus Ewing indicated, but also some feedback on how seriously they take the issue and whether they have training for police officers in that area.

I will speak to my amendments in the group. The minister has spoken to his amendment 16, and I am really pleased with his points about its being one of the most important amendments. Clearly, he listened to the committee on that point.

I am content with the points that he made about amendment 16A on household goods. I am keen to make sure that people would not lose those goods, which they use for heating, cooking and laundry. However, I would be grateful for further reassurance that the minister might be able to produce some guidance notes so that the bill makes that clear. I appreciate that the minister has put that on the record, so that might not be necessary.

As the minister said, amendment 16B is pretty self-explanatory. As recommended in the committee’s report, it is important that the figure in (2)(b) in amendment 16 is automatically updated annually, on an agreed date, by reference to the retail price index. The amendment seeks to ensure that such assurances are written explicitly into the bill. There would be an expectation that the ability to increase that figure, should it be necessary, would remain within the delegated powers of the Scottish Government. Amendment 16B is procedural, and an attempt to ensure that we are clear that the RPI must be referred to annually in relation to the figure in amendment 16.

I appreciate that the minister may consider an annual review to be overkill, but I believe that it would be a helpful step and would provide Parliament with the reassurance that we are regularly reviewing the legislation in relation to the RPI.

I do not wish to repeat myself, as amendment 52 serves a similar purpose to that of amendment 51. At the end of section 38, I wish to make it incumbent on the Government to report within three years on the assignation of consumer credit debts. The report should

“consider, in particular, the impact the removal of the need for intimation has had on debtors.”

I consider it important that we monitor impacts and produce relevant reports to ensure that we constantly develop the legislation and that it continues to meet the needs as intended.

I move amendment 52.

I appreciate the minister’s remarks and, given the discussion that has followed, I will not press amendment 52.

Amendment 52, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 39—Interpretation of Part 1

Amendment 65 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].

Good morning. I start by saying that I have spoken to the minister and that we are broadly supportive of the bill. I thank the minister and his team for the discussions that we have had. I know that the direction that we want to go in is about getting this right for people. It is much appreciated. As I go through, I hope that what I say shows that I have listened to the discussions with the minister and with the sector, particularly around consumer protection.

In moving amendment 47, I seek to make clear that the possibility of a waiver of defence based on an agreement between assignor and debtor is removed. Amendment 48 is simply consequential on amendment 47, as there would be no agreement to prevent or restrict. As I said, I am grateful to the minister for considering such amendments. If he can set out clearly how the Government can provide assurances to small businesses and others that waiver of defence is protected, I would not be inclined to press those amendments.

In lodging amendment 49, I have similar intentions to those behind amendment 47. It is my hope that we will provide the maximum level of support to sole traders and individual consumers. I therefore again look to the minister to highlight in his remarks how he will ensure that the bill will offer the protections that the amendment would otherwise provide.

The aforementioned points also remain applicable to my lodging of amendment 50.

I discussed amendment 51 with the minister. I consider it appropriate that there are adequate and sound reporting mechanisms in place to ensure that the impact of the waiver of defence clause is given consideration and that steps are in place to ensure that MSPs can question Government about the impact of that clause should any negative impacts be identified and require mitigation. It may be worth the minister confirming whether he is content that Parliament can request a review at any time and whether he can say with a strong degree of certainty that such calls for a review would be accepted, if challenges were to arise.

It is my view that having reporting expectations set out in the bill would remove challenges that we may face further down the line if ministers find themselves unwilling to review legislation that is having unintended negative consequences.

I move amendment 47.

I appreciate the minister’s comments on how seriously the matter has been taken, so I will not press amendment 47.

Amendment 47, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 5 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Amendments 48 to 50 not moved.

Amendments 6 and 7 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

After section 13

Amendment 51 moved—[Carol Mochan].

Amendment 53 is similar to amendments 51 and 52, although it applies to the legislation more widely and to how it is implemented.

Part of the amendment seeks to provide further protection to sole traders and small businesses, making it incumbent upon the Government to

“consider the operation of provision relating to statutory pledge on sole traders and small businesses.”

As my amendment states, it is important that we do that

“as soon as practicable after the end of the review period”,

which, for the purposes of the section, would be three years to the day after royal assent.

A report of the review would be laid before Parliament to ensure that MSPs were able to hold Government to account on the implementation of the legislation.

The minister and I have had discussions on the issue. I hope that he can see the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that Parliament can effectively scrutinise the legislation and hold the Government to account, based on the findings of a three-year review.

I move amendment 53.

I absolutely take note of the minister’s position on engagement, which I do not doubt for one minute. Nonetheless, we need to push scrutiny in the Parliament, and I will press amendment 53.

I just want to support Alexander Stewart. If the Children and Young People’s Commissioner has indicated that there may be more that we can do, it would be useful to explore that to its end point.

That is a relevant point. We should raise that with the Government as something that it must make sure that it monitors in its cancer plans.