Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I do not, for the reasons that I have identified.

I can understand that observation. To be fair, I note that I was not aware of the committee’s membership. However, if people from the money advice sector or people with other perspectives are on the committee, I am sure that they will make their voices heard. The committee is there to gather views and to reflect and sense check, and to see whether there might be unintended consequences. I am sure that its members would be well able to highlight where they saw concerns, and that those concerns would be taken on board. However, if you require any more information about the committee, I will seek to get it.

I was not a Government minister at that point in time. My understanding is that the proposal was made in advance of the ministerial control framework being in place to assess it. As I say, the programme for government will come out in September, and it will contain the work that the Government proposes to take forward.

In relation to the seven existing commissioners, this goes back to what I said about it not being the Government’s role to decide to close down the offices of commissioners. People would rightly have concerns if the Government stepped into the parliamentary space and said that certain commissioners were no longer required and would be discontinued. Such a review should, rightly, be carried out by the parliamentary authorities.

As I said, there is a process for assessing whether new commissioners are required. The mechanism of including a sunset clause could absolutely be part of the toolkit, if everyone agreed that a commissioner was required and the proposal had passed through the control framework and other assessment processes. A sunset clause might be quite a valuable and helpful mechanism to guard against exactly what you have described.

Yes. I have extracts from the MCF in front of me. The criteria to be considered include whether the function or service could be carried out by an existing body such as the Scottish Government, an executive agency, or any other public body that has already been established. A number of other questions are asked, in a similar vein.