Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 22 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 502 contributions

|

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

I have another question to ask before Mike Dailly comes in. It is slightly out of my area of questioning. If consumers or individuals know whom they owe money to, they have an idea of how that debt might be treated and how they will act. It is the same for smaller businesses: if a person thinks that they owe money to a friendly supplier with which they have done business for a number of years and the business that they owe money to changes without the person knowing, they could suddenly find that the debt is handled differently. Does that consumer protection issue arise, or should we not worry about it?

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

I will push back a bit on that with the same line of questioning that I used in the earlier evidence session. In my constituency work, I see people who are accessing bad lending all the time. It is not that I think that these products are good, but, as you have said, when people are in desperate straits, they are at the end of their options for accessing safer products. It is a case of balancing that moral question—why do we think it is okay to let people access existing products but not this?

The other issue is that we know that there is a problem with unregulated debt: there is a black market in debt where people borrow illegally. For people in that very vulnerable position, is there any advantage in bringing some of that into the open? For example, to take your example of a hire purchase agreement on a car, there are people who cannot access hire purchase agreements because of their credit records or because they are not allowed to borrow at all. This is not my personal view, but, in scrutinising the bill, I feel that I should push back on that and ask for your thoughts on it.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

Thank you; that is a good solid example for us to take further.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

I guess that the question is whether people would be borrowing at a lower interest rate than that which they might get from an unregulated lender. If people are desperate, we would be cutting off any access at all to finance for them. I am not saying that including consumers is right, but I wonder whether the pushback would be that we would be taking away people’s only chance to borrow in a regulated market. Does that not raise a question? Someone could be desperate for money and have items that they could borrow against at a lower rate than they could get somewhere else.

I guess that, in the same way that businesses are already finding complex workarounds involving trusts and accessing other jurisdictions, the most vulnerable people in our society, who do not currently have access to regulated lending, are finding their own workarounds, too. It is just that they are not necessarily as obvious. We have no idea what they are paying in order to borrow that money. In terms of the morality question, would it be better to move that practice into the light rather than leave it unregulated altogether?

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

Given that we are not very good at identifying and stopping that, I guess that the question is whether it would be better to cast some sunlight on the practice so that we know what is happening.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

I hear you saying both things, there. Do you think that the register will become the default over time?

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

On a wider point, is it important for people, and even for smaller businesses, to know to whom they owe money?

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

People know when that happens.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

I will just leave that there.

The bill would provide for waiver of defence clauses, whereby a debtor agrees with the assignor not to raise defences to payment against the assignee. Are you aware of such clauses being used at present? Is there potential for them to be misused?

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 October 2022

Oliver Mundell

I am.