Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will of course be happy to consider that, but you will have heard the evidence from Professor Steven that it is not anticipated that the average debtor will need to search, or have an interest in searching, the register. Indeed, we know from the way in which the land register operates that information registers tend to be accessed only by advisers, and legal advisers in particular.

In addition, as the committee understands and appreciates, a debtor would be protected under the terms of the bill if they continued to perform in good faith, meaning that it is a debtor’s requirement to know in the absence of notice that an assignation is diminished. However, the provisions in the bill permit a debtor who has received notice of an assignation, or who has reasonable grounds to believe that an assignation has been granted, to request reasonable evidence of the granting of an assignation document. The debtor is entitled to withhold performance—usually, payment of the debt—until that evidence is received.

The bill also allows a debtor, having obtained consent from the assignor, to make inquiries of a registered assignee as to whether a claim has been assigned and whether a condition to which the assignation is subject has been satisfied. That protection sits along with a general ability to search the register.

I note that the body in possession of the most up-to-date opinion is this committee, because of the evidence that it has received as part of its stage 1 inquiry. I refer again to the evidence that the committee received from the representative of NatWest last week.

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 am happy to consider all suggestions in detail. Hamish Goodall might have something to add about the engagement with the Faculty of Advocates on that point.

Fundamentally, it is because it relates to the reserved matters of financial services and financial markets. I recognise the point that the member raises about the fact that there can be contrasting opinions, but we have sought to take an approach that ensures that the matters that we believe are within competence can be considered as part of the bill, and the one area that we do not believe to be within competence can still be effected, albeit through another process, namely the section 104 orders that are provided for by the Scotland Act 1998.

Indeed. I referred to what I hope will be strong political support within the Parliament but there is evidence from the submissions that the committee has received and from wider commentary that there is significant support for the financial instruments to be covered. I hope that the UK Government will recognise that and engage constructively so that we can achieve the aim as soon as possible.

We have raised the issue and I am certainly alive to it. I am also conscious of the comments by the keeper of the registers last week when the committee inquired whether there should be provision in the bill to enable joint registration. I am happy to consider that as part of the stage 2 amendments.

Is there any update on engagement with the UK Government, Hamish?

It is clear that there are incentives for those who will use the register to operate it in such a way that it is, in effect, self-regulating.

I will make two points. The register will be a new one, and we want time for it to bed in and to see how it operates in practice. However, the committee will appreciate that there are provisions in the bill to enable ministers to make regulations to address the points of concern that have been raised. At this point in time, my view is that we would want to see how the registers operate in practice and what sort of behaviour there is, but there is the option of addressing any clogging-up issues that have been highlighted through delegated powers.

Hamish Goodall might want to add to that.