Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, I was just going to agree.

Okay. You said that there is work to be done on different levels. There might be layers of things that require to be done, but this committee can build on existing work. It is important that, although certain avenues have been explored, some pressure is applied to get the last part over the line.

I agree that we should keep the petition open. It is well thought through and put together, and it is evidence based. The convener mentioned the Scottish crime recording board, and we should pursue the matter with it to see what information it records and how it will take things forward. Along with hearing from the petitioners, which would be immensely helpful, it would be worth while to make a formal approach to the Scottish crime recording board.

This area—the support that is available to students—is really important right across the board. We are trying to attract people into these important jobs, particularly in the public sector. Having met social work students and the social work organisations, I can say that they are at crisis point. People believe them to be good career options, but it is incredibly difficult to finance yourself through that process.

When speaking to social work students, I noted, in particular, that, at that late stage when they are heavily invested in their placement, other people in academic life may be able to get a balance by doing some work to support themselves financially. Are we really asking social work students doing a nine-month placement in the workplace, as they must do, to also take on additional work? That should not be the case if we want them to have the ability to do that well and to get the qualification and experience. It is such an important area: people need to have good experiences as they learn the ropes and go through their career. We need them to be available to our public sector.

I absolutely support keeping the petition open as we seek guidance from social work organisations such as the social work unions and the SSSC on what we could do to help the petitioners with this.

I, too, read the briefing thoroughly. It is an important and sensitive issue. The Government has indicated that it has no intent to change the law on abortion. I believe that the right to choose and to get appropriate healthcare throughout pregnancy is important for women. In this instance, therefore, I do not believe that the petition should go forward. That is my balanced view.

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.