Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 am not an expert on the Parliament’s structure. I think that the SPCB was of the view, frankly, that its job was to execute what it was told to execute by Parliament. I can understand that position. The committee, the SPCB and other parliamentary bodies would need to work that out between them, but there are a number of ways in which you could do that.

That would be an interesting conversation. As I have said several times, as the minister in charge of public sector reform, ones of my roles, through the ministerial control framework, is to assess robustly proposals for any new commissioners, with a view to understanding whether those are absolutely necessary. Clearly, I do not want to make a commitment, because it relates to part of the current legislative programme, in that a bill is going through Parliament. This is a hypothetical scenario that involves many other elements, of which a commissioner is part. Everybody agrees that we need a commissioner to do that, so that is a specific situation. We would not want to stop a whole legislative programme on the back of waiting for a review. In principle, though, I absolutely adhere to the concepts of having no new public bodies, and of robustly assessing any proposals for them that emerge. I would welcome any review from the committee in that regard.

For existing public bodies, we are embarking on a process in order to understand where there is duplication and how effective bodies are on a portfolio-by-portfolio basis. Through our meetings with cabinet secretaries as part of the budget review process, we are trying to understand where there is scope for addressing the complicated public sector landscape. That applies to the 130-odd public sector bodies. It is very important that I repeat that it is for Parliament to decide how it wants to review the seven commissioners, although the Government is very willing and keen to provide support where it can.

That is for the Parliament, the SPCB and the committee structure.