Seòmar agus comataidhean

Much of the evidence that we have had centres on concerns about consumers. Minister, you said in your opening remarks that you are happy to consider ways of ensuring that the bill does not apply to ordinary household goods. Do you have any idea at this stage about which option you would go with to take such a provision forward?

There is the £1,000 minimum threshold; there is an option to set out in the bill that ordinary household goods would be excluded from statutory pledges; and there is the possibility of clarifying that the bill would not apply to anyone who is not acting with a business interest. Which of those options should we consider?

The worry with that is that we would play a game of cat and mouse, with the predatory lenders moving and the Government adding things to the list or making new regulations. If there was reassurance up front that a certain category of goods would be excluded, that would probably remove the fear that is out there.

I am sensitive to the number of representations that have been made and the seriousness with which the issue is taken by the organisations that you have referenced and the individuals from whom the committee has heard. Given that the issue has come out since the bill was introduced and probably was not anticipated, would you be open to adding reassurance by saying in the bill that it is not intended to cover ordinary household goods, as well as by having the higher threshold? That might give those organisations a sense of reassurance.

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

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?

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.

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

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

People know when that happens.

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?