Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am.

Thank you. It is helpful to have that on the record. I am not asking you to come back on this, but I think that people do pawn things that they need, because they are desperate, so I think that there is a question around what is better, but you have been very clear that you think that this is the wrong approach.

I have some other quick questions on assignation. It came up in the first session and in some of the responses that we have had. How do you feel in relation to intimation? Does how the bill is currently set out cause you concern in terms of notification in particular?

I understand that you heard bits of the previous panel’s evidence. We heard about the confusion that it causes people, such as people who are paying student rent, when they find out that the person to whom they owe money has changed. Is it a valid argument that finding out about the change can confuse people about who they have to pay and how to pay them?

What would you recommend for section 13? Should it come out of the bill altogether?

Obviously, I, too, am concerned about pawnbroking. I have seen in my own constituency work the situations that arise from it. However, we have heard from others—it is not necessarily their view, but it is an argument that is put forward, and I think that Mike Dailly also touched on it—that it is perhaps preferable to some other finance agreements that are available to people. From the Parliament’s point of view, I guess that the issue is how we might find a balance.

At the moment, people who use pawnbroking have to hand over the item. We heard that one of the potential benefits of the proposal is that they would not have to hand over their possession. To use Mike Dailly’s car example, someone could continue to drive their car or, in other instances, they could continue to use high-value items and would not have to give them to someone else. Would that be of benefit? My own view is that it would be quite hard to ask people to borrow against something that they could not live without.

Thank you. I have a new line of questioning, convener.

Yes—it relates to section 13(1).

Is it important, however, for people to know to whom, ultimately, they owe money, or is that just how business is done and it does not matter?

Right, so you think that there are situations in which it is not important or not relevant?

I do not want to interrupt you, but that already happens with pawnbroking; it is just that people have to give the asset away and they are not able to use it. Do you think that that is better?