Chamber and committees

I will leave it there.

I am not asking you to explain each one. It is about the broad principle of leaving the scope and process so open in the primary legislation. Will you explain why that is necessary?

Potentially, this legislation would make things easier for a future Government, as it would not need primary legislation to do something that was almost the 180-degree opposite of the intent that you are setting out here.

Thank you for your welcome to the committee, convener. My entry in the register of interests shows that I am the director and sole shareholder of a limited company with retail interests.

In the light of the minister’s commitments and, indeed, his commentary on the key principles, I will not move amendment 20.

Amendment 20 not moved.

Section 1 agreed to.

After section 1

I will follow on from what Paul O’Kane and Colin Smyth have said. The key concern with the bill is not about the principle or its intent. The need to provide debt moratoriums for people who are in distress is well understood, and those arguments are well made. The issue is that this is a framework bill that does not provide much clarity on what impact a moratorium would have and on what the Government would be required to bring forward.

Section 1(2) includes various criteria regarding the regulations that the Government may bring forward, but there is no requirement for it to do so, nor does the list limit the range of things on which regulations may be made.

Indeed, under section 1(3), the Government will be able to make regulations that affect “any enactment”—any act of Parliament—and for any purpose. It is a very broad set of powers, and there is no clarity on precisely what will be introduced or what its impact will be. Given that we are talking about debt, which is a fundamental part of the way in which our economy works, and about its impact on individuals, it is important that any regulations that the Government introduces under the bill are properly scrutinised. That is the intent of my amendments 20 and 21.

Amendment 20 would create a duty to consult before regulations are introduced. I have stipulated the types of organisations and agencies that the Government should consult. I contend that one might want to go further than that and clarify the type of consultation that ought to take place.

Amendment 21 sets out a time period and would place a requirement on the Government to come back to a committee of the Parliament to consult with it regarding the issue. If the measures were being introduced through primary legislation, that is exactly what the Government would have to do. It would have to consult widely with the relevant agencies and seek feedback, and there would have to be a stage 1 report.

The Government will say that the bill has been framed in the way that it has been framed in order to provide flexibility, so that it can get the measures right. However, although that may suit the Government and enable it to do its work, it will not enable the sort of public scrutiny and the detailed inquiry that the committee has been undertaking with the primary legislation. The reality is that the detailed measures will not get that level of scrutiny. Ultimately, we need steps such as a stage 1 report, stage 2 amendments and stage 3 finalisation to ensure that we get the measures right. To go back to a previous point, when we are talking about matters of financial distress and debt, we are talking about matters that are of fundamental importance and an area where there can often be unintended consequences. Therefore, quite simply, that level of scrutiny is required.

Furthermore, I would like the Government to consider whether it should limit the powers that are being conferred under section 1. The fact that we have an unlimited list and such broadly framed regulation-making powers is not appropriate. At the very least, the powers should be referred to in the long title of the bill—that is not unreasonable. It is not reasonable for ministers to seek powers under any piece of legislation, not just this one, that will enable them to introduce regulations on any matter that they so desire.

The fundamental principle is that people need to be provided with advice in a timely manner. I hear what the minister is saying about not wanting to put undue pressure on already stretched services, but I contend that that probably suggests that there is a need for more help and advice to be provided. Rather than the proposal creating an issue, I think that it highlights a need that requires to be met.

I recognise that there are implications, and the amendments are very much probing amendments. The minister is offering to have further discussions, and I am very happy with that. It is about maintaining good information that can be used and deployed by anyone, and perhaps there is a way through with that in mind.

On that basis, I will seek to withdraw amendment 24 and will not move the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 24, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

After section 2

I wonder whether the minister might reflect on two important principles in relation to process. The first is about the Parliament’s ability to inform the redrafting or revision of regulations, whether in draft form or some other amendable form. The second, given the potentially substantive impact that some of the regulations could have, is the ability of a relevant committee to look in detail at and perhaps take evidence on those same regulations. Will the minister concede those principles and seek to introduce them in amendments at stage 3?

On a similar basis, I will not move that amendment.

Amendment 21 not moved.

I will be relatively brief. My fundamental view is that, although we can provide people with the ability to do things, that does not necessarily mean that they will have the wherewithal, understanding or knowledge to take up those possibilities. That is particularly true when people are having to deal with potentially complicated financial matters at a point when they are in severe distress.

Amendments 24, 27 and 28 are about ensuring that people are provided with debt advice and information in a timely manner, so that they can take up the provisions that the bill will provide for. Amendment 30 would ensure that the Government collected and published data outlining whether people had taken up that advice.

In a sense, my amendments are quite simple: they are about ensuring that people have the information and that we understand how that information is being used.

I move amendment 24.