Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill

Speech by Ross Finnie on Thu 11th Feb 2010

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5650, in the name of Alex Neil, on the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill. Before I invite the minister to open the debate, I call on Nicola Sturgeon, as a cabinet secretary, to signify Crown consent to the bill.

Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD): As Cathy Jamieson pointed out, Liberal Democrats and I were happy to join her and the Labour Party, Patrick Harvie of the Greens and Margo MacDonald in raising this issue. I want to make clear, as Cathy Jamieson did, why we did so, as it is germane to some of the comments that David McLetchie made in his opening speech. We were concerned about instances that were being brought to our attention. We had believed that adequate protection was provided by the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001, which the Parliament passed unanimously, but there was disturbing evidence that a number of people were being exploited in different financial circumstances.

My point is directed to Mr McLetchie, in particular. It was interesting that the Council of Mortgage Lenders took grave exception to the suggestion that something was wrong. I had to point out to it that I was not attacking the council or its members, which have acted in a responsible way. I was concerned that issues were being raised about a number of people who were not necessarily members of the council, who dealt with matters in a different way and who were perfectly happy, in different economic circumstances, to exploit the weak and the vulnerable. Legislation must address the needs of the population as a whole, but frequently it must be passed to address the situation of the weak and the vulnerable. The bill does both, but I raised the issue to which it relates out of concern for the weak and the vulnerable.

Alex Neil: I reinforce the point that the member has just made. The Financial Services Authority has made available evidence about rogue lenders that illustrates why the bill is needed. Although the FSA was not called to give evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee, we should take cognisance of the research that it has done.

Ross Finnie: I wholly agree with the minister. The fact that the FSA has evidence about rogue lenders may be one reason why the Conservative party proposes to abolish it. We will find that in its forthcoming-

David McLetchie: Will the member give way?

Ross Finnie: I will be delighted to hear Mr McLetchie speak about abolition of the FSA; I am sure that all members will be thrilled to listen to him.

David McLetchie: Would the member care to name one of the rogue lenders to whom he refers?

Ross Finnie: I am not prepared to do that, because the issue is directly associated with particular constituents and I am not about to give anyone the opportunity to pursue them. It is necessary only to track down where someone lives-who and where they are-to start to do that, and I do not intend to provide that information. However, rogue lenders, rather than the people to whom Mr McLetchie referred, were the cause of concern.

We were glad that the repossessions group and the debt action group were established. At the time, it was felt that there was a need for speed. I thought that it would be good if something straightforward could be done over a year ago to amend the law. However, this is a complex body of law, so we opposed moves to rush the bill through Parliament. That would have been a grave mistake. We are a unicameral Parliament and it is vital that we observe all our current protocols when passing legislation. To that extent, I agree with David McLetchie. Given that we are a unicameral Parliament, it is not excusable for us to ignore consultation and proper evidence taking.

We wholly support the bill-which enshrines pre-action protocols, gives lay representation, removes the family home from trust deeds and provides for action for the recall of decrees-and believe that it will make a valuable contribution not just to the population as a whole but to the weak and the vulnerable, in particular.