���˿���

I am giving active consideration to that, at the moment. I cannot yet offer you a model of what such a balance would look like—it is the subject of live discussion. I take your point about early start-ups, sole traders and microbusinesses, where the lines between individual use and business use of property can be vague and hard to define. From reflection on my own professional background in music before I entered politics—I am sure that the convener will empathise with this example—it is clear to me that a musical instrument can be for both personal and professional use. I am not saying that that is the best example. However, it is an area for consideration, particularly in respect of people who are establishing themselves in business. Reference was made to a vehicle that could be for both personal and business use. It can be hard to distinguish between the two.

I recognise the points that have been made by the FSB. We would not want there to be an unintended consequence whereby, in seeking to afford consumers greater protection, we disapplied the bill’s provisions to businesses—especially start-ups with a high concentration of moveables that they cannot use as collateral. We want to avoid that. That needs to be given careful consideration, so we are actively doing that.

Hamish Goodall might want to add to that, or Vuyi Stutley might want to come in with her reflections on those points.

I am happy to look at the evidence that you received. The bill that we introduced reflects the recommendations of the SLC.

Absolutely: I would be happy to do that.

I would be happy to do so. I also make the point that the legal protections apply to the bill as drafted. I would be happy to discuss potential amendments and ways in which the bill could be changed. I am happy to keep the committee informed of any decisions that the Government makes ahead of stage 2 and about how any changes would relate to the broader protections that are available.

I am conscious that the committee has received a range of evidence and that it had engagement with the Federation of Small Businesses last week, so you will be well familiar with what the provisions of the bill aim to do with regard to opening up finance to business. Therefore, I will not rehearse all the aspects of the bill, but I will give an example of one particular area that is relevant in this regard. A Scottish Enterprise survey estimated that intellectual property assets form around 80 per cent of Scottish businesses’ value, and that that will continue to increase. That shows some of the opportunities that the bill will open up in relation to using IP as security.

The bill could be positive in a range of ways. The Scottish Government’s small business survey in 2015 showed that only 2 per cent of the businesses that were surveyed applied for an invoice discounting or factoring facility, with most—34 per cent—applying for bank overdrafts and 32 per cent applying for loans. If Scottish businesses utilised invoice factoring to the same extent as UK businesses as a whole do, they might assign invoices worth nearly £18 billion. The figure for invoice factoring in 2018 and 2019 was still only 4 per cent. Those figures demonstrate that there is significant room for growth in that sector and for access to finance to be opened up for business.

Convener, that speaks to your earlier question about what the anticipated uptake by business will be of the new provisions.

I cannot speak to what opinions others might have privately but we have had no indication that that would be the case. Obviously, we have to be satisfied that the bill is within the Parliament’s competence when we introduce it and that is what we have sought to do.

As I said, we seek to engage constructively with the UK Government on the matter and I hope that, notwithstanding the technical and complex nature of the legislation, the merits of what you suggest would be widely recognised and would command support from the UK Government. However, I would be happy to keep the committee updated as and when we receive further correspondence from the UK Government on the matter.

The point that I take from the evidence provided by those working in the advice sector is one about risk, and the technical term that I would use is the Rumsfeldian definition of “known unknowns”. We can assume that, in the high-cost creditor lending market, there will always be those who look for opportunities to exploit any loopholes in the law, and we have to be informed by that risk when we are drafting legislation. That is why it is important that we take a considered and careful approach to properly understand and quantify the risk, to the greatest possible extent, recognising that sometimes we can only go so far, and that we should value the constructive input from those in the advice sector, which is based on their professional experience and what they sense to be the potential risks. We need to consider that carefully and consider all the safeguards that we have discussed and, indeed, what other safeguards exist in different legislation.

It is a crucial area and it is absolutely important that we get it right. I will certainly reflect carefully on all the evidence that you have received, and I very much look forward to reading the committee’s considerations on the matter when you publish your stage 1 report.

I have not reached a settled view, but my reflections are consistent with those of everyone else who has engaged with this argument. Is there a point where, particularly given the provisions on the statutory pledge for individuals, there has to be a list of specific items rather than a category of goods? Is there a situation that arises where we increase the threshold to such an extent that the statutory pledge is no longer a realistic option for any individual who would be seeking to use it? I am also conscious that there is a particular focus on motor vehicles being a potentially high-value good that individuals own.

I have not settled on a particular amount. I am conscious of the £3,000 figure in the regulations and the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002, but I would want to give the matter further consideration. To say any particular amount at the moment would be somewhat arbitrary. Yes, we can have reference to the £3,000 figure in other legislation, but I want to give the matter fuller consideration.

In addition, any increase in the threshold would have to be considered in relation to any list of items that are excluded, as there would be an interaction there.

I want to give the matter further consideration. Although I have not given you a number, I hope that, in that answer, I have been able to demonstrate some of what I am wrestling with and thinking through, in a similar way to what the committee and other stakeholders have been doing, I would hope.

The costs will be set out through regulations. The cost of using the register must be seen in the broader context of the savings that can be made and the cost benefit of that new option. Any variation in fees would require careful consideration. Ultimately, we want to be in a position where the fees cover the costs of the operation of the register. Any shortfall would need to be made up from the consolidated fund. Given the challenging fiscal and economic circumstances, we all appreciate that using Government money to intervene to, in effect, subsidise the register would require careful consideration. Hamish, do you want to add to that?