���˿���

I am happy to reflect on that. I will also take away the questions of definitions and to which particular category of business the protection would apply. Of course, businesses of all sizes can get into financial distress. We see examples of larger businesses that have declined and failed, and of smaller businesses that have been very resilient, nimble and fleet of foot. However, I acknowledge the general point about the particular risk and exposure that are faced by small businesses when they are still just saplings on the forest floor.

The protections in the bill as they apply to individuals with regard to a statutory pledge could, for example, inhibit a small business that would, perhaps, prefer to pledge a category of asset rather than to pledge specific assets, so that it could maximise what it can raise in finance. In seeking to protect small early-stage microbusinesses and sole traders, a careful balance would be needed to ensure that we do not, as the FSB suggested, risk doing anything that would stymie access to finance.

Yes—I am happy to consider that.

I take your point. The point that I was coming to is that there is an option in which, in addition to increasing the monetary threshold, we have a prescribed list of goods—similar to the law concerning attachment—that would be exempt from being used as collateral. I should also note that there are regulation-making powers in the bill as drafted to effect outcomes.

Hamish—do you have an answer?

I will of course be happy to consider that, but you will have heard the evidence from Professor Steven that it is not anticipated that the average debtor will need to search, or have an interest in searching, the register. Indeed, we know from the way in which the land register operates that information registers tend to be accessed only by advisers, and legal advisers in particular.

In addition, as the committee understands and appreciates, a debtor would be protected under the terms of the bill if they continued to perform in good faith, meaning that it is a debtor’s requirement to know in the absence of notice that an assignation is diminished. However, the provisions in the bill permit a debtor who has received notice of an assignation, or who has reasonable grounds to believe that an assignation has been granted, to request reasonable evidence of the granting of an assignation document. The debtor is entitled to withhold performance—usually, payment of the debt—until that evidence is received.

The bill also allows a debtor, having obtained consent from the assignor, to make inquiries of a registered assignee as to whether a claim has been assigned and whether a condition to which the assignation is subject has been satisfied. That protection sits along with a general ability to search the register.

There is nothing, at this stage. I come back to the point about the degree of uncertainty that makes it difficult to come to a rounded judgment. I do not think that there would be any direct impact on NPF4 and certainly not on the timescale for Parliament to consider it.

Looking beyond that to implementation and delivery, we are, of course, discussing an exceptionally important part of the planning process, so an impact on data could have an indirect impact on delivery of NPF4. However, I do not want to indulge too much in speculation; ultimately, we do not have enough clarity from the UK Government to come to a fully informed view.

We touched on the matter earlier. We are taking a collaborative approach and are working together on digital planning. However, if the UK Government mandates something else, that will create the possibility—or even the likelihood—of the conflict and confusion that characterise much of the levelling-up agenda, because it trespasses on devolved competencies. There is a potential risk, but we do not have clarity—first, on the UK Government’s intentions around planning data and, secondly, about amendments and how they would impact on Scotland—so it is too early to be able properly to quantify the risk.

I highlight the difference between the approach that Liz Pringle has very elegantly articulated and our having a provision bounced on us in a bill by the UK Government. The UK Government’s approach is not consistent with that collaborative spirit. It ignores the reality of devolution and has the potential to cause confusion at the very least, and ultimately to significantly undermine and frustrate the shared ambition that we are working towards collaboratively.

The Scottish Government’s position is very clear: we are completely opposed to consent not being sought. If you remember, for the UK Government, the word “consent” took on a perverse meaning in the context of the legislation pertaining to Brexit and the definition that was applied to consent decisions.

The reality is that we have clear devolved competencies and relevant clauses of the bill—from memory, clause 80 in particular—recognise that. Ministers are happy to engage with the UK Government to discuss any areas of shared interest. There are forums in which I engage with ministerial counterparts on a range of issues. For example, through the British-Irish Council, I took part in discussions on spatial planning and I have had discussions about social enterprise and such like. That is productive collaborative engagement in which we share experiences, and it is based on mutual respect.

What we have here is the UK Government seeking through legislation in effect to undermine and go against the spirit of devolution. We are now 25 years on from the referendum that established this Parliament and, as the Scottish social attitudes survey data that was published recently shows, a clear majority of people in Scotland trust the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government as institutions and want the Parliament to have the lion’s share of the decision making that impacts on their daily lives. There is no popular support and no mandate, political or otherwise, for those powers to be undermined or removed from the Scottish Parliament.

The UK Government talks about having a respect agenda but that needs to be shown in action, and not just in words. In reality, there are areas in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that clearly fall within devolved competence. UK ministers should not be seeking to grant themselves powers to start legislating in devolved areas without the express agreement of the Scottish Parliament, which they do not have.

As I said, obviously there has been dialogue between relevant officials in the two Governments on provisions in the bill. However, as with other aspects of the bill, there remains a lack of detail on how the planning data provisions will be implemented. The reality is that clauses in the bill as introduced give UK ministers unlimited scope to regulate areas of devolved and executively devolved competence for Scotland. The crucial point is that the requirement is that there be consultation only—not consent and not agreement, but consultation. Over recent years, we have seen what that means in practice, given how willing the UK Government has been to ride roughshod over the Sewel convention.

The reality is that the bill poses a threat. There has been no detailed consultation. There is a lack of clarity on the details. At the very minimum—this is just a starting point—we have to move from consultation to consent and to a position that does not impact on the competences of the Scottish ministers or this Parliament.