Seòmar agus comataidhean

The information is in appendix A to the guide. Appendix B sets out the capital position. We have provided an indication of the funding envelope there—we have set out the 2022-23 budget position, the confirmed changes at ABR and the revised position. Those figures include, at the foot of the table, the funds that remain unallocated for resource, capital and financial transactions.

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?

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?