Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I note as an example the evidence that the committee received last week from NatWest. The reality is that the current arrangements in Scotland, given their complexity, do not make it as attractive an environment to offer such products as other jurisdictions, such as England.

Through the bill—I know that this has been commented on by witnesses—we are proposing to move from having a system that is perhaps significantly far behind what is available in other jurisdictions to having one that is significantly more advanced, up to date and modern. That would create the opportunity for those new products to be offered, which in turn would give business more options for raising finance. We recognise that that is extremely important.

Hamish Goodall will be able to comment on some of the evidence that we have received with regard to what lenders hope to do.

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.

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.

I will ask Liz Pringle to come in in a moment. First, data is one of the key missions in our digital strategy for planning. I think that we all recognise the wider importance of data. For example, this morning, Audit Scotland put out a release on the importance of data in policy design.

The bill sets out the definition of planning data in clause 75(2). Planning data is said to include

“any information which is provided to, or processed by,”

the planning authority

“for the purposes of a function under a relevant planning enactment”.

A relevant planning enactment would include any enactment made by the secretary of state under part 5 of the bill, which applies UK-wide and contains provisions on environmental outcome report regulations. There is also a lack of information about how provisions on environmental outcomes reports would operate.

That, combined with the lack of detail on implementation and practice in relation to the planning data provisions, means that it is unclear what the wider implications would be for the handling of planning data in Scotland. That speaks to the point that I am making about the uncertainty and vagueness that comes with the bill.

It is important that we give some examples of what we are doing more broadly around planning data. I ask Liz Pringle to come in on that.

It is important to recognise that the approach that we are taking in Scotland is one of genuine collaboration. I think that such an approach is vital if we are to get the most out of planning and fully realise planning’s potential to deliver across many areas.

The risk, and our concern, relates to conflict. Planning has always been a devolved competence. In 75 years of the town and country planning legislation, there has always been distinct Scottish planning legislation. The one time an attempt was made to combine those acts, in the 1950s, it became a bit of a mess, I think, and they had to be separated again. That has always been the nature of planning. It is a devolved competence and it is for this Parliament to take an approach.

If the UK Government wants to engage constructively, recognise the competence of this Parliament and not stick to acting in a way that means that it can legislate without the agreement of this Parliament, of course we are very happy to engage, recognising the value of a consistent approach being taken across Scotland. We are working towards that through our broader work on digital transformation in planning.

However, the key issue is that that cannot be mandated by the UK Government, and that the approach is somewhat distant from the reality of the work that we are doing in planning in Scotland. We have to have the space to continue what we are doing, which is developing an approach in collaboration with planning authorities and other partners.

I cannot comment on that specifically. However, in my opening remarks I touched on the risk of confusion when we are developing an approach in collaboration with planning authorities in Scotland and the UK Government then mandates something UK-wide. That is, as you described it, a recipe for a dog’s breakfast. At the very least, it can create confusion and it is not an efficient way to do things.

One of the benefits of devolution—as we all know from our experience as constituency and regional representatives—is that we can be far more responsive and attuned to the circumstances of the places and localities that we represent; so it is with the Government and how we design our devolved public services. We take a collaborative approach to planning, built on deep and sustained engagement. That has informed the range of work that we are taking forward in planning reform. Equally, it informs how we are taking forward our approach to digital.

Liz Pringle can talk about partnership work and how we engage with others in development of our approach to digital planning.