Chamber and committees

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.

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.

No, it does not. It is consultation, which can encompass a broad spectrum from something that is very deep and meaningful to a superficial tick-box exercise. The lack of consultation and detail in advance of the bill does not bode well for how UK ministers intend to consult if the bill becomes an act.