Chamber and committees

Good morning to the committee.

I have had the chance to read through much of the evidence that has been given in previous sessions, including from those who have experienced the pressures of debt and low income. That evidence has provided a stark and salient reminder of the pressures that households across the country and those who are trying to help them face. There is a reason why we are talking about a cost of living crisis.

The number of personal insolvencies dropped significantly during the pandemic, but it is now rising again. There can be little doubt that rising inflation—not just in energy costs—will bring more people into unsustainable debt. There are whole categories of debt that individuals do not necessarily choose to incur, including council tax and benefit repayments debts, and other involuntary debts. That is why we must look at the system itself, so that we are not asking those who cannot afford it to pay towards what are, in effect, the costs of the state. The cabinet secretary has set out much of what we have been doing recently on that front to put extra money into people’s pockets.

On the available debt solutions, I believe that we have a very strong foundation. High-quality advice is at the centre of our solutions—it is a prerequisite to accessing them. We believe that that is exactly the right approach. We have reduced the fees for accessing bankruptcy and removed the fees completely for the most financially vulnerable.

We continue to take action. We have made changes to the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill to continue the extended moratorium period of six months beyond the end of September, and we support John Mason’s amendment on bank arrestments. It was good to see the changes to the moratorium getting cross-party support at stage 2.

I believe that giving people time and space to consider the right solution can deliver benefits to all sides, creditors included. We cannot take that too far, though, because we would only harm the interests of those on low incomes if we made creditors unwilling to lend to them.

I know that we have more to do. As the committee knows, we are in the midst of a stakeholder-led review of debt solutions. I would welcome any suggestions from the committee on where we should focus our attention.

On the specific point about our engagement with COSLA, I would just clarify that COSLA does not have a formal role in debt work, but we would encourage it to share good practice among its members.

I will ask Robin Haynes to say whether there is any legal obligation. Of course, I respect the autonomy of local authorities on this matter. We recognise that, in general, local authorities will always seek to engage with individuals who are in arrears to work out a mutually agreed scheme of addressing any debt.

On the specific question of engagement with COSLA, although it is for the Government to propose legislation and for Parliament to decide whether to enact it, and we can set the framework for how local taxation operates, the administration of that is a matter for local authorities, which of course are democratically accountable. In all aspects of my engagement with COSLA, that respect for the autonomy of local government is paramount.

We already provide support to Planning Aid Scotland, which can provide a range of different support in relation to the planning system to individuals and community groups. I recognise the concerns that the member articulates; we will all be familiar with examples of excellent work that community groups have done in engaging with the planning system, and they have set forth their views robustly, competently and with a great deal of expertise and consideration. Andy, do you want to add anything?

I take your point about broader engagement and participation in the planning system, which we touched on earlier in general terms. As you will be aware, we are continuing to review planning obligations, and there are provisions relating to an infrastructure levy in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. We will consider how we take those matters forward later this parliamentary session. I thought that it would be useful to bring that to the committee’s attention.

As Andy Kinnaird outlined earlier, the reporter has a key role to play in that process. All our expectations would be that the reporter would ensure that the behaviour and conduct that the convener has related from the submissions that the committee has received did not take place and would not be accepted. We want to ensure the greatest opportunity to participate. As has been discussed, the reporter has a role to play in that and in recognising the respective backgrounds and positions that people are coming from in the process.

Do you want to add anything, Andy?

On that specific point, I have articulated how support is provided through PAS and Andy Kinnaird has addressed the role of the reporter. Your points speak to a bigger issue, which is the culture of interaction with the planning system overall. A priority for me is to shift the dial and to move away from conflict towards collaboration. That is about earlier engagement with communities in the planning process.

Earlier this year, we introduced regulations to establish local place plans, which are a mechanism for communities to feed their priorities for their area into their local planning authority as part of the development of the local development plan. We are considering the responses to the consultation on new-style LDPs, which, again, will provide opportunities for greater community involvement and engagement. I recognise that all members are in agreement on that issue. We want to see more engagement in the planning system at an earlier stage for our communities so that the conversation moves from being one of conflict and discussions about what developments people perhaps do not want to see to one about what people want to see for the future.

Therefore, yes, there are specific points to be made about the role of the reporters and support through funding for PAS, but there is also that broader cultural change in the planning system, which we are seeking to take forward with specific actions such as the introduction of local place plans. Do you want to add anything to that, Andy?

I am sure that committee members will understand the Scottish Government’s position on where a whole range of powers should rest. However, I am happy to write to the committee to provide further detailed information on what the Scottish Government’s position on that area has been, historically. Obviously, I am happy to respond to any further correspondence that the committee might send on that issue.

The procedures and process are clearly set out but, as a consequence of the reforms in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, significant change is happening around the PAC process. I will ask Andy Kinnaird to come in and narrate those points.