Seòmar agus comataidhean

I refer the convener to the detail that is provided in the business and regulatory impact assessment, but, broadly, in the past three years that the AIB has been the trustee, around 56 per cent of bankruptcies have resulted in no fees being recovered to cover administration costs. The measures that we are taking are proportionate. I note that the increase from £300 to £750 stands in contrast to the situation in England and Wales, where the fee has moved from £990 to £1,500.

That is a proportionate response and, as set out in the BRIA, it will have an impact. It will not lead to full cost recovery, but it will make a significant contribution, which we would all recognise is important given the challenging public finance landscape that we face.

As members will be aware, there are three parts to the review that we are undertaking on our statutory debt solutions. Part 1 was completed, and amendments were brought forward in 2021 in response to the pandemic. Some of what is emerging through the legislative commitment in the programme for government will reflect what has happened in part 2, but there is also a third part, which is a far more wide-ranging review that will we undertake in due course. I am happy to keep the committee abreast of developments on that and will be keen for members’ views and input.

I will ask Alex Reid to come in shortly. The majority of organisations taking forward creditor petitions for bankruptcy are local authorities, and we have engaged with them on that. The MAP threshold, as I referred to in my opening statement, came out of the working group and was a very strong recommendation, particularly from the money advice sector.

It will not be a huge number of people who take advantage of the removal of the £1,500 threshold, but, for some people, it will be very significant. That was recognised in the deliberations of the review group and certainly in the discussions at the meetings that I convened. I ask Alex to come in if he wants to add anything.

As indicated, that came out of the engagement with stakeholders via the standing group. As Alex Reid has said, we are not anticipating that it would affect a huge number of people, because we are talking about debts of less than £1,500. However, the reality is that, for some people, debts of that level are unsustainable. As such, although the proposed changes will affect a small number of individuals, they will have a significant impact on those people.

More broadly, I will address the point about how the measure interacts with the wider suite of debt solutions that we have in Scotland. DAS is long-standing: it is unique to Scotland and an important part of the landscape. The range of solutions reflects the fact that we have measures available to suit individuals who are in a variety of circumstances. By its very nature, MAP is for the most vulnerable people who have unsustainable debt.

I highlight the status of strategic renewable electricity generation and transmission as a national development and the clear support for renewables behind the policy. With regard to the detail of your question, I will ask Cara to come in.

Absolutely. I was delighted to give evidence to that committee earlier this year, and I am grateful that the report has been published. I have not had an opportunity to consider it in full yet, with its having been published just this morning, but, looking at the headline items that were covered, it is encouraging to see such unanimous support for and recognition of the key and vital role that our town centres play for our communities and our country overall. That is reflected in NPF4, which sees our town centres and, indeed, our other local centres, city and commercial centres as key strategic assets.

I am sure that it is recognised throughout the work that the committee has undertaken in looking specifically at town centres—as was recognised in our town centre action plan, which we published earlier this year, and, indeed, as is reflected in NPF4—that there is no single lever that we can pull to address the challenges that our town centres face. It needs a collaborative joined-up approach. Planning has a huge role to play, and so does fundamentally reorganising and rewiring how our local economies work. Community wealth building—which we will have a lot more to say about in the new year—can have an important role to play in ensuring that our economies and local communities retain more wealth. That, in itself, will support vibrant and flourishing town centres.

On the general point about guidance and transitional arrangements, I refer to my earlier answer and say that we are committed to providing transitional advice shortly following a vote in Parliament, should Parliament approve NPF4. Guidance will be published alongside the regulations for the local development plans. That guidance will cover not only the process of LDP development but thematic guidance on how to reflect specific policies in LDPs.

I will be happy to reflect on any issues or concerns about specific guidance that are raised through the monitoring process and the engagement. Do you want to add to that, Andy?

I will take one question at a time. First, the Government recognises the centrality of housing. With NPF4, we seek to move the debate on from being one about numbers to one in which we focus on quality of place. A quality home does not end at the front door.

Specifically on numbers, having the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement—I realise that the committee fully understands that that is a floor rather than a ceiling—can help to provide greater certainty. However, it is also important to recognise the role that local development plans will play. As we work towards the introduction of the regulations that will commence new-style local development plans and accompanying guidance, I am committed to engaging with stakeholders, Heads of Planning Scotland and industry to ensure that there is clarity. That will play a key role.

I ask Carrie Thomson to address the question on triggers and issues of underdelivery.

Once we adopt it, we will take forward the process to provide that clarity. I reassure you that there will be a means of amending NPF4 at any time, once it is operational and the provision has commenced.

I think that it is happening. I go back to the point by Professor Hague that I referenced earlier: we do not have a choice. We can say that it is a social imperative, an economic imperative or, indeed, an environmental imperative, but we do not have a choice. Climate change is happening. Yes, we have to mitigate, but we have to adapt as well. I think that we could all say that if we do not do that, the consequences will be incalculable.

We have put the climate emergency and the nature crisis right at the heart of NPF4. Policy number 1 runs through the entire vision of the document, but such considerations are not unique to Government. Every business and every local authority is having similar discussions. What NPF4 does is provide a clear direction in our planning system as to the action that has to be taken. Planning is uniquely placed to help us to address the climate emergency because of the power that it has to direct, in a coherent, considered and rational way, the types of development that we need to see to meet these strategic challenges.

Further, given the timescales within which planning operates, there is no overnight fix or quick cure. This will take sustained work. That is why we have set out a vision to 2045 in NPF4.