���˿���

Thank you.

My other questions have already been answered, so, unless any other witnesses would like to comment, I will pass back to the convener.

My question follows on from the previous responses. My colleague Fiona Hyslop touched on the written evidence from Historic Environment Scotland, which raises concerns about how NPF4’s new focus on sustainable development and the climate and nature emergencies

“relates to subsequent policies and whether any relative weighting applies”.

Should policies to address the climate and nature emergencies take precedence over other planning policies? I believe that Roger Curtis stated earlier that there has been some success with listed buildings. How could we best strike a balance between preserving historic urban environments and future proofing them for climate change? I will go to Roger Curtis, naturally, for that.

I will focus on international examples, some of which have already been touched on. Cabinet secretary, you referred earlier to Canada and Norway, which are dominated by hydroelectric plants and have the lowest electricity prices in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Other countries, such as Switzerland, Austria and Sweden, also rely on hydro, and consumers pay less in those countries. We have seen Governments across Europe roll out more generous packages of support for households.

We can see limitations through privatisation in network costs and the ability to cap prices. You have also touched on the public energy agency company. As you have already laid out, many of the levers are still reserved to the UK Government, but what lessons do you feel can be learnt from looking at other countries’ energy policies and how they compare with the UK’s response so far?

I will follow on from some of those responses. In terms of debt with private creditors, could more responsibility be placed on creditors to flag a potential debt before it gets to crisis point? From looking at debt on, for example, credit cards, credit accounts and catalogues, we know that making minimum payments tends to be a real issue for people. No one who is making a minimum payment for accrued debt is doing that for any reason other than that they are in trouble; no one does that if they can pay the full amount. Creditors allow that to go on endlessly and it becomes a horrible vicious circle, with people not clearing any of the original debt.

On food poverty, people are now getting into debt paying for essential items. Creditors are popping up that enable people to buy shopping on a “buy now, pay later” basis, or to pay for shopping over three payments. I have constituents who are paying interest on food items that they bought nine to 12 months ago. That is shocking.

Are there ways in which we can deal with such situations before they become a problem? Rather than letting it get to the stage of a debt arrangement scheme being needed—a bankruptcy process would probably not be relevant—could we reduce debt by removing a portion of the interest accrued or, as I suggested, by getting the creditor to flag up the matter before it becomes an issue?

It seems that when we get rid of one problem organisation or one of those types of creditor, others pop up. Is there a way in which we could limit them? They tend to focus on and target people on low incomes.

I thank the panel for appearing before the committee this morning and their responses so far.

Could any improvements be made to creditors’ processes and procedures that would help people who are on low incomes and have debt problems? That question is for Peter Kelly, first of all.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far this morning.

Some of the earlier comments touched on the breathing space scheme. Do the witnesses have any further suggestions for reforms or improvements to the processes and procedures that could help people who are experiencing debt and mental health problems? That question goes first to Rebecca Stacey.

Thank you, Rebecca. Time is moving on so, unless any other witnesses want to come in, I will pass back to the convener.

We have spoken this morning about the role of local authorities in the delivery of not only a net zero transport system but consistency across the board.

What role can regional transport partnerships play in the delivery of net zero? Do the witnesses feel that that role might differ based on the model of RTP, and could any problems arise from that, given different responsibilities, approaches or, perhaps, inconsistencies?

Thank you. Does Paul White want to add anything?

Good morning. A lot of my questions have already been answered, so I will try to keep this short.

Could the Scottish Government implement any additional policy solutions that could mitigate the worst impact of the increase—and the expected further increase—in the price cap, or are there any actions that the UK Government could take to assist in the crisis, such as increasing benefits, which was mentioned earlier? Could the UK Government go further in its dealings with Ofgem, for example by limiting the amount by which the cap could increase?

Alastair Wilcox touched on some of those points previously, so I ask Chris Birt to answer.