³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

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 am happy to give that undertaking, and I assure the committee that its work has been very much valued and appreciated by the working group that is undertaking the stage 2 review.

Yes, absolutely. I want to see as much engagement in the planning system as possible. I have been clear that this will be a collective endeavour, which will take time. However, I want to move the narrative from one of conflict to one of collaboration, which means genuine community empowerment and engagement in the planning process.

We already have tools at our disposal. Earlier this year, we introduced the regulations on local place plans, which can provide communities with a key opportunity to shape their places. I noted the comments made last week—it might have been Professor Hague who made them—in regard to how, when we seek engagement in the planning system, it is often in the negative context of wanting to stop a development. We have so much insight and knowledge in our communities, and we need to do more to harness that and feed it through our local place plans and other mechanisms to ensure that communities are much more engaged at an earlier stage and have the opportunities to bring their experience, their local insight and, most important, their ambitions for their communities to bear through local place plans and other measures such as local development plans. That can do planning overall a power of good, because it gets us much more into a space of talking about what we want to see rather than the developments that we do not want to see.

I apologise; may I ask you to repeat the question? I missed the first part of it.

I want to give reassurance, and I have sought to do that in the evidence that I have provided so far to the committee. As a Government, we are turning the focus away from policy development and legislative change and towards implementation. We are working constructively and collaboratively with stakeholders to ensure that the planning profession is supported and resourced. Notwithstanding our focus on delivery, we will also roll out the further provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which will help to support the delivery of NPF4, for example through the provision of masterplan consent areas.

We are also taking forward a phased permitted development rights review programme—again, that can help support delivery. Delivery is an absolute priority, and monitoring will be key in assessing how we are progressing in that regard. However, delivery will require collaboration, and I am absolutely committed to the closest engagement possible with stakeholders because, ultimately, planning is for everyone, and everyone has a role to play in planning and in making NPF4 a success.

As I indicated in response to questions on my statement in Parliament last year when I introduced the draft NPF4, the resourcing of our planning system is a priority for me. To realise the ambition and vision in NPF4, we need a properly resourced planning system. The actions that I have taken since then include increasing planning fees from April this year, which there is already some evidence to suggest is feeding through to additional positions in some planning departments.

We are working through the high-level group to support collective and collaborative work to address challenges around recruitment and retention. For example, the future planners project, which I was delighted that the Scottish Government was able to provide financial support to, has developed a report that has provided a series of recommendations on how we can recruit more people into the planning profession as well as retain people in the planning profession.

I should note that the challenges that Scotland faces around recruitment in our planning sector are not unique to Scotland—they are much wider challenges. However, I am clear that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to do all that it can to support our planning authority partners to ensure that we have a well-resourced planning system. We have taken action towards that through higher fees, and we continue to take action, through engagement and dialogue, towards a model of full cost recovery. That is an ambition, but it requires careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences.

To ensure that we have a sufficient workforce in our planning sector, we are taking action through the future planners project with our key partners to assist in making sure that we maximise the number of people coming into and staying in the profession.

My final point is to recognise that NPF4 provides an opportunity to inspire many more people to choose planning as a career. Planning is a wonderful career choice for any young person thinking about what they want to do in life. It provides an opportunity for people to make a huge and impactful difference not just to their own communities but to the country as a whole. Planners will be at the forefront of shaping our places and ensuring that we can meet our obligations to reach net zero by 2045.

On the issue of biodiversity, Cara Davidson may want to add something about the specific support provided there, particularly given the new policies that are coming online.

To an extent, that will happen naturally. About five authorities are in the process of completing their LDPs using the existing arrangements. We envisage that, within about five years, all planning authorities will have adopted the new-style LDP. However, the pace at which they do that will be determined by a number of factors: the age of existing LDPs; the particular impacts of new policies on their areas; and the capacity in their teams. We will, of course, engage closely with authorities to understand their plans, and the planning and environmental appeals division will similarly assist them in their business programming.

I recognise the point, but it should be recognised that it is not unusual for authorities to move at different paces, reflecting their particular circumstances.

I recognise that some stakeholders have taken an interest in that. The delivery programme sets out the existing funding, whether it be through the infrastructure investment plan, the place-based investment programme, the vacant and derelict land investment programme, our strategic investment in transport or the investment in housing. All of that will contribute to delivering the ambitions of NPF4. Therefore, there is a range of existing investment plans with which NPF4 aligns. As those plans go on to further iterations, NPF4 will help to inform that.

That speaks to the importance of the delivery programme being a live document. As the funding landscape changes?unfortunately, in the circumstances that we face, our funding landscape can be volatile as a consequence of how devolution and the fiscal framework operate?it is important to have that flexibility. However, through the delivery plan, we will be in a position to demonstrate how existing and new funding streams, as they emerge, align with the ambitions in NPF4. I recognise that there is a call for a neat, concise and specific capital investment plan to be published alongside NPF4 but, in essence, the delivery programme captures that intent.

I ask Fiona Simpson whether she wants to add anything.