³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is not a problem.

I am conscious that the matter has been raised. It is important to recognise that, although there is a 10-year period for the full administration of the minimal asset process bankruptcy, there is also a five-year period. I can understand the reasons and rationale that have been presented for removing the restriction, but it is often the case that the MAP is the best solution for someone because of their particular circumstances.

We have to recognise—as I am sure that we all do—the significance of the step of going into sequestration. I also make the point that, if someone has to have multiple bankruptcies in a limited period of, for example, a decade, it suggests that there are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

However, as the committee is aware, we are in the process of conducting a wider review. The working groups have reported, we will continue to engage with stakeholders and we will be consulting later this year. I look forward to the committee’s report on its inquiry and understanding the committee’s views more fully. At this point, I would say that I recognise the rationale behind calls to allow people to access the minimal asset process more than once within a 10-year period. However, we have to consider that carefully.

I ask Alex Reid to respond to the question about the process for changing that.

I echo the cabinet secretary’s points and recognise that, although it is not for Government to mandate to local authorities how they manage debt, the work of the committee will be important in informing how local authorities choose to conduct their processes.

I am sorry, Mr Balfour—did you have a second question?

I am not aware of any discussion having taken place on that.

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.