Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question continues the discussion that we had when I kicked off about less favoured areas. Clearly, change will come to the agriculture sector over the coming years, and everywhere will be part of that. Do people have a view about whether the options that exist for change in agriculture are more limited in some of our less favoured areas than in other places? Do we have to talk about change in a different way in those parts of the country?

I know that you are not, but it is worth putting that on the record. It is something that this committee has had concerns about in the past.

I have a brief observation on what David Thomson said. The committee has discussed it before. You mentioned that supermarkets offer people a wide choice—but it is a range of items that the supermarkets have chosen and it is a choice that, compared to supermarkets in other European countries, in some cases does not involve very much Scottish or local produce.

I can really only say that the Government has not reached a decision about a timescale that I can give you today, but we are working our way through the consultation. I have mentioned some of the issues that it is important to get right and some of the unintended consequences that we want to avoid, but I cannot give you a timescale beyond that.

As I said, I cannot answer direct questions about the Housing (Scotland) Bill—you would need to ask another minister to answer them—but you have raised important questions. The Government is alive to the need to balance the rights of tenants and consumers with the need for investment in the system. That is the focus of that bill.

The purpose of the new EPC system is not to force, or to require by law, landlords or others to make changes, but we hope that it will assist people in moving towards them. Ultimately, it is in everyone’s interests for people in Scotland, whether they are house owners or private or social tenants, to be warm and healthy, and we have work to do to get to that point. As I said, the purpose of the EPC system is to provide information to people, because it is right that potential tenants of a private landlord are aware of how warm their house is likely to be.

Ensuring confidence is very important, which is one reason why we are not just changing the information that is available to people but seeking means to ensure that it is accurate and to eliminate anything fraudulent from the system. For instance, as I mentioned, we are reducing the validity of EPCs from 10 years to five years to make them more accurate. We are also introducing tighter governance arrangements for EPCs and measures on the competence and training of EPC assessors who operate in Scotland. Legitimate concerns were raised, so we are ensuring that we do both those things.

As you mentioned, we allocated £1.3 billion in funding. To be candid, I would say that the elephant in the room is that, some months ago, the Scottish Government faced quite a task in reaching what was euphemistically called a path to balance. We are now in a better position, but there was a point at which getting there did not look simple or straightforward. The member will be very well aware of why. However, we have, as I said, committed that money, and we are confident that we are going to make use of it. It is also important to say that all the money has been committed to energy and efficiency projects, which will directly benefit people by addressing fuel poverty and making their houses more sustainable.

Those are all important. I mentioned that reliability and public approval of the technology has climbed and that people are more and more confident about it. It is also important to say—as, I think, I mentioned at the beginning—that no Government can do the work on its own. Government can be a catalyst: it can provide support, grants and loans, but it cannot claim to take on all responsibility for people replacing heating systems for ever more—no Government anywhere in Europe would make such a claim. What the Government can do, as I said, is provide encouragement and support, ensure that the technology is advanced and out there, and that the people who need it are helped.

I can bring in others, if anyone wants to add to that.

I cannot comment on the example from Canada. However, when I was in Shetland, I met people from a business who pointed out that, for a small building firm or contractor in an island setting, one of the huge advantages of having a van, as you mentioned, is that, otherwise, they might have to put their staff up in a hotel or somewhere else for a week so that they can attend a course for three or four days. Therefore, a remote van provides considerable advantages to small contractors in islands and other very rural areas.

It is difficult to tell why that is the case if councils have not responded to us or given us the information. I will ask my officials whether local authorities have given reasons for that.