Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have one more question for Gail Macgregor. Having listened to the evidence and read through quite a lot of reports, I am struggling to come to terms with the scale of the problem and the cost of resolving the issue. I will take the discussion to a place in the Highlands where there are 873 social houses, 540 of which do not reach an energy performance certificate C rating. The surveyor in me says that to address that will cost between £15,000-£40,000 for each house so, in total, at the top end it would be about £21 million and at the bottom end it would be £12 million. If we roll that out across the whole of the Highlands, we are probably talking in excess of £150 million, just to get the social housing up to an EPC rating of C. How do we quantify the policies that have been talked about? Do we know what they are going to cost? If we do not know what they are going to cost, are the policies going to be valid when they are introduced? What work have you done with your colleagues on that issue?

The deputy convener has an interesting point on finance.

You will be my friend for life if you are always as quick as that.

I think that he has something to add. Do so briefly, please, Stephen.

Thank you for those contributions. I am mindful that I have a lot of committee members to keep happy on my first day convening the committee, and short answers to their very short questions would help me to achieve that.

Thank you very much. We had a bit of musical chairs there, but I hope that I can stay in this chair for a bit.

First of all, I thank you. I have been reading the committee’s work in the inquiry that we will continue today. I note that you called for evidence on 21 November 2021, which seems an awfully long time ago. Up to today, you have had 11 meetings, I think, on the matter; you have received more than 51 online responses; and you have received responses from the Accounts Commission, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other individuals.

Here I must make an admission: I have not read the Official Reports of all your evidence sessions. I think that it was Councillor McVey who said in the first session that there was an “elephant in the room” when it came to the subject—well, this is my elephant in the room. Reading 11 Official Reports’ worth of meetings is a bit like eating Jacob’s crackers—they might be very tasty to start with, but you can take them only in small doses. It will take me a bit of time to get through the Official Reports. I apologise if it takes me slightly longer to do so but, if you try reading them, you will see why.

I am looking forward to joining this committee, which has obviously done a huge amount of work on the issue. As convener, I will be looking for members’ guidance and help, given that you have done much more on it than I have.

Item 4 is an evidence-taking session as part of our inquiry into the role of local government and its cross-sectoral partners in financing and delivering net zero. I refer members to the clerk and Scottish Parliament information centre papers for the item.

The inquiry was launched in December to look into progress at the local level on reaching net zero targets. In phase 2 of the inquiry, which we are in now, we are looking in depth at the key themes emerging from the initial evidence sessions and the call for views.

We will start with a panel that will focus on an overview of the operation of local authorities. I welcome the two panellists who have joined us in the room: Andrew Burns, who is a member of the Accounts Commission, and Stephen Smellie, who is vice-convener of Unison Scotland. I also welcome Louise Marix Evans, the director of Quantum Strategy and Technology, who is joining us remotely. I thank all three of you for accepting our invitations. We are delighted to have you here, in person and on the screen.

Members will ask questions in turn. It would help broadcasting if members directed their questions to a specific individual. I am sure that members do not need to know this, but I ask the panellists to keep their answers as brief as possible. When I was convener of a previous committee, I used to wiggle my pen—I think that that was a nasty habit that I got from Christine Grahame. That will mean that the person should be coming to the end of giving their answer. I have never had to let go of the pen in the person’s direction because most people have got the hint, but that is a pretty good steer for you to know when it is time for you to start wrapping up what you are saying.

As convener, I will take the privilege of asking the first question. It is probably for all three of you, so I ask you to be brief. I will start with Andrew Burns. Where do you think the biggest concerns are in relation to reducing emissions in local authorities, and in which sectors are there opportunities for innovation, learning and partnership?

I did not wag my pen. I was smiling slightly because I read in one of the Official Reports that Glasgow City Council estimated that the cost of retrofitting its buildings would exceed £1 billion.

Would Louise Marix Evans like to comment? Thank you for your submission. I understood it, and it was interesting.

Okay. Does Natalie Don want to come back in with her question to an individual?

Thank you, Stephen and Natalie. I have not had to throw my pen at anyone, which is great news.

I thank Louise Marix Evans, Stephen Smellie and Andrew Burns for their contributions. I briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.