Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is interesting to hear you discuss fair trade and equality. The reality is that fair trade products cost money to produce. We hold our food producers to such a high standard and we have to accept that there is a cost associated with that. I get the sense that the legislation is reasonable but that we can improve on its implementation.

I am a big advocate of local food procurement, given the positive impact that it can have across much of society in terms of community wellbeing. Should we do procurement the other way round, first looking at the outcomes that we want and how we can commission things, and then putting the procurement into practice? It seems to me that, at the moment, the pressures on councils’ budgets are having an impact on fair trade and equality. I am sure that everybody wants those things, but everybody is looking at the bottom line.

I have a quick follow-up on the point that purchasing goods in the longer term will save you money. Just to play devil’s advocate, I say that I am not sure that councils always have the luxury of being able to do that. They do not have the front-end ability to purchase goods that would give a better service and have longevity, because of two things: first, the fact that they do not have the front-end money and, secondly, the fact that they will be questioned on it. How do we get around that?

Lindsey, do you have anything to add?

Good morning, panel. I have a big interest in food procurement. On the weighting towards cost, I understand that the new legislation says that we have to take into account things such as food miles, the quality of the food and nutrition. Not doing so is a false economy.

What I find from councils is that, if there is a significant contract out there that could be split into smaller contracts, it is easier for them to outsource to one place to gather that contract together. Is that an impediment to the organisations that you represent partaking in the procurement process?

Thank you.

I have nothing to declare.

Callum Chomczuk mentioned net zero housing and the ambitions around reducing our carbon output through housing, including work on new builds and the retrofitting of 1 million homes, which is a target that has had to be dropped. We are 22,500 tradespeople short of the number of workers that we need in order to hit those 2030 targets, and we are dealing with a reducing budget. Should we be considering taking the capital that we have and addressing homelessness and the lack of housing by incentivising builders to build new affordable green housing? It seems to me that the budget is being spread so thinly that no targets are being met. Are we taking too much of a scattergun approach?

So, the question is: should we be focusing on developing green, energy-efficient and affordable new-build homes, instead of taking a widespread approach?

My question will follow on from what has been said. I am concerned about the limits of 6 and 12 per cent and the fact that the proposed system will be problematic for the understanding of tenants and landlords, as has been mentioned. It is my understanding that, although there was a rent cap of 3 per cent, when a tenant moved out and another tenant moved in, that caused a huge hike in rents. If we go to adjudication and we find that there has been a huge rent hike in comparable properties—we know that increases have been 14 per cent on average, even though it is supposed to be only 3 per cent—that suggests to me that rents for those properties that have changed hands have gone up by 13, 14 or sometimes 15 per cent. If the way in which we adjudicate rent increases takes into account comparable properties, are we causing ourselves huge problems?

I will be as brief and concise as I possibly can be. We have touched on how the housing market has to deal with inward migration. Migration within country is also an issue. We have a significant issue of migration from rural to urban areas. The extent of the migration from west to east is a surprise to me. Obviously, that situation has an impact, because it puts pressures on housing.

Specifically in rural areas—I will come to Jane Wood in a minute, because she talked about SMEs, which are the predominant house builders in rural communities—that migration is leading to a reduction in the ability to deliver services, which means that fewer people stay in those areas. It seems to be an ever-decreasing circle. Does the housing strategy take that into account? One of the key issues that has been mentioned a lot is the lack of appropriate housing to keep people in rural communities.

I am looking at Maureen Chalmers for an answer to that.