Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I am an MSP for South Scotland.

As I mentioned, builders in rural communities are predominantly SMEs. All those issues are connected. Connectivity is hugely important, but there is also a cost associated with building in rural areas. Do we need to examine how we incentivise builders? At the end of the day, they need to turn a coin. Should we incentivise them to build in rural areas?

Unless anybody else wishes to add something, I am happy to leave it there.

Good morning, minister. Who can argue with legislation that is aimed at “reducing harm for consumers”? I do not think that anybody would argue with that.

Nevertheless, my issue with the consumer duty relates to consideration of the benefit to consumers of “reducing harm”. How would you define that in relation to a public authority? For example, I am aware of a couple of mental health organisations in the third sector that are having to close their doors because local councils have withdrawn funding. That will definitely not reduce harm. Community programmes in sport, music and art are closing—all those things are being curtailed. That is not reducing harm. Local public procurement of food for schools and hospitals is being squeezed. That is not reducing harm.

I therefore have two concerns. First, how do you define “reducing harm”? Secondly, how would you enforce that aspect of the duty. You could not go to a council and say, “You can’t shut that service just because of budget constraints, because that will cause harm.” How will you define what that means?

Colin Smith, let us talk about food procurement. We have had these conversations previously. I did some work on the issue when I first came into the Parliament. God—it was nearly eight years ago now. We looked at where food was procured from in all 32 authorities, and it was staggering to see where everything came from. You mentioned ice cream coming from Belgium. We found that there were root vegetables and potatoes coming from Ireland. The one that the press jumped on was chicken coming from Thailand, for some obscure reason.

It was not a very good picture back then, even though some local authorities, such as East Ayrshire Council, were procuring 75 per cent of their food locally. Is the picture any better now? I do not see much improvement, but, from your perspective, has it improved?