 Good morning, everyone. Can I welcome you to the 25th meeting in 2014 of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee? Can I remind everybody to switch off their mobile phones as they do affect the broadcasting system? Agenda item 1 is items in private. Can I seek the agreement of the committee to take item 4 in private? That is to consider the outcome of the review of the implementation of the 2012 homelessness commitment. Is that agreed? That is agreed. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is draft budget scrutiny. Today we will hear evidence on the Scottish Government's draft budget 2015-16. This year the committee is focusing its budget scrutiny on three of the Scottish Government's national performance figures, namely reducing Scotland's carbon footprint, reducing traffic congestion and increasing the proportion of journeys to work by public or active travel. In order to assist us with that scrutiny today, I welcome Karen Campbell, head of policy and operation for homes for Scotland, Dr Richard Dixon, director of friends of the earth, Scotland and John Lauder, director of Sustrans Scotland, both of whom are representing Stock Climate Care Scotland, Alan Ferguson, chair of existing homes alliance Scotland and Mark Tate, director of community broadband Scotland. Can I start off by asking if any of you have any opening remarks on the draft budget 2015-16 in relation to whether it will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in general terms? Richard, have you drawn the short straw this morning to start off? Thank you very much. Good morning committee. I'd like to start by saying of course that the imperative to take action on climate change has been reinforced over the weekend with the finalisation of the big internet governmental panel on climate change report saying what the science tells us, where we might be going, which might be six and a half degrees rather than the two degrees we're supposed to be aiming for as an absolute maximum. Banky Moon said on Sunday, with this latest report, science has spoken yet again and with much more clarity, time is not on our side, leaders must act. Scotland in many ways has been a leader in terms of setting targets. The RPP2 is a document which has its deficiencies which we might come on to but there is probably not another document like this in western Europe so in one sense it's a very exciting thing. In terms of what will this budget do, so that's the key question, what will this budget do for our targets? The conclusion and I think you heard this from the academics last week is we can't really tell. So section 94 of the Climate Change Act, which you all know by heart, says that Scottish ministers must, amongst other things, lay before the Scottish Parliament a document describing the direct and indirect impact on greenhouse gas emissions of the activities to be funded by virtue of the proposals, i.e. the budget. So the Scottish Government has produced for you this document that you've all seen, the carbon assessment, and this is a very narrow interpretation of that statement in the Climate Change Act. So to me this report is delivering on the letter of the Climate Change Act or perhaps not even that but certainly not on the spirit of it. So if I might go through the three key documents which the Government is pointing you at, one is the carbon assessment but it only covers really the carbon costs, not the carbon benefits of the proposals and I'll say something about that in a second. They also say well you should read that and you should also look at the RPP. So the RPP is the list of, as you know, proposals and actual policies. It's not necessarily up to date. The Government has announced some other things since this came out and it's not easy to tell which of these policies are on track and which are not. It's not easy to tell which of the proposals are working the way towards being policies as they should be and you may remember that in the discussion around this document to deliver our climate targets, actually to miss quite a few of them but only just miss them and get to the target in 2020, we have to fully deliver on every policy in here so nothing can go wrong, all got to be delivered and we've got to in a timely fashion as defined in here, turn every proposal into a policy which also is delivered fully. So there is no room for falling back on any of this but you can't really tell where we're at with this so you can't compare these two documents easily and then there's a third document that is in preparation which the Government tell me you will have soon but which you don't yet have and this is last year's version and this is looking at the policies in the RPP and the money in the budget and saying whether the right amount of money is going in to fund the policies as envisaged in this document. So you have, when you get this one, you will have three quarters of the picture because you will have how much emissions will the spending create, you will have how many of the policies are properly funded but you won't have the final quarter which is what does that actually mean in carbon terms. So I brought a little visual aid to amuse you and to demonstrate what I think the Government should be telling you which is this. Does the budget reduce emissions and make a very serious contribution to the 1 million tonnes of carbon that we need to save in the next year or does it do the opposite and actually increase emissions or make only such a small reduction that it's not going to deliver on our 1 million ton reduction. So to me that's what section 94 of the Climate Change Act the Government should be giving you this very clear message. This budget will take us in the right direction or this budget actually won't and you can't tell from the information in front of you. So I would say to you that that commitment in section 94 is not being delivered by the information the Government is putting in front of you. The third document I've mentioned this is last year's isn't ready yet so you won't necessarily see that before you've finished your scrutiny. I can't tell you anything about it because I haven't seen it. You may not see it before you see the Minister so again you're lacking in information at the time when you should be asking these questions. I think that we will get it this week before we see the Minister next week and the document you're referring to is details of funding for climate change mitigation measures is that correct? That's right so it will tell you about the money but it won't complete the picture and tell you about the carbon. So if I may say briefly something about the carbon assessment report in some ways it's a very impressive document it's got a wealth of detail that calculates lots of very interesting things it takes on a huge challenge of trying to translate the budget into carbon terms and that's a very difficult task and when this was first done it was probably a world leading kind of document there are other people who have kind of caught up and perhaps overtaken but it's still an interesting analysis it even goes as far as estimating how much carbon emissions will result from the government money that goes into NHS and teachers pensions for instance so there's some really quite impressive calculations behind doing that but as I say it only gives you a partial picture and I'll give you two illustrations of that it says in here if you just read the tables at the back that the rail franchise funding and the funding for rail infrastructure will result in 300 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted so it doesn't talk about the fact that people travelling on those trains will probably not therefore be travelling in a car and so there is a significant carbon saving so when we open the board is railway for instance there will be a lot of people who are now on the train not in a car who were previously in a car and so there is a significant carbon saving but that's not quantified anywhere in the opposite kind of way it tells you that the Queensferry crossing will cause 66 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in the coming year because of the budget spend that's all about construction but what it doesn't tell you is what new traffic will be generated and how much extra carbon that will produce which will be much larger than those 66 tonnes so it's giving you only half the picture so I'd suggest to you that when you speak to the minister you may like to ask next year can we combine all of the information that they're trying to give you into just the one document but take it that extra step forward so that it comes to a final conclusion like my visual aid does this budget take us in the right direction or the wrong direction in terms of meeting our targets in the future that's an extra piece of work this is a big piece of work so it's it's not as if they're not already doing detailed calculations certainly not impossible to come to you with that overall number but you are lacking it now so and in terms of which of these is it well this budget is rather like previous budgets and since we've missed the last few climate targets that suggests that we're more in this territory that this budget is whilst it's got some really good measures in it which do the right things for carbon it's got too many measures that take us in the wrong direction so it is very likely that this budget actually takes us in a direction of increasing carbon or at least certainly not reducing it enough to meet our targets but I can't tell you exactly because we can't do those numbers because the government hasn't completed that picture. Does anybody else want to come in on that? I want to make a general comment. Thank you for the invite in this and Homes Alliance. Can I start just by mentioning that I believe that we need to recognise the commitment and work of the government in trying to reduce carbon emissions through improving housing conditions and tackling fuel poverty. I'm obviously concerned with Homes and those Homes that are going to be with us for some time, around 80 per cent of the Homes in 2050 sorry 2050 will are already built so house and quality standard energy efficiency and social housing sustainable housing strategy examining ways to transform the market the resources government spending are all crucial but not but more needs to be done and it's in that context our view is that the money and the draft budget are insufficient and will not reduce emissions and unless we improve energy efficiency more unless we tackle the problem of poor housing in rural areas or elsewhere we won't hit the overall targets on emissions we won't hit the overall targets on fuel poverty and we won't improve the wellbeing of many people in scotland so the budget as far as we concerned whilst it goes a long way as richard already said is insufficient to both improve energy efficiency and to reduce emissions okay thanks we'll come on to look at housing in more detail later but richard in terms of what you said i think obviously we've missed annual targets but in the long term i mean and we talk about you know construction projects like the borders railway you know even building houses creates car greenhouse gas emissions so in the long term are we going to get there so i think the conclusion you would have to draw is that of course investing in sustainable infrastructure has a carbon cost so nothing is free if we're moving from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy if we're building more railways and less roads we're still building things we're still pouring concrete importing steel we are still creating a carbon impact so of course it's perfectly reasonable that there is a carbon expenditure the other side of the calculation that we don't have is how much carbon benefit will that bring not only next year but of course in the long term so and this committee particularly is the most interesting one because you're thinking about the concrete we pour next year what will that mean in 20 years time for carbon emissions so if it's concrete that's poured to make very nice cycle paths through our towns and cities that's rather different from building the Queensferry bridge so we can't answer that question because the work hasn't been done to do it as i've suggested that work could be done so the answer is not as simple as what does this year's budget do because of course much of what's being invested in will will have an impact in years to come and some of it will have an increasing impact so if we for instance when we finish the Queensferry bridge that will generate new traffic so we know that new roads generate new traffic and we know that bridges in particular if you create extra capacity you generate new traffic in a big way so that will have an ongoing increasing carbon impact because the day it opens a few people will think oh there's a nice new bridge i'll go and drive across that but as the years go by more and more people will do that until it is completely chocker and the same is true of cycling infrastructure the more you invest in cycling infrastructure the day it opens some people will think oh that's nice i'll try that out but as we've seen throughout the last couple of decades where we've invested in cycling infrastructure it takes some years for people to build up the idea that actually oh it's great i can safely cycle in on this cycle path to my work to do my shopping to go to school etc so it will take a while for these things to have an impact so that's also the kind of calculation we do we need to do but of course those are the kind of calculations that were done for the rpp and again the rpp is only about the good things and what carbon impact will they have and it rather ignores the bad things we might do or the things which are bad in carbon terms and the impact they might they might have so we need that kind of assessment done again every year on the budget to say this spending will result next year in this but for the 2020 target this is what it'll mean for the 2050 target some of the things we're investing in today will still be there still be having impact this is what it means for that so we can't tell you but as i say you would guess because we've missed some targets we're clearly not doing enough so we're trying quite hard we have a plan which is very nearly good enough but we're not doing enough to meet our targets this budget it has good measures in it some of them i'm funded to a greater degree than previously but most of them are about the same so that suggests we're not doing enough extra effort to catch up with where we need to be and to actually hit our targets so i can't tell you that show you that in numbers but that's the obvious conclusion you would draw thinking the budget's quite similar we're not meeting our targets therefore we can't see the extra effort you would expect in this budget to show that actually we're going to meet our targets so extra effort on insulating homes extra effort on active travel and public transport extra effort on energy and it's not as if we don't know what to do we have this plan which has lots of good things in it we have real practical schemes so much of what the Scottish Government has done on energy efficiency for homes is very well designed to have a good impact it's just we're not doing enough of it so we just need to put more money into the same stuff to achieve things faster the same on much of the transport investment on sustainable transport we know the right things to do but we need to do more of it thank you okay i'm Gordon do you want to continue this theme yeah thanks so much convener and much of my first question is actually being covered about the government's carbon assessment so i'll move on to the second question last week in evidence to this committee professor ralph said it's quite easy to develop transparent accounting systems we have the carbon accountants who can do it they could develop a scottish methodology for carbon accounting in communities or cities that would use scottish rules and scottish assumptions so my questions are do any of your organisations use carbon accounting to monitor trends if so would you consider to be best practice carbon accounting methodologies and what would be the benefits of adopting that best practice i'm quite happy to to pick up on that i read the transcript of last week and you had a discussion with professor annable in which she said that it was quite difficult to estimate the carbon saved by people cycling and we use a calculation ourselves in our work which allows us to give a calculation of what the national cycle network is saving so it kind of follows on from what richard was saying and the process that we use involves having face-to-face interviews with people using infrastructure that has been constructed we call those root user intercept surveys and out of that we are able then to calculate those people who've been using the path who chose to use their bicycle or to walk rather than use their car and out of that we create a calculation which is an estimation of car kilometres replaced and from that we can then use the internet based transport appraisal guidance called web tag which is department for transport uses to then calculate the carbon saved and then using a calculation by the department for energy and climate change we can give a monetary value to the carbon that's been saved so it is actually possible to come up with a calculation we think that that's best practice which is what we use and what the government statisticians are happy that we present to them when we present our annual report and it's what allows us to give a value to the carbon that the national cycle network is saving now both those calculations are indeed department for transport so whether they're scotland specific is a really good question i can't answer it i think it's well worth investigating to see it might be i would like to sort of you know do a benefit to cost analysis of whether the effort is worth it or whether the calculation is actually a sound one and we should just use it anyway but in our field that's the calculation that we use and so in terms of carbon accounting that's what allows us to give the government an analysis of what Richard was saying which is yes we are spending money building infrastructure for walking and cycling but this is the benefit of that investment over the long term and one of the comments that Professor Ralph said last week was the trouble with the larger department of energy and climate change accounting system as it used Westminster facing assumptions there may be 20 different values for a certain factor that is put in for England where for Scotland just one value so do you use different values for different parts of the country no we would use the standard measurement that DFT have which i think does uh i do agree with you i think it is well worth exploring to see whether that a Scottish analysis is better to use and that's that's the limit of my knowledge on that kind of statistical analysis but i'm very welcome for our organisation to explore a bit more deeply if that would help anybody else i've spoken a lot so far so very briefly so just in terms of what the Government is already doing in the RPP there are tables which tell you for instance how much there's zero waste plans cutting down on landfill etc will save us in carbon terms there are calculations that tell us how much planting more trees will save us in carbon terms in the carbon assessment of the budget as i've said it tells you about pension spending and what that will do it tells you about rail spending so we are looking at both sides of the equation we're not bringing them together though in an analysis that says so what's the net impact are we going the right direction or not so and the methodologies aren't exactly the same so that needs to come together but we're not far from having all the right numbers so that the government can come and tell every committee in your area and overall this is what the impact of this spending will be positive or negative on our climate targets so we're not far from it and the you know we've got the methodologies already they need to come together so that they're comparable and so we can take the positive and the negative side and mash them together to come to an answer but actually we're not far from it i mean Scottish government was one of the first governments if not the first government to introduce this kind of statement so is there any other best practice that we can we can other other governments now up to speed with what we are doing with carbon emissions you know can learn in a lessons from anybody abroad there are certainly international initiatives and there are companies which are trying to do the same kind of thing looking at their impact every year and looking at on going into the future what their impact will be on carbon so there are examples of good practice out there as i say we've got something so we should be looking at how we make that work together and we should be looking at that best practice so that eventually when lots of countries are doing this we're all doing the same kind of thing so that we can see when Germany says we're heading in the right direction and next year we'll save this much we can be using the same system to say well actually we're on about the same track thank you very much or let's learn from you because you're doing better from us okay thanks so much if we move on to transport and active travel mark you've got some questions i mean i just a few questions on greenhouse gas emission impact of transport congestion and sustainable active travel first one just to ask the panel members if they think the current level of funding for support and sustainable and active travel is adequate and also if the areas where that funding has been channeled is delivering the best outcomes thank you for that i'm happy to speak to that i think that the funding is welcome particularly the increase that we've had in the past year and we're now on a sizable budget larger than we've ever had before is it adequate the evidence suggests that it's still not adequate actually there's a fierce appetite to spend the funding that the government gives sustrans to manage for example which is matched funded by local authorities we've been unable to match all the bids for funding that have come our way so the evidence suggests that more funding that's put it'll be it'll be welcome to buy local authorities and other partners which who match our funding on a 50 50 basis and that's through a project which is called community links which does exactly as it suggests it links communities together through generally shared footways which can be used for cycling as well this year the budget for that particular project is 19 million pounds it has been matched funded with 23 million pounds from other partners so they've outbid what's available in terms of the funding and there are 41 partners delivering 180 projects across scotland 31 of those partners are local authorities so there are 10 new partners involved in this they range from health boards to universities to Scottish Canals for the Street Commission so I would suggest that there's an appetite a growing appetite and with increased funding I'm sure more can be done where the funding is problematic is that the funding that we've managed over the last year grew very quickly and as a result of that we had to work really really hard to get our partners on board so they could find enough match funding to match what was available with a more planned programme and a more predictive curve if you like trajectory of how much funding is available and when it's going to be available local authorities in particular will be able to retrain some some staff within transport teams move people around and grow their teams so that they can take the funding that's available and deliver better more meaningful more challenging projects so my recommendation to the committee is absolutely for more funding to be made available for the active travel element in terms of your question on congestion the evidence would suggest that where infrastructure is available and is high quality and well maintained and well publicised it is heavily used so use of the national cycle network has grown by seven percent in the past year it took 104 million trips in 2013 which was shared equally between cycling and walking so a significant increase year on year of infrastructure so no doubt about it when good infrastructure is put in place it's attractive it's sensible it connects people up to where they want to go people will use it finally the final element of that in terms of the benefit-to-cost ratios which Richard touched upon they are huge for cycling infrastructure highest at the moment is 16.3 to 1 in terms of a benefit to cost so a very worthwhile investment tends to be a low cost investment heavily used which we think delivers really well in terms of reduced carbon emissions in terms of congestion I think that's harder to calculate because we're still at quite a low level of cycling so I think it's difficult at the moment to see what impact that's having but it would be interesting to find out a bit more from say Edinburgh city council where journeys to work are now about 8% of journeys to work are by bicycle and what impact that is having on congestion in the city and I'm looking forward to hearing some more information from them in due course on that and maybe report back to the committee. I'd probably come back to the congestion issue but just to expand more on the funding issue and the match funding you said that it was a pretty steep rise yes and it was a challenge for partners to come up with that match but still exceeded that by £4 million. How much demand is out there in local authorities, health boards and other areas for that funding and what would you say is a realistic ambition for that budget that partners would be able to match fund? I think there's a huge demand every time we've been given another lump sum increase this year we were given £7 million on top of what we already had and we've looked at that and went wow that's brilliant how will we match that and every time we find that we are outbid in terms of quality, in terms of quantity so to my mind what we need to be able to do is to say to local authorities that over the next few years this is how funding will increase I would agree with the Association of Directors of Public Health that 10% of transport budgets being dedicated to active travel in terms of walking and cycling is the right element to have budget wise and if we can say that to partners what we will find is that more staff will move toward working around the transport team and more of the transport team time will be dedicated to investment in walking and cycling infrastructure and I have to keep referencing Edinburgh on this one, Edinburgh city council simply because it's the city council who's dedicated an annual increment for active travel in its budget I think it's now at 7% of the transport budget is dedicated to cycling and as a result of that the team who are delivering that infrastructure are growing in size they're growing in importance internally and what they're also doing now is they're collaborating with other teams within the local authority who otherwise wouldn't necessarily have worked with them so they're breaking through silos and growing a bigger team in terms of things like maintenance, winter treatment, urban realm planning and to my mind that's almost a model for how other local authorities will grow and will change how they deliver their urban realm work every local authority has been invited to work with Sustrans using funding made available from transport Scotland to have a strategic plan in place for active travel by the commencement of the 1516 financial year we're very grateful for that funding the funding is being managed by ourselves as an officer in place from Sustrans but their work is guided by an advisory panel drawn from COSLA government local authorities themselves and other partners and that officer is flat out working with local authorities who are either reviewing revising or writing new active travel plans so there is an appetite there's an enthusiasm there's a growing enthusiasm among the public which you can see from things like the annual pedal on parliament event which happens in the spring I think it's the it's this whole area is the growing element within transport certainly at a local authority level it's seen as the most interesting work that's available and it's certainly the one we're generally speaking the public seem very happy with and give strong approval to so my recommendation is to increase the budget my other recommendation if I might be allowed to say would be just to have greater clarity around the budget line for active travel because it is a little it is still confused it's quite difficult to work out what the budget will be next year and that is a problem because I can have every sympathy with senior staff within local authorities who say well why should we reallocate resources to the active travel team when we don't know what budget they'll be managing a year from now that's that's a real issue particularly when local authorities are losing staff that was going to be my final question just on the sustainable and active travel budgeting whether that was clear enough just how much funding was put into that active travel so that's you know it's not clear it's quite it's quite tricky to in fact it's very difficult to work it out the best analysis tends to come from transform scotland or the spokes the Lothian cycling campaign and they're struggling to to map where the funding is coming from and as I say the knock-on effect of that is it makes it more difficult for organisations like ourselves who are tasked with helping to deliver the cycling action plan vision the shared vision of 10 percent of trips by 2020 it's quite difficult for us to get senior officers within local authorities and others on board if we can't give them real clarity on here's the budget this is the way the budget will develop and there's every likelihood it will develop and it will grow year on year so I know the committee did recommend to have greater clarity and I would welcome if that recommendation could be could be repeated and reflected in the budget it would really help a lot okay on going back to congestion do you think the the balance of the transport budget across the various sectors is working towards reducing traffic congestion overall is that budget being delivered to the greatest effect well I recognize that the budget is to is delivering the the plans and the commitments that are that are in place it's difficult as Richard has said to predict how that will work the likelihood is that as you grow as you improve roads as you create new road infrastructure so more people will take up the offer that's being made and will use it whether that will lower congestion or whether congestion will maintain at the current level is hard to say my my instinct would be that the congestion may well grow I think what is interesting though is that I think the budget could do more for public transport I think it could do more for for buses in particular what impact will the growth of active travel have in terms of congestion within cities and towns I think the emphasis I would place there is around the school run we know that one in five journeys are related to school in the morning that does create a lot of congestion it can create congestion at key junctions within towns and cities I can't imagine there's any school that doesn't have an issue around that or I certainly the vast majority of schools have an issue around congestion and I think a lot more could be done there. Finally on congestion and the budget are there any areas where you can see a conflict between the budget spending and reducing traffic congestion are there any conflicts between reducing congestion and improving our support and sustainable and natural travel and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are there areas of conflict or perhaps areas of synergy where they're both working together I think the two should complement each other and it does follow from and we know from evidence from other small northern european countries that where you have a greater uptake in walking and cycling and public transport congestion within towns and cities will reduce there is of course points of detail and particularly the right infrastructure needs to be built the right way safely to encourage more people to use it and also to allow other modes vehicular transport to work efficiently while accommodating growing numbers of people who opting to use bicycles as well and I think we in particular look to Denmark for solutions to that where road reallocation has made a real difference in their cities and towns but to be fair to ourselves in Scotland we you know we shouldn't beat ourselves up on that I think there are some very good pilot projects around Scotland that are introducing meaningful infrastructure that can be used in busy streets and towns particularly Waterloo Street in Glasgow which has a two-way Copenhagen style cycle lane and Leith Walk in Edinburgh which is being currently redesigned to accommodate all modes and give better facilities for pedestrians as well so we need to get the infrastructure right we know what to do there simply isn't sufficient funding to allow us to do it to the level we would like to to make real meaningful impacts on congestion and carbon emissions we've heard examples from a lot of the northern european countries on low carbon transport are there any other areas of low carbon transport that are being developed internationally that we could look to and bring in other pilot projects here in scotland I'm sure there are it's not entirely my field and I would bow to my colleagues and things like electric cars and hydrogen buses but I think they're particularly meaningful and very meaningful in a rural context just to add to that there's one area where we're potentially going to miss an opportunity or at least delay the opportunity which is in the area of air pollution so the government in about 10 days time is going to release a new strategy on air quality we're the subject of two complaints along with the UK in Europe about not meeting air quality targets so about 2000 people a year are dying because of air pollution in Scotland most of it caused by traffic so as well as climate change as well as congestion air pollution is another good reason to be changing the way we do transport particularly in the cities but in this budget the amount of money dedicated to air quality and noise which is the category at where it's lumped together is the same as last year so although there will be a new strategy and therefore presumably a new will to tackle this problem and do something about it there will be no extra money so it's hard to see how something that we could import from Europe so particularly in some German cities we have a lower emission zone we have a similar proposal in London where you would not allow the most polluting vehicles into the centre of your cities and towns it's good ideas being discussed behind the scenes frequently there's been a pilot study in Glasgow but if there's no money it's unlikely local authorities are really going to take that up so there is an opportunity for some infrastructure some policy investment which would improve congestion move us more towards active modes of travel and clean up air in our cities and reduce climate emissions but if there's no money in the budget for it certainly no local authorities are going to move on that in a hurry next year and if there's money the year after then we've delayed again and wasted some time in something rather important so I'd like to see some scrutiny on that line of the budget where just over three million pounds is going on air and noise if that were increased that would give a clear signal to local authorities that there is going to be something to help them do this because it will cost them something to do it although there will be many savings in doing it right we heard evidence committee last week about intelligent transport options city car clubs people making better use of their own private car for sustainable transport are there any realistic options that are in the short to medium terms in terms of intelligent transport city car clubs and options like that which the Scottish Government should be looking at for more sustainable transport options? Richard Levy of you and that I mean I saw that the uptake of the car clubs has been really promising I think car ownership is dropping in some cities where previously it wasn't which indicates so a good way you have good public transport and good car clubs that will grow while there are options I think the whole issue around transport is about choice it's about giving people as much choice as possible and a good relevant bus service just as important as well I struggle with the idea of intelligent driving driverless cars I just haven't quite got my head around that yet at all and I do worry a little bit about about chasing those kind of options when there are realistic everyday practical options that we know work and are working in other in other small countries I think those would be the ones to follow last question would just be a general one asked asked if there are any missed opportunities that you can see for developing a more sustainable transport infrastructure in Scotland? Well I think that if this budget for active travel plateaus where it is now it is in danger of missing an opportunity because as I say there is a growing appetite and a growing enthusiasm there's a growing skill set amongst local authorities and other partners and it would be entirely the wrong time to allow that the funding just to stall I think if it can keep moving up even modestly then we keep that curve on the right track it will be challenging to reach the 10 per cent vision of trips by bike by 2020 but it isn't impossible with the right level of funding and the right support it can be achieved so that my worry would be that that would we would miss the opportunity that we have in the sense of a growing awareness a growing appetite more senior officers taking an interest other partners coming on board who we've never worked with before in terms of active travel projects as I say health boards universities that to me would be a key one and that's the capital side on the revenue side it's very welcome that the smarter choice of smarter places funding of five million has been announced and I think that will also capture an opportunity which is there at the moment which is an appetite amongst the public to know more to be more aware of the options that they have so my plea would be not to allow this budget to to plateau where it is at the moment okay thank you but just thinking about it's not a missed opportunity but it is an opportunity access to information about public transport particularly in remote and rural scotland will have an impact on the use of that transport for visitors and for residents as I say particularly in remote and rural areas and digital connectivity can and will bring that access to information connectivity that people need in order to access public transport okay anyone else got any comments on transport right if we move on to housing adam you'd like to start this this year's draft budget shows a very welcome increase in spending in housing and regeneration something like 200 million pounds now we've had we've had many representations made to us about the need to increase housing supply in the country but we're also being it's been pointed out to us and Mr Ferguson did so already this morning that home energy use accounts for something like 20 percent of Scotland's emissions so this increase in the budget while welcome there are obviously various priorities that we need to we need to focus in on is it could you give me your views on the appropriateness of the target the funding that's been targeted within the draft budget to meet these competing priorities can i start on housing supply in homes for Scotland we represent the home builders in Scotland so our interest with regard to the budget is very much on the supply agenda to build many more homes as you say we need in just in terms of bringing it back to the carbon agenda as well just for context the contribution that new build homes makes is through the building standards and building standards in Scotland have already we're already 70 percent more energy efficient they mean that new homes built today are already 70 percent more energy efficient than they were in the base which is 1990 that's the measurement that's drawn unfortunately because we're building so few homes just now the dent that we can actually make in the carbon footprint through new home building is very small i did some analysis previously on on the rpp in looking at the contribution that new build will make through building standards it was estimated to be only 0.3 percent of the whole economy based on the low number of new homes that we're building so clearly for new build homes to make a bigger dent we need to be building more and replacing old less efficient stock in terms of the budget for for housing supply we were really pleased to see such a focus and an increase given to housing a great chunk of that is on financial transactions through financial transactions due to the consequentials that the Scottish Government got through initiatives at UK level in particular the help to buy scheme and we're really keen obviously for more support to go to support that scheme and you know happy to to explore on that expand on that further i think another interesting point is is the capital spend has increased which has allowed a higher grant level to be given to the delivery of the affordable homes target which was required i think there's a general feeling that the access to private finance for RSOs and others to build homes they were really struggling so to meet that target we needed to increase grant levels available and within that interestingly the grant is around £58,000 that's available per unit for affordable housing supply on a social unit and there's access to an extra £4,000 to support the delivery of a greener home which is to meet silver standard within the aspirational standards contained within section seven of the building standards that is a welcome incentive because clearly needs incentive to go above and beyond what are already high building standards because of the impact on build costs that that creates so within homes that the government subsidises that's a really good thing the challenge we've got in terms of building mainstream homes at higher standards is there's no way of recouping those costs until the public begin to to demand more energy efficient homes and again i can expand on that further later they be but very welcome increase and very welcome attention across parliamentary parties on the housing agenda now i think we're still on track to hit the government's target on new build the question is whether that's enough and i think up and down the country there are real problems with supply and the real problems with a need for housing and certainly that's right across the board there's no doubt that there is a need for more private housing there are still difficulties with people accessing those housing though and that's where we have seen again resources but also a take-up on the mid-market rent by house associations and others and that's missing a particular gap where people either can't afford to buy or can't get access but also would not get a traditional social rented property from a house association or council there's no doubt as caron said the increase in grant the change in grant level last year has made a difference for a number of associations they are now developing whereas there's a struggle for them but there are associations in some parts of country aren't developing and therefore the problem remains how do you meet the need for more housing so that whilst it's absolutely welcome that there is an increase in budget there is a difficulty with whether that's enough resources to meet the needs in the constituencies up and down scotland the other side of it is your point is on the kind of emissions side and i think it's something like 79 million pound going to be spent around kind of fuel poverty and emissions last year existing homes aligns said that that needed to be at least 125 000 the the government mrs swinney and the minister for housing welfare recognizes that the cut in eco means a shortfall of some 50 000 million for 50 million that means that the 79 million which is a similar figure from last year has not been increased to take up the difference that government recognizes as there's a problem eco and indeed the the un committee on climate change has said that Scottish government needs to be looking again at topping up more resources because the shortfall on eco so again it's it's to be welcomed that there are resources there to tackle fuel poverty and emissions the difficulty is as other colleagues have said it's similar to last year and it's not enough to properly tackle the problem and to make up the shortfall through cuts in eco elsewhere what do you think would be an appropriate budget for energy efficiency tackling energy efficiency and fuel poverty you say 79 million is not not sufficient what would be sufficient in your view a year ago in evidence we said that that should be at least 125 million if government itself recognizes that there's a 50 million pound shortfall because it changes to eco then we would argue that it's at least 125 plus that 50 million so that's a more realistic now one of the difficulties and the same with elsewhere it's quite difficult quantifying and one of the things that we should be we think that government should be doing is actually investigating itself and producing analysis of what funding is actually required to meet its fuel poverty targets and the climate change targets and that's one of the things that's still missing there is the government itself is not doing that so there are our estimates for what what the existing homes aligns and its members think is at least 125 last year plus the shortfall in eco that the government itself recognizes your organization and indeed stock climate chaos suggests that energy efficiency needs to be a national infrastructure priority and what you're suggesting here is that the way the budget is actually allocated it is not of an order that would suggest that that priority is being recognized so what would you do in terms of assuming that we've got a fixed budget that we have to we have to balance every year how would you reallocate the funding within within what we've got to me it's recognising the importance of just meeting the carbon targets not just meeting fuel poverty targets but it's recognising that the benefits of you know a kind of a warm home have on the wellbeing of those who live in that home on the asset that's owned by either that individual or by the association or council but it's also the benefits for health another area so it's trying to see that that whole area should be more of an infrastructure and seeing it as one of the priorities that government has to achieve and I mean it's not that you're right it's just on homeless alliance it's stock climate chaos it's WWF but even the cbi just a couple of weeks ago said that energy efficiency should be a key infrastructure priority for and that was a kind of a UK level we would say the same as well it's seeing it's far more integral it's not an issue on itself it's about the wellbeing of people who live in housing and it's trying to improve the asset that those people live in okay any other contributions then and I fully support the idea that the work we do on energy efficiency and homes should go into the national infrastructure programme to give it that importance and that it should be bigger and one of the reasons as well as the social reasons of tackling fuel poverty making people's lives better is that investing in people's homes is one of the quickest ways you can save carbon so if we put in a package of insulation measures into someone's home tomorrow from tomorrow that house is saving carbon and it'll keep saving that amount of carbon every year as long as it stands so it's if we're trying to catch up with our targets it's a great place to invest and the government has been good at talking about investing in money in one area and acknowledging savings in another area and I think we haven't gone quite far enough when we think about housing in that area because if you make people's lives better you improve the economy you make them healthier you save money in the health service so and if you're insulating people's homes then some builders have got some jobs clearly so there are lots of ways in which investing in the efficiency of people's homes improves a lot of things across the economy and actually saves the government money in other parts of the economy and I think we we've acknowledged that to some extent so the government has kept some of the money in efficiency programmes when it might otherwise have cut it for those reasons but I think we haven't taken that analysis far enough to say actually there's a very significant health saving from not having people living in damp and mouldy homes and actually we could take that out to the health budget and put it into housing because across the economy it would pay off so we need to need to extend that logic a bit further to justify transferring money into a bigger spend on insulating people's homes so you would advocate taking money away from the health the health budget and put it into where we can clearly show that that will produce a saving there are studies down south which show that for every pound you spend on insulating someone's home you are saving money in the health service so clearly there is a very strong imperative to protect the health budget we all understand that but where you can show that actually you're saving money that you would otherwise spend in the health budget by investing it somewhere outside of the health portfolio whether that's in cycling which makes people healthier or in people's homes because that makes them healthier then clearly that that's very very worthwhile to consider it's clearly seen as I believe as part of the governance kind of prevention study you try to prevent problems you're investing in one area to prevent problems elsewhere and I don't think we've quite which I said made the links at times people talk about including government talk about the benefits of you know warm affordable dry damp free homes but that but what we don't necessarily do is then say well if we invested in that this would be the difference this would be what we would save elsewhere in the health service so we talk about it but it's about moving forward and making those links far clearer yeah oh and just to come back to my original question I was looking to see whether the the budget obviously has uh has been allocated to reflect priorities the housing and regeneration budget and I'm asking you is it an appropriate allocation given what the priorities are within housing the area of housing and regeneration and I mean my response would be that that is good that that money is in the budget the difficulty is that it won't meet needs for those people up and down Scotland who's still trying to get access to housing and it's still is not enough to make the houses energy efficient and to and to tackle and eradicate fuel poverty that's not saying that it's only about money I recognise it's not only about money there are things as well that's where the discussion about minimum standards in private sector about the energy efficient standard in social housing about changing behaviours of individuals owners and others are all important but resources are a key key part of that I think one of the biggest challenges when local authorities are a sales have got challenges to upgrade their own stock but the biggest challenge I think we've got is getting homeowners to think about you know to change their own behaviour and new build homes are doing their bit if you like to create a more energy efficient product and we'd love that to be in higher demand but customers unfortunately aren't acknowledging the what they can get back the value of buying a more energy efficient product so it's the builders that are hitting terms with the higher build costs without the value being increased think about I mean again new build is a tiny proportion of our existing homes if you look at the housing market we need to think about how we can stimulate demand for energy efficient homes for people that are looking to buy homes looking to sell their homes and I think one of the the biggest missed opportunities this Scottish Government have had with the land and buildings transaction tax it's not a budget heading within the budget but it is a new scheme that's coming forward a new regime is not to think about how they can oh take that back because they have thought about it but not to introduce a way that they can align LBTT rates and bans with the energy efficiency of a home every home whether it's a new home or an existing home it's got an EPC and I think as much as a difference in what you pay in land and buildings transaction tax is not going to offset perhaps the capital investment in that home to make it more energy efficient but it's going to get people talking about it and thinking about the decisions and that's that's one missed opportunity I think without taking budget away from from anywhere else that would have been one opportunity that the government had to to really stimulate demand and get people to to take action themselves to improve their homes okay well that's a useful point to bring up with the minister when we see her next week are there any other examples of good sorry right it's a related point mr Ingram that there is a calculation produced by the world health organization called the health economic assessment tool heat which is used to calculate the health benefits of active travel there may well be one for housing as well but again I think it's at work it follows the theme that Richard had mentioned earlier about acknowledging the benefit of the investment that we make and our our calculation is that the national cycle network gave benefits of 66 million for walking and 44 million for cycling in 2013 based on that calculation so it may well be that that's another element that needs to be somehow factored in when we're thinking about the levels of investment that we make okay coming back to the the good practice bad practice would you make any you've already made the point about the land and building transactions tax are there any other areas which we should be looking at introducing a best practice or are there any areas of bad practice we need to get rid of and is it in the context of the draft budget in terms of in the home building industry we've been working towards the road map for for greener homes if you like through the sylvan report and I think that's given us you know a sort of longer term horizon it's also proven useful that that the sylvan panel with government brought them together again to to look at how things have changed and to defer the new introduction of the standards and that's to be welcomed now that's given us our industry something to work towards and prepare and I think that's good practice in terms of the the budget headings it may not have a direct impact in one year but I guess the good practice is is set in a road map which which is really benefited our industry the the difficulty we've got as an industry is it's easy to regulate our industry because we're new build but we are at such a tiny proportion of the major challenge which is the existing homes and so I'll leave Alan to pick up obviously the the budget allocation for that I think good practice again the government should be praised in terms of the way that they have acknowledged that there is a higher build cost in terms of building above and beyond standards so giving that extra 4k per unit making that available as an incentive is really good and as I said that incentive is missing from the homes for sale market at the moment because there's no premium attracted to valuations or the way for example a mortgage is assessed if you're buying a more energy efficient home so that extra 4k now I don't think that 4k is enough to cover the extra build costs in fact the Scottish government research shows that there's quite a range of costs depending on the house type but it's the incentive and I think that incentive is good practice until you know we are working in an environment in a housing market where customers are demanding and expecting an energy efficient product we need to be incentivised to get there okay I would highlight a number of areas the point that Karen made I think is really crucial and I think affects all of you and that's getting owners take responsibility get owners a flatted accommodation take responsibility for whether it's communal repairs or in terms of energy efficiency there is a culture change or behavioural change that we need to embark on there are issues there that's not necessarily resource but it is a kind of an emphasis a commitment to trying to tackle that I think that that ties into the whole advice and support there is a lot of advice and support including from government but organisations like change works energy savings trust energy action scotland all providing a range of advice and support and the difficulty is that there's just there needs to be more what whether it's individuals not understanding their heating system not being able to use heating system or whether it's a not you don't have the advice necessary on what boiler to look at there is advice there the question is can we up that and improve on that I think the point that was made about tax is right are the things that we could be looking at in future whether it's through devolution 2016 or through the Smith commission can we be looking at any further tax and the use of that tax in terms of incentives or to generate resources to fill gaps and I think the other one it has a good practice is that there are some associations in councils whether it's cuban glasgo or awedyn city council you're looking at the combined heat and powered just heating systems can we can we develop that further can we encourage more organisations not just to consider it but actually to do something about it so that's where there are a whole number of things that are going on that are really useful it's about trying to spread that more okay that's good and you mentioned earlier on I think there's Mr Lauder about best practice internationally and small countries have been particularly good maybe Scandinavian countries are there any sort of models out there that we should be we should be looking at importing for our own purpose I could identify particular models just now but I can I can provide information there but I mean my view is whether it's Scandinavia or whether it's in the Netherlands there are particular works particularly areas going on about making houses energy efficient about looking at building an infrastructure from the outset that would be useful to consider but I can certainly provide more information following us in terms of new builds industries been looking at examples abroad for a number of years and in fact in Scotland we are quite advanced in terms of some of the offsite manufacturing facilities that are available unfortunately in many cases we're not building it high enough scale or building it enough volume to really get the payback from those schemes and we've started a piece of work with the Scottish Government just now to look at you know what will it take for builders to to begin to open up sites and looking at offsite methods of construction it's likely not the step change in building standards next year which will push it towards that but the one after in 2019-20 in terms of the requirements and I guess we do have good examples there's been numerous innovative pilot projects there's been you know the innovation park over in five there's been the the one in Inverness there's been a number of things but the challenge is mainstreaming it and I think that's key the construction Scotland innovation centre that's got a lot of funding allocated to it recently I think that's going to be a really big help in terms of working with industry to see how we can test things and bring them into the mainstream but again it comes back to are we building enough homes to meet the needs and demands out there and also when you take the supply angle the other way are people demanding the energy efficient products because we really need we really need people to start demanding it and for the values to for there to be a market value attached to to assist the builders in delivering that product because otherwise we were delivering a product which perhaps customers are not looking for yeah okay thank you very much further before I bring Mary in but you know it seems to me one of the few areas where sales doesn't drive behaviours because in anything else you know the builders would be marketing that and and they don't to be perfectly frank builders do not market their houses in terms of their energy efficiency to any extent that they could but to explore a bit further your written evidence on LBTT I mean that would only apply to new homes because my understanding is that LBTT is paid by the buyer and it's the seller who would have increased not in terms of new homes but existing homes and that's the biggest bulk of sales transactions it's the seller who would have made the improvements to the home so they're not getting anything in terms of the the tax so it sounds like a good headline from homes for Scotland but in actual fact there are lots of problems in introducing and using LBTT to do that I can imagine it's a massive challenge to try and cut even come up with a formula is how you do it and it's it's it's not going to assist the builder because it's not going to offset the costs and it's not going to help the seller of the home because you know it's the buyer that benefits the same way that what it will do is act as an incentive to try and drive behaviours so that more people are looking in the market for energy efficient homes as soon as there's a higher demand for that product it'll be deflected in the value and that's what RICS has told us in terms of that they will not attach a value to an energy efficient home until it's what the customer is really looking for so it is what comes first and I think that's one way where we can start to get people talking about it I think if you compare it to the car industry it's useful I mean when you're looking to buy a home your tax per year is something sorry if you're looking to buy a car your tax per year is something that you think about you also think about your miles per gallon it's easier to understand in the car industry and I think the EPC's gone some way that the fact that every home advertised you have to state what EPC level is but until we did some we did some research recently and nobody was paying attention to it so I think until you attach something to it something financial to it you know it's the it's the beginning of it to get people to pay attention to it you're opening comments more enough when you opened that sentence I can't remember if there's a point that I was going to pick up okay we'll maybe come back to it sure okay Mary do you want to carry on I want you to follow on the theme around best practice and best practice examples from the international community and how they could be used to change building standards and I absolutely understand if you couldn't give me any examples today but it would be helpful if we could if it could be followed up with some examples of best practice and how that could be used to change building standards to have a positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions but I suppose you may be able to answer to today what impact that would have on our existing homes because the point Alan that you made earlier about the percentage of existing homes that we have that will still be in use by 2050 how will the building standards and changes in building standards impact on that so specifically if you could pick up that point and can perhaps if you could pick up the point around the incentives that are given for increasing energy efficiency and should more be done about incentivising energy efficiency in you build specifically through the help to buy scheme I mean that that's an interesting point I mean as I say new homes built today are already 70% more energy efficient in Scotland we've got high building standards they're higher than England for example and we are due another increase next year that's already a big challenge for an industry homes homes are more expensive to build in Scotland than they are in England and that's an issue when we've got builders volume builders working north and south of the border for them to look at their investment and where they will make it in terms of where they'll get their returns back so already we've come a long way in Scotland the linking I mean I think I think for a while there the Scottish Government looked at ways that they could link grants the innovation fund for example they were hoping that they could they could incentivise people to go higher in terms of building standards but they soon realised that that's not going to get you your volume help to buy is such a short term budget it needs to be oven ready sites I guess you know that you don't it takes so long to bring a development on the ground you won't have time to plan a development and bring it forward under higher standards for example even next year standards and still benefit from the help to buy if we had a longer term strategy that's maybe something the Scottish Government could look at but right now the homes that are being built for example in the budget for 2015-16 they'll already be on the ground if you like they will be coming forward very fast it's very unlikely that you could then apply a higher standard if that's your thinking Mary in terms of connecting that incentive to it LBTT Clale is coming forward April next year and we'll have another financial year to run so we had hoped that that would have been a link there and then obviously on going for the new build sector okay thanks for that the housing sector particularly the house association sector I've always looked beyond Scotland whether it's through Secodus which is the European Federation housing providers or example we would be Sabo in Sweden which is the Swedish Federation of housing and look to them to see what's going on elsewhere so looking at the glazing side of it looking at the cladding side of it looking at the insulation side of it and trying to bring back to the house association sector in particular but not only that sector have been very good looking beyond Scotland to see what's going on and what would be useful and sometimes actually actually saying well we wouldn't do that would we but there are examples I think of where associations have come back from visits and say well this is the kind of thing that we could be looking to do and that's all about it ties into on your constituency you're the fuel fuel poverty ranges from suddenly 21 percent in some localities to 39 percent in some areas it's about what we can do to reduce to tackle that fuel poverty make homes in your constituents that are constituencies far more energy efficient which reduces fuel bills and improves, I don't know, the health of those living in the properties so if we can learn from others whether it's through federations or whether it's the other organisations with Pactorim in France who are lacked as agents for improvement in private sector as well as providing social housing you know it's looking to examples to see what can be used from elsewhere. I think that that's an interesting point and at ASLs in Scotland are at the forefront of delivering under new technologies and things that can bring the energy efficiency. One of the reasons they can do that is because they've got a guaranteed exit when they're building and that's what makes it more difficult for the homes for sale market where for example a lot of the modern methods of construction for off-site manufacturing it helps if you're building a lot of scale and it also helps you build fast so you could bring forward a development. I think that the lessons of the past few years have shown us that builders sometimes need to turn off the production tap when the market demand drops and the difficulty they would have if they built too much at scale too fast as the market's not there. So the RSL sector with the guaranteed exit because you've got your tenants desperately waiting to get into the home and also the whole life costing issues as well. You could perhaps take the investment back through the rents but bear in mind that the households will have lower fuel costs whereas as I keep going back to on this for sale market there's no incentive through the market value in terms of the return for the extra investment. Can I move on now to talk about types of energy efficiency because there is a very clear link between greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency and fuel poverty. We heard last week that by adding solar panels to homes and using hot water tanks to store energy we could make a massive difference because we could reduce the numbers of people that are in fuel poverty. Does the panel agree that this is a feasible thing to do and that it's something that we should be looking to expand? I'll start off. I mean I think it's one house of organisations should be looking at that too. You were private owners should be looking at that as well. The issue is the affordability of it, that upfront cost and it's also trying to get people to see the long-term benefits of it, that upfront cost will over a period of time lead to saving. One is an issue of resources, two is an issue of willingness to do something about it by the provider and three is an issue about the behaviours of it or the understanding, the awareness of individuals, whether that's tenants or whether that's owners about the long-term benefits of that. It's something that I would agree that we should be trying to encourage, but just like we should be looking at, as I said earlier, on heating or just like we should be looking at how we can still improve solid wall insulation, we need to be looking at more of those. From a new build point of view, I mean our members would say that, you know, let's look at the fabric of the building and make it more energy efficient rather than enforcing add-ons, which might not be as effective. The other thing is, you know, sometimes customers like to see, see it as a PV panel is something that you can see and you can feel whether you know how to use it and maintain it is another issue, but the capital cost upfront is definitely an issue that needs to be considered. I think that the difficulty is that customers are looking for guarantees in terms of the payback and I'm not sure whether that's something that could be guaranteed. Richard might be able to give me some more stats on that, but at the moment it's very difficult, for example, of a member of staff in a sales office to explain to why a customer might want to spend £5,000 or whatever it is extra on the home with PV panels and this is what you will get and also persuade in your mortgage lender to give you that extra funding to cover the extra capital cost. Travelling around Scotland on the train delights me when I see a solar panel on people's roofs, either PV panels making electricity or water heating panels, because, as you were told last week, you can make a very significant saving, you can basically make all of your own electricity on average and you can save 40 to 60 per cent on your water heating if you've got a roof facing the right way, so it's a thing that makes great deal sense, but it also tremendously disappoints me to see new houses being built with a lovely south-facing roof with no solar panels on them, so it's a huge missed opportunity and we need to find a way to get over that capital cost at the start because those people living in those houses are going to save lots and lots of money, we need to get people to look at that in a different way or find a way to actually spread the cost so that people are very happy to buy a house that has either salt or both solar panels on the top. I think there's also a broader question about renewable heat, so solar panels making hot water are one of the technologies that's important, but we also have biomass heating, so wood chip or wood pellet boilers, we also have several sorts of heat pump and the government is sort of enthusiastic, but at the same time we're spending money extending the gas grid, which is competition for those solutions, so we need to be clear about where we're really going on that, we have some reasonable targets for domestic renewable heat, we have a UK incentive scheme, but it's not really taking off in the way that we would like it to, the way it needs to, so we need some more clarity on that. There are also other methods to bring these benefits to people, so if you don't have a south facing roof or you're in a flat which doesn't have any ownership of your common roof then you can't take advantage directly, but there are solar co-ops for instance, so in Edinburgh there is brewing a solar co-op which will deliver probably on council buildings, solar panels making electricity, part of that scheme will be a community benefit fund, so renewable energy generated in the city will create a fund which will help people across the city to invest in energy efficiency or indeed invest in their own domestic renewables, so there are ways where you don't have the physical opportunity of having the right sort of roof or being able to install a heat pump of the right kind for you to benefit anyway because the community is doing something. Anyone else? Can the panel give me any examples of missed opportunities where we could have developed more sustainable housing in communities and infrastructure across Scotland? Anything specific or any suggestions to improve? We've both referred to earlier on, when there was a missed opportunity when Government cut the money that is going to new development for our house associations a couple of years ago, thankfully we've moved back from that because the impact of that meant that there were far fewer houses being developed on social rented side of it, therefore not meeting the demand across Scotland, so that was a missed opportunity and I think there are, it's nothing about in terms of the resources that have been allocated, you know, the 70 million we talked about earlier on but they'll show the shortfall in equal. If we don't find other resources as a missed opportunity and what we'll do is that we will in some way condemn people to continue to live in houses that are poorly insulated, that costs a lot to heat and who continue to be fuel poor and that's a kind of a range of people and that's not just about tenants, that's about owners, that's about rural areas, it is off your off grid properties, you know, there is a missed opportunity there in terms of trying to improve the wellbeing of many people in Scotland. And I suppose that it kind of confirms the point that you made about looking at the health benefits of improving housing and linking it to other portfolios, so you could say that that's a missed opportunity as well if more work was done on that. I think given the environment we've been in for the past how many years we've done extremely well to get where we are in terms of the building standards regime, I think there's a huge balance to be struck between, given how my outline the small impact that a new built home can make to the bigger picture if you like and we really need more homes and if it's a balance to be struck between a roof over someone's head or an extremely sustainable unit and I think the priority has to be increasing housing supply and we shouldn't underestimate how far we've already come so we are already extremely sustainable in terms of the homes that we are producing. I think on the sustainable transport fund we've missed enormous opportunities in the past few years by focusing on cul-de-sacred type dwellings which is why designing streets is such a welcome planning policy. We have almost designed out bus routes from some housing developments, we've built in a dependency on the car, we've failed to link up public transport especially new railway stations that have been opened to new build housing. That's been an error as a missed opportunity but it's where we are, we'll find a way through it. What's particularly welcome but slightly worrying is that designing streets doesn't seem to be getting delivered in the way that it could be delivered and we still are constructing new build housing that doesn't simply link to sustainable transport and the best example I can give you is if you're on the train between Glasgow and Edinburgh to look at Croy station and see how difficult it is for people living within sight of the station to walk simply to the station. That should be just dead easy. In any other country in Europe it would be easy, it isn't here and that's a missed opportunity. The example that I would use, I have a number of housing colleagues who work in Hong Kong and what's interesting in Hong Kong is that the housing manager works for the transport organisation because what they do is they think about the transport, they think about housing and they think about shopping as well and there are other countries that have done that and that's clearly something that we have not done whether it's from the peripheral estates that we've built in the 50s right through to now and I do think that just now it's protected some of the private sector developments, I would have said Cumbernauld generally but Croy would be another example of where we are building these states of housing where you need at least one car, if not two cars, to get out, there are very few facilities there. We don't do enough thinking, holistic thinking about what kind of communities we want, what do we need when we are building housing, when we are looking at schools, when we are looking at health services. We don't link that up enough. Okay, if we move on to digital infrastructure, Alex. Convener, as the convener said, the issue of digital infrastructure, could I ask the panel initially to basically give their judgment on the proposals contained within the draft budget in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and to other targets or objectives that the Government have? Can I start off just by thanking the convener and members for the opportunity to come in and give evidence today? Perhaps just a little bit of context about community broadband Scotland. We are run and operated by Harnett and Harnett Enterprise, who are delivering a national programme on behalf of the Scottish Government. Digital listening this morning to the evidence of my colleagues, digital is so cross-cutting, whether it's smart metering or reducing travel journeys, encouraging businesses and individuals to trade from home and consolidate and travel. It's so cross-cutting across the focus of the committee's deliberations. I think we welcome the increase contained within the budget for the next generation digital fund. We as community broadband Scotland are also working very closely with the Government. We've been identified as one of the key delivery partners to access European funding to help to go further. Our role is to reach the part that the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme won't reach. As members will be aware, there's £410 million being invested across Scotland. That investment will reach 84% of premises in the Harnett area and 96% of premises in the rest of Scotland. Our role is to work with communities to help communities to provide a wraparound service to help communities to deliver an increased broadband solution. The budgets that we currently have certainly won't enable us to do that for the whole 120,000 premises that will require our services across Scotland. However, we are working with colleagues in Government to access various strands of European funding and funding via BDUK through the superfast extension programme to increase that funding to bring this transformational connectivity to remote and rural Scotland. So, is the budget doing its job, do you think? It's certainly doing its job at the current time. So far, we've funded seven communities that have delivered 750 transformational connections. The challenge to date has been more about the business model within those communities, making sure that the solutions that are delivered are sustainable. The communities that we have delivered funding to to date have been very much self-starting as people within those communities who understand the technology that they deliver. They've had access to projects like Togola that have been running without our support for a long time in Noydart and projects like Hebnet in the Small Isles who have helped them to develop and we've helped them and we've helped develop them. We are running a pilot at the moment in the Argyll Isles which aims to aggregate demand. We've done an awful lot of supplier engagement which indicates to us that really you need around a thousand properties to get suppliers to come in and run a service over a community network and prevent the community from having to run up hills and fix masks themselves, which lots don't want to do. The response from the market is very encouraging. We're out to tender at the moment and this aggregated approach will then require additional funding in the next two to three years. We've identified sources of funding and we're working with Government partners at the moment to deliver that funding. The infrastructure and capital investment department will retain responsibility for how we develop this but one of the features of the budget is that the next generation digital fund has been transferred into the rural affairs food and environment portfolio to what extent does that affect the ability of infrastructure and capital investment to monitor the effectiveness of the current and future digital infrastructure programme? Operationally, we work very closely with both of the digital Scotland superfast broadband teams to ensure that what we are delivering is complementary to the £410 million that is being invested across Scotland. My understanding was that that's not a change from previous years, but I may be wrong on that. Most of the people that we are delivering to as community broadband Scotland are in remote and rural areas. So has that relevance to what you're doing? There is a relevance to what we are doing. I think that operationally, though, for us it has very little impact. We work very closely with the digital Scotland superfast broadband teams and ensure that we are leveraging that investment for the benefit of the community schemes that we are supporting, be they rural or near rural. Earlier, when we were discussing transport issues, I think that it was Mark Tate who gave us some suggestions about how broadband infrastructure could contribute to more efficient use of rural transport, but I wondered if there was anybody across the panel who had anything further to comment on how the use of digital infrastructure can actually help us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in transport. A key principle in thinking about sustainable transport is that we often think about, well, is someone going to drive or are they going to go on a bicycle or are they going to take a bus? The step before that, of course, is that are they going to step out the door at all? How do we give people access to the services that they want to access without them having to travel? Of course, digital is a huge help, sometimes a minor hindrance, but usually a huge help in that. Coming back to that principle, yes, digital is potentially a huge saver of carbon in terms of giving people access to the services that they now do not need to travel to. 15 years ago, people would drive to a video shop to get a video, if you remember videos, and then drive home and watch it. Now, all of that comes through their tellings, so that journey does not happen. They might drive for something else, but that journey does not need to happen because that service is provided in a way that means that you do not need to travel. More of that is very helpful. It is exactly what I was going to say. Homeworking, for example. Do you need to travel? Do you need to make a long journey for a two-hour meeting when you could have the two-hour meeting either at home or at your desk in your office, rather than travel to London or Bristol or indeed Edinburgh? That would be one. The second one, real-time information that is available on your smartphone, is excellent. It definitely makes public transport more relevant, easier to use. Finally, high-quality online mapping. What are the options that are available to make a short trip? We talked before about choice in transport. What are the choices that are available? The more we make those choices attractive and interesting and particularly for the generation who take smartphones as just normal, they are not exceptional. That is what you use all the time. By adding in some of the really excellent mapping apps that are there, it is very useful. On the sustainable transport front side, the budget for revenue funding is so very tight. It is quite difficult to develop that type of technology. If there was more slack, and there was more availability of revenue budget, you would see more online mapping available, I think, for a higher... It is largely regarded as something that you do not pay for, so the public expects it to be free. Therefore, it needs a budget to help it to grow. I think that there are lots and lots of examples in the communities that we have supported. For example, there is a community project in Lockheel net around Apple Cross, which now has 200 transformational connections to homes and businesses. Just small examples. There is a music recording studio there, and rather than use couriers to transport digital files backwards and forwards, which they had to do in the past. They now use file transfer over the internet, so there is one journey that just does not happen anymore. Just people doing home shopping. It is a very simple example, but it aggregates that journey into one journey to deliver to them. There is an example of a young student who used to have to travel into Fort William to use his grandmother's internet connection. It does not have to make that journey anymore. Back to the original question when we started, it makes it incredibly difficult to measure because people are making different choices about how they behave. It is difficult to measure how they would have behaved if they did not have that infrastructure in place. It is not the first time that I have asked that question to a panel, and I have to see every time I ask it, I get more and more interesting answers than I expected to get. Moving on slightly, last week, when we were questioning another panel, we heard the suggestion that opening up the main fibre infrastructure in Scotland to competition would be a big boost for expanding superfast broadband across the country. What are the panel's views on that idea? If I can just talk a little about the investment that is being made in the core digital infrastructure, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, there is an investment in a new fibre infrastructure that is 1200km of new fibre is being laid through the BT contract. 800km of that or subsea, it is quite an audacious investment. Where there is public investments into a new fibre infrastructure, the duct that that fibre has to go down has to have, I believe it is four channels. Three channels are available for competitors to come along and to basically blow their own fibre through that infrastructure, so there is open access to that new infrastructure that has been created. Is there more to be done though? There is always more to be done in the areas. I think in all honesty what we are fishing for here is, is the current legislation adequate to achieve that, or do we need to consider legislating in that area somewhere? I think the current legislation, which I think has you heard and discussed last week, which is a UK power, says that all public investment that is going into infrastructure at the moment has to be open access. Even if a community builds a mass that we provide funding for, that has to be open access, they have to open that up. The mobile infrastructure project, the mass that is being built have to be open access, so that is where we sit at the moment. Before we leave the subject and go on to anything else, is there anything in relation to the issue of digital infrastructure, which you want to suggest at this time, should it be in this budget and should it be in the next? Possibly highlighting the issue. I think that what has been said so far are the advantages. The difficulty is that there are still many particular those in social housing who are digitally excluded, and some of the work that some organisations have done, and I would highlight Coons Cross and some work that they did around looking at their own tenants and found a far lower percentage who were digitally included than they anticipated. I think that the whole welfare reform changes and that kind of online claiming has brought that to a head, so there is more that we need to do so that everyone has the benefits that we have talked about about being digitally included and the benefits that arise from that, but there are many people just now who are digitally excluded and we can do more around that. I know that you had last week about some good work that is going on in the Glasgow Housing Association around digital inclusion. The projects, for example, in Lockheil net, Apple Cross and other projects that we have been involved in, we have worked with other agencies like Citizens Online by Highlands and Highlands Enterprise to make sure that there is some training for people on how to use this infrastructure because the digital infrastructure won't transform much. It's how you use it that is transformational and we work closely with partners to ensure that where the infrastructure is installed, and I know with the main contracts as well, there's a lot of demand stimulation and participation work that's following the actual physical infrastructure well out. We heard earlier on in this session about the regulations that we have on new-build houses, but I think that the Rural Affairs Committee heard that it isn't absolutely necessary for new-build housing to have broadband connection. Should it have? The infrastructure provision, I would be surprised if any new-build homes being built for saleship, certainly, because of the demand from customers. It depends on where the homes are being built and what facilities and infrastructure there are in that area. I know that even the provision of homes in the public sector is something that they do look at. In terms of connections, they've got it in their design spec in terms of the connections and things that must go into the home, but again it very much depends on the infrastructure that's available. I think that's right. The investment that's going into this backbone infrastructure is substantial at the moment and that will enable things like that. I think that if you were to turn around to a house builder at the moment and say, you know, you have to provide superfast broadband for a new-build in the slight peninsula in Skye, they'd face the same challenges that we face in terms of getting that community connected because the infrastructure is not there just yet to support that. Okay. Anybody else got anything on broadband? No. Finally, then, if we move on to Jim, you've got some final questions. Good morning. The Government's climate change targets, obviously, are ones that we would all share in terms of their ambition to reduce emissions reduction targets by 42 per cent, by 2020 and 80 per cent, by 2050. However, if I've understood the written submissions and the evidence that you've given this morning, you don't have confidence that we can meet those targets based on the current budget allocations. In fact, Mr Dixon suggested that those allocations might be taking us in the wrong direction in terms of reducing carbon. What would we have to do, and I'm conscious that you'll be repeating some of the things you've said already this morning, but it's an opportunity to reiterate and to reinforce those messages, but what more do we need to do to get back on track and are you confident that we can make up the shortfall in terms of failing to meet the targets between 2010 and 2012? Thank you. There is no technical reason why we can't meet the targets. The target for 2020 in the act is at least 42 per cent, and we tend to forget about the at least. The difficulty we've had meeting the first three targets, which are the only ones we have results for, so we only have 2010, 2011 and 2012. The difficulties have been different each time, so there are good reasons to have some sympathy for the Government in terms of it was a cold winter and that makes more people use fuel at home, and some of the baseline numbers, so we are calculating how we are comparing ourselves to 1990, the 1990 numbers have been recalculated, which has actually made it harder for us to meet the targets. I would certainly have some sympathy that things have got a little harder than we thought they were, but there is no question that we are still not trying hard enough in terms of our policy effort to deliver. So this plan, the RPP2, as I suggested, it's a very impressive piece of work and probably no one else in Europe's got one of these. It doesn't actually meet all of the targets between now and 2020, but it gets pretty close, so it could be better. But as I said, we've got to deliver on all of it. And I think I said also that we know how to do this, so this plan here spells out lots of things we're already doing, and we know in housing, we know how to make people's houses much more inefficient, we know how to do solid wall installation for properties that are harder to treat, but we are not putting much money into that, and as Alan suggested, we're not compensating for the fact that the UK scheme ECO has deprioritised that and is spending less money, so we're not catching up in some areas where things are going a bit off track quite obviously. So, as I say, there is no technical problem in meeting this. The question is, do we put enough political will into making sure that the budget each year invests in the measures which reduce carbon and doesn't invest in too many measures which increase carbon like rows and bridges? Those are political choices, and we will all tell you that the choices which are pro reductions in carbon are also pro people because they're about stopping fuel poverty, they're about making people happier and healthier in their homes, they're about making people fitter because they cycle or walk more, they're making people actually more content because they don't have to own a car because public transport becomes better or more affordable, and they're able to make a journey that they used to make by public transport. So, there's a positive vision of the world where we are a low carbon society, the economy benefits, people feel better about themselves and the world because of that, and that's the direction we would like to go in. I've talked about in these tight budget times where we might look at the preventative spend principles and say that there are some big pots of money which could contribute to increasing some of the good things we already do to make them bigger because we will save in the health budget, for instance. So, although that's somewhat politically difficult territory to go into, if you can quite clearly say you will save this much because people will be healthier, because their homes are better or because they cycle and walk more, then you can say, well, actually we could take a bit of money from the health budget to invest in that because it's good for all of us in the long term. So, I think that's my overall message. We can get there, there's no problem getting there, but we are not on track to get there and this budget probably is not going to contribute enough to get us back on track. So, we can get there but we need to try harder, so I would like to see this budget improved before it's finally agreed by Parliament and certainly future budgets to show us much more of a step change which is what the UK Committee on Climate Change called for in policies on transport, energy, waste and housing, which will take us very clearly back on to track and make sure that we deliver on the 2020 target and set us on track for at least 80% and hopefully more by 2050. If we can take it that you've spoken on behalf of the panel on terms of reiterating what needs to be done, I'm interested in using the phrase that we're not trying hard enough in terms of our policy effort, could ask each of the panel members a question that I asked the panel last week, which was, if there was one innovation that you could choose in terms of policy development, legislation, investment in infrastructure or good practice, what would that be and what would the resource implications of that or the funding requirement be to implement that? I'll have a go at that one. First of all, I don't think you need to try any harder on the policy side. It's delivering the policies that's the thing that we need to do more of. I think that we have the policies, we have more than enough, they're excellent. One thing that could be done, I think, would be to follow the example of local authorities like Fife, who have made all residential and shopping streets 20 miles per hour. We can do that. I think that it would be the right thing for government to lead on it. It's fairly inexpensive to do. I think that the powers already exist and, if they don't, it may well be that the submission to the Smith committee would allow that to happen. We know that one of the major reasons that people are not attracted to making short trips by bicycle is that they find the road network in residential areas quite gladiatorial, really, and not very pleasant even when they're driving. If they're sitting in a bus, they're looking at traffic, they don't much fancy cycling either. In addition, pedestrians find the acceleration and deceleration of cars to get to the magic 30 miles per hour, really intimidating, particularly older people, and that's a disincentive to walk to. I think that if we're looking for a preventative measure that was very cost effective, making that a blanket right across Scotland, it'll be 20 when you're in a residential or a shopping area, it would be a very sensible, cost effective thing to do. Do you have a figure for how much it would be to implement that change? I don't, but I'm very happy to come back to the committee quickly with what I think that might be. I was going to say that one of the key things that we can do when indeed government is looking at is set standards. Whether it's the energy fishing standard in social housing or whether it's the minimum standards in the private sector, though that would take us on a kind of step change. Now that means that a number of things, one that means me to promote it, so if we're going to set standards in the private sector, and it's going to be in a few years time, we need to be telling people that, promoting that, giving them advice on that. There is a resource issue, but a resource issue may well be that. Government did consider a loan fund for private sector a number of years ago and stepped back from that. It may well be that that's the kind of thing that we should look at again as a loan fund, particularly for owners who are on lower incomes. It's how you incentivise that. You're setting standards, but you're incentivising that. One of the things that you could do that is look at the loan side. We have said to government that you need to consider that national lending unit again, as you did a number of years ago. From the housing new build point of view, I think that if we are failing on the RPP, it's simply that there would be an assumption for the number of homes that are being built and the contribution that they would make. Perhaps we're not meeting that, because clearly we're not building enough homes. I think that the budget as it stands has the potential to address that with the extra £125 million for housing supply for that to be used wisely and help to achieve the other important outcome, measurable in terms of increasing the number of homes being built. As I said previously, the use of LBTT would have been interesting to see how we could start stimulating demand for greener or energy-efficient homes. That would assist Alan's comment in terms of the private sector and owner occupiers and how we would get them started to think about their own homes and how they could make a difference. I think that making a loan fund available may be helpful, but my understanding from the loans that were available was that it was a green deal. My expertise is not existing homes. What would the size of that loan fund have to be to have the impact that you desire? Just in conclusion, the budget as it stands has the potential to assist housing supply, which will make our contribution work. We've already come such a long way in terms of building standards. They're already really high. We've already made a huge improvement. There's no particular innovation other than increasing the number that we're building. I think that the innovation needs to come in the existing homes where the huge challenge lies. I think that innovation in terms of broadband provision and particularly rural and remote broadband provision is not actually about the technology, it's about the business models, that support, the delivery of that broadband service. We are at it about opening up access to the pipe, as Professor Forman described it last year, that provides these broadband services. We are doing a lot of work with all people who own fibre across Scotland and we hope to announce a pilot where we will be announcing very shortly a pilot to access fibre, which is not core fibre that's being delivered to the BT contract but owned by another supplier, which will transform a community project and will deliver next generation broadband for that project. The innovation is around the sustainability and the business models for those communities to access next generation broadband. At the moment our costs are running around £800 per connection for the connections that we've enabled to deliver truly next generation connections then an estimate would be between £1,000 and £1,500 per connection. Is there a global cost that you can? I think for those premises who are not going to be connected to a next generation broadband infrastructure, there's around 120,000 of them, and we are working closely with the two. There are funds available through the Superfast Extension programme, through various European programmes, so it's not all of our community broadbanders has been identified as a key delivery partner for some of these funds, but it's also about extending the reach of the BT contracts that exist at the moment, and we're working with Government, with the Hines and Islands Enterprise team, the Digital Scotland team, and with COSLA to identify exactly how those funds will be best spent. It depends on the solution. Fibers at the premise is billions, a wireless next generation solution is less. Do you want the final word, Mr Dixon? Thank you. I'll come back to Alan mentioning the minimum standards for homes at the point of sale or rent. That would drive people who haven't been interested or haven't been bothered to think about energy efficiency to take that up in a much bigger way, and that could be linked not just to energy efficiency but carbon, so it would make them think about renewable energy in the home as well, where that was appropriate, and at a bigger scale it would make society think more about district heating. Minimum standards in the homes market I think would be transformational. Anyone else want to say anything? Members have got any more questions? All right, folks. Thank you very much for your contributions today. It's been very helpful, and we'll feed into our budget report. Can I suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave the room? We'll just resume the meeting then. Agenda item 3 is public petitions. This is to consider public petition PE1481 on blacklisting in Scotland. The committee is invited to consider a letter from the Scottish Government dated 8 October 2014 on what actions it wishes to take in respect of this petition. I invite the views or comments of members on this petition. Jim. I think that this petition has been incredibly valuable, and the petition has provided a very useful service in placing the issue of blacklisting very firmly on the policy and legislative agenda. As a result of the petition, a number of things have happened. The Government has developed guidance in collaboration with the trade unions. The Procurement Reform Scotland Act 2014, which was considered by this committee and debated both in the committee and in Parliament, gives ministers the ability to bring forward statutory guidance, which is about how public bodies must take blacklisting into account when awarding contracts. The Government, in the course of that legislation, gave a clear commitment to place guidance developed with the trade unions on statutory footing and also gave a clear commitment to bring forward secondary legislation. There is also the issue that is highlighted in the letter from the Deputy First Minister about the transposition of European procurement directives in this area. It looks as a result of the petition that there is a framework that has been developed that provides a number of ways in which the issue of blacklisting can be addressed. For those reasons, I think that the petitioners have done a very good job. I think that this committee has done its job, the petitioners have done their job, and I think that the obvious conclusion is that we should close the petition. In doing that, we would have to place on record a debt of gratitude to the trade unions, in particular to part Rafferty of United Harry Donaldson of the GMB and Harry through of UCAT for the work that they have undertaken. We would also have to place on record the fact that the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster has done very valuable inquiry into the issue, which has informed the debate about blacklisting. We would also have to recognise that there is on-going dialogue between the Scottish Government and the trade unions in taking the issue forward. However, because of the progress that has been made and because of the work that has been undertaken, I think that the obvious conclusion is that we should close the petition. I would agree with almost all of what Jim has said. There has been a large amount of work in terms of investigation done by the Scottish Affairs Committee. The Government has taken the agenda forward through the procurement reform bill, but there is still the issue of contracts being awarded just now through the NHS, the hubcos and local authorities to companies who have been involved in the practice of blacklisting, who have not come and carried out their remedial action in itself, as they will define as to what the Government expects that remedial action to be. I think that we would not be doing our duty if we were to close this petition when that work is still on-going, when the Government plans to undertake a consultation and then bring forward that secondary legislation. I think that we should keep that open until the process that the Government has committed to going through has been completed to see if we are then satisfied the aims and objectives of the petitioners. I absolutely agree with everything that Jim has said, apart from closing the petition. It is for the reasons that Mark has gone into. While there is still other work going on, until the guidance is put in a statutory footing, until the transposition of these other things is done, I would be reluctant to close this. It is so important that we need to keep a watching brief on it and keep it open until the completion of the consultation and the guidance has been put in a statutory footing. I am quite entitled to your opinion, but this is going to be done in the context of us looking at the procurement regulations. The other thing that I would point out is that we have given the witnesses a number of opportunities to respond to what we have done and they have not come back to us, which might make me think that, because they are being consulted to a great extent on drafting the guidance on the blacklisting that is going to be made statutory, that maybe that is the avenue that they are pursuing now, so that we probably could close the petition. Anyone else want to make any comment? As far as I can see, we have done our job as a committee. Is there any guidance that the clerks can provide in terms of what our ongoing role and involvement would be in this issue? It is very much for members to decide what their role might be in this. The procurement bill has gone a long way to answering some of the questions raised in the petitions, but it is very much for members to decide whether they think that it is worthwhile to keep open, obviously, minding that they are keeping a watching brief on the procurement regulations as they come in later on. Even since the procurement bill, there seems to have been massive steps taken in the fact that the guidance is going to be made statutory and the unions are involved in drawing up the guidance, so do we really need to keep it open? I am sure that the folk involved, Pat and others, would be the first to come back to us with another petition if they thought that it was required. I have some steer on this without having to go to a vote. Are we going to keep it open or shut it? Alex, you have not said anything. I am inclined to go with Jim, but that is not for any particular political reason, it is simply for the reasons that Jim stated. If I were to say when the procurement regulations come, because they will come as statutory instruments, we will make sure that we have time and everything to go through them properly. We do that anyway, but we might flag them up to make sure that members have read them properly and everything before they come. Would that be sufficient for Mary and Mark? I have been in touch with the petitioners about it. I know that there is still that particular concern about the contracts that are still being awarded to the companies who have been involved in blacklisting. If we were going to give that secondary legislation, do you consider that? I do not know whether a clerks grant can advise on whether we would scrutinise that purely as a committee or whether there would be a role for any evidence taking as part of that. We would do everything that we could to raise the context of the petition while those procurement regulations were going through, so that you are aware of how those regulations were affecting what had been put forward in the bill, so that it was very much at the forefront of your consideration. Would there be an opportunity for the petitioners to give evidence at that point? The committee could decide to invite them to give evidence if they thought that that was appropriate at that juncture. I would be happy to close on the basis that we are right in saying that we have received a letter from the Deputy First Minister and that we have looked to consult the petitioners at the point of that statutory guidance being lodged. Okay? Do you agree on that? Okay, that's fine. Thank you very much. We now move into private session.