 Y graf ystod y gallwn iddyn nhw i paesiaf gyfas BMW i ddiwedd y bwysigifiadau i gael I called Edward Mountain. Mae gwerth aglŷn I ask maen nhw i ddfinnu'r cwestiynaeth a'n ddodolygu'r i gydag bod ni'n defnyddio sydd mewn olygau i gael i gael i gael i amddalol i gael efoesiaf o'r llunsoch. I beth wrth ei ddoch i'r gofo'r eraill, ysgrifennu yn cydyddasio'n gweithredu by the chair of the Regulatory Review Group regarding its proposed Heat in Buildings Bill. Minister Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As part of delivering the new deal for business, we asked the Regulatory Review Group to examine the business and regulation impact of our proposals for a Heat in Buildings Bill, which is central to our work to tackle climate change. We welcome the independent views of the group, along with all the submissions of the consultation which closed on Friday. The group has highlighted the economic opportunity for Scotland in transitioning to clean heat and identified key issues around communications, supply chain and phasing on which we continue to work as we develop the bill. Edward Mountain. Probably not how I read it, Minister. What I read was unrealistic deadlines, no knowledge of the extent of the issue, unawareness of the ability of the market readiness and total incomprehension of costs to householders and businesses. Given that at the moment, only 20 per cent of the properties now on the market in Caithness reach EPCC, how does the Minister estimate that it will cost individual homeowners to reach EPCC? Well, as part of our consultation on the energy efficiency standards, we have proposed a simpler approach to achieving those energy efficiency standards, as Mr Mountain knows, based on applying only those measures from a prescribed list of measures that are applicable in each building. We are confident that in the large majority of buildings that do not currently reach EPCC, the measures required would be relatively minimal and cost effective. Obviously, as we go forward in the heat and buildings bill and the regulations that will follow, we will continue to keep our existing very generous package of grants and loans under constant review to make sure that the support available for people, householders, tenants, landlords and businesses matches the scale of the necessity of acting on reducing our emissions from heat and buildings. Edwin Mountain. Yes, I am aware of those five items that the suggested minister and you also suggested that you'd put a price cap on it. Well, let me help you if you're living in a two-bedroom drawer or property of traditional design and maybe 30 to 40 years old as a surveyor, I can tell you, I estimate the cost to get it to EPCC and to meet your requirements is in the region of £40,000. I'll repeat that, £40,000. So I'm concerned minister that you haven't really grasped the reality of the costs of the problem and you don't really care at this stage what the cost of business and homeowners will be. Will you commit to a tighter spending cap than £40,000 to homeowners to each EPCC and what do you consider minister to be a reasonable amount? We've set out, as I've said, proposals for making this easier, simpler and cheaper for householders and businesses to reach the standards that are set out in the proposals we've consulted on. We'll take account of all of the responses to the consultation and we'll continue, as Mr Mountain is aware, to consider the option of a cost cap. But I'm concerned, Presiding Officer, that Mr Mountain and some of his colleagues don't seem to grasp the urgency of the challenge. There simply is no pass to our next zero targets, which all political parties have committed to, without an ambitious programme on heat in buildings. This Government will continue with the action necessary to meet that high aspiration of our heat in buildings programme and will continue to make sure that there's a package of support available for people matching the support with the scale of change that's necessary and that would be brought forward in the regulations. I draw members' attention to my register of interests with respect to ownership of rental properties. No one doubts the minister's commitment to decarbonising heat in buildings, but commitment and delivery aren't necessarily the same thing. Developers in my constituency tell me that they're still permitted to build new houses with gas boilers and will continue to do so for the next two years at least. So can I ask the minister how many buildings have been decarbonised across the country since he took office two and a half years ago and at that rate, how long will it take to deliver net zero across the remainder of Scotland's housing stock? Well, I'm very pleased that last year Parliament did come together to pass the new build heat standard regulations, which come in from the 1st of April this year, preventing new buildings from being able to install polluting heating systems like gas boilers. Now, obviously, building warrants do last for up to three years, so at any point when that change was made, that would be the timescale over which it comes in. But we're acting a year ahead of the UK Government, and in fact the UK Climate Change Committee have urged the UK Government to match our timescale on that. In terms of the number of installations, it has been accelerating, but I'm afraid it would make no sense to give a projection of how long it would take at the current rate. The whole point of this is to continue the acceleration in the installation of zero emission heating systems. That's what we've been doing. We need to continue to see that, and the heat and building proposals are absolutely central, not only to seeing that increased demand, but stimulating investment in supply chain skills and capacity to make sure that it happens. The review group has said that consumers will be vulnerable to road traders, that there is not sufficient capacity in the market to install new products. What actions has he taken now to prevent road traders from entering the market? Minister. Well, in terms of the grant loan schemes, the Scottish Government-funded schemes, we do have a requirement on the skills and qualifications of suppliers that people choose to use. We're also exploring the option of a supplier-led scheme instead of the consumer-led scheme, or as well as the consumer-led scheme that we currently have. But the regulation of consumer protection rests with the UK Government. We continue to explore every option to discuss these issues. I've seen Mr Lumson shaking his head at that. He wishes these issues to still continue to rest with the UK Government, so it does him no credit to suggest that we shouldn't acknowledge where they have power on consumer protection they need to act. We stand ready to work in a constructive spirit to see improvements on consumer protection, but Mr Lumson cannot expect us to exercise powers that he insists should remain at Westminster. That question wasn't answered directly by the Minister about reliable, trustworthy companies. What work is the Scottish Government going to do to help fund support to deliver the skilled staff that we're clearly going to need right across Scotland so that there are affordable solutions, both for energy and heating options, given the £33 billion of investment that is expected to be required and the current cost of living crisis that householders in both urban and rural areas have? Where is the Scottish Government going to step up to help tackle this problem? I recently took part in a round table with industry stakeholders across the supply chain, and the very clear indication that they gave to me was that what industry needs to be able to invest not only in skills and qualifications but also in the capacity of the supply chain is demand assurance, unlocking that demand, and that's very much what the heat and buildings proposals set out to achieve. We do need to ensure that high standards are met. Some of the regulation of consumer protection, as I've said, rests with the UK Government in terms of our own powers. We do ensure that the grant and loan schemes require that people use qualified and trusted installers. We also work with UK-wide bodies like the MCS, which will be relaunching its criteria later this year to reduce some of the barriers to certification for small and independent contractors. Last year, the clean heat industry wrote to the First Minister urging the Scottish Government to move forward with its heat and buildings bill as soon as possible. It said that, to meet the challenge and maximise opportunities, industry needs certainty and that new standards would allow home owners, landlords and supply chains to understand what they need to do and buy when. Given that clear steer from industry, does the minister agree that calls from opposition parties for delay in dilution go against what businesses are telling us they need to deliver the heat transition with the urgency that's required to tackle the climate emergency? Mark Ruskell is absolutely right. The single message that is most consistent from both industry and from the experts like the UK Climate Change Committee is that government needs to give certainty and clarity. That's what the heat and buildings programme and the proposals we're consulted on will achieve by regulating, by passing legislation. This Parliament will give a very clear signal that it is worth the while of businesses in this sector to invest. As many of them want to do, many of them know that there are high quality careers to be had in Scotland not only doing the work of installing, but doing the work of innovating as well. Businesses are ready to go on this. They need our clarity and support about the long-term direction of travel. That's what our legislation intends to achieve. Any dilution, delay or deflection, which some opposition members seem to be wishing to have, would only undermine the opportunity to get the maximum economic benefit for Scotland from this heat transition, as well as the carbon emission reductions. The minister referred earlier to the concerns around supply chain capacity. Given the steep rise in demand that's anticipated, does he recognise there are particular issues in terms of supply chain capacity in rural and island areas? What action is the Government taking to ensure that that capacity is there to meet the future demand? I recently took part in a meeting specifically looking to get the views of rural community stakeholders from rural, remote and island communities who have made very constructive proposals. In fact, the benefits of the heat transition are very often even more significant in remote, rural and island communities. Many of them are not on the gas grid, for example, and are paying higher prices for energy. The transition to zero emission heating can save them money as well as saving emissions. One of the examples that I referred to a few minutes ago of reducing the barriers to accreditation under the MCS scheme is one of the things that we can do working with other organisations to make sure that in those communities, small businesses and independent contractors who are currently active in this field are able to be accredited and that will increase the ability of businesses that have their roots in those local communities and a degree of local trust being able to undertake that work. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Creative Scotland have awarded £85,000 to the project RAIN in light of concerns about its explicit content. Thanks to Neil Bibby for this topical question. I share the concerns that have been raised, including by Creative Scotland itself. I can see no way where what has been described should be in receipt of public funding. As members are aware, the Scottish Government has no role in the decisions of Creative Scotland for the funding of individual projects. However, Creative Scotland, I understand, is rapidly reviewing the allocation, as it has been clear that what has been reported simply does not meet what the funding was applied for. I look forward to Creative Scotland sharing its conclusions and I will update members, including Neil Bibby, soon. The Sunday Post has published shocking revelations about the explicit nature of the RAIN project. The project previously received £23,000 and has now attempted to recruit vulnerable people, including the disabled, at £300 a day to participate in sex acts so extreme that it was provided with psychological aftercare, and I will not repeat them here. I agree with what the minister said about not a penny of public funds should be used to support that. Does he agree that all money distributed should be clawed back? Creative Scotland has also stated that it did not know how explicit the project was to be. In order for the public to have confidence in their funding processes, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the RAIN's general funding applications should be published in full? I thank Neil Bibby for his follow-up question. I think for the help of colleagues understanding what is currently under way at the present time, I think it is useful to understand the statement that has been released from Creative Scotland, which says that, while they support freedom of expression and artists being able to push the boundaries of radical performance, the project RAIN is considerably more explicit in its execution than was indicated in the application received to our open fund. As such, we are reviewing this award and will be discussing next steps for the applicant and with the other partners in the project. I think that the specific queries that Neil Bibby has raised are very apposite, but what I would wish to do in the first instance is await the conclusions from Creative Scotland. I think that he and colleagues right across the chamber understand the importance of the arms-length and independent nature of Creative Scotland and on the basis of what is then concluded in the review. No doubt further questions will follow us to the consequences. Neil Bibby. It is absolutely right that ministers do not determine individual funding applications, but it is also absolutely right that there needs to be openness and transparency from Creative Scotland who do, and therefore the application should be published in full. It has been reported that the filming was to involve live sex acts and to be done in outdoor public places in the Highlands. There are clearly questions to be answered, not just about the appropriateness of what was planned with public funds, but also about the legality. Does the minister agree that this should be examined, and more generally there should be a review of funding criteria and new guidance issued for future applications so that this cannot be allowed to happen again? I have absolutely no doubt that these proceedings are being watched closely by Creative Scotland. I also have no doubt that the points that he has raised thus far are ones that he will be listening to closely. I await the conclusions of their review into the matter and any outstanding questions that have been raised by colleagues in relation to how Creative Scotland has conducted the review, the conclusions that they have made and the actions that they will take, and I will be happy to share those conclusions, obviously, with Neil Bibby and other colleagues. If there are any wider lessons that need to be learnt, including legal issues, then those are ones that will need to be broached. Will the cabinet secretary inform us when he first learned about the funding issues and be transparent regarding the content of the application by ensuring that it is published in full, and does he agree that Creative Scotland should urgently review all decision-making processes on funding applications? There are a number of questions in Alexander Stewart's query. First, I learned about the issue at the same time as everybody else did over the weekend. I am pleased that Creative Scotland has acted swiftly in terms of announcing its review. I, up until now, have been pleased that there has been cross-party consensus in the chamber in relation to the fact that Creative Scotland is an arms-length and independent organisation. I am sure that everybody is very keen that politicians and Government do not stray into the areas of creative expression. Having said that, we have an arms-length organisation that has very clear rules about how public funds are to be applied for and for their purpose. That is currently what is being looked at. I expect that Creative Scotland will be reporting back quickly, and no doubt we will come back to discuss the conclusions of that review as soon as we learn them. Lamu Mewdeff Festival had its funding application turned down by Creative Scotland last year. The grant application for it was said to make up 23 per cent of the festival's budget. The future of the festival now hangs in the balance yet. 85,000 is being awarded to explicit projects such as this. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary what specific measures are in place to monitor and regulate how and why funding is awarded by Creative Scotland and how it ensures that culture remains accessible for all? No doubt there are a great number of cultural projects where people could say, why has this been funded and not that. In a case like that, it is perfectly understandable that people would wish to understand how a decision could be made to support such an applicant and then deny it to others. Those are questions quite rightly for Creative Scotland. The leadership of Creative Scotland regularly attends evidence sessions of the Scottish Parliament Committee that has oversight over culture, external affairs and the constitution. No doubt those can be asked of creative Scotland decision makers. I think that Foisal Choundry and I are both in agreement that it is important that we have arm's length respect for the work of Creative Scotland. I hope that he agrees with me that it is a good thing that a review has been instigated extremely quickly. I hope that that review and a decision will follow swiftly too. No doubt we will come back to discuss what emerges from that review and we will be able to weigh up the queries that he has raised about the relative priorities about which projects are supported. First of all, I pay tribute to the investigative journalism of the Sunday Post. They are repeatedly coming up with interesting and pertinent stories, which I think is only to be commended in the illustrative of the strength, the need for a strong free press. I agree with the cabinet secretary when he talks about politicians and government not straying into the areas of creative expression, but the issue of how public money is spent is germane to the very purposes of this Parliament. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can explain how much due diligence is applied by government in relation to the sums of money it dispenses to other bodies and what measure of value for money is applied. Cabinet secretary, I can give one very real example of how that has worked recently, because Creative Scotland was in charge of dispensing very significant sums of financial support during Covid. The results of that process are a matter of public record and I think everybody associated with Creative Scotland can be proud of the way in which those funds were dispersed and the probity of the way in which that happened. This is a case that has been raised quite rightly and Stephen Kerr has praised the journalists that have been at the heart of it and I join him in that. I'm sure he appreciates the point that I've now made a number of times, which is it's important for Creative Scotland as an arms-length organisation to be able to do its work and they are doing that in review now, that the leadership of Creative Scotland does come regularly to this Parliament, gives MSPs the opportunity to ask about the processes that are in place and he will also appreciate that I as a cabinet secretary with a culture department that works very closely with Creative Scotland also wants to satisfy itself that all of these processes work in the accordance with the way in which Creative Scotland and arms-length organisations are supposed to operate. That is under continuous review, we will look at the conclusions of the investigation into this particular incident and if there are any wider issues that need to be taken on board by Creative Scotland or indeed the Scottish Government or lessons to be learned that is absolutely what will happen. Thank you that concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a debate on motion 12450 in the name of Paul MacLennan on housing cladding remediation Scotland Bill at stage 1. We'll just allow a moment for front benches to organise themselves and I'll take this opportunity too to invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons.