���˿���

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

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

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

I will follow on from my colleague with a quick question on the subcontracting of big contracts. As Murdo Fraser alluded to, I have more than a passing interest in public procurement. I have heard that, in the construction industry, big companies win contracts and then subcontract out the work completely. All that they are really doing, therefore, is taking a margin off the top. The issue is about local authorities having one contract to deal with, rather than six or seven. Do we still have to address that?

We have added in square pizzas and round plates—who can see the problem there at all? [Laughter.]

You mentioned that we focus so much on price. The bottom line is that the way in which we produce food in this country, given the costs that are associated with that, even down to paying the living wage or above, means that looking at price as the only, or the main, objective puts our producers at a disadvantage. The whole-of-life cost could include the impact on the environment from reducing the number of miles from field to fork and the health impact of offering highly nutritious food in our schools and hospitals. We are not looking at that, are we?

Thank you—I will leave it there.

The witnesses have highlighted very well the administrative burden of bidding for public sector contracts, especially for SMEs and newer companies. Have initiatives such as the quick quote system had any impact on reducing red tape?

Yes—I would like to ask one more question if I could, thank you.

First, I have to question whether the nutritional value of food in schools has been improved under the rules and regulations.

Earlier, Colin, you alluded to the difference between procuring an information technology system, which might involve one supplier supplying a service worth tens of millions of pounds, and procuring from your members who are individual food producers, who must go through the processing of the food—sending it away or whatever. There has been lots of legislation on procurement since 2014, but I am not convinced that it has improved anything. Does the current framework allow for the difference between the big IT procurement stuff and having multiple suppliers for other things? Going back to food procurement specifically, it is just easier, from a local authority perspective, to have a single point, rather than having to procure lots of different local produce. That can be done—we have seen it being done in local authorities—but does the current framework perhaps struggle with it?

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

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

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

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

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