Chamber and committees

I have a question regarding the current planning and building standards systems that we have in place. How can they help to turbocharge and take forward retrofitting activity? Is there anything from your experience that you think is also preventing us from moving forward at a faster pace?

Good morning. I will ask a couple of questions about infrastructure.

The witnesses might be aware of the statutory repairs scandal that we saw in Edinburgh in previous times. What problems might arise when trying to retrofit mixed-tenure blocks of flats? Do the witnesses believe that the heat in buildings strategy provides sufficient clarity on the Scottish Government’s approach to the mix of tenure in buildings throughout Scotland, especially tenements? I ask Aaron Hill to start.

That is really interesting and is something that we all want to pursue—especially the point about the potential for interest-free loans for people who own their properties.

I want to ask Derek Logie to cover that question and answer this one. Are the current planning and building standards systems helping to facilitate the retrofitting activity?

I have some questions about engagement with tenants, specifically around future decision making on such projects. How is Southside Housing Association taking that forward? What is best practice on it?

What evaluation is likely to take place to look specifically at how the work can benefit the health of residents? Professor Gibb mentioned that the evaluation period will not take in winter, but I wonder how that will measured.

Good morning. I will ask you a question that I asked the previous panel, on problems with mixed-tenure blocks and properties and on how retrofitting can be pursued in such cases. Could you outline your views on that, and could you tell the committee about any experience that you have already had with that as a barrier that we are likely to encounter in meeting the targets?

You did it well. Does anyone else want to come in on my second question? If not, I have a tiny final question in relation to unintended consequences. I want to go back to some of the points that Derek Logie raised about rural fuel poverty. He mentioned that 15 per cent of the rural population in Scotland lives in social housing, which makes addressing issues more difficult. The recent decision that ministers have taken to halt the installation of energy-efficient oil and liquefied petroleum gas heating systems will clearly have an impact and does not present many alternatives for people who are off grid. Do panel members have any concerns about that or any other issues that they want to touch on?

Research has found that uptake of the warm home discount in Scotland is relatively low. What are the key reasons for that, and how can that benefit be made more widely accessible to those experiencing fuel poverty? Perhaps I could bring Frazer Scott back in first.

I want to get the witnesses’ views on the financial level of the benefit. The Citizens Advice Scotland written submission says that receiving the warm home discount has “no material impact” on the rates of fuel poverty for the households that receive it. Is it the witnesses’ view that the discount is not at the right level or that it is not being effectively targeted in order to reduce fuel poverty? That question goes back to Alastair Wilcox, because his submission pointed towards the discount not having that impact. Is that because of the current level?

The Parliament has also investigated dog breeding and puppy farming. Will such matters form part of the future review, or will they be able to be recorded in the system that we have been talking about, when it is up and running? Sadly, there is also often a link between people having dangerous dogs and the breeding of such dogs.