Chamber and committees

I want to pick up on what Tony Lankester said about the economic and tourism benefits of arts events. I hasten to add that I do not believe those to be the only benefits that culture provides. I will also pick up on Anne Lyden’s point about 97 per cent of collections not being on display. I offer no criticism of that, because I understand that that is how museums and galleries have to work.

I am curious to know whether you all feel that the financial or budgeting climate in which you operate promotes loans of art, whether it be of art works or objects in museum collections on loan around the country, or on tour around the country, in a way that brings cultural benefits, and the economic benefit that you described, to other bits of the country.

You mentioned exhibitions, but I was also thinking about the long-term loan of objects and artwork around the country.

Thank you, convener. I will do that, but I will first make an observation on something that Vicki Swales and others have said. It is interesting that people talk about the contradictions that are probably not there and about the tensions that are there in some of those questions. It occurred to me, when people were talking about that issue, that there is a lot of consensus, too. It is interesting, for instance, that Scotland is the only country in the UK that still recognises production through basic payments. It is interesting that there is a recognition by all parties that agriculture is a biological process and that there will be some emissions from it. It is also interesting to have a conversation like this, which can build on some of the areas where there is consensus.

My question is about indicators, and my interest is in less favoured areas, given how much of Scotland is less favoured areas. People will not be surprised to hear that I am specifically interested in the issues that have been raised by crofters. For instance, are the indicators that we have flexible enough to cope with the different land types in Scotland? I am talking about those people who work in less favoured areas who might be crofters and certainly those who are working in the production of store animals.

My question continues the discussion that we had when I kicked off about less favoured areas. Clearly, change will come to the agriculture sector over the coming years, and everywhere will be part of that. Do people have a view about whether the options that exist for change in agriculture are more limited in some of our less favoured areas than in other places? Do we have to talk about change in a different way in those parts of the country?

I know that you are not, but it is worth putting that on the record. It is something that this committee has had concerns about in the past.

I have a brief observation on what David Thomson said. The committee has discussed it before. You mentioned that supermarkets offer people a wide choice—but it is a range of items that the supermarkets have chosen and it is a choice that, compared to supermarkets in other European countries, in some cases does not involve very much Scottish or local produce.

I can really only say that the Government has not reached a decision about a timescale that I can give you today, but we are working our way through the consultation. I have mentioned some of the issues that it is important to get right and some of the unintended consequences that we want to avoid, but I cannot give you a timescale beyond that.

As I said, I cannot answer direct questions about the Housing (Scotland) Bill—you would need to ask another minister to answer them—but you have raised important questions. The Government is alive to the need to balance the rights of tenants and consumers with the need for investment in the system. That is the focus of that bill.

The purpose of the new EPC system is not to force, or to require by law, landlords or others to make changes, but we hope that it will assist people in moving towards them. Ultimately, it is in everyone’s interests for people in Scotland, whether they are house owners or private or social tenants, to be warm and healthy, and we have work to do to get to that point. As I said, the purpose of the EPC system is to provide information to people, because it is right that potential tenants of a private landlord are aware of how warm their house is likely to be.

Ensuring confidence is very important, which is one reason why we are not just changing the information that is available to people but seeking means to ensure that it is accurate and to eliminate anything fraudulent from the system. For instance, as I mentioned, we are reducing the validity of EPCs from 10 years to five years to make them more accurate. We are also introducing tighter governance arrangements for EPCs and measures on the competence and training of EPC assessors who operate in Scotland. Legitimate concerns were raised, so we are ensuring that we do both those things.

As you mentioned, we allocated £1.3 billion in funding. To be candid, I would say that the elephant in the room is that, some months ago, the Scottish Government faced quite a task in reaching what was euphemistically called a path to balance. We are now in a better position, but there was a point at which getting there did not look simple or straightforward. The member will be very well aware of why. However, we have, as I said, committed that money, and we are confident that we are going to make use of it. It is also important to say that all the money has been committed to energy and efficiency projects, which will directly benefit people by addressing fuel poverty and making their houses more sustainable.