I am sorry. I will speak through the chair, Presiding Officer.

The computer comes up with the figures. To insulate a property, the existing walls have to be taken off and reframed, and Kingspan insulation has to be put in, which means that the electric points have to be moved, which means that the radiators have to be moved. To insulate the floor, the floor has to be lifted, if possible—if there is space underneath.

When it comes to insulating the roof, many houses that predate 1950 have coombed ceilings, which means that the roof cannot be insulated without putting Kingspan in. That reduces the height of the ceilings, which might make rooms that cannot be lived in. New lighting has to be put in and, obviously, new windows and, let us be honest, those cost £1,000 a window, or perhaps £2,500 if it is a bay window. The boiler must be replaced, too, costing £7,500; probably, with all the pipework, the cost is closer to £10,000.

In my opinion, given some 15 years behind me as a surveyor, for most houses all that work is going to cost about £40,000. Where are we going to get that money from? Six thousand public sector houses in the Highland region have an EPC rating lower than C. Simple maths tells me that we would need £252 million to pay for them to get to EPC rating C.

That is not realistic. I am asking for a realistic assessment of how we can get there. It is fine to smile and to say, “Let’s scrap fossil fuel boilers by 2032,” but why throw away something that works? Why throw away something that delivers heat in a house, and which is probably cost effective, just to reach a target? Fergus Ewing, I think, said that it might not be just the boilers that get scrapped; it might be the Government, if it fights that policy through.

In summary, Presiding Officer, we need to come up with fair and equitable plans that give the public the chance to own those plans. If they are given the chance to own a plan, they will take it forward. My real concern is that there is a cost to relying on being at the cutting edge of everything. That may mean that, in years to come, we have to repeat the whole process because that “cutting-edge” technology is no longer up to date.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the rebuke that you delivered just before Mr Swinney spoke was obviously directed at me. I therefore find myself in the uncomfortable position of being in the same boat as Alex Rowley. Although I am sure that he will welcome me, I apologise to the chair and to the cabinet secretary, before she leaves the chamber, for being slightly late.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a farmer and a landlord.

I do not believe that anyone in the chamber denies that climate change is a real threat to our future. Reducing global warming is an absolute imperative, but to achieve the changes that we need we have to take the public with us. Hitting the public in the pocket and making the changes overly expensive is not helping. Overriding local decisions, be they on wind farms or electric lines, does not help either.

I will in a minute.

I say to the Government that leading the way comes with a risk, because cutting-edge technology is often not mature enough and needs to be further enhanced. Enhancement then needs replacement, which leads to additional cost. The questions that we are pondering in the committee that I am in are about electrification or use of hydrogen; solar power or wind power; and onshore or offshore wind farms. All those have to be put into the melting pot. I have come to the conclusion that all of them play a part, as do some of our other energy generation schemes such as nuclear power, which seem to have been discounted.

I will give way to Mr Ruskell if I can have some extra time, Presiding Officer.

I did not mean to kill all the conversation.

I presume that, when you took over the rolling stock as part of the nationalisation, there was a contract for leasing the stock, which included HSTs. When is the first time that you can get out of that contract?

So, we are stuck with HSTs until 2030 because, otherwise, you will be in breach of contract.

So, there might be an incredible cost if we try to do that before 2030.

The next question is from the deputy convener.

Ben Macpherson and Douglas Lumsden have questions and Ben has been waiting quite patiently, so if your question does not relate to buses I would rather come to Ben and Douglas before you.

In my book, comparing oneself to another person and saying that you are better, although you are not reaching the standard to which you aspire, is not really a measure of performance.

I go back to the question. The public performance measure—not the public satisfaction measure—has not been met since nationalisation. Increasing performance was one of the reasons given for nationalisation. When do you think that you are going to achieve the target? What happens if you have not achieved it in, say, six months’ time? There is nowhere to go after nationalisation, is there?

Bizarrely enough, minister, I have been listening to those assurances since 2016, since I first joined the committee that dealt with transport and trains. I heard them from Alex Hynes, when he was in charge of Abellio, and I have now heard them from you. I am sure that we will come back to that issue in six months’ time, but on that note, I move on to the next questions, which I believe are from Monica Lennon. I think that it is Monica next, is it not?