Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill

The Convener

Before we begin item 3, I put on the record my thanks to all those people who came to meet us at Lochee community hub in Dundee to talk about their experiences of fuel poverty. Alongside hearing from experts such as the witnesses we have before us today, we also hear from those who have lived experience. We are grateful that so many people took the time to come to meet us on Monday.

Today is the first day of stage 1 of the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill, and we will be taking evidence on the bill from now until the end of December before reporting to Parliament early in the new year.

I welcome today’s witnesses: Elizabeth Leighton, director of the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland; Craig Salter, a policy officer at Citizens Advice Scotland; Linda Corbett, an energy adviser at East Ayrshire citizens advice bureau; Norman Kerr, director of Energy Action Scotland; and Dion Alexander, the chairman of the Highlands and Islands housing associations affordable warmth group. I thank you all for your submissions. We go straight to questions.

What is your view on the main drivers of fuel poverty and the degree to which each driver contributes to overall fuel poverty rates and levels?

Norman Kerr (Energy Action Scotland)

We have mainly talked about three drivers. We have only really started to consider the fourth driver within the past year or two. The extent to which how energy is used in the home is a contributory factor has not been well measured or defined, although we know that behaviour change can reduce bills by around 10 per cent if people amend how they use appliances or set their heating. It is a contributory factor.

The measurement of energy efficiency across Scotland has been drawn from the Scottish house condition survey. We have seen energy efficiency levels rise over a period of time.

Scottish Government statistics have shown that increasing income has a better outcome than increasing energy efficiency in the shorter term. However, given that fuel prices continue to increase, we need to—pardon the pun—insulate homes against rising costs. The more energy efficient the home, the less energy it will use.

The Convener

You are allowed to make one pun per visit.

Norman Kerr

Good. I declare that as my pun.

It is a complex interaction and, just because we sort one element, that does not mean that the others will fall into line.

Craig Salter (Citizens Advice Scotland)

I second what Norrie Kerr has just said. I will give a bit of insight into the impact of behaviour change. In the past year, we have carried out a lot of research into the support needs of people who are in fuel poverty, particularly the forms of support that people who rely on electric heating require. We know that there are high levels of fuel poverty among people who have electric heating because of high costs.

One of the things that we see in that research is that how a lot of people use their heating has a big impact on their heating bills. We see a lot of people who have storage heating but do not necessarily know how to use it, and a lot of people who have time-of-use tariffs and dynamically teleswitched tariffs and meters that they do not necessarily understand, so they use their heating at the wrong times. That perhaps tells us that behaviour change is complex and can apply differently in different circumstances. It is definitely an area in which we need to get more evidence, but it has a big impact on certain groups.

Elizabeth Leighton (Existing Homes Alliance Scotland)

We welcome the fact that the strategy is looking at all four drivers of fuel poverty. We particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to removing poor energy performance as a driver of fuel poverty. Doing that is within the powers of the Scottish Government and it is high time that poor energy performance is removed as a reason for fuel poverty. We can do that; there is no technical reason why it is not possible. It is a matter of investment, planning and, as we know, working on behaviour change to maximise the impact of whatever measures are put in place.

At the same time, we recognise that work has to be done across all the drivers of fuel poverty, which is why we have argued that any progress reports, measurements and targets should reflect the four drivers and should report on outcomes across the board.

The Convener

Before I bring anyone else in, I want to mention something that you talked about. The Scottish Government has limited powers in areas such as fuel prices and household income. Is it wise to set a fuel poverty target when we do not have control of all the drivers?

Elizabeth Leighton

The Scottish Government can push the boundaries of its powers, which have grown in the past few years. It has more powers in social security and it is exploring how it can affect energy prices through supporting community energy or a publicly owned energy company. There are areas—even reserved areas—where we can push the boundaries. The Government can set those targets, and ambitious targets drive innovation and investment and provide certainty for the supply chain to invest, which can help to drive down prices in the longer run. We believe that ambitious targets are achievable.

The one thing that I thought that I had to say today is that we have to be sure that this bill will mean that this is the last generation that will live in fuel poverty. If we cannot walk away from this session confident that that is what we are setting out to achieve with the bill, we will have failed.

Linda Corbett (East Ayrshire Citizens Advice Bureau)

I would like to talk about fuel prices. At Citizens Advice Scotland we very much welcome the cap on the charges for prepayment customers and the safeguard tariff that is being rolled out, particularly for those on the priority services register. However, I think that it falls short of the mark, when it could actually be a very useful tool to help to pull people out of fuel poverty. At the moment, when someone is on the priority services register, it is because of vulnerabilities in relation to health conditions. However, we are doing a disservice to those who are financially vulnerable but who do not necessarily have health conditions by not allowing them to be included in the register which, as I said, opens up access to the safeguard tariff. There is definitely work to be done on our understanding and definition of vulnerability. We should look not only at health and age but at how quickly people can move from one state of vulnerability to another, and at how that can compound their experience of fuel poverty.

Norman Kerr

I want to mention a couple of things. The Scottish Government is now taking more powers over social security and—although it does not control energy price—over the energy company obligation and through that, over the warm home discount scheme. The Scottish Government administers, and could change, that scheme. For example, it might want to lift the level that is applied in a remote and rural area and reduce it in an urban area, so that the same amount of money is spent. There can be a recognition that, in certain parts of Scotland, it is more difficult to heat your home.

The second thing that I want to mention is not particularly new. The social security powers in the mid-1980s acknowledged the needs that are associated with certain house types. Some members may be familiar with bits of Glasgow and, in particular, with the Barrowfield estate, which was designated as a hard-to-heat estate; everyone on that estate received an uplift per week over the winter season through their social security payments. Therefore, there is a recognition that additional payments can be made using social security powers to mitigate fuel prices in winter.

The Scottish Government may not have access to all the drivers, but it has access to some that would certainly mitigate fuel costs in particular.

Dion Alexander (Highlands and Islands Housing Associations Affordable Warmth Group)

I have one specific response on the wisdom of fuel poverty targets. In our submission, we say that it would be helpful to continue to measure extreme fuel poverty. At the moment, there is basic fuel poverty which, under the old definition, is having to spend 10 per cent of income to keep your home warm, as you know. Extreme fuel poverty is having to spend twice that or more. In our submission, we ask that extreme fuel poverty should continue to be measured, because it will provide a guide to what is going on in the elimination of the worst forms of fuel poverty. We say very firmly that extreme fuel poverty is intolerable in a civilised society and that it should be eradicated as quickly as possible—within five years.

As for the main target on fuel poverty, we completely take the point that not all the drivers are within the powers of the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, we think that it should be possible to reduce the level to about 5 per cent. You are always going to have people popping in and out of fuel poverty, no matter where you get to, so 5 per cent is not an unreasonable figure for basic fuel poverty.

To go back to the main drivers of fuel poverty, I imagine that we will discuss in more detail the question that we have raised in the rural and remote rural context about the level of disposable income and why the definition of fuel poverty needs to reflect that properly through the minimum income standard, which we support. A driver of fuel poverty is the lack of trusted local support in some areas, particularly remote rural areas. It is quite revealing to look at the map that the Scottish Government produced of the home energy efficiency programmes for Scotland area-based schemes—HEEPS ABS—successes and otherwise for 2015-16, for example. That shows some surprising gaps in areas where we would have expected there to have been high activity.

To say that there is a lack of trusted local support does not mean that the support is not excellent where it exists or that there are not good, helpful national services. However, what works best in solving the problems in remote rural areas is having people available to go into the homes of people who would not otherwise think that they deserved any help at all, such as the old lady who lives in a croft house at the end of a lane somewhere. I hear many such examples in which that availability has made a difference.

That begs a question about the lack of reliable funding to maintain trusted support. People are looking around for funding in a hand-to-mouth way—there is a lot of that going on. An effective new fuel poverty strategy should look seriously at the public funding commitment to ensure that the proper outreach is provided in areas in which it is most needed.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Before I get to the questions that I wanted to ask, I want to ask Linda Corbett a follow-up question. She mentioned the safeguard tariff. As the convener said, three of us visited Dundee this week. We met a lot of people who prepay their electricity and gas, and we heard about issues relating to that. What is the safeguard tariff?

Linda Corbett

It is a tariff that is set for credit customers. Prepay is slightly different. With prepay, there is a cap on the maximum amount that can be charged per unit of gas and electricity. The safeguard tariff is essentially the same, but it is for people on a credit meter as opposed to a prepay meter.

Graham Simpson

That is useful.

I have a couple of linked questions about the bill, so the witnesses can answer them in a linked way. What do you think of the 5 per cent target? Should the target be more ambitious? That target has to be achieved by 2040, which is 22 years away. I think that all of you said in your written evidence that that is not ambitious enough. The two issues are linked. What do you think about the 5 per cent target and the date of 2040?

Elizabeth Leighton

In our evidence, we came out very strongly in favour of a much more ambitious target. As I said earlier, the bill should ensure that the generation that is now living in fuel poverty is the last. We have called for the date to be moved forward to 2032. That aligns with work that is being done in relation to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill and the climate change plan. We have also called for the target to be zero per cent—to eradicate fuel poverty as far as is reasonably practicable. We acknowledge that there are people who move in and out of fuel poverty and that we might not be able to get that down to absolute zero. There will be particular times when that is not possible, but we think that that is a reasonable position and that that is an achievable and credible target for us to strive for.

I support what Di Alexander said. Levels of extreme fuel poverty should continue to be measured. We may be able to look for examples from the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017, which talks about “persistent poverty”. The risk is that, if we allow for 5 per cent, those people will be the most difficult, hardest and most expensive to reach, and they will just be left behind. We cannot be in a position where we say that it is okay for that 5 per cent to continue to live in fuel poverty in 2040—surely that is unacceptable.

Craig Salter

I agree with what Elizabeth Leighton just said. We understand the logic of the 5 per cent target. As Dion Alexander said, there is a transient element to fuel poverty. However, if that is the target to be met, there has to be a commitment to an ambition to continue or even step up work to reduce the percentage of households in fuel poverty to zero. If that 5 per cent of households are hard to reach or have a greater support need, more resource has to be put towards supporting them.

We agree that the 2040 target date is too far in the future. It would mean a reduction of 1 per cent per year, which does not reflect the progress that we have seen in recent years and it is 22 years in the future. We, too, would support a target date of 2032. That would bring the fuel poverty target in line with some of the ambitions that have been set out around energy efficiency, such as improving the energy efficiency of social housing and improving general energy efficiency standards.

As discussed, there are four drivers of fuel poverty. If we have a target, for all intents and purposes, to remove poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty by around 2032 and then, eight years later, there is a target to completely eradicate fuel poverty, we risk an undue focus—as there has been in the past, to an extent—on energy efficiency alone, so that the other drivers of fuel poverty are left until later.

As has been pointed out already, all the drivers of fuel poverty interact. They all have a significant impact and, as a result, they all need to be addressed together. If we are saying that we can achieve improvements in energy efficiency by 2032, work should be on-going alongside that to address the other drivers too. In that regard, 2032 is an achievable target.

Norman Kerr

In 2016, the level of fuel poverty was at 27 per cent. If you apply the proposed new definition, it comes down to 24 per cent, so there is a 3 per cent drop by changing the definition. If we start with that 24 per cent figure and we aim to meet the 5 per cent target for 2042, a further 19 per cent of people need to be brought out of fuel poverty. If we keep to a 20-year programme that starts in 2020, that is less than a 1 per cent improvement every year.

That is certainly not ambitious. That target could be achieved through business as usual, if we continue to change how we measure people who are in fuel poverty. The Scottish house condition survey has already changed its methodology three times—in 2011, 2014 and 2016. We continue to change the methodology and each time we have seen fuel poverty figures drop. Our worry is that changes will continue to be made that do not actually mean anything, other than that we are not providing enough support to homes. We could manage down the apparent levels of fuel poverty by continuing to change the definition and manipulating the data we collect.

Linda Corbett

I will reflect on some of the comments from the other panel members. I agree with the 5 per cent target and with the 2032 target, again with a secondary target stretching to 2040. That is because I would like fuel poverty strategies to be embedded and not simply removed once a target is reached—it must be an on-going thing, particularly for rural and outlying areas, where there are small communities that learn from each other. Behaviours are a learned thing and we would like to see fuel poverty strategies enter education. We want to look at how we can support young people to understand energy efficiency and how to behave in an energy efficient way so that, rather than needing to remove them from fuel poverty in the future, we can avoid their getting into fuel poverty in the first place. I welcome the 2040 target, but there should be a bit more ambition. As Craig Salter and Norrie Kerr said, 2032 would probably be more realistic.

Norrie Kerr talked about the 19 per cent figure. By the time that we come to 2020, a reduction of a lot more than 19 per cent will be needed. The 24 per cent fuel poverty figure has been skewed by the massive fluctuations in energy prices, and particularly the drop around the time that the house condition survey was done. Obviously, we have had massive increases since then, particularly in standing charges, so I expect that there will be a bit more work to do than dealing with 19 per cent.

Dion Alexander

We, too, support a programme of 14 years, which matches the one that the Parliament instigated in 2001-02 and which terminated in 2016. We see no good reason for the period to be any longer than that. I have referred to extreme fuel poverty and the good grounds that exist for there being a target on that as well, and for eliminating it pronto.

With my Highlands and Islands hat on, I make the point that the Scottish house condition survey statistics for local authorities show that, under the existing, or so-called old, definition, 50 per cent—a half—of all households in the Highlands and Islands are in fuel poverty. There has to be a concerted attempt to recognise the places that have the highest levels of fuel poverty and the difficulties that have been faced in eliminating fuel poverty in those areas. In effect, the figures have been flatlining for years in those areas, which suggests that a new and better approach is needed to ensure that the target is reached there.

Norman Kerr

Mr Simpson asked about the safeguard tariff. We need to bear it in mind that that is a temporary measure. Our worry about the safeguard tariff and the prepayment tariff caps is that those will in some way amend household behaviour in the wrong direction. In other words, people will think that the Government is protecting them by applying a cap, and they will be less likely to switch supplier, to shop around for a better deal or to change their payment method. The safeguard tariff is a short-term measure and even Ofgem—the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—admits that it is not sure of the impact on switching rates. If we want people to find better deals and lower prices, we have to recognise that any tariff cap can be only a temporary measure and we must continue to support householders to view their energy bills and consider how to reduce them rather than simply sit back and think that they are protected, when they may be paying far too much.

Graham Simpson

I want to go back to the 2040 target. It is a long way away but, in the policy memorandum, the Government says that achieving it

“will require the use of cost-effective low carbon heating”.

As you all know, most homes do not have that, so to roll it out nationwide would be a massive project, which I presume is why the Government has picked 2040. Under those circumstances, is that date not reasonable? I can see that Mr Kerr is itching to come in. You have all said that it should be 2032. Either that is plucked out of thin air or it is based on something. Perhaps you can explain where you got the date of 2032 from and why the Government is wrong, given that it will take an awful lot of work to get low-carbon heating in all homes.

The Convener

Before the witnesses respond, I ask them to keep their answers a bit shorter, because we have a lot to get through and we have only an hour to get through it.

Norman Kerr

We do not necessarily need to put low-carbon heat and fuel poverty together. A low-carbon heat source will not in itself solve fuel poverty. The electricity grid in Scotland is now mainly low carbon. We will have our gas grid for many years to come and we will not replace it, although we are looking at technologies that reduce the amount of carbon in the gas mix, such as biofuels and a range of other mixes, including hydrogen. However, simply giving someone low-carbon heat does not take away the fact that they are fuel poor. It may actually contribute to their fuel poverty if there is a significant additional cost of the technology that is applied to gain that low-carbon heat, such as completely stripping out the gas grid and moving to electricity alone for heating.

We need to scale up the ambition. We could all say that 2040 sounds absolutely fine, but that would not give a step change in productivity levels or in the number of homes that are tackled each year. In all honesty, it condemns another generation to live in fuel poverty. The 2032 target is based on what we can reasonably expect in a number of parliamentary sessions and with an increase in the budget. I am sorry that my answer is exceptionally longer than you had hoped for, convener, but, if we maintain the budget at its current levels, that is what we will get. Some time ago, Energy Action Scotland talked about a need for £200 million a year. That is a very old figure, but we have never achieved that level of expenditure. We are way behind and we need to raise our game significantly.

The Convener

We will move on. Alexander Stewart has a question.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

There has been lots of discussion of the new definition of fuel poverty, and it has been mentioned this morning. What is your view on the new definition? Is it an improvement? If so, why? If it is not an improvement, why not?

Dion Alexander

It is a bit like a curate’s egg, in that it is good in parts. We welcome the fact that we have a fuel poverty bill, and we are more than happy to have a re-examination of the definition, because the definition logically underpins the work that flows from it to give the evidence base to show what is happening across the board in relation to fuel poverty. It will therefore enable the proper evidence-based development of policies and programmes to address the problems and all but eliminate fuel poverty in a way that previous fuel poverty strategies have failed to do.

We welcome the fact that the minimum income standard is being used to underpin and inform the evidence-based understanding of poverty and the amount of disposable income that people have. However, for us in the Highlands—many other organisations have made exactly the same point—it falls down badly and radically undermines the whole approach, by not using all the available minimum income standard evidence.

As you are aware, evidence has been gathered for remote rural Scotland on exactly the same basis as for the minimum income standard UK data. It was first gathered in 2013 and refreshed in 2016. We are saying, “Please, please use this evidence.” The independent panel of academics that came up with the new fuel poverty definition recognised that there was a particular problem in remote rural areas of Scotland and suggested an uplift, in the same way, for example, that we have a London uplift on the MIS UK data when it is used to inform the living wage. We are asking people to do the same thing for remote rural Scotland, because we know from the MIS remote rural Scotland data that, depending on their household type and location, families in remote rural areas need between 10 and 35 per cent more income to achieve the same basic level of income as those in households elsewhere. That has to be a fundamental contributor to fuel poverty; it is not the only contributor, but it must be recognised in any definition if that definition is to have credibility and serve the purpose for which it is designed.

Craig Salter

Di Alexander is absolutely right. We support the new definition, with the proviso that the minimum income standard for remote rural areas must be included. Our research has backed up a lot of what organisations such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise have come out with, which is that, as Di Alexander says, incomes that are 10 to 40 per cent higher are required.

Last year, CAS commissioned qualitative research on the support needs of households that were defined as being fuel poor. One of the interesting things that came out of that was that the groups that self-identified as having a significant need for fuel poverty support corresponded quite closely with the groups that were more likely to be defined as fuel poor under the Scottish Government’s impact assessment, based on the new definition. There was one exception to that, which was households in rural areas. Households in remote rural areas, in particular, said that they needed all sorts of advice and financial support. The fact that that was the one group that did not correspond with what was in the impact assessment suggests that that is the one area where there is a need for fundamental change.

Alexander Stewart

You believe that if that change is not made to the definition, it will be flawed because it will not include people in remote rural locations.

Craig Salter

I think so, yes.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

I have so many questions that I will not have time to ask them all. I represent more than 6,000 island constituents and I support the position on the minimum income standard. Does the panel believe that when we look to tackle fuel poverty there should be additional emphasis on island and rural communities to bring them down, if you like, to the average proportion of people that suffer from fuel poverty? Some local authorities might have 10 or 15 per cent fuel poverty, but in Highland and remote authorities it might be 30 or 40 per cent. Should there initially be a specific focus on putting additional resources into those areas to reduce the level of fuel poverty at least to the Scottish average? Would the panel support such a measure?

Linda Corbett

In East Ayrshire, we are not remote rural, but we certainly have some rural areas, and we see particular difficulties with access to support services. One of the main difficulties for people in rural areas is access to finances in order to travel; another is access to transport to make the journey to reach the support services. Such people often end up living in isolation. They look to neighbours, friends and family for support, but those people tend to be in exactly the same position. We need something in the strategy that identifies that people in those groups potentially need extra support.

Kenneth Gibson

Elizabeth Leighton and others on the panel said that the Scottish Government needs to be more ambitious, but the Scottish Government does not have much control over income, pensions being an obvious example.

Even if the Scottish Government set up its own energy company and sold fuel at cost, we would still be subject to world prices. How realistic is it to reduce fuel poverty year on year? The previous strategy was not successful, and despite its best efforts the Scottish Government is buffeted by external factors.

The panel members have all said that the Scottish Government is aiming to reduce fuel poverty by only 1 per cent a year. However, if we reduce the number of people in fuel poverty from 600,000 to 140,000, that will be a 77 per cent reduction. That is more like 4 per cent per year.

Elizabeth Leighton

On the ambition, although I commend the Scottish Government and this Parliament for having such a strong commitment to the eradication of fuel poverty and for having had, over the years, a series of programmes to address the issue, which have mainly addressed energy efficiency, I argue that we should learn from the lessons of the past and consider why fuel poverty has not reduced as much as it should have done.

Let us learn from programme evaluation, which has not been done until fairly recently. Let us look at how forming the types of partnership that the strategy envisages could make programmes more effective, and let us consider greater investment—yes, it comes down to numbers in the budget—not just in delivering measures but in before and after care, in helping people to understand how to manage their energy more effectively, by switching and so on. If we seriously want to eradicate fuel poverty, it will require greater investment.

As Norrie Kerr said, we have to up our game. It requires a step change. If we are going along with a business-as-usual budget and a business-as-usual strategy, we will have business-as-usual results. The whole point of the bill and the strategy, following the work of the Scottish rural fuel poverty task force and the Scottish fuel poverty strategic working group, is to change our approach, building on what we have been doing and improving.

Kenneth Gibson

The submission from the Existing Homes Alliance was excellent, as are all the submissions. You said:

“We ... note the positive results from research undertaken by the Energy Agency and NHS Ayrshire and Arran”—

that is my area—

“where preliminary analysis of the health impacts of the area-based solid wall insulation schemes suggests lower hospital admission rates for respiratory and cardiovascular related conditions in these areas compared with a control group of postcodes who had not yet participated in the scheme.”

Have you had discussions with the Scottish ministers about, for example, the possibility of switching national health service resources into fuel poverty reduction? You have proposed a budget increase from £110 million to £234 million a year, which looks quite ambitious on the face of it, but we might save the NHS money by investing in fuel poverty. I know that Norrie Kerr has talked about that over the years. Have you discussed the issue with ministers and had a positive response? Is it being considered?

Elizabeth Leighton

It is certainly something that we have raised, in that we have asked whether we should be looking more globally at the budget. Fuel poverty should not just come under housing; we need to consider more broadly where the other benefits come from and who else should be investing in reducing fuel poverty. It goes beyond health, of course, to economy, because of all the jobs that could be created and sustained if we had an ambitious programme, just on the energy efficiency side of things.

You are right, in that we are starting to see hard evidence of the health benefits. NHS Ayrshire and Arran has been a leader, working with the Energy Agency, in demonstrating that. We need more of that evaluation to be done, so that we have the evidence and can cost the benefits to the NHS. Previous research has indicated that there could be savings to the NHS of up to £80 million a year—let alone the health and wellbeing benefits to individuals.

That is why we were so disappointed by the financial memorandum, which fails to look at the cost of reaching the target, whether we are talking about a target to have 5 per cent of households in fuel poverty by 2040 or a target of true eradication. What is the cost, and how will we meet it, through public investment and private investment, and by bringing in other Government policies and portfolios? We are disappointed that the Finance and Constitution Committee is apparently not going to report on the financial memorandum, although that is one of the questions that we think it should look at—not just the amount of the budget, but where it comes from.

Kenneth Gibson

My final question—I thank the convener for his indulgence—is also for Elizabeth Leighton. I am sorry that I am focusing on one individual, but I want to discuss a point that is made in the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland submission. It says:

“the Scottish Government has stated in the Draft Fuel Poverty Strategy that it will develop ‘...if appropriate, a wider Energy Efficient Scotland Bill for later in this Parliament, and this would be the vehicle for any further legislative changes needed to support Energy Efficient Scotland, beyond the fuel poverty provisions contained in the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill’.”

Do you feel that the bill represents a missed opportunity and that it should be much more rounded? Other members of the panel may wish to comment on that, too. Instead of our looking to have another bill a year or two from now, should everything be contained in one bill? If possible, would you like additional provisions in the bill that we are discussing?

Elizabeth Leighton

The bill’s genesis was as a warm homes bill. It was about warm, low-carbon, affordable homes for everybody in Scotland, so we were disappointed when a decision was taken to make it focus only on fuel poverty. We welcome the focus, but it is limited. The opportunity has been missed to support it by providing a complementary statutory underpinning for the energy efficient Scotland programme, which is very much needed in order to provide ambition to deliver on the removal of poor energy performance as a driver of fuel poverty.

We know that there is consideration of a possible energy efficient Scotland bill. Perhaps we will hear more about that on Thursday, when, I believe, the minister will make a statement to Parliament. It will be positive if there is a firm commitment to such a bill and information on what it will contain. Failing that, the bill that we are discussing provides a perfect opportunity to take the matter forward in a timely fashion and in a way that supports achievement of the targets.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

On that point, we have written evidence from the energy poverty research initiative and Common Weal, which says that they are

“disappointed that the Scottish Government has chosen to ignore the consensus at the expert workshop”

in 2017

“that the finalisation of the new definition should be postponed for two to three years to allow the development and inclusion of a robust Scottish definition of vulnerability in the new definition of fuel poverty.”

We have some conflicting evidence, but we will need to deal with that.

Dion Alexander said that the definition should underpin everything that will flow from it. It should be the evidence base for, I presume, the strategy, the implementation and delivery against the target. I have a general question about how we go about measuring fuel poverty. Information comes from the Scottish house condition survey and there is a modelling exercise that, as far as I can see, measures fuel poverty by local authority area. We have a map in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that shows that.

Dion Alexander has asked for an uplift to the minimum income standard in relation to remote rural Scotland, and he mentions in his submission a better alignment with the urban/rural classification. First, how well can the current measurements of fuel poverty align with the geography of Scotland? Secondly, if the bill is passed as it stands, will it help us to prioritise and to plan where and how we are going to spend money?

Dion Alexander

Does it align with the geography of Scotland? It could do better, particularly in relation to the way that information is gathered according to the Scottish Government’s sixfold urban/rural classification system. In effect, categories 1 and 2 are the cities, categories 3 and 4 are towns and categories 5 and 6 are rural settlements—that is to say, settlements of 3,000 people or fewer. Category 5 settlements are within half an hour’s drive time from a major conurbation and category 6 is remote rural areas that are more than half an hour’s drive time from a major conurbation.

Information is gathered to an extent on those two rural categories but, often—as has been the case in relation to fuel poverty—it is globalised, as it were, and presented as being to do with rural areas in general rather than with category 5 and category 6. It is aggregated. We are saying that, henceforth, all information should be gathered so that we can see clearly what is happening in category 5 and in category 6—in other words, in accessible rural areas and remote rural areas. It is commonly recognised, not least by the panel of academics who came up with the new definition, that remote rural areas are where the greatest problems are.

My colleagues have already made the point that we need a much better understanding of outcomes. A lot of assumptions are made on the basis of inputs—that is to say, people assume that energy efficiency inputs will necessarily equate to affordable warmth outcomes. However, that is not the case. Experience shows that, too often, an energy efficiency input does not necessarily mean that the person who is living in the house ends up achieving warmth at a price that they can afford, so they still have a problem.

To complement the much better understanding of what is going on in remote rural Scotland as well as accessible rural Scotland, we need an improved understanding of the outcomes. I hope that the new fuel poverty strategy will take that question seriously so that we can have a much better understanding of what works and what does not work. One of the major weaknesses of the fuel poverty strategy is that it has not looked nearly closely enough at real outcomes in terms of affordable warmth.

Forgive me, but I have forgotten the second part of your question.

Andy Wightman

Others can answer the second part of my question, too, if they like. If I am a policy maker in the Scottish Government in five years’ time and I want to eradicate fuel poverty on Skye, will I be in a better position to do that after this bill is enacted than I am today?

Dion Alexander

You will not be, unless you really think hard about it from the perspective of the people who need the help and work out what kind of help works best for them. The experience of the Highlands and Islands—I have come across the issue in other places, but that is the place that I know best—shows that what works best is tackling the problem on the front line by having skilled and trusted fuel poverty alleviation people based in the community, such as those in the Lochalsh and Skye Housing Association’s energy advice service, so that they can find people and ensure that nobody is missed out.

They do that by building trust, using word of mouth and by going into someone’s house and looking at all the things that are causing that household to have difficulty, which can involve the fact that the fabric of the property needs improving; that more insulation is needed; that the heating system needs changing; that there is a problem with the electricity tariff, which is a feature of remote rural areas, as they are, essentially, off the gas grid; or that they are not using the system as well as they could be. The fuel poverty alleviation people can provide the handholding support that someone might need, particularly if they are elderly and independent-minded or if they simply do not understand what the system can offer them.

Where such a service can provide a mix of technical advice and a form of support that is almost like social work—I do not mean that in a demeaning way, but it is a fact that some people need a lot of handholding—that works extremely well. That is the way to get to grips with the problem. That requires resourcing and revenue funding to ensure that that effective outreach takes place.

Andy Wightman

In effect, you are saying that the bill will not make a difference to that; it is about how we implement things on the ground.

Dion Alexander

That is right. Clearly, there is—

The Convener

Keep it short, Mr Alexander.

Dion Alexander

Sorry, convener.

Andy Wightman

That is fine. Just on—

The Convener

Mr Kerr wants to come in.

Norman Kerr

Mr Wightman talked about measurement. The Scottish house condition survey uses BREDEM 2012—Building Research Establishment domestic energy model 2012—which has a number of anomalies. For example, in calculating fuel costs, it uses a Scottish average for oil, although oil prices in remote and rural areas are very different from inner-city oil prices. I suggest that, if we are going to use the house condition survey as our main touchstone, we must amend BREDEM to take into account a number of issues.

Another issue is that, as Mr Wightman rightly said, the survey results are by local authority area, which is difficult in a huge area such as the Highlands. However, using proxies—we will always use proxies—we can apply additional work that will get good figures down to ward level in certain areas.

The bill itself will not make it easier to target resources to fuel-poor households. When the minister talked about introducing the bill, he was looking for a doorstep tool, so that someone on the doorstep of a household could make an assessment of its fuel poverty. Given the complexity of the definition, that doorstep tool is nigh on impossible. It would have to take into account a person’s income and fuel costs and then work out the MIS. Therefore, a doorstep tool for an individual house is a non-starter, but we can amend BREDEM and we can do additional work that will move the information down to ward level, which would be more useful for local authorities.

Andy Wightman

I would be grateful if Mr Kerr could write to the committee with further thoughts on what that work would involve. That would be useful.

Norman Kerr

Certainly, I will do that.

Craig Salter

I agree with that point, but there is also something to be said around how the definition is used in budgeting. Obviously, if we have a more accurate definition, that could play a role in aligning fuel poverty budgets. How do we do that more effectively with the new definition compared to the old one? There is nothing in the bill that would make that easier. One solution could be a more in-depth requirement, either for a third party or for ministers, to report on the impact of each individual driver of fuel poverty, as well as the impact of measures to address those drivers individually, so that we can understand where the money needs to be spent. If we see that energy prices are holding back progress, we will know that money needs to go to innovation on that. That is a more general point, but a more accurate and detailed definition can play a role in budgeting.

Andy Wightman

We will come back to reporting and accountability, so I will leave it there.

The Convener

Liam McArthur has a couple of questions on that.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

As someone with the dubious honour of representing the part of the country with the highest levels of fuel poverty—Orkney—that is of particular interest. I congratulate the panel on the distinction of gathering such compelling evidence that the Government saw fit to issue its retaliation first, with an explanatory note. Even in that note, the Government appears to accept that the combined impact of the new definition and targets will be a greater reduction in the fuel poverty rate in urban areas when compared to rural areas.

The committee has heard concerns from everyone about the absence of the rural MIS, which goes against the advice of the rural fuel poverty task force and the independent expert panel, and against the wishes of pretty much every organisation that is involved in housing and fuel poverty across the Highlands and Islands. From the note, that decision appears to be based on the potential costs of including a rural MIS and the delays in implementing the system. What is the panel’s response to those two concerns, which the Government appears to be using to justify its position on the issue?

Dion Alexander

The figure that is quoted in the paper is a cost of £0.5 million over four years. From my conversations with Professor Donald Hirsch of Loughborough University, who is the key person responsible for gathering minimum income standard data and who led the work on the MIS for remote rural Scotland, I think that he is surprised that it would need to cost that much, but I respectfully suggest that the only way in which the committee can bottom that out is to invite Professor Hirsch to give evidence and discuss the matter.

That raises the question as to whether it would be money well spent. Our view is that it would.

Norman Kerr

On the figure of £0.5 million over four years, if we amend BREDEM—there is a reference to the need to amend BREDEM—that will not be free, but that has not been costed. I think that the figure has been given to demonstrate why we should not apply a remote rural uplift, rather than why we should. In the great scheme of things, £0.5 million over four years is a drop in the ocean to get more accurate reporting that will enable us to dedicate resources to a particular area. I am sorry, but I think that the figure is a smokescreen.

Liam McArthur

In his written submission to the committee, Professor Hirsch said:

“Were this matter of a remote rural variation to be reconsidered in the course of the Bill, I can confirm that ongoing measurement of such a variation would be feasible with a modest amount of ongoing research to keep it up to date.”

He does not quantify that, but what he says suggests the order of magnitude that we are talking about.

Mr Salter talked about budgeting. Do you agree that, if we do not get the criteria right, we will not direct resources in the most efficient way?

Craig Salter

I absolutely agree. I cannot comment on the figure that the Scottish Government has put on that but, as Norrie Kerr and I both said, if we start from the wrong point, we will not be able to budget effectively and we will not get the outcomes that the bill tries to achieve.

I absolutely agree that it would be money well spent, if it ultimately meant that fuel poverty support got to the people who are in greatest need, in particular those who have, historically, found it harder to access support.

Liam McArthur

We have touched on the cost, but what about the delay? Do you envisage a delay, given what you have said about the need to crack on and have more ambitious targets?

Craig Salter

I have not seen any great detail from the Scottish Government about exactly what the delay would be and what would cause it. As far as I am aware, and as Di Alexander said, a lot of the work has already been done. There is Professor Hirsch’s work, and Highlands and Islands Enterprise has done extensive research on the matter.

Such exceptions or uplifts are already applied in other parts of the country, such as London. It appears to me that the problem should not be insurmountable. As Norrie Kerr rightly pointed out, in the Scottish house condition survey, methodologies are revised and applied retroactively so, even if there were a short delay, there is no reason why a remote rural uplift should not then be applied once the information is ready. A delay is not a reason not to do it.

Alex Rowley

What are the panel’s views on the principle of having a fuel poverty strategy and the timetable for producing it, given that it will probably come out in 2019, after the bill has been passed? What do you think of the draft fuel poverty strategy that was published alongside the bill?

The Convener

Please make your answers as brief as possible.

Norman Kerr

I will make a start. The strategy needs to be in place—the question is whether lessons have been learned from the previous schemes that will impact on it. The strategy is more focused on removing poor energy efficiency as the main driver, and we would like to see a lot more built into it for support services such as Citizens Advice Scotland that are doing the handholding. It is important that we have a strategy, but I do not think that it is wide enough. It is very narrowly focused.

Dion Alexander

In our submission, we spell out what we would like to see included in the preparation of the fuel poverty strategy. A lot of work has already been done on this by both the strategic working group, for which Elizabeth Leighton provided the secretariat, and the rural fuel poverty task force, which the Scottish Government convened and which I chaired. There is a lot of information available.

That said, a useful way of ensuring that the strategy delivers for remote rural Scotland is to island proof it, as per the requirements of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, which is all but in place now—I think that it has a few small stages still to go through. As I understand it, the minister, Kevin Stewart, has indicated that he is happy for the bill and the strategy to be island proofed as soon as possible, and I urge the committee to support that view, because that would be useful in making sure that the bill and the strategy do what they are required to do in practice.

Elizabeth Leighton

I have a couple of points. First, on the consultation requirements, we welcome the specific reference to getting the views of

“those with lived experience of fuel poverty”.

We think that that is positive, but their views should be gathered in order to report on progress, too. The consultation should be more co-designed instead of being a passive request for some input, with feedback wrapped in. Indeed, we have made extensive comments on that aspect.

Secondly, with regard to the content—and this goes back to my previous comments about business as usual—does the strategy contain specific policies or programmes that are different from those that we have now? We should build on what we have now, which has been successful, but if we are to make the step change towards accelerated progress, the strategy should contain new programmes and policies that use certain levers such as regulation or incentives or look at how explicit links are being made with other strategies such as the child poverty strategy or public health strategies. Those things should be evidenced in the fuel poverty strategy, so that we know that this will be mainstreamed across all of Scotland and not follow the current pepper-pot approach, which means that, if you are lucky, you might have funding for a year-long project to provide the kinds of services—the handholding and so on—that others have talked about. If you are not lucky, you do not have anything. We would like to see the strategy developed so that it moves on from where we are today.

Linda Corbett

On the consultation requirements and the reference to the “lived experience”, we would very much like front-line workers to be consulted, too, as it might give a good indication of the trigger points for when consumers approach a trusted intermediary, which includes organisations such as Energy Action Scotland, Home Energy Scotland, the Energy Saving Trust and, obviously, Citizens Advice Scotland. There is already a vast wealth of knowledge, and I am quite sure that many front-line workers in those organisations will be more than happy to pipe up and talk about their experience, too.

Craig Salter

I agree. There is also a lot of scope and a lot of options for setting out in more detail how the

“lived experience of fuel poverty”

is measured. As Linda Corbett has said, it is very important to speak to front-line workers, and quite a lot of work has already been done through the Scottish household survey. That could be expanded on to get more fuel poverty data.

The strategy sets out a commitment to addressing all four drivers of fuel poverty but, as I have said before, we need a lot more detail on how that will be done. We have talked a lot today about some of the limitations on Scottish Government powers; because of that, the strategy needs a lot more detail on what it will do to bring down energy prices and increase incomes.

We also had some thoughts on the vulnerability criteria. The academic review panel recommended that there should be on-going work to define vulnerability and produce a set of criteria that would include things such as health and disability as indicators of vulnerability. There would be benefit in the strategy if there was a clear commitment to establishing something like a permanent panel of public health experts to review the criteria on an on-going basis. Vulnerability is a complex issue that changes a lot over time for society and individuals, and its definition should be reviewed regularly.

On the vulnerability criteria, the strategy assumes 75 as the age at which people require an enhanced heating regime, but that is potentially too high. Vulnerability is not just a health issue. After retirement age, people become more financially vulnerable and spend more time at home, and the same goes for people with children under five. At least until the first stage of work is undertaken to set out the vulnerability criteria, it would be beneficial to include households with children under five and to bring the assumed age for requiring an enhanced heating regime in line with the pension age.

Andy Wightman

Elizabeth Leighton correctly identified that the financial memorandum merely reflects the costs of implementing the bill—for example, the costs of printing a strategy, the time that it takes to write it and so on. You have highlighted other bills such as the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill that contain more detailed costs for achieving the targets. It would be unreasonable to expect that we can assess the full costs of achieving the target, but what can reasonably be done to assess the broad costs of eradicating fuel poverty either though the bill as it stands or in any amended target that we might have?

Elizabeth Leighton

In our evidence, we suggested that some projections could be made about the costs and gave some examples of research on energy efficiency that has been carried out over the past few years by Consumer Focus—which is now Consumer Futures. Its estimate of the cost of alleviating fuel poverty is an example of how such projections can be made in order to indicate what it would cost to achieve, for example, the energy efficient Scotland accelerated targets for fuel-poor homes.

Those figures indicated that at least double the current annual budget for energy efficiency and fuel poverty programmes has to be made available. I stress that phrase “at least”, because the research looked at only one driver and is a little bit dated. If public health officials were spoken to and front-line workers consulted, it would be possible to project how we could address the other drivers, too. I would not say, therefore, that it would be unreasonable to do a projection—an estimate—of the costs as has been done for the climate change plan and the climate change bill. Importantly, the wider benefits of action on climate change were also looked at, and the same could be done for fuel poverty.

The arguments have been well rehearsed about the benefits for health, wellbeing, jobs, the economy and improved energy security as well as, of course, the energy savings, which go into people’s pockets and get spent in the local economy. Again, there has been research in all those areas, and it could be documented to evidence why investment in this area is well worth our while. You could look again at other Government budgets that could contribute to this effort.

Dion Alexander

Some time ago now, the Highlands and Islands housing associations affordable warmth group drew up a proposal for what we called an “energy carer” based model of delivery, which I have described in my previous answers. Although the Scottish Government never formally responded, the proposal was picked up and advocated for by the Scottish Government’s rural fuel poverty task force, so there is work out there that goes into detail on what it would cost to deliver the kind of personalised outreach service that would be required to tackle the problems in the Highlands and Islands.

Andy Wightman

Another matter that we have skipped over is monitoring. The Climate Change Act 2008 established the Committee on Climate Change, which produces reports and is an independent, statutory adviser to Government. Section 6 of this bill says that periodic reports are to be prepared by Scottish ministers and laid before Parliament. I think that, in your evidence, you have all said something about the need for enhanced reporting and scrutiny to help future parliamentarians and policy makers assess whether we are on track; Craig Salter, for example, has talked about reporting on each of the individual drivers. I know that we have your written evidence, but it would be useful to hear any brief comments that you might have about how important you think that might be.

Dion Alexander

Monitoring is very important, and it is also very important that the major reviews are done sooner rather than later; there could be one five years from now, or if you started counting from 2019, there would be major reports in 2024 and 2029. I reiterate that annual interim reports are required in order to keep proper tabs on what is really happening and try to avoid repeating the problem with the previous fuel poverty strategy, when we were always looking back to find that things were not really improving very much and it appeared as though not enough effective action was being taken to alter the direction of travel.

Craig Salter

It would be beneficial if a third-party organisation had the statutory role of monitoring and producing frequent reports on the progress that was being made on each of the four drivers of fuel poverty. I say “each of the four drivers”, but I mean each of the recognised drivers, as they could change over time. That would give a more robust level of scrutiny, similar to that of the Committee on Climate Change.

There would also be a benefit from ministers being required to respond to the reports in Parliament and on each of the drivers of fuel poverty. It is important and beneficial to have a statutory requirement at least to measure and look at each driver to ensure that we do not focus only on one aspect of fuel poverty. Even if it ends up that not every driver can be tackled to the same extent, we need to understand why that is and where the sticking points are.

Norman Kerr

Very briefly, the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which came into force in 1996, requires local authorities to report every two years on progress towards their statutory targets. That was to allow scrutiny of progress and, if needed, to allow the target to be amended and guidance to be given on change. A review every five years seems far too long to allow for significant change or for guidance to be given. If we do it every five years, and then take a year to publish, that will run into six years, so the information will already be five years behind. The house condition survey used to be carried out every five years, but now it models every year and becomes statistically valid every three years, although the figures are put out every year. There is a precedent for gathering that information and reporting to Parliament.

Elizabeth Leighton

We have argued that the fuel poverty advisory panel should be established on a statutory basis so that it is independent, goes beyond one Administration, can respond to reports and can provide advice to Parliament. Annual reporting, which would involve shorter reports than five-yearly ones, provides an opportunity to consider whether any corrective action should be taken if progress is not sufficient and whether the approach is adequately resourced. This is not just about the strategy and having nice ideas and plans; it is about considering whether that strategy is adequately resourced to deliver what it says it is going to do. That is what is being done with the child poverty and climate change legislation.

Graham Simpson

I want to go back to the strategy, which is set out in part 3 of the bill. In considering the Planning (Scotland) Bill, the committee agreed to an amendment on enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of the national planning framework. Should that also apply to the fuel poverty strategy? In other words, should the Parliament have a greater role in the strategy so that it is not just left to ministers to publish it, show us it and then move on?

Dion Alexander

To give the briefest of answers, I say yes.

The Convener

I see that there is unanimity. I wish that all the questions had been like that.

Andy Wightman

I have a small final question. The bits at the end of bills, which might seem to be boring, are often the most interesting. Section 13 is on commencement, while section 14 tells us what the act will be called once it is enacted. Section 13 says:

“This section”—

that is, the commencement section—

“and section 14 come into force on the day after Royal Assent.”

In other words, when the Queen signs the bill and it becomes an act, all that we will have is a name and the fact that that name comes into force on that day—and nothing else. We will have to wait for ministers to commence everything else in what will then be an act, including section 3, which some of you have talked about the need to commence. Should we strengthen the commencement provisions so that we have a timetable for doing that rather than just leave it to ministers?

I see that no one has a view. It does not matter.

The Convener

I see that Dion Alexander has a view. You spoiled it, Mr Alexander—it was going so well. [Laughter.]

Dion Alexander

I could not agree more that a timetable is needed. Indeed, the same point was made in many of the responses to the fuel poverty consultation document earlier in the year rather than the submissions to the committee. We need milestones and a much clearer way of understanding what is planned, and we need that sooner rather than later.

Andy Wightman

To be fair, the bill contains the milestones, but the trigger point or the point when the clock starts ticking for virtually the whole bill is in the gift of ministers. Should we set some of those dates in the bill? Perhaps it should say, for example, that some provisions shall be triggered a year after royal assent.

Elizabeth Leighton

You have taken the words out of my mouth. We have suggested 12 months from the date of royal assent, which we think would be reasonable, given that we already have a draft strategy. A 12-month timetable would ensure that the bill did not languish. I do not think that the Scottish Government intends that to happen, but such a timetable would give assurance that the momentum will be maintained.

The Convener

Graham Simpson wants to come in with a final point.

Graham Simpson

It is actually a final question. The bill is an incredibly flimsy document. If we did not have it, would anyone lose out?

Norman Kerr

The simple answer to that is yes, because we would have nothing that said what we want to do. We would have an energy efficiency programme that trundled on to no end, and we would simply continue to provide people with some help without knowing how effective it was. The bill will help to bring that into focus. We on this side of the table all disagree with the 2040 date, but the bill lays out what we intend to achieve. If we do not have that, there will be no focus for future work or programmes.

The Convener

Does anyone have any final comments?

Linda Corbett

I have prepared two case studies of people in fuel poverty, which I will leave with the committee. The first involves a person with whom we worked closely to bring them out of fuel poverty—she was in a local authority property and had plenty of options—while the second is about a lady who has worked very hard to be energy efficient. Although she engaged with two separate programmes—warmer homes Scotland for external wall insulation and, historically, the green deal, although I know that that is reserved to Westminster—she is now, despite that work, in fuel poverty. I have no strategies left to pull her out of it other than give it time and hope for a change of circumstances. The point of including that relates to the 5 per cent target, and the fact that there are some people who just cannot move out of fuel poverty. I will leave those case studies with the committee for members’ perusal.

The Convener

I appreciate that very much—that is very kind of you.

Elizabeth Leighton

On the question whether the bill will make any difference, we certainly welcome it, although we have said that it needs a lot more in it and that it is only half a bill. We have given a starter list of amendments that can be made or areas where the bill can be supplemented so that we can put in place the relevant powers and commitments to allow us to move on from where we are. That would remove barriers and create opportunities to be more ambitious in eradicating fuel poverty across all the drivers. The list is not complete, but it gives examples of where the bill could make a difference if it were amended.

The Convener

On that note, I thank our witnesses for their time and their useful answers. I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to leave.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

It is time to move on to the next item of business—when you are ready, Mr Simpson.

The next item of business is a stage 1 debate on motion S5M-15892, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

I am pleased to be opening the stage 1 debate on the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill. In this day and age, it is unacceptable that any Scottish household should have to make the choice between having the heating on and cooking dinner. If Scotland is to become a fairer and more socially just society, it is crucial that we make real headway towards ending the scourge of fuel poverty.

We are ambitious in our aims. Our groundbreaking bill places Scotland among the best countries in the world for tackling fuel poverty. Not only are we one of just a few countries in the world to have defined “fuel poverty”, but we are setting a goal for eradicating it. We are also changing our definition of fuel poverty so that it is much more reflective of relative income poverty, and we are being revolutionary through our introduction of a minimum income standard.

I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its detailed examination of the bill. I also thank the committee clerks, stakeholders, organisations and individuals who have contributed to the scrutiny process and engaged on the bill. I appreciate all their work to make the bill as good as it can be. I am, of course, pleased that the committee’s comprehensive report welcomes the bill and our draft fuel poverty strategy, as well as recommending that Parliament agree the general principles of the bill.

I turn to the bill’s three key aims. The first is to set the target

“that in the year 2040, no more than 5% of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty.”

The second aim is to capture, in the definition of fuel poverty, the folks who most need help, so we are proposing a new definition of fuel poverty that makes innovative use of the minimum income standard in order to better align fuel poverty with relative income poverty. Thirdly, the bill will ensure that a new long-term fuel poverty strategy will be prepared, published and laid before Parliament.

Crucially, the bill will ensure that in preparation of the strategy we will consult people with lived experience of fuel poverty in order to ensure that our key measures and polices hit the mark. I am very grateful to Ann Loughrey and the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel and partnership forum for their help in that regard. Once the strategy has been published, ministers must report every five years on the steps that have been taken, on progress that has been made towards meeting the target, and on the plan for the next reporting period. That reporting obligation will provide this and future Governments with focus and momentum in the fight against fuel poverty.

The bill is the product of a thorough and collaborative process. In 2015, we set up two short-life independent bodies to report on fuel poverty: the fuel poverty strategic working group and the rural fuel poverty task force. Following on from their reports, an independent academic panel was tasked with reviewing the definition of fuel poverty. The majority of its recommendations have been incorporated in the definition of fuel poverty that is in the bill.

We also ran a fuel poverty strategy consultation prior to publishing a draft fuel poverty strategy alongside the bill, and we set up the fuel poverty advisory panel and partnership forum as part of a robust new framework for monitoring progress in tackling fuel poverty, and for advising the Government. My officials and I have engaged widely with stakeholders throughout the process, and Parliament can be assured that we will continue to do so. All that shows just how serious the Scottish Government is about tackling fuel poverty.

I have responded to the committee’s conclusions and recommendations, and have outlined the many with which I agree and where I will lodge amendments at stage 2. I take the opportunity to discuss some of those now.

I welcome the committee’s support of the bill’s major aim, which is

“the target ... that in ... 2040, no more than 5% of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty.”

I also confirm my intention to introduce two interim 2030 targets: that by 2030 the fuel poverty rate will be no more than 15 per cent and the median fuel poverty gap will be no more than £350 in 2015 prices, before adding inflation.

The Government’s ambition is simple: it is to put an end to all fuel poverty. We will not stop working until that happens. All the targets will go a long way towards ensuring that we address the severity of fuel poverty, as well as its prevalence. I therefore note the committee’s recommendation that we also include a target to tackle extreme fuel poverty. I am pleased to say that I have listened to the committee and will lodge a stage 2 amendment to define extreme fuel poverty and set a target for its eradication.

The committee expressed the view that the Government should consider lodging an amendment to apply the 5 per cent target for 2040 to all 32 of Scotland’s local authorities. However, although we are committed to helping folks out of fuel poverty no matter where in Scotland they live, I am keen to avoid setting some local authorities a goal that is unachievable and unrealistic. I have set out my views in detail in my response to the committee, but I am concerned that its proposal does not seem to be evidence led, and in particular that it has not been the subject of any consultation. I have therefore written to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek its views in detail. I note, in the meantime, that it has already written to the committee to express its concerns.

I welcome the committee’s support for our proposed use of the UK minimum income standard in the measurement of fuel poverty, which will improve the alignment between fuel poverty and income poverty. No one should underestimate how important and innovative that move is. More than 80 per cent of fuel-poor households are also income poor under the proposed new definition, compared with just over 60 per cent under the current definition. Households that might not be income poor, but which struggle nonetheless to pay their fuel bills and to maintain an acceptable standard of living, will also be captured by the new definition.

I understand the concerns that have been raised about the higher costs that are faced by people in remote rural areas, remote small towns and island communities. I have carefully considered the committee's recommendations and the views of stakeholders that the Government should commit to introducing an additional MIS for remote rural areas, remote small towns and islands in order to reflect those costs.

In recognition of the unique challenges that such areas face in the fight against fuel poverty, I will lodge an amendment at stage 2 to introduce an MIS uplift, as the committee has requested, for areas that form categories 4 and 6 of the Government's six-fold urban/rural classification. I am examining the options for how that can best be carried out, along with the costs involved, and I intend to write to the committee to seek its views before lodging amendments.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

I welcome what the minister says about a rural MIS. Does he accept that it is imperative that the uplift be introduced on a robust and independent basis, so the input of people such as Professor Hirsch of Loughborough University must play a part in development of the policy?

Kevin Stewart

I assure Mr McArthur that we have continued to speak to Professor Hirsch since he gave evidence and after publication of the stage 1 report, and that we will continue to do so. It would be wrong to introduce a policy that was not robust, so I will write to the committee, setting out the options and seeking its views, before I lodge stage 2 amendments. I thank Mr McArthur and others for continuing to engage with the Government during the process. We have had some robust exchanges and some very good ones. Long may that continue.

For our island communities, I emphasise that, in addition to our MIS commitment, we are conducting an islands impact assessment for the bill. The relevant provisions of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 are not yet in force, and the guidance for such assessments is still in development, but our assessment will be in the spirit of the act, in partnership and consultation with island communities and the six relevant local authorities.

The Government is alive to the calls from Mr McArthur, Alasdair Allan and others that the assessment should not be a desk-based exercise. I am firmly of the view that it is better for the Scottish Government to take the time to produce a comprehensive and detailed assessment in partnership with island communities. I previously committed to publish the assessment before stage 3. I confirm that that remains my intention: it will be published by the end of April.

I turn to reporting on fuel poverty. I am pragmatic and open to persuasion that reporting needs to be more frequent than every five years. That said, in order to avoid duplication and to promote co-ordination between complementary Government policies, I am keen to co-ordinate the timeframe for reporting on fuel poverty with the timeframes for reporting on energy efficiency and climate change.

I also want to ensure that fuel poverty reporting obligations do not place an undue burden on our local authority partners. I am aware that COSLA wrote to the committee to express its concern that that might be the case. I also share COSLA’s concern that there is potential for reporting obligations to detract from front-line delivery. I do not rule out lodging a stage 2 amendment to make the reporting obligation on fuel poverty more frequent, but I want to engage with COSLA further to understand its views and ensure that we have the appropriate balance between its views and those of the committee.

As members will now be aware, I have carefully considered the views of the committee and aim to lodge many of the amendments that it has recommended. However, I cannot agree with the committee on the suggestion that the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel be made statutory. In terms of its composition and structure, the panel is not the same as the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change. It is key that the panel remains flexible and adaptable. To maintain its role over the intended lifetime of our proposed fuel poverty act, the panel’s membership and remit must keep pace with the changing landscape of fuel poverty, potential new technologies and opportunities, and future partnerships.

I also share COSLA’s concern that the creation of a statutory body would risk diverting funding away from the core objective of supporting households out of fuel poverty. I am sure that nobody wants that. I am strongly of the view that Parliament can provide the scrutiny that is required to ensure that this and future Governments keep on track on the objectives that we all share.

I am grateful that we have the opportunity to discuss the aims of the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill this afternoon, and I look forward to hearing members’ views.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill.

James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I thank the minister for responding to our report last week in time for today’s debate.

As the minister stated, the bill primarily sets a target to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5 per cent of Scottish households by 2040, sets a new definition of fuel poverty, requires the Government to bring forward a strategy to meet the target and puts in place reporting requirements. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, Mr Dornan—could you move your mic over a little bit? We really want to hear you.

James Dornan

My apologies, Presiding Officer.

Recent statistics show that fuel poverty affects 24.9 per cent of households in Scotland, with some individuals and families struggling to pay their fuel bills or heat their homes to an acceptable and comfortable level. Living in a cold, draughty home can have a negative impact on people’s physical health and mental wellbeing and can impact children’s attainment. No person should have to choose between heating their home or eating. Therefore, it is disappointing that so many households remain in fuel poverty, despite efforts by previous Administrations to tackle the issue.

The bill before us has been informed by such efforts. Most recently, a target that was set by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive in 2002 for people to not be living in fuel poverty by November 2016 was not met. Following a number of independent reviews and consultations led by the Scottish Government, a new definition of fuel poverty was strongly recommended—one that would more accurately identify those in financial distress in order to better target resources at those in greatest need. I will come back to the definition later in my speech.

The Local Government and Communities Committee was appointed as the lead committee for scrutiny of the bill on 5 September 2018. We received 67 written responses to our call for views, which closed on 9 November 2018. We heavily promoted our scrutiny of the bill on social media and held a number of oral evidence sessions with expert stakeholders. In addition to taking oral evidence, some committee members travelled to Dundee and the Western Isles to hear directly about the different experiences of those who face fuel poverty in urban and rural communities. In doing so, we heard about the particular challenges that are faced by those who live on our islands. I thank all those who provided written and oral evidence and all those who engaged with us during our scrutiny.

I turn to some of our key recommendations. Section 1 of the bill puts in place a new target for less than 5 per cent of households in Scotland being in fuel poverty by 2040. Although there was some debate around whether the target threshold should be set lower than 5 per cent, we agreed that that target is achievable and strikes the right balance between realism and ambition, recognising that the Scottish Government has little or no influence over two of the four main drivers of fuel poverty. However, we acknowledge that the 5 per cent target should not limit the ambition of future Governments and that the longer-term focus should be on eradicating fuel poverty.

There was also some debate around whether the target’s end date should be brought forward from 2040. Given that reaching the target will rely on technologies that are still in development, the committee came to the view that it is realistic to build in time for those to come on stream.

It is also encouraging that the Government has agreed to our recommendation to amend the bill to enshrine in statue the interim targets that are currently set out in the draft strategy that accompanies the bill. Specifically, those targets are that, by 2030, the fuel poverty rate will be no more than 15 per cent and the median fuel poverty gap will be no more than £350 at 2015 prices. It is hoped that such measures will help to prevent drift from reaching the target.

To prevent resources from being targeted at low-hanging fruit—the easiest-to-treat properties—we called on the Scottish Government to bring forward a separate target to tackle extreme poverty. Extreme poverty has previously been categorised as encompassing households that have to spend 20 per cent of their income on fuel. It is therefore welcome that the minister has committed to bring forward proposals for a separate target to tackle extreme poverty at stage 2.

I also note that the Government will give further consideration to the committee’s suggestion that local targets be applied to address regional disparities. I look forward to receiving an update from the minister on the outcome of the Government’s consultation with COSLA on the committee’s proposals.

To more closely align fuel poverty with income poverty, section 2 puts in place a new definition that assesses whether a household is in fuel poverty following the deduction of housing costs, such as rent, mortgage, council tax and water rates, as well as childcare costs. It uses an income threshold measure known as the minimum income standard—MIS—to determine an acceptable standard of living. That was deemed necessary given that, under the existing definition, a number of households that were considered to be fuel poor were not actually facing financial distress.

The greater alignment between fuel poverty and income is welcome, as it will provide a more accurate picture of those who experience fuel poverty. However, many people expressed concerns that the new definition does not accurately capture those who face fuel poverty in our island and remote rural communities. We therefore called on the Scottish Government to bring forward an additional rural MIS to recognise the higher costs that are faced by those communities. It is welcome that the Government has accepted that recommendation, and we look forward to liaising with the minister on that important change in the lead-up to stage 2. It is also encouraging that the Government will carry out an islands impact assessment of the bill and the associated strategy.

We heard concerns that the complexity of the new definition could hinder the delivery of services on the ground. We therefore called for more information on the minister’s thinking around the development of a doorstep tool and on how proxies will be used alongside the new definition to better identify those who are in fuel poverty. It is helpful to have received clarification from the minister that the use of proxies will continue and that the Government, alongside COSLA, will further consider what tools and guidance are necessary for councils to target resources at those in the greatest need.

Sections 3 to 5 require the Scottish Government to prepare a fuel poverty strategy that sets out how the 2040 target will be achieved. They also set out the consultation, publication and laying requirements for the strategy. The committee agreed with those proposals, particularly the requirement to involve people with lived experience of fuel poverty. At the same time, however, we agree with our witnesses that it should be a collaborative, and not a top-down, process.

I turn to the contents of the draft fuel poverty strategy, which was published alongside the bill. It is welcome that the minister will listen to the views of our stakeholders on suggested improvements as part of on-going engagement with them. I was particularly encouraged that the minister will look to improve the strategy in relation to the list of issues that are highlighted in paragraph 199 of our report, which include how fuel poverty will be tackled in the private housing sector and our rural and island communities, and the actions that the Scottish Government will take to address all four drivers of fuel poverty, including those that are primarily the responsibility of the UK Government.

As our report sets out, we have written to the UK Government regarding problems that have been caused to people’s houses by works that were carried out under UK-based energy efficiency schemes. We heard of serious misgivings about the administration of some of those schemes, and it is encouraging that the Scottish Government is also pursuing that matter with the UK Government.

Kevin Stewart

I am very grateful to the committee for looking at the situation with the UK schemes. As Mr Dornan has pointed out, the Scottish Government has been on to the UK Government on a number of occasions about trying to deal with some of the real difficulties that have been caused. I am very grateful to the committee for its efforts in joining the Scottish Government to try to seek a resolution, and I would appreciate our continuing to liaise on the matter. We must do all that we can to get the UK Government to see sense on those folk who are suffering because of Home Energy and Lifestyle Management and others.

James Dornan

I assure the minister that the committee will be happy to liaise with him regarding those letters.

The bill requires the Scottish ministers to lay periodic reports on the progress that has been made towards reaching the 2040 target alongside the steps that will be taken in the next reporting period to meet the target. It is welcome that the Government will report on progress in relation to all four drivers of fuel poverty. The bill currently provides that those reports should be laid every five years but, given the concerns that have been raised, we have recommended that they be laid every three years. The vast majority of those from whom we heard called for more frequent reporting. I note that the Government will consult COSLA on the viability of increasing the frequency of reporting, and I look forward to an update in due course.

It is disappointing that the Government has not accepted our recommendation to put the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel on a statutory footing to provide an independent scrutiny role. However, the minister has provided the committee with clear reasons as to why that recommendation has not been accepted.

As the minister has noted, the Parliament will no doubt pay close attention to the Government’s progress towards meeting the target as well as to the steps that it will take as the new technologies that are required in the fight against fuel poverty are developed.

I put on record my thanks to the committee clerks and officials in the Scottish Parliament information centre for all their assistance during the stage 1 process, and to everybody who gave evidence in person or in writing.

The bill has the potential to make a difference to the lives of many families in Scotland, but the real test will be whether the measures and strategies that accompany it are practical, deliverable and robust. It will be the job of the Parliament to keep a watch on that in the coming years.

The committee commends the bill to the Parliament and recommends that the Parliament agrees to its general principles.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

The Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill should have been an exciting and far-reaching piece of legislation, but it is anything but that. However, it can change. The six pages of the bill could be replaced with a six-line press release and the same thing could be achieved.

In 2016, the Scottish National Party made a manifesto pledge to introduce a warm homes bill. In November 2017, the Scottish Government said:

“Eradicating fuel poverty is crucial to making Scotland fairer and that is why we are proposing that the key purpose of the Warm Homes Bill will be to enshrine in legislation our long term ambition to eradicate fuel poverty.”

Here we are in 2019 with a fuel poverty bill—not a warm homes bill—that does not set a target to eradicate fuel poverty. The bill even states its purpose to be

“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to set a target relating to the eradication of fuel poverty”.

Its purpose is not to set a target for the eradication of fuel poverty—which would have meant something—but

“to set a target relating to the eradication of fuel poverty”.

That is a far cry from the words that were issued by the Scottish Government in 2017. The bill is well meaning, but it lacks ambition.

First, the bill sets a new definition of fuel poverty. It says that, once a household has paid for its housing, it is in fuel poverty if it needs more than 10 per cent of its remaining income to pay for its energy needs and that leaves the household in poverty. That seems fair enough.

The bill sets a target of reducing the rate of fuel poverty to 5 per cent within—wait for it—21 years.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

I am quite surprised by the tone of the speech so far. My understanding was that there was more or less consensus in the committee, and I do not remember you or any other colleague dissenting on any of the specifics, including the 2040 date, when we put the report together.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Always address members through the chair, please.

Graham Simpson

Mr Gibson is well aware of how committee reports are put together. Members are entitled to give an alternative opinion in debates such as this one.

Who will be accountable at that date in 21 years’ time? By then, Ruth Davidson could be in her fourth term as First Minister, and her son could have graduated, but I cannot see most of us being here. Given that the target date is so far into the distance, the Local Government and Communities Committee was entirely right to suggest statutory interim milestones, which could prevent ministers from wriggling off the hook along the way. I tend towards the view, which was expressed by the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland, that the bill should be amended to ensure that corrective action is taken if targets are not met.

Kevin Stewart

Will the member give way?

Graham Simpson

I will not on this occasion.

If the bill is not amended, all that we will get is a Government shrug of the shoulders and, quite possibly, an attempt to blame someone else. That said, I am still carefully considering whether to lodge an amendment that would move the target date forward.

As we have heard, the committee did some sterling work. We visited Dundee and Stornoway. In Dundee, we heard about the problems that people who use prepayment meters have if they want to switch providers. We saw how area-based schemes can successfully lift people out of fuel poverty and help their health at the same time.

In Stornoway, one of the bill’s serious omissions was brought home to us. When the minimum income standard is used, there is a refusal to define fuel poverty in a way that reflects the higher costs that are incurred by people who live on islands or in remote and rural areas.

Kevin Stewart

Will the member give way?

Graham Simpson

No, because I am about to praise the minister for agreeing to amend the bill to reflect the committee’s view on that matter. Fuel poverty rates in urban Scotland have improved since 2015, but rates in rural areas have not improved, so there is a widening gap. We have a legislative vacuum that simply must be filled at stage 2, and a number of stakeholders agree.

The committee heard of contractors carrying out substandard work under UK Government-funded schemes and of lax monitoring. I have heard of such activity taking place before, and it does not interest me one bit which Government is to blame, if that is the right word. I insisted that we mention that issue in the committee’s report and, as he said, the convener has written to the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, Claire Perry, about it.

Much has been made of the target to reduce the rate of fuel poverty to 5 per cent. A number of groups, including Energy Action Scotland, believe that the target is not ambitious enough. As SPICe has said, that could mean that 140,000 households will still live in fuel poverty—which is 140,000 too many. However, it will never be possible to completely eradicate fuel poverty. People will move in and out of fuel poverty as their circumstances change and, of course, it is not possible to know about everybody’s circumstances.

One thing that the committee said that has caused some push-back is that reducing the rate of fuel poverty to 5 per cent should be achieved in every council area. COSLA did not like that, and nor did the minister, as he said earlier. However, the reason behind that suggestion was to ensure that no area slips through the net. I accept that more work will need to be done on that matter.

The bill commits ministers to preparing a fuel poverty strategy. Helpfully, the Government produced a draft strategy in which the minister describes the bill as a “landmark piece of legislation”. One of the best ways of reducing fuel poverty is to ensure that homes are as energy efficient as possible. The strategy says:

“all domestic properties are required to achieve an Energy Performance Certificate ... rating of at least EPC C by 2040 at the latest.”

The strategy does not say how that will come about. It does not recognise the very real concerns about the accuracy—or lack of it—of using EPCs, nor does it say anything about real action on making new and refurbished homes as near to the Passivhaus standard as possible. I have repeatedly pushed the minister on this issue, but it is now time for action.

There was much disappointment when the bill was published, and there will be a clamour to amend it. Indeed, Opposition members are already being sent suggestions for amendments. I hope that the minister has learned from his bitter experience with the Planning (Scotland) Bill that he should be engaging with us in detail right now—

Kevin Stewart

Mr Simpson well knows that I will engage with anyone and everyone, and I have done so throughout the passage of this bill, as I have with others. Some members take the opportunity to speak to me, stakeholders always have that opportunity, and some of the reasoning behind the changes that will be made in stage 2 amendments has emerged from those discussions. I do not appreciate Mr Simpson’s insinuation that there has been no discussion on this matter, given that I met him and Alexander Stewart in the very early stages of the process and will do so again if there is such a request.

Graham Simpson

I think that the minister has learned his lesson, because he has had a discussion with me and Mr Stewart, he has responded well to the committee’s report, and he has said that he will lodge very helpful amendments. It would be in nobody’s interest not to move forward along those lines.

We, on the Conservative benches, are pretty underwhelmed by the bill. However, we think that it can be improved, and we will support it at stage 1.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for a lengthy but excellent piece of work. I must confess that I did not read all of it, but I know that the committee went into real detail in its work.

I wonder whether Ruth Davidson is watching the Parliament on her maternity leave—who knows?—and I also have to wonder what she thought about Graham Simpson committing her to another four terms in this place. I have to say that the rest of us are slightly alarmed by that commitment.

Like everyone else, I believe that every Scot has the right to live in a warm, affordable and secure home. Unfortunately, we are a long way from that reality, with just over a quarter of households living in fuel poverty. The energy watchdog, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, recently announced an increase in the cap on the default tariff, which most people are on, and as those who saw that announcement will know, it means that, on 1 April, more than 1 million households in Scotland will be looking at an average rise of £110 a year. It is a really important point; the vast majority of people—even those who should know better that cheaper deals are available—are on default tariffs. Ofgem is the organisation that is meant to be protecting the consumer, but uSwitch has warned that larger families in Scotland could see their annual bills rise by up to £184 a year, and Age Scotland has responded to the increase in the cap by saying that it will do nothing to tackle fuel poverty and, indeed,

“makes a mockery of the term ‘cap’”.

Kevin Stewart

I agree completely and utterly with Ms McNeill. It is a great pity that, as far as the drivers of fuel poverty are concerned, this Parliament has no control over fuel prices or income. Between 2003-04 and 2017, the median household income in Scotland rose by 50 per cent while at the same time fuel prices rose by 158 per cent. I am grateful that a cap is in place, but it does not go far enough. I believe that this Parliament should have control over that, and I hope that Ms McNeill will consider supporting us in that regard.

Pauline McNeill

I am on record as saying that someone should certainly have control over the matter, and it is certainly something that I am willing to discuss. Not even the Westminster Parliament has control over energy prices.

That said, I am sure that the minister takes the most relevant point: more people are going to be living in fuel poverty as energy prices begin to rise. We can encourage people to switch to cheaper tariffs, but recent research by the consumer organisation Which? indicates that energy companies have dramatically reduced the number of cheaper deals that are available. Price is just one factor in all of this, but reducing the number of cheaper deals will mean that less cheaper fuel is available.

Like Graham Simpson, I do not see this bill as groundbreaking or revolutionary, but I think that we can get there by stage 3.

Labour welcomes the introduction of the bill, but we think that it falls short in many areas. It is narrowly drawn, which is a huge mistake. The Existing Homes Alliance Scotland has said:

“we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to tackle it and we must take it. We want to eradicate fuel poverty for good.”

I know that we all want that. I welcome what the minister said on the forthcoming amendments to the bill on interim targets and extreme fuel poverty. We wholly welcome that. However, I believe that the delivery section of the bill should reflect more of the format of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 by setting out areas where we can begin to improve. In the case of the bill, that would be improving energy efficiency to reduce householders’ energy costs. How else are we to achieve the targets? It has to sound more like a real ambition to prevent more people from living in cold and draughty homes. We need to know how the Scottish Government intends to achieve that.

We need delivery of help for poorer households. Citizens Advice Scotland has said that those who find it most difficult to afford their energy bills are less likely to have access to support. Ministers should be having discussions with the big six suppliers and others about improving emergency credit schemes and helping their most vulnerable customers—I see the minister nodding.

There is a lot of work to be done in the area. One of the most concerning issues is that, with yet another price hike, even more customers are struggling to pay their bills, particularly those who are already vulnerable. Ofgem is consulting on its consumer vulnerability strategy, and it is important that we see more standardisation across the sector. Energy companies are supposed to have a priority services register, but there are currently no standard qualifying criteria for vulnerable households to be placed on the register. More than ever, we need to find a way to ensure that companies take vulnerable customers off standard variable tariffs and place them on a more favourable deal. Simply through discussion, more could be done to force companies to do that.

Kevin Stewart

Will the member give way on that point?

Pauline McNeill

Very quickly—I do not want a long intervention like the last one.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You got there before I did, Ms McNeill.

Kevin Stewart

The Government has engaged with the big six suppliers and others on the issue. I would welcome cross-party support from across the Parliament so that we can act together to put pressure on those companies to see sense in that regard.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you a little extra time, Ms McNeill.

Pauline McNeill

The minister will definitely have our support on that.

I want to say a little about rural communities, although that has been well covered by Graham Simpson and James Dornan. More than two fifths of Scots live in rural areas, and huge numbers of them are estimated to be suffering from fuel poverty. It is clear that an adjustment needs to be made to the definition of fuel poverty. I heard what the minister said on that, although we need to see the detail. That is to be particularly welcomed for people in rural communities, because it is clear that it is much harder for them to reduce their energy costs when they do not have the same access to the national grid. We also need to consider lifting the level of the warm homes discount for households in rural areas, to recognise the high levels of fuel poverty there.

Graham Simpson has spoken many times about the private rented sector, and I add my voice to his on that. Private renters are more likely to live in a house that requires critical and urgent repair and that does not meet the Scottish housing quality standard, which often means living in a home with insufficient insulation. People who live in the private rented sector are twice as likely to live in homes in the lowest EPC bands, and the rates of fuel poverty in the sector are above the national average. In the delivery plan, we need to focus on the private sector to see what action can be taken to lift those households out of poverty.

Furthermore, we need to make it easier for home owners who might be able to pay a bit towards home energy efficiency measures to get Government support. I confess that I find the myriad of loans and grants under the schemes complicated to follow—I have studied them—so goodness knows what householders make of it. We need to do more to give people confidence to apply to what I believe are very good schemes. I call on the Scottish Government to advertise its zero interest rate loan scheme and review how more people could be helped. I think that more people are able to pay and, with Government support, might be prepared to make the jump and make their houses more fuel efficient.

We must eradicate fuel poverty once and for all. We must be ambitious for the fuel poor. We are only at stage 1, and I believe that, by stage 3, with a consensus, we can achieve that.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

As other members have done, I thank my Local Government and Communities Committee colleagues, the clerks, SPICe and everyone who gave evidence. I also thank the many groups who submitted briefings for today’s debate.

As the minister did, I pay tribute to the Scottish fuel poverty strategic working group and the Scottish rural fuel poverty task force, which were chaired, respectively, by David Sigsworth and Di Alexander, whose work contributed so much to the bill.

We know the statistics from the Scottish house condition survey. A quarter of households are living in fuel poverty and about 7 per cent of households are living in extreme fuel poverty. That is unacceptable and we need to tackle the issue.

Although I welcome the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report, which says that if we reach the target, Scotland will be

“amongst the very best in the world in terms of tackling fuel poverty”,

it is clear to me that we have an awful lot of work to do if we are to achieve that ambition. I will set out the Greens’ position and talk about where we will seek to make changes at stage 2.

It is worth noting that a bill that focuses on targets, definitions and strategies takes us only so far. A number of members have mentioned the promise of a warm homes bill. Such an approach has been abandoned, and instead we have targets, definitions and strategies. Delivery against a target will require us to integrate policies around climate change, the built environment, energy, health and so on. I welcome the minister’s commitment to align some reporting in that regard, which would be helpful.

The committee deliberated at length on the target, which was the focus of much evidence. In light of the failure to achieve the previous target, which was set in 2002, it is right that we take a more critical and sceptical view this time round. We welcome the commitment to interim statutory targets, but the 2040 target has been criticised for not being ambitious enough. The committee took the view that the target is okay, because it is pragmatic. However, with enhanced reporting and scrutiny, there should be the ability to consider whether progress can be made more quickly over the coming years. A 2032 target reflects the higher ambition and is preferable. If it cannot be achieved, we will know in advance.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The member will remember an issue that was raised in the committee with regard to an earlier target, which was that emerging technologies need time to be developed, to become available at a reasonable price to individuals in Scotland and to bed in. Are those factors in this debate?

Andy Wightman

I agree entirely that emerging technologies will be critical. They might be slow to arrive; they might be faster. We should not make predictions about how fast they might arrive.

There is an issue with the wording in the bill. The long title refers to the setting of

“a target relating to the eradication of fuel poverty”,

but given that the intention is to reduce the rate to 5 per cent, we should be more honest and say that the bill sets a target relating to the reduction of fuel poverty.

There has been a lot of talk about the four drivers of fuel poverty—the cost of energy, energy efficiency, household income and household behaviours—and how in Scotland we are in control only of energy efficiency and household behaviours.

In its response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government said that it has “significant control” over only one of the four drivers, that is, home energy efficiency. The minister repeated that in an intervention during Pauline McNeill’s speech.

I disagree with that contention. The bill makes it clear that the definition of fuel poverty is based on a minimum income standard. Gross incomes are not within the significant control of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government or indeed the UK Parliament, but the definition of fuel poverty uses not gross but net incomes—that is, incomes after housing costs, fuel costs, childcare costs, council tax and income tax.

All those things are within the direct influence of devolved powers. We can enhance people’s net incomes by reducing housing costs, reducing taxation, enhancing childcare provision and so on. My view is, therefore, that the Scottish Government has significant control over that area; it has the power to adjust income tax levels to ensure that the most vulnerable are not driven into fuel poverty in the first place.

Annabelle Ewing

What about national insurance? This Parliament—sadly—does not have control over that.

Andy Wightman

That is absolutely true. I am not arguing that the Parliament has complete control over net income; I am arguing that it has substantial control over people’s net incomes.

Another aspect of the bill that has been much commented on is the question of minimum income standard uplifts for remote and rural Scotland. I welcome the minister’s commitment to look at options in that area and, in particular, to consult the committee in advance of stage 2. That is a very productive way to proceed, and I hope that it will improve the bill.

Finally, I want to say a few words about scrutiny. Other members who have been in Parliament for longer than I have—I am looking at Jackie Baillie, among others—will have views on why the 2002 target was not met by 2016; for example, we know that rising fuel prices contributed. Failure to meet this target is also a possibility, for all sorts of reasons that we do not know about at the moment. The critical thing is to keep the target under review. Section 6 of the bill makes provision for reporting, but reporting is not scrutiny, especially when reports are laid by Scottish ministers who themselves have substantial responsibility for delivering.

It has already been mentioned that other legislation that enshrines targets, such as the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017, embed independent, statutory scrutiny mechanisms. The committee recommends such mechanisms in paragraph 219 of its report and I am disappointed that the Scottish ministers do not accept it.

I am not precious about how such independent scrutiny is achieved. The suggestion from the committee that the fuel poverty advisory group be placed on a statutory footing might be one option, but there are others. However, it is critical to have independent monitoring and scrutiny, because it is really important for the public to be able to assess whether progress has been made and whether it could be made faster or slower in response to emerging technologies. I do not think that the Parliament alone can do that job of scrutiny.

To conclude, the bill represents an important approach to tackling fuel poverty, but it is not in a fit state to deliver what is required. I look forward to working with other members and to engaging with ministers at stage 2.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

I thank James Dornan and his committee for the report and for enabling me to play my part in stage 1 scrutiny of this important bill.

I am grateful to all those who gave oral and written evidence, which I found invaluable, not least in shining a light on ways to improve and strengthen the current bill and in giving greater urgency and ambition to our collective efforts to tackle a problem that blights too many households in too many communities across the country.

It will be a surprise to nobody that I intend to focus my remarks on how we might use the bill to address more effectively the issue as it affects rural and island areas—a theme to which Kenneth Gibson and I gave a good and regular airing at committee.

First, it is worth reflecting on why this bill matters so much and why it is essential that we show more ambition in what we are seeking to achieve. As the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland reminds us, the benefits of reducing fuel poverty go far beyond simply removing the need for people to choose between heating their home or eating a meal. All the evidence shows that lifting people out of fuel poverty helps to improve their physical and mental health. Unsurprisingly, living in a warm and dry home also helps to increase educational attainment. Local jobs are created and skills are enhanced in the energy efficiency and low-carbon heat industries, while households have greater energy security and money to spend. Our ambitions for tackling climate change rely on us making progress on improving the energy efficiency of our housing stock. For all those reasons and more, the bill matters.

It matters, of course, to communities throughout Scotland; few, if any, are immune from fuel poverty. That said, rural and island areas are disproportionately affected, with Orkney suffering the dubious honour of having the highest proportion of households in fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty in Scotland. It is an honour that we are keen to relinquish, but it underscores the particular importance of the bill and the fuel poverty strategy, and the need to recognise and take specific steps to address fuel poverty in remote, rural and island communities.

Although the change in definition contained in the bill makes sense, as things stand the bill does not adequately take into account the additional costs associated with living in remote and rural areas of Scotland. Indeed, the bill ignores key recommendations from the Government’s own rural fuel poverty task force, ably chaired by Di Alexander, whose evidence to the committee on the matter was compelling. He set out in clear and cogent terms the rationale for using a separate minimum income standard for remote rural and island areas that reflects the additional costs that are borne by those living in such communities. It was a view shared by most of those who gave evidence to the committee on that part of the bill, and also universally supported by every council, housing association and fuel poverty group in the Highlands and Islands. The case is unanswerable, and I welcome the fact that the committee recognised that. I also welcome the minister’s willingness in recent months to engage with me and others in a bid to find a solution.

The minister’s commitment to undertaking an islands impact assessment is welcome in relation to not only this bill but, I hope, the future strategy as well. I welcome, too, his commitment to an appropriate uplift for rural and island areas. I look forward to seeing the detail of that, and I agree with Di Alexander that there is a strong case for two separate uplifts, reflecting the additional costs that are associated with living on an island. He is also right in saying that we must find a robust, independent way of assessing the appropriate level of uplift now and into the future. Professor Hirsch and the team at Loughborough University seem to be key to achieving that, but that must be enshrined in legislation, and I look forward to seeing what work can be progressed in that area at stage 2.

Review and redesign of fuel poverty proxies, which tend to be urban oriented, are also needed and should be independent of Government. In the meantime, it is encouraging to see a consensus around the need to distinguish between fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty. Despite the best intentions of successive Administrations, there has been a collective failure to make a meaningful impact on behalf of those in most need. That must change, and I support the call for a separate target for eliminating extreme fuel poverty by 2024.

On targets generally, there are concerns about what is seen as a lack of ambition in the bill. Energy Action Scotland suggests that the 2040 date is

“effectively a whole generation away, and feels like ‘out of sight, out of mind’”.

The Existing Homes Alliance Scotland also points out that reducing fuel poverty from 24 per cent today to 5 per cent by 2040 represents a reduction of around 1 per cent a year. That hardly feels like the level of ambition that we should be showing, and it would potentially condemn 140,000 households to remaining in fuel poverty until 2040. So, again, I support calls to bring forward the deadline, if not to 2032, then certainly to earlier than 2040.

In addition, the proposal for statutory interim targets makes sense, as do calls for changes to the household condition survey, which will give us early indications of where the strategy is and is not working, so that we can make changes.

I welcome the committee’s call to see steps taken to ensure that progress is made by every local authority in Scotland. Although it might be impossible to ensure an entirely even rate of progress across the board, we cannot target investment and effort at areas with larger populations in a bid to hit the numbers rather than at communities where the need is greater.

Kevin Stewart

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Extremely quickly.

Kevin Stewart

Mr McArthur already knows that we spend three times more per head of population in the islands than we do in mainland authorities. That is something that the Government has continued to do, recognising the differences that exist. It is—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

“Extremely quickly” means quickly, minister.

Kevin Stewart

It is wrong simply to focus on that urban element.

Liam McArthur

I do not dispute the fact that additional investment is made but, in a sense, the levels of fuel poverty need to be brought down across the board and consistently, and the expectations of people in island and rural areas are every bit as legitimate as those of people living in urban areas.

I see no good reason why the advisory panel should not be put on a statutory basis, ensuring robust, independent and effective advice to ministers and the wider policy-making process.

Although this bill is narrower in scope than the warm homes bill that was originally promised, it has the potential to make a real difference to the lives of people across this country. As Parliament embarks on stage 2 consideration of the bill, we should resist the temptation to play safe, to build in wiggle room or to keep kicking the can down the road. We have an opportunity to be ambitious, to be bold and to eradicate the scourge of fuel poverty in this country. I look forward to working with the minister and colleagues across the chamber to that end, and we will support the bill at decision time this evening.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. You might have noticed that there have been a lot of interventions, some of them quite lengthy. That means that I have no spare time left, so I ask for speeches of six minutes.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

I am pleased to have been called to speak, not least as I have the pleasure of being a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which recently completed its scrutiny of the bill at stage 1.

At the outset, I remind everyone that Scotland is an energy-rich nation, yet we still see many of our citizens living in fuel poverty. That is as unacceptable as it is absurd. However, I note that, in terms of Government interventions, two of the key drivers of fuel poverty—energy prices and household incomes—fall broadly within the powers of the Westminster Parliament, not our Scottish Parliament, which is a situation that the unionist parties are, sadly, content to see continue.

Andy Wightman

Does Annabelle Ewing accept that the minimum income standard relates to net incomes and, while everyone’s income differs, the difference between gross and net incomes is considerable and could be substantially affected by devolved powers?

Annabelle Ewing

I hear what Mr Wightman says, but as I said in an intervention, national insurance, for example, does not fall within the jurisdiction of this place and this Parliament has control over only 15 per cent of the total expenditure on social security—to name but two issues. I think that Mr Wightman would accept that this Parliament does not have all the economic levers that impact on individual household incomes. Nonetheless, we are determined to place Scotland among the best in the world in seeking to tackle fuel poverty. To secure that laudable and ambitious objective, the bill sets forth both a target for the reduction of fuel poverty and an expressed definition of fuel poverty. In that respect, it is worth noting that

“Scotland is one of only a handful of European countries”

to define fuel poverty.

As we have heard, the target is to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5 per cent of households in Scotland by 2040. As the convener said, the committee considered that the 5 per cent target struck

“an appropriate balance between realism and ambition”

and in so doing, it recognised both the limited powers of the devolution settlement and the fact that individual households move in and out of fuel poverty as a result of changing circumstances.

However, I do welcome—in his response to the committee’s stage 1 report—the minister’s recognition of the need to work in the long term for

“the eradication of fuel poverty”

to the extent that that “is realistically possible”.

As regards the period within which the target is to be achieved, it is worth noting, as has been mentioned, that there were differing views from those who gave evidence to the committee. While some people favoured the 2040 date, recognising, among other things—as I said in an intervention—that achieving the target will rely on emerging technologies that are still in development, others took the view that the time period was too long. That now seems to include the secret views of fellow committee member Mr Simpson. Therefore, it is to be welcomed that the minister has responded favourably to the committee’s concerns and has agreed to introduce amendments at stage 2 to put interim targets in the bill. As the minister said, those will be that, by 2030, the fuel poverty rate is to be no more than 15 per cent and the median fuel poverty gap is to be no more than £350 in 2015 prices, before inflation.

The revised definition of fuel poverty, based around the minimum income standard, that is set out in the bill was broadly welcomed, with the key discussions concerning the introduction of an uplift to the MIS to reflect the higher costs for those living on islands, in remote small towns and remote rural areas. I am pleased that the minister also listened to the committee on that important point and has confirmed that options as to how to achieve that objective are being considered. That is also the case with regard to the committee’s calls to set a separate target for tackling extreme fuel poverty, which is defined as spending more than 20 per cent of one’s income on fuel.

Given the position of many of my constituents in Cowdenbeath, I am also pleased to note that, although the age vulnerability threshold has been raised from 60 years of age to 75, nonetheless, those with disabilities and long-term illnesses will be recognised as needing enhanced heating. That recognition will capture a significant number of those in the 60 to 75 age cohort.

A draft fuel strategy has been published alongside the bill and, at this stage, is a work in progress. It is important that the Government proceeds to develop the strategy with the fullest engagement, not just with representative organisations, but with individuals who have experience of living in fuel poverty. That would ensure that the pivotal role that the fuel strategy will play in delivery can be secured.

In closing my remarks, it is important to recall that this is a framework bill and must be seen in the context of the suite of measures concerning energy efficiency and carbon emissions reductions that are planned or are in the pipeline. Working across portfolios is the only way to tackle both fuel poverty and climate change and to ensure that people can heat their homes affordably and with low-carbon heating technologies.

With the bill, we have an opportunity to reset the agenda and to make a real difference to the lives of not just my constituents in Cowdenbeath, but citizens around Scotland.

I am pleased to support the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill.

Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to energy efficiency. As my colleague Graham Simpson noted in his opening speech, this is an important bill for Scotland, but in its current form it fails to outline how the Scottish Government will be held accountable if it does not meet the target.

Scotland has always been a country with great ambition, but right now the SNP Government is failing us with these targets. We are not alone in our thinking that the bill’s focus is too narrow. The Existing Homes Alliance Scotland said that the scope should be widened to help to improve energy efficiency and to support the achievement of warm, affordable, low-carbon homes for everyone.

Members across the chamber will remember that last May, an amendment of mine was successfully passed with the support of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. That sought to set the target of all homes reaching an EPC C rating, where feasibly possible, by no later than 2030, as opposed to the current target date of 2040.

At this time, the Scottish Government has failed to honour the will of the Scottish Parliament and is pushing ahead with the 2040 target instead. It might come as a surprise to SNP members, but we want to work with them to achieve ambitious but attainable targets.

It is not just the target date that we want to see improved; we also wish to see a review of the method by which EPCs are produced. In December last year, a Common Weal article stated that the method is fundamentally flawed, particularly due to the reliance on using modelled energy-consumption data rather than measured data. Just recently, a constituent was in touch about two EPC assessments that had been carried out for them within two years, by the same contractor, with completely different outcomes. Either we need to see a review of how EPCs are produced, or an alternative is needed to ensure that they are more accurate and standardised.

As the Common Weal article mentions, if a household is under or overestimated on their energy consumption by an inaccurate EPC rating, residents either face higher than expected energy bills, or it deters them from making behavioural changes and investing in making energy efficiency improvements.

As an MSP who represents a rural area, I must also add my concerns that the bill does not consider the added costs for people living in rural communities. I was pleased to see in the committee’s report that that was requested of the Scottish Government. I hope that it will be acted on, as we heard the minister talk about it in his opening speech.

The minimum income standard is another important yet contentious point. A review is required for a Scotland-specific version, which would consider remote and rural households, but we must also take into account concerns such as those raised by the Scottish older people’s assembly that the new definition is likely to result in fewer households with older people being considered fuel poor. While I wish to see rural communities protected, that should not be to the detriment of other sections of society.

Herein lies the difficulty with the 5 per cent target. Yes, it is a great start, but it means that there is a risk of leaving in fuel poverty those who are at most need, such as the vulnerable in society, and rural communities. Therefore, I join my colleagues in calling for a separate target looking to eradicate extreme fuel poverty, to ensure that those who are hardest to reach are not left in the 5 per cent bracket. I would also be keen to see each local authority with its own 5 per cent target, so that no area of Scotland is disadvantaged by a national average that is weighted in favour of the predominantly urban central belt.

Andy Wightman

Will the member take an intervention?

Alexander Burnett

No, I will not. I have a number of points to make.

While the bill brings about lots of good action points on how to reduce fuel poverty, I am concerned that the financial memorandum does not estimate the cost of eradicating fuel poverty. Surely the bill should allocate extra costs in order to tackle the issue. If the Scottish Government does not even think that the bill merits additional funding in order to achieve its goals, that shows exactly why it is not going far enough. The committee reported that it was surprised that, while the Government provided estimated costing for meeting climate change targets, it chose not to take the same approach for this bill.

Kevin Stewart

Will the member take an intervention?

Alexander Burnett

I will not, as the minister also has a closing speech. I recognise the points that he made in response to the committee’s report and we look forward to seeing them when they materialise.

The Scottish Conservatives’ proposal is to invest up to 10 per cent of the Scottish Government’s capital budget allocations in energy efficiency measures. That policy would make more homes warmer, eradicate fuel poverty at a greater rate and reduce carbon emissions faster than the SNP proposals, all while growing businesses and the economy across the whole of Scotland.

While this bill is a step in the right direction and we fully support its principles, it still needs to do more. At this stage, my colleagues and I look to support the bill, but we wish to continue working with members across the chamber to ensure that it can be strengthened.

Dr Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)

As other members have mentioned, fuel poverty remains a significant problem throughout Scotland, despite the £1 billion investment that SNP Governments in past sessions of the Parliament have committed to energy efficiency measures to deal with it.

I make no apology for pointing to the particular problems that face my constituency and, I am sure, other island constituencies. In 2016, the rate of fuel poverty in the Western Isles was calculated at 56 per cent, according to the Scottish housing condition survey. Some of the reasons for that are obvious: the wind-chill factor, which is not recognised in the system of cold weather payments; the ageing population; and the preponderance of detached houses. Perhaps as significant as anything else, however, is the unavailability of mains gas anywhere in the islands except in one relatively small area of the town of Stornoway.

Neither is history irrelevant here. In the 1930s and 1940s, Government assistance was aimed at getting people out of thatched black houses. That resulted in a generation of self-built houses made of poured concrete, which was generally mixed with shingle from island beaches to form walls with no cavities. Another wave of kit house building took place in the 1970s and 1980s. In short, few of the houses that were built in the islands in the greater part of the 20th century are anything like thermally efficient.

On the face of it, many people in such a situation may be home owners. However, as often as not, the reality in the islands is that they might own the house but not the land underneath it—a feature of crofting tenure that is too complicated to explain to virtually any building society, which means that many people live in houses that they simply cannot afford to repair. Then there are all the usual problems with which people have to contend, and which are by no means specific to the islands: low incomes; the roll-out of universal credit; a shortage of affordable rented housing; and, above all, the spiralling cost of energy over the past 15 years or so, which the minister has pointed out. I see from the Local Government and Communities Committee’s report that its members saw all those problems for themselves at first hand when they visited my constituency recently. I very much welcome their having done so.

I warmly commend, too, the minister’s commitment today to recognise rural—and perhaps specifically island—factors in the future and the fact that the bill will be subject to an island communities impact assessment. I hope that, in his closing remarks, the minister will say whether the strategy following the bill will be subject to a similar island-proofing process and which distinctive island factors it might be possible to recognise in our future policy on fuel poverty.

For example, I hope that, as has been indicated today, in defining an acceptable standard of living once fuel costs are met, there might be room to take account of the extra costs that are involved in living in an island area. Not least among those is that, in many island areas, it is simply not a realistic option not to have a car. Many people in island communities would consider themselves unable to afford a car if they lived elsewhere but feel that they have no choice but to have one if they wish to look for work—and that is before higher food, petrol and other prices are considered.

There are other factors that people in most parts of Scotland—both rural and urban—take for granted. Most Scots can easily visit a relative in hospital who has suddenly been taken seriously ill, or go to a funeral in another part of the country. In the islands, because plane fares go up exponentially if bought a day or two before travel, making such a visit can often cost as much as going on a foreign holiday.

It is right that the Parliament is held responsible for the factors that are within our control. Of those, the major investments in energy efficiency, particularly in older people’s houses, should be recognised and welcomed. However, as other members have mentioned, it is also right that we scrutinise areas that are outwith our devolved control, such as the significant rise in the cost of fuel in recent years, and the fuel poverty that is directly traceable to changes in the benefits system.

I end, however, by expressing a hope that island proofing will come to recognise another specific problem that all off-grid areas have. Why are the energy efficiency ratings that are used on EPCs measured in pounds sterling and not in kilowatts of energy used per square metre? By definition, being off the gas grid makes costs higher, but it says little about the energy efficiency of the building. The result is often that, compared with people who are on grid, home owners in off-grid areas face an impossible task in getting to band C.

All that said, I very much welcome the bill and the Government’s clear commitment to making it work in the islands and across Scotland to tackle what remains, despite substantial and welcome efforts by the Scottish Government, one of the single biggest problems that my constituents face.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

I start by declaring an interest as one of the honorary vice-presidents of Energy Action Scotland.

As the minister in the first Labour-led Scottish Government who was responsible for establishing the fuel poverty target, I am pleased to take part in this debate. Members will perhaps forgive me if I therefore look back, because I think that we can always learn from history.

It was section 88 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 that committed Scottish ministers to ensuring that, by November 2016,

“so far as reasonably practicable, ... persons do not live in fuel poverty”.

That was an ambitious target and one on which all parties across the Parliament agreed. Indeed, Stewart Maxwell, who served as the SNP Minister for Communities and Sport from 2007, said:

“We signed up enthusiastically to the previous Administration’s target, which was bold when it was established in 2001.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2008; c 6914.]

That was the right thing to do, and successor Administrations agreed. We do not often find issues that transcend the political divide, so it is disappointing that, with that level of consensus, we singularly failed to meet the target.

Where did it go wrong? Back in March 2008, speakers in a members’ business debate on fuel poverty thought that the target was tough but achievable. Later that year, Nicola Sturgeon, as Deputy First Minister, reconvened the Scottish fuel poverty forum to advise ministers on how to refocus the policy and better use the resources that were available to achieve the target. We were all still talking about eradicating fuel poverty and achieving the target. Of course, there were increases in fuel prices and factors that we did not entirely control, but we did not think that that was a barrier to doing all that we could to achieve the target. Not one SNP member or member of another party in the Parliament raised that as an issue when we set the original target.

Three years later, in 2011, five years before the target date, members of the Scottish fuel poverty forum were telling anyone who would listen to them, from ministers to parliamentary committees, that unless there was a substantial increase in resource, we would fail to meet the 2016 target. The spending level back in 2012-13 was £65 million. Following its budget scrutiny, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee believed that the budget needed to be of the order of £100 million to £170 million per year if we were to succeed in eradicating fuel poverty. Unfortunately, the Government decided that it knew better. In budget after budget, Opposition members made the point. I recall Patrick Harvie bringing down the budget one year on this very point. In some years, there were even underspends, but the sums fell well short of what was required. By 2012, few people believed that the target could be met and ministers did little to try to change that.

Annabelle Ewing

As we have heard, the increase in energy prices was not a de minimis increase but an increase of 158 per cent. Is the member trying to suggest that that had no impact at all on the issue?

Jackie Baillie

I am not suggesting that, but we ignored the fact that the increase had had an impact and we failed to address what we then needed to do to recalibrate in order to meet the target. It is not good enough to say that it is somebody’s else’s fault and do nothing to try to change that.

On reflection, I am clear that we need to start with an ambitious target, to have a route map for how to achieve it and to monitor implementation closely. We also need to have enough money in the budget to realise our ambitions, to have parliamentary ownership and maybe even to have some independent oversight so that ministers’ feet are held to the fire when necessary.

The bill’s target of taking fuel poverty down to 5 per cent by 2040 is lacking in ambition. Taking the number of fuel poor down between now and that target date means a reduction of 1 per cent a year, which makes a snail’s pace look fast and condemns another generation to fuel poverty. The target should be 2032. Changing the definition is also very troubling. The Scottish Government has changed its methodology and analysis at least four or five times and on each occasion more people in fuel poverty got measured out. With the greatest respect, redefining fuel poverty or changing the methodology to simply take people out of the equation fiddles the figures while Rome burns.

Kevin Stewart

That is nonsense.

Jackie Baillie

It is not nonsense.

People tell me that pensioners and people living in rural areas suffer most from fuel poverty, but the Scottish Government has moved the qualifying age from 60, where it currently is, to 75. The minister will be aware that many people in Scotland, particularly those in disadvantaged areas, do not reach the age of 75, but they still live in acute fuel poverty. At stage 1, the minister said that he would consult on that in bringing forward regulations, but we should know now what the Government’s intentions are. I am interested to know whether he would rule out shifting the qualifying age as high as 75.

Other members have touched on minimum income standards, and I agree with Andy Wightman’s comments in that regard. I will spend the short time remaining to me to talk about monitoring. Parliament must, of course, have an active role, but I suggest to the minister that, rather than having the Scottish fuel poverty advisory forum on an ad hoc basis, it should be given statutory underpinning and be independent of ministers. I listened carefully to what the minister said, but I am not persuaded by his argument. We should give the forum the tools and the teeth to do its job.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to alleviate and eradicate fuel poverty. I welcome the steps that are being taken in the bill, but there is an opportunity to do so much more. When this Parliament was created, it seized those opportunities to be bold and ambitious, to change the policy landscape and to be positive about the future for the people of Scotland. Twenty years on, we should not be timid about this or condemn another generation to having to choose between heating and eating. We should seize the opportunity to eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

My region of the Highlands and Islands is where fuel poverty, by any reasonable definition, is most pronounced. As many members will be aware, a number of factors contribute to the problems that the region faces in that regard, including a slightly less hospitable climate in some seasons, the limitations of the mains gas network, the wider economic challenges of the region and an ageing population. When considered against the backdrop of higher living costs in less densely populated areas—a problem that the region shares with other remote and rural parts of Scotland—fuel poverty clearly has a regional element to it and is an issue of particular relevance to my constituents.

I will illustrate that with some examples. Orkney Islands Council and Western Isles Council have the sorry record of being the local authorities in Scotland where over 50 per cent of households are in fuel poverty under the current definition. The five local authorities with the highest proportion of households without mains gas are all in the Highlands and Islands, and those councils also find themselves near the bottom of the table for energy efficiency measures. Setting aside the island authorities, which have their own particular needs, it is the Highland Council and Moray Council areas that experience the highest levels of fuel poverty in mainland Scotland.

Dr Allan

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Halcro Johnston

I would like to get on.

Where levels of fuel poverty are that high, fuel poverty can become less visible. Many people in those communities—particularly older people—would not immediately identify themselves as being in fuel poverty, regardless of where statistical definitions place them. High energy costs and lower disposable incomes can often be treated as a fact of life. Policy makers may think that that makes them a less pressing problem, but individuals, families and the wider economy are impacted just the same. Individuals are left making the same unpleasant and undesirable trade-offs in order to heat their homes adequately.

Before I turn to some of the conclusions of the stage 1 report, I extend my thanks to the committee for a comprehensive and informative piece of work. The report identifies and notes a number of the localised concerns that I have raised.

One area that the committee was right to highlight is extreme fuel poverty. As members have observed, there is a risk that targets at a national or even a local authority level could create perverse outcomes whereby the low-hanging fruit are tackled first while those in the greatest need are abandoned. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to lodge stage 2 amendments. We will look at them in some detail.

The committee’s report quotes from the evidence of Alasdair Calder of Argyll and Bute Council, who spoke about the need to avoid a situation in which the 5 per cent of homes still in fuel poverty in 2040 are all located either on the islands or in rural areas in his council area. It is a question not simply of deprioritising the worst cases but of failing to address areas whose geography makes them more difficult and potentially more expensive to reach.

The committee also addressed local issues with the use of the minimum income standard. The fact that remote and rural areas have particular problems is not controversial, but the Scottish Government’s early conclusions that those problems will be accounted for in the MIS and that the additional costs of gathering better data would be prohibitive seem to have been largely contradicted by the committee’s evidence. I therefore welcome the minister’s comments about the islands MIS. He assured the committee that he would

“look seriously at ... an uplift ... for remote rural areas”.—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 19 December 2018; c 3.]

I am pleased that he appears to have done so, but it is important that his assessments be scrutinised effectively by Parliament. If he wants to build cross-party support, that work needs to be undertaken seriously, because such changes are not to be taken lightly.

Let us consider the relative impact of the proposals. The number of older households in fuel poverty will be deemed to have fallen by 137,000 at the stroke of a pen, while some 60,000 people with a long-term sickness or disability will be removed from the statistics. Many people who are removed from the fuel poverty statistics will be in my region. Unsurprisingly, that has caused local organisations alarm, and I have heard from housing associations, local authorities and individuals on the point. It is important not to send a message to people in rural Scotland that we think their problems have been solved even though their circumstances remain the same.

I also welcome the Government’s commitment to carrying out an islands impact assessment on various aspects of the bill, which is important to meeting its commitment to the islands. In a policy area in which the islands are so clearly distinct from mainland Scotland, it is extremely important that that process be undertaken and that it command the confidence of those communities.

Like other members, I express disappointment about the bill’s downgrading from a more rounded warm homes bill, which represents a missed opportunity to take a comprehensive approach to tackling the issues. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government’s efforts have often appeared—at least to Conservative members—to be unfocused. Major policies such as the creation of a publicly owned energy company seem to have been created as soundbites first, with key details and direction to be ironed out later.

There is a pressing need to further address energy efficiency and its considerable regional disparities. It is welcome that the Government is willing to move on the bill, and I will join Scottish Conservative colleagues in seeking to strengthen it, but I emphasise that the issues raised by the committee must be considered seriously if ministers want wider support.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

As a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I was pleased to work with colleagues on our stage 1 report on this important bill, which has the potential to have a hugely positive impact on the lives of thousands of households across Scotland.

In 2017, a quarter of Scottish households—613,000—were classified as living in fuel poverty. The previous Scottish Executive had hoped to eliminate fuel poverty, but, despite its best intentions and those of its successors, its efforts were stymied by increases in fuel prices, over which it had no control: they rose by 155 per cent while wages grew by 38 per cent. That was highlighted by the £110 increase in the default tariff 13 days ago, which Pauline McNeill mentioned.

The bill’s principal aims are to set out a new target for a dramatic reduction in fuel poverty that is both ambitious and achievable; to introduce a new definition of fuel poverty so that support can reach those who need it most; to produce a new long-term fuel poverty strategy; and to oblige the Scottish ministers to publish reports and lay them before Parliament every five years. Stakeholders have agreed that enshrining a target in legislation will provide a clear end point against which to measure progress.

Some people may ask why the aim is not to completely eradicate fuel poverty. The 5 per cent target takes into account the Scottish Government’s limited influence over two of the four main drivers of fuel poverty: household income and energy costs. Another factor is the transient nature of fuel poverty, because some households move in and out of the definition due to circumstances that, again, this Government cannot control.

Setting a realistic target for 2040—I understood that all the committee members agreed to that; there was certainly no dissent in the report—while laying the groundwork with a sustainable and well-designed long-term strategy provides an opportunity to reduce fuel poverty even further.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government has agreed to enshrine interim target milestones in the bill at stage 2 so that we can assess how well the strategy is working.

Andy Wightman

Kenneth Gibson has been an MSP for quite some time and will be well aware that, although committee members do their best to produce reports that we all agree represent the will of the committee, that does not mean that members of various parties do not take a different view when it comes to stage 1 debates, stage 2 amendments or stage 3 debates. He seems to insinuate that we should not be doing that.

Kenneth Gibson

No—what I am saying is that, to my understanding, all seven members of the committee agreed to the 2040 date without a scintilla of dissent, yet some of them have come to today’s debate pretending that they supported the date of 2032 all along. That is fundamentally dishonest. If someone is against something in a committee’s report, they should dissent from it. For example, Andy Wightman’s colleague on the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee dissented when six other MSPs supported a view and another two MSPs abstained. That is how to do it. Members should not say, “Oh aye, 2040 is great,” then come to the chamber and say that that date is not radical enough—that is dishonest. I disagree with Andy Wightman on that.

Our evidence taking was not limited to hearing views in this building. Members visited Dundee and the Western Isles to hear at first hand from people about their lived experience of fuel poverty.

On Lewis, we heard from a woman who had three part-time jobs and relied on her credit card just to get by. Her traditional single-skin breeze-block cottage had a wood-burning stove and storage heaters. She was not on the gas grid, which is limited to Stornoway, as Alasdair Allan said. She left the island for work and rented out her home, and, on her return, the house was in a poor condition because the tenants could not afford to heat it. The result was damaged white goods and dampness in the walls. However, the woman received excellent support from local organisation Tighean Innse Gall, which arranged for external wall insulation. That remedied a situation that was quickly becoming unbearable for her.

We also heard from a man who lived in a 100-year-old croft house with thick stone walls and small windows. He reported that, once he had cavity wall insulation and new storage heaters, it felt like a new home, and those measures made a significant difference to his fuel bills. The experiences that were shared by people in fuel poverty demonstrated the harsh reality of being fuel poor and reaffirmed the committee’s view that the proposed legislation is essential.

We know that fuel bills are generally higher in island communities—not just in the Western Isles but on Arran and Cumbrae, in my constituency, and on other islands. That can be for a variety of reasons, including a lack of connection to the gas grid, increased exposure to wind and weather, overreliance on electricity and unregulated fuel types, and the presence of older, hard-to-heat homes.

As we have heard, the starkest disparity between regions is between the Orkney Islands, where 58.7 per cent of households are in fuel poverty, and Edinburgh, which has the lowest proportion—20.1 per cent—of such households. That is why, although the committee welcomes the revised definition of fuel poverty that is set out in the bill, which is based around the calculation of a minimum income standard that takes account of daily living costs, the MIS definition may not adequately take into account the reality of living on islands or in remote rural areas that are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. Therefore, I welcome the minister’s commitment to an additional minimum income standard ahead of stage 2, as well as his commitment to publishing an islands assessment by the end of April.

Delivering a meaningful reduction in fuel poverty requires a concerted effort from everyone, including local government, businesses, the third sector, landlords, tenants and home owners.

No legislation exists in a vacuum, and this bill intersects with the aims on climate change, the new energy efficient Scotland programme, the energy efficiency route map and the draft fuel poverty strategy that is mandated by the bill. That suite of policies will reduce fuel poverty and improve home energy efficiency while reducing carbon emissions. Indeed, by the end of 2021, this Government will have allocated more than £1 billion since 2009 to tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency. Jackie Baillie talked about £65 million being invested in 2012, but £113 million was invested last year, so there has been a significant increase in investment despite a challenging financial situation for this Government.

Jackie Baillie rose—

Kenneth Gibson

If Jackie Baillie had intervened earlier, I would have taken her intervention, but I am now over my time.

By achieving our challenging target of reducing fuel poverty to 5 per cent, we will not only be one of just a handful of countries around the world to do so, but, more important, we will draw ever closer to a fairer Scotland where nobody is forced to choose between eating and heating.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

This has been a significant stage 1 debate in which many important issues have been highlighted by members across the chamber. As colleagues have done, I welcome the bill.

It occurs to me that Parliament has countless times denounced fuel poverty as Scotland’s shame, yet hundreds of thousands of households still battle against its effects. It is unacceptable that people across Scotland sit down of an evening and weigh up whether they should warm their homes or fill their stomachs.

Liam McArthur stressed the range of health and education downsides of living in fuel poverty. How is an elderly person to protect their health in a draughty room? How is a child to excel at school when their home is distractingly cold? How can a carer support their loved one in a home that has pitiful insulation? I remind Parliament that our right to adequate housing is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We clearly feel the changing seasons in Scotland, so “adequate” here must mean “warm”.

As Jackie Baillie stressed, there was consensus about eradicating fuel poverty by 2016. Her historical analysis was chilling. Where is the recalibration that is needed? To its eternal shame, the Scottish Government has not done enough on that.

Annabelle Ewing

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Claudia Beamish

I will not. I have made the point and so did Jackie Baillie. It has been well made.

We now have a bill on fuel poverty, but I share the serious concerns of my colleagues that the 5 per cent of households that will be left in fuel poverty will be those that are most difficult to tackle, and which have already suffered for decades. I therefore welcome the minister’s commitment to producing a definition of “extreme fuel poverty”.

The Existing Homes Alliance Scotland is a broad and significant coalition. It has stressed—and I quote—

“the need to take the higher cost of remote and rural living into account.”

Frankly, it is a relief that the stage 1 report recognises that the new definition that is proposed in the bill does not adequately take that into account. I strongly welcome the minister’s commitment to lodging an amendment on rural living at stage 2. It is vital that we ensure that there is an uplift for rural dwellers. That the bill will be island proofed—which has been committed to by the minister today and the need for which was previously stressed by Liam McArthur, Alasdair Allan and others—is vital.

As an MSP for South Scotland, I am keenly aware of the challenges that are faced by people who live in rural fuel poverty, who are often off-grid and living in hard-to-heat old stone houses. The Scottish Government might consider how help could be given to collective or co-operative rural support. That could be part of the strategy, if it is not to be in the bill, especially in relation to low-carbon energy solutions such as biomass.

More widely beyond the bill, co-operative and mutual models of energy production, distribution and sale have a role to play in tackling fuel poverty. When Britain’s energy system is not working for consumers, those models are means by which to empower fuel-poor, disadvantaged and excluded communities. I accept that that involves reserved issues.

However, Pauline McNeill highlighted the problems that exist for larger families who can see their annual bills rise by up to £184 per year. The market might be broken, thanks to a combination of lack of competition, which results in market dominance by a small number of large vertically integrated companies, unsustainable and short-term decision making by big business, and housing stock that ranks among the least energy efficient in Europe.

However, consumer, local government, community and employee ownership models have been shown to offer behavioural benefits, as people show more consideration of their own energy use. The models also offer economic benefits by helping with job creation and with returns from them remaining in the locality through reinvestment.

We need a fuel poverty bill, for sure—for the sake of people’s health, wellbeing and financial equality, and for the sake of our efforts to tackle climate change. The narrow scope of the bill means that it will not deliver specifically on lowering climate change emissions from housing. However, I welcome the minister’s commitment to finding the way forward, with COSLA and the committee, on reporting duties that would run in parallel with the current climate change reporting duty.

In her opening remarks for Scottish Labour, my colleague Pauline McNeill explored the private rented sector. There has long been concern about homes in which the opportunity to improve energy efficiency does not lie wholly in the hands of residents—for example, in the private rented sector. I welcome the work of the Scottish Parliament’s working group on tenement maintenance, of which energy efficiency in common improvements is an important part.

I highlight that I tried in 2014 to amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill at stages 2 and 3 to add a duty to make provision for energy efficiency standards in the repairing standard, but the Scottish Government did not support that. At that time, I withdrew my amendments on the understanding that the issue would be tackled with other energy efficiency concerns. The issue is complex, but I hope that that will not be used as an excuse to avoid tackling it. Stage 2 and beyond should be seen as an opportunity.

I hope that the Scottish Government will engage with those of us who are keen to address multi-occupancy and the private rented sector. I understand that members across the parties are keen to do that.

Scottish Labour welcomes the bill and supports its general principles, but there is a lot of room for improvement. The minister has acknowledged that, on the basis of the Local Government and Communities Committee’s report. However, in the view of Scottish Labour, we still have a considerable way to go.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to close this stage 1 debate on the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill for the Scottish Conservatives.

Our manifesto in advance of the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections made it clear that the Scottish Conservatives are committed to ensuring that no one lives in a hard-to-heat home, and to reducing fuel poverty. We are therefore happy to support the broad principles of the bill.

More specifically, we pledged to make the case to transform investment in the energy efficiency of homes across Scotland. We suggested that that could be done by investing up to 10 per cent of the Scottish Government’s capital budget allocations in energy efficiency measures. That could lead to thousands of jobs across Scotland, make homes easier to heat, and reduce energy bills and carbon emissions. The bill is certainly needed at this time to tackle that issue, which is driven by a complex combination of energy costs, energy efficiency, household incomes and energy use.

At present, a quarter of households in Scotland live in fuel poverty. We have heard that today, and we have also talked about rural and island communities. The convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, James Dornan, commented on that. I am delighted that Kevin Stewart will lodge amendments at stage 2 to cover issues in our rural and island communities.

It has been a real privilege, as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, to have heard from groups, individuals and organisations that have ensured that we have heard their views and opinions. Prior to the debate, many members received useful briefings that gave those views and opinions.

Previous attempts by successive Governments to address the issue have been unsuccessful. We heard from Jackie Baillie about what the target that was set out back in 2002 attempted to do, and that the Government wanted to ensure that it was reached by 2016. We have heard that, for various reasons, that did not happen.

It is important that the Local Government and Communities Committee and communities across civic Scotland support the bill because they see the need for things to happen. However, the bill does not include any accountability mechanisms. That was one of the key flaws in the 2016 target. In other words, consequences are needed for the Scottish Government if there is failure to meet the targets in the bill, otherwise the ambitions will not be met and we will simply end up with simple and meaningless propositions.

Kevin Stewart

Will the member give way?

Alexander Stewart

I would like to make progress.

I do not want targets not to be met. We want to ensure that the bill is successful, so there will need to be amendments and changes to it.

It is disappointing that interim targets are not set out. That was talked about in the draft fuel poverty strategy. The committee and stakeholders who responded to the consultation made clear their support for the statutory underpinning of such milestones—indeed, the committee requires them to support the target date of 2040. I note that the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning has proposed to lodge amendments at stage 2. As I said earlier, I welcome that. We need them to ensure that that happens.

By using a nationwide target, the bill could ensure that there are regional disparities. The committee suggested that the Scottish Government amend section 1 and put in place for each local authority statutory targets to reduce fuel poverty in their areas. That should also be considered.

We have heard from many members this afternoon. Graham Simpson said that the bill should help to eradicate fuel poverty, but it will only set a target, so there is a lack of ambition. The bill is a step in the right direction, but it is a step in the right direction only at this point.

My colleague Alexander Burnett talked about the bill’s focus and the need for the targets to be valid and obtainable. He also spoke about standardisation and the support for rural and remote households.

Many members have made valid contributions to the debate, which shows the depth of feeling about the issue across the chamber and across Scotland. Jamie Halcro Johnston talked about missed opportunities. He said that the rate of fuel poverty is highest in his Highland region and that people need to accept that as a fact of life. Fuel poverty should not be a fact of life for individuals and communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

Pauline McNeill talked about the bill falling short, in that it does not provide the ambition that she and the Labour Party had hoped for. Andy Wightman talked about the unacceptable level of fuel poverty, which we all need to acknowledge. Therefore, it is vital that we look at how we can enhance reporting and support.

Liam McArthur talked about the lack of ambition in addressing the problems in rural and island areas. He talked about the choice between heating a home or eating, which is a fact of life for some people. They are put in that situation.

The Scottish Conservatives are committed to tackling fuel poverty and to reducing the level of overall carbon emissions. As I have indicated, although we support the general principles of the bill, a number of important changes are required. We shall support the bill at stage 1, but we will lodge amendments that will strengthen the bill at stages 2 and 3. That is the right thing to do, and we should ensure that we all work together to achieve that.

Kevin Stewart

As I said at the outset of the debate, the Government is ambitious in its desire to tackle, reduce and, ultimately, eliminate fuel poverty in Scotland. Beyond that, we need to ensure that we reduce the rate of carbon emissions in our country, and we need to move forward in delivering technologies to ensure that that becomes a reality.

The bill is not a stand-alone measure. It goes hand in hand with the carbon reduction bill, which will be introduced to Parliament very shortly, and with the bill that Mr Wheelhouse will introduce on district and local heating strategies.

Beyond those bills, I draw members’ attention to the draft energy strategy and to the energy efficient Scotland pipeline. In the energy efficient Scotland route map, we lay out our ambitious targets on EPC ratings to deal with fuel-poor homes. Fuel-poor homes should reach EPC band C by 2030 and EPC band B by 2040. Those targets will act as a guide for our programmes, to ensure that delivery to fuel-poor households is prioritised.

Graham Simpson

During the debate, the minister will have heard concerns from a number of members, including Alasdair Allan, about EPC ratings and their effectiveness. Is he willing to look at that issue on a Scotland-wide basis?

Kevin Stewart

Building standards officials are looking at EPC ratings—that is part of the Government’s on-going, day-to-day work. We keep all such matters under review, and I am happy to hear members’ views. I remember receiving Mr Burnett’s letter about his constituent’s situation in relation to EPC assessments. If folk want to feed into the process, I will ensure that their views go to building standards officials so that they can play a part in the work that the officials are doing.

As I have said, this is not a stand-alone bill but part of a suite of legislation and regulation that we must bring forward if we are to do our level best for the people of Scotland. I do not want anyone to live in a fuel-poor household. I remember as a child living in a house that was heated by a two-bar fire in the living room and a Superser heater upstairs, with the bedroom doors open to let the heat get through—

Pauline McNeill

You were lucky!

Kevin Stewart

I was lucky, compared to some.

We had ice forming on the inside of the windows—through no fault of my parents, who were doing their level best. I do not want anybody to live in those circumstances, and I want to move as quickly as we can on these issues, but we have to be realistic about what is deliverable and what can be achieved in certain timescales. I have heard a lot today that differs from the committee report in relation to moving further and faster on some of the targets, but I have not heard anything about how we deliver things quicker or how we achieve that deliverability. I have said time and time again that what we are putting in place is ambitious and deliverable—just—but it is also stretching, and folks who are thinking of lodging amendments to bring targets forward will have to look at how those can be delivered.

Pauline McNeill

The minister has asked the parties to think about how we can deliver that aim, but I ask him to consider the suggestion that I made in my speech. The delivery aspects of the bill could do with a bit more content. If the minister is indeed open minded about accepting amendments on delivering on the detail of reducing fuel poverty, will he consider substantially amending those aspects of the bill?

Kevin Stewart

The delivery aspects are not necessarily in the bill; they relate to delivering the energy efficient Scotland programme, adapting things as we move forward and ensuring that the draft fuel poverty strategy becomes something that works for all. Sometimes in the Scottish Parliament we get a little bit fixated with primary legislation, but it can be very difficult to create primary legislation that focuses on delivery. The documents that I have mentioned and the scrutiny of these matters as we move forward will be extremely important and key to ensuring that we reach the targets to which we aspire.

Claudia Beamish

Will the minister give way?

Kevin Stewart

Very briefly.

Claudia Beamish

Does the minister agree with the importance, as highlighted in my speech, of local energy production and work by co-operatives in not only supporting local jobs but helping people in fuel poverty to tackle the situation?

Kevin Stewart

Absolutely. I believe that if we get progress on the matter absolutely right, we can create jobs. It will be a matter not just of handing jobs to multinational companies, as has happened often in the past, but of local delivery.

The prime example of that can be found in Orkney. When I first came into my post, civil servants told me that Orkney was unable to spend its area-based scheme money. It was suggested that I take the money back, but I did not do that, because I saw that Orkney required more time than other authorities to set up the supply chain and the skills to deliver what it needed.

I would like to see the same kind of thing happen across the country, but if we are pushed to move too quickly on the matter, local authorities might not be able to do what Orkney did and might be pushed into procuring things elsewhere—perhaps from places where Ms Beamish would not want them to be procured. There is absolutely a logic to taking some time to get certain aspects of this right. However, as I have said, if anyone comes forward with a delivery plan that works in bringing targets forward, I will certainly look at it.

Having listened to the committee, I have made some moves on interim targets and minimum income standards that—I am pleased to hear—folk are happy about. One of the key things is the tackling of extreme fuel poverty, and I will without doubt bring forward amendments on that at stage 2.

I will continue to listen. Movement has happened not just because of the committee’s work but because of the engagement between members and me and with stakeholders at large. That will continue as we progress with not just the bill but the energy efficient Scotland programme, the right fuel poverty strategy and the other bills that are to come.

Liam McArthur

Following Pauline McNeill’s point about access to the available funds—[Interruption.]

Kevin Stewart

I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I cannot hear Mr McArthur.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

Can we have a bit of order in the chamber and fewer conversations, please? Let us listen to Mr McArthur.

Liam McArthur

Pauline McNeill highlighted some of the difficulties in accessing funds. Some people who live in listed properties find it exceptionally difficult to introduce measures. Will the minister speak to his colleagues to ensure that heritage and fuel poverty objectives are better aligned than they appear to be at present?

Kevin Stewart

I will certainly do that. I am well aware that, in Mr McArthur’s constituency, there are council houses that date back to the Napoleonic era, and those are difficult to deal with.

On Ms McNeill’s point about a joined-up approach, I suggest that everybody talks to home energy Scotland. Its award-winning helpline is absolutely fantastic and it will guide people to the right places and give them the right advice. I am more than willing to speak to Ms McNeill and others about where they think that the difficulties lie for folks in accessing grant and/or loan funding. I want to make that journey as easy as possible for people so, if Pauline McNeill wants that conversation, I am more than happy to have it.

There have been a few myths today, which I need to touch on. Ms Baillie talked about modelling and analysis being changed four or five times and said that each time more households were taken out of fuel poverty. The changes in the modelling and analysis have happened only to reflect the changes to industry standards and energy modelling, and for no other reason at all.

Jackie Baillie

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

I will take a very brief one, although I really feel that I should not.

Jackie Baillie

When I accused the minister of changing the methodology and analysis, he said that that was nonsense, but he is now admitting that I was right. Will he tell the Parliament that, on each occasion, more people were taken out of fuel poverty, even though their experience continued to be one of being in fuel poverty?

Kevin Stewart

What I said was nonsense was Jackie Baillie’s point that the changes in modelling and analysis took more folk out of fuel poverty—that was the absolute nonsense that Ms Baillie was speaking. She introduced the original bill on fuel poverty, which was the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and perhaps then there was no foresight about possibilities and scrutiny, so she should reflect on that. We need to get this absolutely right.

I will finish with a point that some members have touched on but which seems to have been lost to others. We do not have control over all the levers that lead to fuel poverty. We do not have control of energy prices, although I wish that we did, and we do not have control over incomes. Even though Mr Wightman attempted to say that we have a small amount of leverage in that regard, we do not have the ability to deal with things that the UK Government does, such as the changes in VAT, the poor roll-out of universal credit and the slashing of social security—the list goes on. As a Parliament, we should unite on those issues to ensure that we have control over every aspect of the matter so that we can truly move forward and do our very best for the people of Scotland.

I am grateful to the committee for its efforts. I found it a bit surprising that many speeches today did not reflect the committee’s report. However, we are where we are, and I am grateful to members for sharing their views.

I will continue to listen to members and stakeholders as we move forward to stage 2. I hope that we can do that in a logical fashion, lodging workable amendments that have no unintended consequences.

The Convener

Agenda item 3 is consideration of the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I welcome to the meeting Kevin Stewart and his officials. I also point out that because some non-committee members have lodged amendments that might be debated today, they are likely to attend later this morning.

When the bill was introduced, the Presiding Officer determined that a financial resolution is not required for the bill. Under rule 9.12.6C, the Presiding Officer has determined that the costs that would be associated with amendments 48 and 62 would, in themselves, exceed the current threshold that requires a bill to have a financial resolution. As a result, although the amendments may be debated as part of stage 2 proceedings, they may not be agreed to, in the absence of a financial resolution.

The Presiding Officer has also ruled that amendments 93, 31, 81, 84, 82 and 85 are cost bearing, but the potential cumulative cost of the amendments does not require a financial resolution. As a result, those and any consequential amendments may be debated and the questions put on them, as is normal in stage 2 proceedings.

Section 1—The 2040 target

The Convener

Amendment 53, in the name of Alex Rowley, is grouped with amendments 55, 66, 67, 69, 70, 77 to 80, 86 and 90 to 92. I draw members’ attention to the eight pre-emptions, as shown in the groupings.

Alex Rowley

Amendment 53 seeks to move the fuel poverty target from 2040 to 2032, because my view is that the 2040 target is not ambitious enough, and that we need to be more ambitious in driving the Government’s fuel poverty objectives.

In the evidence taking for the bill, a number of members commented on the fact that since they have been here—and, indeed, since the Parliament’s inception—targets for tackling fuel poverty have been set and missed. That, in itself, should be a lesson to us all that we have to be more ambitious. Indeed, we have been told as much by many people who have the broadest experience of tackling fuel poverty and who work directly with people who experience it. For example, Citizens Advice Scotland, the rural and islands housing association forum, Inclusion Scotland, East Ayrshire health and social care partnership and the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland have all said that we need to be more ambitious. Norman Kerr from Energy Action Scotland told us that the 2040 target

“condemns another generation to ... fuel poverty.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 21 November 2018; c 11.]

We have also heard that a 2032 target would be more in line with the energy efficiency targets and the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.

It is important to have joined-up Government if we are to succeed in achieving the objective that all of us at the table share, which is to rid Scotland of the blight of fuel poverty. That is contingent on there being a strong plan and adequate funding. We support the Government developing an ambitious and well-funded strategy, and we believe that bringing forward the target would help us to drive that strategy. A number of our amendments would help to facilitate that.

I have also lodged an amendment that would give the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel the power to recommend moving the target if we discover that, even under the best circumstances, the target cannot be met. This is not about setting up targets against which to fail; it is about having in place the best possible statutory structures to prevent people from the short-term and long-term harm that is associated with fuel poverty.

I accept that a number of drivers of fuel poverty are not under the control of the Scottish Government or Parliament. That said, there are drivers that are under our control and which we are less ambitious about tackling. For example, last week, I held an advice surgery in Ballingry in Fife, at which a lady came up to me, on whose case I have corresponded with the minister. There is a lack of insulation in her house. Her problem is a problem that many people in Scotland come across. The funding that is available through the various grants is not enough to pay for the types of insulation that are needed for steel-framed houses—including Stuart steel-framed houses—and timber-framed houses. There are not enough resources. We are not doing enough in relation to that driver of fuel poverty, so we need to be able to do more.

A few months ago a lady—again, I have corresponded with the minister and with the local authority about her case—brought to me photos of her timber-framed house. In the photos, it had been raining: you could see where the heaters were on the inside of the house because, on the outside, the timber frame was dry where they were. Heat is just pouring out of the house. There are loads of houses like that. Lack of insulation is a driver of fuel poverty that we surely need to be ambitious about. Imagine going back to those people and telling them that we have set a target for 2040. The people of Scotland will not be impressed by a 2040 target.

As I said, there has to be a clear strategy and there has to be funding to reach that target. Bringing forward the target to 2032 would give more impetus to the Government to put in the proper resources. We need to be serious about this. Where we can influence drivers of fuel poverty, we need to do so, and quickly. Otherwise, what are we saying?

The grants and the funding are not enough for us to meet fuel poverty targets. It is sad that although this Parliament, since its inception, has had the objective of tackling fuel poverty in Scotland, in 2019, we are saying that that target is being put off to 2040. I will be in my 70s by 2040. The people who are coming to my surgeries talking about fuel poverty now will probably no longer be alive in 2040. We must have more ambition and more hope, and that is why we should change that target to 2032.

Amendment 53 would not make the Government a hostage to fortune. If there are legitimate reasons why we cannot reach the target, we can change it. However, let us be ambitious for Scotland. Let us be ambitious about ending fuel poverty in Scotland, and shift the target to 2032 to drive the ambition to tackle fuel poverty.

I move amendment 53.

Andy Wightman

I support the amendments in the group. I want to raise two issues. In previous evidence, the minister has indicated that bringing forward the target from 2040 to 2032 would be extremely challenging and difficult. I understand that that is based on analysis that the Scottish Government has done that has not been shared with the committee. We do not have the evidence that the minister has with which to defend the 2040 target. Therefore, I am interested in seeing that evidence on the difficulties in achieving the 2032 target. Some of the minister’s language has suggested that achieving it would be an impossibility.

I will back the 2032 target, but with a proviso. Anyone who argues that we can or cannot reach a target by a date that is 12, 15 or 20 years in the future makes that statement with a degree of confidence, which might be a high degree or a low degree of confidence. Whatever target we set—whether it is 2032 or 2040—as we move forward it will become clearer whether that target will be achieved. I do not think that there is any shame in saying in 2025, for example, that we are not going to hit the target by 2032 or by 2040. Alternatively, we could be saying that we will easily make it by 2040, so we should bring forward the date.

My proviso is therefore that the bill incorporate Alex Rowley’s amendment 54, which provides for the target to be changed in the light of circumstances. If that amendment is accepted, I will be comfortable supporting the 2032 target, because if it is demonstrated that meeting the target will be impossible—I do not think that we can take that view now, but it could well be taken in 2025, for example—we will be able to shift the date. It would be reasonable to do that in the light of evidence and what we know.

On that basis, I will vote for Alex Rowley’s amendments in the group.

Annabelle Ewing

It is axiomatic that we all want fuel poverty to be tackled as quickly as possible—no one would doubt anybody’s commitment to that. I will remind the committee what we agreed on the issue in our stage 1 report, which brought in the different strands of our thinking. We said:

“The Committee notes concerns regarding the length of the target date set out in the Bill, which at 21 years is considerably longer than the 14-year target previous Scottish administrations had worked to. However, the Committee also understands views that this approach is a pragmatic response to previous attempts to set a target, which ultimately failed. We also recognise arguments that reducing fuel poverty will lean heavily on applying technologies still in development and that it is realistic to build in time for these to come on-stream.”

The committee went on to say:

“The Committee therefore accepts the Government's reasons for setting the target date at 2040. This would however be conditional on the Government bringing forward amendments to make at least some of its interim milestones statutory by way of amendment at Stage 2, and we are pleased to note that a public commitment has been made to enshrine two of these at Stage 2. If the amendments are agreed to, this should help protect the fuel poverty strategy from ‘drift’, and enable comprehensive assessment of how well the strategy is working at its mid-point.”

I think that the committee got it right at stage 1, and it took into account the minister’s commitment to introduce interim targets. Frankly, I do not see what has changed between our agreement at stage 1—no member dissented from those points in the report—and today.

I will pick up a couple of other points that relate to what has been said. I accept that a target was set previously and that it was missed. To be fair to the previous Labour-Liberal Administration and the first Scottish National Party Administration in 2007, certain events formed the backdrop in that period—there was a global economic recession and massively increased energy prices. It is only fair to put that in context.

However, things happen in life, and it is not always easy to entirely predict what will happen. That is particularly the case at the moment, in the context of the Westminster Brexit saga.

The target was set and it was missed. To me, that does not seem to be a good reason to set a target that, collectively, for pragmatic reasons, we have agreed is not the best way forward. Instead, it seems to me to suggest that it is a good idea to keep the target that is in the bill—2040—which, for pragmatic reasons, is deemed to be achievable. That does not mean that, between now and 2040, nothing will happen and nobody will see an improvement in their living standards—the contrary is the case. We will see people move into a better situation in terms of their use of fuel, the warmth of their homes and so forth as the years progress, and we will be able to take advantage of the opportunity that is presented by the interim targets. It is an important point to make that what happens in 2040 will not be achieved from a standing start, with nothing happening between now and that point. We are talking about progress being made year on year.

On the point that there might be a possibility of the Government saying that it has got the approach wrong, that it is not moving forward quickly enough and that it should change the target, I would say that what we need is a clear plan or route map, which is what the current approach is in the fuel strategy document. We need a clear plan for how we intend to get from where we are to bringing everything together to meet the target in 2040. I think that that makes sense—it is a reasonable way to proceed. It provides some certainty, unlike the approach that is being suggested today, which was not suggested at stage 1 by anybody on the committee, and which involves the ability to somehow change back to the 2040 target in a few years. I do not see that as a practical or helpful way forward.

When I am dealing with cases in Ballingry or Cowdenbeath, for example, and I see the conditions that some of my constituents are living in—which I have to say include conditions in houses that are tenanted from Fife Council—the first thing that I do is get on to Fife Council to say, “What is going on here? Come and treat this home. This is absolutely unacceptable.” We have to understand that other players have responsibilities with regard to this matter.

Finally, as Alex Rowley pointed out, we in this Parliament do not hold power over all the key drivers, particularly energy prices and household incomes. To set a target that does not reflect that fact is not helpful to the people we are trying to help. We have to accept the reality of where we are. I would argue that the Parliament should have those powers, but not everybody around this table agrees with me. While we do not have those powers, it is unhelpful and, indeed, risky with regard to the goal of improving people’s lives to try to pretend that that is not the reality. It does not do the people who we are trying to help a service. Therefore, I am afraid that I will not be supporting Alex Rowley’s amendments in the group.

Kenneth Gibson

I agree with what Annabelle Ewing has said. I thank her for reading out the paragraphs from page 1 of our stage 1 report, because it saved me from having to do it.

We discussed the matter at some length and, based on the evidence, we came to a unanimous view, as I understand it, that 2040 was a realistic and achievable target and that 2032 was not. Therefore, like Annabelle Ewing, I am surprised that the amendments have been lodged and that they have some support on the committee.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that it considers that it would be “callous” to implement another target that cannot be achieved. It is one thing to be ambitious, but reality has to come into play as well, which is why the committee decided what it decided.

Think about what lies ahead of us—we are going to go through Brexit, which the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government believe will lead to the Scottish economy shrinking by up to 8 per cent by 2030. Further, we will have fewer workers in our economy, and, therefore, there could be considerable issues with regard to labour shortages when it comes to implementing the policy to 2032, even with the best will in the world and even if finances were available.

Energy prices, which are one of the four drivers of fuel poverty, could increase if sterling continues to decline—indeed, energy prices have gone up 10 per cent in the past few months. We have to be realistic about what we can deliver.

Alex Rowley talked about putting in more funding, to properly resource the policy, but I did not hear him mention a figure for the estimated cost or say how the Government would be expected to source that funding and pay for his proposed approach.

Everyone on the committee wants fuel poverty to be eliminated at the earliest possible date, and we would all like the Government to be more ambitious. I would like the target to be elimination by 2025, if that were possible, but the reality is that that cannot happen, given current resource restraints. It is unfortunate, but 2040 is the most realistic date.

However, if progress is made—if the economy grows much more strongly than is anticipated, if fuel prices do not rise and if incomes go up—then yes, we can look again at the interim targets and perhaps bring the dates forward to 2036, 2032 or even sooner, if possible.

Nevertheless, as COSLA said, it would be callous to set a target and raise expectations that cannot be met. I urge the committee to reject Alex Rowley’s amendments.

Graham Simpson

This was one of the key issues that the committee had to deal with at stage 1.

I do not think that members of any committee should necessarily feel bound by a committee report. I fully accept that we produced a unanimous report, with nobody registering any dissent, but members of any party are free to go away and reflect on matters and then come to a different view.

During the stage 1 debate, I said that I was reflecting on the issue. I made the point that 2040 is a long time away and does not sound very ambitious. I think that at that point Mr Gibson got quite exercised and intervened, thinking that I was about to depart from the committee’s report. However, what I was actually saying was that I was still thinking about the target, because it is a difficult issue and there is no right or wrong answer.

I have reflected on the matter and my conclusion is this: if we are making law, it needs to be deliverable, so that there is a chance of achieving what we set out to achieve. The year 2032 is ambitious and I think that there is a good chance that we would not hit the target by then. There is a much better chance of our achieving the target by 2040, although I accept that that is a long way off.

My proviso to that is that we will need to put in interim targets. I note that there is an amendment in the minister’s name that would put in one such target. My preference is to put in a couple of interim targets. If there is no opportunity to do that at stage 2, we should consider doing so at stage 3.

Such an approach, along with the amendments on periodic reporting that we will consider later, would address the issue that Annabelle Ewing raised about the need for a clear route map. If we had not just one but at least two interim targets—two would probably do it—so that we could say, “By dates X and Y, we need to have achieved this target or that target”, it would not just be about 2040; we would have to hit other targets along the road.

Obviously, we have not yet agreed to that approach. However that is my view on things.

I would be comfortable with the 2040 target as long we can see a way to achieve what everyone on the committee wants, which is the eradication of fuel poverty—although I am not quite convinced that we can eradicate it completely.

In the stage 1 debate, Andy Wightman said, on targets, that we should

“take a more critical and sceptical view”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2019; c 40.]

He is absolutely right that we need to be sceptical about things. That is why we also need to be realistic.

I will not be supporting Alex Rowley’s amendments. I understand why he lodged them and I see what he is trying to achieve, but we must produce law that is achievable.

Alexander Stewart

Members of the committee have made some valid points this morning. Setting a target always sets out an ambition, but that is not always realised. As we have heard today, we all want to do as much as we can to tackle fuel poverty—it is an issue that none of us takes lightly. However, to be realistic, we must consider all the options.

I acknowledge that Mr Rowley lodged his amendments with the best of intentions. However, it will be very difficult to achieve that target and we should not set ourselves up to fail—as could be the case. The interim target that has been discussed is potentially the best way forward. It is a stepping stone—a location from where we can see how we are progressing.

We have already heard about the external circumstances that are not within our control and that may have an impact on the issue. Those have to be taken into account. If we are to be realistic about what we are to achieve, we cannot ignore those potential dangers and warnings from the sector, which may not support what we are trying to achieve.

As the stage 1 report indicated, at the end of the day, we are all very passionate about the process. That has not changed. We are still passionate about trying to do as much as we can. However, we must do so within the limitations of our situation and realistic timescales—2040 would give us that opportunity. An interim target would also give us the opportunity to see where we are going.

I, too, cannot support Alex Rowley’s amendments.

The Convener

I agree with Graham Simpson that everyone is entitled to have a slightly differing opinion or to change their mind following the stage 1 report, but I find it strange that on one of the most important issues, on which we had a lot of debate, some members have changed their minds totally. Having said that, I have no doubt at all that Alex Rowley lodged amendment 53 with the best of intentions and is trying to push us forward to help us bring about the end of fuel poverty as quickly as we can.

Alex Rowley commented that the fact that the first target was missed under the previous Administration was a reason for us to bring an earlier target here, but I would say the opposite. Missing that target was such a disappointment to so many people that we would not want to do it again. It also highlighted the problems that we have in trying to achieve such a target, because we lack the full range of powers. Like any country, we have to wait and see what happens with oil prices and all sorts of other things. It is important that we set a target that people respect and can trust.

Annabelle Ewing mentioned the new technologies, but there is more to it than that. Some things take time, such as behavioural change and education about how people use technology. One of the witnesses—perhaps from Argyll and Bute Council—talked about the fact that behavioural change will take time. They said that they will have to have boots on the streets and people chapping doors to make sure that they start to get people educated about the best way to change their behaviours and not use heating unnecessarily.

Alex Rowley made a valid point about his constituents, but as Annabelle Ewing quite rightly said, it is not as if we will be waiting until 2040 before we do anything. Instead, the hope is that, by the time we get to 2040, everything is resolved as best as it can be.

Clearly, I will not be supporting amendment 53, although I appreciate the reasons why Alex Rowley lodged it.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

This has been a good debate. As members know, I am against the change. I strongly urge members to vote against Alex Rowley’s amendments, but I recognise that they have been lodged with the best of intentions.

At stage 1, the committee accepted that it was better to have realistic and achievable targets that all involved could work towards. The committee asked the Government to amend the bill to include interim targets, and we have done so in respect of 2030. I am more than happy to continue to discuss with members other aspects of interim targets in the run-up to stage 3, but I appeal to them to ensure that any such targets do not come too early in the process, because we would not get very much out of them.

As the committee is well aware, we do not have all the powers that we need over the drivers of fuel poverty, particularly over energy prices; as a result, our action has to be taken using the powers that we have. For example, we are tackling fuel poverty by going for transformational change in homes through energy efficiency measures. That will rely on technologies, some of which are still being developed; a skilled workforce; and local companies to take forward the work.

The target date has to be agreed by the partners who will bring about the change: the businesses that will take the work forward, COSLA and, of course, those who own homes, such as home owners, private landlords and registered social landlords. Those sectors do not want the target to be changed in a way that will set everyone up to fail; instead, they want to work towards a target that can be achieved.

Moreover, the amendments, if accepted, would require our energy efficient Scotland programme to be accelerated, and I have not yet seen an alternative to the comprehensive route map. Let me just mention a few of the risks of such acceleration. First, it could lead to investment in existing technologies that might need to be replaced, perhaps in the very near future, and we must look at that properly if we are to reach and meet our climate change targets.

Graham Simpson

Can you clarify the phrase

“technologies that might need to be replaced”

so that people understand what you mean? I assume that you are talking about, for example, boilers in people’s homes.

Kevin Stewart

Absolutely. Mr Simpson has nailed it completely. We might well decide to replace gas boilers, only to find that we have to quickly replace them again to meet our climate change targets. In his earlier remarks, Mr Rowley talked about a joined-up Government approach. That is what we have tried to do in this bill, in the climate change bill that will come before the Parliament very soon and in energy efficient Scotland. By taking that path, we have taken account of all the pieces of the jigsaw in order to get this right. As I said, Mr Simpson is absolutely right in his assumption.

Other risks include the loss of economic opportunities from developing skills in the supply chain across Scotland, which could support 4,000 jobs. At the moment, only larger businesses outwith Scotland would be ready to match any accelerated pace.

I also point out the risk of inflationary pressures. If demand exceeded supply, corners could be cut and costs could escalate, which would result in higher public spending or, indeed, increased rents if costs needed to be met by landlords.

There is also a risk of alienating the public, because cutting eight years from the target would mean speeding up the pace of regulation and enforcement. We have committed ourselves to a phased approach to maximise the take-up of energy efficiency improvements voluntarily up to 2030, with mandatory action to follow. Bringing the target forward would mean taking mandatory action by around 2024. That is not enough time to work with the public and bring people with us on all these issues. Moving too quickly might alienate the public and not allow individuals and families to plan their own actions.

Of course we want to go faster—I want to go faster—if that is possible. That is why we have started our consultation on the effects of speeding up the programme. However, we cannot move faster if doing so risks the credibility of our actions or leads to people paying out more through the public purse or other means.

Mr Gibson highlighted the concerns that have been raised by COSLA, which pointed to the damage that could be done if unrealistic targets are set—it even said that it would be “callous” to do so. As COSLA noted, if the improvements that are required result in increasing more than the achieved savings in fuel costs, all that we will have done is to replace fuel poverty with poverty. We must have a realistic starting point for the target that is within our grasp and which we can strive for. Aiming for 2032 is unrealistic and unachievable before we have even started. It flies in the face of all the concerns that I have set out, and of the considered opinion of the committee in its stage 1 report.

Changing the target date risks the Parliament losing credibility on tackling and eradicating fuel poverty. I therefore urge the committee to reject the amendments, which no partner that needs to deliver the 2040 target agrees with.

Alex Rowley

The minister refers to the risk of Parliament losing credibility on tackling fuel poverty, but one would have to assume that such credibility exists at present. I am not sure that it does.

The minister talked about energy efficiency improvements, around which there are a number of myths. There is the myth that Annabelle Ewing talked about, which is that somehow we are just waiting on the technologies, and they will come at some point. I talked about specific cases, particularly the older lady up in Ballingry. She was not in a council house; she was in a bought house, and so were most in her street. When works were being done in Ballingry, they got an offer to insulate their houses. The minister knows about the case, because I have corresponded with him about it. The people got an offer of £600 to insulate their houses and they all handed over the £600. They then discovered that the Stuart metal-framed housing was more expensive to insulate properly. As a result, those people are sitting in fuel poverty, not because the technology does not exist but because it is more expensive and there is not enough funding.

If we are going to be ambitious, we must accept that part of that ambition should be to bring forward more resources. Kenneth Gibson rightly asked me where those resources would come from. I do not want to get into the politics of it but I am quite sure that, if my party was in government in Westminster, over 10 years there would be £47 billion of capital investment coming to Scotland. That is the level of investment that we need to see in housing and other infrastructure across Scotland. It is a myth to say that fuel poverty is all down to new technology. For the people who are in fuel poverty now and need energy efficiency improvements, the problem is the lack of funding.

I know that that will come forward in the strategy, the financial memorandum and the commitment to finance alongside that. If we set a more ambitious target, there is more likelihood of getting more resources to deliver. If we are not ambitious, we will not have the resources to deliver.

I turn to being realistic about what is achievable. The minister almost gave a list of reasons why we will probably never tackle fuel poverty—Brexit, fewer workers, a shortage of workers, and a shortage of skilled workers. That all has to be part of the strategy, but I do not think that it will take until 2040 to put it together. I am not convinced that the people of Scotland will be impressed that we are setting yet another fuel poverty target, which is for 2040; by then, I will be in my 70s and lots of people in Scotland who are living in fuel poverty today will no longer be living.

The issue is whether we have the will, the commitment and the drive to put in the resources to make this happen. It seems that SNP and Conservative members will team up to put off the target into the future; I think that that is sad. We need to be ambitious, and this Parliament needs to be ambitious—

Kenneth Gibson

May I ask where this dissent is coming from? I did not hear all this rhetoric when we debated the stage 1 report; I heard not one word of all this stuff. The member agreed with us about what we should do and what target should be set. He referred to £47 billion over 10 years for Scotland, which is pie in the sky—it is fantasy stuff. We are trying to deliver realistic policies for real people in Scotland at this moment in time, not for some potential UK Government that may or may not have resources to invest at some point in the future. That is where we are.

Alex Rowley

With the greatest of respect, Kenneth Gibson has today set out a load of excuses as to why we cannot do this. You have to dispel those myths about the key drivers. A key driver is poverty, and COSLA says that we would drive more people into poverty—I do not know where that comes from.

Consider the unacceptable increase in the level of child poverty in Scotland. An argument that is growing is being made by civic Scotland and the “Give me five” campaign: 30,000 children would be lifted out of child poverty if child benefit was increased by £5 a week. That would sit within the powers of this Parliament, so it is wrong to say that we do not have any influence over the key drivers.

Annabelle Ewing

Would the member—

Alex Rowley

I want to respond to Kenneth Gibson’s other point, which was about the committee’s report. I have listened to the evidence to this committee; I have also spoken to Citizens Advice Scotland, met Energy Action Scotland, listened to the rural and islands housing associations forum and East Ayrshire health and social care partnership and met the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland. They all say that the target is not ambitious enough and that we need to be more ambitious, with the flexibility to shift the target if need be.

Let us be ambitious for Scotland. Let us say that fuel poverty in Scotland is not acceptable and earn our crust by doing everything that we can to eradicate fuel poverty and bring the target forward.

I will conclude at that, convener. I press amendment 53.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 53 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 3, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendment 2.

Graham Simpson

I suspect that this will be slightly less contentious. Members can see amendment 3, but I thought that it might be useful if I read out how section 1(1) would look if amendment 3 were agreed to:

“The target is that in the year 2040, as far as reasonably possible no household in Scotland is in fuel poverty and, in any event, no more than 5% of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty.”

It should be clear enough to members that the purpose behind the amendment is that we do not want to say that our ambition is just 5 per cent. We want to go beyond that. It is a simple amendment that will clear up possible confusion and perhaps deal with the ambition that Mr Rowley wants to insert into the bill.

I move amendment 3.

Andy Wightman

Amendment 2, in my name, is a straightforward amendment. Notwithstanding Graham Simpson’s amendment 3, which proposes to alter the target, according to the “Oxford English Dictionary” the word “eradication” means

“the complete destruction of something”;

it means getting rid of something completely. The target is 5 per cent, which is therefore a reduction from the current rate of fuel poverty, so it is a simple question of language that would reflect more accurately the purpose of the bill.

Annabelle Ewing

Mr Simpson’s amendment picks up on the discussion that we had at stage 1; I am happy to support it on that basis.

I also recall discussions on the point that Mr Wightman’s amendment makes. Language is important in sending signals, but I feel that Mr Wightman’s approach would not send the best signal. We want to send the signal that we are absolutely determined to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland. That is our ambition and—picking up on the previous debate—we want to move as quickly as we can. However, we need to be realistic and not cynically and unnecessarily get people’s hopes up. We want to do the right thing and work together according to a route map, as we have just agreed to do.

In that context, it is important to retain the ambition. I worry that Mr Wightman’s amendment might detract from that. It is, perhaps—to an extent—a semantic issue. As a matter of practicality, it must be recalled that people move in and out of fuel poverty. In the future, there could be very dramatic circumstances—perhaps beyond the control of this or any Government—that could result in that happening on a significant scale. I think that Mr Wightman and I had an exchange on that in the stage 1 debate; as I said then, the Scottish Parliament does not control the key drivers of fuel poverty, including—to name but a few—household income, macroeconomic policy, income tax personal allowances, tax exemptions, value added tax, or 85 per cent of the value of social security payments. Sadly, one could go on and on.

Andy Wightman

I do not intend to address that latter point, which we rehearsed at stage 1, but Annabelle Ewing talked about the danger of changing the ambition of the bill. The long title is not really about ambition; the ambition is embodied in the sections of the bill. The long title should reflect what the bill says. The bill does not make any provision for the eradication of fuel poverty; it makes provision for a reduction to 5 per cent. It is not a question of whether there should be more or less ambition.

I understand Ms Ewing’s point about the importance of language, but the importance of language in the long title is to reflect accurately what the bill intends to do.

Annabelle Ewing

I hear what Mr Wightman says, and he has made that point on a number of occasions. However, if we took his approach, there is a risk that we would send a signal—which is really important—that we are limiting our ambition. We are not limiting our ambition; all committee members are very ambitious to tackle fuel poverty, but I fear that Mr Wightman’s approach would muddy the waters and not send the correct signal. Therefore, I will not support Mr Wightman’s amendment.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to accept Mr Simpson’s amendment, but not Mr Wightman’s. The bill’s target is for

“no more than 5% of households”

to be in fuel poverty in the year 2040. I stress the words “no more than”, because I feel that they are sometimes forgotten. Five per cent is a maximum, not a minimum; our long-term ambition is that no household should be in fuel poverty. The target is 5 per cent not because we are reluctant to go any further, but because we do not control all the drivers of fuel poverty—again, particularly energy prices.

Getting to 5 per cent is realistic, credible and deliverable by 2040, but we will always strive to do better. However, people’s circumstances change and they can move in and out of fuel poverty, as Ms Ewing highlighted. For example, a huge increase in fuel prices could move someone into fuel poverty, as could personal economic shocks. However, 5 per cent is not the limit of our ambition. Our long-term goal is the eradication of fuel poverty. I was pleased that the committee endorsed that position in its stage 1 report. The 5 per cent target in the bill both relates to and contributes to achieving that ambition.

Mr Simpson’s amendment serves a useful purpose. It will strengthen the bill’s target, so that

“in the year 2040, as far as reasonably possible no household ... is in fuel poverty”.

Importantly, it will not remove the 5 per cent target but rather will draw out the full intent behind our 2040 target. That is why I support it.

Mr Wightman’s amendment would substitute the word “reduction” for the word “eradication” in the long title of the bill. The long title states what our fuel poverty act will do, which includes setting

“a target relating to the eradication of fuel poverty”.

I believe that our 5 per cent target is entirely compatible with that description and will be even more so if the committee supports Graham Simpson’s amendment. Mr Wightman’s amendment would dilute, and detract from, that long-term ambition to eradicate fuel poverty, which is why I cannot support it.

Therefore, I urge the committee to support Mr Simpson’s amendment but reject Mr Wightman’s.

Graham Simpson

Thank you for all the comments. The minister has summed up very well that, if the committee is minded to accept my amendment, we will be saying that we are trying to ensure that nobody in Scotland is in fuel poverty, which is our aim.

If that is accepted, it is clear that the word “eradication” in the long title is also accepted, because that is what we are trying to achieve. In any case, the long title only says that it will be

“An Act ... to set a target relating to the eradication of fuel poverty”.

I am surprised that Andy Wightman, of all people, has tried to water that down and I will not support his amendment. Clearly, I will support my own amendment.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

On resuming—

The Convener

Amendment 15, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is grouped with amendments 16, 24, 25 and 38. I invite the minister to move amendment 15 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.

Kevin Stewart

The amendments will improve the bill and are in line with the committee’s stage 1 recommendations, so I urge the committee to support them. They mean that we will have in the bill a definition of extreme fuel poverty and of the fuel poverty gap, as well as new, challenging targets for them. Putting those additional targets on the same statutory basis as the overall fuel poverty target will bring a focus on those who are deepest in fuel poverty and ensure that the fuel poverty strategy will help those who are most in need and not those who are easiest to help.

The test for establishing whether a household is in extreme fuel poverty will be the same as the two-part test for fuel poverty that is in the bill. However, to be in extreme fuel poverty, a household will need to spend more than 20 per cent of its net income, after housing costs, on fuel, rather than more than 10 per cent.

The second part of the test remains the same: that that spending on fuel must leave the household with insufficient income to maintain an acceptable standard of living. Setting the target in the bill that, in the year 2040,

“no more than 1 per cent of households are in extreme fuel poverty”

clearly demonstrates our commitment to prioritising those who are worst off and indicates that we will not tolerate extreme fuel poverty. It is a realistic target that takes account of people who might move in or out of extreme fuel poverty temporarily, due to circumstances beyond the Scottish Government’s control, such as fuel prices or personal economic circumstances.

The fuel poverty gap measures not only whether a household is in fuel poverty, but how far away it is from the 10 per cent threshold, or from reaching the minimum income standard threshold. The target will require that our strategy does not leave behind those who need help the most. We know that in 2015 the median gap was almost £650, so achieving the 2040 target of £250 will substantially reduce the severity of the fuel poverty that households experience.

The achievement of the targets will improve many people’s lives considerably. The smaller the proportion of net income that they have to spend on fuel, the more they will have for other essentials of daily life.

By adding statutory targets for extreme fuel poverty and the median fuel poverty gap to the existing fuel poverty target in the bill, we will ensure that future efforts leave nobody behind.

I therefore urge the committee to support all the amendments in the group, and I move amendment 15.

Annabelle Ewing

The minister’s comments and amendments are welcome, because the committee asked the Government to address those issues at stage 1. We heard evidence from a number of stakeholders, including the Wheatley Group, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland and others, that were concerned to note that in the bill, as first published, there was no definition of extreme fuel poverty. We also heard concerns that, absent such a definition, there would be a risk of efforts being targeted at low-hanging fruit, even if the overall target was ultimately met. That might leave a disproportionate number of those with the most critical needs in the final 5 per cent of households that would continue to face fuel poverty by the 2040 target. I am very pleased indeed that the minister has listened to the committee and come forward with amendments on this important issue. I am happy to support the amendments.

Kenneth Gibson

I concur with those comments. This issue is important. As you will be aware, minister, a significant proportion of people live in extreme fuel poverty, particularly those with rural, hard-to-heat homes. The proposal is an excellent way to ensure that we do not end up in a situation in which the people who are in the deepest fuel poverty at the moment remain so many years from now. It is important that all groups in society benefit equally from the bill. You will be familiar with the phrase, “low-hanging fruit”. We have raised the issue that we are discussing on a number of occasions, and we want to ensure that everyone has equal access to the opportunity to have their fuel poverty reduced. I very much endorse what you and Annabelle Ewing have said.

Graham Simpson

As I have done before, I praise the minister for the way in which he has engaged with the committee on our recommendations, particularly the one that we are discussing now. It is important that we tackle the issue of people who are living in extreme fuel poverty. What the minister has said is most welcome. The issue has been raised by a number of people and organisations, including the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Wheatley Group, the Highlands and Islands housing associations affordable warmth group and the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland. Again, I welcome what the minister has brought forward, and we will support the amendments.

The Convener

I invite the minister to wind up.

Kevin Stewart

I thank the committee and other stakeholders for expressing their views on this issue and for co-operating with the Government to come up with the amendments that we are dealing with just now.

Defining extreme fuel poverty and setting ambitious targets to tackle it sends a clear signal that we are absolutely committed to dealing with the worst first. I have heard the committee and others talking about going for the low-hanging fruit first. We know that that should not be the case, and the amendments in the group will ensure that we are dealing first of all with those folks who are in the most extreme fuel poverty.

No one should have to choose between heating and eating. For those who experience that, tackling this problem and keeping them warm and comfortable in their homes is likely to have much wider benefits to their lives, and could possibly improve their health and education. Further, it has a huge benefit to our society.

By adding these statutory targets for extreme fuel poverty and the median fuel poverty gap to the existing fuel poverty target that is in the bill, we will ensure that future efforts do not leave anyone behind.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 5, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 4, 7, 6, 10, 9, 12, 11, 14 and 13.

Graham Simpson

This suite of amendments reflects the view, expressed in the committee’s stage 1 report, that the 5 per cent target should be met in all council areas across Scotland.

There are a couple of things to say about that. If you say to councils that they should be responsible for achieving the 5 per cent target in their areas, that is potentially extremely onerous for them. It is no wonder, therefore, that we have had some pushback on the proposal, because that is what they thought that the intention was.

My amendments do not say that; they would place the onus on the Scottish Government to ensure that the target is met in each council area. That is not the same as putting the onus on councils. It is saying, to go back to that phrase “low-hanging fruit”—[Interruption.] Sorry, convener, but I am being distracted slightly.

The Convener

Excuse me—

Annabelle Ewing

Sorry.

Graham Simpson

Thank you, convener.

If we do not agree to the amendments, there is a danger that the easiest to target areas will be picked and the less easy areas will be left. The intention behind the committee’s recommendation is to deal with that issue.

I will go through the amendments. Amendment 4 says that

“Ministers must ensure that the 2040 target is met in each local authority area.”

Ministers would then have to set out the approach that they intend to take to ensure that the target is met and say what steps have been taken to meet the target in each council area. Ministers would then have to say what progress has been made on meeting the target. Finally, ministers would have to say what steps they propose to take in the next reporting period to meet the target in each council area.

Clearly, the onus would be on ministers, which is the important thing. I hope that COSLA can be reassured—I see the minister laughing, so perhaps it will not be—that the intention behind the amendments is not to inflict more burdens on councils; it is to ensure that we get a uniform picture across the country in trying to deal with this important issue.

I move amendment 5.

Andy Wightman

I have sympathy with the amendments in the group, but I cannot support them, as I have a number of problems with them. In the first suite of amendments, which are 5, 4, 7 and 6, the phrase “must ensure” is used. However, as far as I am aware, nowhere else in the bill is there language that ministers “must ensure” that the national target is met. That is because, clearly, although ministers of all Administrations up to 2040 will use their best endeavours, it is hard to see how they could be held to a mandatory obligation to ensure that the target is met. I therefore have difficulty with that language.

I also have difficulty with the fact that the amendments cause local authorities concern. Notwithstanding that it would, as Graham Simpson said, be the Scottish ministers who “must ensure” that the target is met, local authorities inevitably feel that, for those areas with high levels of fuel poverty—perhaps they will be disproportionately high as we move forward—the local authority’s scope for making choices about how to reduce fuel poverty and spend its money will be compromised. That is because ministers may well put pressure on local authorities to meet a target that ministers have to ensure is met, even though it is substantially up to local authorities to in fact meet it.

I have fewer problems with the amendments to section 6, on periodic reports from ministers. It would be helpful if those periodic reports reflected what ministers have done and propose to do in each local authority area. However, that is probably beyond the scope of the periodic report as set out in the bill. Local authorities have their responsibilities for reporting and publishing plans, so I do not feel that those amendments would add a great deal to the bill.

Finally, as the minister made clear in response to a question that I put to him when he gave evidence to the committee on the minimum income standard for remote rural areas, and as has been made clear through the reporting to date on fuel poverty, the fuel poverty rates across the country can, and I imagine will, be reported local authority by local authority—indeed, we have that data.

I would like to see it reported according to the urban/rural classification. In fact, there is no reason why the data could not be reported in relation to any geography that we wish—obviously, it could not be reported for very small geographies, but it could be reported for any other geography, such as each health board area. That reporting would highlight where progress was and was not being made. For example, we know that fuel poverty rates are still unacceptably high in Orkney.

In my view, that should be sufficient to create circumstances in which ministers and local authorities work hard to ensure that local authorities in whose areas fuel poverty rates remain stubbornly high have the resources and tools at their disposal to be able to bring them down. Essentially, I believe that the reporting will be sufficient to take account of any concerns that exist, and it is a legitimate concern that we may have a multispeed approach to eradicating fuel poverty, with rates in some local authority areas remaining stubbornly higher than those in others.

Kenneth Gibson

I strongly support amendment 4. I think that it follows on from amendment 3, because if we are looking at a target of 5 per cent for Scotland, how do we make that into a target of 5 per cent for every local authority area? We do not want situations such as exist in Orkney, where some 57 per cent of people are in fuel poverty.

I do not believe that the burden should or will fall on local authorities to reduce the levels. I would expect the Scottish Government, when it allocates resources for eradication of fuel poverty, to do so on a pro rata basis so that all local authorities can meet the target. There would be no point in giving every local authority similar amounts per capita, for example, when the problem is much more acute in some areas than it is in others.

Amendment 4 would make the direction of travel clear and allow the Government the flexibility to dedicate its resources to ensure that Liam McArthur’s constituents and my island constituents are not disproportionately burdened by fuel poverty for years to come. Again, I refer to the old adage about low-hanging fruit. We want to make sure that we are addressing the issue across the board in every community and every local authority, whether people are in extreme fuel poverty or not. Amendment 4 will help us to do that.

Annabelle Ewing

The subject was an important aspect of the evidence that we took and, at stage 1 at least, the committee agreed unanimously that there should be recognition that the 2040 target must be met in each local authority area. For reasons that have already been stated, that is entirely right and proper. If we were not to proceed with that approach, there would be a real danger that some would be left behind. That point was made by Argyll and Bute Council, which stated that, with a blanket nationwide target, there would be a risk that

“householders in remote and rural areas will be disproportionately represented in the residual 5%; and will still be in fuel poverty even if this target is met.”

The bill is for the whole of Scotland including our islands, our remote communities and our urban areas. It is for everybody, and nobody should be left behind.

We are still to hear from the minister, but as the committee said in its stage 1 report, it is good to hear in the debate recognition of

“the Minister’s commitment to ... work with local authorities to consider how best to distribute schemes to balance ... requirements”

and to meet needs. Perhaps we will hear a bit more about that shortly, but I am happy to support amendment 4 on the basis of the 2040 target, and those of Mr Simpson’s amendments that relate to the 2040 target, which is what we have agreed in the first group of amendments this morning.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

Having been named and shamed by Kenneth Gibson, I thought it pertinent and probably advisable to contribute, albeit only briefly to endorse the comments that Annabelle Ewing and Kenneth Gibson have made. I think that there is a risk in trying to put in place an overly onerous requirement on local authorities or the Scottish Government. I think that the way that amendment 4 is phrased strikes the right balance.

The trajectory for getting to the target will be different in each area, according to where the area currently stands and the local circumstances, but it will be seen as a failing if we get to 2040 and there is still a wide disparity between the best and poorest performing local authorities. As I have said, amendment 4 strikes the right balance in terms of achieving the objective.

Kevin Stewart

The committee and I agree that fuel poverty needs to be tackled in every community throughout Scotland, but to do that, we must not leave behind the people who are in the most challenging circumstances. As a result, we have lodged amendments that will introduce additional targets on the median fuel poverty gap and extreme fuel poverty, which are intended to reduce the severity of the fuel poverty that is experienced in all areas of Scotland—whether it be Orkney, Arran or Aberdeen—and that we focus not just on the households that are easiest to raise out of fuel poverty.

I know that at stage 1 the committee said that we should consider amending the bill to introduce local authority statutory targets, and in my response, I said that we would need to seek COSLA’s views, given the implications of such an amendment for Scotland’s councils. COSLA has since made clear to me and the committee a “series of concerns” that it has about the amendments. Equally, I have had strong representations on this issue from Graham Simpson with regard to his amendments, and from my own party colleagues, in particular Kenneth Gibson, and I am aware of the balance that I need to strike between the views of Scotland’s local authorities and those of Parliament.

Following my conversations and the committee’s original recommendation, I think that it is clear that the committee would like to apply a 2040 target at local authority level to ensure that reporting and accountability take place in each council area. I confirm, therefore, that I will support Graham Simpson’s amendments, which provide for a 2040 target, although we might need to consider whether they need to be refined slightly at stage 3, not least because—as I understand it—local authority statistics are not available quite as quickly as national ones. That said, I am happy to work with Graham Simpson on that, in advance of stage 3.

I also want to emphasise that such targets make it vital that the Scottish Government work closely with COSLA and individual local authorities in order to focus on delivery. When I talk to councils about fuel poverty and energy efficiency, they consistently emphasise the need for local flexibility, so we have already made some changes in that respect. I want to ensure that it is all possible—especially the requirement to set out the steps that will be taken locally to address fuel poverty. By having a national target as well as local targets, we can tailor our approaches and ensure that no one is left behind. I therefore support Graham Simpson’s amendments relating to the 2040 target.

Graham Simpson

Once again, I thank committee members for their contributions. It was particularly good to get the islands perspective not just from Liam McArthur but, of course, from Mr Gibson, who has spoken extensively in this committee about the islands in his constituency.

In delivering the targets, we must not miss anyone out. That is the intention behind the suite of amendments that we will be voting on; amendment 4 relates to the 2040 target and amendment 5 deals with the 2032 target, which we have already rejected. I am always prepared to speak to the minister if he feels that anything needs to be refined, because this is about making good law that works for everyone—in particular, councils. I would be happy to have those conversations.

The Convener

Can I clarify the situation with amendment 5?

Graham Simpson

I will not press amendment 5.

Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 4 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 54, in the name of Alex Rowley, on the Scottish fuel poverty advisory group, is grouped with amendments 93 to 95.

Alex Rowley

Thank you, convener.

The purpose of amendment 54 is to allow the target year to be changed, on the recommendation of the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel. I intend to move the amendment, but I accept that changes will need to be made at stage 3, because the amendment reads

“advising that the target will not be met.”

That was to link it to my first amendment—amendment 53—to move the target to 2032. However, the same principle could apply if the advice of the advisory panel was that it believed that we were making good progress and could shift the target the other way. I accept that the wording of amendment 54 needs to be tidied up, but if the advisory panel feels that we can reach the target sooner or later, depending on the issues, being able to move the target will be right.

I move amendment 54.

Andy Wightman

I will speak to amendments 54 and 93.

Amendment 4 is incredibly helpful. I make the proviso that I was content with and had agreed to changing the target to 2032, but amendment 53 has obviously been rejected. In the light of that, the language at the end of amendment 54 will need to be modified, because if in 2025, 2026, 2027 or 2028 it is felt that we could bring the target forward, that will need to be reflected in the legislation. I will support amendment 54.

Amendment 93 is critical. It is the view of the committee that we need more effective scrutiny, not just of the Government’s reports under section 6 of the bill, but of the likelihood of a target being met or missed, and of the extent to which the four drivers of fuel poverty are being addressed. Setting up independent scrutiny is always an issue in bills.

I am not a supporter of setting up a bureaucratic organisation using lots of resources, so I note that proposed new subsection (9) in amendment 93 would cap the finances that are available to the advisory panel. The job of the panel would be to provide a probably brief but considered and well-informed report to inform Parliament about the validity of what is said in the Government’s section 6 report, and to take a view on the likelihood of the target being achieved. With the best will in the world, any Administration would want to say that the target will be achieved, so independent analysis of that will be extremely useful.

Subsection (11) of the proposed new section refers to the

“four drivers of fuel poverty”.

Of course, incomes are not a driver, although they are an influence. Net adjusted incomes are a driver, and they are arrived at after taking account of factors that are well within the Parliament’s control.

In a similar vein, energy costs should relate to households, and energy performance should relate to dwellings. The language in amendment 93 requires to be tidied at stage 3, but with that in mind, I am happy to support all the amendments in the group.

Annabelle Ewing

On the basis of what Alex Rowley has said, I am happy to support the amendments in the group. My wee caveat is that I expect amendments with language that is in line what he described to be lodged at stage 3.

As I have said before in committee deliberations, while thinking of setting up a panel on this or any other area of activity, we must remember that resources are not endless and that the priority is always to put resources to the front line. However, I recognise that the proposed advisory panel would have a job of work to do. As long as it does not cost the public purse a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on improving individuals’ existence in their homes, I will be happy to support amendment 93.

Graham Simpson

My comments about amendment 54 are similar. I am happy to support it, on the basis that Alex Rowley proposes to amend the wording at stage 3. We do not want the target to be pushed beyond 2040, which is a danger because of how the amendment is worded. With that proviso, I am happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment 93 needs a bit of work, not least because it refers to a 2032 target, which does not exist. Some tweaks will be required; if there is not time to make them next week, they will be needed at stage 3.

Kevin Stewart

Having considered the matter carefully, I am sympathetic to the concept of placing the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel on a statutory footing. However, Alex Rowley’s amendment 93 needs the refinement that folks have described, because it is based on a 2032 target. If we are to have a statutory panel, it must be aligned to the 2040 target date.

I appreciate Mr Rowley’s proposed capping of costs. The costs of the Poverty and Inequality Commission are close to £400,000 a year; the advisory panel would need to have a secretariat and to go through the public appointments system, so we would need to build in a bit more than Mr Rowley has envisaged.

If the advisory panel is to be placed on a statutory footing, it should have powers to make recommendations, which would allow Parliament to revisit the target date. I am therefore content to support the principle of what Mr Rowley is trying to achieve. His amendments are proportionate and would improve the bill. However, I intend to lodge stage 3 amendments to align the advisory panel with the 2040 target date and to allow for more realistic expenditure, while keeping it within a cap that is close to what Mr Rowley seeks to achieve.

Alex Rowley

I am happy with all the responses and to discuss the proposal further with the minister. At stage 3, we can address the points that need to be addressed, but the principle has been agreed to.

Amendment 54 agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 17, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 18, 19, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33 to 35 and 40 to 44. I remind members of the eight pre-emptions in the group.

Kevin Stewart

My amendments are in line with the commitments that I have given during the passage of the bill and the committee’s recommendations. I urge members to support them.

I committed to including the two 2030 targets from the draft fuel poverty strategy in the bill. The targets are that, in 2030, fuel poverty will be no more than 15 per cent and the median fuel poverty gap will be no more than £350 at 2015 prices before inflation. That was the recommendation of the committee in its stage 1 report, where it stated that interim targets would

“enable comprehensive assessment of how well”

the fuel poverty strategy was

“working at its mid-point.”

The committee also recommended that the Government lodge amendments to include in the bill a target for tackling extreme fuel poverty. I committed to doing so, and I sent the committee a briefing on how we would take that recommendation forward. Amendment 18 will put a target in the bill that, by 2030, no more than 5 per cent of households should be in extreme fuel poverty, and that is part of my commitment to tackling extreme fuel poverty—as are the two other 2030 targets. My amendments represent a practical means of maintaining the momentum of the fuel poverty strategy through to the final target date of 2040.

Mr Wightman’s amendment 19 would set interim targets. However, setting interim targets so early in the programme would result in targets that were unachievable and would undermine the credibility of the strategy. Given the fact that the committee’s stage 1 report called for amendments to enshrine 2030 interim targets in legislation, I am a little bit surprised by amendment 19.

We must be realistic in our targets and work closely with our local delivery partners to demonstrate progress towards the target of no more than 5 per cent of households being in extreme fuel poverty by 2040. That means ensuring that we can take advantage of new technologies that provide people with the right solutions for their homes and improve their lives. We must not set unrealistic and unachievable targets for which we do not have a credible delivery plan and so risk failing to achieve them once again.

In a briefing for the committee, COSLA said that setting unachievable fuel poverty targets would be callous. In addition, the Government’s proposed amendments are in direct response to the committee’s recommendations in its stage 1 report. It is vital that we set interim targets that can be met; otherwise, we risk the public and those who need our help the most losing confidence in all of us.

I am more than happy to have further discussions about setting achievable interim targets, but I ask the committee to reject amendment 19, in Andy Wightman’s name, and to support the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 17.

Andy Wightman

I will not move amendment 19. It was framed in the context of a possible 2032 target that will not be in the bill. I am conscious that the text of amendment 18, in the name of the minister, more accurately reflects the provisions of the bill, such as the section on the meaning of the fuel poverty gap. That point is absent from amendment 19.

Is the minister open to discussing the possibility of an additional interim target, which would be set for between now and 2040? I am not precious about when it should be set for, but it would not be unreasonable to have two targets with a 20 to 21-year outlook.

Graham Simpson

I am pleased to hear that Andy Wightman will not move amendment 19, which was clearly related to the 2032 target. I fully support amendment 18, in the name of the minister. However, I go back to what I said earlier, which is that there should be an extra target. I do not know what that target should be, but I am open to having discussions with the minister about it. I agree with the minister that, whatever the target is, it should be achievable.

Annabelle Ewing

I am pleased that the minister has acted in accordance with commitments that he made. Of course, I would fully expect him to do so at all times, but it is pleasing, nonetheless, to note a politician actually doing what they said they were going to do.

I hear what Andy Wightman says, and I note that he will not press his amendment 19. I understand the context in which he lodged the amendment, but the committee has agreed 2040 as the target date. In that context, the amendment does not fit with the interim target date of 2030 that is now proposed.

It would be interesting to hear about the possibility of a further interim target—I guess that we will hear from the minister on that shortly. That might be a useful way in which to proceed in the light of our initial discussion on the first group of amendments. I reiterate that we are all absolutely determined to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland.

The Convener

I do not think it is good for the reputation of politicians when a politician sounds surprised that another politician has kept their word.

Minister, will you wind up, please?

Kevin Stewart

I share your view on that, convener. I will keep this brief in the hope that you will allow a wee break for comfort purposes.

I am more than happy to meet Mr Simpson, Mr Wightman and any other member to talk about putting in play another interim target as long as it is viable and achievable, which I think everybody understands. I am more than happy to have those further discussions with both members and with any other member who wants to speak to me on the issue.

Andy Wightman

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

I had finished, but I will do so if the convener allows it.

Andy Wightman

I am grateful to the minister for what he has said. For clarity, will he confirm that, in the light of the fact that we will probably be enshrining the interim target in amendment 18, amendment 54, which we have just agreed to and which says

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations change the target year”,

should be amended at stage 3 to include any recommendations on changing the interim target?

Kevin Stewart

I will consider that point when I have had discussions with Mr Rowley and Mr Wightman.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Andy Wightman

On a point of order, convener. It is my understanding that we should also be considering amendment 55, which would amend section 1.

The Convener

Amendment 55 was pre-empted.

Andy Wightman

I beg your pardon, convener.

The Convener

That is okay. If our clerk, Peter McGrath, had not been here, I would not have realised that either.

After section 1

Amendment 18 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Convener

We will have a very short comfort break.

Amendment 19 not moved.

The Convener

That brings us to the end of the meeting. I thank the minister for his time today.

The Convener

Our second agenda item is consideration of the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. Once again, I welcome Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, and his officials.

Some non-committee members have lodged amendments that will be considered today. I welcome Jackie Baillie to the committee; I expect other members to join us later.

The intention is to finish stage 2 today, if we can. If we are unable to do so, we will return to the bill after the Easter recess.

At the bill’s introduction, the Presiding Officer determined that a financial resolution was not required for the bill. Under rule 9.12.6C, the Presiding Officer determined that the costs that would be associated with amendments 48 and 62 would, for each, exceed the current threshold to require a financial resolution for the bill. Amendment 62 has, consequently, been withdrawn. Amendment 48 may be debated at stage 2, but cannot be agreed to in the absence of a financial resolution.

The Presiding Officer has also ruled that amendments 93, 21, 81, 84, 82 and 85 are cost-bearing amendments. However, the potential cumulative cost of the amendments would not require a financial resolution. As such, amendments 93, 21, 81, 84, 82 and 85 and any amendments that would be consequential on those amendments will be debated—if the debate on them has not already taken place—and the questions will be put on the amendments as normal at stage 2.

Section 2—Meaning of fuel poverty

The Convener

Amendment 99, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 56, 61,100 and 63.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

I am an honorary vice-president of Energy Action Scotland, with my colleagues Murdo Fraser and Gillian Martin.

All the amendments in the group are in my name. Sharp-eyed members will remember amendment 62, which the Presiding Officer determined would cost about £1 million. I used the week between committee meetings to lodge amendments 99 and 100 in place of amendment 62.

Amendments 99, 56, 61,100 and 63 all deal with costs to be deducted when determining remaining adjusted net income in considering whether someone is in fuel poverty. Amendments 99 and 100 deal with disability.

I sought advice from the Scottish Parliament information centre on a more proportionate way of dealing with the issue. SPICe took advice from Professor Hirsch, who is known to the Scottish Government and the committee. Professor Hirsch told us that the Social Metrics Commission has done work on a new measure of poverty that uses, as an indicator of additional cost, the level of extra cost benefits in relation to attendance allowance, disability allowance and personal independence payments. That requires very little research and is, in effect—in Professor Hirsch’s words—“cost free”. All that is needed is for it to be built into the Scottish Government’s analysis in counting fuel poverty. I hope that it will no longer be seen as an impediment.

As the bill stands, the second part of the definition of fuel poverty includes childcare costs as part of the calculation. That is welcome; it is right that it does so. However, it will be inconsistent and a missed opportunity if the costs to a household of caring for an adult are excluded. We know from the Government’s statistics that carers experience a poverty rate of 22 per cent, and we know that poverty is also experienced by people with a range of disabilities. Both have a read-across to fuel poverty. We know that care costs have a real impact on household income. Care costs, whatever generation—child or adult—they are for, should be accounted for in the bill.

It is a simple group of amendments that I hope the committee and the Scottish Government will accept. I commend the amendments to the committee and note that they are supported by a wide variety of organisations, including the Poverty Alliance Scotland, the Coalition of Carers in Scotland, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Common Weal, Energy Action Scotland and many more besides. I hope that the committee will support the amendments.

I move amendment 99.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

I will comment first on Jackie Baillie’s amendments 56, 61 and 63. At the committee’s meeting on 13 March, I was asked to respond to a list of proposed amendments to the bill that Energy Action Scotland had circulated to members. As I set out then, EAS neither sent us its proposed amendments nor sought meetings with me or my officials to discuss its views. Amendments 56, 61 and 63 are clearly based on the EAS proposal that the bill should be amended to deduct social care and childcare costs when calculating whether a household’s remaining adjusted net income is sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

I am unaware of any consultation having taken place on the proposals. None of the amendments forms any part of the recommendations that the committee made in its stage 1 report, and they offer no indication of what care costs would actually cover. As everyone knows, Scotland has free personal care and, as of this week, that policy applies to all adults who have been assessed as requiring such support, regardless of their income. That is a key reason why amendments 56, 61 and 63 are not required, so I urge the committee to vote against them.

I am pleased that Jackie Baillie has withdrawn her amendment 62—which was on a disability minimum income standard—because it would not have been possible to vote on it, and has lodged two new amendments. Amendments 99 and 100 represent a much better way of taking account of additional care costs, which provides another reason why amendments 56, 61 and 63 are not necessary. Ms Baillie’s amendments 99 and 100 would allow for deduction of relevant care and disability-related benefits when considering whether a household’s income is sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living, which I accept will result in a fairer comparison to the minimum income standard.

I am happy to accept amendments 99 and 100, but not the amendments that I spoke to earlier. The approach is in line with other evidence, such as that from the work of the Social Metrics Commission, which spent more than a year considering aspects of poverty measurement and concluded that deducting from available resources the value of the extra-cost disability benefits was

“the best available proxy for the extra inescapable costs of disability.”

The combination of that approach to disability benefits with our enhanced heating regime, and associated higher required fuel bills for households that are most affected by the adverse outcomes of living in a colder home, as well as our approach to free personal care in Scotland, will ensure that we are taking concrete action to tackle fuel poverty.

That said, we saw amendments 99 and 100 only at the end of last week, so the legal team needs to run further checks to ensure that they cover everything that is needed, such as all relevant disability benefits. However, I am assured that that process will result only in our needing to bring technical tidying amendments at stage 3, and will not change the policy objective. I therefore urge the committee to vote against Jackie Baillie’s amendments 56, 61 and 63 because they are unnecessary, particularly in the light of her new amendments 99 and 100, which we support.

Jackie Baillie

I intend to press all the amendments, although I am very grateful that the Government has accepted amendments 99 and 100. I want to make a couple of brief comments. In line with many other organisations, Energy Action Scotland engaged with the committee and made submissions to it. I raised some of the issues when the minister gave evidence at stage 1, when I helpfully came along, with the agreement of the convener. I therefore do not accept that the proposals have simply come at the last minute. It is likely that we will not have further primary legislation on the issue for a while, so this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right.

Therefore, I urge members to make sure that we put the provisions in the bill because I think that we all agree that—

I am sorry, convener—I see that a member of the committee wants to ask something.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

You said that you expect that there will not be primary legislation on the matter for some time. Could you clarify that point?

Jackie Baillie

The last fuel poverty target was set in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, so there has been a considerable period until there has been new legislation setting a new target. There will, of course, be secondary legislation. One would expect that; indeed, the bill invites it. However, 2001 was the last time a target was set in primary legislation. The target in the bill is to 2040, as I understand it, so it will be some time before we see new legislation. I am sure that Annabelle Ewing would accept that.

It is important to get the bill right and it is important to set out our intentions clearly. I will leave the committee with one thought, which is about care costs. Care costs are not just about free personal care; they involve free personal care, nursing care and hotel costs, and it is not the case that all those costs are met. We know from our constituents that care costs put a real burden on households; it is therefore important to ensure that that is clear and evident on the face of the bill. I hope that members think likewise.

Amendment 99 agreed to.

Amendment 56 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Abstentions

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 56 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 57, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 58 to 60, 64, 96 and 97.

Jackie Baillie

I am grateful for the opportunity to move amendment 57 and to speak to the other amendments in the group. This is another relatively simple set of amendments. Amendment 57 deals with physical and mental impairment; amendment 58 deals with people of pensionable age; and amendment 59 deals with children under the age of five. The amendments set out quite clearly the eligibility for enhanced heating on the face of the bill.

I am starting from the premise that we want to capture all those who are likely to experience higher levels of fuel poverty than others. If we are to achieve the target of eradicating fuel poverty, it is important to include people with disabilities, pensioners and young children. The question is, as ever, whether that should be in the bill.

Amendment 57 covers disability. To quote from Inclusion Scotland’s submission to the committee,

“additional costs such as heating are higher because a much higher proportion of disabled people are unemployed and thus at home all day at a time when others reduce their heating. Although disabled people in employment face less additional costs they are still substantial and on average, across the UK, amount to £492 a month. It should be borne in mind though that the costs for a Scottish disabled person in work are likely to be higher again.”

Some disabled people also need more heat so as not to exacerbate their condition. I invite members to gaze outside to see the weather conditions that we are having in April to understand why additional heating may well be required.

Amendment 58 focuses on pensioners. As I understand it from the stage 1 debate, the Scottish Government’s position is to create a threshold of 75 years before allowing eligibility for enhanced heating. That misses the fact that older people experience a substantial drop in income at the point of retirement; many of them are on low and fixed incomes as a result of transferring to pensions. Also, people’s need for additional heating as they get older is well documented and amendment 58 is designed to reflect that practical reality.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to align fuel poverty and child poverty, but amendment 59 is needed to reflect the fact that children under the age of five are at a higher risk of fuel poverty than those over five. The Child Poverty Action Group points us to the World Health Organization and the Scottish Government’s independent academic panel, which note that families with young children are more vulnerable to the impacts of fuel poverty. They support the inclusion of all children, including those under five, in the eligibility criteria for enhanced heating.

The amendments are small, but they have the potential to make a huge difference. They are supported by a large number of charities, which in the interest of time I will not list.

Amendment 60 properly gives ministers the power to modify the groups that are eligible for enhanced heating, because it is a high-level list and it is up to ministers to ensure that the list is fit and appropriate in the future.

Amendments 64, 96 and 97 set out the need to consult the national health service and patient groups, as they have expertise in and experience of the full range of relevant illnesses and conditions. Citizens Advice Scotland told the committee that there was a need to develop a specific list of health and disability categories, as well as age bands, which would help to identify those who are vulnerable to the adverse health and wellbeing impacts of living in fuel poverty.

I hope that the committee and the minister will support this group of amendments.

I move amendment 57.

Kevin Stewart

It is essential that the eligibility criteria for the enhanced heating regime are fair and appropriate and identify those households with a genuine need for higher temperatures and longer hours of heating. I am concerned that Jackie Baillie’s criteria are so wide that the enhanced heating regime could end up applying to more than 50 per cent of Scottish households, even though not all of them may need higher temperature heating for longer hours. That would devalue the enhanced heating regime. Therefore, I strongly urge the committee to vote against all the amendments in the group.

The bill provides for the eligibility criteria to be laid down in regulations following a consultation process. It is vital that we develop the criteria with stakeholders and, in particular, those with lived experience of fuel poverty, which is why determining the types of households for which the enhanced heating regime is appropriate is better done in secondary legislation. Putting the eligibility criteria in the bill, as amendments 57 to 59 would do, would not enable us to work flexibly with stakeholders to do that.

I will provide further detail. Amendment 57 would provide for a one-size-fits-all view of disability, rather than recognising the diverse needs in that group of people.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Would the affirmative procedure be used if the criteria were left to regulations?

Kevin Stewart

Indeed. The affirmative procedure would be used.

Not everyone with a physical or mental impairment requires additional heating for longer hours in the home.

Amendment 58 would apply the enhanced heating regime to all those of pensionable age. However, folks are living longer and healthier lives and working longer, too. Becoming a pensioner does not automatically imply vulnerability to the cold and a need for higher household temperatures for longer hours. The independent academic panel that reviewed our fuel poverty definition in 2017 agreed with that assessment, as did the committee in its stage 1 report.

Amendment 59 relates to households with a child under five needing higher temperatures for longer hours, but there is no medical evidence to convince us that that is the case. In fact, having higher temperatures for longer hours is inconsistent with established NHS guidance.

The regulation-making powers in section 2(4) provide us with the flexibility to review definitions and criteria if any evidence in the future deems that to be necessary.

As I confirmed to Mr Simpson, the resulting regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure and will therefore be fully scrutinised by the Parliament. That is another reason why the matter is better placed in secondary legislation.

Amendments 96 and 97 would amend section 11 by obliging the Scottish ministers, when making regulations that establish who is eligible for enhanced heating, to consult “relevant health bodies” and the patients of such bodies. As the bill stands, section 11(2) provides that

“the Scottish Ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.”

I have asked the fuel poverty advisory panel to examine that. Of course, we will also involve experts as part of the consultation process. A requirement to consult relevant health bodies and their patients could cover almost any national health service patient, rather than just people with conditions that make them vulnerable to the cold and who need higher temperatures in their homes for longer hours.

Therefore, I do not support any of the amendments in the group. I ask the committee to vote against them.

Jackie Baillie

I think that we all agree that some groups of people need to heat their homes more and for longer and that there is an additional cost to doing so, which should be accurately captured if we are to tackle fuel poverty. I think that we also all agree that the groups that have been identified by a range of organisations are the right ones. The question is whether that should be stated in the bill. The politics of the issue are that, if we believe that something is important, we should put it in the bill. Why run the risk of letting people slip through the net?

Let me be perfectly candid. Whether regulations are subject to the affirmative, negative or super-affirmative procedure—which I will be happy to explain at length to the committee—is not something that gives comfort to a person who has to choose between heating and eating. I ask the committee to support all the amendments in the group and I press amendment 57.

The Convener

We all appreciate your offer of a lesson on the super-affirmative procedure.

Jackie Baillie

I will do it now if you wish.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 57 disagreed to.

Amendment 58 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 58 disagreed to.

Amendment 59 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 59 disagreed to.

Amendment 60 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 60 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 20, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 1, 21A, 21B, 22, 23 and 37.

Kevin Stewart

I am committed to tackling fuel poverty wherever it occurs and to ensuring that our remote and island areas are properly represented in the new definition of fuel poverty. Amendments 20, 21 to 23 and 37 will establish a “remote rural area”, “remote small town” and “island area” minimum income standard uplift. The approach will improve the bill and responds to stakeholders’ views and the committee’s clear recommendation.

I am determined that we should use appropriate research to develop the approach to ensure that the new definition reflects the reality of the costs that are associated with living in remote and island communities.

The regulations for which the proposed approach provides will be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow a high level of scrutiny by the Parliament. The regulation-making power will be used to appoint someone to carry out the research and make a determination in line with the methodology that has been discussed with the committee, covering categories 4 and 6 in the Scottish Government urban rural classification. I will ensure that a key criterion for selecting the research organisation will be its level of experience and expertise in conducting this type of research. Identifying the organisation to undertake the necessary research will require a procurement process, so we cannot specify an organisation in primary legislation without overriding existing procurement law and practice.

I am clear that this uplift must always and explicitly include island communities, and reflect the unique challenges that they face in the higher cost of living. I am therefore happy to support Liam McArthur’s amendments, which will provide for a separate uplift for island communities.

Mr McArthur has been a strong advocate for his constituency and, during the scrutiny of the bill, he has engaged with me constructively, for which I thank him. I therefore urge members to vote for all the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 20.

The Convener

I welcome to the committee Claudia Beamish, Alexander Burnett and Liam McArthur. I ask Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 21A and other amendments in the group.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

Thank you, convener. Before I speak to the amendments, I put on record my thanks to the committee for the work that it has done in getting to the point at which the bill better reflects the particular circumstances of fuel poverty in remote rural and island areas. I also reciprocate the minister’s thanks for his engagement on the issue over many months, dating back to the time when I was raising concerns in the context of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Islands (Scotland) Bill.

Few communities in Scotland are unaffected by fuel poverty, but all the evidence shows that remote rural and island communities are affected disproportionately. That was borne out by the work of the Government’s rural fuel poverty task force, ably chaired by Di Alexander, whose evidence to the committee clearly proved to be persuasive with members of the committee and, I am pleased to note, with the minister.

I welcome the minister’s amendments. They go a long way towards addressing the calls for a separate minimum income standard for remote rural and island areas, reflecting the additional costs that are borne by those who live in those communities. As I said at stage 1, the approach is universally supported by councils, housing associations, and fuel poverty groups across the Highlands and Islands and beyond.

However, further small but important changes are still needed if the bill is to be fully island proofed. My amendments 21A and 21B will achieve that by distinguishing between remote rural areas on the mainland and island communities. Concerns were expressed that making such a distinction would result in additional cost and complexity. We now know from Professor Hirsch, the Scottish Parliament information centre and the Government that that is not the case in either respect. Those assurances are very welcome and allow us to proceed with confidence that the changes will enable the targeting of resources at those who are most in need and that the specific circumstances of remote rural and island communities will be taken into account, and that that can be achieved without diverting resources away from the front line.

Again, I thank the minister and the committee for their support in getting to this stage. I particularly thank Di Alexander and the other experts in the field who have, over many months, made the case patiently, consistently and, I am pleased to say, successfully. I will move amendment 21A in due course.

Graham Simpson

I will support all the amendments in the group. They reflect very well the work that the committee did at stage 1. I thank the minister for listening to the concerns that were raised in the evidence that we took. I also thank Liam McArthur for lodging his useful amendments to island proof the MIS. This is an example of how a bill can be much improved through the work of this committee. We will end up helping people who live in remote rural areas and island communities.

Kevin Stewart

I thank the committee members for their efforts in this area. I also pay tribute to Di Alexander for his work over many a year. As many of you will know, Di can be rather vociferous at points, which I do not think is necessarily a bad thing.

Equally, I would like to pay tribute to a number of MSPs, including Liam McArthur, who have put their islands at the heart of this process. I know that Mr Gibson has been at the forefront in that regard, and Alasdair Allan has also been speaking to me on the issue.

Obviously, passing these amendments is important. The committee can be assured that my officials and I will continue to listen to the voices of island communities and remote communities as we move forward.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

Amendment 61 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 61 disagreed to.

Amendment 21 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

Amendments 21A and 21B moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.

Amendment 21, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 100 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 63 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 63 disagreed to.

Amendments 22 and 23 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 64 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 64 disagreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

After section 2

Amendments 24 and 25 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Preparation of strategy

The Convener

Amendment 101, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 31, 102, 103, 32, 104, 36 and 87.

Jackie Baillie

I will be brief as I move my final amendment today. In a previous incarnation, amendment 101 was amendment 65. However, helpfully, during the week in which the committee did not meet, I had a brief discussion with the Government and chose to withdraw amendment 65 and to substitute amendment 101 for it.

The purpose of amendment 101 is straightforward. It would require the Scottish Government to prepare its fuel poverty strategy with the involvement of key groups: those with lived experience of fuel poverty, disabled people, older people and people in rural areas. I think that the committee would agree that those groups are key.

Consultation can be extremely passive. I know that that is not the Scottish Government’s intention and that the Government rightly embraces co-production. However, I could find no legal definition of “co-production” that would be suitable for inclusion in the bill. My original wording was “co-operation”, but according to the Government’s legal advisers, that implies a degree of compulsion. I have therefore settled on “involvement”, and I hope that the Scottish Government and the committee can agree that that is an appropriate word.

Amendment 101 is supported by a wide range of organisations including the Poverty Alliance Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland, Common Weal, Inclusion Scotland and the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland.

I move amendment 101.

Kevin Stewart

There are in the group several amendments that have been lodged by me and by three other colleagues. I hope that the convener will forgive me if I take some time to go over each set. I will discuss my amendments first, before moving on to others in the group.

The bill currently provides that, in preparing the strategy and our periodic report,

“Ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate”,

including those with lived experience of fuel poverty. Amendments 31 and 36 will extend that provision to include the local authority partners who help us to deliver support. Amendment 32 will commit us to laying before Parliament a report on the consultation process for the preparation of the strategy, which must state how consultees’ views have been taken into account. The amendment will also require ministers to make a parliamentary statement on the strategy. That will further strengthen the bill and the requirements on whom to consult, as well as ensuring that Parliament can hold the Government to account.

Alex Rowley’s amendment 87 stipulates four categories of folk that we would need to consult when preparing periodic reports. I fully expect that we would consult people in those categories anyway, so I have no problem with the consultation duty being extended to guarantee it. Therefore, I am happy to support Mr Rowley’s amendment.

In contrast, I have a difficulty with the way in which Jackie Baillie’s amendment 101 is framed. I have no objection to obliging ministers to consult the type of folk that Jackie Baillie wants them to involve when they are preparing the strategy, just as Mr Rowley’s amendment 87 will do for periodic reports. However, amendment 101 would place an obligation on ministers, under section 3, to prepare the strategy “with the involvement of” the folk who are listed in the amendment: under section 4, the bill already requires the strategy to be prepared in consultation with people, so amendment 101 would result in duplication.

In addition, my legal team tells me that it is better to use the word “consult” than to use the word “involve” for what ministers are obliged to do. That is because, from a legal perspective, what the duty to “consult” individuals in the preparation of the strategy means is clearer than what is meant by the duty to “involve” them. Also, for legal reasons, it would be important to use wording that makes it clear how the people who are to be consulted would be selected. Otherwise, the validity of the strategy could be attacked for its not including everyone in the country who falls into one of those categories—which, of course, would be a lot of people.

I stress that I am sympathetic to what Jackie Baillie is trying to achieve; therefore, I suggest a solution. I am happy to lodge an amendment at stage 3 that will achieve Jackie Baillie’s objectives in a more considered way, and which will replicate the requirements for the periodic reporting on the fuel poverty strategy in Mr Rowley’s amendment 87. That would align the bill and ensure that we consult all the categories of people that Mr Rowley and Ms Baillie listed, through placing that provision within the relevant section.

I therefore ask the committee to support amendment 87 and to vote against amendment 101.

Graham Simpson will speak further to his amendments 102, 103 and 104. They would mean that, before ministers could complete the strategy or any revision of it, Parliament would get a reasonable period in which to scrutinise what was being proposed. That is in line with the procedure that was adopted for the islands plan. Mr Simpson’s amendment 8 was more onerous, so I am glad that we were able to discuss what he is trying to achieve and reach consensus. I hope that the committee will support the three amendments.

Graham Simpson

As the minister has said, I lodged amendment 8 and then withdrew it. It was lodged with the best intentions, and it was similar to one that was lodged during the passage of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. It was about parliamentary scrutiny of the draft strategy. It was pointed out to me that, despite the good intentions, if the amendment was agreed to as it was worded, it could take a full year for the draft strategy to get through, which was clearly not my intention. Being the practical man that I am, I withdrew amendment 8 and have come back with an alternative that is slightly less onerous but which would still allow Parliament to scrutinise the draft strategy, which I hope we all feel is very important. That explains amendments 102 to 104.

I will support Alex Rowley’s amendment 87. It is a measured amendment, which is what we would expect from Mr Rowley, of course. Sadly, I cannot support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 101. However, I see the intentions behind it and urge her, if it is rejected, to come back at stage 3 with a slightly reworded amendment.

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

It seems to me that the periodic report must reflect people’s lived experiences of fuel poverty. In particular, it is important that the Government speaks to the most vulnerable groups, which are identified in amendment 87, because doing so will allow it to understand how they are being impacted on by the Government’s strategy and what support is or is not reaching them. I welcome the fact that the minister has indicated that he will support the amendment.

The Convener

As no other member wishes to contribute, I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 101.

Jackie Baillie

I will not add to what I have already said. In recognition of the minister’s position, I will seek to withdraw amendment 101 if he gives a commitment that he is happy to work with me, and I will bring back an amendment at stage 3, as Graham Simpson has suggested.

Kevin Stewart

I am more than happy to do that, convener.

Amendment 101, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 26 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

If amendment 26 is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendment 66, due to pre-emption.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

The Convener

Does Graham Simpson wish to move amendment 7?

Graham Simpson

I will not move amendment 7, because it relates to the 2032 target.

Amendment 7 not moved.

Amendment 6 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 45, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 68, 46 to 48, 71, 72, 49, 73, 50, 51 and 98. I remind members that, under rule 9.12.6C, the Presiding Officer has determined that the costs associated with amendment 48 would be significant. Therefore, amendment 48 may be debated, but in the absence of a financial resolution the question on it cannot be put. Alex Rowley has agreed to move amendment 45 and to speak to the amendments in the group on behalf of Pauline McNeill.

Alex Rowley

I will speak to Pauline McNeill’s amendments as well as to my amendment 68.

As part of the strategy, ministers must set out how they will identify households that are in fuel poverty. That is crucial. The new definition of fuel poverty is welcome, but it is highly complex and the Government must consider how it will translate into direct support for those who are living in fuel poverty.

Ministers setting out how they plan to identify households that are in fuel poverty is a crucial part of the process. It would be useful for the Parliament, the third sector and any other interested parties to understand how ministers will do that.

I move amendment 45.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

Amendment 46 is designed to establish the quantum of buildings that have low levels of energy efficiency and that require improvements by the target date. However, I will not move it, as it contains the wrong date and Alexander Burnett’s amendment 47 expresses my intentions more accurately.

Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)

I thank the committee for its work to date and refer members to my interests regarding construction and property management.

My amendments 47 and 48 are aimed at improving the route for residential buildings across Scotland to achieve an energy performance certificate C rating or better. To give some context, the Scottish Government currently has a target of 2040 for that, but on 10 May the Parliament gave cross-party support to a motion on improving that date by bringing it forward to 2030. The motion detailed that the Parliament believes that

“the target for all homes reaching EPC ‘C’ rating, where feasibly possible, should be no later than 2030, not 2040, given the urgency to reduce carbon emissions and to ensure that every home in Scotland is warm and properly insulated”.

Just last week, the Scottish Government launched the energy efficient Scotland consultation, which is on the further development of the programme and proposes that some properties will reach EPC band C by 2025. Therefore, it appears that enthusiasm for improving energy efficiency in homes is gathering momentum, which is to be welcomed. However, to achieve that requires not only physical improvements to buildings but preparatory steps—namely, identification of the work. My amendments 47 and 48 merely seek to put into legislation a requirement for the Government to carry out the preparatory work on the necessary steps to achieve the target that the Government first set out and which has been improved by the Parliament.

The first step is to have a strategy for how we identify the buildings, which is the aim of amendment 47. I am grateful for previous indications of support on that from the Scottish Government.

The second step is actual identification of the residential buildings and the work that is required, which is covered by amendment 48. I appreciate that, in the absence of a financial resolution, a question cannot be put on the amendment. However, amendment 48 would simply build on amendment 47 by requiring the Government not only to set out the approach to identifying relevant buildings but to actually identify them.

Annabelle Ewing

I note Alexander Burnett’s point that the question on amendment 48 cannot be put because there is no financial resolution. Just for the record, given that the information is not available to people who are watching the proceedings, what is the financial implication of amendment 48?

Alexander Burnett

The Presiding Officer estimates that it would be £60 million, and information from the Government put the figure at between £58 million and £116 million. I will come to that in a second.

I will not seek to withdraw amendment 48, because I believe that it is important to debate that second step so that we get on the record the minister’s comments on how he sees the targets being achieved, either through the bill or elsewhere. The Presiding Officer has estimated that the work would cost £60 million, but correspondence from the minister’s office suggests that the cost would be anywhere between £58 million and £116 million. The correspondence also highlighted issues with the identification process. Both points, on cost and process, will need to be addressed, and the sooner the better.

In a slightly odd request, given that a question cannot be put on amendment 48, I was urged to withdraw it so that it would not be debated. On many levels, that seemed to be wrong, so I would appreciate the minister’s explanation of that reluctance and why his support for amendment 47 is contingent on another amendment, on which a question cannot be put, being withdrawn.

The only way to achieve an EPC rating of band C or higher in all residential homes in which that is technically feasible is by spending money. Amendment 48 would have accelerated that process by putting a binding commitment on the Scottish Government to identify what work is needed. Should members express support for amendment 48, I hope that the minister will listen and amend the financial memorandum in time for the next stage, to permit a financial resolution that actually delivers for energy-efficient housing.

As a final explanatory point, I refer members to the fact that amendments 47 and 48 detail that the requirement to achieve an EPC rating of C or higher will be enforced only

“where it is technically feasible and cost effective”.

The reason for that is that we are aware that, in some rural areas and on the islands, an EPC rating of C or above might not be achievable in a cost-effective manner.

To effectively reduce fuel poverty, we must take action. The amendment will ensure that steps are taken to make progress towards our shared goal of reducing fuel poverty across Scotland. By identifying residential homes that are less energy efficient, we can take steps to reduce bills and carbon emissions and ensure that residents are living in warmer homes.

I understand that amendment 48 cannot be put to a vote, but I would be grateful if members would express their views and indicate whether they would have supported it.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 72 would require provision for the removal of low levels of energy efficiency—a driver of fuel poverty—in relation to housing in multiple occupation to be considered by ministers in preparation of the fuel poverty strategy. That would also aid in reduction of carbon emissions.

Amendment 72 has been framed in the most straightforward way possible, although it relates to a complex issue. There are many buildings in Scotland that fall into the category of housing in multiple occupation, and it can be very challenging to deal with low levels of energy efficiency in those circumstances. That is due, in part, to the difficulties that are experienced in relation to areas of common responsibility, such as stairwells and roofing.

The complexity of proceeding with energy efficiency actions can be due to several reasons, including failure to identify ownership of one of the homes, an occupant’s lack of interest or people’s refusal to get involved. Such challenges should not be allowed to become insurmountable for such a serious issue. As I am sure the committee will recognise, the issue can be particularly difficult for several categories of home dweller, including tenants living in the broad category of private rented accommodation and students living in rented accommodation. I am clear that landlords have a responsibility to ensure that the accommodation that they let reaches a liveable standard in relation to energy efficiency. Housing is a right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, in Scotland, that surely means a right to a warm home.

I lodged amendments to address the issue at stage 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014—excuse me for stuttering, but 2014 seems a long time ago. At that time, I tried to create a duty to meet energy efficiency standards through the repairing standard in section 22 of the act. That was a much more detailed approach.

In 2014, the minister argued that the Scottish Government had put together a ministerial working group to look at energy efficiency standards in the whole of the private sector and said that the group was likely to report back on that work in the autumn of 2014. I was encouraged not to move my amendment at that time, given that the issue was to be explored by the ministerial working group. It is disappointing that, five years on, the issue has not been tackled—we now have an opportunity to do that.

Amendment 72 is a probing amendment at this stage. In view of the challenges that are faced by many people living in multiple occupancy buildings, I hope that the minister will consider having discussions with me and others who are interested in tackling such a serious fuel poverty issue.

Amendment 73 would ensure that, in preparing the fuel poverty strategy, ministers would have to consider how rural co-operatives and community bodies can be supported to identify sustainable energy solutions. Rural fuel poverty can present a very serious challenge to comfortable living. I am sure that the committee is aware that the 2017 statistics for the Scottish house condition survey show urban fuel poverty at 21 per cent and rural fuel poverty at a staggering 43 per cent. Sadly, I doubt that the next set of figures will have altered significantly.

Particular challenges are faced by owners and tenants who are living off-grid. People also face challenges that are created by their distance from the advice that would be available if they were not so remote. The identification of available skilled companies in remote areas can also create difficulties in gaining valuable advice.

In essence, amendment 73 would bring targeted support for collective action to tackle the challenges. Solutions might include a group of houses and nearby workshops tackling energy efficiency issues, such as insulation, at the same time. That could bring down costs. In a village, town or city, there are often opportunities for area-based action. However, in rural areas that is often not possible for the reasons that I have just mentioned and because of issues of scale.

Several estates in my region of South Scotland have successfully introduced sustainable energy solutions, such as the biomass boilers in Douglas village, installed by Douglas & Angus Estates, and Dumfries house. However, they have the financial capacity to deal with the challenges in a way that is often not possible for community groups or those who might form a co-operative for action in a small hamlet or remote area. As I have said, the challenges are manifold and could be compounded by the cost issues, so support in that regard should also be considered.

My amendment 73 is a probing amendment to provoke further discussion on the challenges for remote rural fuel poverty and on possible actions to support change as part of the strategy. I hope that it will be possible to discuss those issues further with the minister and others who are interested in advance of stage 3.

Amendment 98, which is consequential on amendment 73, requires the Scottish ministers to define “rural areas”, “rural co-operatives” and “sustainable energy solutions” by negative procedure.

Graham Simpson

I would like to speak about Alexander Burnett’s amendments 47 and 48. Because we have spoken about the issue often enough in this committee, I think that we would all agree that we need to improve the energy performance of homes across Scotland. That clearly relates to fuel poverty. Mr Burnett’s amendment 47 should be supported in that regard, because it would merely get the Government to set out how it plans to identify buildings that have low levels of energy efficiency. That is the right thing to do, because, if we cannot do that, we will not be able to improve matters.

However, his amendment 48 goes a little bit further, because it would compel the Government to go ahead and identify those buildings. Clearly, that would involve a lot of work, hence the astronomic figures that are attached to the amendment, which are why it cannot be voted on. If we were allowed to vote on it, I would, of course, support it, because both things need to be done. However, as things stand, I will support amendment 47.

Annabelle Ewing

Amendment 48 would cost something more than £60 million, and it is not clear where that money would come from. Perhaps Mr Burnett could propose how he wishes to fund the proposal. Setting the issue aside, I am also not sure that we have the power to require entry to private dwelling houses. Has Mr Burnett considered that?

The Convener

You cannot ask him questions at this point.

Annabelle Ewing

I am terribly sorry, convener. I will just leave the question open. I do not think that, as things stand, the Parliament has the power to require entry into private dwelling houses.

Kevin Stewart

There are a number of issues to discuss in relation to this grouping of amendments. I will deal first with amendments 46, 47 and 48, which concern the EPC ratings. Under amendment 48, in the name of Alexander Burnett, the fuel poverty strategy would be required to include information on the energy efficiency level of the estimated 967,000 private sector residential properties without an existing EPC. Annabelle Ewing is quite right to highlight some of the difficulties that there would be in doing the improvement work. At a cost of between £60 and £121 per home, the proposal would cost between £58 million and £116 million, which is why it is not being voted on today. It would be far beyond the objective of the bill to require the Scottish Government to meet that additional expense, and, in my opinion, such funds would always be better spent on front-line delivery.

EPCs are already required for new homes, homes with new building warrant applications and homes that have been sold or rented to a new tenant since 2009. Over time, there will be a constant increase in that information. It has always been my intention that the fuel poverty strategy would address energy inefficiency as a driver of fuel poverty. Ultimately, we are working towards the elimination of energy inefficiency as a driver of fuel poverty.

As Mr Wightman intends to seek to withdraw amendment 46, I will not go into detail about that particular amendment.

I am content to support Alexander Burnett’s amendment 47, which would require the fuel poverty strategy to set out our approach to identifying properties that require improvement to achieve EPC band C rating by 2030. It may be necessary, at stage 3, to be clear that the approach should target fuel-poor households, but I am committed to doing all that we can to establish a clear way forward.

In relation to Claudia Beamish’s amendments 73 and 98, section 3 already allows for the preparation of a fuel poverty strategy and outlines what should be included in it, and the strategy will be designed for the whole of Scotland, including rural areas. Requiring a definition of the term “sustainable energy solutions” in the context of an amendment that focuses on rural areas is unhelpful. Defining the term in a rural-only context may result in a separate understanding of the term at national level. In other words, it could lead to variation in what might be deemed a sustainable energy solution in an urban or rural area.

In addition, section 3(3) of the bill allows the Scottish ministers to include any other information that they consider to be appropriate in the fuel poverty strategy. Therefore, should we need to include specific support in rural areas or to define which groups the support will target, we can do that. For those reasons, I urge the committee to vote against amendments 73 and 98.

I support Pauline McNeill’s amendment 71 but not her amendment 49 or Claudia Beamish’s amendment 72. Amendment 71 would allow us to highlight how we address all four drivers of fuel poverty within the strategy, and it is broad and flexible enough to cover all sectors, including private tenancies and HMOs, so separate amendments are not needed.

For those reasons, I ask the committee to vote against amendments 49 and 72 and to support amendment 71. I am also happy to support Pauline McNeill’s amendments 45, 50 and 51, to ensure that the strategy and periodic reports set out clear costings. I also support Alex Rowley’s amendment 68, which will ensure that the strategy explains how we intend to identify households in fuel poverty.

Alex Rowley

A big success story of the past decade or so has been the improvements in energy efficiency in public sector housing. That is because tight regulations were put in place, requiring councils to improve energy efficiency, so the housing stock in housing associations and councils has a much higher energy efficiency rating. They still have work to do, but they have already done a tremendous amount of work. If the minister is serious about eliminating poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty in the long term, real work has to be done in that area. I hope that we will see that coming through, in terms of both the strategy and the financial memorandum. I press amendment 45.

Amendment 45 agreed to.

Amendment 27 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

I point out that, if amendment 27 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 67, due to pre-emption.

Amendment 27 agreed to.

Amendment 68 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 47 moved—[Alexander Burnett] and agreed to.

The Convener

The question on amendment 48 cannot be put in the absence of a financial resolution.

Amendment 29 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

I point out that, if amendment 29 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 69, due to pre-emption.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

The Convener

The question is, that section 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? [Interruption.] Sorry—that is a mistake, so keep quiet. That is why you should never sit beside the teacher. By the way, the mistake was not mine, I am delighted to say. I call amendment 30, in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 17.

Amendment 30 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

I point out that, if amendment 30 is agreed to, amendment 70 cannot be called, due to pre-emption.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendment 71 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendments 72, 49 and 73 not moved.

Amendment 73 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 74, in the name of Alex Rowley, is grouped with amendments 75, 76 and 83.

Alex Rowley

Amendment 74 aims to ensure that the Scottish ministers keep the strategy under review and, every five years, either publish a new strategy or state why they will not do so. It seems unacceptable that the Government would have to publish only one strategy in such a long period, particularly when interim targets and periodic reports might suggest that the strategy be reviewed, amended or updated. Amendment 74 would not require the Scottish ministers to publish a new strategy if they believe that one is not needed, but the option must be considered, which is the important point. In considering whether to, and then deciding not to publish a new strategy, ministers would have to publish an explanation for why they will not revise the strategy.

I move amendment 74.

Andy Wightman

I support amendment 74. When it was lodged, I was rather surprised to discover that we had not made any recommendation on the matter in our stage 1 report. That was a bit of an oversight, given that the fuel poverty target is for 2040. I am glad that Alex Rowley’s eagle eyes spotted that and that he has dealt with it. The amendment is appropriate, given that the argument for having the 2040 target date is that things will change. If things change, the strategy might also need to change.

Kevin Stewart

Development of the fuel poverty strategy is vital: it will help to deliver change in communities across Scotland, and improve people’s lives. The strategy should work for people wherever they live, and it should help to bring people out of fuel poverty by tackling all four drivers of fuel poverty: income, energy prices, energy efficiency and energy use.

I therefore support amendments 74, 75, 76 and 83, which are in Alex Rowley’s name. They provide a sensible way of ensuring that the fuel poverty strategy can be revised so that it remains effective, particularly in the event of the target date being altered—as Alex Rowley’s amendment 54, which we considered last week, envisaged. If the fuel poverty advisory panel comes to think that the target could be reached sooner, the ability to revise the strategy to take account of that will be key.

The provisions in Mr Rowley’s amendments might need to be slightly revised at stage 3, to ensure that they work as everyone wants them to work, but I anticipate only technical amendments. We will keep to the principle of what Alex Rowley proposes, particularly in light of his arguments last week.

Amendment 74 agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Consultation on strategy

Amendment 75 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 102 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5—Publication and laying of strategy

Amendment 103 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 76 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 104 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6—Preparation of periodic reports

The Convener

If amendment 33 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 77.

Amendment 33 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Amendment 9 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Abstentions

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendment 50 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

The Convener

If amendment 34 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 78.

Amendment 34 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 12 not moved.

Amendment 11 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Abstentions

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Amendment 51 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendment 35 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

If amendment 35 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 79.

Amendment 35 agreed to.

Amendment 14 not moved.

Amendment 13 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Amendment 80 not moved.

The Convener

I will suspend the meeting for a short comfort break.

The Convener

Amendment 81, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, is grouped with amendments 82, 84 and 85. Amendments 81 and 82 and amendments 84 and 85 are direct alternatives. For the record, direct alternatives are two or more amendments that seek to replace the same text in a bill with alternative approaches. In the case of this group, there are two such alternatives. For example, for amendments 81 and 82 a vote will be taken on each amendment in the order in which it appears in the marshalled list. If both amendment 81 and amendment 82 were to be agreed to, the second amendment, which is amendment 82, would succeed the former, and the first amendment, which is amendment 81, would cease to have effect.

Annabelle Ewing

Amendments 81 and 84 deal with the frequency of reporting, which the committee looked at during our stage 1 consideration. It is important to state at the outset that although, as set out in the report, the committee felt that on the balance of the evidence that had been received at that stage, a three-year reporting period would be reasonable, we have since received a letter dated 13 February from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. In the letter, COSLA states:

“We further note that the committee recommends increasing the frequency of statutory reporting from a five year to a three-year basis. This will place additional requirements on Local Government, which if not fully funded, has the potential to take resources away from front line delivery. In the context of restrained budgets, a balance needs to be struck between reporting and delivery. There needs to be clarity over the time/cost outlay of reporting requirements before any move to increase their frequency.”

My amendments are motivated by COSLA’s concerns. Members will be aware that, when discussing the bill, I have stated repeatedly that my desire is to see money go to the front line and not be subsumed in other matters to the extent that it is not necessary. Therefore, the reporting frequency of four years that I have proposed in my amendments strikes the balance that COSLA, in particular, is looking for. It is necessary to have a reporting mechanism, but I do not want to cost local authorities any more money than is absolutely necessary. I would rather ensure that the money that would be saved by not having a reporting period that is more frequent than every four years could be spent on front-line activities. Those reasons inspired my amendments.

I remind the committee that, aside from the reporting requirement that we are discussing, national statistics on fuel poverty targets will continue to be published year on year by Scotland’s chief statistician, so progress can be tracked. Of course, we also wish to see fuller reporting, and my contention is that, in light of COSLA’s concerns, it would be appropriate to have a reporting period of four rather than three years.

I move amendment 81.

Alex Rowley

I will speak to amendments 82 and 85, which I will move in due course. We need to be able to scrutinise progress, but the question is what would be reasonable in that regard. Many stakeholders have called for an annual report. In trying to find a compromise, I believe that a three-year reporting period would give sufficient time for robust evidence gathering and reporting on independent scrutiny. I do not accept COSLA’s argument about the differences in cost between three-year and four-year reporting periods.

There needs to be a real commitment to ensuring that we are delivering on and tackling fuel poverty. With a review period of three years, if things are not working or happening as they should be, we can take the necessary action.

Graham Simpson

There is a balance between four-year and three-year reporting periods. There is no right answer—we just have to take a view on the issue. The committee considered the matter, and we concluded that the period should be three years.

We heard evidence from councils. Glasgow City Council backed the three-year period. There were other views; the Existing Homes Alliance, for example, supported a one-year period. The committee considered that that would be too onerous.

At the end of the day, if someone does not agree with a five-year reporting period, they have to come up with something else. On this occasion, I will back the committee’s recommendation—it was fully thought through, and we knew the position of councils at the time—and stick to three years. I will support Alex Rowley’s amendments, but not Annabelle Ewing’s amendments.

Kevin Stewart

The amendments in the group deal with formal statutory reporting against the fuel poverty targets. It is right that those reports are careful, thorough and wide-ranging pieces of work, and that, in their preparation, the views of those with direct personal experience in fuel poverty are sought. However, doing that well will require an investment of time and resources from everyone, and I ask the committee to consider carefully the consequences of requiring more frequent reporting.

The financial memorandum to the bill states that the cost of preparing a periodic report is about £90,000 to £100,000. That covers only the direct costs of administrative support, not the time and effort that would be required from delivery partners, stakeholder groups and those with lived experience. I ask members to bear that in mind when they decide on the options in front of the committee.

In its letter to the committee of 13 February, COSLA expressed concern that

“increasing the frequency of statutory reporting from a five year to a three-year basis ... will place additional requirements on Local Government, which ... has the potential to take resources away from front line delivery.”

I, too, have that concern. Likewise, I share COSLA’s concern that,

“In the context of restrained budgets, a balance needs to be struck between reporting and delivery.”

I want to create an industry that is based on developing and installing cost-effective and low-carbon improvements to people’s homes. I am concerned that overly frequent or overly bureaucratic reporting would create an industry that was based on measuring and commenting on fuel poverty, not on eliminating it. I am mindful that the majority view among stakeholders is that reporting should be done more frequently. Changing the reporting period from every five years, as is proposed in the bill, to every four years, as Annabelle Ewing proposes, would provide a good balance between responsiveness and burden.

I ask members to support amendments 81 and 84, instead of amendments 82 and 85, which would create a further burden.

Annabelle Ewing

I hear what members have said, but, following our stage 1 report, we should listen to what COSLA has said about a three-year reporting period being more onerous. It is axiomatic that reporting more frequently will cost more money; that goes without saying. Like the minister, I would prefer any spare money to go to front-line local services.

Graham Simpson

Is that not an argument for sticking with a five-year reporting period?

Annabelle Ewing

We heard a number of varying views on what the frequency of reporting should be, and it is incumbent on the committee to respond to those views. Bearing in mind that money will need to be spent on reporting, I feel that the less money that is taken away from the front line the better, while still responding to the issues that were raised in evidence at stage 1. That suggests that a four-year period might be more appropriate than a three-year period.

I press amendment 81.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

Against

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 81 disagreed to.

Amendment 82 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 82 agreed to.

Amendment 83 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendment 84 moved—[Annabelle Ewing].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

Against

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 84 disagreed to.

Amendment 85 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 85 agreed to.

Amendment 86 not moved.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Consultation on periodic reports

Amendment 36 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 87 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

Section 9—Report on the 2040 target

The Convener

Amendment 89, in the name of Alex Rowley, is grouped with amendment 88. I advise members that amendments 89 and 88 are direct alternatives.

Alex Rowley

I will seek to withdraw amendment 89, but I intend to press amendment 88, which would require a report on the fuel poverty target to be presented within a year of the target elapsing rather than within two years.

As drafted, the bill gives ministers two years to report on the target after it has passed. I believe that there will be substantial parliamentary and public interest in whether the target was met and why, and that there will be a strong impetus to continue the good work that has been done or to take steps so that the target can be met. It seems reasonable that a year provides sufficient time to gather and present evidence so that further steps on energy and fuel poverty can be developed. The date would be brought forward a year, but that is perfectly reasonable and doable.

I move amendment 89.

Kevin Stewart

I understand why Alex Rowley is keen for the report on the 2040 target to be published as soon as possible after the end of 2040, but the date that he proposes is simply not feasible.

The target is to do with the position in 2040, and that means all of 2040. Analysts will therefore be gathering data on the target right up until the end of that year. If Parliament has to get the report by 31 March 2041, we would not be able to give the full picture of whether the target had been met and the percentage of households that are still in fuel poverty, and the report would have to be very different from all the previous ones because of the truncation of time.

The results on fuel poverty rates come from the Scottish house condition survey. Those statistics are usually published in the year following the survey, so if we are to use those key national statistics, as we will for all other progress reports, the earliest that we will know the 2040 fuel poverty rate will be in December 2041.

The survey reporting timetable cannot be condensed to report by 31 March 2041, as that would not provide sufficient time to complete all the necessary work. Data will be collected from households across Scotland throughout the entirety of 2040, but the work will not stop there. Once the basic data is collected, modelling needs to be undertaken to estimate the consumption and required fuel bills of the households. Weightings need to be derived to ensure that the results are representative of the Scottish household population, and quality assurance must be undertaken. Only then can the data begin to be analysed.

It is crucial that the statistics from the survey remain robust and continue to meet national statistics standards for quality and integrity. If the date is brought forward by a year to the end of March 2041, that would leave only three months for the entire report to be compiled, which would mean that it could not contain 2040 fuel poverty rates.

I think that we all want Parliament to get a thorough and comprehensive report that includes all the available details and headline statistics that relate to the target year and are fully compliant with the national statistics code of practice. If the report has to be turned round within a three-month timeframe, Parliament will not receive that.

I understand why folks might want an earlier reporting date, but that is simply not feasible. Therefore, I ask the committee not to agree to Alex Rowley’s amendment.

Alex Rowley

Given what the minister has said, it is clear that I need to go back and look at the matter. I will have a discussion with the minister, if necessary, and return to the matter at stage 3. Therefore, I will not move amendment 88.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to provide Mr Rowley with the information that he requires and to have further discussions on the matter.

Amendment 89, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 88 and 90 not moved.

Amendment 91 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 91 disagreed to.

Amendment 92 not moved.

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

Amendment 93 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Convener

Amendment 93A, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendment 93B.

Graham Simpson

I will be very brief, convener. These tidying-up amendments relate to amendment 93 in the name of Alex Rowley, on the Scottish fuel poverty advisory board. Amendment 93 contains the phrases

“progress toward meeting the 2032 target”

and

“the likelihood of meeting the 2032 target”.

Given that that target does not exist any more, my amendments seek to tidy up amendment 93 by replacing the phrase “2032 target” with “fuel poverty targets”, which better reflects what we have already agreed to.

I move amendment 93A.

Kevin Stewart

In our discussions last week on amendment 93 in the name of Alex Rowley, I said that, although I supported putting the advisory panel on a statutory footing, the wording would need to be refined, as the amendment was based on the 2032 target date, and we would be taking a closer look at costs while keeping a cap. I am therefore pleased that Mr Simpson has lodged amendments 93A and 93B to correct the references, and I am happy to support them.

Amendment 93A agreed to.

Amendment 93B moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 93, as amended, agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.

Section 11—Regulation-making powers

Amendment 94 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendments 37 and 38 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 95 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendments 96 to 98 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 39, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 1.

Kevin Stewart

Both amendments in this group have the shared motivation of seeking to ensure that the bill’s provisions are implemented as soon as possible, Unfortunately, amendment 1, in the name of Mr Wightman, would have significant unintended consequences that would hinder implementation and might leave us in an unworkable situation.

If, as Mr Wightman’s amendment would require, all the provisions were to come into force the day after royal assent, we would not have an operable definition of “fuel poverty” under section 2, because neither the enhanced heating regime nor the remote and island areas uplift to the minimum income standard would be in place. Both the setting of enhanced heating eligibility and the remote rural and islands MIS require the Parliament to agree affirmative regulations. It is not in the Government’s gift to expedite parliamentary approval of those, as the timetable for that is not one that we can control.

Mr Wightman’s amendment would also bring sections 3 and 5 of the bill into force, legally requiring the Government to publish the fuel poverty strategy within a year of the bill becoming law and forcing us to prepare the strategy without knowing the full detail of the definition of fuel poverty. In addition, section 4 requires consultation with appropriate people, including those who are living or have lived in fuel poverty. That would also be problematic as we would not be clear about whom it would be appropriate for us to consult with.

The result would be gridlock and the production of a strategy that would not match up properly with the definition of fuel poverty and which would risk failing to focus on the people who need it most.

I am determined to implement the provisions of the bill as soon as possible—I want to crack on, convener. However, considering the proposals in the bill and the amendments that have been made to it in committee, we cannot follow the rigid timetable that Mr Wightman is suggesting.

I want to ensure that the new fuel poverty definition can become operable as soon as possible. My amendment will facilitate the earliest possible completion of work on the enhanced heating regime and will allow us to undertake further consultation on it, in tandem with the bill’s progress through Parliament. That will allow for faster commencement and implementation of the whole bill. I have no wish for things to be held up any longer than is necessary for the legislative process. I want to get the definition and the strategy in place and to get on with the job of helping folk out of fuel poverty.

Mr Wightman’s amendment would cause significant difficulties, whereas my own will contribute to swifter, more effective implementation of the bill. Therefore, I ask that members support my amendment and vote against amendment 1.

I move amendment 39.

Andy Wightman

I lodged amendment 1 in order to bring a debate on the question of commencement to the committee. Section 13 of the bill, which is entitled “Commencement”, says that only it and section 14—the short title—shall

“come into force on the day after Royal Assent.”

My view is that bills that are enacted by the Parliament should come into force as soon as possible, otherwise, the operability of the legislation that the Parliament passes is left in the gift of ministers.

Mr Stewart correctly drew attention to sections 2, 3, 4 and 5, which cannot come into force the day after royal assent, but he has been silent on sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. I appreciate that amendments have been made to the bill today, and that further amendments will no doubt be brought at stage 3, which may have some consequences for commencement. However, in the absence of any argument as to why sections 6 onwards cannot be brought into force, I invite the minister, in winding up, to let me know whether he has any problems with commencing sections 6 onwards and for his view on a stage 3 amendment that would bring the remainder of the bill into force on the day after royal assent.

Kevin Stewart

Mr Wightman wants me to make commitments on parts of the bill that we have dealt with only today. I need to go back and reflect on the exact implications for the bill as a whole of what has happened in committee today.

I will take an intervention from Mr Wightman.

Andy Wightman

I appreciate what the minister has just said, and I agree. I suppose that I was seeking reassurance that, having reflected properly on its content, the minister will be content for any section of the bill that can come into force on the day after royal assent to do so.

Kevin Stewart

I will reflect, but I assure the committee that, as I said in response to its report, the Scottish Government has no intention of causing any unnecessary delay to the commencement of the bill’s provisions. Once the bill becomes an act, my intention would be to implement its substantive provisions as soon as is reasonably practicable. However, as I have said, the timetable for that is not fully within the Government’s control as it is reliant on the Parliament agreeing affirmative regulations.

I reiterate that my amendment 39 will allow us to press ahead swiftly with consultation on the enhanced heating regime, which will enable the new definition to become operable sooner. It would be perverse if all the previous consultation work on the issue had to be discarded simply because of the point in time at which it concluded. Therefore, I ask the committee to support my amendment 39 and to reject Mr Wightman’s amendment 1. I reassure you all that, as I said in my response to the committee, the Scottish Government has no intention of causing any unnecessary delay to the commencement of the bill’s provisions.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12—Consequential modifications

Amendment 40 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

After section 12

Amendment 41 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 13—Commencement

Amendment 42 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 1 not moved.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14—Short title

Amendment 43 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Long Title

Amendment 44 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Long title, as amended, agreed to.

The Convener

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Congratulations.

Thanks very much, minister.

Kevin Stewart

Thank you, convener, and thanks to the committee for its co-operation.

The Convener

We will have a short break to allow the witnesses to leave.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill. Members should have with them: the bill as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list; the supplement to the marshalled list that contains manuscript amendment 99; and the groupings of amendments.

I also remind members that the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, but after that, the voting period will be one minute for the first division following a debate. Finally, members who wish to speak in a debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group.

Section 1—The 2040 target

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on the fuel poverty target: local authority areas. Amendment 1, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 2, 20, 22, 72, 6 to 10, 46, 11, 13 and 14. I also draw members’ attention to the information in the groupings on the amendments in this group that pre-empt amendments in group 2.

I call Graham Simpson.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

It is great to be able to kick off this debate on the amendments to the bill. As a lot of cross-party work took place before stage 3, most of the amendments will, I hope, be agreed to without too much rancour.

Unfortunately for you, Presiding Officer, I have 10 amendments in this group. I will try not to take too long, but I have to cover all of them.

One of the key recommendations in the Local Government and Communities Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill was that the 2040 target be applied in each local authority area without the onus being put on councils to do that. I was pleased that my amendments giving effect to that measure were agreed to at stage 2.

It is very important that no part of the country is left behind in the drive to meet the fuel poverty target at the national level.

The Scottish Government has supported the amendments, and has pointed to minor issues with the wording of the stage 2 amendments. I have worked with the minister on the amendments in this group, which make consequential and tidying-up changes to ensure clarity and consistency throughout the bill. I am grateful to the minister for that.

The amendments will make it absolutely clear that each of the three elements of the 2040 target applies in each local authority area as well as nationwide. No more than 5 per cent of the households in each local authority area can be in fuel poverty, no more than 1 per cent can be in extreme fuel poverty, and the median fuel poverty gap should be no greater than £250 at 2015 prices before adjusting for inflation.

At stage 2, the minister said that local authority statistics are not made available quite as quickly as national ones. I said that I would be happy to work with him on that.

Having considered the reporting cycles for data on fuel poverty at the local authority level, I lodged an amendment that provides more time for reporting on whether the local authority area targets have been met following the end of 2040. That is because combined data for three years is required from the Scottish house condition survey in order to provide sufficiently robust results for each council area. Therefore, it will be December 2043 before all local authority-level data is available covering the three years after the target date—namely, 2040 to 2042. The amendment to section 9 reflects that.

Let me take each amendment in turn.

Amendment 1 sets out what section 1 does. It says:

“This section makes provision for the 2040 fuel poverty targets”,

now that there is also to be a second target—the local authority area one.

Amendment 2 sets out the 2040 local authority area target in a manner that is consistent with the wording of the existing 2040 Scotland-wide target, and clarifies that it is only households in a local authority area that are under discussion.

Amendment 72 will put the onus on the Scottish ministers—not councils—to meet the fuel poverty targets in each local authority area.

Amendments 6 to 8 are technical amendments that will remove references in sections 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b) and 6(1)(c) to meeting the targets at the local authority area level, as that is now provided for by amendment 9 instead.

Amendment 9 will insert a new subsection to provide for the periodic reports to include information on the steps taken during the reporting period to meet the target at the local authority area level, the progress that has been made towards meeting it, and the steps that are planned for the next reporting period. The effect of that is to bring together in one place the currently dispersed references that set out those requirements to make them more prominent and readily understandable. That route has been supported by the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland, which has called for local authority targets to also reflect the periodic reporting on the other fuel poverty targets.

Amendment 10 is consequential to amendment 9.

Amendment 11 will insert a new section after section 9 that sets out the requirement to report on the achievement of the 2040 target at the local authority level by no later than 31 December 2043. That reflects the fact that data on fuel poverty in each local authority area is only available based on a three-year average and will therefore be available only later than the reporting date under section 9.

Amendment 13—I am almost finished—is a consequential change to reflect that the Scotland-wide 2040 target is in section 1(1) only.

Amendment 14 is a consequential change to reflect the fact that the local authority area target is set out in section 1(1A) and in order to allow it to be referred to by name.

Amendments 20, 22 and 46, in the name of the minister, are technical amendments to ensure that terminology is consistent throughout the bill. We will support them.

I move amendment 1.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

Before I speak to my amendments, I will deal with those of Mr Simpson.

I am happy that we have been able to work together on his amendments in relation to the local authority area target. They make sensible and necessary improvements to the current wording around those commitments.

My amendments 20, 22 and 46 have been lodged in recognition of the fact that the fuel poverty strategy must take a holistic partnership approach if we are to be successful in achieving the bill’s targets. That is particularly so in light of the introduction of the local authority area target, which will require us to work closely with local authorities. They also acknowledge that the Scottish Government does not have control over all the drivers that can push households into fuel poverty or, for that matter, propel them out of it. Nonetheless, we are committed to addressing all the drivers in our strategy. The amendments will, therefore, allow us, where appropriate, to set out in the strategy actions that must be taken by not only Scottish ministers but others.

Amendments 2 and 3 do similar things in respect of the steps that are needed to meet the 2040 target in local authority areas and to undertake periodic reporting.

Those measures will enable us to produce the kind of comprehensive strategy that will be needed if we are to end fuel poverty in Scotland.

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

The amendments in this group are broadly fine, in that they are technical or clarify language and definition. However, if Graham Simpson’s amendments 6 to 10 are accepted, the change made by Pauline McNeill’s stage 2 amendment on the need to include the cost of the steps that are laid out in the periodic report will be lost. We believe that that is a key part of the transparency and scrutiny of the periodic report and, for that reason, we will not be supporting amendments 6 to 10.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

I voice my support for Graham Simpson’s amendments. There were concerns about placing too onerous a responsibility on local authorities, but I think that it is imperative that we see consistent progress being made across all Scottish local authority areas towards the eradication of fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty. Therefore, I welcome the pragmatic approach that the amendments appear to take.

The Presiding Officer

Does Graham Simpson wish to wind up?

Graham Simpson

I do not think that there is anything else to say.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate on group 1. Unusually, before voting on the lead amendment, we will move to group 2. That is simply because the first amendment in group 2 will amend one of the amendments in group 1.

Group 2 concerns the 2032 fuel poverty target. Amendment 1A, in the name of Alex Rowley, is grouped with amendments 65, 2A, 66, 71, 73, 82, 84, 86, 9A, 88, 89, 91 to 94, 11A, 11B, 11C, 11D, 11E and 11F. I draw members’ attention to the information in the groupings on amendments in this group that are pre-empted by amendments in group 1.

Alex Rowley

The bill is badly lacking in ambition. Not only did the Government limit the scope of the bill by changing it from a warm homes bill to a definition bill, which prevented members from setting out in statute the measures that are required to eradicate fuel poverty, but it has clung to a target that, in the words of Energy Action Scotland, condemns another generation to fuel poverty.

Our proposal for a target of 2032 is realistic if it is accompanied by an ambitious plan. We heard in committee that that date is supported by a broad range of stakeholders including the Existing Homes Alliance and Energy Action Scotland. Energy UK said that it would “focus minds”. That is the right way to look at the issue. There is an issue of practicalities, but there is also one of political will, and the Government is not coming close to doing everything that it can to improve energy efficiency and reduce fuel poverty. Funding consistently falls short of what is required for a national infrastructure project, which is what we need if we are going to tackle fuel poverty.

Our approach would be very different from that of the Government. It claims that measures must be targeted only at those who are living in fuel poverty. However, a sustainable and long-term approach to eradicating fuel poverty should mean effective behavioural change across Scotland—facilitating co-operatives, boosting people’s wages, reducing the cost of living and improving energy efficiency across our housing stock, because people move house and their financial situation changes. The economic and health benefits that would accompany such an approach across Scotland would be huge.

Importantly, we want to give the minister the best possible chance to eradicate fuel poverty; we are not setting the Government up to fail. We have lodged an amendment so that the target can be moved if independent expert opinion suggests that it cannot reasonably be met. The Parliament should support the amendments and back a radical plan to eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland as soon as possible.

I move amendment 1A.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I would like to speak in support of Alex Rowley’s amendments in this group.

As members will know, at stage 1, the committee made the recommendation that we should stick with the 2040 target. However, amendments that were made at stage 2 have provided, among other things, enhanced scrutiny provisions and greater flexibility on the target. In particular, Alex Rowley’s amendment 70 provides for the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel to recommend a different fuel poverty target date. Therefore, agreeing to a more ambitious 2032 target is not as objectionable as it might have been at stage 1. If 2032 becomes unachievable, the panel would be able to recommend, if it sees fit, that the target be extended beyond 2032—perhaps even back to 2040. As with the Government’s approach to climate change targets, when the evidence changes, so, too, should the response.

James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

I want to speak against Alex Rowley’s amendment.

As Andy Wightman said, the committee said at stage 1 that 2040 was a pragmatic target. Ideally, we would all want this to be sorted in the next couple of years. However, 2032 was seen as a totally unrealistic target by those who would have to do the work to ensure that it became a reality.

The 2040 target is pragmatic and, as Andy Wightman said, there is now flexibility around it. If the technology comes into force, I hope that we will be able to bring the target forward. However, we should not set ourselves up to fail—as happened with a previous Administration, which had the best of intentions. Let us make sure that people know what the target is and move on to taking it forward.

Graham Simpson

We are going over a debate that we had extensively at stage 2—nothing has really changed. Although it was not an easy decision, the committee took the view that 2040 was the right date and that 2032 was too ambitious. Nothing has really changed from that position. Frankly, this feels like a rerun, and I think that the result will be the same.

Kevin Stewart

Mr Simpson is absolutely right that we had this debate at great length during stage 2. I am disappointed that the amendments have been brought back, despite their having been clearly defeated, and their being contrary to the committee’s recommendations at stage 1—recommendations that Mr Rowley supported at that stage. I remain strongly opposed to the amendments.

During the stage 1 committee debate, it was accepted that it was better to have realistic and achievable targets that all involved could work towards, as long as the Government brought forward amendments to include interim targets in the bill, which we did.

At stage 2, we debated the issue further—revisiting all the arguments that we had had before—and came to the conclusion that including interim targets would help us to demonstrate progress. We introduced a 2030 interim target at stage 2, and Graham Simpson’s amendment 4 would introduce a further 2035 interim target, which I fully support.

I remain strongly opposed to Mr Rowley’s amendments in the group. We have been through all the arguments before, but I will set them out again. We do not have powers over all the drivers of fuel poverty, in particular energy prices. Our action has to be through what we can do, which is why we are tackling fuel poverty by going for transformational change in homes through energy efficient measures. That relies on technologies, some of which are still in development; a skilled workforce; and local companies to take it forward. The target date has been agreed by those partners who will bring about this change—the businesses taking forward the work; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and, of course, those who own homes—owner-occupiers, private landlords and registered social landlords.

Those sectors do not want a target that sets everyone up to fail; they want to work towards a target that we can achieve. None of the partners who has to deliver the 2040 targets—including COSLA, which wrote multiple times to the Local Government and Communities Committee at stage 1 with its concerns—agrees with these amendments.

There are clear risks to accelerating the timeframe, including losing the economic opportunities to develop skills and supply chains across Scotland that could support 4,000 jobs, because only larger businesses from outwith Scotland are ready to match an accelerated pace.

In addition, if demand exceeds supply, costs could escalate, potentially leading to increased rents and further pressure on public finances. There is also a risk of alienating the public by speeding up the pace of regulation, enforcement and mandatory action by 2024.

I have not yet seen an alternative to our comprehensive “Energy Efficient Scotland” route map, which commits us to a sensible phased approach to maximise the take-up of energy efficiency improvements voluntarily up to 2030, with mandatory action to follow.

As I have stated before, of course we want to go further. I want to go further; I want to go faster, if it is possible. That is why we are currently consulting on the impact of speeding up the programme. However, we must not risk our credibility by setting unrealistic expectations or take actions that lead to unnecessary costs for people and for the public finances.

We must have a realistic and achievable starting point for the fuel poverty target that is within our grasp and which we can strive for. We have already debated the risks and the issues and I urge Parliament to reject these amendments yet again.

Alex Rowley

As Mr Stewart said, the Tory members and the Scottish National Party members came together at stage 2 to block any attempt to be a bit more ambitious with the target, but I had hoped that the minister and his colleagues would have looked again.

The Parliament was established in 1999 and, early in the life of the Parliament, we introduced a bill to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016. Today, we are talking about getting fuel poverty down to 5 per cent by 2040. As I said previously, I will be in my 70s when we reach that target—if we reach it, because the doom and gloom around it would suggest that we cannot.

The minister has raised a few myths. For example, he says that this is all down to technologies. That is simply not the case. I have written to him about housing in Ballingry and Lochore in Fife; the houses are expensive to treat and it is expensive to put in place energy efficiency measures. The lack of budget is what is causing the people there to be living in fuel poverty—the lack of budget and the lack of ambition. It is not simply about technologies. The minister says that it is about a skilled workforce; why are we not being more ambitious about tackling fuel poverty and putting in place a skilled workforce to do the jobs that could ensure that people live in warmer houses?

As I said previously, we have covered in another amendment the possibility of shifting the target if it looks as though we will get to 2032 and not reach the target, but I would rather be ambitious for Scotland and say that nobody in Scotland should be living in fuel poverty. It is the Tory and SNP members who lack ambition and lack vision; that is why people will continue to be in fuel poverty.

I press amendment 1A.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 1A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As it is the first division of the afternoon, I suspend the meeting for five minutes while I call members to the chamber.

The Presiding Officer

We move to the division on amendment 1A.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 85, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1A disagreed to.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 65 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

I remind members that if amendment 2 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 66.

Amendment 2 moved—[Graham Simpson].

Amendment 2A not moved.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 3 is on the modification of the 2040 target. Amendment 67, in the name of Alex Rowley, is grouped with amendments 68 to 70.

Alex Rowley

I introduced amendments at stage 2 to allow the target to be moved if independent expert opinion suggested that it could not be reasonably met. We want the Parliament to work together so that we have the best possible chance of eradicating fuel poverty at the earliest opportunity. The target is just a means to an end. Unfortunately, the Government has chosen to stick with its target date of 2040. If the statutory advisory panel feels that the target date should be brought forward, we hope that it will be moved and that the panel will be able to give the Government the guidance that it needs in order to achieve that target.

I move amendment 67.

Kevin Stewart

At stage 2, I agreed that the statutory Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel should have the power to make recommendations that would allow Parliament to revisit the target date, but only by pushing it back. I am pleased that Mr Rowley and I have been able to work together on the amendments, which now allow ministers the flexibility to modify the target date both backwards and forwards. The amendments also ensure that reporting deadlines can be adjusted if the 2040 target date for the local authority target or the national target is changed. I urge members to support the amendments.

Amendment 67 agreed to.

Amendments 68 to 70 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Section 1A—The 2030 target

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on the interim fuel poverty target. Amendment 3, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 4 and 12.

Graham Simpson

There are three amendments in this group, all in my name. I was pleased that, at stage 2, the Government decided to act on the recommendations of the Local Government and Communities Committee and lodged an amendment to put an interim target for 2030 in the bill. During stage 2, there was a discussion on having further milestones to keep things on track, and I have worked with the Government on these amendments to address that.

The fuel poverty strategy included a target for the overall fuel poverty rate to be less than 20 per cent by 2030 and for the median household fuel poverty gap to be no more than £450. A Scottish Government amendment at stage 2 improved the bill, so that it includes a target that, in 2030,

“no more than 15% of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty ... no more than 5% of households in Scotland are in extreme fuel poverty”

and

“the median fuel poverty gap of households in Scotland in fuel poverty is no more than £350”,

taking into account changes in the value of money.

The amendments to section 1A are in line with that and set a further interim target, to be introduced for 2035. There is one target for 2030 and an extra one for 2035. That second target is that, in 2035,

“no more than 10% of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty ... no more than 3% of households ... are in extreme fuel poverty”

and

“the median fuel poverty gap ... is no more than £300”

in 2015 prices.

Those figures are based on a straightforward linear progression from the 2030 interim target to the 2040 end target. I believe that the new interim target will ensure that attention continues to be focused on reducing fuel poverty and, crucially, maintaining momentum towards achieving the 2040 target.

Amendment 12 to section 9A is technical, in recognition of the fact that, although the bill will include interim targets, that wording is not used. As all the targets are classified together as fuel poverty targets, the panel will already be considering the progress that is being made towards meeting them.

Amendment 3 expands section 1A to include more than one interim target.

The interim targets will be classified as “fuel poverty targets” under the existing definition in section 12A. Therefore, the periodic reporting duties and duties about the strategy will apply to the new interim target, just as they apply to the 2030 interim target.

Amendment 4 adds an additional interim target for 2035 at section 1A. I have already gone over what that will do, but the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the momentum is maintained.

Amendment 12 removes reference to “interim targets” on the basis that interim targets have been provided for but the label of “interim targets” has not been used, as this new interim target is already covered by the reference to “fuel poverty targets”.

I apologise for the fact that some of that was technical, but that is the nature of the bill.

I move amendment 3.

Kevin Stewart

I am pleased that Mr Simpson and I have been able to come to an agreement on these amendments, which bring forward an additional interim target. I confirm my support for the amendments.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment 71 not moved.

Amendment 4 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 2—Meaning of fuel poverty

The Presiding Officer

Group 5 is on enhanced heating. Amendment 15, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 16 and 17.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

I rise to speak to all the amendments in the group, which are in my name. I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of Energy Action Scotland and I thank it and other organisations for their help with stage 2 amendments.

Section 2 sets out two heating regimes: standard and “enhanced”. As we would expect, the enhanced heating regime has a higher temperature and longer heating time than the standard regime. Under section 2(4), Scottish ministers can make regulations that

“specify the types of household for which enhanced heating is appropriate”,

so that specified households get enhanced heating and others get standard heating.

At stage 2, I lodged a series of amendments that suggested that households with people of pensionable age or children under five should be entitled to the enhanced heating regime. It is a matter of regret that I was not able to persuade the committee or, at that stage, the Scottish Government, despite a wealth of support from experts and organisations involved in the field of tackling fuel poverty.

However, I do not give up easily and I am pleased to say that I have managed to persuade the minister that there is a need to look at the issue and I am glad that we have been able to come to a compromise. The minister is smiling, Presiding Officer. It is probably the first time that he has enjoyed compromising with me.

I think that we would all agree that the introduction of a flexible range of enhanced heating regimes is important to the proper measurement of fuel poverty. We know that certain groups are more at risk of fuel poverty because they require higher temperatures for longer, meaning that they spend more on fuel costs. If we do not reflect that in our measurement of fuel poverty, we run the risk of letting people slip through the net. We would fail to capture the fact that vulnerable groups are being faced with a choice between heating their homes or being left without enough money to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

To address that, the purpose behind my three amendments is to introduce two additional enhanced heating regimes to provide a more accurate picture of fuel poverty. The two additional regimes are a higher temperature for standard hours and a standard temperature for longer hours. Instead of having a single enhanced heating regime, which applies both higher temperatures and longer hours of heating to a household, there will also be the option to apply either higher temperatures or longer hours.

Essentially, some households might need longer heating hours but not higher temperatures, and vice versa. The amendments will enable a more flexible range of enhanced heating regimes to be applied, which can be better tailored to the needs of different household types. I therefore urge members to make a difference and support the three amendments in the group.

I move amendment 15

Liam McArthur

I welcome the perseverance of Jackie Baillie. She is right that at stage 2 she had a fair go at lodging amendments, which the minister resisted. The flexibility that these three amendments will deliver is very welcome and we will be supporting them.

Kevin Stewart

I have a funny feeling that my face was probably as bright a red as Jackie Baillie’s jacket when she was talking about a compromising situation.

As Jackie Baillie outlined, these amendments enable a more flexible range of enhanced heating regimes to be applied, which can be better tailored to the needs of different household types. Ms Baillie has taken a close interest in the bill from its introduction, particularly in relation to our enhanced heating regime, and she has advocated for change. I am pleased that we have been able to work together to agree this new approach and I am happy to support the amendments.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendments 16 and 17 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 6 is on the meaning of fuel poverty: benefits received for a care need or disability. Amendment 18, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 19.

Kevin Stewart

At stage 2, an amendment from Jackie Baillie was agreed to that required that

“benefits received for a care need or disability”

be deducted from incomes at the second part—section 2(1)(b)—of the fuel poverty definition when determining whether a household has enough remaining money

“to maintain an acceptable standard of living”.

I was happy to support that change, as it will result in a fairer comparison to the minimum income standard for those households.

Amendments 18 and 19 are subsequent tidying amendments. Amendment 18 will mean that all the relevant benefits, including “severe disablement allowance”, will be deducted from incomes, and amendment 19 will make sure that

“benefits received for a care need or disability”

are also deducted from incomes as part of the definition of “extreme fuel poverty”. I therefore ask members to support amendments 18 and 19.

I move amendment 18.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Section 2A—Meaning of extreme fuel poverty

Amendment 19 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Preparation of strategy

Amendment 20 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on strategy and periodic reports: approach to addressing the drivers of fuel poverty and definitions of those drivers. Amendment 21, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 74 to 76, 23 to 28, 78, 77, 79, 33, 81, 42, 83, 85, 43, 87, 47 and 97.

Andy Wightman

Amendment 21 would simply add a paragraph to section 3(2) requiring that the fuel poverty strategy sets out

“the approach the Scottish Ministers intend to take”

to tackle all four drivers

“of fuel poverty to ensure that the fuel poverty targets are met”.

I am very glad that we ended up getting the four drivers of fuel poverty in the bill, and a number of the amendments that we are debating today are adjustments to that provision.

Amendment 33 is consequential to amendment 21 and ties the four drivers that are referred to in amendment 21 to the definition that is provided in section 9A.

Claudia Beamish’s amendment 78 is useful in spelling out clearly the requirement to “improve energy efficiency” across the board, and we will support the amendment.

Amendments 42 and 43 and the consequential amendment 47 would add a duty to report on the extent to which the four drivers of fuel poverty have been addressed in each periodic report under section 6.

I draw particular attention to Alex Rowley’s amendment 97, which restates the four drivers of fuel poverty in more accurate terms. Amendment 97 talks about

“low net adjusted household incomes”.

It was frequently stated by members at stage 1 that income is not a driver that the Scottish Government or the Parliament has any control over. Of course, the relevant metric for the purposes of measuring fuel poverty is not gross incomes but net incomes after the deduction of “housing costs”, “childcare costs” and “fuel costs”. The Parliament does—but perhaps should do more to—influence house prices and rents through fiscal measures and housing tenure reform. We also influence childcare and, of course, we control income tax, which determines how much income folk have to start with.

We will not support Alexander Burnett’s amendments 77, 81 and 85, but we will support his amendment 83, which picks up on my amendments to require that the periodic reporting includes progress that “has been made” on “energy efficiency”.

I move amendment 21.

Jackie Baillie

I will speak briefly to amendments 74, 75 and 76.

I think that we would all agree that a new definition and target are useful only if they lead to meaningful action. Everyone accepts that those who require an enhanced heating regime are more at risk of fuel poverty, because of the increased costs that they face in sufficiently heating their homes. We must understand who those people are and reach them with the assistance that they require to lift them out of fuel poverty. That could be done through financial support or help to make their homes more efficient.

My amendments would enable ministers to set out their approach to identifying and supporting those people who are more at risk of fuel poverty because they require an enhanced heating regime. I hope that members will support my amendments.

Kevin Stewart

The fuel poverty strategy will be vital in delivering the ambitions that are set out in the bill and there have been a number of amendments to section 3 throughout the process, which I will address in turn.

I welcome and support the amendments in Andy Wightman’s name in this group, which make it clear that the fuel poverty strategy will set out the approach that we will take on all four drivers of fuel poverty. That is the approach that we took in the draft strategy.

There is no doubt that how we use energy in the home is important. That is a large part of the work of our award-winning advice service, home energy Scotland, but I note that it does not contribute towards measuring progress against the fuel poverty targets in the bill, which are based on the cost of heating homes to the temperatures that are set out in section 2.

On amendments 74, 75 and 76, I have been working with Ms Baillie on the enhanced heating regime and I acknowledge her championing of the issue. I reassure her that we are absolutely committed to setting out in the strategy what we will do to help people who are in fuel poverty as a result of being in a household for which enhanced heating is appropriate. However, the amendments are unnecessary, as their provisions do not need to be in primary legislation. I hope that my commitment reassures Ms Baillie on the matter, and I urge her not to move amendments 74, 75 and 76.

Amendments 23 to 28, in my name, are largely technical in nature. At stage 2, I supported an amendment in the name of Alexander Burnett that provided that the fuel poverty strategy should set out our approach to identifying properties with a low energy efficiency rating. At the time, I said that we were happy to support the amendment but would need to revisit the issue at stage 3. The amendments will strengthen the bill by making it clear that the strategy will set out the approach that we intend to take in order to identify homes with low energy efficiency—as opposed to the approach that we could take, which is the current position in the bill. They also make it clear that the aim is to identify homes in which the households are fuel poor, which is obviously the focus of the bill and the strategy. Amendment 27 ensures that the wording is in line with the energy efficient Scotland approach, and the other amendments are technical and tidying amendments.

I turn to Mr Burnett’s amendments. Amendments 81 and 85 are unnecessary, as the issue will be dealt with by amendments 42 and 43, in the name of Andy Wightman, which take a stronger approach in that they will require the Scottish ministers to set out the steps that have been and will be taken on all four drivers of fuel poverty, not just on one of the drivers. For that reason, I urge Mr Burnett not to move amendments 81 and 85 but, instead, to support amendments 42 and 43.

Amendment 83, also in Mr Burnett’s name, does something slightly different in that it requires ministers to set out what progress has been made, so I am more than happy to support it.

I urge Mr Burnett not to move amendment 77, on the basis that it is unnecessary. The provision that it would amend explicitly builds on the approach that is referred to in section 3(2)(aa), which provides that the strategy must

“set out the approach the Scottish Ministers intend to take to ensure that the”

fuel poverty targets are met.

Amendment 78, from Claudia Beamish, and amendments 79 and 87, from Pauline McNeill, are unnecessary. They would add a long list of tenures and would require financial incentives to be created whether or not households were in fuel poverty. The key purpose of the bill is to tackle fuel poverty, but nowhere in the amendments is there a single mention of fuel poverty. The wider issue of home energy efficiency is being addressed elsewhere, and the approach that is proposed in amendments 78, 79 and 87 would detract from the core purpose of the bill while adding nothing of benefit.

Furthermore, there are potential issues with the drafting of amendment 78, on which amendments 79 and 87 are contingent. The list of housing tenures is incomplete and does not cover some private tenancies, such as tenancies under agricultural and crofting legislation. Also, amendment 78 would confer on ministers the power to expand the list by regulation. Until this morning, when a manuscript amendment was lodged, the power was not going to be subject to parliamentary procedure. That has now been rectified, but problems remain with amendment 78 that have not been addressed. For example, the power does not allow tenancy types to be removed if they are no longer relevant.

For all those reasons, I cannot support amendments 78, 79 and 87.

Nevertheless, I have always made it clear that I am determined that the fuel poverty strategy will set out how we intend to help fuel-poor households of all types and in all tenures of housing and how we intend to use all the available means to support people. At stage 2, the bill was amended to require that the strategy set out how we intend to remove poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty. That means removing it for all households—regardless of tenancy type—in order to meet the targets. I hope that that provides reassurance to members.

I ask Ms McNeill not to move her amendments 79 and 87 and Ms Beamish not to move her amendment 78, as those amendments are flawed. I also ask Ms Beamish not to move her newly lodged manuscript amendment 99.

Both today and during the earlier stages of the bill, there have been many references to the four drivers of fuel poverty, all of which are important. At stage 2, Alex Rowley lodged an amendment to establish the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel by statute and to require it to report on the extent to which the drivers are being addressed. The Scottish Government has worked closely with Mr Rowley on his amendment 97, which is a technical amendment that clarifies what the four drivers are. Those clarifications also address concerns that Mr Wightman has raised. I hope that all members will support amendment 97, which now more accurately reflects what the drivers of fuel poverty are.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

My amendment 78, which the minister mentioned, seeks to ensure that, in preparing the fuel poverty strategy, ministers give appropriate consideration to different housing tenures. I stress that the list of tenures in the amendment is not exclusive. I welcome Andy Wightman’s support for amendment 78.

My amendment 99 would ensure that the regulations would be made subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the legislation team for dealing at this late stage with my manuscript amendment to that effect, and the Presiding Officer for accepting it.

Fuel poverty can affect people’s lives regardless of their housing arrangements. In amendment 78 members can see the list of housing tenure types, including owner occupation, private tenancies, local authority tenancies, social housing, multiple occupancies, Scottish secure tenancies and—contrary to what the minister said—agricultural tenancies and multiple types. The amendment—

Kevin Stewart

Will the member take an intervention?

Claudia Beamish

I will just finish this sentence.

The amendment would allow ministers to prescribe other types by regulation.

Kevin Stewart

The list does not include agricultural and crofting tenancies, so amendment 78 is flawed. I know that Ms Beamish has tried to deal with some aspects by means of a manuscript amendment today. However, it is fair to say that missing out those forms of tenancy still makes the amendment flawed.

Claudia Beamish

I have not changed amendment 78 today; with the Presiding Officer’s permission, I have simply lodged amendment 99, which proposes that regulations should be made by means of the affirmative procedure. I will read out amendment 78, which says that it is in relation to

“a 1991 Act tenancy (within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003)”.

That wording is in amendment 78, which has not been changed today.

I will carry on with what I wanted to say. Each of those designations has its own unique challenges that should be addressed, and people who have different types of tenure will also have differences in their income, their motivation for living under a type of tenure, or their need to live under that type of tenure. I acknowledge that some forms of tenure will include higher or lower proportions of people who live in fuel poverty. Scottish Labour believes that support for people who live in fuel poverty should be prioritised. However, it would be short-sighted of the Government to limit such action to those who are in direct fuel poverty. We should be looking for a long-term, sustainable solution, which was what many people expected from the Government’s commitment to introduce a warm homes bill, which was also in Scottish Labour’s manifesto. The Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill is much narrower in scope. Ultimately, we need to bring all housing stock up to standard. People will always move house or encounter changing circumstances, so the bill should be preventive and not simply reactionary.

For example, private sector tenants can often have landlords who are reluctant to make energy efficiency improvements, and people in multi-occupancy tenancies can face difficulties in relation to sharing the cost of improvements, which is also a complex issue. As I have seen with my own eyes, agricultural tenancies can often be in older rural buildings, and conflicts with landlords can arise. I lodged a similar amendment—although it was narrower in scope—to a bill in the previous parliamentary session. The then minister stressed that improvements to private rented accommodation would be addressed through the fuel poverty forum and action groups, but that has not happened.

The Government has rightly committed to a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, and it has accepted that that will require a step up in policy action. Given the climate emergency, it is important to acknowledge that the bill could provide co-benefits in relation to tackling climate change and—need I say it—addressing physical and mental wellbeing. The right to a home, as set out by the United Nations, must surely mean that people in Scotland have the right to a warm home. Any Government must oblige those with the responsibility to provide such homes. Given the climate emergency, amendment 78 has, at its core, a focus on providing a just transition, in that it aims to support individuals who cannot necessarily afford to take action on fuel poverty, and those who do not have the power to take such action because of the type of accommodation that they live in. I argue that, in many cases, the responsibility for action lies with not the tenant, but the landlord.

Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will consider agreeing to my amendments. I look forward to hearing any further comments from the minister.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, although I point out that the minister will not have another chance to speak to this group of amendments.

Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests regarding construction and property management.

I will move my amendments 77 and 83, but I will not move my amendments 81 and 85, as we feel that Andy Wightman’s amendments will help to adequately tackle the drivers of fuel poverty, and the Scottish Conservatives agree with that approach.

Amendments 77 and 83 seek to hold the Government to account by ensuring that low levels of energy efficiency are addressed. Amendment 77 seeks to help lift residents out of fuel poverty within target remits that must be laid out by the Government. That will ensure that this or any future Scottish Government must stick to reducing fuel poverty on a targeted timeline.

Amendment 83 builds on amendment 77 by ensuring that, when the Scottish Government reports on hitting targets or reducing fuel poverty, it specifically analyses progress on tackling low levels of energy efficiency. Poor energy efficiency is a driver of fuel poverty, so it is important that amendment 83 is included in the bill to ensure that any Scottish Government will need to report on progress on improving energy efficiency in homes across Scotland.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

I will speak to my amendments 79 and 87, and to other amendments in the group—particularly amendment 21, in the name of Andy Wightman, which is very important; amendment 78, in the name of Claudia Beamish; and amendment 97, in the name of Alex Rowley.

My amendment 79 sets out that ministers must use the strategy to set out the “financial and fiscal incentives” that are available to people who live in each type of housing tenure. The Government’s decision to introduce a fuel poverty bill, not a warm homes bill, is illustrative of the narrow approach that it takes to eradicating fuel poverty. Although it might not be desirable, amendment 79 is certainly competent. We suggest that there should be a much wider focus on improving energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty, given the impact that that would have on energy efficiency and fuel poverty levels and on tackling climate change, as Claudia Beamish said. If we do not address those issues through the bill, we will need to address them somewhere else, and I do not see where that would be. We should offer the widest level of support to groups of people across all tenures and housing stock, and lay out the financial incentives that are available to them.

Amendment 87 calls for periodic reports to include a review of

“the effectiveness of any financial and fiscal incentives contained within the strategy”.

Home energy Scotland reports that 845 households applied for loans to install energy efficiency measures, but we do not know how effective those actions have been. If better advertising was done, more people might well apply for those loans to install energy-efficient options.

The emphasis is on loans, but a look also needs to be taken at other incentives. According to the consumer futures unit, home owners prefer, by some margin, the option of a one-off rebate of council tax in the year following installation. We must address the question of how we get more people to take measures to use less fuel and to use it more efficiently, and the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill seems to be the appropriate place to do that. It is imperative that we approach fuel poverty as a warm homes issue, as well as looking at how we can encourage greater fuel efficiency.

Alex Rowley

We support amendment 97 and the other amendments in the group, most of which are broadly technical. I want to thank the Government for its support and for the work that it has done on the amendments. Even though there have been areas of disagreement in the bill, there has been some productive joint working. I put on record that that is because of Kevin Stewart’s open-door approach. He says that he wants to work with other parties on the strategy: I look forward to that.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

I will speak against Claudia Beamish’s amendments 78 and 99 and Pauline McNeill’s amendments 79 and 87. Similar proposals were put forward at stage 2, but they did not gain traction. For my part, I find the amendments to be somewhat confusing. As we have heard, amendment 78 lists a number of tenancies, but it does not capture all tenancies, which is the danger of such an approach. For example, I understand that tenancies under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 would not be covered, as the minister outlined. The key point of the bill is that it covers all households, regardless of tenure or tenancy. The bill does that as it stands, so amendment 78 is not necessary; indeed, it risks creating confusion.

Amendment 99 is a manuscript amendment that would facilitate the process that would be required if amendment 78 were to be agreed to, but as I have said, amendment 78 is confusing and is not in keeping with the spirit of the bill. Therefore, I suggest that amendment 99 be rejected, too.

Amendments 79 and 87 do not reflect the fundamental tenet of the bill, which is that the people who are most in need should be targeted. The application of amendments 79 and 87 would not be limited to households that are defined to be in fuel poverty, but would cover all properties in the categories that Claudia Beamish has set out. Therefore, amendments 79 and 87 would not be in keeping with the fundamental tenet of the bill, which is a bill to address fuel poverty. The members concerned perhaps had an alternative approach in mind.

I ask that if Claudia Beamish and Pauline McNeill move their amendments, they be rejected because they are confusing, would not add anything to the bill and are not in keeping with its fundamental tenet.

Graham Simpson

We will support Andy Wightman’s amendments. He was quite right to introduce into the bill the four drivers of fuel poverty. There was a debate in the Local Government and Communities Committee about whether the Scottish Government has influence over all four of the drivers. I accept that it does not have total influence over all four of them, but it does have some influence over them.

We accept—as does my colleague Alexander Burnett—that amendments 81 and 85 have been superseded by Mr Wightman’s amendments, so he will not be moving them.

However, Alexander Burnett’s amendment 83 would insert a requirement to report on the progress of

“removing low levels of energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty”.

I think that that makes perfect sense, as others have said.

We will not support Claudia Beamish’s or Pauline McNeill’s amendments. Unfortunately, the latter has been caught up in the former’s legislative slipstream and her amendments are tied into Ms Beamish’s amendments. If she had gone for something separate, she might have had support.

The Presiding Officer

I call Andy Wightman to wind up on group 7, and to press or withdraw amendment 21.

Andy Wightman

I do not have a great deal to say—serendipity often decides who opens and closes groups. On Claudia Beamish’s amendment 78, the minister said that the strategy already deals with all tenures, so by that logic the fact that the amendment misses out agriculture and crofting should not really matter at all. It is the case, of course, that two identical homes—maybe in a terraced street—in which one family is in fuel poverty and the other is not will have very similar solutions to improving their energy efficiency. The strategy need not distinguish between fuel-poor households and non-fuel-poor households, because in most, if not all, cases the solutions will be the same and are vital to reducing carbon emissions.

I accept some of the minister’s critique of amendment 78; nevertheless, I still think that it would be a useful means by which to focus ministers’ attention, in the strategy, on particular tenures of housing.

I thank Alexander Burnett for his kind comments. He will possibly go down in history as the minister—

The minister! No. I mean the member. [Interruption.] He may go down in history as a minister, one day. Alexander Burnett will go down in history as—everyone is waiting with bated breath—the member who moved the £60 million amendment at stage 2. I am glad that he secured a more modest amendment today.

I press amendment 21.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I remind members that, if amendment 72 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 73.

Amendment 72 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I call Jackie Baillie to move or not move amendment 74.

Jackie Baillie

On the basis of the commitments that the minister has placed on the record, I am happy not to move my amendments in the group.

Amendments 74 to 76 not moved.

Amendments 23 to 28 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 78 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first vote after a debate, we will have a one-minute division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 78 disagreed to.

Amendment 77 moved—[Alexander Burnett].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 77 disagreed to.

Amendment 79 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

Group 8 is on strategy and periodic reports: consultation and revision. Amendment 29, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 30 to 32, 34, 35, 80, 36 to 41, 44, 45, 90, 95, and 98.

Kevin Stewart

At stage 2, an amendment in the name of Alex Rowley MSP was agreed to that obliged ministers to keep the fuel poverty strategy under review on an on-going basis. For the strategy to have real purpose, ministers must also be able to revise it whenever unforeseen changes are identified that have to be addressed or whenever they have to respond to comments on the strategy from the new advisory panel that will be established under the bill. At present, the wording of that amendment does not explicitly give ministers that authority, and I have lodged amendment 29 to provide for it.

I also said at stage 2 that we might need to revise Mr Rowley’s amendment slightly from a technical perspective to ensure that it worked as everyone would want it to. At the moment, not all the rules that apply to the strategy would apply to a revised strategy. For example, the new statutory panel would not have the function of proposing changes to a revised strategy. To ensure that the bill is consistent in its treatment of the fuel poverty strategy and any revised strategies, amendment 30 seeks to apply a default rule to make sure that that is the case throughout sections 3 to 5. As repeated references to a revised strategy will not be needed, a number of tidying amendments have been lodged to remove them.

Finally, to ensure that, if a revised strategy is developed, there will always be a periodic report every three years, amendments 44 and 45 have been lodged with the purpose of making sure that the three-yearly reporting cycle is not recalculated. At the moment, because of stage 2 amendments, the reporting cycle would restart if the strategy were to be revised.

On amendment 35, I thank Ms Baillie for working with me on a revision of her stage 2 amendment on consulting specific groups on the preparation of the fuel poverty strategy. At the time, we could not agree to the amendment because of its wording, and Ms Baillie chose not to press it so that we could discuss the matter further. Her new amendment keeps to her policy proposal while being consistent with wording used elsewhere in the bill, and I am happy to support it.

Finally, I am also happy that Alex Rowley and I have been able to work together on his amendments in this group, which seek to expand and consolidate the statutory role of the fuel poverty advisory panel by making it a mandatory consultee on the periodic reports and the development of the strategy. That will be very important in the fight to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland, and I am therefore happy to support amendments 80, 90, 95 and 98.

I move amendment 29.

Jackie Baillie

I rise to speak to amendment 35, in my name.

As the minister has already alluded to, at stage 2 I lodged an amendment that would have ensured that the Government had to involve a wide variety of people in preparing the fuel poverty strategy. Specifically, they were people who have lived experience of fuel poverty, people who are disabled or suffer from a long-term illness, older people, and people who live in rural areas. They are some of the most vulnerable groups in our society, particularly when it comes to fuel poverty, so it is crucial that they are brought into the process of developing policies to address the issue.

The Scottish Government supported the principle of that amendment, but not its specific wording, so I withdrew it with a view to bringing it back at stage 3 in a format that we could all agree on.

I worked with the minister on amendment 35, and it is consistent with the wording that is used elsewhere in the bill. It will ensure that the views of the crucial groups of people that are listed are taken into account when the Government develops its fuel poverty strategy. A duty to consult individuals who are living in or have lived in fuel poverty is already included in the bill. Therefore, I hope that members across the chamber will support the amendment.

The Presiding Officer

I call Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 80 and the other amendments in the group.

Alex Rowley

I am happy just to move the amendment.

Kevin Stewart

I will be brief. Once again, I thank Mr Rowley and Ms Baillie for working with me in order to improve sections of the bill. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of being able to come together to discuss improvements to bills in between their stages in order to gain agreement and strengthen them. The amendments will strengthen the bill, and I thank all members who have co-operated on them.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

Amendments 30 to 32 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 33 moved—[Andy Wightman]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Consultation on strategy

Amendment 34 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 35 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 80 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendments 36 to 40 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 5—Publication and laying of strategy

Amendment 41 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 6—Preparation of periodic reports

Amendment 81 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

I remind members that, if amendment 6 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 82.

Amendment 6 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 21, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 42 moved—[Andy Wightman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 83 moved—[Alexander Burnett]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I remind members that, if amendment 7 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 84.

Amendment 7 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 93, Against 21, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Amendment 85 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

I remind members that, if amendment 8 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 86.

Amendment 8 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 93, Against 20, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendment 43 moved—[Andy Wightman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 87 not moved.

Amendment 9 moved—[Graham Simpson].

Amendment 9A not moved.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 93, Against 20, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendment 88 not moved.

Amendments 44 and 45 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 20, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendment 89 not moved.

Amendment 46 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 47 moved—[Andy Wightman]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Consultation on periodic reports

Amendment 90 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Section 9—Report on the 2040 target

Amendments 91 to 94 not moved.

After section 9

Amendment 11 moved—[Graham Simpson].

Amendments 11A to 11F not moved.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Section 9A—Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel

Amendment 95 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

We turn to group 9, on the Scottish fuel advisory panel. Amendment 96, in the name of Alex Rowley, is grouped with amendments 48 to 57, 59, 60, 60A, 61 and 62.

Alex Rowley

It is important that members of the Scottish Parliament outwith the Government have access to advice from the statutory panel in order to adequately scrutinise the impact of Government policy and understand what further action needs to be taken to meet the targets.

We are supporting the Government’s amendments, which will increase the financial cap and place it over a three-year period. That is a sensible approach, and the Parliament seems to agree that the panel should provide what is largely a scrutiny role. We also support Andy Wightman’s amendment 60A, which allows for the cap to be increased. It is plausible that a future Government might want to commission one-off research that could be cost saving in the longer term, and the amendment would allow for that.

I move amendment 96.

Kevin Stewart

At stage 2, I gave my support to Alex Rowley’s amendment to establish a statutory Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel. I very much welcomed the principle of a cap on expenditure, as I would prefer to invest our resources in fuel-poor households and not in administration. However, I did say that the £20,000 cap might be too low, and I committed the Government to carrying out work to estimate the sums that are likely to be required for the panel to be able to perform its functions effectively.

Amendment 60 introduces a new three-yearly cost cap of £82,000, which can be adjusted to reflect any percentage increase in the annual average consumer price index. That figure is based on the panel being of a similar size to the existing non-statutory body and its meeting four times a year. It also assumes a reasonable level of remuneration and appropriate staff and secretariat costs. We believe that it would be better to provide for a multiyear cap on the panel’s costs instead of a single-year figure, because it is likely that the panel’s workload will vary from year to year. The first of those three-year periods will begin when this new section of the bill comes into force and will continue on a rolling basis thereafter.

The amendments in this group also make a number of tweaks in relation to the power to set out in regulations the details of precisely how the panel should be constituted and its functions. At present, the drafting of section 9A does not provide sufficient flexibility to properly address all the issues that are likely to arise in setting up and running a body such as the panel, including the arrangements for appointing members and our being able to make provision regarding things such as the panel’s legal status or to amend other legislation, which is not possible as the bill is currently drafted.

Alex Rowley’s amendment 96 proposes that the panel should be able to provide advice to the relevant parliamentary committee. That would be helpful, and the existing cost estimates are sufficient to cover that.

However, in relation to Mr Wightman’s amendment 60A, I do not support adding the ability for ministers to change the budget cap. Our amendments provide for adequate funding, and we have future proofed the level of funding to take inflation into account. There is no need to revisit the matter, and I am concerned that constant revision of the cap would simply push the costs up and reduce the focus and efficiency of the panel.

I welcome the establishment of a statutory panel, as I believe that that approach will provide us with the expertise that is required while offering us real value for money.

Andy Wightman

I will restrict my remarks to amendment 60A, in my name. The amendment relates to the most important amendment that was lodged at stage 2—Alex Rowley’s amendment to establish a Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel. One hopes that having such a panel—together with the interim target, the periodic reporting and the scrutiny that is now embedded in the bill—will ensure, as far as possible, that the failure to meet the targets in previous legislation does not come to pass again.

I am a bit bemused by the minister’s objection to amendment 60A, which simply gives ministers the power to make regulations to vary the cap on the finances for the panel. The bill sets a target out to 2040, which is 21 years away, and there will be around four or five Administrations over that time. To me, it seems perfectly reasonable that a future Administration may wish to vary the cap, and I do not understand why the minister wishes to fetter the discretion in that regard. It is an eminently reasonable provision and I see no reason to reject it, but I guess that it might well be rejected—I have no idea.

Annabelle Ewing

I rise to speak against amendment 60A. At stage 2, I was pleased to support the proposal to put the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel on a statutory footing. However, at that time, I raised concerns that, in doing so, we should not use scarce resources on administration and bureaucracy but should ensure that the focus remains on resources for the front line. The issue of a cap was raised at stage 2 and, as the minister said, he undertook to reflect on what would be a reasonable figure to allow the body to function in accordance with its remit while taking into account the need not to divert resource from the front line. That work has been done, and I am happy to support amendment 60, in the name of the minister.

I note that, at stage 2, Mr Wightman supported a cap approach on the basis that he is

“not a supporter of setting up a bureaucratic organisation using lots of resources”.—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 27 March 2019; c 42.]

Liam McArthur

I support Andy Wightman’s approach in amendment 60A. As far as I can see, it is an enabling provision that would allow ministers to make changes by regulation. Any such changes would be scrutinised by future Parliaments, which would be cognisant of the need to avoid resources being inappropriately diverted away from the front line. I see no real risk in the provision, and we will support it.

Graham Simpson

It is unusual that we have a minister who does not want to take powers. I suppose that he is to be commended for that. Through amendment 60, he has already increased the budget for the panel, and the figure is inflation proofed, which I think goes far enough. Therefore, we will support amendment 60 but not amendment 60A.

Alex Rowley

We will support every amendment in the group, including Andy Wightman’s amendment 60A for the reasons that he and Liam McArthur have set out.

Amendment 96 agreed to.

Amendments 48 to 57 and 59 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 97 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

After section 9A

Amendment 60 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

Amendment 60A moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 60A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 83, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 60A disagreed to.

Amendment 60 agreed to.

Section 11—Regulation-making powers

Amendment 99 not moved.

Amendments 61 and 62 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 12A—Interpretation

Amendments 13 and 14 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 98 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Section 13—Commencement

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 64, in the name of Andy Wightman, is in a group on its own.

Andy Wightman

Amendment 64 is possibly the most exciting amendment that we will debate today—it appeals to the inner geek in me.

Since I arrived in Parliament, I have noted the importance of commencement provisions in bills, particularly when the Government is in a minority. Sometimes, such provisions can be used to frustrate Opposition amendments, so I have taken to keeping a close eye on commencement sections.

I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to commence the whole act, but the minister suggested—perhaps correctly—that it was inappropriate to commence the whole act at once, so I have gone through the bill with a fine-tooth comb.

It is interesting to note that we have arrived at a position where the day after the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill receives royal assent, three sections will come into force: section 12A, which is the exciting section called “Interpretation”, on the meaning of the fuel poverty targets; section 13, which is the commencement section itself, which needs to come into force to enable us to commence the commencement section; and section 14, which is the most exciting section of the bill, describing the short title of the act.

Given that section 12A is to be commenced on the day after royal assent and it is the interpretation of the terms that are used in sections 1 and 1A and given that section 1A merely introduces the principal measures in the bill, namely a 2030 target and a 2040 target, I fail to see why the provisions in sections 1 and 1A should not come into force the day after royal assent.

I understand that the minister takes a different view. That is fine, but those are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

I move amendment 64.

James Dornan

Mr Wightman mentioned stage 2 and I think that the response that the minister gave him at that stage explained clearly why it could not be done. As Mr Wightman said himself,

“Mr Stewart correctly drew attention to sections 2, 3, 4 and 5, which cannot come into force the day after royal assent.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 3 April 2019; c 37.]

Also, for example, if the Government needed to commence section 2, it would then need to introduce regulations in relation to finance, stating the additional uplift for remote and island areas and so on after that. I do not believe that those sections could be implemented the day after royal assent.

Andy Wightman

I entirely accept what James Dornan says, but I am not seeking to commence section 2 or any of the subsequent sections. I am just seeking to commence sections 1 and 1A. I would be interested to hear the member’s views on why on earth those sections cannot be brought into force immediately after royal assent.

James Dornan

It is important that we work on the basis of what there was agreement on in the committee. I do not really understand the push for the provision. It is not common for all the parts of the bill to be commenced the day after royal assent. I just do not understand why it is necessary here. To be fair, I am the anti-geek, so we are fighting from opposite corners.

Kevin Stewart

During stage 2, I assured the committee that the Scottish Government has no intention of causing any delay to the commencement of the bill’s provisions. Once the bill becomes an act, my intention is to implement its substantive provisions as soon as is practicable. That means that section 13, which commences the “Interpretation”, “Commencement” and “Short title” sections, will come into force on the day after royal assent, with the other provisions to be commenced by regulations.

Amendment 64, in the name of Andy Wightman, would commence the section setting out the 2040 and 2030 targets on the day after royal assent, before we have a working definition of fuel poverty. That is not practical or sensible.

Because of the need to establish the final detail of the definition, there is a logical order to the commencement of the sections. For example, we need to commence section 2, then bring forward regulations in relation to enhanced heating and the additional uplift for remote rural areas, remote small towns and island communities. We went through that at stage 2, when Mr Wightman lodged a similar amendment. At the time, he withdrew the amendment because he accepted that we cannot yet commence the definition of fuel poverty and, if we cannot do that, it does not make sense to commence the targets on fuel poverty, which rely on that definition.

It is our intention to commence the sections that set out the targets at the same time as the definition of fuel poverty comes into force through regulations. We intend for that to be done before the end of this year.

I urge Mr Wightman not to press amendment 64.

Andy Wightman

I will not detain members for much longer. There are more important arguments to be had in this place. I press amendment 64.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 64 disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes consideration of the amendments.

As members are aware, at this point in the proceedings I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter: that is, whether it would modify the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, no provision of the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority in order to be passed at stage 3.

As members might also be aware, we have decided to move the stage 3 debate to Tuesday afternoon.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

Time is tight, so I will move on to the next item of business, which is a stage 3 debate on motion S5M-17566, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill. Members will recall that, following consideration of amendments last Thursday, the Presiding Officer indicated that he had determined that no provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter, so the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

I am very pleased to open this debate on the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill. From the outset, the bill has been a strong and ambitious piece of legislation, and it has been improved during its legislative stages through the building of consensus across Parliament and through consultation and engagement with stakeholders.

We have established a challenging—but, importantly, achievable—target to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5 per cent of households by 2040. We have changed the fuel poverty definition to ensure that there is much closer alignment of fuel-poor households with income-poor households. In the illustrative draft fuel poverty strategy, we have shown the scale of the task ahead, as well as some of the ways in which we can bring about change through taking actions across all four drivers of fuel poverty.

I have some thanks to give. I very much thank all the officials who have been involved in the bill, particularly my excellent bill team and my private office. They should be proud of their role in the bill.

I also thank the Local Government and Communities Committee—James Dornan, Alex Rowley, Graham Simpson, Annabelle Ewing, Kenny Gibson, Alexander Stewart and Andy Wightman—for its input as we have moved forward. Its scrutiny and engagement at stages 1 and 2 improved the bill, and I appreciate its constructive input throughout the process. Its stage 1 report included a number of recommendations that I was happy to act on at stage 2, and they have undoubtedly improved the bill.

Other members—Jackie Baillie, Liam McArthur and Alasdair Allan in particular—have paid close attention to the bill, and I thank them for their contributions. Our positive dialogue has led to amendments that we have agreed on and which have improved the bill.

In light of the positive changes that the Parliament has made at stages 2 and 3, it would be useful for me to give an overview of precisely where we are with the bill.

The first thing to note is that the singular fuel poverty “Target” that was originally in the bill’s title has become multiple “Targets”. Secondly, the single metric of the proportion of households in fuel poverty in 2040 has been joined by targets for those in extreme fuel poverty and for the median fuel poverty gap, with interim targets to get us there. On top of that, the 2040 targets have been extended to each and every local authority area in Scotland.

Of course, none of the bill’s targets will have any meaning unless we have a comprehensive and accurate picture of fuel poverty throughout Scotland. To that end, the proposed new definition puts us in an excellent position. As I said, the definition ensures a close alignment between fuel poverty and relative income poverty through the introduction of the income threshold, which is based on the United Kingdom minimum income standard, and the use of after housing costs income. Under the current definition, only around 60 per cent of fuel-poor households are also income poor; under the new definition, that proportion rises to more than 70 per cent. The proportions of households in fuel poverty in the social and private rented sectors also show significant increases, alongside a rise in the number of families recorded as being fuel poor. Those are the kinds of households whose circumstances are often poorly captured by the current definition.

The more balanced picture of fuel poverty that the new definition presents has been further refined by innovations, including Jackie Baillie’s amendment on deducting disability benefits from a household’s adjusted net income.

The definition of extreme fuel poverty was one of the other major additions at stage 2. That came in response to stakeholder input and the committee’s recommendation. To complement that, we added in specific targets to reduce extreme fuel poverty.

Remote, rural and island communities are at the heart of the other major change that we introduced at stage 2: the uplift to the UK minimum income standard for households in those areas. In preparing the details of our proposals, my officials worked closely with Professor Donald Hirsch of the centre for research in social policy at Loughborough University, whose team is responsible for producing the UK-wide minimum income standard. I thank him for his invaluable contribution. The initial reactions that I have heard from rural and island stakeholders to our new uplifts and to our comprehensive island communities impact assessment for the bill have been very positive.

Finally, the decision to create a new statutory Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel was another measure recommended in the committee’s stage 1 report. I was happy to support Alex Rowley’s subsequent amendments, which we improved on further last week.

To conclude, the bill is in excellent shape and will help to ensure that the blight of fuel poverty is tackled with the seriousness and consistency of effort that it demands.

I am pleased that the bill has shown how working together with members from all parties, discussing issues in advance and reaching a consensus can deliver improved legislation.

We can be proud that the Parliament is world leading with the bill. Scotland is one of only a handful of European countries to have defined fuel poverty, let alone set a goal to eradicate it. Achieving the target will place Scotland among the best in the world in tackling fuel poverty.

In that light, I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is no time in hand.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

I got a bit confused at the weekend when I was thinking about the debate. On Twitter, the Scottish National Party announced:

“Here’s what we’re doing in government to make Scotland a fairer place to live.”

That came with a downward arrow that pointed to a list of alleged achievements, the first of which was:

“Passed world-leading legislation to tackle fuel poverty.”

That is what I thought that we were here to do today.

In any case, I am not sure that the term “world-leading” is appropriate for a bill that started with just six pages and was a lukewarm replacement for what we were promised—a warm homes bill. In the stage 1 debate, I said that the bill lacked ambition. I had pretty harsh words for it, which did not go down well with everyone—I recall that my good friend Kenny Gibson got himself in a bit of a tizz, but he is not here to confirm that.

One criticism of the bill was about its target to reduce the fuel poverty rate to 5 per cent within 21 years. Some have argued that that is too far in the future but, now that we have amended the bill to include interim targets, we can be comfortable that we have something that is at least achievable, which is important.

On a visit to Stornoway by the Local Government and Communities Committee, one of the bill’s serious omissions was brought home to us. The omission was that using the minimum income standard, which the minister referred to, to define fuel poverty did not reflect the higher costs that people who live in islands, remote towns and remote rural areas incur. Fuel poverty rates in urban Scotland have improved since 2015, but rates in rural areas have not, so the gap is widening. We faced a legislative vacuum, and the committee said so. Thankfully, the Government listened and amended the bill accordingly at stage 2.

When making law, we must ask ourselves whether it will make a difference to anyone’s life. If the answer is no, we are right to wonder why on earth we should spend any time on it. The bill was in that sort of shape when it was introduced, but we have a different beast now. That is down to people co-operating across party lines and coming up with sensible proposals—as well as some not-so-sensible ones.

Andy Wightman lodged amendments to keep the focus on all four drivers of fuel poverty. The Labour Party introduced provisions on the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel, which is a welcome addition. It will be an independent advisory panel that will keep the pressure on the Government. It will analyse the periodic reports that the Government produces and will give its views on the progress that has been made and whether the fuel poverty targets will be met. The panel will also be a statutory consultee.

That significant layer of scrutiny was previously lacking. Thankfully, the Government decided that funding for the panel can be much higher—just over four times higher—than the figure that Alex Rowley originally suggested. The Government is to be congratulated on that. The panel will make a significant difference to tackling fuel poverty and will keep the focus and scrutiny on meeting—and, I hope, exceeding—the targets.

The Government listened to calls to target extreme fuel poverty. Stage 2 amendments defined extreme fuel poverty and set final and interim targets for it, as well as for fuel poverty. That will prevent people who live in extreme fuel poverty from being left behind—many of us feared that that would happen under the target that was originally proposed.

As I said, the Government also listened to concerns about the higher costs of energy for people living in island and rural communities.

I felt strongly that hard-to-reach homes should not be forgotten about when we are dealing with national targets, so I lodged amendments that were accepted at stage 2. I also got some minor changes agreed to at stage 3, whereby the Government must be seen to be working to reduce fuel poverty at the level of each local authority, and the fuel poverty targets are to be targets at the local level. I was very careful not to place the onus on councils, but I did not want a national figure, which would run the danger of areas such as our islands, where fuel poverty is high and harder to combat, being overlooked.

A bill that was once lacklustre and unambitious is now focused, strong and achievable—and I think that that is what we all want today.

If the bill is passed—I hope that it will be—that will be the result of nearly a year of scrutiny. It is a very good example of committee working and of parliamentarians being listened to. There were areas of disagreement—of course there were—but we are in a good place and the bill could change lives. If I can take one thing from the whole experience, it is not to get on the wrong side of Jackie Baillie on anything.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I desist from commenting.

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Labour will vote in support of the bill, mainly on the ground that any target is better than no target.

We know that the last target that was set by Parliament, which was to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016, was not achieved by successive Governments. The aim today of getting fuel poverty down to 5 per cent of households by 2040 is of small comfort to those who are living in fuel poverty. We believe that, across the chamber, we should be more ambitious in tackling fuel poverty. Should we not at least try to be bolder in tackling fuel poverty, and work together to do all that is necessary to eradicate it? I had hoped that we could find consensus on setting a more ambitious target, but as we saw last week, the SNP and Tory MSPs across the chamber teamed up to vote down the more ambitious target of reducing fuel poverty to 5 per cent of households by 2032.

James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

Does Alex Rowley accept that he signed up to the target in the Local Government and Communities Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill?

Alex Rowley

That issue was raised at stage 2, after the stage 1 report. The answer that I gave to Mr Dornan then is the same as I will give him today: I have listened to organisations and to people living in fuel poverty up and down Scotland, who say that the 2040 target is not ambitious enough. Surely, the job of politicians in this chamber is to listen to what people say.

The SNP and Tory arguments are built around the Scottish Government claiming that it does not have access to all the drivers of fuel poverty and that yet-to-be-developed technologies would be needed. When it comes to income, they say that we have no powers. However, Norman Kerr from Energy Action Scotland said:

“The Scottish Government may not have access to all the drivers, but it has access to some that would certainly mitigate fuel costs in particular.”

On the question of being more ambitious and aiming for a 2032 target, Mr Kerr said:

“We need to scale up the ambition. We could all say that 2040 sounds absolutely fine, but that would not give a step change in productivity levels or in the number of homes that are tackled each year. In all honesty, it condemns another generation to live in fuel poverty. The 2032 target is based on what we can reasonably expect in a number of parliamentary sessions and with an increase in the budget.—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 21 November 2018; c 6 and 11.]

The point about the budget is key, because if we are to have any chance of tackling fuel poverty using the levers that are within our control, there must be an increase in the levels of funding. We are nowhere near the level of budget that will be required to tackle the level of poor housing. It is about time that the Government woke up to that fact and acknowledged what needs to be done. If it wants to be ambitious for Scotland, it needs to be bold, and to put the money in and not rely on the Tories’ help to kick fuel poverty into the long grass. That point was made by Norman Kerr when he talked in the evidence session about insulating homes against rising costs. He pointed out that the more energy efficient the home, the less energy it will use.

A report that was published earlier this year by KPMG, working on behalf of the Scottish Government, said that, in 2016, 1.8 million homes failed to reach the energy performance certificate rating C benchmark. Therefore, meeting the 2040 target would equate to roughly 66,000 buildings requiring major improvements each year over the next two decades. Of course, achieving that will require much more funding than is currently available, which perhaps goes some way towards explaining why the Tories and the SNP are so unambitious when it comes to fuel poverty.

In the social rented sector, landlords have been required for some time to improve energy efficiency—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry, but you must conclude.

Alex Rowley

We should do that in the private rented sector. We must be more ambitious and tackle fuel poverty once and for all.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. It is regrettable, but we have no spare time.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I am delighted to have contributed to the work on the bill throughout its parliamentary stages since its introduction, about a year ago. I thank stakeholders—the Existing Homes Alliance, Energy Action Scotland, Di Alexander and others—for engaging constructively with the bill. I also thank my colleagues on the committee, the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre.

The passage of the bill has been a collegiate process, and I commend the way in which the minister has positively engaged with me and my colleagues in other parties to improve the bill. I think that, together, we have pushed the ambitions of the bill further, particularly on the scrutiny around the securing of the target. It remains disappointing that this is not a warm homes bill, which the SNP manifesto promised. However, the debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on where we have got to with the legislation. It is encouraging that, following stage 2, we now have a bill before us that does its best to seek to eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland. Of course, it simply sets out targets and definitions; the real work of doing all of that will be in implementing the fuel poverty strategy, which will be done by partners in local government and other stakeholders, who have a big job to do over the next 20 years or so.

Amendments that were proposed at stage 2 have strengthened the bill, making it a far more robust piece of legislation. Those changes include the provision of additional heating regimes, which is the result of an amendment that was lodged by Jackie Baillie—despite being thwarted at stage 2, she tenaciously pursued the issue at stage 3 and persuaded the Scottish Government to make some amendments in that regard. Likewise, taking a cross-party approach has ensured that the fuel poverty strategy considers the four drivers of fuel poverty. I am glad that they are in the strategy, and I thank colleagues including Alexander Burnett and Alex Rowley for helping that to happen. Alexander Burnett’s famous £60 million amendment was not agreed to, but he nevertheless made an important contribution to amending that section.

I pay particular tribute to Alex Rowley for his amendment on the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel, because, after stage 1, one of the things that we were quite clear about was that, if the target is to have the best chance of being achieved, there needs to be independent scrutiny of not only where we are in relation to the target but why we are there and what we might do in the future. The work of that panel will be critical to our meeting the target.

A good compromise is often cited as being a situation in which both parties are dissatisfied with the outcome, but I do not think that that is the case with the bill. The cross-party working and the engagement by the minister, particularly in developing an enhanced definition of minimum income, a definition of extreme fuel poverty and an improved definition of the fuel poverty strategy and in elevating the role of the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel, is to be commended. That is a good example of cross-party working, and it has given me pleasure to work with colleagues to secure such improvements to the legislation.

There are, of course, disappointments. It is disappointing that the amendment that would have provided for more ambition in tackling fuel poverty by setting a target of 2032 was not agreed to. What happened undermines the Scottish Government’s assertion, in its response to the committee’s report, that Scotland will be

“amongst the very best in the world in terms of tackling fuel poverty.”

It also compromises the Scottish Government’s recent climate emergency declaration. This was the opportunity to tie the fuel poverty target to other targets on energy efficiency.

Nevertheless, we are where we are, and I say sincerely that we have a good bill. My Green colleagues and I will support it at decision time.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

The choice between heating one’s home and eating a meal is not one that anyone should have to face in this day and age. The sad fact, however, is that, according to Government statistics, around 613,000 households are estimated to be living in fuel poverty, with 174,000 in extreme fuel poverty.

Fuel poverty blights communities up and down Scotland, yet we know that people who live in remote rural and island communities consistently experience the highest levels of fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty. There are many reasons for that, including longer, harsher winters, homes being off the gas grid, more properties being hard to heat, lower average household incomes and higher costs of installing energy-saving measures. All those factors play their part in placing Orkney uncomfortably at the top of the pile when it comes to fuel poverty. That is why it was disappointing that the bill, as drafted, took so little account of the rural and island dimension, ignoring the advice of the Scottish rural fuel poverty task force and almost every individual and organisation that works in the sector across the Highlands and Islands and other rural parts of Scotland.

To his credit, the minister listened to the case that I made on behalf of those stakeholders and communities, which was supported by colleagues from across the parties. The amendments that we were able to agree to at stage 2 will, I hope, ensure that the needs of people in remote rural and island communities are recognised and then met through the provision of the additional resources that will inevitably be required. Again, I put on record my thanks to all those in Orkney who helped to build the case: Orkney Islands Council, Orkney Housing Association and Tackling Household Affordable Warmth Orkney, or THAW. Special mention must also be made of Di Alexander, the chair of the rural fuel poverty task force, who gave such compelling evidence to the committee and proved to be the most tenacious advocate for the communities that he has served over many years.

Of course, those were not the only changes that were made to the bill. Indeed, it was striking how progress in strengthening the bill was made thanks to the efforts of each and every member of the committee, as well as others. As a result, the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel will be on a statutory footing, with scope for recommending that targets be made more ambitious. There will be a requirement on each local authority to make progress towards achieving the targets and interim targets, so that no area or community is left behind. There will also be greater flexibility in assessing need so that resources can be more effectively targeted. All four drivers of fuel poverty will be taken into account. In relation to those and other improvements to the bill, I acknowledge the efforts of colleagues from each of the other parties and the minister, who worked constructively to reach agreement. It remains to be seen whether our failure to agree to Andy Wightman’s amendment on commencement will come back to haunt us—that would be the revenge of the geek.

It is important to bear in mind that the benefits of reducing fuel poverty go far beyond simply removing the need for people to choose between heating and eating. All the evidence shows that lifting people out of fuel poverty improves their physical and mental health. It is unsurprising that living in a warm and dry home increases educational attainment as well. Local jobs are created and sustained in the energy-efficiency and low-carbon heat industries, and households have greater energy security and more money to spend. Our ambitions for tackling climate change rely on our making progress in improving the energy efficiency of our housing stock.

For all those reasons and more, the bill matters. However, in passing this much-improved bill this evening, we will have done the easy part. We will then need to make sure that it and the fuel poverty strategy make a difference to the individuals, households and communities that, for too long, have been blighted by fuel poverty. For now, I have pleasure in confirming that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill at decision time later this afternoon.

James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

I am delighted to be given the opportunity to speak in this important debate, which further enhances Scotland’s reputation as a world leader when it comes to addressing fuel poverty.

Regardless of their income or employment status, everyone should be able to heat their homes and keep themselves and their families warm. It is absolutely unacceptable that people are still having to choose between keeping themselves warm and keeping themselves from being hungry. According to recent research, the UK has the second-worst rate of excess winter deaths in Europe, with more than 3,000 deaths every year being caused by people not being able to afford to heat their homes. That shows why action was necessary.

Indeed, the Scottish Government has already taken action, backed up by significant investment, to improve energy efficiency and thereby to keep homes warm and bills down. Recent figures show that 97,000 households in Scotland moved out of fuel poverty in 2015. Those figures are good, but faced with high fuel bills, we know that we still have much more to do to eradicate fuel poverty.

As the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I sincerely thank all the members of the committee, the people who appeared before us and those who submitted evidence, and the minister and all his officials. It would be remiss of me not to also thank the committee’s clerking team, along with their colleagues from SPICe and outreach services, for all the fantastic work that they did to allow us to find out about the true impact of fuel poverty and the best way to combat it. I think that all members of the committee would agree that, throughout the bill’s progress, the minister has been incredibly helpful, and I am grateful for his co-operation over the past few months. The burgeoning bromance between him and the always constructive and cheery Graham Simpson has been a joy to behold.

I turn to some of the stage 3 amendments to the bill. I am delighted that MSPs voted in favour of the Scottish Government amendments that were moved on Thursday. Most of them were technical or tidying amendments, many of which I know already had the backing of a number of members. At stage 1, I expressed my concern about the fact that the Government did not accept the committee’s recommendation to put the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel on a statutory footing. I am very pleased that the Government now supports that.

On that note, I would like to comment briefly on the Government’s amendment 60, Alex Rowley’s amendment 96 and Andy Wightman’s amendment 60A. I was pleased that amendment 96, as well as Mr Rowley’s other amendments to make the panel a statutory consultee for the strategy and the preparation of the periodic report, were agreed to. However, I could not support amendment 60A. The Scottish Government supported the statutory advisory panel, because the cap will mean that administrative costs will not be excessive and resources will be focused on tackling fuel poverty on the front line rather than backroom functions. Amendment 60 introduced a new three-yearly cost cap of £82,000 on the statutory panel, which was calculated on the basis of the cost of a panel of similar size to the existing non-statutory body. However, with amendment 60A, there was a real risk that the panel would cost the public purse a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on improving people’s lives at home.

I was delighted that the group 2 amendments failed to garner the necessary support. Although I recognise that Mr Rowley’s amendments were well intentioned, the Local Government and Communities Committee scrutinised the bill carefully, took evidence from a number of people and concluded that the 2040 target date was realistic and achievable. Mr Rowley regularly asks for budgets to be increased on a number of fronts, particularly in relation to fuel poverty. Given that we have limited resources to grow the economy, we have limited resources to increase budgets. In my view—this was also the view of the committee in its stage 1 report—there is no credible alternative plan that shows that bringing the target date forward by eight years could be achieved without major risk. It was even suggested that pushing for the earlier target of 2032 could, in some cases, lead to increased fuel poverty levels as a result of higher installation or operating costs for householders, or could bring forward mandatory intervention in homes. To pursue an unrealistic target would be to ignore the many concerns that have been raised, including by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which said that setting unrealistic targets was callous. That was based on our experience of the 2016 target, which Alex Rowley mentioned and which we never came near to meeting.

I am very proud that we have reached this stage of the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill. It says a lot for the maturity of this Parliament, Government ministers and members that we are on the verge of making this incredibly important bill law by working together. I look forward to decision time, when we will officially make the bill law so that it can begin to benefit the lives of the many Scots who are still suffering from the blight of having to choose between eating and heating. For me, this is a good day to be an MSP.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I am delighted to participate in today’s stage 3 debate on the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill. It is undoubtedly a positive step forward in tackling fuel poverty in Scotland, which is what we needed. It is concerning that estimates suggest that, in Scotland today, a quarter of households live in fuel poverty, with the figure rising to more than 50 per cent of households in Orkney and the Western Isles.

Fuel poverty is driven by many factors, including energy costs, energy inefficiency, household incomes and energy use. We have to acknowledge that we do not have control over all those factors. The target that was set in 2001 to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016 has clearly not been met. Government efforts have focused on improving the energy efficiency of homes, but rising energy costs have meant that fuel poverty levels are now significantly higher than they were when the target was set back in 2001.

As we set out in our 2016 manifesto, the Scottish Conservatives are committed to reducing fuel poverty and to ensuring that everyone lives in an easy-to-heat home. To that end, we have been broadly supportive of the bill from its initial stages. We also supported the recommendations of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which I am a member of, and I thank everybody who gave evidence and all those who participated in the process for ensuring that we had a positive dialogue throughout the whole journey of the bill.

The bill takes a welcome approach, clearly setting out a revised definition of fuel poverty based on the calculation of a minimum income standard that takes account of living costs. We also welcome the fact that the Scottish Government will publish a fuel poverty strategy and will consult those who are living or who have lived in fuel poverty prior to its publication.

We were not able to support Alex Rowley’s amendment to bring forward the target year from 2040 to 2032, because we believe that that is unrealistic and the 2040 target was much more talked about through the whole process. Instead, we lodged an amendment that set out a target that, in 2035,

“no more than 10% of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty, ... no more than 3% of households in Scotland are in extreme fuel poverty,”

and that the median fuel poverty gap would not be more than £300 in 2015 prices, once inflation was taken into account. As with the stage 2 amendment to include an interim target for 2030 of no more than 15 per cent of households being in fuel poverty and no more than 5 per cent of households being in extreme fuel poverty, this 2035 target will ensure that we continue to keep momentum as we go towards the 2040 target.

Local authorities want to play their part in addressing the issue and we therefore lodged an amendment on the 2040 target, to require councils to report on their achievements to reach that target in that timescale.

We also support the new section on the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel, which covers ministers’ duties to provide financial resources and stipulates the total maximum costs that can be allocated for the panel.

I welcome the bill and I support the amendments that I have covered and that were outlined in the debate. Fuel poverty remains a massive issue for many individuals. We have heard that some people need to decide whether to heat their home or feed themselves. That is something that we have to acknowledge and tackle in Scotland today. The bill is a significant step. We still have a long way to go to ensure that the majority of people feel safe and secure, but we can be proud of what we have put in place today. I support the bill.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of Energy Action Scotland.

As a minister in the first, Labour-led Scottish Government, I was responsible for establishing the fuel poverty target, so I will start with a look back, because history is always instructive.

It was the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 that committed the Scottish ministers to ensuring that, by November 2016,

“so far as reasonably practicable, ... persons do not live in fuel poverty”.

At the time, we all felt that it was an ambitious target, but it was one on which all the parties across the Parliament agreed. It is not often that we find issues that transcend the political divide, so it is disappointing that, with that level of consensus, we failed to meet the target.

In reflecting on what happened in the past, we can understand where we went wrong and therefore what we need to do in the future. In 2008, there was a members’ business debate on the subject; at that point, MSPs thought that the target was tough but achievable. Nicola Sturgeon, when she was Deputy First Minister, reconvened the Scottish fuel poverty forum specifically to provide advice to ministers on how to refocus the policy and how to achieve the target. At that stage, we were still talking about eradicating fuel poverty and achieving the 2016 target.

In 2011, members of that forum told ministers, parliamentary committees and the Parliament that, unless there was a substantial increase in resource, we would fail to meet the 2016 target. As I recall, the spending level back in 2012-13 was £65 million. At that time, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee said that in the order of £100 million to £170 million was needed to achieve the target. If we strip away financial transaction moneys, which can be used only for loans, the budget now is still less than £100 million. Last year, the budget was underspent, which has been a feature in previous years, although I know that it is difficult to put loans into a budget and expect them to be fully utilised.

We need an ambitious target, a route map for how to achieve it—which is the strategy—and a mechanism to monitor implementation closely, but we also need to have enough money in the budget to realise our ambitions. I am interested in whether the minister has assessed what budget will be needed. Does he have an indication of what money will be required to achieve the target by 2040?

The bill has been improved by the Government, the committee and other members since its introduction. I welcome that and the minister’s willingness to discuss changes. However, it will come as no surprise to him that I remain disappointed that the target of taking fuel poverty down to 5 per cent by 2040 remains unchanged. That is genuinely lacking in ambition. It is a reduction of just 1 per cent a year and it potentially condemns yet another generation to fuel poverty. The target should be 2032, and I am genuinely sorry that the Government, aided and abetted by the Tories, has chosen to ignore the voices of experts in the field of fuel poverty, such as the Existing Homes Alliance and Energy Action Scotland, all of which evidenced the need for a more ambitious target.

James Dornan hit the nail on the head when he suggested that there is a burgeoning bromance between Graham Simpson and the minister—that can be seen, too, in the Planning (Scotland) Bill. Clearly, I frighten Graham Simpson, and I am so sorry about that, but let me say as gently as I can to him that interim targets are no substitute for ending fuel poverty a full eight years earlier. The process is slower than it needs to be. We could have interim targets with a 2032 target as well.

Graham Simpson

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie

No. We have heard enough from Mr Simpson already.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No, Mr Simpson. The member must conclude now—and I am not frightened of you, Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will conclude on that point.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

I am pleased to participate in this stage 3 debate on the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill. In reflecting on the legislative process with regard to the bill, in addition to thanking the Local Government and Communities Committee clerks and SPICe for all their hard work, I pay tribute to the way in which the minister has conducted matters throughout the process. It has been a constructive process and it is clear that all members of the committee were four-square behind the key principle that underlies the bill, which is to set a target to reduce fuel poverty in Scotland.

The ambitious and realistic target that the Parliament has agreed to is to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5 per cent of households by 2040. Of course, much of the discussion focused on the target. It should be recalled that, in the committee’s stage 1 report, after hearing all the oral evidence and studying all the written evidence that the committee received, all committee members across all parties supported the approach set forth in the bill. The report said:

“the Committee ... understands ... that this approach is a pragmatic response to previous attempts to set a target, which ultimately failed. We also recognise arguments that reducing fuel poverty will lean heavily on applying technologies still in development and that it is realistic to build in time for these to come on-stream.”

The committee went on to conclude:

“The Committee therefore accepts the Government’s reasons for setting the target date at 2040.”

However, that acceptance of the main tenet of the bill was conditional on the Government lodging amendments at stage 2 on a statutory interim target. The Government did so, and the approach has been further strengthened at stage 3, with a further interim target being agreed to. At the same time, the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel will be able to propose an acceleration of the target, if circumstances permit.

That seems to me to be the best way to proceed. It is the pragmatic way and it reflects the approach that is favoured by those who will have to deliver the fuel poverty strategy on the ground, including local authorities. It is also, as a matter of necessity, the only approach that is open to us, given that two of the four key drivers of fuel poverty—energy prices and household incomes—fall outwith the absolute control of the Scottish Government.

Concomitant with the target date is the key definition of fuel poverty itself, the focus being very much on people who are most in need. At the same time, the fact that the minister acceded to the committee’s calls to set a separate target for tackling extreme fuel poverty, and the provisions on enhanced heating for those with disabilities and long-term illnesses, are to be welcomed. I, too, look forward to the work that is being undertaken to develop the fuel poverty strategy that will underpin the bill.

As I said at stage 1, it is absolutely unacceptable that people in Scotland—an energy-rich nation—are living in fuel poverty. While SNP members will use every power that is at our disposal to resolve that, it is self-evident that, without control over all our resources and all the levers of fuel poverty—that is to say, without the powers of a normal, independent country—we will continue to be constrained in what we can do. Labour members seem quite happy to see that continue and to see Tory rule rather than home rule. That is as unacceptable to me as it is to an increasing number of people in my constituency of Cowdenbeath, as well as people across Scotland. Only with independence will we see real social justice in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the closing speeches.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

I welcome the reintroduction of a fuel poverty target, the previous one having been missed. Scottish Labour supports the bill. We welcome the new definition of fuel poverty and the work of the Local Government and Communities Committee in amending the bill to make it a great deal better than it would otherwise have been. However, I am very disappointed in the bill’s narrow scope: I believe that it should have been a warm homes bill. At least in passing, the bill has to be part of a centrepiece of wider policy on warm homes.

As the minister said, fuel poverty is a serious challenge, but that is all the more reason why the bill should have been wider in scope. Last year, in announcing £54 million-worth of funding to help to eradicate fuel poverty, the First Minister said that the investment

“highlights our ... commitment to ... tackle fuel poverty and reduce greenhouse gas emissions”,

recognising the important link between the two.

I believe that there have been two significant amendments to the bill. The first, on an uplift for rural communities, is extremely welcome. I am sure that Liam McArthur does not need me to point out that, in Orkney, fuel poverty is the highest in Scotland, at 59 per cent, but I am also sure that he will welcome the fact that I have said so. That is one of the most significant amendments to the bill and is most welcome. Secondly, the establishment of an advisory panel gives me some hope that, in the long run, we will be able to scrutinise how we are progressing with the targets. That is a significant and very welcome amendment.

We all agree—and the evidence shows—that living in cold, draughty homes has a negative impact on people’s physical and mental health and on children’s attainment. People in Scotland live in a cold country—that speaks for itself—and, increasingly, they feel the need to heat their homes for most of the year. That should be a consideration in any policy that looks at warm homes and reducing the use of fuel.

I believe that all four of the four drivers of fuel poverty—the cost of energy, the energy efficiency of homes, how households use their energy, and household income—can be affected by Government action and policy and by legislation. The UK has the highest rate of excess winter deaths in Europe—the only figure that I could find on that related to the UK—but we know that we still face those.

The wider issues, which my amendments tried to address, are that the majority of consumers are still on standard variable tariffs and are paying way over the odds. Educating consumers about how they can change that is the role of Government. Vulnerable customers should have a programme designed for them, because the energy companies are not doing enough. I believe that they should be required to contact vulnerable customers. There could be a public information campaign to ensure that such customers are on the cheapest deals.

In my final 40 seconds or so, I want to mention the need to ensure that the centrepiece of the warm homes policy also focuses on the drive for energy efficiency within homes. I also want to mention prepayment meters, because they are used by the poorest people, who face potential disconnection. Scottish Power has a good policy on that, but ministers should check whether all energy companies are adopting the same policy to ensure that poor people are not disconnected from the energy supply.

The evidence of the success of the bill will be in the detail. We need a higher dose of ambition. One commitment that we give to the Scottish Government, despite our disappointment, is that if it makes the bill the centrepiece of wider action—[Interruption.] Sorry, that was my alarm going off.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I hope that it was not your morning call. Was it telling you to finish?

Pauline McNeill

Yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Alexander Burnett; follow that, Mr Burnett.

Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)

First, I note how pleased I am to see this bill coming through Parliament. Often we focus on the small things, and rightly so, but looking at the bigger picture this bill is the first step towards positive changes for many people across Scotland. I join my fellow Scottish Conservative colleagues in welcoming the bill and, as usual, I direct members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to energy efficiency, property management and construction.

In Scotland, a quarter of households currently live in fuel poverty, with rural and island communities living with higher fuel poverty rates than urban areas. As the Existing Homes Alliance noted, nearly 1 million homes fall below the energy efficiency standard that is needed for good health and change has not been coming fast enough, causing consequential health implications and costs to the national health service.

At stage 1, we supported the bill and pledged to make amendments to strengthen it. We were concerned that the bill did not outline how the Scottish Government would be held accountable if it did not meet the targets outlined, and how issues that affect island and remote rural areas would be addressed. We were, therefore, pleased to work with members across the chamber and pleased that the Government accepted amendments that aligned with the bid for homes to reach an EPC rating of C or above by 2040.

We wished for stronger EPC targets for 2030, but we accept that adding interim targets at 2030 and 2035 will bring benefit. As my colleague Graham Simpson said last Thursday, those interim targets will ensure that by 2030 the overall fuel poverty rate will be less than 20 per cent, with a further reduction to less than 15 per cent by 2035. They will also ensure that the final aim of no more than 5 per cent of households being in fuel poverty by 2040 is reached.

I was pleased that my colleague Graham Simpson’s amendment 72 was agreed to. That required the strategy to set out the approach that Scottish ministers intend to take towards all targets and interim targets in each local authority area. With the differences that there are in fuel poverty across Scotland, that is a very welcome addition.

Andy Wightman said on Thursday that I will probably

“go down in history as ... the member who moved the £60 million amendment at stage 2.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2019; c 74.]

I do not regret attempting to do so. For us to see any radical changes to fuel poverty levels, and to create real change in reducing carbon emissions, we need to invest now in improving energy efficiency levels. To clarify the matter to members who may simply be looking at the cost, I was seeking to ensure that there was identification of residential buildings and the work that they would require in order to reach an EPC rating of C or above by 2030.

Andy Wightman

In clarifying that his amendment was about identification, does Alexander Burnett agree that there are cheaper ways to carry out that identification in the standard EPC methodology and that new technologies are emerging? He should stick with it; he will have my support in pushing for better means of identifying the homes in Scotland that are most in need of energy efficiency measures.

Alexander Burnett

We can always look to improve the EPC methodology and we always welcome discussions about how we can improve anything that ultimately will benefit people who are in fuel poverty and in cold homes. That work will be required at some point, and the sooner that it is legislated for, the better. It is just one example of an issue that Scottish Conservatives and stakeholders alike have had with this bill, in that it does not go far enough and will not bring people out of fuel poverty fast enough. Nevertheless, it is a good first step.

I note briefly my disappointment that my amendment 77 was not agreed to. It would have provided detail on the approaches that will be taken to remove poor energy performance as a driver of fuel poverty in order to meet the targets set.

To end on a positive note, as the constituency MSP for Aberdeenshire West, I am pleased to see that the bill will look after remote rural areas. By setting out a minimum income standard for such areas separately, the bill will ensure that those communities are taken care of in a realistic manner.

Overall, we welcome the bill—we are committed to reducing fuel poverty and the bill will begin the process of ensuring that that happens. As we stated in our manifesto, we are seeking the change to help households to

“save on their energy bills”,

make homes “easier to heat” and create “thousands of jobs” all over Scotland,

“all whilst reducing carbon emissions.”

Kevin Stewart

It is a bit strange to have stage 3 proceedings split over two days. During consideration of amendments, I was accused of compromising with Jackie Baillie, and today I have been accused of having a bromance with Graham Simpson. I do not know what is going on; I have obviously missed something.

From listening to the debate this afternoon, it is clear that members of all parties fully appreciate that it is absolutely imperative that we remove the blight of fuel poverty from communities throughout our country. I firmly believe that the measures that are contained in the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill will ensure that we achieve that goal.

The challenging but realistic targets that the bill will introduce will ensure that tackling fuel poverty remains a pressing issue for this and future Governments. The new definition that the bill will create will give us a better understanding of the problem than we have ever had, and it will help us to develop a comprehensive strategy to solve it.

In all this, however, I know that not everyone is satisfied. Some folk, including stakeholders, always want us to go faster. I understand that. However, we have to take cognisance of the fact that although experts whom Mr Rowley mentioned talked about a target of 2032, the folks who are delivering on the ground—including COSLA and various companies—say that that date would not have been achievable and that 2040 is the best date.

I am a man who always looks for compromise, and one of the good things about the additions to the bill is that the new fuel poverty advisory panel will be able to look at whether we can move the target date nearer. We will keep a close eye on that. Through the “Energy Efficient Scotland” route map, we will continue to monitor how we are doing, what technologies have come into play and whether we can up the ante in moving forward faster.

I agree with everyone who has said today that no one should have to make the choice to put on their heating or eat. I think that we all feel that way, so it is incumbent on us all to scrutinise how we are doing in that regard, as we move forward. I am sure that, along with the panel, we will do so.

I will also touch on things that folks have seen on their travels. Graham Simpson talked about going to Stornoway. I went to the islands and various other places to talk to people about the changes that they want, which are now encapsulated in the bill.

Members from all parties have paid tribute to Di Alexander—he deserves the tributes that have been paid to him for his efforts. We should also take cognisance of the people in organisations and communities who made their voices heard, and whose views are now encapsulated in the bill.

I do not think that we have paid enough attention to the fact that the bill is the first bill to be island proofed: I am very grateful to everyone who has played a part in achieving that. There may be lessons that can be picked up for other bills.

Some of today’s debate has strayed on to the four drivers of fuel poverty, and some members have picked up on the fact that we do not control those drivers. I am pleased that, at stage 2, Andy Wightman and others looked at the four drivers in some depth and said that we in Parliament and the committee should in the future look at all four drivers.

Regardless of whether we all in the chamber are happy with the devolved settlement, I hope that we can all work together to persuade the UK Government to look at energy costs, particularly in respect of areas that Pauline McNeill mentioned—including prepaid meters, which are scandalous—and to do more on tariffs. We can work together across the chamber to highlight to the UK Government the changes that need to be made, from which we will, I hope, see change. I would like the powers to come here, but in the meantime, let us see what we can do together to make the required change.

Presiding Officer—I see you staring at me. Does that mean that I am almost out of time?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Yes.

Kevin Stewart

I will finish on this. There are still far too many people in our country who are struggling to afford to keep their homes warm. I find that to be completely unacceptable. From what I have heard from other members, I think that we are all in agreement on that—it is clear that Parliament thinks that. Let us work together and make sure that we do all that we can to take people out of fuel poverty. The bill will help us to bring it to an end, and I hope that everyone will support it.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The first question is, that motion S5M-17566, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. As the question is on passing a bill, there will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 121, Against 0, Abstentions 0.

That is agreed to, and the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill is passed. [Applause.]

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motion S5M-17615, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on the Human Tissue Authorisation (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)

Abstentions

Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the vote is: For 116, Against 3, Abstentions 2.

That is agreed to, and the Human Tissue (Authorisation) (Scotland) Bill is passed. [Applause.]

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Human Tissue (Authorisation) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Presiding Officer

The final question is, that motion S5M-17529, in the name of Bill Kidd, on standing order rule changes, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 12th Report 2019 (Session 5), Standing Order Rule Changes (SP Paper 532), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A of the report be made with effect from 3 September 2019.