Chamber and committees

The new building regulations are broadly in line with the proposition that was consulted on, and the response to the consultation was supportive of the general approach that we are taking.

Dr Garvin might wish to add something about the origin and why 11m was considered as part of the development of the proposal.

The current standards resulted from a specific review of the type of cladding materials that have been causing the most significant concern since Grenfell, and the specific changes in this set of regulations will address those issues. Nonetheless, it is clear that the wider transformation of the energy performance of our homes needs to be undertaken in a way that is not only safe in terms of fire risk, but which contributes to healthy air quality in buildings and addresses direct energy issues. I do not know whether Steven Scott or Stephen Garvin wants to add anything from an energy or fire perspective.

The standard introduces a requirement to mitigate the risk of summer overheating in new homes and new residential buildings that are used in a similar way. We are aware that that is a lower risk in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, but it is important that we establish that overheating can be considered a risk in new build, and that we examine how to mitigate the likely impacts of our future climate.

The initial provisions take a fairly simple approach, focusing on the issues of heat gain through windows and the removal of heat build-up through effective ventilation. There is also an option to model the risk for more unusual or highly glazed building types. Designers will address that by limiting excessive heat gained through the location and specification of windows and by improving the ventilation of buildings. Those measures will provide occupiers with more assurance that their homes are warm and easy to heat, but also comfortable in the summer months.

Our proposal is that, under the 2024 new-build heat standard, direct emissions heating systems will no longer be permitted in new buildings. A further consultation this summer will set out details of plans to remove gas, oil and biofuel boilers as options from 2024. The 2022 regulations still permit the construction of new homes with those heating systems, but they set more challenging overall emissions and energy performance targets. The 2022 standards will ask for any building with a direct emissions heating system to be designed for a simple future retrofit and the installation of a zero direct emissions source, with information on that option to be provided to the owner.

From this year, wet heating systems in all new buildings should be designed to operate at lower temperatures to optimise the efficient operation of zero direct emissions systems such as heat pumps in the future.

Once again, I turn to my officials for support on the detailed aspects of that question.

Again, I will ask David Blair to respond.

I am sure that Monica Lennon and I agree that not only local government but the heat in buildings agenda more generally are extremely exciting places to work.

Beyond LHEES, we also have the clear commitment to introduce a phased schedule of regulations to ensure that our homes and buildings are brought up to standard on energy efficiency and the transition to zero-emissions heating. The clear sense that the Scottish Government and local government working together are committed to that long-term agenda will give the industry confidence to invest in the recruitment, training and skills that are necessary. That, in turn, will send strong signals to the further education sector about the opportunities.

I believe firmly that there are not only good jobs but long-term, high-quality careers to be had in the transition. It is a massive investment in the transformation of our building stock. That must be done to a high quality and in a way that meets people’s needs on fuel poverty. It has to be a just transition. That means that a huge amount of work needs doing. The Scottish Government is committed not only to signalling the long-term commitment to seeing that work through but to maximising the investment from public and private sources to ensure that it is well funded.

We should see the situation more as an opportunity than a challenge. It is a huge technical challenge, but it is a really big opportunity for our economy as well.

The launch of the agency on a virtual basis in the first instance is the right way forward. We already have a huge amount of work in the area that can be brought together under the auspices of that agency, and can continue and develop from there on. It would be a mistake to think that the creation of the agency is simply about infrastructure such as a building and a front door rather than about cracking on with the work that is already happening and continuing to develop it. The launch of the agency on a virtual basis in the first instance will support the continued, incremental improvement to the agenda that is already being taken forward across Scotland. I also see it as a huge opportunity for sharing the skills and best practice that will be necessary to support the public, private and community sectors to take that forward.

Our experience of working through the pilot phases gives us confidence that, with the right resources and capacity in place, local authorities will be able to complete that work on the timescale that we have set out. As I said in my opening remarks, we have worked very well and closely with COSLA as a body and with the individual local authorities that have been taking forward their pilots, and I do not think that significant concern has been raised about the timescale for the first strategies.

It would be inappropriate to predict the outcome of the discussions that we are having with COSLA. We need to work in a co-operative and collegiate way with local government, and that is the spirit in which we are entering the process.

However, as an indicative example, the most recent pilot phase offered local authorities the option of bidding for up to £50,000 for staff or consultant capacity to allow them to undertake their work. I think that, of those that followed things through to completion, most drew down slightly more than half of the £50,000 on offer—from £25,000 up to the mid-£30,000s. That is an indicative example of the kind of ballpark that we might be talking about but, as I have said, it would be wrong to pre-empt the discussions that we are having with COSLA by trying to predict the outcome at this stage.