 ac Zeitge is tight, so I am moving on to the next side of a business, which is is a day at stage 3 on motion 17566, the name of Kevin Stewart on the fuel poverty, targets definition and strategy Scotland Bill. Members will recall that following consideration amendments last Thursday, the PM indicated he had determined that no provision of this Bill relates to a protected subject matter, therefore the bill does not require a super majority we've passed at stage 3. I therefore call on Kevin Stewart to speak to move the motion minister seven minutes, please. I'm very pleased to be opening 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 through the legislative stages, through building 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, ensuring a much closer alignment of fuel poor with income poor households. In the illustrative draft fuel poverty strategy, we have shown both 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 make, Presiding Officer. I'd like to 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 the role in this bill today. I'd also like to thank the local government and communities committee, James Dornan, Alex Rowley, Graham Simpson, Annabelle Ewing, Kenny Gibson, Alexander Stewart and Andy Wightman for their input as we have moved forward. Their scrutiny and engagement at stages 1 and 2 has improved the bill and I appreciate their constructive input throughout. Their stage 1 report included a number of recommendations that I was happy to act upon at stage 2, which have undoubtedly improved the bill. Other members, particularly Jackie Baillie, Liam McArthur and Dallister Allen, have paid close attention to the bill and I want to thank them for their contributions. Our positive dialogue has led to amendments that we have agreed on and have improved the bill. In light of the positive changes that this Parliament has made at stages 2 and 3, I believe that it would be useful for me to give an overview of precisely where we are actually at. The first thing to note is that the singular fuel poverty target originally within the bill title has now become multiple targets. 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, we have had the 2040 targets 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, I believe that the proposed new definition puts us in an excellent position. As I said earlier, the definition ensures a close alignment between fuel poverty and relative income poverty through the introduction of the income threshold based on the UK 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, the proportion rises to over 70 per cent. The proportion of households in fuel poverty in both 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 kind 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 for disability benefits, to be deducted from a household's adjusted net income. The definition of extreme fuel poverty was one of the other major additions at stage 2, coming in response to stakeholder input and the recommendation of the committee. To complement it, we added in specific targets to reduce it. Remote, rural and island communities are at the heart of the other major change that we introduced at stage 2. That is the uplift to UK minimum income standard for households in those types of areas. In preparing the detail of our proposals, my officials worked closely with Professor Donald Hirsh of the Centre for Research and Social Policy at Loughborough University even. His team is responsible for producing the UK minimum income standard. I would also like to express my thanks to him for his invaluable contribution. The initial reactions that I have heard from rural and island stakeholders to our new uplift and also to our comprehensive island communities impact assessment for the bill have been very positive indeed. Finally, the decision to create a new statutory Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel was another measure that was recommended in the committee's stage 1 report. I was happy to support the subsequent amendments from Alex Rowley, which we improved on further last week. To conclude, I believe that 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 also pleased that the bill has shown how working together with members from all parties discussing issues in advance and reaching a consensus has delivered improved legislation. We can be proud that this Parliament is world leading with this legislation. Scotland is only one of a handful of European countries to define fuel poverty, let alone set a goal to eradicate it. Achieving the target will place Scotland amongst the very 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. Thank you very much. There is no time in hand, but I ask those members who wish to speak in debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. Now I call Graham Simpson to follow by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I got a little bit confused at the weekend when I was thinking about this debate. A Twitter announcement from the SNP said, Here's what we're doing in government to make Scotland a fairer place to live, with a downward arrow pointing to a list of alleged achievements, the first being passed world-leading legislation to tackle fuel poverty. Which is what I thought we were here for today, Deputy Presiding Officer. In any case, I'm not sure the phrase world-leading is appropriate for a bill that started out at just six pages and was a lukewarm replacement for what we were originally promised, which was a warm homes bill. I said during the stage 1 debate that the bill originally lacked ambition. I had some pretty harsh words for it and they didn't go down well with everyone. My good friend Kenny Gibson got himself in a bit of a tiz, I seem to recall. He's not here just now to confirm that. One of the criticisms of the bill was its target of reducing fuel poverty to 5 per cent within 21 years. Some have argued that that's too far in the future, but now that we've amended it to include interim targets, I think we can be comfortable that at least we have something that's achievable and that's important. On a visit by the Local Government and Communities Committee to Stornoway, one of the bill's serious emissions was brought home to us. An emission that when using the minimum income standard referred to by the minister to define fuel poverty to reflect the higher costs incurred by people living in islands, remote towns and remote rural areas. Fuel poverty rates in urban Scotland have improved since 2015, but rates in rural areas haven't, so there's a widening gap. We faced a legislative vacuum and said so. Thankfully, the Government listened and amended the bill accordingly at stage 2. I think that we must ask ourselves when making law is this. Will this make a difference to anyone's life? If the answer is no, then you'd be right to wonder why on earth we would spend any time on it. I think that the bill was in that sort of shape when introduced, but we have a very different beast now. That's down to people co-operating across party lines and coming up with sensible proposals, as well as some not so sensible ones. Andy Wightman has brought forward amendments to keep the focus on all four drivers of fuel poverty. We will now have the Scottish Fuel Advisory Panel. The Labour Party introduced this to the bill, and it's a welcome addition. The panel will be an independent advisory panel that will keep the pressure on government. The panel will analyse the periodic reports that have been produced by the Government and give their own views on the progress that has been made and whether the fuel poverty targets will be met. It will be a statutory consultee. It's a significant layer of scrutiny that was previously lacking. Thankfully, the Government's decided that the funding for the panel can be much higher than originally suggested by Alex Rowley at just over four times there to be congratulated on that. It will make a significant difference to the tackling of fuel poverty and will keep the focus and scrutiny on meeting and hopefully exceeding the targets. The Government also listened to calls to target extreme fuel poverty specifically. Stage 2 amendments defined extreme fuel poverty and set both a final and an interim target for it, as well as for fuel poverty. That will prevent people living in extreme fuel poverty being left behind, a fear that many of us had with the target as it was originally published. As I said earlier, the Government also listened to concerns about the higher costs of energy for people living in Ireland and rural communities. I also felt strongly that the hard to reach homes in Scotland should not be forgotten about when dealing with national targets, so I introduced amendments that were accepted at stage 2 and some minor changes at stage 3 whereby the Government must be seen to be working to reduce fuel poverty in each local authority level and for the fuel poverty targets to be targets at the local level. However, I was very careful not to place the onus on councils. I didn't want a national figure which ran the danger of overlooking areas such as our islands, where fuel poverty is high and harder to combat. I now believe that a bill that was once lackluster and unambitious, in my view, is focused, strong and achievable. That is what we all want here today. If the bill is passed today, which I hope it will be, it will be the result of nearly a year of scrutiny. It is a very good example of committee working, of parliamentarians being listened to. There were areas of disagreement, of course there were, but we are in a good place, and this is a bill that can change lives. If I can take one thing from the whole experience myself, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is not to get on the wrong side of Jackie Baillie on anything. I desist from commenting. I now call Alec Rowley to follow by Andy Wightman. Mr Rowley, five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In opening for Labour today, can I say that we will be voting for this bill, mainly on the grounds that any target is better than no target? We know that the last target set here in this 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 by 2040 is of small comfort for those who are currently living in fuel poverty. As such, we believe that we should, across this chamber, be more ambitious for Scotland to tackle fuel poverty. Should we at least not try to be bolder with tackling fuel poverty and work together to do all that is necessary to eradicate it? I had hoped that we could find that consensus to be more ambitious for the target, but, as we saw last week, the SNP and Tory MSPs across this chamber teamed up together to vote down the more ambitious target of 5 per cent by 2032. James Dornan Will Mr Rowley accept that he signed up to the stage 1 report? Mr Rowley was raised at stage 2 after the stage 1 report. My answer then is the same answer that I will give Mr Dornan today. I have listened to organisations up and down Scotland and people living in fuel poverty up and down Scotland who say that the 2040 target is not ambitious enough. Surely that is the job of politicians in this chamber to listen to what people have to say. The argument that comes from the SNP and the Tories is built around the Scottish Government claiming to not have access to all the drivers of fuel poverty. Second, they say that there will be new technologies needed to have that have not yet been developed. When it comes to income, they say that we have no powers, but, as Norman Kerr from Energy Action Scotland said when giving evidence to the local government committee, I quote, 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 had this to say. He said that we need to scale up ambition. We could all say that 2040 sounds absolutely fine, but that would not give a step change in productivity levels or in the numbers of homes that are to be tackled each year. In all honesty, he 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 budget. That point about budget is for me key, for if we are to have any chance of tackling fuel poverty within the levers that are within our control, then there must be an increase in the levels of funding. We are nowhere near the levels of budget that will be required to tackle the levels of poor housing. It is about time that the Government wake up to this fact and acknowledge what is needed to be done. If they want to be ambitious for Scotland, they need to be bold, put the money in and not rely on the Tories to kick fuel poverty into the long grass. That point was made by Mr Kerr when he talked in the evidence session about insulating homes against rising costs, pointing out that the more energy-efficient the home, the less energy it will use. A report earlier this year from KPMG on behalf of the Scottish Government said that 1.8 million homes failed to reach the EPC rating C benchmark in 2016. If we were to meet the 2040 target, that would equate to roughly 66,000 buildings that require major improvement each year over the next two decades. Of course, in order to achieve that, it will require much more funding than is currently available, which perhaps goes some way as to explaining why the Tories and 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. We should do that in the private rented sector. Let's be more ambitious and let's tackle fuel poverty once and for all. It's regrettable that we have no spare time. Presiding Officer, I'm delighted to speak in this debate and to contribute to the work on the bill through its parliamentary stages from its introduction about a year ago. I also want to thank stakeholders, people like the existing Homes Alliance, Energy Action Scotland, Diolch Alexander and others who have engaged constructively with the bill and to my local Government colleagues and the clerks and SPICE during stage 1 and stage 2. The bill has been quite a collegiate process and I commend the way in which the minister has positively engaged with myself and colleagues in other parties to improve the bill. I think that we have pushed the ambitions of the bill further, particularly on the matter of a scrutiny of securing the target. It is disappointing that it remains disappointing that this is not a warm homes bill, as the SNP manifesto has promised, but the debate is nevertheless an opportunity to reflect on where we have got to with this legislation. It is encouraging that, following stage 2, we now have a bill that I think does its best to seek to eradicate fuel poverty. In Scotland, although it is just setting out targets and definitions, the real work in doing all of that will be in implementing the fuel poverty strategy and in partners and stakeholders in local government and elsewhere who have a big job to do over the next 20 years or so. Amendments that are proposed at stage 2 have strengthened the bill, making it a far more robust piece of legislation. Those include the provision of additional heating regimes lodged by Jackie Baillie. Despite being thwarted at stage 2, she initially pursued those at stage 3 and persuaded the Scottish Government to make some amendments in that regard. Likewise, the cross-party approach has ensured that the four drivers of fuel poverty are in here. I am very glad that they are. I thank colleagues such as Alexander Burnett, whose famous £60 million amendment fell, but nevertheless, and Alec Rowley, who helped to amend the section with her own important contributions. I particularly pay tribute to Alec Rowley's amendment on the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory panel, because one of the things that we were quite clear on after stage 1 scrutiny was that, if the target was going to be achieved—and, of course, it might not be, but if it were to have the best chance of being achieved—it needed independent scrutiny of not only where we are with the target but why we were there and what we might do in future. I think that the work of the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel, which is now put in a statutory footing, will be critical to the meeting of those targets. A good compromise is often cited when both parties are dissatisfied with the outcome, but I do not think that that is the case here. I think that the cross-party working and engagement by the minister and colleagues is particularly on developing things such as the enhanced minimum income definition, the definition of extreme fuel poverty, improved scrutiny of the fuel poverty strategy, elevating the role of the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel to be commended. That is a good example, which has certainly given me some pleasure to be able to work with colleagues to secure legislation like that. There are, of course, disappointments. It is disappointing that the amendment to be more ambitious in tackling fuel poverty in relation to the target of 2032. We have not been able to secure that. I think that that does undermine the Scottish Government's assertion that its response to the committee report that Scotland will be amongst the very best in the world in tackling fuel poverty. It also compromises the Scottish Government's recent climate emergency declaration. That was the opportunity to tie the targets to other targets around energy efficiency. We are where we are. Sincerely, that is a very good bill. Nevertheless, I and my colleagues will be supporting at decision time. The choice of whether to heat your home or eat a meal is not one that anybody should have to face in this day and age. The sad fact is that, according to Government statistics, around 613,000 households are estimated to be living in fuel poverty and 174,000 in extreme fuel poverty. It blights communities up and down Scotland, yet we know that those living in remote rural and island communities consistently experience the highest levels of fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty. There are many reasons for that. Longer, harsher winters, being off the gas grid, more hard-to-heat properties, lower average household incomes, higher costs in installing energy efficiency measures all play their part in placing Orkney uncomfortably at the top of the pile when it comes to fuel poverty. That is why it was so disappointing that the original bill took so little account of the rural and island dimension to this issue. It also ignored the advice of the rural fuel poverty task force and almost every individual and organisation working in this 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 stakeholders in those communities, a case that was supported by colleagues across the parties. The amendments that we were able to pass at stage 2, will, I hope, ensure that the needs of those in remote rural and island communities are recognised and met through the additional resources that inevitably will be required. Again, I wish to put on record my thanks to all those who helped to build the case in Orkney, the council, the housing association and the thought, but a special mention to Di-Alex and 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, many years. Of course, those were not the only changes that were made to the bill. Indeed, it was striking to me how progress was made in strengthening this bill, thanks to the efforts of each and every member of the committee and others besides. As a result, we have the advisory committee on a statutory footing with scope for recommending that targets are made more ambitious. There will be a requirement on each local authority to make progress towards achieving those targets and interim targets, so that no area or community is left behind. There will be greater flexibility in assessing needs so that resources can be more effectively targeted and all four drivers of fuel poverty taken into account. For those and other improvements that were made to the bill, I acknowledge the efforts of colleagues from each of the other parties, as well as the minister who has worked constructively to reach agreement. Remains to be seen whether our failure to accept Andy Wightman's amendment on the commencement comes back to haunt us—the revenge of the geek, one might say. However, 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 heating. All the evidence shows that lifting people out of fuel poverty helps to improve their physical and mental health. Unsurprisingly, living in a warm, dry home helps to increase educational attainment. Local jobs are created and sustained 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 are also reliant on us making progress in improving energy efficiency of our housing stock. For all those reasons and more, the bill matters. In passing this much-improved bill this evening, however, we will have done only the easy part. We now need to make sure that it and the strategy make a real difference to individuals, households and communities that, for too long, have been blighted by fuel poverty. For now, however, I have pleasure in confirming that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be supporting the fuel poverty bill later on this afternoon. I am delighted to be given the opportunity to speak in today's important debate, a debate that further enhances Scotland's place as a world leader when it comes to addressing fuel poverty. Everyone, no matter their income and employment status, should be able to heat their homes and keep themselves and their families warm. It is absolutely unacceptable that people are still making that choice of whether to keep themselves warm or to keep themselves from being hungry. According to recent research, the UK is the second worst rate of excess winter deaths in Europe with over 3,000 deaths each year, caused by people not being able to afford to heat their homes. That shows why we need action. Indeed, the Scottish Government has already taken action, backed up by significant investment to improve energy efficiency, keeping homes warm and bills down. Recent figures show that 97,000 households in Scotland moved out of fuel poverty in 2015, and their figures are good. However, of course, faced with high-fuel bills, we know that we still have much more to do to eradicate fuel poverty. Presiding Officer, as a convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I sincerely like to thank all the members of the committee, the MSPs who came before us, those who submitted evidence to the minister of all and all his officials. However, I miss if I did not thank the committee's clerking team, along with colleagues from SPICE and Outreach for all the fantastic work that they did to allow us to find out, A, the true impact of fuel poverty and, B, the best way to combat it. I think that all the members would agree that the minister throughout the bills' progress 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. Turning to some of the amendments of the bill itself, I am delighted that MSPs voted in favour of the Scottish Government's amendments, which were moved in Thursday. Most of the amendments were technical or tidying amendments, many of which I know already had the backing of a number of MSPs. At stage 1, I expressed my own concerns that the Government did not accept the committee's recommendation to place the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel on the statutory footing, and I am therefore really pleased to see the Government now supporting that. On that note, I would like to briefly comment on the Government's amendment 6, the amendment 96, the name of Alec Rowling, amendment 60A, and the name of Andy Wightman. I was pleased to see amendment 96 pass, and indeed Mr Rowley's other amendments made the panel a statutory consultee for both the strategy and the preparation of periodic report. However, I could not support 60A in the name of Andy Wightman. The Scottish Government supported the statutory panel as the cap meant administrative costs were not going to be excessive, and resources were focused on tackling fuel poverty on the front line, not backroom functions. Indeed, the Scottish Government's amendment 60 introduces a new three-yearly cost cap of £82,000 on the statutory panel, calculated on the basis of a similar-sized panel to the existing non-statutory body. However, there was a real risk with amendment 60A that it would cost the public purse a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on improving people's lives at home. I was delighted to see the group 2 amendments failing to garner the necessary report, and whilst I recognised 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 talks about increasing budgets regularly on a number of fronts, particularly on that. However, although we have limited resources to create growing the economy, we will have limited resources to be able to increase the budgets. In my view, in that of the committee's report at stage 1, there really is no credible alternative plan that shows that bringing the target date forward 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, due to higher installation or operating costs for householders, or to bring forward mandatory interventions in homes. An unrealistic target ignores the many concerns that have been raised, including from COSLA, which had said that setting unrealistic targets is callous, and that was based on the fact that, as Mr Rowley talked about earlier on, the earlier target of 2016, which we were absolutely at no stage ever anywhere near to completing. I am very proud that we have reached this stage of the fuel poverty bill. It says a lot for the maturity of this Parliament. Government ministers and members are like that we are in the verge of making this incredibly important bill law by working together. I look forward to decision time when we officially confirm the fuel poverty target definition and strategy Scotland bill, making it law so that it can begin to benefit the lives of many Scots still suffering from the blight of having to choose between eating and heating. For me, this is a good day to be an MSP. Thank you very much. I call Alexander Stewart. I am delighted to participate in today's debate on the third stage of the fuel poverty bill. The bill undoubtedly is a positive step forward in tackling fuel poverty in Scotland, and that is what we needed and what we require. It is concerning that estimates suggest that, in Scotland today, a quarter of households live in fuel poverty, rising to more than 50 per cent of households in Orkney and Westinale communities. 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 2002 target set 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 set back in 2002. As we set out in our manifesto in 2016, we in the Scottish Conservatives are committed to reducing fuel poverty and ensuring that everyone lives in an easy-to-heat home. To that end, in the initial stages, we broadly support the bill as it goes forward, and we also support the recommendations from the local government and communities committee, which I am a member of. I thank everybody who gave evidence and all those who participated to ensure that we had a very positive dialogue throughout the whole journey of the bill. The bill takes on a very welcome approach, clearly setting out the revised definition of fuel poverty based on the calculation of minimum income standards and tax and account living costs. That is very welcome. We also welcome the fact that the Scottish Government publishes the fuel poverty strategy and consults with those living who have lived in fuel poverty prior to its publication. In terms of amendments, we were not able to support Alex Rowley's that brought forward a target for 2042, because we believed that that was unrealistic. The 2032 was much more talked about throughout that whole process. The amendment would require that more than 10 per cent of households in Scotland were in fuel poverty by 2035, and that 3 per cent of households would be in extreme poverty. The medium fuel cap would not be more than £300 in 2015 prices once inflation is taken into account. As of stage 2 amendments that included an interim target of 2030, more than 15 per cent of households were in fuel poverty and no more than 5 per cent of households were in extreme poverty. That will ensure that we continue to keep a momentum and ensure that we go towards the target of 2040. As we also ensure that local authorities want to play their part in addressing the issue, we are therefore introducing the amendment to that to 2040 itself. That would require councils to have their own achievements targeted by that timescale. We also support the section that was covering the Scottish Fuel Poverty Alliance panel, which covers ministers' duties to provide financial resources and to stipulate the total maximum cost of the panel allocated throughout the panel. In conclusion, I very much welcome the bill, and I support what the amendments have put out and have been outlined within the report and in the debate structure. Fuel poverty remains a massive issue for many individuals. We have already heard today that some people decide whether they heat their home or whether they feed themselves. That, in Scotland today, is something that we have to acknowledge and we have to tackle. It is a significant way forward. We have still a long way to go to ensure that we have that majority of people who feel safe and secure, but we can be proud of what we have put in place today, and I support the bill. Thank you. I call Jackie Baillie, if you have thought about Annabelle Ewing, Ms Ewing is the last speaker in the open debate, Ms Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me declare an interest as the 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 let me start with a look back because history is indeed always instructive. It was the Housing Scotland Act of 2001 that committed Scottish ministers to ensuring that by November 2016, so far as reasonably practicable, persons do not live in fuel poverty. We all, at the time, felt that that was an ambitious target, but it was one that all the parties across the Parliament agreed on. It is not often that you find issues that transcend the political divide, so it is disappointing that, with that level of consensus, we failed to meet that target. In reflecting on what happened in the past to understand where we went wrong, it is good to look at that to understand what we need to do in the future. In 2008, I came across a member's debate. MSPs then 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 target. In 2011, members of that forum were telling ministers and parliamentary committees that unless there was a substantial increase in resource, we would fail to meet the 2016 target. The spending level, as I recall, back in 2012-13, was £65 million. At that time, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee said that it needed to be in the order of £100 million to £170 million to achieve the target. If you strip away financial transaction money, which we know can only be used for loans, the budget now is still less than £100 million. Last year, it was underspent, something that was a feature in previous years. I know that it is difficult to put loans into a budget and expect them to all be fully utilised. We need an ambitious target. We need a route map, which is the strategy for how to achieve it, and we need the mechanism to monitor implementation closely. However, we also need to have enough money in the budget to realise our ambitions. I would be very interested to know if the minister has assessed what it will take by way of budget to realise the target. Does he have an indication of what money is required so that we achieve the target by 2040? The bill has been improved by the Government, and it has been improved by committee and other members since its introduction. I very much welcome that and the minister's willingness to discuss changes. It will come as no surprise to him that I remain, however, disappointed that the target of tackling fuel poverty, down to 5 per cent by 2040, remains unchanged. It is genuinely, in my view, lacking in ambition. As a reduction of just 1 per cent a year and potentially condemns yet another generation to fuel poverty, I think that the target should be 2032. I am genuinely sorry that the Government, aged and abetted by the Tories, has chosen to ignore the voices of experts in the field of fuel poverty, people like the existing homes alliance and energy action Scotland, because they all evidenced the need for a more ambitious target. James Dornan hit the nail on the head when he suggested that there was a burgeoning bromance between Graham Simpson and the minister. It can be seen to in the planning bill, but I clearly frightened Graham Simpson. I am so sorry about that, but let me say gently, as I can to him, that interim targets are no substitute for ending fuel poverty a full eight years earlier. It is slower than it needs to be. You can have interim targets for 2032 as well. No, I think that we have heard enough from you already. The member must now conclude—I am not friend of you, Ms Mealy. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will conclude on that point. Thank you very much. I now call Annabelle Ewing, then closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to participate in this afternoon's stage 3 debate on the fuel poverty target definition strategy Scotland bill. Upon reflecting on the legislative process with regards to the bill, I would like, in addition to thanking the local government committee clerks and indeed Spice, and to thank them very much for all their hard work. I would also like to pay tribute to the way in which the minister has conducted matters throughout the course of the bill. It really has been a constructive process, and it is clear that all members of the local government committees committee were full square behind the key principle underlying the bill. That is to set a target to reduce fuel poverty in Scotland, and the ambitious and realistic target agreed to by this Parliament is to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5 per cent of households by 2040. Much discussion, of course, has been focused on the target itself, and it should be recalled indeed that, at stage 1 in our report, after having heard all the oral evidence and having studied all the written evidence received by the committee, all committee members across all parties supported the approach that is set forth in the bill. The committee understands that this approach is a pragmatic response to previous attempts to set a target that ultimately failed. We also recognise that reducing fuel poverty will lean heavily on applying technology still in development, and that it is realistic to build in time for those to come on stream. The committee went on to conclude, and I quote, The committee therefore accepts the Government's reasons for setting the target date at 2040. This acceptance of the maintenance of the bill was, however, conditional on the Government bringing forward amendments at stage 2 on a statutory interim target. The Government did so, and we have also seen that approach further strengthened at stage 3, with a further interim target having been agreed. At the same time, the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel will be able, if circumstances permit, to propose an acceleration of the target. That seems to me to be the best way to proceed, the pragmatic way to proceed, and reflects the approach, in fact, favoured by those who will actually 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 fall out with the absolute control of the Scottish Government, those being energy prices and household incomes. Concomitant with the target date is the key definition of fuel poverty itself, the focus is being very much on those who are most in need. At the same time, it is to be welcomed that the minister acceded to the committee's calls to set a separate target for tackling extreme fuel poverty and provisions on enhanced heating for those with disabilities, and long-term illnesses are also to be welcomed. I, too, look forward to the work being undertaken to develop the fuel poverty strategy underpinning the bill. As I said at stage 1, it is absolutely unacceptable that people in Scotland and energy-rich nations are living in fuel poverty. While we on these benches will use every power at our disposal to resolve that, it is self-evident that, without control over all of our resources and all of the levers of fuel poverty, without the powers of a normal, independent country, we will continue to be constrained in what we can do, something that the leader benches seem quite happy to see 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 across Scotland. For it is only with independence that we will see real social justice in Scotland. Presiding Officer, I welcome the reintroduction of a fuel poverty target, the previous one having been missed in Scottish Labour support the bill. I also welcome the new definition and the work of the committee in amending the bill, I think, to make it a great deal better than it would have been. However, I am very disappointed at the narrow scope of the bill. I believe that it should have been the warm homes bill, and I believe that the bill, at least in passing, has to be part of a centrepiece of wider policy around warm homes. As the minister said, it is a serious challenge, but all the more reason why I think it should have been wider in scope, because the First Minister herself last year said in announcing £54 million to help eradicate fuel poverty, she said. The investment highlights our commitment to tackle fuel poverty and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, recognising the important link. I believe that the two significant amendments to the bill, the first is to change the definition of the 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 high, it is 59 per cent, but I am sure that he will welcome the fact that I have said it. It is one of the most significant amendments to the bill and most welcome. Secondly, the advisory panel gives me some hope that, in the long run, we can scrutinise how we are progressing with these targets, and I think that it is a significant and very welcome amendment. The evidence shows, and we all agree on this, that living in a cold, draughty home has a negative impact on people's physical and mental health and on children's attainment. In Scotland, we live in a cold country that speaks for itself, and increasingly people probably feel the need to heat their homes most of the year. It is a consideration, I think, in any policy looking at warm homes and reducing fuel. The four drivers of fuel poverty, the cost of energy, energy efficiency of homes and how households use their energy and household income. I believe that all four of those drivers can be affected by both Government action, Government policy and legislation. The UK has the highest rate of excess winter deaths, which is the only figure that I could find, which is a UK one, but we know that we still face excess winter deaths, and it is the worst rates across Europe. The wider issues that I believe and that my amendments to the bill try to address that and the majority of consumers are still in the standard variable tariffs. They are still paying way over the odds. I think that I am certainly educating consumers about how they can change that. That is the role of Government. I believe that vulnerable customers should have a programme designed for them because energy companies are not doing enough. I believe that they should be required to contact vulnerable customers. It could be a public information campaign to make sure that those customers are on the cheapest deals in my last 40 seconds or so. I just want to mention the need to ensure that the centrepiece of the whole warm homes policy also focuses on the energy efficiency drive within homes. Pre-payment metres are something that I wanted to mention because the poorest people are on pre-payment metres and they face potential disconnections. Scottish Power has a pretty good policy on that. I think that ministers should check to see whether all energy companies are adopting the same policy to make sure that poor people are not disconnected from their energy. In conclusion, I think that the evidence of the success of the bill is in the detail. We need a higher dose of ambition. One commitment that we will give the Scottish Government the sight or disappointment is that if we make the centrepiece of wider action on what can be done— Sorry, that was my alarm going off. I hope that it wasn't your morning call. Was he telling you to finish? I call on Alexander Burnett to be followed by Minister Kevin Stewart. Mr Burnett, please follow that five minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would firstly like to note how pleased I am to see this bill finally coming through Parliament. Too often, we focus on the small things, rightly so, but looking at the bigger picture, the bill is the first step to positive changes for many across Scotland. I would like to join my fellow Scottish Conservative colleagues in welcoming the bill and, as usual, note members to my register of interests on the bill in relation to energy efficiency, property management and construction. Scotland is currently a quarter of households that live in fuel poverty, with rural and nile communities living with higher fuel poverty rates than urban areas. As existing homes alliance noted, nearly a million homes fall below the energy efficiency standard needed for our health. Change has not been coming fast enough for people, therefore causing consequential health implications and costs to the NHS. 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, as well as how to address issues that affect islands and remote rural areas. We are very pleased to have worked with members across the chamber and that the Government has accepted amendments to align with their bid for homes to reach an EPC rating of C or above by 2040. We would of course have wished for stronger EPC targets for 2030, but we do accept that adding in interim targets at 2030 and 2025 will also bring benefit. As my colleague Graham Simpson said on Thursday, those interim targets will ensure that by 2030 we will see the overall fuel poverty rate to be less than 20 per cent and we have a further reduction to less than 15 per cent by 2035. It will also ensure that the final aim of no more than 5 per cent of households that are in fuel poverty by 2040 is reached. I was pleased to see that amendment 72, in the name of my colleague Graham Simpson, was passed. 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 such varying differences in fuel poverty across Scotland, that is a much welcomed addition. I note that Andy Wightman said on Thursday that I will probably go down in history as a member who almost moved a £60 million amendment at stage 2 and I do not regret attempting to do so. In order for us to see any radical changes to fuel poverty levels and to create real change in reducing carbon emissions, we need to invest in improving energy efficiency levels now. To clarify members who may be simply looking at the cost, I was seeking to ensure that there was an actual identification of residential buildings and the work required in order to reach the EPCC rating by 2030. I clarify, in fact, that his amendment was about the identification. Does he agree with me that, actually, there are much cheaper ways to make that identification in the standard EPCC methodology and that there are also new technologies emerging and that he should stick with it? He will have my support in pushing for better means of identifying the homes that are most in need of energy efficiency measures across Scotland. I think that we can always look to improve the EPCC methodology and we are always welcome for discussions about how we can improve anything that ultimately benefits people in fuel poverty and in cold homes. This work will be required at some point and sooner it is legislated for the better. This is just an example of an issue that Scottish Conservatives and stakeholders alike have had with the bill in that it does not go far enough and is not going to bring people out of fuel poverty fast enough. Nevertheless, it is a good first step to take. I would like to briefly note my disappointment, but amendment 77 in my name was not passed. That 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 target set. To end on a positive note, and 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 these areas separately, it ensures that these communities are taken care of in a realistic manner. Overall, we welcome the bill and are committed to reducing fuel poverty. The bill will begin the process of ensuring that. As we stated in our manifesto, we are seeking the change to help households to save on their energy bills, to make homes easier to heat, to create thousands of jobs all over Scotland and all while reducing carbon emissions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a bit strange having split stage 3 into 2. In the last debate, being accused of compromising with Ms Bailey and today being accused of having a bromance with Mr Simpson—I do not know what is going on here—I have obviously missed something myself. After listening to the debate this afternoon, it is quite 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 contained in the fuel poverty targets definition and strategy Scotland bill will ensure that we achieve that goal. The challenging yet realistic targets that the bill introduces will ensure that tackling fuel poverty remains a pressing issue for this and for future Governments. The new definition that it creates will give us a better understanding of the nature of the problem that we have ever had before, which will help us to develop a comprehensive strategy to solve it. I know that, in all of that, not everyone is satisfied. Some people always want us to go faster. I understand that, and I understand the stakeholders who want us to move quicker in that regard, but we also have to take a licence that, although some of the experts that Mr Riley mentioned said that, in 2032, those folks who are delivering on the ground—people like Cosla and various companies—say that that would not have been achievable and that 2040 was the best date. I am always a man who looks for compromise, and that is one of the good things about the additions to the bill, because the panel itself will be able to look at whether we can move the target date to a nearer time. We will keep a close eye on all of that. Of course, in energy efficient Scotland, we will continue to monitor how we are doing, what technologies have come into play and whether we can up the ante in terms of driving forward quicker. I, for one, agree with everyone here today who has said that no one should have to make the choice between putting on their heating or eating. We all feel that way, and it is incumbent in all of us as we move forward to scrutinise how we are doing in that regard, and I am sure, along with the panel, that that will happen. Some of the other points that I want to touch on relate to some of the things that folks have seen in their travels. Mr Simpson was talking about going to Stornoway. I myself have been to all of the islands and various other places to talk to people around about the changes that they wanted to see, which are now encapsulated within the bill. I know that some folk have already paid tribute to die Alexander. He deserves the tributes that have been paid from folks in all parties around about his efforts, but we should also take a nice sense of people in communities, people in organisations and communities who have made their voices heard and their voices are now encapsulated within the bill. Beyond that, I do not think that we have paid enough attention to that. This is the first bill that has been island proofed. I am very grateful to everyone who played a part in achieving that, and there may be lessons from that bill that can be picked up in other bills. Some of the debate today has strayed on to the four drivers of fuel poverty. Some have picked up on the fact that we do not control all those drivers. I am pleased that Mr Wightman and others at stage 2 looked at the four drivers in some depth and that we as a Parliament and the committee in the future should look at all four drivers. I would like to see and I hope that we can work across the chamber whether we are happy with the current devolved settlement or not. I hope that we can persuade the UK Government to look at energy costs, particularly in some of the areas that Ms McNeill mentioned, in terms of prepaid metres, which I think are scandalous, and to do more when it comes to tariffs. I think that we can work across the chamber together to try and persuade some of the changes that are required to be highlighted to the UK Government and hopefully we can see change. I would like to see those powers coming here, but in the meantime, let's see what we can do together to make the change that is required. I see you staring at me. Does that mean that I am almost out of time? Let me finish on that. Currently, there are still far too many people in our country struggling to afford to keep their homes warm. That is a situation that I find completely unacceptable. Hearing others today, I think that we are all in agreement. It is clear that this Parliament thinks the same in this issue. Let us work together to make sure that we do all that we possibly can to take people out of fuel poverty in this country. This bill will help us to bring that situation to an end, and I hope that everyone will support it here today. Thank you very much, minister. That concludes the debate on fuel poverty targets definitions strategy Scotland. It is time to move on to the next side of our business. We have a short pause to allow the front benches to take their places.