 The next item of business is debate on motion 12140, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on a route map to an energy efficient Scotland. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons? Can I let you all know that we do have quite a bit of time in hand, so I can give time for wonderful contributions or interventions? I call Paul Wheelhouse to speak to and move the motion, which is in the name of Kevin Stewart. Around 14 minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to have the opportunity to open this debate and discuss the important issue of energy efficiency in Scotland. Just a week on from the launch of our route map to an energy efficient Scotland, flowing as this has from Scotland's energy strategy and climate change plan, published in December and February respectively, this is a good time for our Parliament to examine the challenges and opportunities ahead of us in transforming Scotland's homes and buildings to be warmer, greener and more energy efficient. Improving the energy efficiency of our homes and buildings lies at the heart of achieving this and helping us through cross-portfolio working to deliver mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and meet our new all-energy target to deliver 50 per cent of Scotland's total energy needs from renewable sources by 2030. Crucially, as the Government's motion sets out, it is essential to invest in energy efficiency if we are to remove poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty. By improving the energy efficiency of households that are living in fuel poverty, we are supporting our commitment to address the underlying economic and social inequalities in our society and fundamentally helping to make Scotland a fairer country. Of course, our climate change plan and energy strategy make clear too, better energy efficiency of our workplaces will also help to improve business productivity and competitiveness. Our latest statistics show that buildings account for almost 20 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions, so improving the energy efficiency of all Scotland's residential and non-domestic buildings crucially underpins our efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and meet our world-leading climate change targets. Our investment in energy efficiency will stimulate economic growth and support jobs across Scotland. Research suggests that a 10 per cent improvement in the energy efficiency of households will lead to a sustained expansion of GDP of around 0.16 per cent. Although it is also estimated that, for every £100 million spent on energy efficiency improvements in 2018, that would support approximately 1,200 jobs. That is why, in 2015, if I could make a bit of progress, I will bring Ms Beamish in later. That is why, in 2015, we designated energy efficiency a national infrastructure priority and the route map sets out that the whole economy cost of the programme for public, private and third sectors will be in today's values between £10 to £12 billion. I will bring in Ms Beamish. Claudia Beamish I thank the minister for allowing that intervention. I just wanted to highlight to the minister the issue around the training, particularly local training, for those jobs, and I would encourage him to make any comments on the opportunities to plan for this in terms of the shift to the low-carbon economy. Paul Wheelhouse Sorry, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome that comment. We clearly want to think very carefully about the labour market impacts of such a major investment programme. My colleague Jamie Hepburn, obviously, as the Skills and Training Minister, will be looking very closely at that issue on our behalf. There are therefore tremendous Scottish supply chain opportunities that we are determined to develop and support in partnership with Scotland's energy and construction sectors. Our commitment to improving the energy efficiency of Scotland's homes and buildings is not new. By the end of 2021, we will have allocated over £1 billion since 2009 on tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency. In addition, we have invested over £85 million since 2007 in loans to support Scottish households, businesses and organisations for energy efficiency and renewables measures, and the development of district heating schemes supporting over 5,200 applicants in total so far. Our energy efficiency loans to businesses alone have generated since 2008 energy savings of 339 gigawatt-hours, carbon savings of 130 kilotons of CO2 equivalent and financial savings of £36 million. We introduced regulations for the assessment and improvement of larger non-domestic buildings in 2016, and, while those will have limited impact on our overall stock, they provide a solid basis from which we will extend regulation across the sector as set out in our route map. Our non-domestic energy efficiency framework and support unit are catalyzing energy efficiency retrofits through Scotland's public sector with a strong project pipeline in place. This activity of working in partnership with local governments and with energy companies has helped to deliver more than one million measures to more than one million households since 2008. This is reflected in the energy efficiency profile of the housing stock with 42 per cent of homes in Scotland in 2016 at EPC band C, or better, with an increase of 24 per cent in 2010. This year, we have allocated more than £146 million to improving the energy efficiency of Scotland's building stock, a real-terms budget increase. We remain on track to deliver the 2016 programme for government commitment to making £0.5 billion available for tackling fuel poverty and boosting energy efficiency over the four years to 2021. We want to continue to improve on that record and tackle the over a million homes that do not yet have a good energy efficiency rating of C or better. For our non-domestic buildings, given their diversity and scale, age and specification, work is on going to understand and benchmark the energy and emissions performance across Scotland's non-domestic building stock and how best that can be improved. Through recent reviews of building regulations led by my colleague Mr Stewart and his predecessors, we now set very high standards for new buildings. A comparison of those standards offers an initial insight into the state of our existing stock. Is the minister aware that there is a second-level benefit for rural dwellers who are dependent on kerosene? In that, with reduced kerosene consumption when better insulated homes are delivered, they are less likely to require kerosene to be delivered when the weather makes it very difficult to deliver because of snow and road conditions. That is often of great value to people in rural areas, as well as the primary benefit of warmer homes. A very good point that Stewart Stevenson makes. I do not depend on kerosene myself, but I know that many constituents in Mr Stevenson's constituency and elsewhere in rural Scotland will very much see the benefit of having a lower demand for kerosene and having greater predictability about having energy security when they are in bad weather situations. Through recent reviews of building regulations led by Mr Stewart, we now set very high standards. We know that less than 5 per cent of our non-domestic buildings are close to or better than new-build standards and that around 60 per cent of our buildings are less than a third as efficient as new buildings. Indeed, we know that around 10 per cent of our building stock is at least five times worse than the new-build standard. That illustrates the very significant challenge that lies ahead for all of us under a new energy efficient Scotland programme and why the preparatory work that we have already undertaken and will undertake over the next few years is so important. We set out in the climate change plan a bold ambition, and that means that by 2032, some 70 per cent of heat and cooling for non-domestic buildings will be supplied using low-carbon heat technologies. The Scottish Government is already investing heavily in energy efficiency measures. As I say, we have already committed £500 million of funding in the four years to 2021. I remind the Conservatives that there is no equivalent funding available in England, a point not lost on the sector and indeed stakeholders. On launching our route map last week, the First Minister announced that we are allocating £49 million this year alone to our area-based schemes delivered by local authorities. We are also providing £5.5 million of additional funding to support the energy efficient Scotland transition programme, which will continue to provide a mix of advice, grant and low-cost loans to support property owners over the next two years. I am delighted in my colleague Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government and Housing, has announced further detail on the transition programme, with more than £3.5 million of the funding being made available to social landlords, i housing associations, cooperatives and local authorities, through a new decarbonisation fund. As well as assisting social landlords in decarbonising their heating, the fund will also encourage innovative thinking and fresh ideas. As of today, the fund is now open for expressions of interest. That underlines our commitment on tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency for the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. The Energy Efficient Scotland route map also outlines the framework of national standards that we will put in place for homes. It proposes that all of Scotland's homes will have a good rating for energy efficiency of at least EPCC by 2040, with the phasing of that varying by 10-year. For the private rented sector, we are proposing an earlier target. We are consulting on plans that could see all private rented properties achieve a rating of EPCC or better by 2030. As the First Minister confirmed last week in her keynote at the All Energy Conference in Glasgow and I reiterate today, we will be bringing forward regulations to confirm milestones on that journey, requiring landlords of privately rented homes of re-letting their premises at any change of tendency to have their properties first to an EPCC band E rating or better starting from April 2020. All PRS or private rented sector properties will need to be EPCC band D rated or better by 2025. For social housing and leading from encouraging progress in the sector, we want to go further. We want to see social landlords maximise the number of social rented homes meeting EPCC rating B by 2032. For owner-occupied homes, we want to maximise the number of homes reaching EPCC band C by 2030. We will provide support and advice to homeowners to help them to do so. If progress through voluntary action proves insufficient, we are prepared, however, to consider what additional action will be needed after that point to help to drive change. Given the Tories amendment calls for all properties to meet EPCC by 2030, they have a duty today to explain exactly how they will be incentivised, given that their tax-cutting agenda would have starved this Parliament of almost half a billion in spending power this year. Alternatively, the Tories should say today how they plan to compel owner-occupiers to achieve this by 2030. Finally, for non-domestic buildings, we will develop additional standards for non-domestic buildings for 2021 and phase their introduction so that by 2040 all buildings are assessed and improved to the extent that this is feasible. My colleagues Angela Constance and Kevin Stewart are also setting a target date of 2030 for households that live in fuel poverty to achieve a good energy efficiency rating. That is something that will make a massive difference to low-income households. Through Energy Efficient Scotland, we set targets to deliver and monitor progress on energy efficiency in buildings and, through framework legislation to be introduced shortly, we will show that we are meeting our climate change and targets on ending fuel poverty commitments. Our new climate change bill will set new targets to reduce emissions and our fuel poverty bill will set a new definition and target to end fuel poverty. All of our proposals are founded on extensive stakeholder engagement. From the outset, we have worked with our delivery partners, our stakeholders and other experts to design energy efficient Scotland. In parallel with consultation on Scotland's energy strategy, we undertook public consultation starting in January of 2017 on aspects of the programme, including on local heat and energy efficiency strategies, on regulation for district heating, on energy efficiency itself and on condition standards in the private rented sector. Through pilots, we continue to co-design the operation of the programme with local government colleagues and national delivery partners. He mentioned the climate bill and the targets within that course. One of the targets was around the provision of renewable heat, and it looks like we will not be meeting that target by 2020. What specific actions will you be taking to deliver that target? How will we ensure that, when we are rolling out district heating, it is decarbonised? I recognise Mark Ruskell's demands for around renewable heat. That is clearly a very strong priority for us. We had a good progress the year before last. We had a bit of a setback with the plant in Markinch, having been closed down and had an impact on the overall figures. I confirmed to Mark Ruskell that we are very much driving to try and still achieve that target by 2020. I have no doubt that it will be challenging. We do not have control of all the interventions, including RHI. We are consulted on RHI, but we do not have control over it. We are obviously continuing to engage very recently with Clare Perry at the All Energy Conference on the importance of RHI to us, but I will continue to engage with Mr Ruskell. I am happy to meet him to talk more in more detail about that. Indeed, the Scottish Government believes that a long-term strategic partnership with local government is essential if we are to successfully deliver at the scale needed to tackle fuel poverty and reduce Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions. That is why Mr Stewart and I are placing area-based schemes at the heart of our approach in creating a framework through local heat and energy efficiency strategies to support local government prioritisation and targeting. We believe that local heat and energy efficiency strategies will allow local authorities to design a tailored solution to meet the needs of their areas and identify appropriate solutions to decarbonise the heat supply. Our pilots have funded work to develop the capacity of local government partners to deliver that opportunity. To date, through our pilot programme, we have supported 22 local authorities over 2017-18 financial year and 2018-19, 12 of whom are piloting local heat and energy efficiency strategies, and we aim to support all 32 during the transition programme. There are different paths that can be taken to decarbonise the heat supply in Scotland and across the UK as set out in our energy strategy. Yes, there is uncertainty right now about what the most appropriate pathway will be. That uncertainty is, in part, caused by the UK Government. If I can just progress a wee bit, Mr Scott, I will bring in. That uncertainty is caused by the UK Government that must take decisions on such issues as the long-term future of the gas grid. There is also a complete lack of certainty over the future of the energy company obligation on a UK-wide basis. Combined with the severely limited scope of the devolved powers available to us, that makes it impossible for us to deliver a version of eco that would have meaningful benefits for the people of Scotland. I will bring in Mr Scott. John Scott. Thank you very much, minister, for taking the intervention. Last night, I couldn't sleep at 2 o'clock in the morning and I was aware of the BBC World Service intimating that in California it's about to become part of the regulatory burden there on new house builders that all houses will be fitted with solar panels or photovoltaic panels, and that will be a precondition of getting a planning application granted. Does the Scottish Government have a view on such an innovative idea? Paul Wheelhouse We do not have a monopoly on wisdom. We will always look at examples around the world, I would say, to Mr Scott. In terms of solar energy, we have much support for solar energy and other renewables at a domestic scale. That is something that is a matter for Mr Stewart in terms of building regulations. I do not want to overstret the set mark here, but we would certainly be interested in any ideas. We are certainly looking at trying to make it easier for properties to have renewable energy installations through permitted development rights and other means, and that is obviously one way in which we can support those important technologies. We are working with the UK Government and wider academic community and energy experts to identify the right long-term solution or, indeed, solutions. We must take the time to research evidence and plan our approach so that people can invest with confidence in knowing that our route map is, yes, sufficiently ambitious but grounded in reality and deliverable. Those are very important factors. Our energy efficient Scotland route map focuses on what we can do now, what is certain in the context of much uncertainty in another place. That will mean focusing first on the things that we can control, energy efficiency, which underpins our current and future efforts to reduce emissions from our heat supply, and low-carbon heat solutions, including district heating, where it is an appropriate solution for the long term. We are also continuing to support low-carbon and renewable heat. As announced in the programme for government, we have made a further £60 million available to accelerate low-carbon infrastructure projects through our hugely successful low-carbon infrastructure transition programme. That is, of course, on top of the £41 million of capital funding that is already offered in co-investment through that fund. In conclusion, we are confident that the energy efficient Scotland is not only challenging, ambitious and, rightly so, crucially a deliverable programme. There is no single or quick fix to improving the energy efficiency of and reducing the emissions from our homes and non-domestic buildings. It will take work, effort and commitment. Energy efficient Scotland provides a framework of support, advice and standards that will work together to operate across all parts of Scotland to improve lives. Over its lifetime, Energy efficient Scotland will transform Scotland's buildings so that they are warmer, greener and far more efficient and will support jobs and boost sustainable economic growth in doing so. I move the motion in Kevin Stewart's name. I call Alexander Burnett to speak to and move amendment 12140.1 for around nine minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is no doubt across his chamber that the principles of the Scottish Government's route map to an energy efficient Scotland are ones that we all support. At a time when governments across the world are racing to reduce their impact on climate change and communities look to reduce their own carbon footprint, we must all do our part. With that comes the responsibility to improve on our energy efficiency targets for our Scottish homes. As a keen environmentalist and interest in biomass district heating systems, I have helped to reduce many households and businesses' energy bills, improve their energy efficiency and reduce their carbon footprint. As such, I refer members to my register of interests—something that I know I get a bit of heat about—but I am proud to refer to businesses that I own that provide renewable energy in housing, showing that I was working to improve matters as a member of the public long before I became a member of the chamber. The Scottish Conservatives have repeatedly called for the SNP's energy efficiency target to be brought forward from the current date of 2014. We strongly believe that we can achieve transformative change in energy efficiency across Scotland, with all properties achieving an EPC rating of C or better by 2030. There is a question mark over the accuracy of the EPC system itself, but I believe that that is a debate for another day. However, the Scottish Conservatives recognise the different characteristics affecting rural properties, and so we will be supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment later, which seeks to improve energy efficiency in remote, rural and island communities. Liam McArthur I thank Alexander Burnett for taking an intervention. Just for the interest of clarity, I should suggest that, while I welcome his support, our amendment was not selected, so he will not have an opportunity to vote on it later on this afternoon. Alexander Burnett Thank you, but we certainly support the principles behind it should it have been selected. Lewis MacDonald Good, Mr Burnett. The reference to remote, rural and island communities is in the Labour amendment. That was Lewis MacDonald, Alexander Burnett. We will be coming to that later. Regardless of the exceptional areas, the SNP's current aim is still 10 years too late. The existing homes alliance has noted that if the SNP brought all homes up to an EPC ban by 2025, research suggested that it would support 6,400 jobs throughout Scotland, creating a boost for the economy, as it would raise GVA by 0.27 per cent on an annual basis. That is not the only reason, but the 24 target is not ambitious enough, as Labour points out, which is why we will also be supporting their amendment come decision time. Paul Wheelhouse I am grateful to Mr Burnett for taking an intervention. I would be grateful if he could clarify that, given his urging the Scottish Government to take more precipitate action in reference to the UK Government's own clean-goat strategy, he made clear its aspiration in a quote, for as many homes as possible to be EPCC by 2035 were practical, cost-effective and affordable. There is no firm commitment to do anything by 2025 or 2030, as he seems to suggest that we should do. Alexander Burnett. Lewis MacDonald I think that if the minister was listening, I was quoting from the existing homes alliance and their suggestion of 2025 and the examples and the improvements to the economy, that if we have even more ambitious targets, what that could achieve. This route map looks to reduce fuel poverty by removing poor energy efficiency, but it needs to widen its outlook and ambition on the benefits. The existing homes alliance noted that a closer target could reduce fuel poor homes by £245 a year, reduce our gas imports by 26 per cent and save NHS Scotland between £31 and £52 million. The Government needs to understand that incentives are key to ensuring residents are quicker to installing energy efficiency measures in their homes. Whilst local authorities currently offer council tax reduction schemes, a response to a parliamentary question by my fellow member Monica Lennon showed that only six properties across Scotland had taken up those reduction schemes over a period of three years. Those current incentives are clearly not working or not being taken advantage of, so we would ask the Scottish Government to consider those recommendations by citizens advice. They found that a prompt council tax rebate should be the headline consumer incentive of a Scottish energy efficiency programme. Their research has shown that a £500 rebate in the year following the installations was more popular than a pay-out of £100 over 10 years, and we would support that measure. Stuart Stevenson, can I remind members that the Conservative, the late member of this place, Alex Johnson, helped to make an amendment to the climate change bill in 2009 that provided that for businesses and the Labour Party did similarly for private houses? However, it remains unproven that people are motivated by that, but more fundamentally not all councils have made much of the opportunity to do that. We all have a duty to encourage councils to pick up the challenge of what we legislated for in 2009, rather than perhaps imagining a new bit of legislation in and of itself will make that much difference. Alexander Burnett Thank you. I certainly support that, but we all need to do more at all levels, whether it's governmental council or our individual householders. The minister did ask what incentives we would look at. I think that I've been talking about the incentives in place at the moment that aren't working and what could be done to improve those. I hope that's a constructive point. Kevin Stewart Mr Burnett has talked a lot about incentives. We recently had Tory proposals in the budget to reduce the spending power of this Parliament by half a billion pounds. Mr Burnett, could you give us an indication of how the Tories would pay for the incentives that he's talking about? Alexander Burnett I think that it would be unfortunate to push this debate, which would otherwise be constructive on how we can assist our contributions to climate change by tackling energy efficiency, to rehashing the debate over who could run the economy better, whether it's the SNP's current failure in Scotland in the economy or whether it's conservative policies across the rest of the United Kingdom, which are working. Unfortunately, and not just on the economy, we are having a recurring theme of the SNP that we are living with a cluttered landscape. It's no surprise that incentives are difficult for constituents to be aware of when there are so many policy programmes tackling energy efficiency, including the Home Energy Efficiency Programme for Scotland, Energy Efficiency Standard for Social Housing, the Energy Company of Obligation, Scotland's Energy Efficiency Programme and the Regulation of Energy Efficiency in the Private Sector. To remedy that, Citizens Advice Scotland has recommended setting up a one-stop-shop approach to tackle the clutter and allowing us to build on the best features of those programmes. We need to make it as easy as possible for consumers to install energy-efficient measures, but by having one organisation provide advice on assessments, incentives and installation, we can help to reach our target of an EPC rating of C or better by 2030. On the route map, it was detailed that there would be a fund of £54.5 million for energy efficiency for the year 2018-19, but we believe that additional funding is required in order to ensure that it is designated a national infrastructure priority. I've taken more than my share at the moment. The WF and Consumer Futures Unit from Citizens Advice have both called for additional funds to be added to the Scottish Government's target to meet future targets and ambitions. Therefore, we will be supporting the Green amendment today, which calls for an acceleration in the trajectory of public spending in order to achieve our aims. As the Scottish Conservatives set out in our 2016 manifesto, we believe that we need to see the energy efficiency budget gradually reach 10 per cent of the Scottish Government's capital budget allocation. That would mean capital infrastructure investment rising from this year's £80 million, which currently sits at under 3 per cent of the budget to £340 million by 2021, meaning a cumulative total of £1 billion. I note in the route map that the state's steps are not set in stone due to the ever-changing of the energy sector. I would therefore like to ask the cabinet secretary to be mindful of those classified as off-the-grid. We would look to the Government to ensure that sufficient support is given to fuel companies who have a higher proportion of rural residents. I joined calls from the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers for the Government to consider a step-change approach in the clean growth strategy, as modern high-efficiency oil-condensing boilers could help to reduce both carbon emissions and fuel costs by 30 per cent. As I have outlined today, the Scottish Conservatives are fully behind an energy efficiency programme that aims to reduce fuel poverty while simultaneously retain reducing our carbon footprint. My colleague Graham Simpson joined members across the chamber in sending a letter to the Minister for Housing, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, and the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Food and Welfare last year, detailing many of the points that I have raised today on what measures the Scottish Government needs to adopt. We had to hope that the proposals that we have considered and jointly repeat our recommendations today. However, we still find the SNP's current programme just not ambitious enough. We must decarbonise the system. We need to help to take people out of fuel poverty. Consumers are facing a cluttered landscape. Energy efficiency targets will be a decade too late. Fuel poverty proposals are weak, and energy efficiency incentives need improving. The decisions that we are making today will affect future generations, and we do not want to be seen as the generation who could have done more. So today, we believe that we can do more than what is currently proposed. Deputy Presiding Officer, I formally move the amendment in my name. I call Pauline McNeill to speak to you and move amendment 12140.4, around seven minutes, please. I am moving the Labour amendment, which sits alongside the Scottish Government motion and the Tory motion. They are the only amendments and motions for debate, just for clarification. Labour welcomes the publication of the energy efficiency route map that sets out a series of targets to ensure warmer, greener, more fuel efficient homes, and it seeks to reduce the scourge of fuel poverty, which blights the lives of so many people and families across Scotland, and that we all agree. At the same time, it lays out further steps to meet our climate change obligations. I will be covering mainly housing in my contribution, and colleagues will cover the other aspects of energy efficiency in theirs. We agree that we must always help our most vulnerable women to set out policy, and therefore there is a huge amount to be done to actively reduce the burden on poorer households who are trying to stay warm and reduce their energy bills. There is a lot that we can welcome in the route map to energy efficiency, but in truth it has failed to be the ambitious framework that it might have been. It is a missed opportunity around opinion, and we set out to influence in the debate today. We share the view of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations in that we do not believe that our commitment to reduce fuel poverty below 10 per cent by 2040 properly represents a commitment to end fuel poverty. However, we welcome the new definition of fuel poverty, calculated after housing costs, but we believe that the timescale is too long, and we agree with the SFHA that a commitment to reduce fuel poverty below 5 per cent by 2040 or even 10 per cent by 2030 would have been more desirable. What we disagree quite strongly with the Government's decision not to include a rural minimum income standard in the new definition is that it is quite astonishing that rural fuel poverty does not feature very much in the route map, but it has the highest levels of fuel poverty found across Scotland's rural and island communities. The fuel poverty rate for rural households in Scotland is 37 per cent over 10 per cent higher than the national figure. We do, however, agree with the Government that the energy efficiency should have the status of an infrastructure priority at a point covered by Alistair Burnett. It has been said by the Consumer Futures Unit for Citizens Advice Scotland that we believe that significantly higher levels of funding would have been commensurate with the designation that would be required to make it a reality as an infrastructure project. That is a missed opportunity. The £54 million that was announced by the First Minister for the budget to 17, 18 and 19 is not all new money and it is rather disappointing that only £5.4 million of us is new funding. The Scottish Government needs to rethink that point. Energy efficiency cannot be taken seriously as an infrastructure, a national infrastructure priority, with only £54 million allocated to it. I knew that you would want to intervene in that point, so I will let you do that. Paul Wheelhouse, I thank Pauline McNeill for taking intervention. Just for clarity sake, as I said in my opening statement, there is £146 million being invested in energy efficiency in the current financial year. I appreciate that there are different strands of funding and that may be confusing members in the chamber, but I just want to clarify for the purposes of the debate. Paul Wheelhouse, I think that in all of this debate, it is quite important to draw it together so that we can see what is going on. However, I think that they take the essential point that if it has to be a national infrastructure priority, then it has to look like that. It does look a bit more like that, admittedly, if that is the figure that we are addressing. So what are the biggest challenges? According to the existing homes alliance, the biggest challenges are owner occupiers who make up 61 per cent of the sector. Roughly half of the home owners have an EPC rating lower than C, but the root plan has no new incentives or financial support for this group to meet use of. I think that it is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to achieving the goals set out in this sector. There are 1,325 households who have made use of a Scottish Government loan over the last year. It is quite a small number. It will not even make a dent in the problem. A Heaps Grant is another option for home owners, but many will not qualify as eligibility is largely based on income. We agree with Citizens and Devices Scotland that a one-stop shop home for energy advice is essential if we are to make it easier for home owners to investigate energy efficiency options. I think that it is quite a confusing path for home owners. Most do not associate energy efficiency with climate change reduction and many have a lack of understanding regarding their options. There is a clear need for much greater promotion of the schemes available, including perhaps face-to-face options with owners getting the message that they should get, that there are various forms of assistance open to them. Labour has long argued, along with others, that this time I will, yes. Kevin Stewart I think that all MSPs can do much to promote the Home Energy Scotland helpline, which provides people from all tenures the opportunity to find the pathways that they can use to improve the energy efficiency of their home. I would appeal, as I have done previously in this chamber, for all members to highlight the helpline in communications that they are making with constituents, whether they are in social housing, private rented housing or in owner occupier. Pauline McNeill I would be delighted to pay my part on that, but the essential point is that we have good organisations, but it is a confusing path for many owners. We need to do more to make sure that it comes together. The suggestion from the advice is that there should be a one-stop shop and there should be more face-to-face to improve the uptake. Labour has long argued, along with others, that it was time to set a target for the private rented sector to reach EPCC rating by 2025, which is mentioned by the spokesperson opposite. Tenants in the private sector need strong action to secure better conditions and we are pleased that the Government is consulting on the question, but we would hope that the Government will have an open mind in consider 2025 as the target, but we will all try and influence the debate when it comes around. At the heart of the debate is the fact that there are over half a million households that cannot afford their energy bills. Hundreds and thousands of houses are poorly insulated and have outdated heating systems that contribute to rising energy consumption. There are around half a million houses in Scotland with an EPC rating of less than D. Tenants in the social sector have a particular need of assistance. 31 per cent of households in this sector are in fuel poverty, despite social housing having the most energy-efficient stock overall. The SFHE echoed its observation, noting that while housing associations have the most efficient homes, their tenants tend to be in lower incomes and are more likely to be vulnerable, so I think that more needs to be done here. We will be supporting the Tory motion amendment tonight, as we agree that the target for all homes to reach the APC rating at 2040 is far too far away and we want a much more ambitious target than 2040. There is nothing else on the table, so we are happy to support 2030 for the time being. Overall, we believe that there needs to be a more ambitious approach to energy efficiency in tackling the question of warmer homes. Due to the extent of the problem, we must be more ambitious as a country. It will simply take too long to make the serious inroads needed in tackling energy efficiency without significantly higher levels of investment. The current financial commitment does not adequately reflect the fact that energy efficiency is meant to be an infrastructure priority. I call on the Scottish Government to up their ambitions in this regard and to make it a real national priority. Around four minutes, please, Mr Ruskell. Can I start by declaring an interest as a homeowner who has benefited from a recent Government energy efficiency loan, perhaps one of the 1,300 people who benefited in the last year that Pauline McNeill outlined? I welcome this debate coming so quickly after the launch of the Scottish energy efficiency programme, but it is clear that this is the start of scrutiny on this plan, not the end of it. All the drafted amendments, including the Ghost Ones from the Greens and the Lib Dems, underline the level of cross-party consensus between all opposition parties to see that ambition raised further. There is a majority in this chamber for increasing the ambition, maybe not right now, but it might be at five o'clock. I thank, in particular, WWF for helping to forge that consensus, but also to the Greens' head of research, Ian Tom, who has been so effective in his cross-party work over the years that he is sadly now leaving us to work for everyone in a new role in SPICE. I am sure that everybody will wish him well in that. We have all repeatedly extolled the triple bottom line of energy efficiency in this chamber, and it seems to be the best tool in the box that we have to lift hundreds of thousands of families out of fuel poverty, create thousands of skilled jobs while slashing carbon and building resilience in our energy system. As the challenges of driving climate change action grow in the years to come, we may well look back at these debates and wonder why a bit of universal lagging and draft proofing seems so much beyond the reach of our society. We cannot rely on building our way to success either through building standards when 80 per cent of our homes are already built. We have to tackle the here and now. As a number of members have already mentioned, SEP has to create the right motivation, especially for owner occupiers, because we can all get too used to working around the difficulties of living in a poorly insulated house, unwilling or, in many cases, unable to take the opportunities to make our lives flow a little better in a healthier home environment. The research by the consumer futures unit and CAB should guide the SEP programme going forward, because what does upgrading to a category C rating actually mean for a householder? How is it actually going to make your day a little better? The incentives need to be there too, so members have mentioned the need for a strong financial cash back in year one. That is something that might help somebody to buy that sofa or fix a door that needs replacing. It can improve our wellbeing. The scheme has to be accessible, and my personal experience of using heaps has been that it is clunky and bureaucratic. I cannot explain how it works to my neighbours, my constituents or, crucially, my local joiner in under a minute. There is confusion around the plethora of failed green deal, occupancy assessments and EPCs, plus the offers that come down the phone and through the letterbox on a monthly basis. The one-stop-shop concept is good, but it needs to be simplified further and actually built on. I want to turn briefly to budgets, and this is as much a message to Mr Mackay as it is to Mr Stewart. It is clear that the £137 million in this year's budget needs to be substantially increased if we are to get the vast majority of homes up to category C by 2030. The existing home alliance has pitched that we need to be spending around £450 million by the end of this session of Parliament. It is clear that multi-funding commitments are important to build an effective long-term approach. It will add certainty to the market, helping to lever in private sector funding, and it will lead to better workforce planning, a point that Claudia Beamish has already raised. Hopefully, that will mean new apprenticeships and college courses to train and retrain workers. Last year's programme for government pledged to spend half a billion pounds on tackling fuel, poverty and energy efficiency through seap over four years. Annual budgets must now reflect the status of energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority. The engineering might not be as visually iconic as the Queen's Free Crossing and you can't drive across it, but the infrastructure we spend most of our lives in is four walls and a roof. Our homes have the power to improve our wellbeing and enable us to thrive, but only if we invest in the future today as a strong national infrastructure priority. I am sensing a wee bit of sympathy for Mr Ruskell, because it appears that I will only let him speak for four minutes. Can I give the explanation that I have agreed with Mr Ruskell's group that he can split his allocation between opening and closing? For everyone else, as everyone was already told. I therefore call Liam McArthur for around six minutes. It wasn't sympathy for Mr Ruskell, it was my panic on my own part, I have to say. I am delighted to be taking part in the debate and welcome the publication last week of the Energy Efficient Scotland Rootmap and welcome the fact that we've got an early opportunity to debate the important issues that it raises. As I think has been acknowledged by most, if not all of the main stakeholders, with an interest in this area, the proposals set out in the Rootmap represent an important step forward. Equally, however, there is a risk that this comes to be seen as a missed opportunity for eradicating the scourge of fuel poverty and achieving our climate change objectives, unless more ambition is shown in a number of key respects. Both amendments being debated this afternoon, as well as the two that didn't make the cut, unfortunately, make a contribution in addressing that risk. For that reason, Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the Conservative and Labour amendments at decision time this afternoon. The case for greater urgency in achieving our targets for improving the energy efficiency of all our housing stock is compelling, so, too, is the need to back the welcome inclusion of energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority, with the funding that will make that designation meaningful a point that was picked up by Pauline McNeill and Mark Ruskell. The Collin Labour's amendment for greater ambition on fuel poverty is one that we would strongly agree with. Indeed, that was very much the focus of the amendment that I lodged and the area in which I want to concentrate the remainder of my remarks. As colleagues in the chamber will scarcely need reminding, I have the highly dubious honour of representing the constituency with the highest level of fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty anywhere in the country, being off the gas grid, facing higher energy costs, not least because of an unfair surcharge, with longer, harsher winters and more hard-to-heat properties. The reasons for Orkney's finding itself in the position that it finds itself in are not hard to understand. I would also, though, wish to pay tribute to the coalition of different organisations locally, all of whom demonstrate a great commitment and no little ingenuity in finding ways to tackle the problem of fuel poverty in our islands and providing a bit of a one-stop shop that I think was reflected again in Pauline McNeill's comment. However, it is not easy, particularly when the circumstances that they face are different to those found in other parts of the country and do not conform to the expectations underlying funding programmes or regulatory requirements. That is why I was so pleased when the Government agreed to set up a standalone fuel poverty task force for the rural areas under the chairmanship of the highly respected Dialoghs. There is some of the deep knowledge and real passion for tackling fuel poverty in rural communities, certainly. Alexander Burnett helpedfully referred to some difficulties with the current household rating system, and certainly my house, cosy as it is, cannot get down to sea. Will he recognise that, perhaps in the amendments that are present for the Government motion, it is impossible with the current definition unless we are able to revisit the definition and share a common goal to make everybody in a cosy affordable home, but the present EPC system, just as it worked well enough? Liam McArthur I think that your students can make a valid point. It is one that I have made as well, that in relation to many of the properties found in my own constituency, there will be challenges there. However, unless we are more ambitious in the targets that we set, we run the risk of falling far short of where we need to be. As I say, it is why I was pleased to see the task force set up by the Government. It spent over a year taking evidence and reflecting on the particular characteristics and drivers of rural fuel poverty. In October 2016, the plan came forward with an action plan to deliver affordable warmth in rural Scotland. The plan set out sensible, realistic and practical actions to, quote, make it significantly easier for people living in rural and remote Scotland to keep their homes warm. In making the case for rural proofing any policy on fuel poverty, the task force explained that, quote, rural and remote Scotland has a population of 1 million and is characterised by a multiplicity of small, scattered and often hard-to-reach communities which bring additional policy, service delivery, cost and funding challenges. Sadly, there seems no evidence at all that the route map that was launched by the First Minister last week has been rural or island proofed. If it has, it raises serious questions about whether or not the process is meaningful or little more than a tick box exercise. I appreciate that word count is hardly, in a second, a reliable gauge of anything, but the lack of reference to rural in the route map is a bit of a giveaway, and I give way to the First Minister. Paul Wheelhouse, for taking a brief intervention. I wonder if he could perhaps at least acknowledge that, as I set out in my opening statement, we have interim targets for the private rented sector and social housing, which were well in advance of the deadlines that he is mentioning. Of course, in rural areas, as he will know in his area, as I am sure in the south of Scotland, much of the rented market is taken by private sector rented accommodation, and we are prioritising that early in the period. Liam McArthur I note the point that he makes. What I am teeing up to go on to is the definition of rural fuel poverty rather than the EPC designations. Excuse me, Mr McArthur. Could Mr Wheelhouse and Mr Carson stop having a private conversation, please? Is that a coffee line? Mr McArthur. Most substantively, however, is the Government's failure to accept that using a single minimum income standard for determining fuel poverty in both urban and rural areas is inappropriate? Dai Alexander and his colleagues were explicit in their report and have reiterated the message in response to the Government's revised definition of fuel poverty that any minimum income standard would need to be upgraded by between 10 and 40 per cent to reflect the higher costs of living in rural, remote and island areas. Worringly, the minister has chosen to ignore this recommendation, as well as the subsequent advice from the fuel poverty definition review panel, which called for a, quote, specific remote rural enhancement to the new MIS income threshold. It simply makes no sense for the Government to acknowledge the rural dimension to fuel poverty, set up a task force to develop proposals and then simply reject key recommendations made by those experts. I do not believe that that is an issue that breaks down along party lines either. I am almost certain that there will be MSPs on the Government's benches, perhaps even the minister himself, who represents rural constituencies or regions and will feel similarly confused and uncomfortable with the approach being taken by the minister, Mr Stewart. To make matters worse, the redefinition of fuel poverty and use of a single minimum income standard will allow the Government to claim fuel poverty rates in rural areas at around 20 per cent, rather than the average of 35 per cent at present. So, at a stroke, without any additional funding or any new policy intervention, ministers would be able to claim that they had achieved their fuel poverty target for 2030. That clearly is nonsense. No one surely thinks that it is credible or represents a sensible way of addressing fuel poverty in our rural communities. Yes, there is a need to target resources more effectively at those most in need of help, and I absolutely accept that programmes brought forward by successive Administrations with the best of intentions have often struggled to make a difference for some of those in the greatest need. However, using such a blunt instrument, failing to recognise the specific dimension to fuel poverty in rural and island areas and ignoring the advice of those with real-life experience and expertise is not a recipe for being any more successful in future. The minister and I are due to discuss the issue next week on the back of amendments that I lodged to the islands bill. It is the legislative expression of the Government's commitment to ensuring policy and law making take proper account of island needs and circumstances. I would be happy to cancel that meeting in return for confirmation, either by Paul Wheelhouse or by the minister himself this afternoon, that they are prepared to accept the task forces recommendation. As I said at the outset, the route map represents an important step forward in improving energy efficiency to tackle fuel poverty and climate change. However, when we fall short— No, Mr MacArthur, I think that you should close. We need to see a cross-party commitment to press for change. I am beginning to understand why Mr MacArthur was panicking at the idea of being cut down to four minutes. We now move to the open debate and it is speeches of around six minutes. Please, I have a little bit of time in hand for interventions. I recall Graeme Dey to be followed by John Scott. The route map on energy that was officially published last week by the Scottish Government shows welcome commitment to improve Scotland's housing stock—the investment of £54.5 million. As part of that wider £146 million, the minister said, we will help people to stay warmer, assist those with low incomes and help to ensure that we play our part in tackling climate change. We perhaps will not surprise the chamber that, given I am the convener of the Parliament's climate change committee, I want to focus my speech on that last aspect. In climate change terms, that is meaningful news. In designating energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority, as it did in 2015, the Scottish Government acknowledged the role that it has to play in tackling climate change. Today, we have a debate on something that will have such a major impact on our climate change efforts, which drew two ministers and a cabinet secretary, none of whom are the cabinet secretary for climate change to the front bench, which emphasises the point that was made often in the chamber and in the work of the climate change committee that all ministers and cab sex in this Government must be climate change ministers and cabinet secretaries. If Scotland is to respond fully to the challenges posed by climate change, then all of its MSPs, all of the committees of its Parliament and all of the portfolios of its Government need to be dialed in. The route map on energy efficiency back to what it is by the cash mentioned earlier is evidence of that happening, as indeed is this debate. As we identified in the climate plan, this energy efficiency programme will not just save consumers money but also support thousands of jobs, creating a substantial domestic market and supply chain for energy-efficient and renewable heat services and technologies and related expertise that can transfer to international markets. The low-carbon and renewable energy sectors already support, I think, 49,000 jobs in Scotland. More over every 100 million spent on energy efficiency improvements in 2018 is estimated to support approximately 1,200 full-time equivalent jobs across the economy. Making sure that we act to tackle climate change is therefore good news not just for the planet but for our economy and jobs. Tackling energy efficiency is a key area that is requiring attention, as evidenced by the fact that Scotland spends £2.5 billion every year either heating or cooling buildings, which represents more than 50 per cent of our annual energy use. Including those that were helped in 2017-2018, almost 1,200 households benefited from the home energy efficiency programme. For Scotland, another £116 million has been allocated in this year's budget, with the aim that by 2020, 60 per cent of walls will be insulated, and I want to return to heaps in a moment. As was noted in the Committee on Climate Change's 2017 progress report, domestic buildings accounted for 13 per cent of all emissions in 2015, and 5 per cent came from non-residential buildings. Significant progress has been made in reducing emissions in Scotland. The billion homes and non-domestic properties have been improved since 2008. I think that everyone here recognises that we must go further. That is what further looks like, with the route map setting out the course to reducing emissions from all buildings to as near zero as feasible by 2050. I hear the calls for quickening the pace. I sympathise with some of those calls, but what I am not hearing is how that will be incentivised in funding. That is important. Sitting alongside that course is the need to move to renewables in 2017. It is estimated that the equivalent of 68 per cent of gross electricity consumption came from renewable sources, up to 14 per cent, from 2016. Whether we are looking at wind, waves, solar, tidal or other renewable technologies, they have a role to play. Ultimately, improving energy efficiency will be pivotal to ensuring that we green the energy-related element of the economy. As MSPs, it is important—if you do not mind, I want to crack on if I may. As MSPs, it is important that we do not just talk in here, but we walk the walk. Last summer, having previously replaced old radiators and had a new central heating boiler installed in my family home, I reinstallated my loft. Something of a physical undertaking, I have to say, but the difference that is made to the warmth of a 26-year-old house has been pronounced. So I can stand here today saying that implementing energy saving measures is not just the right thing to do morally, it is also good for the pocket and our comfort. I might also add that I have switched to a green electricity supplier, sourced entirely from renewables, but I reckon that doing that might be pushing my lock to accusations of self-satisfaction and perishing that thought. Can I move on to make the point? It is vital that we get maximum bang for our buck when investing public money in energy efficiency measures. I have seen an example in my constituency where such an opportunity perhaps is not fully exploited. A couple of years ago, Angus Council secured over £1 million funding under the HEAP's ABS scheme to externally clad privately-owned houses, which lacked wall cavities. They identified clusters of such properties in our broth, forfer and menthrows. Rather than focusing on a single location, or maybe two, and squeezing the maximum return from that sum, they decided to do a number of houses in each location. The net result in our broth in my constituency was that just 30 homes were addressed with a number of properties left out of the project. It was a similar story elsewhere. I was told that a further transfer of money would be applied for under the scheme the following year, if successful, the council would pick up willy left off in all three towns. However, that would have involved moving back into those areas, with all the costs of re-establishing the footprint needed to carry out the work eating into the budget. A smarter thinking would, I would argue, have made money go a little further. On that issue of smarter thinking, can we encourage, please, a more holistic thinking when it comes to implementing measures that are aimed at reducing emissions in carbon footprint? We will all of us have come across examples where home insulation insulation, for example, is being carried out by firms that have travelled considerable distances to carry out one-off pieces of work. I am aware of one example, Presiding Officer, where properties just outside Aberdeen, just north of Aberdeen, had loft insulation installed by firms that had travelled from Elgin and even further afield in Burness. Can those who are charged with delivery of these schemes please give some thought to shortening the supply chains and, through that, reducing transport emissions? Finally, Presiding Officer, Angus South is, of course, a partly rural constituency. I recognise some of the points that William MacArthur made. We must make sure that our energy efficiency schemes are open to and publicised to those in rural areas. We face a big challenge in terms of tackling climate change, but we must take that on. That plan from the Scottish Government has an important role to play in ensuring that our buildings are front and centre in that, as they require to be. John Scott, followed by Christina McKelvie. Presiding Officer, can I begin by declaring an interest as a home owner and an owner of property, which I lease? I also welcome the debate following the Government's publication of that energy efficient Scotland route map last week. I note, too, that, while all parties share similar objectives of achieving an energy efficient Scotland, each party has a different route map on how to get there. Let us look briefly at the scale of the task ahead and start with housing, where 1,490,000 homes in Scotland have a lower than C EPC rating. Of those, 420,000 homes have a band E F4G rating, with only around 50,000 homes currently being upgraded to a D rating or above each year. In addition, almost 1 million homes with D, E, P, C ratings, or lower are owner-occupied. That is where a major challenge lies in terms of improving our housing stock, as the minister Paul Wheelhouse has already noted. Regrettably, at the moment, most owner-occupiers are not installing energy efficient measures and are making do with what they have. While that problem is bad enough in our towns and cities, it is worse in our rural areas, where preferality contributes significantly to the problem that Graham Dace just mentioned. While getting skilled treatment is difficult enough in our towns and cities, it is much more difficult and expensive in rural Scotland if they exist at all. Those energy inefficient homes in both towns and countries lead to respiratory and other medical problems, mental health problems and cause and contribute to the daily growing demand on our NHS. Indeed, regrettably, world health organisation research sadly suggests that, in the winter of 2016-17, 30 per cent of winter deaths in Scotland could have been avoided if people had been living in warm and adequately insulated homes. I can only speculate that winter deaths this winter just passed will have been still greater than the year before, due to the severity of the winter, still not over in much of rural Scotland. Self-evidently, that will have been worse among the elderly and those living at home. Christina McKelvie John Scott for taking that intervention. I hear what he says about winter deaths. Could John Scott tell us how much of the proportion of those winter deaths were down to the fact of people on universal credit who could not heat their homes? I thank you for the intervention, but I think that that is a debate for another day. That is why we are disappointed by the lack of ambition in the Government target to raise all homes to a sea rating by 2040 as it is costing lives and contributing to overflowing hospital wards and bed blocking. Spend to save used to be one of the Scottish Government's policies. I will remember John Swinney and those benches extolling that as a policy. Given the cost of extended stays in hospital for elderly patients relative to the cost of upgrading an energy inefficient home, making homes more energy efficient truly wins hands down every time. Instead of the Government's target, of course. Paul Wheelhouse Always is a gentleman. I appreciate the point that he is making, but we are obviously committing over £500 million over the four-year period up to 2021 in energy efficiency in Scotland. There is no such scheme in place at a UKE level for England. I wonder if he would reflect on that in calling for more ambition. His colleague Mr Burnett did not answer that point. John Scott Thank you for the intervention and I will reflect on what you say. Instead of the Government's target of 2040 to upgrade all homes to a sea rating or above Scottish Conservatives, I want to see that work completed universally by 2030, 10 years earlier, spending now to save lives and reducing health cost services at the same time. That is where you get the funding from, minister. Turning now to how delivery of warm homes could be better achieved, we need to look at more than just funding. We also need to change attitudes to fuel poverty in the minds of not just landlords but also in the minds of owner-occupier home owners, where not creating energy efficient homes is a truly self-inflicted wound. I probably fall into that category. Government schemes such as the council tax rebate scheme need to be changed to create a better uptake and perhaps front-end loaded. As suggested by Citizens Advice Scotland, whose research suggests that a £500 one-off council tax rebate in the year following the installation of energy efficient measures would be more popular than a rebate of £100 per year for 10 years. It is certainly worth a try, minister, and perhaps both schemes could be run in parallel to find out which might be the more popular. Returning to the route map for an energy efficient Scotland, Scottish Conservatives want to see the Government go further than they appear to be prepared to do at this time. We want to see better incentives to encourage people to help themselves, which will require better regulation and more support, and which may include subsidised loans to install energy efficient measures. That will also require the Government to better promote such schemes as the uptake of existing schemes for home owners has been poor. We will need to raise awareness of the availability of future support for improving EPC ratings, and the Government must show leadership and determination in seeking to deliver those targets. In old-fashioned parlance, there is a selling job to be done to local authorities and housing associations to make them aware of the incentives that are on offer to improve their housing stock, and Pauline McNeill suggested that as well. We need to make individual home owners better aware of what they might do to help themselves rather than leave all the communication to the many nuisance telephone calls and messages left on callminder from ambitious companies trying to sell either new double glazing windows or boilers. Hard to reach. Elderly rural home owners must be approached perhaps on a face-to-face basis, as I think Pauline McNeill suggested, and made aware of government ambitions differently from cold calling, which in my view drives some potential customers away. We must do more to eradicate fuel poverty, again all too evident in local authority housing stock. If we can achieve warmer, better, more energy-efficient homes, the prize is huge. Better physical and mental health will happen as surely as night follows day. Our constituents will have a significantly better quality of life, and that is why we in the Conservative Party so want to move the upgrade forward as quickly as possible. Go to it, minister, and you will have our support. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I share and celebrate the moves that Scotland has already taken and is committed to advancing through the route map that was launched last week. It is more important than ever that we position ourselves as trailblazers, not only in alternative energy sources but in making sure that it is commercially viable and that people can afford it. The grand plan is a visionary projection as such. It sets out the kind of infrastructure and efficiency improvements that the Scottish Government has committed to delivering. We have heard a lot of that this afternoon. I particularly welcome the commitment to ending fuel poverty. We need better insulated homes and the schemes that are available do that and make some progress. However, it does not matter how well insulated your home is and how many projects you have taken part in, if you have not got the money to switch the heating on, then you are in a terrible situation. It is a very important buck, Presiding Officer. I have been working in my constituency, Hamilton Larkon Stonehouse, with families who are in fuel poverty, such that children either eat or go cold or eat cold food. People who request a cold bag at the food bank because they have no means of cooking the food in a fuel-rich nation, are not acceptable. I am talking about our most vulnerable groups of people here, the sick, the elderly, those with special needs, children and babies and those so informed that they can barely be able to move for themselves. I have met them all, they are all real people. More recently, those who are on universal credit rolled out in 2016 for single men, rolled out in 2017 now for families in my constituency. Some, I know, spent most of this winter wrapped up in many layers of clothes and blankets as we could get because they could not get out of their homes for the cold. The pensions and allowances that they now receive are not adequate to keep themselves warm and fed. Think about that for a second. Work and families often find themselves in the same predicament and more so now since October 2017, since universal credit has been rolled out. Children are expensive to feed. I know that I cannot keep my boys fed. They are expensive to cloth and keep warm. Parents should not need to choose which essential they get that week. The increasingly obvious devastation brought on by Tory cuts and the introduction of universal credit leaves an ever larger number of people unable to pay for ordinary household expenditure, including the energy to warm their homes. Fuel poverty is not about to become a curse of the past, but we have to plan to eradicate it for our future and this route map goes some way to do that. The visionary aim of the route map to 2040 is to eliminate fuel poverty by that time. I would like that quicker, and everybody would like that quicker, but we have to plan for that. However, we do not let that target blind us to the pressing need for communities like mine, and that is why I am glad to see that vulnerable people and people who are in fuel poverty are the first targets in this route map. The here and now is the reality for my constituencies. This is families enduring ever-reducing and ever-limited resources and they try to survive on those. Those are my constituents in Hamilton, Lark, Collin, Stonehouse, and I want to share with you a real-life intervention and the difference that it actually makes. Myself and an SNP councillor for Lanark, Joel Yamar, set about establishing a scheme to persuade energy retailers that they could offer innovative ways to help combat fuel poverty. Scottish Power signed up first and with a real commitment that the company should be recognised for and are delivering today, and I am very grateful to them for that. Now we have eight different agencies providing variations on what is called the quick credit voucher scheme. We introduced it initially right across the United Kingdom, not just in Scotland. The scheme started in Hamilton, Carlucan, Birkenhead, food banks late last year, just about the same time as Universal Credit rolled out for families. It offers a £49 winter voucher, credit voucher and a payment for those in danger of being disconnected or those who have no means to warm their homes or cook their food. As Scottish Power says, the idea of the scheme is that it is not customer-led, it is led by the partner agency spotting the requirement and assessing when and how to promote the scheme to. The company has partnered with food banks, citizens advice purals and community energy projects. Households do not have to pay anything back, and they are entitled to three payments in a 12-month period. I am very happy, but I am also very sad to report that, so far, the Scottish Power scheme has given 172 quick credit vouchers through Hamilton's food bank and 52 in Clydesdale. Sad that so many needed it in the first place. More retailers are talking to me now, and I continue to encourage private sector buy-in as a way of highlighting their corporate responsibilities and their commitments. I am firmly convinced that that kind of innovative and straightforward community-led support scheme is the right approach for our most vulnerable groups. I continue to encourage energy suppliers to share that responsibility, to help those in full poverty, and a similar type of programme across some of the other energy companies that are already being developed. To someone who is trying to keep anilotily relative or a baby warm, £49 is far more important to that person and any family as those are the people who are in immediate crisis. The one who is not answering the calls, the one who is not opening the dreaded letters from the energy suppliers, the people who need it now. The Scottish Government's commitment to £1 billion over 22 years to eradicate fuel poverty is a welcome advance. I have to make the play for people who are in crisis. The improved infrastructure is welcome, but we need that crisis intervention. It is that practical money in my hand relief that makes sense when you are struggling. I have been confronted with families who have been handed that £49, and you would be not surprised to hear the impact that that has on people, the emotional impact, but the fact that it can go home and be warm for at least another month. The difference is amazing. Here is a meaningful mitigation that draws together the big energy providers who do not have a good reputation in most cases for some people, but they have a good reputation in this. They work with local communities, such as in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, and, ultimately, everywhere else in this country, because I am hoping that this will become a nationwide scheme. We are working towards that longer term. I hope that Scotland's Social Security Agency proposals will have examined how best to manage existing fuel poverty until the wonderful day when we no longer exist. I want claimants to be assessed as part of the processes that their energy needs and the risk of them having fallen into or deeper into fuel poverty is addressed through that assessment process at the early stage. I truly welcome this route map. It is a journey that we are on. We are all on. We all want more. I understand that. I look forward to a day when a warm home is something that everyone has irrespective of their personal financial circumstances. I welcome the publication of the route map as we do across this chamber. Nobody in the chamber denies the process of optimising our housing and building stock for a low-carbon future will be difficult. The Scottish Government's route map moves this in the right direction, but it is insufficient in my view on counts of both detail and funding in the longer term. In terms of climate change, in the latest greenhouse gas emissions statement, the Scottish Government frankly brushed aside criticisms of its failure to rising emissions in the residential sector with cries of cold winter, specifically in the residential sector. It is somewhat of a circular argument, because cold winters cannot be used as an easy excuse. It surely demonstrates how tough cold winters would have been for those vulnerable to fuel poverty and the absolute need for stronger and more immediate action. The minister and the convener of my committee Graham Day both highlighted the climate change plan and how that underpins the route map. Strong ambitions in energy efficiency measures could deliver multiple benefits, reducing household bills, alleviating fuel poverty, improving health, creating economic and employment benefits, and reducing the sector's carbon emissions. 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 in 2015 is vital that energy efficiency improvements go hand in hand with low-carbon energy technologies. Scottish renewables have highlighted their concern in their briefing that the proposed measures on district heating networks are not strong enough, with only a small beneficial impact at best, and that it fails to engage off-grid areas, a real concern in my region of South Scotland. It is also very disappointing to see that the Scottish Government allowed the proportion of heat generated by renewable sources to fall in 2016, and that needs to be a priority now. I share the member's concern to try to address the new heat targets. I am not taking away from that, but would Claudia Beamish accept that we cannot control the success or failure of private sector schemes, including the one at Markins, which, unfortunately, through the closure of the paper mill at Markins, went out of commission at that point? Claudia Beamish I take that point, and I will come on to the private rented sector later in my remarks. If we were to tackle fuel poverty in a just and fair way, there must be due regard to the specific circumstances of such a wide range of people in Scotland today. I have long been concerned about those living arrangements where energy efficiency measures are more complex, such as in private rented accommodation or in multi-occupancy buildings. In 2014, I proposed an amendment to the housing act to introduce a provision on energy efficiency standards and private rented sector properties, including those in multi-ownership buildings. That did not receive the support of the Scottish Government at that time and fell, but the buy-in from owner occupies is crucial. In those cases, which are more complex, I would very much welcome comment from the nine minister in his closing remarks as to the Scottish Government's plans for those people in those circumstances where co-operation and shared funding, feeding into a collective pot or such, may well be required and legislation might be required for that. There has already been significant action, as we know from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which has been leading on those issues. As their briefing reminds us, members have already made significant progress in increasing energy efficiency in our homes and in developing innovative approaches to providing affordable warmth, such as renewable heating and district heating. They have also set up their own not-for-profit energy company. I recognise the fund that the minister has highlighted on that today, but I point out that the Federation of Housing Associations is calling for more support. To many more, with low incomes, where we must prevent fuel poverty and other forms of fuel poverty, further action is needed. I want to highlight our amendment in that respect. Representing, as I do, rural South Scotland, like the minister, there is a significant number of my constituents living in fuel poverty. In 2016, as we have already heard, I stress again that 37 per cent of rural dwellings are in fuel poverty compared with 24 of urban dwellings. I am utterly mystified as to why the Scottish Government's national document on energy efficiency can have zero mention of the words rural, remote or island. Liam McArthur has highlighted that issue very robustly. It is more expensive as well as living on islands where it is difficult in terms of taking the materials and the fuel by boat. I think that there should be a minimum income that should be different for rural and island communities. I hope that the minister will consider that. The cost of alternative fuel becomes more manageable if people can buy at times when it is cheaper. It seems unlikely that the winter fuel payment is going to be brought forward to be able to be accessed earlier, even for this coming winter. I ask the minister to look at this again, because both Borders and Dumfries and Galloway are having serious issues in my constituency. I also thank Age Scotland for highlighting the start statistic of six in 10 single pensioners living in fuel poverty. That is important as well. In terms of financial support, I ask the minister to consider how the Scottish National Investment Bank criteria could help the Scottish Government's plan to decarbonise heating in homes and businesses and bring jobs to local communities through their criteria. In that context, I want to highlight area-wide projects. Today, I have highlighted some of the specific circumstances in which people find themselves vulnerable to fuel poverty, but that is something that everyone in Scotland will have to consider. I support Pauline McNeill's call, which other members across the chamber have argued for, for a one-stop shop. I find it confusing as a rural dweller when I am trying to investigate what I should do to better insulate my home and do all the things that we need to do. That is my brief, so I think that it is really important that it is done appropriately. The UN affords us the right to adequate housing. Here in Scotland, this must mean a warm home today and for future generations. A national infrastructure priority deserves more. Just before I call Gail Ross, I can say that we have eaten up most of the extra time, and I think that all groups have had a fair shot at that. If we could stick to the six minutes for now on please, that would be useful. Gail Ross, to be followed by Finlay Carson. The Energy Efficient Scotland route map sets out a programme to improve energy efficiency and in so doing, while helping to achieve our priorities of tackling climate change and reducing fuel poverty. It will also improve the day-to-day lives of people across the country, making their bills cheaper and their homes and places of work more comfortable. Businesses and public sector providers will also benefit. The energy savings that they make from increased efficiency could be reinvested in their services or their workforce. It is a testament to the Scottish Government's commitment to making these improvements. The energy efficiency has been designated as a national infrastructure priority since 2015. However, the area has seen investment in action from this Government since long before then. Between 2009 and 2021, the Government will have allocated over £1 billion on improving energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty. Although the investment to date has been significant, I think that we all agree that there still is much to be done. That is why the Energy Efficient Scotland takes a long-term approach to energy efficiency. The route map's vision is that, by 2040, Scotland's homes and buildings will be warmer, greener and more efficient. That will be achieved by setting long-term mandatory energy performance standards for all buildings and using a phased approach that recognises the different building sectors will be starting from different points and improving at different paces. I was particularly pleased to see that the route map makes clear that those making the transition to greater energy efficiency will be offered good quality independent advice. In my constituency, as I am sure with others, there is a real issue with cold calling relating to energy efficiency. Companies will falsely claim that constituents are required to make changes to their homes under the pretense of a Government scheme. That can often have grave consequences as individuals make unnecessary changes to their homes at great expense. I am hoping that the minister will confirm in his closing speech that the advice provided will help to raise awareness of such fraudulent practices. I was pleased to see that the ambitious target of the route map proposed to maximise the number of homes in the social rented sector to achieve the EPCB rating by 2032. In the highlands, a large amount of social rented housing stock is prefabricated or constructed by a method that makes houses hard to heat. I would also be interested in hearing from the minister in his closing what challenges he believes that there may be in improving this type of housing stock to the desired standard. Improved energy efficiency can help some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society by removing poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty, and Christina McKelvie outlined that perfectly in her speech. The fuel poverty bill, which will be introduced later this year, will set statutory targets to eradicate fuel poverty, and the Government's most recent consultation on the issue sets out a framework to show how those targets will be achieved. It will also help us to achieve our climate change targets across households, buildings and public services. Around £2.5 billion a year is spent on heating and cooling the buildings that we use. Scottish Government statistics show that buildings account for nearly 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Improving efficiency is therefore crucial to tackling climate change. The Government's climate change plans, which several members have already spoken about, set out policies and proposals that will keep Scotland on course to reach our 2050 target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent. Implementation will not only tackle just those two issues. It will have wider economic, social and health benefits. It will improve people's day-to-day standard of living. It will make bills more affordable, as I have said, and it will make our homes in places that we work in more comfortable. Improved energy efficiency will not just assist existing businesses, but it could also help to create them. The roll-out of the energy efficient Scotland programme could create a substantial Scottish market and supply chain for energy efficient services and technologies. As the route map shows, every £100 million spent on energy efficiency improvements in 2018 is estimated to support approximately 1,200 full-time equivalent jobs. To conclude, I want to raise an example of what energy efficiency can do for my constituency, and that particular example was included in the energy efficient Scotland route map document. In 2012, Ignis Wick Ltd purchased the assets of the failed Wick district heating scheme and took over its operation. It invested £2.5 million in a biomass steam boiler to replace the existing oil fuel boiler. It reduced fuel costs and secured heat to supply 165 homes, including old Pultnery whisky distillery. Ignis continued to invest in the network with assistance from the Scottish Government's district heating loan fund, and subsequently, the Green Investment Bank and Equatics acquired the site. The network now supplies 200 homes, the Highland Council's assembly rooms, the distillery and Caithness General Hospital, and that shows exactly what, on a larger scale, energy efficient Scotland can achieve. Tackling climate change and fuel poverty, improving energy efficiency in homes, public buildings and businesses, promoting growth and investment, and reducing bills for residents. I want to say to Graham Day that, if he wants to talk about travel distances, I will see his elegant Aberdeen and I will raise him a Glasgow to Wick. I call Finlay Carson, followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Improved energy efficiency could go a long way to alleviating fuel poverty, particularly in rural areas. Last year, my colleague Graham Simpson, along with other MSPs, wrote to Kevin Stewart regarding energy efficiency and fuel poverty. He said that priorities should be given to fuel poor households, particularly in remote and rural communities. That is something that I, too, would have liked to have seen in the Government's route map for energy efficiency. However, the route map that was published last week says nothing about rural homes. The SNP Government has failed to seriously address the issues energy efficient homes present for rural residents, not at the moment. The SNP Government says that it is committed to removing poor energy efficiency as a driver for fuel poverty. However, the lack of ambition to eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland by only committing to reducing it to less than 10 per cent in 2040 just is not good enough. The link between better insulated, warmer, more efficient homes and fuel poverty cannot be clearer. A target of achieving EPCC for all homes by 2040 is laudable enough, but I am sure that the residents of 420,000 premises currently related to lower EPCC bands of E, F and G who have not had to spend 22 more winters in freezing homes right across Scotland will not agree with the Government. They will agree with me when I say that these targets are certainly not ambitious enough. The route map also fails to outline the practical means by which households are expected to achieve energy efficiency by 2040. No, thank you. The SNP Government is not committed to new funding for energy efficiency. With new home owners not being encouraged to take measures to make their homes more energy efficient, coupled with the lack of adequate regulation, there is a great risk of this crucial sector flatlining. That presents significant problems for social landlords who have been asked to increase energy efficiency while not also increasing rents. Home owners are also being asked to improve their homes without incentives and offer. Existing home-aligned Scotland have outlined that those must be in place long before the target deadline approaches if we are to achieve the Government's target, reduce carbon emissions, tackle fuel poverty and achieve the transition to an energy-efficient Scotland. In addition, as a member for Galloway and West Dumfries constituency, I know how many constituents like mine could benefit from renewable heat technologies. That is why I was dismayed to say that the Government's route map did not make the most of opportunities for the renewable heat industry, especially given that it is not on track to meet its 2020 renewable heat target. Although the route map confirms emission reduction targets, it contains very little detail on how those targets will be achieved. It is welcome that the Government is preparing to support some district heating although it fails to engage off-gas areas, which is a major missed opportunity for rural communities given the cost-effectiveness of renewable heat technologies. It is essential that technologies such as smart electric heating, heat pumps, biomass and solar are taken advantage of to ensure that the heat that we generate is used in the most efficient way, as well as being low-carbon. I am calling on the Government to commit to providing future support for those technologies, given that the current funding will run out in the next three years. Moving forward, I encourage the SNP Government to think about how new technologies can be included in promoting energy efficiency in an up-to-date modern manner. Finally, it is clear that if we are going to become energy efficient, we must make it clearer to households and businesses what they need to do. The installation of energy efficiency measures must be made as straightforward as possible for consumers who should be able to immediately enjoy the many benefits of energy efficiency. Organi Jason has already touched on by my colleague Alexander Burnett, including the Citizen Advice Scotland, have indicated that the biggest challenge to a transformation in energy efficient Scotland will be the improved standards of energy efficiency and owner-occupied properties. By and from owner-occupiers, it is critical in achieving energy efficiency targets, but at present home owners are not installing energy efficiency measures fast enough. It is clear that this Government must work harder to highlight the many benefits of installing these efficiency measures to encourage owner-occupiers to improve their homes. In order to achieve that efficiency, it is also essential that consumers have confidence and trust in any Government schemes. I know of constituents of mine who have struggled with these energy schemes. One woman in Del Rai struggled to secure new heating and installation before winter set in, and the timescales on her heap loan ran out, owing to supplier delay. The recommended suppliers said that her property was too far away and there was insufficient manpower to carry out the work. The recommended supplier then went to the wall, and many of the other companies who could have carried out the work were based in central Scotland. In another case, a contractor who installed a heating system went bust, leaving my constituent with an unusable heating system and no recourse. Those cases highlight the work that we have to do in order to truly achieve an energy efficient Scotland, with the benefits still to be felt by far too many people who simply do not have the required information. I call Ben Macpherson to be followed by Alec Rowley. I am pleased to speak in this important debate as a member of the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency and the cross-party group on housing, but most of all as a constituency MSP and to warmly welcome the Scottish Government's energy efficiency Scotland route map. When I was standing for election after a public meeting, I remember vividly that a young lad came up to me and said, Ben, it's great that all the new houses are being built, but don't forget about the older homes, such as mine, that are sometimes still too cold and damp. Of that conversation often, and I think of it today, and I think of him and too many like him in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland, who live in buildings that are currently too inefficient and absolutely need improvement. It's historical decisions by a range of different political parties that have taken us to where we are today, and it will take all of us to work together with others, stakeholders and local authorities to make the difference that is needed. I welcome that energy efficiency has been a priority for the Scottish Government before this route map, with the HEAP scheme, the warmer homes Scotland programme, which I have seen delivered in my constituency through warmworks. This new energy efficiency Scotland route map will build on that, with £54.5 million. The route map will play an important role in furthering the Scottish Government's efforts and all of our efforts together to tackle fuel poverty, as well as reducing carbon emissions and protecting the planet for future generations. Let's remember that 53 per cent of Scotland's energy consumption currently goes towards heating and that buildings account for 19.7 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. I started by talking about my constituency, and I'm sure many of you will appreciate that Edinburgh Northern and Leith is an urban constituency. Indeed, it has some of the densest urban areas of the whole of Scotland, and a significant challenge that's already been touched on by other speakers when it comes to our current stock and ensuring that by 2040 current buildings are warmer, greener and more efficient is how we enhance that current stock to the same standards of new buildings and those in the social rented sector, for example. Others have touched upon the challenges with owner occupiers and the PRS. One of the most important and widespread areas of housing stock that is within those two sectors is that of tenements. I led a debate here in Parliament in January about tenement repairs and maintenance. I thank fellow members from across the chamber for their support with that motion and in that debate. I'll just be clear, because sometimes tenement—the word tenement makes people think of certain parts of different cities. Let's remember that under the Tenement Scotland Act 2004, a tenement is defined as a building or part of a building that compromises two related flats that are designated to be in separate ownership and are divided from each other horizontally. This is half a million homes in Scotland, a quarter of Scotland's current domestic housing stock. How we manage, enhance, improve, repair our tenements is absolutely key to rural Scotland, urban Scotland and absolutely to energy efficiency. I declare an interest as somebody who owns a tenement, but it is not just my own personal experience. Much more, it is about the casework that I have received as a constituency MSP that has driven me to try to take action on that. I know that colleagues have had the same correspondence. Since that debate in January, I have received e-mails from all over Scotland about the issue. The problem is that a talk from another speaker earlier about how some owners are unwilling or unable to undertake works. When it comes to shared property within a tenement, whether that be the roof or the common stair, there are real challenges about how individual owners mobilise themselves to undertake works. That is why, together with other MSPs across the chamber, including Graham Simpson, we have collaborated to bring together a working group of experts with MSPs to look for new solutions in how we enable owners and encourage owners not just to repair the current tenement stock and there is absolute need for that, not just to maintain the current tenement stock, but also to enhance it. I raise that issue today because enhancing our tenement stock can make a remarkable difference to how we deliver the aspirations that we have around energy efficiency. I will conclude by saying that the working group is up and running, the working group is looking for solutions and the working group is open to other MSPs who want to be involved. If we want to help to tackle climate change, tackle fuel poverty and enhance our rural and urban environments, then enhancing our tenement stock is really important for that. It is about improving quality of life and I hope that the Government will continue to be open to that working group as we come forward with new solutions. I very much welcome this debate today and the route map that is brought forward by the Scottish Government to transform Scotland's buildings to become warmer, greener and more efficient. The fuel poverty road map is a step in the right direction, in particular it is welcome that the Government is consulting on regulations to require private rented sector homes to be rated energy performance certificate C by 2030. However, it fails to live up to the Government's promise to make energy efficiency a national infrastructure project with no significant financial commitment, a lack of any detail on how home owners can improve their energy efficiency off their homes and no mention of the unique struggles faced by rural communities across Scotland. In other words, it is a map that shows you where you want to go but is short on detail of how we are going to get there. I believe that we must be more ambitious when it comes to ending Scotland's fuel poverty shame. I just want to emphasise that a number of members have referenced the lack of specific reference to rural housing in the document. We are talking about initiatives to help 100 per cent of properties in each property category in terms of private rented and the various categories. I hope that that helps to explain why that is the case. We are trying to deal with 100 per cent of properties and that, obviously, clearly as a rural member, includes my constituents and Mr Rowley's. I do think that given the impact of rural fuel poverty, which I will say more about, then it needed to be in that document far more and that is perhaps something that the minister can address. However, as Age Scotland has said, almost six in 10 single pensioners and four in 10 pensioner couples live in fuel poverty in Scotland, with those in rural areas most affected. Age Concern Scotland continues to be concerned at the continuing prevalence of excess winter deaths with 2,720 recorded in 2016-17. There was a significant increase in excess winter deaths among people aged 85 and over with 1,430 additional deaths compared to 970 and 2015-16, according to national records of Scotland. Indeed, the World Health Organization estimated that around 30 per cent of the excess winter deaths could have been avoided if everyone in Scotland lived in a home that was adequately insulated and heated. Is that not why the Scottish Parliament was created to be able to tackle the big social and economic issues that are impacting on people of Scotland? Scottish Labour is committed to ending poor energy performance as a driver of fuel poverty, and we believe that the Government's proposals fall short in a number of areas. Scottish ministers designated energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority in 2015, but the level of funding available pales into insignificant compared to funding for other infrastructure projects. There is a commitment to continue funding fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes and to continue multi-year funding, but no new or additional monies is planned. The plan provides barely no detail on how the Government will support private landlords and homeowners to reach the targets outlined. If householders are to be active participants in improving the energy efficiency of their homes, financial and fiscal incentives are needed. One such suggestion comes from Age Scotland, where it calls on the Government to explore whether improvements in order to meet energy efficiency standards should be eligible for a reduction on their council tax. I would merely suggest that we need to look at how we are going to support people if we seriously want to eradicate fuel poverty from Scotland. It is deeply worrying that there are no mention of rural homes in the road map that we have discussed, and they face unique challenges in preventing fuel poverty because of their use of odd off-grid fuel. We have asked the Government to give priority to fuel poor households, particularly remote and rural communities. As Scottish Renewables said in its briefing, the road map has little detail on how the programme will accelerate the roll-out of renewable heat, particularly in off-gas grid areas, which we regard as a missed opportunity, given recent policy changes and the eventual closure of the renewable heat incentive in 2021. Labour has called for a warm homes bill to tackle fuel poverty, and we welcome the SNP's commitment to take that forward. However, the Warm Homes Bill has been renamed the Fuel Poverty Scotland Bill, with no guarantee that it will include provisions to improve energy efficiency. The minister might want to answer that point in closing. The recent announcement by UK Labour to invest £2.3 billion per year to provide financial support for households to insulate homes and for local authorities to drive up and deliver insulation schemes show the scale of the ambition that is needed. We recognise the benefits that that would bring not only in terms of fuel poverty but also in terms of jobs and the economy. Last year, Labour signed a letter along with other Opposition parties in this Parliament calling on the Government to, among other actions, establish a goal to end poor energy performance as a driver of fuel poverty, set a target to get the vast majority of homes rated at EPCC by 2025-2030, and prioritise fuel-poor households, particularly in remote and rural communities. The message today must be that this is on the right track, but we must be far more ambitious if we have to end the blight of fuel poverty in Scotland. I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate and welcome the publication of the Energy Efficiency Scotland route map, as it provides a long-term framework to plan and implement strategies. There is no doubt that our buildings need to be comfortable to live and work in, and heating them should be affordable, so that route map will address that. I was particularly pleased to see district heating mentioned in the route map, which reiterates a separate Scottish Government proposal to introduce a package of regulatory measures to support district heating. District heating was first muted for the town of Grangemouth in my constituency way back in the 1950s, however, we are still waiting, but a new major system is on the horizon. The proposal back in the 1950s was to harness the gas being flared off from the stacks at the oil refinery to provide cheap heating for the town. Sadly, it never came to fruition at the time, due mainly to a lack of vision, but it is most definitely on the cards again. Exciting plans have been developed that could hopefully see a district heating network in the town producing low-cost heating for industry and local households, particularly parts of the town with low-income households. The ambitious Grangemouth energy project is a team effort involving Falkirk Council, the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise and major companies in the town, all thanks to a task force set up in 2013 to assess the potential impact of the threat enclosure of Ineos, which took up the challenge of finding out if a more resource-efficient low-carbon, low-cost energy solution to cut costs facing local firms and householders could be found. A comprehensive appraisal of heat and power demand to tackle serious concerns about the cost burden facing businesses in Grangemouth industrial complex identified a wide range of power generation options, including industrial heat recovery, geothermal heat recovery and gas fired combined heat and power. For the district heating element of the project, the benefits included the potential socioeconomic benefits, coupled with the carbon emission reductions through the reuse of waste heat. Unfortunately, just in the past couple of weeks, Ineos has pulled out of plans to develop a district heat network that would have benefited the local community. It still will, but Ineos has made alternative plans to provide energy at their plant, which is understandable but disappointing. I would take this opportunity to urge Ineos to engage with the local community more in the hope that the firm can contribute positively to the local community over and above being an employer, albeit a major one. We would also be a good neighbour to the 18,000 people who reside in Grangemouth, cheek by joil, with heavy industry day in day out. Therefore, taking part in the district heating scheme would have helped them to ingratiate themselves with the local community. Despite Ineos' departure from the scheme, Falkirk Council is hopeful that other major players will come on board, because that is too good an opportunity to waste. Of course, when it comes to district heating, we can learn much from our Nordic cousins across the North Sea in Denmark. Way back in 1979, Denmark passed its first heating supply law, and although there have been several revisions, it is still in effect today and has resulted in many years of active energy policy, systematic heating planning and regulation. Looking ahead, district heating systems remain a key element of the energy system in Denmark. By 2020, about half of the Danish electricity consumption will be supplied from wind power, which has increased the focus on flexible district heating and CHP systems using, for example, heat storage, electric boilers, heat pumps and a bypass of power turbines to support integration of wind power into the energy system. There is clearly much still to learn from Denmark. Turning briefly to climate change, clearly improving and tackling the issues is vital for achieving our ambitious climate change targets. We know that Scotland has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by around 40 per cent from 1990 to 2014 and met its statutory emissions reduction targets for both 2014 and 2015, with the data on Scottish emissions in 2016 due to become available next month, which will hopefully be just as good. That is all well and good, but there is clearly much more to do, especially when you take into account the fact that buildings account for 19.7 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. With the action proposed to ensure that, by 2040, all homes are improved so that they achieve an energy performance certificate rating of at least C, there will have to be a significant programme of retrofitting. Clearly, with regard to retrofitting, I think that in closing, it is only right to highlight the issue flagged up by Age Scotland that there will need to be substantial dedicated funding for incentives to match any new standards, particularly for older people who own their own homes and are asset rich but remain cash poor. Age Scotland rightly highlights that interest-free loans may not provide a sufficient incentive to undertake the necessary work. Age Scotland has come up with a suggestion worthy of consideration that the Government should explore whether owner-occupiers carrying out improvements in order to meet energy efficiency standards should be eligible for a reduction or a rebate in their council tax. I will leave that one sitting with the minister. Thank you very much. I call Graham Simpson to be followed by Stuart Stevenson, and Mr Stevenson will be the last speaker in the open debate. There can be a few more important subjects than the standard and condition of Scotland's homes. Last year, Alex Rowley, Mark Ruskell and Liam McArthur wrote to Kevin Stewart on energy efficiency and fuel poverty. I grant you that it was a rather odd alliance, but we were, and I think that still are, at one in our belief that more needs to be done. We pointed out that the target for the elimination of fuel poverty by November 2016 was missed and that 35 per cent of Scottish households are in fuel poverty. We called for the elimination of poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty. We called for credible fuel poverty and climate change goals. We noted the recommendation of the expert fuel poverty strategic working group that all fuel poor homes should be brought up to at least an EPC band C rating by 2025. We called for all fuel poverty programmes to be rural proofed, as recommended by the rural fuel poverty task force. We said that the Scottish energy efficiency programme should have an interim target for the residential sector of supporting the vast majority of homes for those for which it's technically feasible and appropriate to reach an EPC band C rating by a date in the range of 2025 to 2030. We said priority should be given to fuel poor households, particularly remote and rural communities. We also supported efforts to work with the UK Government to improve the assessment methodology that underpins the EPC to improve its accuracy and called for improved quality assurance of EPC assessments, as they have been to hit and miss. How does the energy efficiency Scotland programme published last week fair when set against this cross-party ambition? Let's take each of those asks in order and see how the so-called route map stands up. First, the elimination of poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty, and second, all fuel poor homes should be brought up to at least EPC C by 2025. The programme commits to the first, but is there enough in it to give us any confidence that it will deliver? No, there isn't. What we have is a consultation. This Government is very keen on them and a proposal to get poor fuel households to EPC B by 2040. It is safe to say that not a single Government minister will still be imposed in 22 years' time, and most of us will not be MSPs. Talk about kicking the can down the road. The commitment to have fuel poor homes at EPC C by 2030 is not as ambitious as the target that we called for, why not? Added to that, we have dark warnings from stakeholders that the much heralded warm homes bill may be dropped in favour of a watered-down fuel poverty bill that won't deal with energy efficiency. I hope that my information is wrong on that. I am grateful to the member for taking an intervention on that point. Just to clarify, we have a fuel poverty focused bill coming forward, but we intend to bring forward further legislation on tackling energy efficiency and warm homes. We assure the member on that, but we are on the first phase of the two-bill process. Yes, there was a manifesto commitment for a warm homes bill, and I am not clear from that answer whether that is still going to happen. I thank the member again for taking an intervention. We are obviously going through a process of working out the best method of tackling district heating, local heating and energy efficiency strategies with COSLA and other stakeholders. We intend to bring forward further legislation that will address the points that he is raising in making our homes warm, efficient, energy efficient and tackling fuel poverty, but we are focusing on the fuel poverty target at the stage. Mr Simpson, I give you the tone back. Thank you very much. It says not quite the same thing. However, third, rural proofing. The route map says nothing about rural homes. A number of members have mentioned this. This is a clear failure. Current proposals for supporting people in fuel poverty ignore the recommendations of the Scottish rural fuel poverty working group to take into account the higher costs of living in rural areas when targeting fuel poverty support. The Scottish energy efficiency programme should have an interim target for the residential sector of supporting the vast majority of homes to reach an EPC band C rating by 2025 to 2030. The majority of homes in Scotland, we have heard this already, are 61 per cent of owners occupied. The question is, how are you going to get those homeowners to grade their properties, a million of which are below EPCC? Here, the programme is particularly lacking. There is another consultation, why not, might as well. The Government uses the phrase, we want to continue to encourage and enable owners to take action. Any suggestion of anything stronger will be left to the, quote, later stages of the programme, whatever that means. The plan does not say in any detail, if I am going to get the time back again. Yes, if you wish. In my opening remarks, I made clear that we would look at 2030 as being a point if we had not achieved our target to bring owner-occupied properties up to EPCC standard C or better by 2030 through voluntary action, we would look to have further methods to actually compel that to happen thereafter. However, I have not yet heard from the Conservatives how they would achieve their earlier target without compulsion or any incentive that is credible. Mr Simpson. And what the minister didn't say earlier and perhaps he can say later is what that further action might be. The Scottish Government is kicking the can down the road again, and it's a road that takes until 2040 to travel. I tend to agree with citizens of Vice Scotland that you need to make things easy for people, so a one-stop-shop approach should be considered. You can't force people to do things to their own homes, but you can enthuse them to want to and offer them things like meaningful council tax discounts or low-cost loans and grants. Finally, the EPCs should be more robust. I'm glad that the Scottish Government has finally agreed to look at EPC methodology. It cannot be right that someone can assess your home without even seeing it and give it a rating, and it cannot be right that two people can give the same house different ratings. That is the current position. I want to mention one more thing, and that's the condition of our existing homes. The route map doesn't deal with that. Many of Scotland's homes are ageing and crumbling. Ben Macpherson mentioned that earlier, and the Government hasn't got clue what to do about it. It's been left to those of us across-party who can see the problem to form a working group, along with experts, and we will be coming up with proposals. I thank you for the extra time. Energy Efficient Scotland is a missed opportunity. We need to do better. You did take interventions, and we did have some time in hands that it's only fair. I call Stuart Stevenson, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to Ben Macpherson. I now know that I have tenements in my constituency. I had previously twigged that a block of four houses on two floors sharing a common stair would qualify as a tenement, so I will go away and have a wee look at the implications of that in future. Indeed, it has been an interesting debate in all sorts of interesting ways. I want to just pick at a few wee things. One of the ones that we have spent comparatively little time debating is district heating. We recognise that the targets previously set look unlikely to be met. In particular in the north-east, we have perhaps a unique opportunity, and that is geothermal heating. I had the privilege as a minister to visit a stagecoach bus depot to see their geothermal heating. There were two boreholes that went only 100 metres down to enable them to pump water down to the bottom of the hole and get it back up. It heated this large garage where, even with snow on the ground and the doors open, it was really too hot inside the garage. The cost of doing that about 10 years ago was something in the order of £40,000. Not a huge amount of money for a heating proposition for a bus depot of that kind, but considerably more than I think most domestic people would consider investing. On the other hand, start to think of perhaps 10 houses sharing such a facility and you start to get into the realms of economic possibility. However, in looking at the subject, I find that there are some practical difficulties, and that is in the subject of wayleaves, in other words, taking utility supplies across other people's property. Wayleave statutory undertakers can get wayleaves. They are rail, light rail, tram, road transport, waterport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier, lighthouse, airport operator and supply of hydraulic power. However, one of the things that is missing from the list of statutory undertakers is suppliers of heat. Therefore, in looking for a wayleave to transport heat from one place to another, you do not appear on my research to have available the wayleave condition. I have heard from Mitchell and Tires in Dundee, who wanted to transport heat, that that proved to be a difficulty. Therefore, I think that that is a legal issue. I am also uncertain as to whether that may still be a reserve power. I am unclear about that, to be absolutely candid. We have powers under section 9 of the electricity act 1976, which allows us to legislate for the liquefification of offshore gas, but none of the other powers that might cover that appear to be devolved. However, there is a lack of clarity in my research that is not necessarily final or complete. I think that there are some opportunities for looking at how we might make district heating, particularly in the north-east. We have one very good example in Aberdeen, but it is quite a different character. However, I think that we have other opportunities to look at. O and G in thermal is not just a north-east issue, although Mons Grampus and the granite that it provides particular opportunities. I am going to join Gail Ross in outbidding Graham Day, when my wife got our insulation in our roof void taken from 200 millimetres up to 600 millimetres in rural Bamshire. She came from Lanarkshire to do it, but I outbid her because they had to come twice, because they did not bring enough material. The first time, my wife would not let them in the house until they turned up with enough, so she had to do that journey twice. I claimed precedence over Gail Ross, but there is a serious point inside putting that insulation in, in a rural single-storey dwelling that is never going to be EPCC because of the way that it is constructed. It more or less cut our fuel consumption, which is kerosene, by 40 per cent. Just the simple act of putting that insulation, in fact, it took us a full week tweaking the thermostats and the radiators to get the temperature down to an acceptable level because we were roasting with that additional insulation. Were that sort of intervention to be installed in all rural houses, that would be great. The Government has done a great deal of that. That was a Government-funded scheme. It did not cost us anything at all. Let me just finally talk about tax incentives. We have heard a number of comments on that. I just returned to the intervention that I made earlier in the debate that we did have in the 2009 climate change act, which I had the privilege of taking through Parliament. We did put tax incentives for improving your house, but it relied on councils bringing forward schemes. Not all of them by any means did so, in fact. I am not sure that many of them did. The track record of tax incentives based on houses is at the moment showing a not-proven verdict. I would suggest it best as a way forward. I am a wee bit disappointed that the Tories are seeking to delete from the Government motion that the whole economy gets a £10 billion value. I would have thought that the Tories would have been quite interested in that sort of number. I certainly am. I go to it, minister. Thank you. I move to closing speeches. I call Mark Ruskell, please, for the Green Party. Two minutes at hand and two brief reflections on this debate. The first one is that, during members' contributions, it is clear that CET needs to address the real lived experiences of people suffering fuel poverty across Scotland. We heard very powerful speeches from Ben Macpherson, Christina McKelvie about the kind of innovation that we need to tackle fuel poverty in our communities, whether that is joined up support between food banks and energy companies, where that is the kind of innovation that we need to see around the development of tenemental properties. However, we have to get the communications right. I was shocked to hear the answer to Monica Lennon's question in this debate that only six properties received a council tax rebate on energy efficiency in the last year. I find that absolutely incredible. We have to get the communications right. A number of members have talked about the experiences and lived experiences of people in rural communities, such as Liam McArthur, Claudia Beamish, Graham Day, Finlay Carson and many others. Of course, there are particular challenges there—the cost of fuel and transport, the challenges over retrofit with older stonebuilt properties in off-gas areas. I would ask ministers to reflect on that, reflect on the point that Pauline McNeill made about the rural minimum income standard. We need to have a seat programme that does not mask rural poverty, it needs to address the specific needs of rural communities. The second point that I would make is an interesting challenge that the minister threw down at the beginning of the debate, primarily to her colleagues in the Tory party. However, if we do not meet the aspirational targets for 2030, we will have to move towards regulation. I was very pleased to see John Scott jump up and extol the benefits of high regulation in California and compulsory solar panels. I would like to reach out to the Tories and say that we need to have a strong consensus here to continue to drive the Government and continue to drive them to be bolder in the strategy. It means a commitment to appropriate regulation to drive the kind of progress that we would all like to see. Thank you very much, Mr Ruskell. I call Lewis MacDonald, who is closed for labour six minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government's aspiration was set out this afternoon by the minister, quoting its vision statement from the Energy Efficient Scotland route map. By 2040, our homes and buildings are warmer, greener and more efficient. It is fair to say that every other speaker has endorsed that aspiration, but what we have debated this afternoon is how much warmer and greener, how much more energy efficient and do we need to wait until 2040? This is not a new policy area for Scottish ministers. It has been a devolved responsibility since 1999, and every Government has pursued the same policy objective of greater energy efficiency. What is new, ministers, is that energy efficiency is now not just a policy objective, but also a national infrastructure priority. We all agree that a step change is now required, and the designation as a national priority would seem to imply that a step change is now to be delivered. Mr Wheelhouse certainly confirmed a continuing commitment, and further steps that the Government intends to take. He did not, however, in our view, demonstrate that those steps will deliver at a sufficiently greater scale or pace than what has gone before to justify that designation. The Government's route map identifies a desirable destination. It is 20 years from now. It provides a number of milestones along the way, and it confirms the targets for emissions reductions, for example, set out in the climate change plan. However, as Scottish renewables have said in relation to the route map, it contains very little detail on how to achieve those aims. The document also rightly identifies that energy inefficiency is a driver of fuel poverty, and it rightly commits to earlier milestones in relation to fuel poor households. There is again, though, little by way of detail as to how that is to be achieved, or how progress is to be defined. An energy efficiency programme without an ambitious target in fuel poverty is at best incomplete, and we believe that the Government needs to be clear about what it intends to achieve and by when. Its consultation last November suggested targets on reducing the numbers in fuel poverty to 20 per cent of the population by 2030 and 10 per cent of the population by 2040. Our amendment urges ministers to be more ambitious about ending fuel poverty and sooner than that implies. As Liam McArthur and Claudia Beamish highlighted, it is disappointing that there is not a specific recognition in the programme of the particular challenges that are facing remote, rural and island communities, although Paul Wheelhouse acknowledged those earlier in the debate. Fuel poverty and energy efficiency are at their highest in the remotest places and are high everywhere that is off the gas grid. Those communities do not have access to the affordable and reliable mains gas for heating and cooking, which many households in urban Scotland take for granted. Precisely for that reason, rural Scotland is where energy companies could and should be encouraged to deploy innovative solutions that can improve energy efficiency and affordability while reducing carbon emissions. I acknowledge the minister's point about the benefits of targets on private rented homes, for example, for many rural areas, but an explicit priority for all housing in those areas would have been widely welcomed. There are innovative things already happening in urban Scotland that has been mentioned by a number of speakers, not least the district heating network that is established by Aberdeen heat and power over the last 15 years, reducing both energy costs and carbon emissions for many hundreds of households in Aberdeen that used to live in fuel of poverty. The work that has been carried forward separately by ministers to further enable district heating is welcomed as are other funding streams supporting interventions in other Scottish cities. All of those policy streams can work together, but they need to be joined up, which is where an national infrastructure initiative can help to deliver if it achieves that. A number of speakers have commented on the lack of specific proposals for financing or delivering change in the owner-occupied sector. Indeed, that was highlighted at the very outside by Pauline McNeill. Owner-occupied homes account for three-fifths of Scotland's housing stock and two-thirds of the houses with poor energy efficiency. Reducing heat waste from a million owner-occupied homes cannot simply be left to the market if we want to make a real difference to energy efficiency overall. It is up to the Government to bring forward effective fiscal and financial mechanisms to provide incentives to owner-occupiers and to put milestones in place to measure progress. The minister said that the right time to think about many of those questions is after 2030. We believe that that is simply not soon enough. If energy efficiency is to be treated in a par with other national infrastructure priorities, such as transport and electricity networks, then surely that requires action to improve standards across the board. As Citizens Advice Scotland put it, the national infrastructure priority designation implies a wider scheme of new support, both financial and advice provision for all consumers. We acknowledge that the Government's energy efficient Scotland route map does indeed point in the right direction, but we on this side will continue to call for greater ambition and for the resources to go with it. Designation as a national infrastructure priority must be about more than words. It also requires action and ambition to back up those words, and that is what we will vote for tonight. I welcome the opportunity to close the debate for the Scottish Conservatives. I view it as an extra step in ensuring that Scotland continues to lead in green technology, improving the energy efficiency of our homes and helping to reduce the cost of energy to our constituents. As we begin to debate wider issues relating to our relationship with energy, particularly on the matter of the climate change plan and the proposed climate change bill later this year, 2018 does indeed have the potential to be a landmark year. As colleagues across the chamber have already noted, we welcome the publication of the Government's energy efficient Scotland route map and look forward to continuing the debate on this matter. I would note with caution however that all too often we have seen reports that talk a good talk but often fail to deliver in practice, and that report must not be one of them. However, I would like to credit the Government for the approach that it has taken. Like others in the chamber today, I want to stress that, while we welcome the need to take action and view that as a starting point for a wider debate, that report does lack in ambition and in some cases appears to roll back from earlier suggestions from the Government. On this side of the chamber, we have been adamant and consistent in our calls for ambitious targets in ensuring that all Scotland's homes meet the EPC sea rating by 2030. It is a call that we have made in various speeches in this chamber and outside it, and we have put that directly to the Government. However, it is also a call that has been backed by other parties and organisations such as WWF Scotland. There is a widespread view expressed this afternoon from Opposition parties that the SNP Government's target that all Scottish homes will achieve an EPC rating sea by 2040 is a decade too late. Sarah Beattie-Smith of WWF Scotland has said, home owners must be supported to take action to upgrade their homes faster than proposed if we are to meet existing and future climate change targets. I think that the member's colleague Mr Burnett properly said that there are difficulties with the EPC sea definition. I know that my house could not be warmer but will never, because of its construction, meet the standard. I will not be alone in that regard. Is it not the case that we should have a better definition before we hook our target to it? The Government is equally guilty, by the way. We are only talking about different years, so it is everybody. Donald Cameron. I thank Mr Stevenson for that intervention. I believe that there is a review and there is a healthy debate about the utility of the EPC rating, which I simply do not have time to get into. I would say to him that I represent the Highlands and Islands and I accept that there will be properties in my region that will never reach that stand. We are quite explicit in our amendments to say that that should happen where feasibly possible. The Government's language and the route map is similar, to be honest. It speaks about it being technically feasible. Laurie McElroy of Existing Homes Alliance Scotland added that that must be done well before 2040 to effectively tackle fuel poverty and climate emissions from our homes. The simple fact is that, with almost 1.5 million homes rated below EPC C standard and just over 400,000 homes in bands E, F and G, that is a pressing issue and deserves swift action. A much darker fact emerges from the national registers of Scotland, and that is a tragic fact indeed that 2,720 more people died in the winter months of 2016-17 compared with warmer months. The WHO suggests that around 30 per cent of those deaths could have been avoidable if everyone in Scotland lived in a property that was adequately insulated and heated. With all that said, it is important in our view that the Government reviews its targets and commits to ensuring that all Scottish homes achieve an EPC C rating by 2030. We recognise that, in addition to Government being more ambitious, it needs to better inform people about the long-term benefits of investing in energy efficiency in the home and to inform people about the schemes available to help them. For example, Citizens Advice Scotland notes that energy discount schemes offered by local authorities have received poor uptake, and the reason for that is a portion two, among other things, a lack of awareness. I have to say that it is an issue that emerged during the debate that we have a real problem communicating energy-efficient schemes to the wider public. Results from a freedom of information request that we submitted showed that section 65 of the 2009 Climate Change Act, which requires local authorities to establish an energy efficiency discount scheme that offers a one-off council tax rebate for householders who carry out energy efficiency measures, has given out just £20,000 over 10 years. We believe that that is not an impressive record, but it does reveal that there is a real information problem, and the Government needs to ensure that its agencies—indeed local authorities—are making people aware of those schemes. I agree also with my colleague Graham Simpson, who spoke about rural proofing. As I said already, as a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am acutely aware that there are many rural and remote properties that present different challenges to properties in urban Scotland. Issues such as the age and design of buildings, the difficulty in insulating them, the fact that they are often exposed to far harsher climates, and many of them are not connected to the main gas grid. I think that Scotland and the south-west of England have more properties than anywhere else off the gas grid. Liam McArthur spoke about a particular issue in Orkney. The other point that Liam McArthur made—and it is an important one—is that the room app does not include evidence of rural proofing and island proofing. That is a very salient point, Deputy Presiding Officer. We are about to legislate for island proofing in the islands bill. I sincerely urge the minister to take that into account with the upcoming legislation that he has mentioned this afternoon, irrespective of the islands bill. It is often easy, Deputy Presiding Officer, to get bogged down in the aims and statistics and targets that reports such as that often necessitate. However, the actions that we take will have an impact on communities and people that we represent. Only last week, I had the pleasure of chairing the cross-party group on health inequalities, and we discussed the issue of fuel poverty at great length. The presentation from the energy agency was particularly poignant because it highlighted the immense benefits to people's health and wellbeing from making homes more energy-efficient. In each example, individuals who received upgrades to their property reported saving money on their bills and feeling warmer. In one instance, a man indicated that his respiratory problems had improved and that he had visited hospital on fewer occasions. Those are just anecdotes, but it is clear that there are immeasurable benefits to improving energy efficiency. Also, that cross-party group gave very impressive evidence about public engagement, about directly going to patients in hospital waiting rooms, etc. I think that there are significant lessons to be learnt in terms of communicating with the public. It is time to reach out, as others have said, as Pauline McNeill and John Scott have said, about reaching out and going directly into communities face-to-face to spread the word. I do not have much more time, but I would like to commend the Government on their strategy. We do not feel that it is ambitious enough, but we all think that the benefits of diversifying the way in which we heat our homes has the potential to help us to reduce our carbon footprint and make greater use of Scotland's natural resources. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate, although there may be disagreement at the end of the day about the pace and the mechanisms by which we deliver energy efficiency in Scotland. I am least heartened that there seems to be consensus that we are doing the right thing, if not agreement on the way that we are doing it. I take a lot of positive points from today's debate that people are trying to be constructive, trying to encourage us of anything to be more ambitious and, obviously, we are trying to do our best as a Government to do that. I will try to reflect as many of the points that have been raised to date as I can, but before doing so, I just want to reiterate that the energy efficient at Scotland route map is not the end. It marks the beginning of the next stage of our journey in making our homes and buildings warmer, greener and more efficient by 2040. I think that it is worth reiterating that what we are committing to through the energy efficient Scotland route map as a Government and the benefits that our programme will bring to the whole of Scotland. Energy efficient Scotland is a significant cross-Government programme that responds to our designation of energy efficiency as an infrastructure investment priority. It was a good point that was made earlier by Graham Day that of the Cabinet Secretary himself and Mr Stewart here. We are not climate change ministers, we are here because we are doing our bit through energy efficiency, energy efficient Scotland 4, our efforts to tackle climate change and I thank him for his warm remarks in that respect, but we are helping to tackle fuel poverty also, clearly, and that has been an underlying theme throughout much of today's debate and clearly motivates us all as regional constituency MSPs trying to help our constituents, and I can understand the strong sense of urgency about tackling this. We also want, though, to tackle the need to deliver sustainable economic growth, and it is a shame—I think that it was a point that was made by Stewart Stevenson that the whole economy figure of £10 billion is wiped out potentially by the Conservative amendment because it is important to stress that it is not just about public investment, it is about private sector investment, it is about businesses, householders investing, it is a whole economy, public, private and third sector cost of £10 billion over the lifetime of the programme. That is a mistake to move that from the motion because it is a truly important factor in underlying the success that we may achieve. I will give way to Mr Scott. I thank the minister for taking the intervention and can he confirm that it is still the Government policy the spend to save policy and that there would be essentially this whole programme would pay for itself by the reduction in cost of the health service were it to be brought forward more quickly and you would achieve so much more by doing just that. What I would agree with Mr Scott is that energy efficiency investment is a great example of preventive spending. I think that that comes across all the speeches today about impacting on health, impacting on educational outcomes with school children, obviously having a better environment to study and so forth. We certainly recognise that and I would acknowledge that it is a classic form of preventive spending in investing in energy efficiency and it is important to do it and that is one of the reasons why we are driving forward our energy efficiency targets. The route map outlines the proposed framework of national standards for energy efficiency buildings that we will put in place as well as the support that we will provide. It is a truly cross-sector approach to improving the energy efficiency of both domestic and non-domestic buildings. We have not had much focus on non-domestic buildings today, but for Scotland's homes we want them to be improved so that they achieve at least energy performance certificate rating of band C by 2040. However, as I set out earlier, there are milestones on the way and our prioritisation is on fuel poor households and private rented sector, social rented houses in the early stages of programme, moving into non-domestic buildings as we move through 2020s and into 2030s. I want to reassure members that we are very much targeting those houses and those properties that need to be tackled first. On the point about rural properties, I do accept some of the points that we made earlier on, but I want to highlight that there is a specific case study in the route map for property and balater that might be of interest to Mr Burnett, Mrs R, who is in there. We clearly have set out some examples and I will give some examples in a moment of some of the initiatives that we are taking in rural Scotland to give members confidence that is very much a focus of our work. I need to make progress, but if we can keep it brief, please. Mike Rumbles If the Government loses a vote tonight about increasing the targets and accelerating them, will the minister implement what Parliament wants to do? Minister? I am relying on my persuasive skills today, Mr Rumbles. I hope that I will persuade the Liberal Democrat group by the end of this debate to vote for the Government's motion and to reject those inappropriate amendments. I regret Mr MacArthur's amendment that was not taken, but I have got to mention it for Mr Burnett, so I am sure that that was a positive thing for him. I want to emphasise the point that there are a number of issues. Perhaps there is a presentation here that we have to make clear that £146.1 million is being spent in the current financial year. That is an ambitious level of spending—$500 million over the four years to 2021. That is a £10 billion whole economy programme—maybe up to £12 billion. That is a significant scale of ambition for our economy and for all the stakeholders in the economy. I want to reassure members that, after consultation, we believe that we have the right amount of ambition. We cannot be standing. We can always adjust as we are going along, as I am sure we would as we are reflecting on progress as we try to achieve our targets. However, we are putting the appropriate resources in place to deliver an ambitious programme. I hope that that reassures members on that point, regardless of how today's vote goes. We are placing area-based schemes at the heart of our approach and creating a framework through local heat and energy efficiency strategies to support local government prioritisation and targeting. I, Mr Stewart, am working very hard to work with COSLA to try and develop a programme of activity to address some of the concerns that members have outlined about communal properties, mixed tenures and the difficulties of trying to deliver a programme. Graham Day's example was an excellent one about how sometimes funding can drive a bit of inefficiency if it is not co-ordinated properly. Through LHEs, identifying the appropriate technologies in each location and identifying the best way to deliver, we hope that we can drive out those inefficiencies. The new towns, for example, are good places where we have commonality of housing stock. We can maybe learn from rolling out pilots in those areas. There are lots of areas in which we can improve efficiency and make sure that in the early years that we identify the best technologies, the best delivery methods and the best way of co-ordinating our activity at local ground level to ensure that we get the best bang for the public books and to make it as attractive for the private sector and owner-occupiers, private landlords, to take part as well. Two examples of rural Scotland and our Broadcair and Housing Association support from our area-based scheme loans improved energy efficiency and heating systems of 25 homes in Albert Street from EPC band D to EPC band C and residents have benefited from warmer and more efficient to heat homes with customer satisfaction rates of 85 per cent. In Stirling, a programme is undertaken with PV solar panel installations, which is picking up Mr Ruskell's point and John Scott's point around solar panels in California and demonstrating the potential for alternatives to the standard grid connected model of powering and heating our homes. There are good examples of rural projects. I am really impressed for time. I apologise, I've got quite a bit of time. While you are taking that pause, it is very rude not to listen to what the minister has to say. It is very interesting, so pay attention. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, as always. I also want to highlight that on the non-domestic front, we have relaunched the SME loan fund for small businesses. I addressed members to perhaps win favour with the local constituents by pointing out that there is a cash back on those loans so that they can gain an incentive to invest in energy efficiency. We see small businesses across the country already benefiting from that. On the budget issue, I wanted to address to Mr Ruskell, but I realised that he only had two minutes in his closing speech, so I don't want to steal his time. However, in respect of the budget against the whole economy cost, I picked his point earlier about ambition, but I hope he now realises what we are referring to in terms of the overall scale of ambition in the programme. We do believe that LHs will be a very important part of the framework that we are taking forward to make sure that we co-ordinate our activities, as I say, in terms of the actions around tackling fuel poverty. I want to highlight that we are proposing in our consultation that all homes with fuel-poor households should reach CPC band C by 2030, as I say, and important to stress band B by 2040. We are going beyond band C to try to make sure that those households are affected by fuel poverty, as Christina McKelvie outlined. I want to congratulate Christina McKelvie for the work that she has done in her voucher. She has proposed with Scottish Power and other agencies that it is a very welcome initiative. However, the ambitious target will act as a guide for our national air-based fuel poverty programmes, and I hope that that will again give us structure. No, sorry, it is getting too loud again. Members are just coming in, and it is very disrespectful to members speaking. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In respect of page 40, the case study that I referred to earlier, we will obviously reflect on points that are made about rural Scotland and take that away. However, we are working very much on the basis that this is an all-Scotland programme, that we are targeting fuel poverty wherever it is, and I want to give people an absolute reassurance that that is the case. Obviously, a number of points around the national infrastructure priority. Obviously, we have identified now the £0.5 billion to deliver that national infrastructure priority, and the CEP programme that was referred to in previous programmes for government is now called energy-efficient Scotland. I hope that that ties that one up so that you can see where the funding has come from and why it has now identified a programme to deliver that funding in practice. The number of references to needing a one-stop short for energy efficiency started by Alexander Burnett and taken up by others. I just want to emphasise the point that Kevin Stewart made very well earlier on. Home Energy Scotland is a very useful tool for us all in helping our constituents, and I do believe that members could help us and help their constituents by advertising that. It is a simple system to use, and it will provide excellent service to constituents. I will just finish by emphasising that this has been a very positive debate. The route map that we have set out last week that the First Minister launched at the All Energy Conference is a bold, ambitious but, importantly, a deliverable programme, one that has been modelled and we believe that it can give confidence to the supply chain but also to investors, whether they are householders, businesses or the third sector. I thank you very much for your attention and I have enjoyed the debate. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate on a route map to energy efficient Scotland. It is now time to move to decision time, which is now. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment 12140.1, the name of Alexander Burnett, which seeks to amend motion 12140 in the name of Kevin Stewart, on a route map to energy efficient Scotland. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Can I ask members to cast their vote now? The voted yes, 64, no, 60. There is no abstention. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is amendment 12140.4, in the name of Pauli McNeill, which seeks to amend motion 12140 in the name of Kevin Stewart, on a route map to energy efficient Scotland. Be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The voted yes, 64, no, 60. There is no abstention. The amendment is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 12140, in the name of Kevin Stewart, as amended, on a route map to energy efficient Scotland. Be agreed? Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The voted yes, 65, no, 59. There is no abstention. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting of Parliament.