 The next item of business is a debate without motion on behalf of the local government, housing and planning committee on retrofitting of properties for net zero. I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now or to enter R in the chat function. I call on Arianne Burgess to open the debate on behalf of the local government, housing and planning committee. Up to 10 minutes, please, Ms Burgess. The committee is delighted to have this opportunity to debate the retrofitting of housing for net zero. As a committee, we are beginning work on this, but it is not only an issue for this committee. It is relevant to the net zero energy and transport committee, and as we move closer to the deadline for the agreed net zero target, will be an issue for the whole Parliament. We hope that today will help us as we consider next steps. Homes account for around 13 per cent of Scotland's total greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 and hit net zero by 2045, Scotland's homes will need to be far more energy efficient. The Scottish Government aims to reduce emissions from heat in buildings by 68 per cent by 2030. There is a tremendous job ahead to deliver this target, and that is recognised in the heat in building strategy. As a committee, we agree that targets should be ambitious. Before describing the committee's work and the challenges ahead, it is worth stepping back to consider what retrofitting involves and how it contributes to targets. Simply put, retrofitting means adding new technology or features to existing buildings to make them more energy efficient. That can include loft floor and wall installation, draft proofing and secondary double or triple glazing. As well as energy efficiency improvements, it is about installing zero or net zero emissions heating or connecting homes to heat networks supplied by low-carbon or renewable heat sources. In Scotland, only 11 per cent of households have no or low-carbon emitting heating systems. The committee visited a retrofit project in Nidry Road, Glasgow. The project is concerned with retrofitting a tenement comprising of eight one-bedroom flats. We were impressed with the work being done and thank John Gilbert Architects and Southside Housing Association for hosting us. We recognised the time and effort required to deliver a project of that scale. The Scottish Government proposes that homes must meet EPC rating C in future. In 2019, less than half of Scotland's homes were rated EPCC or better. There are around 2.5 million homes in Scotland. When you consider the work that is involved in delivering Nidry Road, that might need to be done to more than a million homes, you realise the Herculean scale of the task. How do we increase the scale and pace? What must be in place? In November, we met stakeholders to explore those issues. I thank them for participating. They raised a range of issues and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on them. We started by asking how it intends to increase the pace of retrofitting. In doing so, we highlighted models of collective purchase such as bulk buying, payment plans, community ownership and third party ownership. In its response, the Scottish Government recognised that the pace needs to significantly increase. It is looking at the models that are highlighted and working closely with stakeholders to develop them. We asked the Scottish Government what role it sees for local heat and energy efficiency strategies to set out long-term plans for decarbonising buildings and improving energy efficiency across local authorities. We note from the response that its intention is for each local authority to publish its strategy by 2023. Given the urgency of the situation, we hope that those strategies can be in place before then. We note from the climate change plan that the Scottish Government has committed to considering how local tax powers such as council tax and non-domestic rates could encourage retrofitting. I would be grateful for any updates on the progress of that work. I am very grateful. I asked witnesses at the net zero committee this morning whether communities were aware of the impending deadlines and any support that they might avail themselves of to do this retrofitting. I was told that the answer is no to all of those questions and that there is a lack of anywhere that householders can go for knowledgeable expert advice that they can trust. How does the committee think that that could be changed or challenged? As I said at the beginning, the committee is just beginning the process. We are asking the questions of the Scottish Government and looking for those answers. I am going to continue because I have a few more questions to ask myself on behalf of the committee. We note from the Government's response that its intention is for each. We note from the climate change plan that the Scottish Government has committed to considering how local tax powers such as council tax and non-domestic rates could encourage retrofitting. I would be grateful for any updates on this progress. One recurring theme that we heard about is the importance of public buy-in. Witnesses suggested that COP26 has raised public awareness of climate change, which provides an ideal opportunity to advance public understanding on the role of housing in reaching our targets. The public needs to know what will be expected of them, how much it will cost and how it will be paid for. We asked the Scottish Government about its plans to improve public awareness and the role of the national public energy agency in improving that. It is pleasing to see that it recognises the importance of public awareness. I am keen to hear more about the role and visit for local authorities in improving public awareness. To drive that work, there must be adequate funding. We are concerned that not enough funding is in place to deliver those plans. That is our most pressing concern and what prompted us to initiate our work. The committee recognises that funding will be a joint effort between Government, social landlords, private landlords and private lenders and owners. However, even allowing for funding from different sources, it will be challenging to find £33 billion that the heat in building strategy estimates is required. It is good to hear that the Scottish Government is establishing a green and heat finance task force to report by September 23. It would be good to hear more about that task force and how the Scottish Government intends to encourage investment in the interim. We also heard about the challenges of accessing funding. Derek Logie of Rural Housing Scotland described current funding as an alphabet soup. With challenges in knowing where to find funding and how to get it, I welcome the recognition of the importance of the consumer journey in the minister's letter. It would be good to hear more about what the Scottish Government will do to improve it. Brian Lees of Helpland Housing Association told us that funding for organisation is not being allocated strategically but rather through a bid process. We were pleased, therefore, to read in the minister's letter that the social housing net zero heat fund is no longer allocated on a competitive basis. For retrofitting to work for all, it must be delivered in line with just transition principles. We recognise that the heat in building strategy contains the principle of no detriment. We welcome that. Nobody should be worse off due to retrofitting their home. The committee also heard about the importance of a fabric-first approach and the need to improve the fabric of existing homes to make them more energy efficient. It is pleasing to see the Scottish Government's commitment to fabric-first and to legislate to require buildings to meet energy efficiency requirements. Of course, that will only work if there is public buy-in and funding in place. Funding and public awareness are not the only challenges. There will be particular challenges around retrofitting in mixed-tenure blocks. Witnesses suggested that there is insufficient clarity on how that will be delivered in the heat in building strategy. The minister's letter is welcome in offering more detail on how some of those challenges might be overcome. We are keen to be kept updated on that. There must also be a skilled workforce in place. We considered the heat in building strategy set out broad plans for putting in place such a workforce. The minister's letter provides more detail on that, and we look forward to scrutinising the Scottish Government's heat in building supply chain delivery plan. The potential for 16,400 jobs being supported across the economy in 2030 due to investment in the deployment of zero emissions heat is a welcome prospect. The committee also recognises that challenges are more acute in a rural setting. We particularly noted the increased costs and skills shortages. The minister's letter refers to the provision of more funding and the role for the island's energy strategy. We are keen to hear more about how the Green Jobs Workforce Academy will respond to the demands of rural settings. I also note that the existing homes alliance calls for a rural homes just transition package. I would be interested to hear the minister's perspective on that suggestion. The committee also heard about the challenges of retrofitting under the current planning system. In some cases, planning departments placed obstacles in the way. We do not believe that the two are in conflict. As noted in the minister's letter, that is something that we will consider further in the context of NPF4. With such a significant task ahead, we must draw on the experience from elsewhere. It is pleasing to hear about the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish and Danish Governments, and it would be good to hear more about what lessons the Scottish Government has learned from elsewhere. Finally, there remain challenges outwith the control of this Parliament, specifically concerning that on retrofit work and electricity tariffs. Those issues significantly affect the viability of delivering the retrofit agenda and doing so with just transition principles. We will pursue that with the UK Government and note that the Scottish Government is already doing so. In closing, I reiterate the enormity of the challenge. We must deliver on that as a Parliament. We must hold the Scottish Government accountable and ensure that it does everything it can to make it happen. I thank the committee for their on-going work on the issues arising from the retrofitting of buildings. It is as Arianne Burgess closed her speech, noting an enormous challenge and one that we must confront together as a critical part of our response to the climate emergency. The challenge is significant in part because of the scale and pace of emissions reduction that we need to achieve across our building stock. It includes switching over a million homes from fossil fuels to zero emissions heating by 2030. It is ambitious because it needs to be. Parliament has set us the statutory requirement to reduce emissions by 75 per cent by 2030. What we are debating today is what we need to do in our homes and other buildings to deliver that, not delivering it simply as an option. We must be clear eyed about the scale of the retrofit challenge. We must also recognise that investment in the heat transition brings great opportunities. Green jobs in a burgeoning clean heat sector, new skills and training, greener, healthier and more efficient homes and workplaces across Scotland. Last month, I published the heat and buildings strategy setting out an ambitious policy package to progress those objectives. I am not, for a moment, shying away from the fact that the actions that we have committed to are only the start of a multi-decade programme of work up to 2045 and beyond, to be honest. That strategy is a strong foundation but there is much work that remains to be done to realise that unprecedented transition. Therefore, I am grateful to the committee and to other members for joining this debate and for their input into the efforts to move to zero emissions heating and energy efficient buildings. I am keen that we develop a cross-party consensus to take forward this agenda. I want to highlight three broad issues that are fundamental to making the transition a success. The first is public engagement. Again, this is something that Ariane Burgess, the committee convener, mentioned. I was pleased to hear that the committee witnesses suggested that COP26 had raised public awareness of the need for action. However, we need to recognise that most people at the moment do not yet have a clear understanding of what that means for their homes. Zero emissions heat systems such as heat pumps and heat networks enjoy long pedigrees in many other European countries, but they are unfamiliar to most of us here. I want to see that change, but I want to see it change in a way that engages people in a shared understanding of the need for that change and how to make that change. The upcoming dedicated national public energy agency will play a central role in public engagement. It will also support the streamlining of our delivery programmes, bringing new co-ordination and leadership, making it straightforward for people to access advice and support as and when they need it. The second point that I want to touch on is certainty. Building owners need certainty on what is needed to meet the requirements of net zero. The supply chain requires sight of a clear pipeline in order to invest and grow their businesses. A critical component to our approach of creating certainty will be to introduce regulations. Building on existing standards that are already in place and requiring action on both energy efficiency and zero emissions heating will introduce regulations that will, from 2025, require all homes to reach a good level of energy efficiency—EPCC or equivalent—for example, at point of sale or change of tenancy. Regulations from the same year will also begin to require buildings to take action on their heating systems as we phase out the need to install fossil fuel boilers. Later this year, I will publish a consultation on those proposals. I will bring forward legislation during this parliamentary term and I look forward to working with the appropriate committees as well as the wider Parliament on developing those regulations. If the minister brings forward those regulations and mandates all of those changes, how does he expect people to pay for it? By happy coincidence, the very next paragraph in my speech begins, the third issue that I wish to raise is cost. I recognise that people, including members and members of the public, have very serious questions. At the beginning of a multi-decade programme of work, no Government would be in a position of saying exactly what is going to happen right through to 2045 and beyond. However, we have committed at least £1.8 billion in this Parliament to kickstart the growth in markets for zero emissions, heat and energy efficiency, and to support those who are least able to pay. I am pleased that this morning we announced almost £9 million of support through the low-carbon infrastructure transition programme, with an impressive variety of projects that will provide zero emissions, heat across homes and non-domestic buildings. One project in particular will be of interest from a retrofit perspective, a grant of £1.27 million to the reheat project led by Scottish Power Energy Networks to install heat pumps in 150 homes, along with smart controls and innovative heat batteries manufactured by Sunamp in East Lothian. As well as decarbonising the homes that are participating in that project, it will generate insight into how a greater role for electricity in heating our homes can be accommodated by the grid, minimising the need for capacity upgrades and so driving costs down. Public investment in this heat transition is critical, but again we have to be clear-eyed. We do estimate the total cost of the heat and energy efficiency retrofit transition to 2045 to be in the region of £33 billion, a sum that is clearly beyond the level that the public sector could bear alone. Alongside public investment, we need innovative mechanisms to increase individual and private sector investment into energy efficiency and zero emissions heating. We are therefore establishing the green heat finance task force to recommend ways that the Scottish Government and private sector can collaborate to scale up this investment. The task force will provide an interim report by March next year and final recommendations by September of that year. A just transition means sharing the benefits of climate action widely, while also ensuring that the costs are distributed fairly. That means that we must continue to support those who are least able to pay and that is why we will publish a refreshed energy strategy and just transition plan later this year, but it also means that those households, organisations and businesses who have the means will share some of the costs, particularly where they benefit directly. The transition to zero emissions heat will be an enormous project around which we must work together if we are going to play our part in halting damaging climate change. I am proud of the leadership that we are showing in Scotland, and I welcome the contributions that are being made both within this Parliament and across the country to charting an effective and fair course to decarbonising our buildings. Thank you. I now call on Miles Briggs up to six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am pleased to open this debate for the Scottish Conservatives and welcome the opportunity to discuss the important issue that the committee has brought today. I think that the descriptive word for this debate is most definitely the challenges. The Scottish Government has committed to decarbonising the heating of 1 million homes in Scotland by the year 2030. That is serving as a prelude to the aim of zero emissions from buildings by 2045. That was set out in law, as the minister has already outlined, in the Climate Change Act 2019. Scottish Conservatives agree with that and have that a commitment to share the Government's ambition to achieve that and the desire for us to make sure that Scotland leads by example in the fight against climate change. The SNP Green Government has launched their heat and building strategy, as the minister also outlined, following the consultation that ran between February and April. A key part of that has already been raised is how will householders and tenants be able to meet the challenge. Heating accounts for roughly 50 per cent of energy use in Scotland. In order to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it is important that we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and instead move towards low or zero carbon heating systems. From the outset of the debate, it is important to say that at the time of rising energy bills and with the increased focus on tackling fuel poverty, it is critical that ministers do not lose sight of those challenges as well as we take forward that work. It is also important that, although we are seeking to achieve that, we keep heating bills as affordable as possible and affordable levels. The most effective way of actually doing that is to reduce energy need of homes with better installations and home efficiencies. That is something that we can see real investment brought forward at an earlier stage. As it stands, homes account for approximately 13 per cent of Scotland's total greenhouse gas emissions, so there is also a huge amount of work beyond what is being outlined in warm homes campaigns and targets. It is absolutely right that Scotland sets itself the ambition and pioneering targets that focus on improving energy efficiency in our homes and that we make sure that we move towards zero emission heating systems. That said, the SNP-Green Government proposals are long overdue and require significantly higher investments so that those targets may be actually reached. There are significant questions around how those targets are actually going to be met and, indeed, the workforce who will be actually tasked with undertaking so much of this work. The construction industry training board, for example, found that to retrofit Scotland's existing built environment for net zero, a revolution will be needed across the construction sector to be able to achieve that. It is estimated that 22,500 people in Scotland will be needed to be trained to deliver that energy efficiency by 2028. We have not seen any workforce plan work started on that, so I think that that is as equally important to this debate. Scottish Conservatives will continue to press this Government to deliver the investment that is required to achieve those goals and ensure that they are cost effective and that proposals do not disproportionately place a burden on homeowners and tenants. As part of my work as a member of the local government committee, I also sit on the social justice committee and we have recently undertook to take evidence with regard to fuel poverty. What was concerning was tenants from Glasgow who gave us some evidence with regards to the changes that they have seen with the fitting of heat source pumps to their properties. They have expressed significance and concern in a number of areas. I hope that the minister will take that on board, that those new systems have been significantly expensive and have actually in a number of cases pushed them into fuel poverty. Housing associations have not listened to their concerns and they have not been properly consulted while they have been fitted to their properties. I believe that we need to really take that on board because we need to take people with us on this journey. I think that tenants in Glasgow deserve better than they have said to us that they have received. The retrofitting of existing buildings with the relevant carbon-neutral technology will form an integral part of Scotland achieving net zero by 2045. I hope that the Scottish Government ministers will provide more detail and explain how that can be reached while remaining affordable for homeowners across Scotland. In keeping with our manifesto promises in 2021, the Scottish Government has supported the creation of help to renovate schemes as a way of supporting homeowners making their properties more energy efficient. We welcome that but we want to see how the rural transition fund will be used. We know that one of the hardest set of properties that will be needed additional funding to help to meet that target are in rural properties and rural parts of Scotland. That brings me to the specific point with regard to the heat in building strategy that the minister touched on and how we can make sure that energy efficiency improvements are put in place. Some of the first parts of that work could be around wall and floor insulation. That is a vital part of helping to reduce emissions but to make properties more efficient. I hope that that is where we will see early emphasis on rural properties, especially where that can be partly funded and supported. There is much work to do. I think that this debate can present an opportunity for us to take that work forward. Looking at the statistics that the Government has already presented, only around 11 per cent of Scottish homes, 278,000, have a renewable or very low emission heat system. That does not include 34,000 homes, for example, which are connected to network heat systems. I think that the development of network heat systems is very exciting opportunity, which we should see funding brought forward. Today, as the minister has outlined, only £1.8 billion has been committed towards meeting the challenges in this parliamentary session. It is further more worth noting that the Government has missed its legal emission targets in three years in a row. To conclude, while we agree that Scotland needs to decarbonise and tackle fuel poverty at a time when energy bills are soaring and the cost of living is increasing under this Government, we need to make sure that we work towards making this as efficient for homeowners. The Scottish Government has not yet allocated resources required for this plan to be met, and we need to make sure that reasonable support is provided to homeowners. We call on the Government today to work cross-party to meet this challenge. I hope that today's debate genuinely starts a more focused and cross-committee work to make sure that the Parliament holds ministers to account for all this legislation. Retrofritten and decarbonising our homes has been a huge focus of our working committees since students. The debate is a welcome start to discuss the benefit and the cost of retrofit. There was a partial email blackout yesterday, but unfortunately not a full one, so colleagues might know already what I have to say this afternoon. Part of that is the enormous bills that householders will be liable for, averaging £12,500,000. That will be a huge concern to homeowners and tenants alike, and the £1.8 billion from the Government committee so far just won't cut it. The cost, as Susan Aitken told the net zero committee outright last week, will run into the tens of billions. However, it is the cost of living crisis that we face that makes those sums even more concerning. The panic about rocket and energy bills is palpable, so it is a bitter irony that it is the recovery that will cause the number of people in fuel poverty struggling to heat their homes already affecting one in four to spiral. We agree that if we improve the fabric of our homes that we can cut fuel poverty, decarbonise them, reduce living costs and create vital local jobs, we know that our homes contribute three quarters of the building emissions that warmens the planet. However, as no one wants to hear, low-income homeowners have to fork out thousands of pounds to sort it. Right from the start, the Government is pushing too much on homeowners and tenants who will ultimately pay in their rents too quickly with too little support. Those are big, disruptive changes with real risks for homeowners. It is complicated. Homes need to be made energy efficient, reducing our energy demand and expenditure, then replacing heating systems with one that is carbon free. There are questions about some of that technology. Communities know that cowboys operate in that sector, often causing more harm than good. Early experiences of carbon-free heating systems are mixed. Social rented tenants and new-build buyers have been the guinea pigs so far. North Lanarkshire Council told me that its retrofits and heat pumps installations have achieved fantastic results against oil heating with one tenant seen bills dropped by 80 per cent. However, another housing association has told me that it is removing an unreliable district heating schemes and tenants that are another in Glasgow are being served with disconnection notices because the costs of that district heating scheme are well above forecast and tenants cannot afford to pay their bills. Others in the Western Isles have had infrared heating panels fitted and they are also getting huge bills. Many of them have had no recourse to have the systems removed or remediated or the exceptional costs underwritten. We believe that households should be protected from the huge upfront cost of retrofitting through grants and loans to protect households and to crucially test that technology in the real world. However, until the costs are comparable to a fossil fuel system, the likely point of adoption, is it not right to ask whether the excess costs of installation and remediation are underwritten by Government, expanding on the no-tension principle set out in the heat and building strategy and set out by the committee convener? I am grateful. I suspect that if it was possible for the public sector to fund every penny of the transition and relieve all homeowners of making any contribution, we would all love to do that. However, can the member suggest a way of funding that? Is he actually suggesting that we do more than is in the heat and building strategy and pay for every penny of it from public funds? I come on to set out the other issues around cost, particularly for tenants. However, I am not saying that the public sector should fund all of that. I am saying that low-income households already struggling with their full bills should not have to bear the brunt of those costs. I am not saying that they have to have the costs entirely paid for by the state, but if the state could cover the upfront costs so that they could be staged in a much longer timescale through grants or potential loans, I have come on to the cost to tenants as well. I think that that also makes the case for rent controls being introduced in this Parliament as soon as possible so that tenants are then not left picking up the bills and the costs for social landlords making the changes to their homes. The SFHA's own modelling for new energy efficiency standards says that they would only reduce fuel poverty by 24 per cent, but it is due to cost £2 billion. To decarbonise the heat and source 2 would cost £6 billion. The member says that the EPC model costs are likely to underestimate the true costs. Concern as well was echoed by Chris Morgan, an architect working on the Nidry road demonstrator, trying to get a Glasgow tenement to any fit or passive house standard, saying that EPCs do not measure the energy efficiency of buildings particularly accurately. The STUC has said that we need to learn from past transitions. Done wrongly decarbonising our homes could push costs on to tenants, increase fuel poverty and lead to work needing to be done. If we do not recognise that and make supporting home owners and tenants our primary goal and we will not have their confidence in decarbonising our homes, it will not be the success that we all hope that it can be. Can I welcome the local government initiating this debate? I know that the convener says that Foothills of the Inquiry set out some of the key issues in more detail. We know that 50 per cent of energy use is through heating, as Miles Big reminded us. While we must drive up new building standards, we know that around 80 per cent of the existing housing stock is still going to be around in 2050. Retrofitting is going to be crucial. That affects households and businesses in every part of the country. It is appropriate that members not just on the relevant committees have an opportunity to contribute. I am grateful in that context to those who have supplied briefings for this debate, including those who did so inadvertently. I reassure Mark Griffin's colleague that we have all been there. In the short time available, I want to focus on three key areas—cost, capacity and communications. On the first, we know that the heating building strategy comes with a £33 billion price tag. Funding of around £1.8 billion has been announced, but there is little clarity around how that will be used. The local government and the climate change committee have expressed some concern about the need for greater transparency. I will break down on how plans will achieve the path towards net zero. In part, that is needed in order to track progress or, indeed, the lack of it. Down at a micro-level, the Scottish Government estimates that the average cost for installing a heat pump and improving energy efficiency is around £12,000 per home. In Ireland and rural communities off the gas grid, however, we know that the costs are significantly higher. According to a written PQ response from Michael Matheson, it is around £17,000, although I can confirm in the smaller islands in my constituencies that the costs in those smaller islands are considerably higher still. Those communities have traditionally experienced the highest levels of fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty. It is incumbent upon ministers to be absolutely upfront about the funding that is available and what is realistic in achieving the objectives and the cost contribution that is expected from individual householders and businesses. The targeted support will be provided to those who are least able to pay or those who are facing higher costs due to their island or rural locations. As for the cost, it seems to be a mismatch between the Government's aspiration and the capacity to deliver. There is no doubt, as the minister rightly said, that we can see the creation of green skills and green jobs, but wishing it were true will not simply make it so. Scaling up, for example, heat pump installations from £3,000 to £200,000 a year will take a lot of people, a lot of training and an awful lot of investment. It is unclear how that will be achieved in the time frames and visits and across the different parts of the country where it is required. Finally, on to the communications issue, the heat building strategy acknowledges, as the minister did himself, that public understanding of the role of heating in causing greenhouse gas emissions is low. It is a concern that the convener emphasised in her opening remarks. I know that the committee wants to see a process for accessing advice and support that is as easy as possible. That is a point picked up by the Justice Transitions Commission that warned of the dangers in this area. It said that the backlash against implementation of new regulations on smoking, carbon dioxide alarms shows how that can go wrong. We must not risk the same happening for our transition to net zero. Did Energy Action Scotland confirm that, in many hard-pressed families, there is no recognition of net zero? It will have many other issues to deal with. It could feel further alienated or excluded from moves towards net zero if it is not well communicated. I welcome the debate. I wish the committee all the best with its inquiry and confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats support the drive to net zero through retrofitting. However, on costs, capacity and communications, the rhetoric is running well ahead of the reality at this state. Before we turn to the open debate, could I remind all members to ensure that their cards are properly in and that they have pressed the request-to-speak button if they are seeking to speak? I would also advise that there is no time in hand and that any interventions will have to be absorbed within the speaking time of the member concerned. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. Only in November, the world came together here in Scotland for the COP26 climate change conference. Obviously, we discussed our collective goal of net zero by 2050. The Green Line's executive director and beyond COP26 chair, Sean Spears, said that there is no simple off-the-shelf solution to reaching net zero, but there is a growing understanding of what needs to be done. We need to build on that here in Scotland. The ultimate day of COP26 was dedicated to cities, regions and the built environment. Why? Simply put, there is now a clear recognition that the industries of the built environment are capable of doing more to help solve climate challenges and reduce emissions. In 2019, the World Green Building Council released a report that indicated that the built environment is approaching half of global carbon emissions, far higher than any other sector. It is no surprise, then, that reducing emissions from our homes and buildings will be one of the most important things that we can do to end Scotland's contribution to climate change. We have heard the figure already today. In Scotland, our homes account for 13 per cent of Scotland's total greenhouse gas emissions. If some of the most ambitious climate change targets in the world, reducing emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2045. I have been mentioned before by the Minister of the Scottish Government's heat and buildings strategy to set out how we plan to improve energy efficiency and support the decarbonisation of Scotland's homes. In the most recent report, the Climate Change Committee said that Scotland was ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom in setting out a building decarbonising policy, but we need to do more. Retrofitting existing homes is a significant role to play in addressing the concerns of most households across Scotland in terms of energy costs and carbon consumption, and it can help us to make fuel poverty a thing of the past. The existing homes alliance recommended that local authorities lead on the scoping of work that is required in their own area, and I think that that is really, really important. My constitution needs to be different, and we have talked about the challenges of how we need to do that in highland areas. I welcome the finance task force that the committee has been mentioned by the minister and the committee has a role of leading on both the approach in terms of the scoping and in the finance work. The Scottish Government has already committed to decarbonising the heating of at least 1 million homes, and that is a big challenge that we have heard across that today, but it has to be done. The equivalent of 50,000 non-domestic buildings by 2030. That, in any action that we need to take to decarbonise our homes, must be done in the manner that protects those in or at risk of fuel poverty. We cannot make those changes and risk putting more people into poverty from increased energy bills, and that avoids placing a burden on those least able to pay for the transition. In evidence to the social justice and social community, Social Security Committee, the existing homes alliance made clear that we should use the green recovery and net zero transition as an opportunity to build a more inclusive, resilient and net zero society. There is no excuse for poor energy performance of the home to be a reason to be in fuel poverty. The heating building strategy sets out the significant actions that the Scottish Government is taking, including only taking forward actions where there is no detrimental impact. Again, that has to be fundamental on how the committee takes forward that issue, unless additional mitigating measures can also be put in place. But Scotland does not have all the powers necessary to deliver the transformational change required so that no one is left behind. We all know about the recent whole sale of energy prices increases and the potential impact on consumers further underscored the urgent need for UK Government action. That has to be done on a long term basis. We can make the changes, but we still have issues around the whole sale of energy prices that will have a detrimental impact. The Scottish Government's plan of full house retrofits and zero emissions first approach have been adopted and will prove vital in fuel poverty proofing homes and will avoid costs of repeating inventions or replacing fossil fuel heating in a few years' time. We urgently need a stronger commitment and a clear action plan on heat from the UK Government to prevent undermining of the Scottish Government's attempts to bring every single Scottish household along with us towards a net zero Scotland. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, retrofitting gives us the opportunity to tackle fuel poverty and move us towards net zero Scotland. As we heard in the Scotland statement as well, it also gives us opportunities around developing new supply chains and, of course, skilled jobs. I look forward to working with all my constituency in developing this vitally important sector. Retrofitting properties for net zero is no doubt an ambitious goal, but there is a significant credibility gap here, particularly when it comes to the roughly 170,000 homes. That is about 7 per cent of the total that are off-grid. The heat in building strategy requires that zero emissions heating must be installed in all homes by 2045, with no new or replacement fossil fuel boilers in off-gas properties after 2025 in favour of zero emissions heating. I want to reiterate a point that Liam McArthur made. When I asked the cabinet secretary how much it will cost to upgrade a typical hard-to-heat off-gas-grid home, the cabinet secretary told me that the average cost could be in the region of £17,000. In a further answer, the minister conceded that, although the output temperature of a heat pump is often lower, when appropriately configured with building fabric and radiators or underfloor heating, they efficiently bring indoor temperatures up to adequate levels. Underfloor heating, Presiding Officer, some organisations suggest that such works could increase the costs to around £30,000. For home owners who are often some of the 25 per cent who are already in fuel poverty, a recent poll of over 1,000 rural households found that 33 per cent were unable to afford to spend any money on a new heating system. The cabinet secretary tells me that they could get a loan of £15,000, but that still leaves a minimum extra £2,000 upfront, as well as paying back the loan. Nowhere does the strategy address whether electric heat pumps are the best option, practically or financially, for rural or off-grid homes. After Storm Arwyn, I had innumerable constituents contact me during the electricity outages expressing how lucky they were to still have fossil fuel fires or heating. In fact, there are around 120,000 off-grid, bear with me if I have time, Mr Ruskell. There are around 120,000 off-grid homes in Scotland that either use LPG or oil heating. The cost to people who use oil heating for switching to LPG or bio-LPG is about £2,000. Those currently on LPG can switch to bio-LPG without any intervention cost. Or maybe they want to explore biomass, extensively used in places such as Scandinavia and Canada, which can be installed easily and locally at a cost of about £8,000 and offer a genuinely circular net zero economy. However, how does the Scottish Government explore those technologies? By proudly announcing, we have already phased out oil and LPG boilers from warmer home Scotland, area-based schemes or home energy Scotland loans, and forced electric only options on off-grid households. Last week, I met with Liquid Gas UK, a trade association with around 100 members. I learned a great deal that could help the transition for rural and off-grid Scotland on the journey to net zero. I also learned that Patrick Harvie, the minister who is responsible for this area, has not actually met this group at all since being appointed and neither has the cabinet secretary. The point that I am making is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to any of that, whether it be energy generation or the satisfaction of demand. Clearly, a mixed technology approach to heating is essential to achieving net zero targets, especially when it comes to off-grid properties. There is a serious disconnect between the £33 billion cost of that and the Scottish Government's lack of planning, engagement and financing. It is surely incumbent upon us all to work collaboratively with our partners across the United Kingdom and, as Miles Briggs said, across this Parliament, to find solutions, to consider all options dispassionately and against both the science but also the practicality and to actually meet and hear from those in the industry best placed to help with that. Mark Wilcock is 58 years old. He works for HIE. He lives in Nairn, has done for two years where he purchased a flat in a tenement of flats where a bank had formally carried out business on the ground floor. He chose to live in Nairn for its natural beauty, its history and the lifestyle that it offers. The building was constructed in 1874. It is a listed building. The flat is now drafty, the windows need to be replaced. He obtained a quote for upvc windows of £4,500, but it was then advised that, because of the listing, session case windows would be needed. The overall cost of replacing them, and there is only six, would be £16,000. That is over three times the cost of upvc replacement. That is not a bill that he can afford. I raised the case and aspects of it with the Scottish Government. I have to say that Minister Jenny Gilruth, who arranged the call with senior officials from Historic Environment Scotland, have both been extraordinarily helpful and dialogue continues as to how the work that is needed can be done in order to bring the standards of heat insulation up to those that are required. Although only a small proportion of homes in Scotland are listed, maybe 1 per cent, they are commonly affected in this way by much higher costs of work that are required to bring homes up to higher standards of insulation, which in turn is essential if there is to be efficient use of fuel, less emissions and therefore a less severe impact on the environment. Mark has allowed me to raise his case today, and I am grateful to him. How can people in this condition be assisted in order to tackle what seems to be a very practical problem? For every mark, there could be thousands of others. A second constituent who contacted me raised the case, and she is a flat owner of cases where there is one or more flat owners in a tenement who, for whatever reason, are not willing to agree to common repairs, which are essential, or perhaps to pay for them, the so-called missing shares case. I understand that some councils in Scotland, and I think that Edinburgh has taken a lead in perhaps Glasgow—I am no expert in any of this, but some have taken a lead in actually paying for the costs of the recalcitrant or non-cooperating owner recuperating them afterwards, and that has been highly successful. Will the minister bring in a national scheme, because my constituent inverness has no access to that, nor do many, mostly in rural constituencies, where perhaps there are fewer tenements, but there are still many tenemental owners? I raise those two issues because unless we tackle the existing problems that face flat owners throughout Scotland, we are missing the point. Of course, we all want to see net zero achieved, but what about the here and now? What about people who are faced with an impossible position right at the moment, and will the Scottish Government bring forward the missing share solution by providing a national fund to that effect? I would like to mention that, in preparing for this debate, I read an excellent piece of analysis, a report by Douglas Roberts and an expert—acknowledged the expert in housing. The report, somewhat provocatively but accurately, describes why flats fall down. We have got a very serious problem with structural failures in flats in Scotland, and the problem here and now is to get essential repairs done and to improve the housing stock now. Otherwise, there may be considerably fewer flats left in tackling the problems in the future of net zero, which the minister has described. I call Colleen McNeill to be followed by Michelle Thomson. Thank you to the committee for the excellent work that they have done here. We are all agreed that we have to reduce carbon emissions by retrofitting our homes. I want to speak about the wide gulf as to where we want to be and our ability to keep it. In fact, many speakers so far have addressed the same issue. Importantly, if Scottish householders have to be adequately supported to make the changes and they must have the confidence in alternative heating systems, have we even agreed what the trusted alternatives are? Mark Griffin, Liam McArthur and Liam Kerr have hit the nail on the head by raising some of those issues. I am seriously concerned that ordinary families and workers have no idea how to take that forward, and another minister has tried to address it so far. The majority do not have £7,000, £10,000, £14,000 to spare in a new heating system. Even if they did, who is going to guarantee that the purchase of a zero-carbon heating system will reduce their heating bills or will it be genuinely more efficient system for their homes? There is a lot to consider and not the financing of it. The international energy agency states that gas boilers should no longer be sold from 2025 if net zero has to be achieved. Let the heat pumps and air source ground source are seen as the most effective alternatives to gas boilers, but they can cost anywhere from £4,000 to £14,000 to purchase and install, which is presumably why demand remains low. Last year, the UK Government announced 5,000 grants for homeowners in England and Wales to install heat pumps. In contrast, Home Energy Scotland offers households a maximum interest fee loan of £2,500 to install a heat pump, but it has to be paid back within five years. You can see that there is a wide gulf between where we would like to be and where we are. Our demand is currently so low that, last October, Home Energy Scotland approved a loan funding for only 80 hybrid heat pumps and the previous year loans approved in single figures. The cost of retrofitting is eye-watering. We are summoning in the region, I represent Glasgow. The council leader Susan Aitken estimated that it will cost £9 billion to retrofit around 450,000 homes across the Glasgow region. That is over four times the city council's budget, so you can see the wide gulf here and what needs to happen. Glasgow and Edinburgh particularly have to wrestle with the problems of retrofitting tenement flats, with an estimated 182,000 tenements across Scotland. In Glasgow, there are around 70,000 tenements. Those flats tend to be constructed with sandstone in the most prevalent pre-1919, which makes energy efficiency solutions much more complicated. In April last year, the nitrate road project began. A pilot project to retrofit blocks of eight tenements in Glasgow and John Gilbert Architects, commissioned by South Side Housing Association, undertook a full retrofit of the flats that are currently empty. It is a massive job to put the renovation, internal finishes and fittings, as well as the upgrading of external elements such as the roof and the stonework. The project aims to assess the replicability of the lessons learned for Glasgow's wider pre-1919 tenement stock. However, the construction per flat is an incredible 88,000, so I make the point that it is just to have a look to see what would actually be possible, what we can see the huge cost. Therefore, in conclusion, there is a huge number of issues to be addressed here, including the huge skills shortage, which will be a problem for retrofitting our homes. As the Scottish Government to start engaging seriously with ordinary householders about how we will achieve those targets and consider the reality that people will need extensive financial help, but crucially not just financial help but on the type of heating systems that they can trust, alternatives that have been tried and tested, and that will directly benefit them as well as making sure that we make the reduction in carbon emissions in our homes across Scotland. Ordinary people should not be paying a high price for a change that must benefit the whole of society. I do celebrate the ambitious targets for reaching net zero, but, as others have commented, the scope, scale and complexity of the journey is significant, and none more so than the national challenge of retrofitting homes. It is not an incremental challenge. It requires an exponential scale up in an order of magnitude, and we have heard the estimate of £33 billion being referenced in this debate already. I propose today to make a few points about the supply side and the demand side. On the supply side, there are significant barriers for manufacturers. The high capital expenditure to either create or repurpose existing manufacturing lines are an issue, and particularly for the smaller companies that we have currently operating in the market. For installers, their early stage product risks, as well as being mentioned previously, capacity issues that will limit scale up. It will take time for these small companies also to build brand awareness. Most operators are currently SNEs, and that can mean weak financial resilience and limited access to investment finance. For all involved in the supply side, there are the complex skills considerations, with the requirements still a bit of a movable feast. Because there is uncertainty, there has to be hesitancy. On the demand side, despite briefing notes, I quote, the high upfront costs and sometimes uncertain payback periods can put people off making changes to their home. I, like others in this debate, would put it more strongly than that. At this stage, there is no real demand from homeowners, particularly if they do not see their property as their forever home and in such uncertain economic times. Some of the costs being quoted today in the range of £12,000 to £17,000 will act as a major barrier. Another point is that new heating models are not yet seen as aspirational in the way that the likes of electric cars are. Despite the urgency of the situation, costs are concerned for suppliers and consumers alike, and the on-going assessment for manufacturers, installers, homeowners, renters and landlords will be required as initiatives come on stream. There are other challenges too. The Scottish National Investment Bank capitalised with £2 billion over 10 years as a key role in addressing market failure, but in the finance committee last week, we were hearing with the enabling internal market act leading to the subsidy control bill. It is uncertain as to if and how SNP can operate as intended and contribute to the possibility of addressing market failure in retrofitting. Despite the bill passing the committee stage through the House of Commons, there is no definition of the rules as to how SNP and indeed the British Business Bank can meet their core purpose. Clarity is not expected from the UK Government for some time, and the required rules may ultimately be developed by an unelected official in the Bays, without crusading by the House of Commons, and by passing this national parliament and Scottish Government ministers. This uncertainty will also have a cooling effect on councils and other bodies, nervous about taking the risk of expensive and time-consuming legal challenges by trying to create programmes that address the issue that we are discussing today. Some innovative financing has been looked at by attaching the funding to the property rather than the individual, but this can also encourage hesitancy in both future buyers and sellers as we have seen with solar panels. On financing, a report by the Westminster-based all-party parliamentary group for fair business banking, of which I am an ambassador, makes an interesting point. The SNP-dominated retrofit supply chain largely falls between the cracks of existing investment funds and approaches, too late stage and insufficiently high growth for venture capital, too early stage and high risk for institutional investors. I will celebrate Scotland's ambition to take the required steps forward, but, as a state debate proves, it is considerably more complex to get to where we need to be. I call Megan Gallacher to be followed by Cocab Stewart. I would like to refer members to my register of interest, as I am a serving councillor in North Lanarkshire. We have heard some thought-provoking speeches this afternoon about retrofitting and transforming the construction industry to help to achieve the overall net zero target. We have also heard calls for the Scottish Government to invest, be innovative and outline how the retrofitting programme will be achieved so that targets are not missed or opportunities are squandered. As we know, we are up against the clock when it comes to climate change and with 40 per cent of total emissions coming from the construction and the built environment, there is a need to make the industry cleaner and greener. Although it will be a significant challenge to reduce emissions across Scotland and the rest of the UK, it also presents an opportunity for new and innovative ways for the building sector to retain and grow the workforce, improve the environment and the quality of assets that are built. For new-built housing estates, making homes more environmentally friendly is undoubtedly easier as you are working with a blank canvas. However, a critical part of achieving net zero will be reducing carbon emissions from existing buildings. Areas such as Glasgow, as we have heard, will be a particular challenge. However, we are already beginning to see developments in streets such as Nidry Road, which is seeing tenement flats being transformed without the iconic front-facing sandstone structure being damaged. As someone who appreciates architecture and conserving the history of an area, it is important that the work carried out does not change the original landscape. However, as my colleague Miles Briggs outlined in his opening remarks, we must make sure that those changes are made affordable for local people as it would be a field project should those programmes go ahead, but the homes become unaffordable and, unfortunately, they are the concerns that I have heard from many members today in the chamber. I also agree with the comments made by Liam Kerr that transforming and making our housing stock a one-size-fits-all approach will not work and there is a need to look at a mixed technology, especially in relation to heating and affordability. Moving on to upskilling the workforce, as that will be another key component of the retrofitting programme, is to be a success. We know that the CITBs report building skills for net zero that in order to meet climate change targets, an estimated 22,500 people in Scotland will need to be retrained or trained in energy efficiency by 2028. That stuff will represent an increase of 9 per cent of the current size of the workforce, based on technology available and also the methods of working. Recruitment drives will be essential and, again, by looking at reskilling or apprenticeships, it could offer people of all ages an opportunity to learn a skill that should be in a job secure sector, but the Government needs to start that recruitment drive now. As a member of the local government and housing committee and existing councillor in North Lanarkshire, I would like to touch on the key roles and responsibilities councils have to improve housing stock and to help meet net zero targets. I mentioned this earlier one when discussing Glasgow, however every local authority will have to make homes more energy efficient and to develop a strategy across all tenures as well as their own housing stock. To do that, councils bill needs substantial backing and funding to carry out this huge challenge and for the SNP green government please take note they need funding now. In addition, councils will also need to build new relationships with housing associations as that will be vital to ensuring that there is a collegiate partnership to achieving the net zero target. To finish, it will come as no surprise that the Scottish Government must do more to meet their net zero targets and to make that success. That requires the Scottish Government to hit the emissions targets that have failed to do so previously, invest in green housing and be upfront about where the money to decarbonise is coming from as this has not been forthcoming and to fund local government properly as another real terms cut of £371 million this year is only going to hinder their net zero targets as councils will struggle to deliver local strategies if this government continues to treat them with contempt. Thank you. I call Cocab Stewart to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Across the chamber this afternoon we've heard for many years now as well the absolute critical importance that tackling our carbon footprint will play in meeting the climate crisis head on. Like many in Glasgow Kelvin I live and represent the Scottish constituency that actually has the highest ratio of flats. 96 per cent of the accommodation in Kelvin consists of flatted dwellings and 30 per cent of Glasgow's pre-1919 tenemental housing is in Kelvin, with of course its associated challenges. At this point I want to put on record my acknowledgement and admiration for how in the past the housing association movement has been at the vanguard of working towards low and zero carbon homes, particularly through energy efficiency measures and higher building specifications in the regeneration and new bills. Looking at the affordable housing supply programme it hasn't gone unnoticed by me that in the 2020 and 2021 approvals for greener standards more than half of approvals were for housing associations. In the past they were accused of gold plating their developments as if that was a bad thing. Their foresight of course has paid dividends and many in the private sector are now need to catch up with it. Recently I wrote to every social housing provider in my constituency to better understand the challenges they face in decarbonising homes. The survey identified decarbonising heating systems, funding models for retrofits and skills shortages as a key issue, all of which are interrelated. Scottish Government funding is welcome but it requires new models of private investment in net zero and low carbon infrastructure too. In terms of the skills gap, the construction industry training board believes that the revolution in our construction sector is needed to meet this challenge. I intend to do all that I can to assist in transforming Scotland into a centre of excellence for greener jobs and careers. It is not only in our housing stock where these changes is necessary but in all buildings. Only yesterday I met with the chief executive of visibility Scotland to discuss their plans for their headquarters based in the woodside area of Kelvin. With a period property of substantial size and a need of significant improvement, this charity sees retrofitting as an exciting opportunity to safeguard their home for future generations while also making a workplace and service provision as energy efficient as possible. I look forward to supporting them in those efforts to decarbonise. Very recently I wrote to the minister for zero carbon buildings, active travel, tenants rights regarding low carbon initiatives and tenemental property. The transformation of tenemental properties to be lower carbon buildings is fraught and obstacles where the objection of one owner can act as an effective veto against the plans of a majority to address climate action. Much of the legislation that can be used by a majority to force minority interests to act in tenemental property issues is related to maintenance and insurance and fails to address the transformative common works such as electric charging points and communal renewable heat and power systems. That relates to the owners of telemental properties, but indirectly impacts on the quality of low-carbon housing for tenants too. I understand that that might require primary legislation through the changes, for instance the Tenements Act 2004 and other regulations. At this stage I look forward to the minister giving an indication as to whether legislative, regulatory or policy changes are in the offing to address those issues and whether the new deal's tenants will have measures to require landlords to make their properties as energy efficient as possible. I am mindful of time, Presiding Officers, so I will jump to the end here. Please, very quickly. Highlighting our successes on this journey to net zero should therefore be welcomed, but also used to inspire greater change and at a faster pace. Have I been called? Thank you very much. Can I thank the committee for securing this debate this afternoon? Our homes are central to the zero-carbon vision of the future, but they also tell us the stories about our past. When we started retrofitting our own family home a number of years ago, we first discovered the hearth for the Victorian coal range. The more that we progressed uncovering the layers of the building, the more that we could see through the history, the changing needs for more living space, for better sanitation and then electrification had shaped how the house had been retrofitted many times over many decades, firstly by councils and then laterally by private owners. The drive for decarbonisation is really just the latest form of modernisation, although it will probably be the most transformational since the arrival of electricity in our homes. This aim to decarbonise Scotland's 2.5 million homes, when only currently 11 per cent of them have renewable or low-machines heating systems in place, points to the scale of the challenge. Meanwhile, of course, soaring electricity and gas prices reflected by Westminster's energy and taxation policies are really fueling a cost of living crisis, with over 30 per cent of homes estimated to be in fuel poverty. We need to make sure that the delivery of energy-efficient housing will prioritise fuel-poor homes, especially in our rural and island communities, in a way that leaves no one behind. Programmes of Government grants and loans, energy supplier and landlord obligations, fuel pricing and regulation and area-based schemes will be critical to the delivery of the strategy. Local and community action has a crucial role to play and the local heat and energy efficiency strategy pilots have shown just how important the role of councils and communities will be in driving the strategy forward. The development of the national public energy agency and the national infrastructure company in the coming years will be a groundbreaking step towards ensuring that councils are well equipped and leading on the action that is required to decarbonise our homes. We need to ensure that local stakeholders are also part of all stages of the design and delivery of area-based schemes and strategies, and that councils are allocated sufficient funding to deliver as well. There are real intricacies with delivering retrofitting plans on the ground. I think that we have heard some of that already in this debate, especially around making sure that local installers and tradespeople are geared up to respond. The CITB has estimated that we need to train roughly 10 per cent of the current size of our workforce in energy efficiency by 2028 in order to deliver that vision for decarbonisation. There is an immediate need to strengthen the skills of the existing workforce to fill labour gaps and to deliver the pace and scale that is required. The Minister spoke at the beginning of the debate about certainty. Satan Miles Briggs says that certainty is important for business because it drives that investment, establishes that long-term trajectory and creates that market that will create jobs and create the certainty for investment. Of course, there are complexities around tenure, rurality and housing type that we have already heard about. We can learn from examples of models of collective purchase and heat as a service about how we can simplify and accelerate the pace of retrofit. I am glad to hear that the Scottish Government has signed an MOU with the Danish Government. It will be much to learn from the international experience, but it is much to learn from our communities. I am a big fan of the work that the heat project does in Blair Garry, working with individual householders about their retrofitting options and how it can cost-effectively get the grants and loans to deliver that. The commitment to retrofit a million homes by 2030 is ambitious and complicated, but that should not stand in the way of action. It is our responsibility to deliver this vision in response to climate emergency, tackle increasing rates of fuel poverty and improve our health and wellbeing. It is our commitment to both people and the planet. Thank you very much. I call Alex Rowley, the last speaker in the open debate. This is a relatively short debate on what is, for so many, a major issue. The levels of fuel poverty in this country are unacceptable, but the levels of ambition from the Government to tackle fuel poverty are, in my view, equally unacceptable. It is also very topical, given the increasing costs that are involved in the fact that the UK price cap on energy bills that stops companies from immediately passing rising costs on to their customers is due to change from the 1st of April, when the industry regulator, Rothgem, is set to raise the cap dramatically. Currently, more than 15 million households across the UK are protected by the cap, so there is a very real cost of energy crisis heading our way. Speakers have today highlighted many concerns about the Government's approach, not least the lack of detail and the levels of uncertainty on costs and support for people and households, as well as the costs that are being passed on to public authorities and social providers of housing. I also find it of concern that there is talk of using new technologies that have not been invented yet. It tends to sound a bit like wishful thinking. One thing that I would like to touch on in this debate is the prospect of having to have this debate again and again in the future. This is down to the fact that we continue to build properties in the first instance that will need retrofitting in 10, 15 or 20 years' time. Obviously, that does not apply to already existing housing stops, so the need for retrofitting is crucial. However, why continue to fuel the problem by continuing to build properties that will need work done on them in the future to meet our energy or carbon emissions targets? Members may be aware that I am proposing a private member's bill on introducing new minimum building standards for all new builds in Scotland. Part of the purpose of that is to end the need for future retrofitting of properties by building them to an absolute best energy efficiency standard right now. When we see energy prices skyrocketing, we can see why introducing such measures becomes so important. After all, the cheapest energy is always the energy that you do not use in the first place. I know that the SNP and the Green Government have said that they will not support their recommendations from the Scottish Climate Assembly, but I have to ask them, do they really think that it makes sense to continue building homes that we already know will need retrofitting at some point down the line? I haven't got time, sorry. We could take the necessary action right now and have Scotland leading the way in the future of housing across the world. The heat in building strategy had a £33 billion price tag, but only guaranteed £1.8 billion of funding. Scottish households are facing the very real possibility of costs of the improvements that have fallen on them. That is causing real concern, especially in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. SFHA modelling suggests that delivering this will cost social landlords around £2 billion. That is £7,000 per property to deliver a relatively modest impact on fuel poverty, with only 41 per cent of properties achieving the targeted EPCB rating. That is why part of the Government's strategy must surely be to ensure that all new builds in Scotland are built to the gold standard, because to do so now is so much cheaper than to retrofit those properties in the years ahead. We must be more ambitious and very clear on how we intend to deliver on this crucial issue. I call Katie Clark, the first of the closing speeches, up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to welcome the work of the committee on what is clearly a very important issue. The convener highlighted clearly the scale of the challenges that we have before us. One of the issues that she focused on was the role of local government, which has an important role, particularly when councils have their own council stock. North Asia Council, for example, has installed solar panels on 500 council homes, with tenants keeping the energy savings. It has also built two sustainable demonstrator homes that fix and drive urban, which have tested out various technologies, and in particular the financial benefits of those various technologies. As has been highlighted in this debate, one of the big issues is where the money is going to come from. Of course, the backdrop is a decade of cuts in council spending. To do the kind of work that is necessary on the scale that is required, we need a lot more detail from the Scottish Government about where the money is going to come from so that the burden of investment does not fall on tenants' rents and does not fall on ordinary working people. As has been said, the cost of house building is one of the issues that need to be addressed and the cost to householders of retrofitting. The trend is that more people are living in older homes, so the only way that we are going to meet our climate targets is if we retrofit existing housing stock and other buildings. The condition of much of Scotland's existing housing stock in reality means that many people are locked into fuel poverty. We also know that poor housing conditions are associated with many illnesses and health conditions. Domestic stock is, of course, a significant source of carbon emissions. We need to revolutionise the way in which we build houses, as Alex Rowley referred to, but also what we do with our existing homes. The STC estimates that the retrofitting of homes could create 32,000 to 98,000 jobs in Scotland and the retrofitting of public and commercial buildings between 8,500 to 10,000 jobs. As well as addressing some of the climate issues that have been addressed in the debate, those issues also have massive social consequences. I welcome the debate and the highlighting by so many members across the political spectrum of the huge challenges that need to be addressed. I look forward to the minister's response and the debate going forward to ensure that we meet the challenges that have been presented in this debate today and do what needs to be done to retrofit and ensure that we meet our climate standards. I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I pay tribute to the committee for bringing it to the chamber today. The importance and complexity of the issue has been reflected by the debate that we have heard in the chamber today from very thoughtful contributions, yet we are still only scratching the surface on the issue. However, the truth is that it is not possible to do full justice to this topic in one debate here today. I have no doubt that we will return to this topic on a number of occasions during this parliamentary session, but one thing is nevertheless clear, Presiding Officer. The retrofitting of Scotland's 2.5 million homes will be an essential step on the journey to net zero by 2045. As we know, 30 per cent of Scotland's total greenhouse gas emissions and only 30 per cent of Scotland's energy consumption is accounted for by Scotland's households. As we have seen set out in the climate change plan update, the emissions must already have fallen by 68 per cent by 2030 in Scotland to meet those targets. Although the heat and building strategy provides much-needed clarity on where the targets can be achieved, there are other areas that require some more details and we still require some more information. For example, a workforce in excess of 16,000 will be required to support retrofitting by 2030. Although that is a workforce assessment project due to be published this year, we know that training a workforce of that size will be a significant challenge. Years of under-investment in many areas of skilled shortages have already seen serious problems, which was only debated last week in the chamber. We also know that the worldwide labour market is continuing to undergo unprecedented changes, for example, for the shortage of skills in many areas. We also know that the skill shortages will inevitably lead to certain parts of the country. Rural and island communities, for example, may have much more to deal with in this whole process. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, for example, has warned that training will be required to ensure that retrofit will take place and that accreditation is available in Scotland only since October, meaning that many companies are already well behind in that stage in going forward. Concerns have also been raised about the requirement of staff. We will reach the SQV level 6, and that will mean that there will need to be participation. Many rural companies already have decided not to go for the retrofitting market instead returning to the fitting standard renovations. The success of the heat and building strategy hinges on the ability for individuals and problems to be solved, but there are issues that further clarity is still required. Home owners accept retrofitting, but it does not come at a cost neutral. Regardless of the issues that will be there, we know that there is an expectation of £33 billion cost to be covered. We also know that there is only £1.8 billion committed by the Government so far, so there is a massive gap. Many members have made some very strong contributions this afternoon, and I would like to reflect on them. The convener herself talked about the planning process and identified that many areas might be an area of conflict. The community is right to identify the issue, because planning could well be a problem for the process going forward. My colleague Miles Briggs spoke about the challenges and the ambitions. There is nothing wrong with the ambition that we have, but it is the challenge of trying to meet that and to ensure that tenants and householders can do that. Energy bills already are increasing, and fuel poverty is with us, so that needs to be addressed. Mark Griffin spoke about the cost of hitting those targets. It is important that there is money up front, because if we do not have that money up front, those targets will never be met. How low-income households are at risk of being able to afford the challenges, district heating systems and schemes have mixed response. Liam McArthur talked about the funding—£12,000 per household on average—but he also talked about the rural and island that would be much, much higher. We have to identify the capacity and deliver and ensure that we have that capacity. Liam Kerr spoke about off-grid. Fuel poverty exists now. Electricity heat pumps may not be the best way forward. Off-grid homes are a major concern, and they have to be looked at for the sustainability of going forward. I thank all the organisations and individuals who gave us briefings on that. Retrofitting Scotland's homes will be a key element in reducing Scotland's carbon emissions, and one of which will require a joint effect and a joint effort between central and local government. There will have to be that meeting of the minds to ensure that local government and central government come up with the needs because homeowners and landlords will require. As we have heard today, there are still a number of issues to overcome in order to achieve that. Those benches will continue to push the Government to give the momentum that is required to ensure that we see issues going forward, because we do not want to miss those opportunities. We do not want to miss those targets, but it is misleading to say that we can achieve everything in the timescales that we have, because it is not the case. The money needs to be there, and we need to make sure that we are not leaving people behind, because communities and constituents deserve that support and that mechanism. If we want to achieve that, we have to ensure that. As I said, those benches will continue to support the things going forward, but we will also ask questions and continue to ensure that questions are answered, and that individuals and communities are given the opportunity. I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. There have been a number of areas of cross-party consensus. I would like to hope that I misunderstood the last part of the final speech, which at some point sounded like a call for slowing down, saying that we cannot deliver on the timescale that we are committed to. The timescale that we are committed to, of course, is designed to be consistent with the climate targets that this entire Parliament has voted for, so I hope that the cross-party engagement that we have is about how we do this, not whether we do this and not whether we should slow down. The committee should be commended for the work in bringing forward not only its evidence session, but also the constructive correspondence that it has had with myself and other ministers, and for bringing the debate. I probably will not have time to address every issue, and that is partly because this is a cross-cutting issue, as several members mentioned. It deals with the remit of the housing local government and planning committee. It also deals with the remit of the NSET committee. It also deals with social security. It deals with skills. There are health and equality issues. This is an agenda that covers an incredible breadth, not just my own portfolio and not just the remit of a single committee. I have no doubt that there will be many opportunities to continue to discuss the issues that I do not manage to cover in my closing speech. I want to mention some of the issues that were raised first of all by the main Opposition parties in opening the debate. Both Labour and Conservative emphasised some of the current issues around energy bills, fuel poverty and the cost of living. They are right absolutely to raise those issues. If we were in a position in this Parliament of being able to debate tariffs, levies, VAT, the price cap or the idea of a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies to provide support for the transition, no doubt we would have a lively debate and all parties would bring their ideas to the table. Those issues, of course, are decided at UK level. Even the issue of rebalancing gas and electricity prices, which is going to be important, we pressed on that with the UK Government. I do hope that those members who do not agree that those powers should be exercised here will work with us to press the UK Government to take that action that is necessary. Both Miles Briggs and Mark Griffin raised from slightly different perspectives some of the issues around the experiences that people have had in the past, of existing schemes that have replaced fossil fuel with zero emission heating or energy efficiency measures. I think that Miles Briggs mentioned social housing tenants that he has been in touch with who have had a bad experience. I have to say that I am aware of some cases like that. I have also visited many who say the opposite, who have saved more than half of their heating bills and have reliable, controllable heat as a result of switch to air source heat pumped fuelled heating networks. However, whatever happens in a multi-decade programme of work, we should avoid treating either the best or the worst individual experiences as a stereotype. Even fossil fuel heating systems and other forms of home improvement have seen good and bad practice. Mark Griffin used the term cowboys in the field. I should say that nobody else has teased him yet. It is traditional for members to say thank you to the minister for providing the advance site of the statement. I return the compliment. However, Mark Griffin mentioned the range of technologies that he mentioned. Our emphasis is on what are known as low and no regret measures. I recognise, as I said in my opening speech, that many of those are less familiar in Scotland, but they are tried and tested technologies that have been used successfully in many other countries. What is going to be critical to replicating those other countries' experiences of using those technologies well in Scotland is building the skills that are needed to design, deliver and maintain those new systems to the highest standard. The emphasis on supporting those who are most in need—we agree on that—was another theme in Mark Griffin's speech and in others. Indeed, the warmer home Scotland scheme has helped tens of thousands of households most in need, saving an average of £300 per annum per household. The successor scheme must continue to do that, as well as sharing and enabling the ambitious ambition reduction goals that Scotland has set and helping those who are in hard-to-treat properties, which might be what Liam McArthur wants to raise. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. I talked to my own speech about the scale of the ambitious in terms of the skills development that has been required to scale up the operations in relation to those installations. There is still going to be a requirement to service existing borrowers and so on. How will that capacity come under them to be met by the Government? Yes, indeed. Many of the arguments that I made in the opening speech about giving certainty to the industry and to the supply chain to invest in acquiring and sharing those skills will be critical. That is why a clear and bold approach to regulation is going to be important. In relation to regulation, several members, both from an urban and rural perspective, have raised the issue of buildings with mixed ownership, mixed tenure and mixed youth, including Cokab Stewart, my constituency MSP. I live in one of those mixed tenure, mixed owner, mixed youth, pre-1919 tenement blocs in Cokab Stewart's constituency. We are very aware of the particular challenges in relation to those. I would like to expand the point. The minister is in his last 30 seconds. Our approach is actively considering how those buildings will be incorporated into our approach to regulations. There may need to be differences in relation perhaps to compliance periods or the trigger points that are going to be used. We are establishing a short-life working group to look at the options for the regulatory approach to tenement buildings in the broadest sense and will also follow on from the recommendations from the parliamentary working group on tenement maintenance. The Scottish Law Commission will be undertaking a law reform project with a view to producing a draft tenement maintenance bill. I recognise that I am over time. I have not managed to touch on every issue that I would have wished to. I am sure that that will not be the last opportunity to debate what is, as I say, going to be an extremely long-term agenda in the years and decades ahead, but I thank once again the committee for bringing the debate. I now call on Eleanor Whitham to wind up the debate on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee up to eight minutes. I am pleased to be closing this extremely important debate on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee. As the convener said at the beginning of the debate, we are just beginning our work on retrofitting of housing to net zero. From my perspective, this debate has been immensely constructive in helping us to shape what our next steps should be on this issue. I think that this debate has affirmed for me the huge challenge ahead of us to meet the Scottish Government's ambitions for the retrofitting of housing for net zero, but it has also emphasised the importance of meeting that challenge and the significant contribution that reducing emissions from housing will make in meeting our overall net zero target. Although we recognise the enormity of the challenges ahead of us, it is reassuring to hear from all sides of the Parliament today that we share a collective commitment to overcoming them. We need to think in radical and innovative ways to meet those challenges. It is great to hear today that there are creative and innovative approaches that could be considered. As part of that, we need to think about delivering on retrofitting in a way that improves people's lives and enables people to live in homes that are conducive to better health and do not push people into fuel poverty or exponentially increase rents. That needs to be delivered in a manner that is consistent with a just transition. We have a very important role as a committee and as a Parliament more generally to hold the Scottish Government to account and ensure that we are doing all that we can to deliver on the ambitions for retrofitting. Turning to some member's contributions, this is the first time I have ever done this, so bear with me, folks. The minister was right at the beginning to point out that this is an immense challenge and it needs scale and pace. It is also right to raise that public awareness has been raised since COP26, but we still need to raise it further. That is going to be something that is going to be necessary in the immediate future. The committee also looks forward to seeing the legislation that you mentioned being brought forward. We will scrutinise that because there is a real big need for careful scrutiny to ensure that the public understands why the need for change is there and how it can make the changes and how it can fund it. It is vital that the GreenHeat task force that the minister mentioned helps to drive innovation and helps to unlock the private investment to complement the public monies that are going to be available. Miles Briggs at the outset spoke about wall and floor insulation, which could be an early starter and early driver for change, given those that are in difficult rural properties somewhere to start and focus on. Given the fuel poverty rates that are huge in the rural settings, Mark Griffin is right to raise the issue of fuel poverty that can be exacerbated by inefficient homes. The reality is that many of those homeowners will find the cost prohibitive. The no detriment principle is really key here. I share his concerns regarding cowboy builders. We have seen that in the past with other schemes when it comes to energy efficiency. Liam McArthur also underlined the issue of rural and island fuel poverty and their vastly higher costs for retrofitting. That is potentially over £17,000 for each property, and we need to understand how people will be able to fund that. Paul MacLennan outlined that to ultimately reduce fuel poverty in the long-term, decarbonising homes with low-carbon fuel-efficient measures will be key, but he also underlined the importance of the no-detriment principle and the need for all Governments to work collaboratively on that issue. Liam Kerr raised the huge issue of the 70,000 off-grid homes. There are some in my own council area that we have had to deal with and supply fuel pumps. The costs and difficulties in retrofitting such properties and the need to tackle those issues have been an old one-size-fits-all. Fergus Ewing passionately raised the issues of his constituent, who lives in a listed building. I myself live in one of them, too. The committee has already started to explore the tensions between planning consent and retrofitting and the important issue of the missing share schemes. I think that a lot of those schemes are going to be important going forward. Paul MacNeill reinforced that financial supports are required and raised the concerns regarding a lack of consumer confidence in emerging and changing technologies. That is really important because consumers have to have the confidence to go ahead with such big financial transactions. Michelle Thomson rightly pointed out that that is an exponential challenge, £33 billion price tag, and she highlighted the need to upskill and support our small and medium enterprises in order that they can help us to meet that challenge, and rightly underlined the skills shortage that we are having to address, which was talked about by many members today. Megan Gallherd also discussed the desire to preserve our belt heritage, which is important for so many of us and how that can compete with retrofitting. Again, we need to find solutions for that. Paul Sweeney. I am sure that I am well aware of the built environment from Scotland Tenement Meetings working group, and there are particular concerns that the pace in which legislation is being brought through and particularly the capacity issues with the Scottish Law Commission looking at potential legislations is really problematic. I think that we could potentially look at how we accelerate that effort and to try to get that legislation through as quickly as possible. Paul Sweeney for that intervention, and I would agree with him. I think that that is something that the committee is definitely going to have to be very mindful of and use in our scrutiny work. I have forgotten where I was and knew that was going to happen to me in my first time. Yes, Cogar Stewart highlighted the 96 per cent of her constituency as in tenemental period properties in the huge town that arises from this, as highlighted by her own survey. Mark Ruskell eloquently pointed out how his own period property has been retrofitted numerous times over the years as technology advanced, but recognised that the scale of retrofitting is a mountain in front of us. Interestingly enough, the final contribution in the open debate from Alex Rowley reinforced the very real issue of the looming fuel cost crisis and the never-ending cycle of retrofitting, which I thought was quite interesting coming straight after Mark Ruskell's contribution. The issue of building to a gold standard now is something that the committee is going to have to focus on. We have to recognise that technology emerges all the time. We are going to see a continual retrofitting, regardless of getting to a gold standard at the moment. That was a very interesting contribution, I thought. I thank the Parliament for the opportunity for this debate. I hope that by the time that we come back to consider the issue in the chamber again, we will do so reflecting on real progress. We will see local and national strategies that offer clear pathways to the delivery of the retrofitting agenda, that funding is in place through a combination of sources to support that delivery, that people know how to access that funding, that the public understands what is required of them and why it is so necessary, and that we are delivering the retrofitting agenda in a way that is consistent with the just transition, and that there is a skilled workforce across Scotland able to deliver on this agenda irrespective of where you live in this country, and finally that the conversations with the UK Government have progressed on the issue of that on retrofit work and electricity tariffs, thereby removing the obstacles in the way of our ambitions for retrofitting. That concludes the debate on retrofitting of properties for net zero. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of a legislative consent motion. I call on Keith Brown to move motion number 2801 on judicial review and courts bill UK legislation. Cabinet Secretary, we couldn't hear you in the chamber. Thank you very much. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 2850 on committee membership, and I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. Thank you minister. The question on this motion will be put at decision time and there are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 2801 in the name of Keith Brown on judicial review and courts bill UK legislation be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The next question is that motion 2850 in the name of George Adam on committee membership be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and we'll move on to members business.