 that motion 3.4 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting up a business programme, be agreed? Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 3.5 on approval of an SSI. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion, Minister. I call Russell Finlay to speak up to three minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A range of temporary powers were enacted by the Scottish Government in April 2020, at the start of the pandemic. Some of them were temporary, however, last year the Government extended the use of others, including the expansion of fiscal fines. The Crown Office issues fiscal fines as an alternative prosecution. Prior to the pandemic, the maximum was £300. The emergency Covid law increased this to £500. The Government is today asking members to maintain the £500 limit until this time next year. The Government submitted a policy note to the criminal justice committee. It stated that increasing the maximum fines allowed prosecutors to use them, and I quote, in a wider range of cases. Those five words, a wider range of cases, are the key issue. I asked the justice secretary exactly what new crimes are being dealt with by way of fiscal fines she either would not or could not answer. The cabinet secretary tried to deflect that there was ideological opposition to fiscal fines, which is not true. I'm sure that crime victims have no ideological opposition. I'm sure that they would expect to be told when they are being issued. I'm also sure that the public expect to know when fiscal fines are issued for serious crimes, including acts of violence. People want justice to be done efficiently and effectively, but they also want transparency. To recap, in 2020, the Government passed an emergency law to widen the use of fiscal fines. It did not tell the public what new crimes they would be used for. It relied on the support of all parties, including mine. However, if the SSI is agreed by members today, the significant and supposedly temporary measure will be in place for almost five years. Do I have time for an intervention? Briefly, Pauline McNeill. Would the member agree that, in addition to what has been said, several times Labour has challenged whether or not the Crown does need more than up to 260 days to prepare a case for indictment. If we pass this tonight, without any justification, this will be extended again to 2526. That's another good reason to vote against the SSI. I note that Labour at committee voted alongside us in opposition to it. This is a shabby and lazy way to legislate. If the Government wants to widen the use of diversion from prosecution, it should be honest and upfront about it. It should pass new legislation that would explain exactly how fiscal fines would be used. It should not resort to doing so by stealth, using Covid as an excuse. I now call Angela Constance to respond to the cabinet secretary again up to three minutes. I attended the criminal justice committee on Wednesday 8 November and explained the approach taken by the Scottish Government in respect of the statutory instrument. In particular, I noted the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland act 2022 includes a range of temporary justice measures that are due to expire at the end of this month. The measures were originally introduced as a direct response to the pandemic. MSPs will be aware of the adverse impact that the pandemic had across many different areas, and the justice system was no different. While recovery is well underway, it is not yet complete, the need for some of the measures originally introduced has reduced. That is why I was able to advise the committee that certain measures have been expired. I know that MSPs have rightly shown a keen interest, for example in the extended time limits. I was pleased to advise the committee that more than half of the extended time limits put in place at the outset of the pandemic—four out of seven—are being expired. I also confirmed to the committee that I have no plans to make temporary time limits permanent. I do not want any extended time limits for any longer than is necessary if they are not needed. This statutory instrument is an indication of the progress that is being made in court recovery. More generally, the Scottish Government has considered carefully the operation of the provisions and engaged with justice agencies and stakeholders. The findings of the Scottish Government review are set out in the statement of reasons that are laid alongside the statutory instrument. There are three main reasons for maintaining some of the temporary measures. One of them is the clear support from justice agencies for some of the temporary measures to be made more permanent. That is why, earlier this month, I published a public consultation that proposes making permanent certain temporary measures that will help to improve the justice system and make it more resilient, efficient and effective. That includes proposals to make permanent and national jurisdiction for callings from custody, increasing the maximum amount of the fiscal fines and the virtual attendance at court. I hope that I clarified at the committee that the increase in the range of fines covers the same range of offences. I had endeavoured to explain to Mr Finlay the difference between the number of cases and the range of offences. Yes, of course. Do you have time, Presiding Officer? I can give you a little bit of time back. I have to disagree with the cabinet secretary's assertion. The statement from the Government to the committee was that this would be for a wider range of cases. That is quite clear, so could the cabinet secretary now explain what cases these will be? As I have confirmed to Mr Finlay, not once but twice, that the increased fine rate applies to the same offences. Perhaps in terms of his issues about cases, the fiscal fines by having the increased £300 to £500 range, that now covers cases where the Crown Office consider a £300 fine insufficient in the circumstances but where they consider a £500 fine appropriate. Presiding Officer, keeping those elements in place pending consideration of permanent legislation is a sensible approach to take and the consultation provides an opportunity to seek wider views on those proposals. Another reason, Presiding Officer, is that the court system is still in recovery from the pandemic. Given that you are pressing me for time, Presiding Officer, I will refer members to the statement that I made at the committee. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 1375, on approval of an SSI. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move to motion minister. Presiding Officer, at committee, I raise concerns with the SSI and those concerns remain and I would like to raise them again today. Let me make it clear from the outset that I remain a big fan of heat networks and I am convinced that heat networks will have a huge part to play in decarbonising our buildings, especially in a more densely populated cities where having heat pumps in tenement blocks, for example, will not be viable. I also speak as a formal council leader where I have experience of their installation, so I know how difficult and expensive they are to roll out. In the partial business and regulatory impact assessment, it does set out a cost of up to £26.2 billion to reach the target by 2035, but it also states that this cost excludes any adaptations that may be required within existing buildings, so the final costs will be much higher than the £6.2 billion price tag quoted. When the minister at committee was questioned about this figure, he stated that the Government will only be committed £300 million towards this figure, so we are left unclear where the remaining sums will come from and how achievable that will be. The impact assessment also sets out the role of our local authorities will play, but I remain concerned that our local authorities have been underfunded and council tax has been frozen. They will not be able to fulfil the function that we require them to take, especially given that the costs for adaptation of existing buildings are not captured by the assessment and many of those buildings will be owned by our local authorities. I also note from the policy note accompanying this SSI that the local authorities, local heat and energy strategies will play into the national target, but not all local authorities have completed those, so it does seem strange to set this target without that information. We also have no details on where the seven terabyte terabyte watt hours in the policy comes from. I worry that the target set out today, like so many of the devolved Government's targets, is aspirational, but without more detail is simply unachievable. The SNP-Green Government needs to understand that setting targets is one thing, but it is delivery that counts. More details are urgently required. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Lumsden, and just for clarity, we are referring here to motion 11376, not 375. With that minister, I call you to respond for up to three minutes. I'm grateful, Presiding Officer, for the chance to respond on points raised on this SSI. It's an order that supports our ambition to grow the number and the scale of heat networks in Scotland. These are systems that will supply many of us with clean heating in the years ahead. The Heat Networks Act requires us to set a target for 2035, but setting the target is not just a legal requirement, it's helpful in and of itself. It will send a very clear signal to the heat network sector that this Government, and indeed future Governments, are and will remain committed to its growth. The proposed target of seven terabyte watt hours is evidence-based, developed using data on potential heat network zones. The proposed target is one terabyte hour greater than the 2030 target that is already set in the existing legislation for which this Parliament voted unanimously. I was pleased to see the committee approve the SSI, but there were some concerns raised, concerns that I have to say I answered repeatedly in the committee, although not to the satisfaction of all members. Perhaps they decided that it wouldn't be to their satisfaction no matter what I said, but let me run through them again. The need for a credible plan to meet the targets is precisely why we published our heat network delivery plan back in 2022, setting out a range of actions that we are taking to support the sector. We are under duty to review how the plan is supporting our targets by March next year. We know that we need to move to create more demand for heat networks and the upcoming heat and buildings consultation will make proposals on that. There was also concern about the potential cost of meeting those targets. I am going to make some progress. That cost will be achieved through a mix of public and private investment. That point should be well understood by anyone who has looked carefully at this subject. The private investment will be driven by creating demand for heat networks. The funding that we have allocated to heat networks is to 2026, whereas the target is for nine years later. We know that there is significant interest from private investors in developing those schemes. We have already seen good examples of collaboration, such as in Midlothian, where the public and private sector are working together. To compare overall cost projections to public budgets is misleading. Based on our best estimate, heat networks in 2022 supplied 1.35 terawatt hours of heat. We have committed to keeping that and any future targets under review as further evidence emerges, for example as heat network zones are designated. Setting that target is just one part of our plan to help to grow the sector. We are already taking a range of other concerted actions to allow the heat network sector to flourish. We are resourcing local authorities to develop local heat and energy efficiency strategies, which are identifying opportunities across Scotland. For example, Glasgow's LHease identifies that heat networks have the potential to supply between one and four terawatt hours of the city's heat annually. We have launched the heat network support unit, which is already helping local authorities through the pre-capital stages of heat network development. Collectively, the actions will help us to achieve our proposed target and I ask Parliament to support this SSI. On this, we will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move the motions. Apologies. I'll need to tell you what the motions are first. The motions are double one, three, double seven on approval of an SSI, double one, three, seven, eight on designation of a lead committee and double one, three, seven, nine on committee meeting times and I invite the minister to move the three motions. It's just so eager to be helpful, Presiding Officer, moved. Thank you. The question on these motions will be put at decision time to which we now turn and there are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that if amendment in the name of Paul MacLennan is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Graham Simpson will fall. The first question is that amendment double one, three, eight, one point two. Double one, three, five, one point two in the name of Paul MacLennan, which seeks to amend motion double one, three, five, one in the name of Mark Griffin on Scotland's housing emergency be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a vote and members should cast a vote now. The vote is closed and the result of the vote on amendment number double one, three, five, one point two in the name of Paul MacLennan is yes 63, no 51. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion double one, three, five, one in the name of Mark Griffin as amended on Scotland's housing emergency be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Daniel Johnson. My app didn't connect. I devoted no. Mr Johnson, I didn't hear you. Point of order, Daniel Johnson. So my app didn't connect. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I'll make sure that that is recorded. Point of order, Alexander Stewart. I don't think my app says on the thing that there's no vote voted. So I don't think it actually recorded, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. The result of the vote on motion double one, three, five, one in the name of Mark Griffin as amended is yes 65, no 50. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion double one, three, seven, five in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on approval of an SSI be agreed? Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a vote and members should cast their votes now. And the vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion double one, three, seven, five in the name of George Adam is yes 64, no 49. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion double one, three, seven, six in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on approval of an SSI be agreed? Are we all agreed? Parliament's not agreed. There will be a vote and members should cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. Point of order, Neil Bibby remotely. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Bibby. I'll make sure that that is recorded. And the result of the vote on motion double one, three, seven, six in the name of George Adam is yes 87, no three. There were 25 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. And I propose to ask a single question on three Parliamentary Bureau motions. Does any member object? The question is therefore that motions double one, three, seven, seven on approval of an SSI double one, three, seven, eight on designation of a league committee and double one, three, seven, nine on committee meeting times be agreed? Are we all agreed? That is agreed. And that concludes decision time. We'll move on to members' business. Therefore, I'd ask members leaving the chamber to do so as quickly and as quietly as possible.