 Gwni gyddon ni. Nawr, rydych yn bryd eu cyffiniedig ymarffyrdd. Gwylwch i'r willll yn ymgyrch gyn suisodol y Gweithnod Akwm Cymru yn 2019. A rydych yn ddalod 재ogreid. Yn ymgyrch wedi gwneud ymbydd ymgyrch mae'r uchydig yn ymgyrch gyda fawr ymwyl a'r cyffiniedig ymgyrch gyda'r cyffiniedig ymgyrch. Roedden ehol? Y ddigon i'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r Llyfrgell. Erdwyd y dyfodol, ysgol yn y Hwyl yn ystod. Rydw i, Kevin Stewart, yn ystod, ymddangos i'r Llyfrgell, ymddangos i'r rheoli a'r ddysgu. Mae'r ddechrau yn cymaint o'r llogau yn Llyfrgell, ac mae'n dda i'n ddod i'n ddigon i'r yr Aelodau. Aelodau i'r ddysgu i ddiddordeb yn yr Aelodau, ac mae'n edrych yn ystod yn ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb. The intention is that we will finish stage 2 today if we can. If we are unable to do so, we will return to it after Easter recess. At introduction, the Presiding Officer determined that a financial resolution was not required for this bill. Under rule 9126C, the Presiding Officer determined that the costs associated with amendments 48 and 62 would each and themselves exceed the current threshold for a bill to require a financial resolution. Amendment 62 has subsequently been withdrawn. In terms of stage 2 proceedings, amendment 48 may be debated but may not be agreed in the absence of a financial resolution. The Presiding Officer has also ruled that amendments 93, 21, 81, 84, 82 and 85 are cost bearing amendments. However, the potential cumulative cost of these amendments would not require a financial resolution. As such amendments 93, 21, 81, 84, 82 and 85 and any amendments consequential in these amendments will be debated while that debate is not already taking place. The question is put on them as per normal in stage 2 proceedings. Amendment 99, in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments 56, 61, 163. Jackie Baillie, to move amendment 99 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I declare at the outset that I am the honorary vice president of Energy Action Scotland, along with colleagues, I believe, Murdo Fraser and Gillian Martin. I thought that I would put that on the record before commencing. However, I am pleased to move amendment 99 and all the other amendments in the group, which all happen to be in my name. Those sharp-eyed members will remember amendment 62, which the Presiding Officer determined would cost about £1 million. I used the week between committee meetings to bring forward amendments 99 and 100 in place of amendment 62. Amendment 99, 56, 61, 163 all deal with areas to be deducted when determining the remaining adjusted net income when considering whether somebody is actually in fuel poverty. 99 and 100 deal with disability, and I sought advice from SPICE on a proportionate way of dealing with this. They, in turn, took advice from Professor Hirsh, who is known to the Scottish Government and to the committee. He told us in turn that the social metrics commission had done work on a new measure of poverty using the level of extra cost benefits in relation to attendance allowance, disability allowance and PIP as an indicator of additional costs. That requires very little research to be undertaken and is effectively, in his words, cost free. It just needs to be built into the Scottish Government's analysis when counting fuel poverty. I hope that that is not seen any more as an impediment to taking that forward. As the bill stands, the second part of the fuel poverty definition includes childcare costs as part of the calculation. Of course that is welcome, it is right that it should do so, but I think that it would be inconsistent and a missed opportunity if the costs that a household has to spend caring for an adult are excluded. We know from the Government's own statistics that care has experienced a level of poverty of about 22 per cent. We also know that poverty is experienced by people with a range of disabilities and both have a read across to fuel poverty as well. We know that care costs have a real impact on household income and whatever generation you are talking about, whether it is childcare or adult care, I believe that that should be accounted for in the bill. It is a very simple set of amendments that I hope both the Scottish Government and the committee will accept. In commending them to the committee this morning, I note that those amendments are supported by a wide variety of organisations. The poverty alliance, the coalition of carers Scotland, health and social care alliance, common wheel, energy action Scotland and many more besides. I hope that the committee will therefore support those amendments. I would like to make comments about Jackie Baillie's amendments 56, 61 and 63. At the committee meeting on 13 March, you asked me to respond to a list of proposed amendments to the bill, which Energy Action Scotland circulated to MSPs. As I set out to you, EAS neither sent us their proposed amendments nor did they seek any meetings with me or my officials to discuss their views. Those three amendments are clearly based on the EAS proposals that the bill should be amended to deduct both social care costs and childcare costs when calculating if a household's remaining adjusted net income is sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living. I am unaware of any consultation having taken place on those proposals. None of those amendments form any part of the recommendations made by the committee in its stage 1 report and they offer no indication of what care costs would cover. As everyone knows, Scotland has free personal care and as of this week that policy applies to all adults regardless of their income. Those who have been assessed are requiring the need for that support. That is a key reason why amendments 56, 61 and 63 are not required in the bill and I would urge the committee to vote against them. I am pleased to see that Jackie Baillie has withdrawn her previous amendment 62 on a disability mis that was not going to be able to be voted on and introduced two new amendments, 99 and 100. Those represent a much better way of taking account of any additional care costs, providing another reason why amendments 56, 61 and 63 are not necessary. Ms Baillie's amendments would allow for the deduction of relevant care and disability-related benefits from household income. I accept that deducting those when considering whether a household's income is sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living will result in a fairer comparison to the minimum income standard and I am happy to accept them instead of the previous amendments discussed. That approach would be in line with other evidence such as the work of the social metrics commission, which spent over a year considering aspects of poverty measurement and concluded that deducting from resources available the value of those extra cost disability benefits was at the best available proxy for the extra inescapable costs of disability. The combination of the approach to disability benefits with our enhanced heating regime and associated higher-required fuel bills for households most affected by the adverse outcomes of living in a colder home as well as their approach to free personal care in Scotland will ensure that we are taking concrete action to tackle fuel poverty. That said, as we only got those amendments at the end of last week, the legal team needs to run some further checks just to ensure that they cover everything needed, for example, all relevant disability benefits. I am assured that that would only result in us needing to bring technical tidying amendments at stage 3 and will not change the policy objective of them. I therefore urge the committee to vote against Jackie Baillie's amendments 56, 61 and 63, because they are unnecessary, particularly in light of her new amendments 99 and 100, which we can support. I intend to press all amendments, convener. I am very grateful that the Government has accepted amendment 99 and 100. Let me make just a couple of very brief comments. Energy Action Scotland, in line with all other organisations, did engage with the committee, made submissions to the committee and I raised some of those issues at stage 1 when I helpfully came along. The committee accepted the convener when the minister himself was giving evidence at the time. I do not accept that those are things that have simply come at the last minute. That said, I think that it is unlikely that we will see primary legislation for a while. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get this right. Therefore, I urge members to make sure that we put this on the face of the bill, because I think that we all agree that—sorry, convener—I was not aware that the member of the committee wanted to ask something. The member said that she did not expect there to be primary legislation for some while. Perhaps she could clarify what she meant. The last fuel poverty target was set in the Housing Scotland Act 2000, so we are talking about a considerable period since a new piece of legislation setting a new target is before the committee. There will, of course, be secondary legislation. One would expect that the bill invites that, but in terms of primary legislation, that was the last time a target was set. This target, as I understand the committee's view, is to 2040. It will be sometime before we see new legislation. I am sure that the member would accept that. I think that it is important to get it right and to set out clearly our intentions. We leave you with one thought, which is care costs. Care costs are not just about free personal care. Care costs involve free personal care, nursing care and hotel costs. It is not the case that all are met. We know from our constituents that care costs provide a real burden on a household, and therefore ensuring that this is clear and evident on the face of the bill, I believe is important. I hope that members think likewise. The question is for us that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 99 is agreed to unanimously. I call amendment 56 in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 99. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Are those in favour of amendment 56, 1, those opposed to amendment 56, 5, and 1 abstention? I call amendment 57 in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Jackie Baillie to move amendment 57 and speak to all amendments in the group. I am grateful for the opportunity to move amendment 57 and all the other amendments in the group. Again, amendment 57 is a relatively simple set of amendments. Amendment 57 deals with physical and mental impairment. Amendment 58 deals with people of pensionable age. Amendment 59 deals with children under the age of five. Let me take these in turn, because this sets out quite clearly the eligibility for enhanced heating on the face of the bill. I start from the premise that we want to capture all those likely to experience higher levels of fuel poverty than others, and if we are to achieve the target of eradicating fuel poverty, then it is important that we include people with disabilities, pensioners and young children. The question is, as ever, whether that should be on the face of the bill. Taking amendment 57, 1, which covers disability, let me refer you to Inclusion Scotland's submission to the committee and quote from it, Additional costs such as heating are higher because a much higher proportion of disabled people are unemployed and thus at home all day at a time when others reduce their heating. Although disabled people in employment face less additional costs, they are still substantial and on average across the UK amount to £492 a month. It should be borne in mind that the costs for a Scottish disabled person in work are likely to be higher again and that some disabled people linked to their conditions actually need more heat so as not to exacerbate their condition. Of course, I would invite members to just gaze outside today with the weather conditions we are having in April to understand why additional heating may well indeed be required. Amendment 58 focuses on pensioners and the Scottish Government's position is to create, as I understood from the debate with the minister at stage 1, a threshold of 75 years before allowing eligibility for enhanced heating. I think that it misses the fact that the older people on the point of retirement actually experience a substantial drop in income and many of them are on low and fixed incomes as a result of transferring to pensions. At the same time, the need for additional heating as you get older is well documented and this is a sensible amendment designed to reflect that practical reality. Turning to amendment 59, I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to align fuel poverty and child poverty, but this amendment is needed to reflect the fact that children under the age of five are actually at a higher risk of fuel poverty than those over five. The child poverty action group points us to the World Health Organization and the Scottish Government's independent academic panel, which note that families with young children are more vulnerable to the impact of fuel poverty. They support the inclusion of all children, including those under five, being included in the eligibility for enhanced heating. Convener, those are small amendments that have the potential to make a huge difference and they are supported by a wide number of charities that I won't list in the interests of time. Finally, and briefly convener, amendment 60 properly gives ministers the power to modify those groups eligible for enhanced heating because this is quite high level list and it is up to ministers to make sure that we are fitting and appropriate in future. Amendments 64, 96 and 97 set out the need to consult the NHS and patient groups as they will have expertise and experience of the full range of illnesses and conditions. Citizens Advice Scotland told this committee that there was a need to develop a specific list of health and disability categories, as well as age bands, which would help to identify those vulnerable to the adverse health and wellbeing impacts of living in fuel poverty. I hope that the committee and the minister will support this group of amendments. Convener, it is essential that the eligibility criteria for the enhanced heating regime are fair and appropriate and that they identify those households that have a real need for higher temperatures and longer hours of heating. I am concerned that Jackie Baillie's criteria are so wide that the enhanced heating regime could end up applying to over 50 per cent of Scottish households, even though not all of them may need higher temperature heating for longer hours. That would devalue the enhanced heating regime. I therefore strongly urge the committee to vote against all of the amendments in this grouping. The bill currently provides for the eligibility criteria to be laid down in regulations following a consultation process. It is vital that we develop those criteria with stakeholders and, in particular, those with lived experience of fuel poverty, which is why determining the types of households for which the enhanced heating regime is appropriate is better in secondary legislation. Putting the eligibility criteria on the face of the bill, as amendments 57, 58 and 59 would do, will not enable us to work flexibly with our stakeholders to do that. To provide further detail, amendment 57 provides for a one-size-fits-all view of disability rather than recognising the diverse needs within this group of people. I appreciate that very much. I wonder if you can confirm that, if those are left to regulations, the affirmative procedure would be used for those regulations? Indeed, convener, that is the case. The affirmative procedure will be used. Not everyone with a physical or mental impairment requires additional heating for longer hours in the home. Amendment 58 would see the enhanced heating regime applied to all those of pensionable age. However, folks are living longer and healthier lives and working longer, too. Becoming a pensioner does not automatically imply vulnerability to the cold and a need for higher household temperatures for longer hours. The independent academic panel, which reviewed our fuel poverty definition in 2017, agreed with this assessment, as did you, the committee, in your stage 1 report. Amendment 59 is related to households with a child under 5 needing higher temperatures for longer hours. There is no medical evidence to convince us that that is the case. In fact, higher temperatures for longer hours is inconsistent with established NHS guidance. The regulation making powers in section 2.4 of the bill provides us with the flexibility to review definitions and criteria if any evidence in the future deems that to be necessary. The resulting regulations would be subject, as I have said and confirmed to Mr Simpson, to the affirmative procedure and, therefore, scrutinised fully by the Parliament. That is another reason why this is better placed in secondary legislation. Let me now turn to amendments 96 and 97 that would alter section 11 of the bill. They oblige ministers when making regulations, which establish those that are eligible for enhanced heating, to consult relevant health bodies and the patients of such bodies. Section 112 of the bill already provides that ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate, and I have already asked the fuel poverty advisory panel to examine that. Of course, as part of the consultation process, we will also involve experts. If we are required to consult relevant health bodies and their patients, this could cover almost any NHS patient rather than just those with conditions that make them vulnerable to the cold, so that they need higher heating temperatures for longer hours in their homes. I therefore do not support any of the amendments in this group, and I would ask the committee to vote against them. Thank you, convener. I think that we would all agree that there are some groups that need to heat their homes more and for longer. I think that we would all equally agree that there is an additional cost to this, and that should be accurately captured if we are to tackle fuel poverty. I think that, again, we would all agree that the groups identified by a range of organisations are indeed the right ones. The question before the committee is whether this is on the face of the bill. The politics of this is that if you believe that it is important, then you should put it on the face of a bill. Why run the risk of letting people slip through the net? Let me just be perfectly candid. Whether it is affirmative procedure, negative procedure or, indeed, superaffirmative procedure that I am happy to explain at length to the committee, that does not give comfort to somebody who is having to choose between heating and eating. I would therefore ask the committee to definitely support the whole range of amendments before you. Thank you very much, Jackie. I am sure that we all appreciate your offer of lesson about superaffirmative procedure. Would you like to press or withdraw your amendment? Press, convener. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 57? One. Those opposed? Six. Amendment 57 falls. I call amendment 58 in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 57. Jackie Baillie to move or not moved? Moved. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 58? One. Those opposed? Six. Amendment 58 falls. I call amendment 59 in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 57. Jackie Baillie to move or not moved? Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 59? One. Those opposed to amendment 59? Six. Amendment 59 falls. I call amendment 68 in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 57. Jackie Baillie to move or not move? Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 60? One. Those opposed? Six. Amendment 60 falls. I call amendment 20 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 20 and speak to all amendments in the group. I am committed to tackling fuel poverty wherever it occurs and ensuring that our remote and island areas are properly represented within the new definition of fuel poverty. Those amendments will establish a remote rural, remote small town and island minimum income standard uplift. I believe that they will improve the bill as well as respond to the clear recommendation of the committee and the views of stakeholders. I am determined that we develop this using appropriate research that will ensure the new definition reflects the reality of costs associated with living in remote and island communities. The regulations that are provided for by my amendments will be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow for a high level of scrutiny by the Parliament. The regulation making power will be used to appoint someone to carry out the research and to make a determination in line with the methodology discussed with the committee and covering categories 4 and 6 of the urban rural classification. I will ensure that a key criteria for selecting the research organisation will be their level of experience and expertise in conducting this type of research. Identifying the organisation to undertake the necessary research will require a procurement process, therefore we cannot specify an organisation in primary legislation without overriding existing procurement law and practice. I am clear that this uplift must always and explicitly include island communities, reflecting the unique challenges that the specific communities face around higher cost of living. I am therefore happy to support the amendments that are brought forward by Liam McArthur that will provide for a separate uplift for island communities. Mr McArthur has been a strong advocate for his constituency and, in this bill, he has constructively engaged with me and I thank him very much for that. I therefore urge members to vote for all of the amendments in this group. Can I welcome to the committee Claudia Beamish, Alasdor Burnett and Liam McArthur to now speak to amendment 21A and other amendments in the group? Thank you very much, convener. Before I do so, can I put on record my thanks to the committee for the work done in getting to this stage, getting to the point where the bill I think better reflects the particular circumstances of fuel poverty in remote rural and island areas and also reciprocate the thanks to the minister for his engagement on this issue over many months, dating back to the time when I was raising concerns in the context of the Parliament's scrutiny of the islands act. Clearly, there are few communities in Scotland that are unaffected by fuel poverty, but all the evidence shows that remote rural and island communities are impacted disproportionately. This was borne out by the work of the Government's rural fuel poverty task force, ably chaired by Dai Alexander, whose evidence I think to this committee clearly proved persuasive not just to members of this committee, but I am pleased to note with the minister as well. I welcome the amendments from the minister in this section, which go a long way to addressing the calls for a separate minimum income standard for remote rural and island areas, reflecting the additional costs borne, as the minister said, by those living in those communities. As I said at stage 1, this is an approach supported universally by the councils, housing associations and fuel poverty groups across the islands and islands and beyond. However, further small but important changes are still needed if this bill is to be fully island proofed. My amendments 21A and 21B achieve that by distinguishing between mainland remote rural and island communities. There were concerns that making such a distinction would result in additional costs and complexity. We now know from Professor Hersch, from SPICE and indeed from the Government that that is not the case in either respect. Those reassurances are very welcome and allow us to proceed with confidence that those changes will enable the targeting of resources that those most in need, the specific circumstances of remote rural and island communities to be taken into account and that this can be achieved without diverting resources away from the front line. Again, I thank the minister and the committee for their support in getting to this stage. In particular, Alexander and the other experts working in this field, who have made the case patiently and consistently over many months, and I am pleased to say successfully. Therefore, I will be moving my amendment 21A in due course. I will be supporting all the amendments in this group. I think that they reflect very well the work that the committee did at stage 1 on this. I thank the minister for listening to the concerns that were raised and the evidence that we took on this. I also thank Liam McArthur for bringing forward his very useful amendments to island proof the MIS. At the end of the day, this is an example of how a bill can be much improved through the work of this committee in particular. We will end up helping people who live in remote rural areas and islands. I thank the committee for the efforts that they have made in this area. I, too, pay tribute to Die Alexander for the work that he has put in over many a year. Die, as many of you know, is rather vociferous at points, and I do not think that that is necessarily a bad thing. Equally, I would like to pay tribute to a number of the MSPs, including Mr McArthur, who have put their islands at the heart of all this. I know that Mr Gibson has been again at the forefront, and Alistair Allen has also been speaking to me about this. Obviously, passing those amendments are very important. The committee can be assured that my officials and I will continue to listen to the voices of island communities and remote communities as we move forward. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 20 is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 61, in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 99. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 61? Those opposed to amendment 61? Six. Amendment 61 is not agreed to. I call amendment 21, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20. Amendment 21A, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 20. The question is that amendment 21A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 21A, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 20. The question is that amendment 21A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 21 as amended. Press, convener. The question is, amendment 21, as amended, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 100, in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 99. Jackie Baillie to move or not move? Moved. The question is, amendment 100, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 100 is agreed to. I call amendment 63, in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 99. Jackie Baillie to move or not move? Moved. Thank you. The question is, amendment 63, be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Those in favour of amendment 63, 1, those opposed to amendment 63, 6, amendment 63, as if they're not agreed to. I call amendment 22, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is, amendment 22, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 22 is agreed to, I call amendment 23, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20. Minister. Good to me now. Thank you. The question is, amendment 23, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 23 is agreed to. I call amendment 64, in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 57. Jackie Baillie to move or not move? Moved. The question is, amendment 64, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 64, 1, those opposed to amendment 64, 6, amendment 64, as if they're not agreed to. The question now is, section 2, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is, section 2, as if they're agreed to. I call amendment 24, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 15. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is, amendment 24, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 25, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 15. Minister. Moved. Thank you. The question is, amendment 25, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 25 is now agreed to. I call amendment 101, in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Jackie Baillie to move amendment 101, and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I will be very brief and I'm pleased to move my final amendment for the day, which is amendment 101. In a previous incarnation this was amendment 65, but helpfully in the intervening week that the committee was not meeting I had a very brief discussion with the Government and chose to withdraw the amendment and substitute it with 101. Purpose of the amendment is straightforward. It requires the Scottish Government to prepare its fuel poverty strategy with key groups, those with lived experience of fuel poverty, disabled people, older people, those in rural areas, all areas that I think the committee would agree on. Consultation can be very passive, I know that isn't the Scottish Government's intention and the Government rightly embraces co-production, but there is no legal definition that I could find for co-production that would be suitable for the face of the bill. My original wording was co-operation, but apparently, according to the Government, legal advisers this inferred a degree of compulsion. So I've settled on involvement and hope that the Scottish Government and the committee can agree that this is an appropriate form of wording. It's supported by a wide range of organisations, convener, Poverty Alliance, Citizens Advice Scotland, Common Weal, Inclusion Scotland and the Health and Social Care Alliance, just to name but a few. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Minister, to speak to amendment 31 and other amendments in the group. There are several amendments in this group from me and three other colleagues, so I hope that you'll forgive me, but I will take some time to go over each set. Let me first discuss my own amendments before those of others in the grouping. The bill currently provides that, in preparing the strategy and our periodic reports, ministers must consult such people, as they consider appropriate, including those with lived experience of fuel poverty. Amendments 31 and 36 extend that to ensure that it includes the local authority partners that help us to deliver support. Amendment 32 commits us to laying a report before Parliament on the consultation process for the preparation of the strategy. This report must state how the consultation's views have been taken into account and requires ministers to make a parliamentary statement on the strategy. Those amendments further strengthen the bill and who we are required to consult, as well as ensuring that Parliament can hold the Government to account. Let me now turn to the others in this group. Alex Rowley's amendment 87 stipulates four categories of folks that we need to consult when preparing periodic reports. I fully expect those categories to be the ones that we would consult anyway, so I do not have any problem with the consultation duty being extended to guarantee this, and therefore I am happy to support Mr Rowley's amendment. In contrast, I have a difficulty with the way that Jackie Baillie's amendment 101 is framed. I have no objection to obliging ministers when preparing the strategy to consult the type of folk that Jackie Baillie wants to have involved in the preparation of the strategy, just as Mr Rowley has done for periodic reports. However, the amendment places an obligation on ministers under section 3 of the bill to prepare the strategy with the involvement of the folks listed in the amendment, but as the strategy already has to be prepared in consultation with people under section 4, this will result in duplication. In addition, when it comes to the wording of what ministers are obliged to do here, my legal team tells me that it is better to use the word consult than to use the word involve. That is because it is clearer from a legal perspective as to what the duty to consult individuals on the preparation of the strategy means as opposed to the duty to involve them in the preparation of it. Also for legal reasons, it would be important for the amendment to be subject to wording, which makes it clear how those to be consulted are selected. Otherwise, the validity of the strategy could be attacked for not including everyone in the country that falls into one of those categories. That, of course, would be a lot of people. I want to stress, however, that I am sympathetic to what Jackie Baillie is trying to achieve, therefore I would like to suggest a solution. I am happy to bring forward an amendment at stage 3, which will achieve Jackie Baillie's objectives but in a more considered way and replicate that of Mr Rowley's amendment for periodic reporting for the fuel poverty strategy. That would align the bill to ensure that we consult those categories of people, both Mr Rowley and Ms Baillie, and we will place that in the relevant section of the bill. I therefore ask the committee to support amendment 87 and vote against amendment 101. Let me now turn to Graham Simpson's amendments 102, 103 and 104, which he will speak to more. However, just to say that those will mean that before ministers can complete the strategy or any revision of it, Parliament will get the opportunity to scrutinise for a reasonable period what is being proposed. That is in line with the procedure adopted for the island's plan. Mr Simpson's previous amendment was more onerous, so I am glad that we have been able to discuss what he was trying to achieve and come to a consensus, I hope. I hope that the committee will support those three amendments. Thank you very much. Graham Simpson, to speak to amendment 102 and other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. As the minister said, I did have an amendment, which I withdrew. That was amendment 8, laid with the best of intentions and similar to one that was laid during the process of the planning bill. It relates to the parliamentary scrutiny of the draft strategy. However, it was pointed out to me that, despite all those good intentions, if the amendment went through, as it was worded, it could take a full year for the draft strategy to get through, and that clearly wasn't my intention. Being the practical man that I am, convener, I withdrew it and have come back with an alternative, which is slightly less onerous but would still allow Parliament to scrutinise the draft strategy, which I hope that we all feel is very important. That explains amendments 102, 103 and 104. If I can turn to some of the other amendments in the group, amendment 87 from Alex Rowley, we will be supporting a measured amendment, which is what you would expect from Mr Rowley. Sadly, I cannot accept amendment 101 from Jackie Baillie, although I do see the intentions behind it, but I would urge her, if it is rejected, to perhaps come back at stage 3, with it slightly reworded. Thank you very much. Alex Rowley, to speak to amendment 87 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The periodic report must reflect people's loved experiences of fuel poverty, it seems to me. In particular, it's important that the Government does speak to the most vulnerable groups as identified within this amendment. To do so is to understand how they are being impacted by the Government's strategy, what support is reaching them and, indeed, what support is not. I welcome the fact that the minister has indicated that they would equally support it. Anybody else want to contribute? In that case, Jackie Baillie, to wind up and press up with Rob. Thank you, convener. I won't add to what I've already said, but, in recognition of the minister's position, I indicate that I will not move amendment 101 if the minister gives a commitment that he's happy to work with me, and I will bring back, as suggested by Graham Simpson, an amendment at stage 3. Thank you very much. Jackie Baillie wishes to withdraw her amendment. Does any member present object to that amendment being withdrawn? That amendment is therefore withdrawn. I call amendment 26, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17, the minister to move formally. I would like to point out that, if amendment 26 is agreed to, you cannot call amendment 66 due to pre-emption. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 5, Graham Simpson to move and not move. I will not be moving that, convener, because it relates to the 2032 target. Okay, thank you. I call amendment 45, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 5, Graham Simpson to move and not move. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Those in favour of amendment 6, those opposed to amendment 6, one, amendment 6 is agreed to. I now call amendment 45, in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members that under rule 9.12.6, see the Presiding Officer is determined that the costs associated with amendment 48 would in themselves be significant. Therefore, amendment 48 may be debated, but the question on it may not be put in the absence of a financial resolution. Alex Rowley has agreed to move amendment 45 and speak to all amendments in the group on behalf of Pauline McNeill. I move the amendments in Pauline McNeill's name, as well as speaking to amendment 68 in my name. It is part of the strategy that ministers must lay out how they will identify households in fuel poverty. It is crucial that the new definition of fuel poverty is welcome, but it is highly complex, and the Government must consider how it will translate into direct support for those living in fuel poverty. Ministers sitting out how they plan to identify households in fuel poverty is a crucial part of the process, and it would be useful for the Parliament, the third sector and any other interested parties to understand how they will do that. I am so happy to move those amendments. Thank you very much. Amendment 46 is designed to try and establish the quantum of buildings out there that have low levels of energy efficiency and require improvements by the target date. However, I will not be pressing this amendment. It contains the wrong date, and Alexander Burnett's amendment 47 expresses my intentions more accurately. Thank you, convener, and I thank the committee for their work to date and note members to my register of interests regarding construction and property management. My amendments are aimed at progressing the route for residential buildings across Scotland to achieve an EPC rating of C or better, and to give us some context for Scottish Government currently have a target of 2040, but on 10 May last year, this Parliament passed a motion with cross-party support to improve that date to 2030. The motion detailing that this Parliament supports the Scottish Government to have a target for all homes reaching EPCC rating where feasibly possible should be no later than 2030, not 2040, given the urgency to reduce carbon emissions and to ensure that every home in Scotland is warm and properly insulated. Just last week, the Scottish Government launched the Energy Efficiency Scotland consultation on further development of a programme proposing some properties to reach EPCC band by C by 2025. It would appear that the enthusiasm for improving energy efficiency in homes is gathering momentum and that is to be welcomed. However, to achieve that not only requires physical improvements to buildings but first requires preparatory steps, namely the identification of the work. My amendments merely seek to put into legislation this preparatory work and the steps necessary to achieve a target set out by the Government and improved on by the Parliament. The first step is a strategy of how we identify these buildings and this is the aim of amendment 47 and I am grateful for previous indications, including that of the Scottish Government of their support. The second step is the actual identification of the residential buildings and the work required and this is covered by amendment 48 and I appreciate that this cannot be put due to the absence of a financial resolution. Amendment 48 simply builds on amendment 47 by not just setting out the approach to identifying relevant buildings but identifying them. I note what the member says about his amendment 48, that it cannot be put because there is no financial resolution. What then is the financial implication of amendment 48 in that regard, just for the record, because that information is not available to people who are currently watching? It is covered in a set that would be presiding officer, put an estimate of £60 million on the work, an indication from the Government, put it between £58 million and £116 million, but I will come to that in a second. Therefore, I did not remove amendment 48, as I believe it is important, to debate this second step and get the minister on the record as to how he sees the targets being achieved either through this bill or elsewhere. The presiding officer has put a cost of £60 million on the work, but correspondence from the minister's office suggests that the actual estimate to be anywhere between £58 million and £116 million. The correspondence also highlighted other issues over the identification process. Both points, whether on cost or process, are ones that will need to be addressed and the sooner the better. However, in a slightly odd request, given that amendment 48 cannot be put, I was urged to withdraw the amendment so that it would not be debated. On many levels, this seems wrong and I appreciate the minister's explanation of his reluctance and why his support for one amendment is contingent on another that cannot be put being withdrawn. The only way to achieve an EPC band of C or higher in all residential homes where technically feasible is by spending money. Amendment 48 would have accelerated the process of doing this by putting a binding agreement on to the Scottish Government to identify what work is needed. I should support for this amendment to be expressed by members. I hope that the minister listens and amends a financial memorandum in time for the next stage to permit a financial resolution that delivers for energy-efficient housing. On a final explanatory point, I note members to the final part of the amendments, which detail that the requirement to achieve an EPC rating of C or higher will only be enforced where it is technically feasible and cost-effective. The reason for this is that we are very much aware that in some particular rural areas and on the islands achieving an EPC rating of C or higher may not be achievable in a cost-effective manner. In conclusion, to effectively reduce fuel poverty, we must take action, and this amendment will help to take steps in making some progress in our shared goal to reduce fuel poverty for all across Scotland. By identifying residential homes that are living in lower energy-efficient homes, we can take a step forward in reducing bills, carbon emissions and ensuring that residents are living in warmer homes. As noted previously, I understand that amendment 48 cannot be put to a vote, but I would be grateful if members expressed their views if they would have supported it. Thank you very much. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendments 72 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the committee and to the minister. My amendment 72 looks to ensure the issue of how to remove low levels of energy efficiency, which is, of course, a driver of fuel poverty, in relation to housing and multiple occupation, is considered by ministers in the preparation of the fuel poverty strategy. That will also aid in reducing carbon emissions. The amendment has been framed in the most straightforward way possible, although it relates to a complex issue. There are many buildings in Scotland that fall into the category of housing and multiple occupation. It can be very challenging to deal with the low levels of energy efficiency in those circumstances. That is due in part to the difficulties that are experienced in relation to the areas of common responsibility, which could be stairwells or roofing. The complexity of proceeding with energy efficiency actions can be due to a number of reasons, which can include failure to identify ownership of one of the occupants, lack of interest by an occupant or refusal to get involved by an occupant. Those challenges should not be allowed to become unsamountable for such a serious issue. The issue can be particularly difficult, as I am sure will be recognised by the committee for several categories of home dwellers. Those include tenants living in the broad category of private rented accommodation and students living in rented accommodation. I am clear that landlords have a responsibility to ensure that the accommodation that they rent reaches a liveable standard in relation to energy efficiency. Housing is a UN right, and here in Scotland that surely means the right to a warm home. I try to bring this issue forward through amendments at the stage 3 of the housing act. I am stuttering because it was actually in 2014. It seems a long time ago. At that time, I tried to create a duty to make the provision for energy efficiency standards through the repairing standard in section 22 of the act. That was a much more detailed approach. In 2014, it was argued by the minister that the Scottish Government had put together a ministerial working group, which indeed it had, to look at energy efficiency standards in the whole of the private sector. That work was likely to report back that autumn. I was encouraged not to move my amendment at that time, as the issue would be explored by the ministerial working group. It is disappointing that, five years on, the work has not been tackled, and I believe that this is an opportunity to do so. The amendment is a probing amendment at this stage. I hope that the view of the challenges faced by many people living in multi-occupancy buildings is that the minister will consider discussions with me and others who are interested in the serious fuel poverty issue in order to find a way to tackle it. I would now like to move to amendment 73, which ensures that, in preparing the fuel poverty strategy, ministers must consider how rural co-operatives and community bodies can be supported to identify sustainable energy solutions. Rural fuel poverty can present a very serious challenge to comfortable living. The 2017 latest statistics for the Scottish housing conditions survey show that, while urban fuel poverty lay at 21 per cent—I am sure that the committee is aware of those figures, but for the record, rural fuel poverty was at a staggering 43 per cent. Sadly, I doubt that the next set of figures will have altered significantly. There are particular and specific challenges faced by homeowners and tenants living in off-grid circumstances. There are also challenges that are created by distance from the advice that would be available, if not for remoteness. The identification of the available skilled companies in remote areas can also present difficulties where advice would be valuable. The essence of this amendment would bring targeted support for collective action to tackle challenges faced. Solutions could be to arrange for a group of houses and possibly nearby workshops to have energy efficiency issues such as insulation tackled at the same time. This could well bring down costs. In a village, town or city, there are often opportunities for area-based action. However, in rural areas, that is often not possible due to the points above and also to the issues of scale. I know several estates in my region of south Scotland that have successfully introduced sustainable energy solutions such as the biomass boiler at Douglas and Angus estates in Douglas and Dumfries House, but they have the financial capacity to deal with these challenges in a way that often community groups cannot and those that might form a co-operative for action in a small hamlet or a remote area. The challenges are manifold, as described above, and could be compounded by the cost issues, so support on this should also be considered. The amendment is again a probing amendment to provoke further discussion on the challenges for remote rural fuel poverty and some possible actions to support change within the strategy. I hope that it will be possible to discuss these issues further with the minister and others who are interested in advancing stage 3. The consequential amendment, which is 98, to 73, states that making the definitions required in amendment 73 will be necessary. Those are rural areas, rural co-operatives and sustainable energy solutions. That should be done by negative procedure. Thank you very much. Very briefly convener, if I can just comment on Alexander Burnett's amendments 47 and 48. From the outset, I think that we would all agree, because we have spoken about it often enough in this committee, that we do need to improve the energy performance of homes across Scotland, and that clearly relates to fuel poverty. Mr Burnett's amendment 47 should be supported. It merely gets the Government to set out how they plan to identify buildings with low levels of energy efficiency. I think that that is the right thing to do, because if we do not do that, we will not be able to improve matters. However, his amendment 48 goes a little bit further, because it then compels the Government to go ahead and identify those buildings, so that clearly to do that would involve a lot of work. Hence, the astronomical figures attach to the amendment, and hence why it cannot be voted on. However, were it to be voted on, were we allowed to vote on it, I would support it, because we need to do both. However, as things stand, convener, I will support amendment 47. On that point on amendment 48, which would cost in the region of £60 million plus, aside from that, it is not clear where that money would come from. Maybe Mr Burnett could propose how he wishes to fund that. However, I am not aware that we actually have powers to require entry into private dwelling homes. Is that a point that Mr Burnett has considered? I am sorry, convener. I cannot ask him questions. I just leave the question open. I do not think that this Parliament, as things stand, has the powers to require entry into private dwelling houses. Thank you, convener. Right, thank you very much. Minister? Thank you very much, convener. There are a number of issues to cover with this grouping. First of all, I will discuss amendments 46, 47 and 48, dealing with the EPC ratings first. Under amendment 48, in the name of Alexander Burnett, the fuel poverty strategy would be required to include information on the energy efficiency level of the estimated 967,000 private sector residential properties without an existing EPC. Ms Ewing is quite right to highlight some of the difficulties that there would be in doing some of that. At between £60 and £121 per home, that would cost a minimum £58 million, up to £116 million, which is why it is not being voted on today. It would be far beyond the objective of the bill to require the Scottish Government to meet that additional expense, and such funds would always, in my opinion, be better spent on front-line delivery. EPC certificates are already required for new homes, those homes with new building warrant applications and homes that were sold or rented to a new tenant since 2009. Over time, there will be a constant increase in that information. It has always been my intention that the fuel poverty strategy would address energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty. Ultimately, we are working towards the elimination of energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty in the long term. I note that Mr Wightman intends to withdraw amendment 46, so I will not go into too much detail about that particular amendment. I am content to support Alexander Burnett's amendment 47, requiring the fuel poverty strategy to set out the approach to identify properties requiring improvement to EPCC by 2030. It may be necessary at stage 3 to be clear that that approach should target fuel poor households, but I support it as it provides a commitment to do all that we can to establish a clear way forward. In relation to Claudia Beamish's amendments 73 and 98, section 3 already aligns for the preparation of a fuel poverty strategy and outlines what should be included in it. The strategy will be designed for the whole of Scotland, including rural areas. The focus on rural areas in the amendment, linked to defining the term sustainable energy solutions, is also unhelpful. Defining the term in a rural-only context may result in a separate understanding of the term at national level. In other words, that could lead to variation in what might be deemed a sustainable energy solution in anirban or rural area. Additionally, section 33 of the bill allows Scottish ministers to include any other information that they consider appropriate in the fuel poverty strategy. Therefore, should we need to include specific support in rural areas, or to define which groups the support will target, that can be done. For those reasons, I urge the committee to vote against amendments 73 and 98. I support Pauline McNeill's amendments 71 but not amendments 49 or Claudia Beamish's amendments 72. Amendments 71 will allow us to highlight how we address all four drivers of fuel poverty within the strategy and is broad and flexible enough to cover all sectors, including private tenancies and HMOs, so separate amendments are not needed. For those reasons, I would ask the committee to vote against amendments 49, 72 and 71. I am also happy to support Pauline McNeill's amendments 45, 50 and 51 to ensure that the strategy and periodic reports set out clear costings and Alex Rowley's amendments 68, which will ensure that the strategy explains how we intend to identify households in fuel poverty. I would say that the big success story of the last decade and more has been the improvements in energy efficiency within the public sector housing. That is because there was tight regulations put in place that required councils to improve energy efficiency. Within housing associations and councils, their housing stock is of a much higher rating in terms of energy efficiency. They still have work to do, but they have done a tremendous amount of work. That is why, if the minister is serious about the elimination in the long term of energy efficiency, poor energy efficiency and a driver, if he is poverty, that is an area that has to see real work done and hopefully we will see that coming through both in terms of the strategy and the financial memorandum. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 27, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17. Minister, to move formally. I point out that, if amendment 27 is agreed to, you cannot call amendment 67 due to preemption. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 68, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 45. Alec Rowley, to move or not move? I move. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 68 is agreed to. I call amendment 46, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 45. Andy Wightman is officially not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 47, in the name of Alexander Burnett, already debated with amendment 45. Alexander Burnett, to move or not move? I move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 47 is agreed to. The question that amendment 48 cannot be put in the absence of the financial resolution. I call amendment 29, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17. Minister, to move formally. I move, convener. I point out again that, if amendment 29 is agreed to, you cannot call amendment 69. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 29 is agreed to. The question is that section 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's a mistake. That's a mistake, so be quiet. Okay. That should never sit beside the text. By the way, the mistake is not mine, I'm delighted to say. I call amendment 30, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17. Minister, to move formally. Thank you. I point out that, if amendment 30 is agreed to, amendment 70 cannot be called. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay. I call amendment 72, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 45. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 49, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 45. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 73, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 45. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 74, in the name of Alec Rowley, grouped with amendments 75, 76 and 83. Alec Rowley, to move amendment 74 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendment aims that ministers must keep the strategy under the view and either publish a new strategy or state why they have not every five years. It seems inaccessible for the Government to only have to publish one strategy over such a long period of time, particularly when we have interim targets and periodic reports that could suggest the need that that strategy be reviewed, be amended, be updated. The amendment does not require ministers to publish a new strategy if they believe that it is not needed to do so, but the option must be considered, and that is the important point. Consider and not decide, and then publish an explanation as to why we have not revised the strategy. Andy Wight. Thank you, convener. Yes, I was supporting Alec Rowley's amendment 74 when it was lodged. I was rather surprised to discover that, in fact, we hadn't made any recommendations around this in our stage 1 report, which I think was a bit of an oversight given that the fuel poverty target is 2040. I am very glad that Alec Rowley's eagle eyes spotted this and has dealt with it. I think that it is very appropriate, given that the argument for having 2040 as a target is that things will change, while things change, obviously, a strategy might need to change as well. Thank you very much. Any other members want to comment on that case? The development of the fuel poverty strategy is of vital importance. It is what will help to deliver real change to our communities across Scotland and improve people's lives. The fuel poverty strategy should work for people wherever they live and help to bring people out of fuel poverty, tackling all four drivers of fuel poverty, income, energy prices, energy efficiency and energy use. I therefore support Alec Rowley's amendments 74, 75, 76 and 83. Those are sensible ways of ensuring that the fuel poverty strategy can be revised and remain effective, particularly in the event of the target date being altered as envisaged by his amendment 54 if the fuel poverty advisory panel feels that the target can be reached sooner rather than later. Were that to be the case, the ability to revise the strategy to take account of that would, of course, be key. Those amendments might need to be slightly revised at stage 3 to ensure that they work as everyone would want them to, but those would be technical amendments only and keep to the principle of what Alex Rowley is proposing here, particularly in light of his arguments last week. I therefore support the addition of those amendments. Thank you very much. You like to press up with draw press, please. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 74 is agreed to. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 75, in the name of Alex Rowley, is already debated with amendment 74. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 31, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 101. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 31 is agreed to. I call amendment 102, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 101. Graham Simpson to move or not move. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 103, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 101. Graham Simpson to move or not move. Y cwestiynau hon yn ymwneud â'r mewnmwyff iawn. Ymwneud â'r mewnmwyff iawn, blaen. Ag 같습니다ag y gwaith. Ymwneud â'r mewnmwyff iawn, blaen. Ymwneud â'r mewnmwyff iawn, blaen. Felly, mae'n mor effeithio, mae'n gweithio ar y cyfriedamswydd. Mae'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio ar gyfer gy險oedd. Mae hyn yn gweithio ar gyfer gythelessn. Mae'n gweithio ar gyfer gweithio, mae'n gweithio ar gyươw. Mae'n gweithio ar gyываем iawn. amendment 76 is agreed to. Amendment 32, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 101. Minister, to move formal. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 104, in the name of Graham Simpson, is already debated with amendment 101. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 104 is agreed to. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Section 5 is agreed to. Amendment 33, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 17. Minister, to move formally. Move, convener. I point out if amendment 33 is agreed to. I cannot call amendment 77. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 33 is agreed to. The question is that amendment 10, in the name of Graham Simpson, is already debated with amendment 5. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. Amendment 9, in the name of Graham Simpson, is already debated with amendment 5. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 9? Five. Those opposed to amendment 9. One. One abstention. Amendment 9 is agreed to. I call amendment 50, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 45. I look around, wait to move. Move, please. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 50 is agreed to. I call amendment 34, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17. Minister, to move forward. Move, convener. Thank you. Point out that if amendment 34 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 78. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That amendment 34 is agreed to. I call amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 5. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 11, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 5. Graham Simpson, move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, yes. No, sorry, we are not all agreed. My apologies, Andy. Those in favour of amendment 11. Five, those opposed, one and one abstention. Thank you. I call amendment 51, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 45. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move? Sorry, Andy. Move. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, sir. Amendment 51 is agreed to. I call amendment 35, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17. Minister, to move on. Move, Camilla. I point out that if amendment 35 is agreed to, you cannot call amendment 17.9. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 35 is agreed to. I call amendment 14, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 5. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 13, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 5. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, sir. Those in favour of amendment 13. Six, those opposed, one. Amendment 13 is agreed to. I call amendment 88, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 53. Alec Rowley, to move or not move? To not move. I think that at this time we will have a short comfort break and come back in five minutes. Can you suspend a meeting? I call amendment 81, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, grouped with amendments 82, 84 and 85. At this point I would advise members that amendments 81 and 82 and 84 and 85 are direct alternatives. For the record, direct alternatives are two or more amendments seeking to replace the same text in a bill with alternative approaches. In the case of this group, there are two such alternatives, taking amendments 81 and 82. For example, a vote will be taken in both amendments in the order in which they appear in the marshaled list. If both 81 and 82 were to be agreed to, then the second amendment 82 succeeds a former and the first amendment 81 would cease to have effect. After that explanation, Annabelle Ewing, to move amendment 81 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I would like to move amendments 81 and 84 in my name. That deals with the frequency of reporting that we looked at in our stage 1 evidence. It is important to state at the outset that, although we, as a committee in our stage 1 report, felt that, on the balance of the evidence received at that stage, a three-year reporting period would be reasonable. In fact, since that time, we have received a letter from COSLA dated 13 February to the committee. Perhaps I could just quote that briefly, convener. COSLA states, and I quote, we further note that the committee recommends increasing the frequency of stage reporting from a five-year to a three-year basis. That will place additional requirements on local government, which, if not fully funded, has the potential to take resources away from front-line delivery. In the context of restrained budgets, a balance needs to be struck, between reporting and delivery. There needs to be clarity over the time-slash-cost outlay of reporting requirements before any move to increase their frequency. My amendments are really motivated by the concerns of COSLA. Members will be aware that I have repeatedly stated when discussing this bill that my desire is to see money go to the front line and not be subsumed in other matters to the extent that it is not necessary. Therefore, the reporting frequency that I propose in my amendments of four years strikes the balance that COSLA is looking for. I do not want to cost local authorities any more money than is necessary to insure. It is absolutely necessary that we have a reporting mechanism, but I do not want to cost local authorities any more money than is absolutely necessary and to insure that money that would be saved from not having a more frequent reporting period than four years could indeed be spent on front-line activities. That inspires my amendments. I remind the committee that, aside from the reporting requirement that we are discussing, national statistics on fuel poverty targets will continue to be published year-on-year by Scotland's chief statistician. There will be an ability in that context to track progress. Of course, we also wish to see this fuller reporting absolutely. My submission is that, in light of COSLA's concerns, it would be appropriate to have a four-year period rather than a three-year period. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, Hannah Bell. Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 82 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 82 and 85, which I will be moving. The first point is to establish the principle that I certainly feel that we need to really be able to scrutinise the progress that is being made and the question is what is reasonable. Many stakeholders called for an annual report, but in trying to find a compromise, I believe that three years give sufficient time for robust evidence gathering, reporting and independent scrutiny. I really do not accept what COSLA argues in terms of the differences in costs between three and four years. What I do think is that there needs to be a real commitment to ensuring that we are delivering, that we are tackling fuel poverty and that a three-year time period of review would mean that if things are not working, if things are not happening as they should be happening, then we can take the action that is necessary. With that, I would move. Thank you very much. Any other members, Mr Graham? It is a balance between four and three years. There is no real right answer. You just have to take a view on it. The committee did consider this, and we concluded that it should be three years. We did hear evidence from councils on this. In fact, Glasgow City Council backed the three-year period. There were other views. The existing Homes Alliance went for one year. The committee considered that would be too onerous. At the end of the day, if you do not agree with five years, then you have to come up with something else. My view is that, on this occasion, I will be backing the committee's recommendation, which was fully thought through. We knew the position of councils at that time, so I will be sticking to three years and supporting Alex Rowley's amendments and not supporting Annabelle Ewing's. Thank you. Minister. The amendments in this group deal with the formal statutory reporting against the fuel poverty targets. It is right that these are careful, thorough, wide-ranging pieces of work and that, in their preparation, they seek the views of those with direct personal experience of fuel poverty. To do that well, however, requires an investment of time. I would ask the committee to consider carefully the consequences of more frequent reporting. The bill's financial memorandum states that the cost of preparing a periodic report is around £90,000 to £100,000, and that only covers the direct costs of administrative support, not the time and effort that is required from delivery partners, stakeholder groups and those with lived experience. I would ask you to bear this in mind when you decide on the options in front of you. In their letter to you of 13 February, COSLA was concerned that increasing the frequency of statutory reporting from a five-year to three-year basis will place additional requirements on local government with the potential to take resources away from front-line delivery. I, too, have this concern. Likewise, I share COSLA's concern that, in the context of restrained budgets, a balance needs to be struck between reporting and delivery. I want to create an industry based around developing and installing cost-effective and low-carbon improvements to people's homes. I am concerned that overly frequent or overly bureaucratic reporting will create an industry based around measuring and commenting on fuel poverty and not on eliminating it. However, I am mindful that there is a majority of you among stakeholders to report more frequently. I believe that changing the reporting period from the bills proposed five years to every four years, as Annabelle Ewing offers, is a good balance between responsiveness and burden. I propose to members that they support amendments 81 and 84 instead of amendments 82 and 85, which will create that further burden. Annabelle Ewing. I hear what members say, but I do feel that if COSLA further to our stage 1 report tells us that this will be more onerous for us and that it is axiomatic that, if you have a more frequent reporting period, that will cost more money. That goes without saying. I, for one like the minister, would prefer to see any spare money absolutely going to front-line local services. Is that not an argument for sticking with five years? I would say to members that we did hear a number of views and varying views on what the frequency of the reporting should be. I think that it was incumbent on the committee to respond to that. What I am saying is that, in our response to that, I feel bearing in mind that money would be spent on this and would be taken away from the front line, that the less money taken away from the front line and still responding to issues raised at stage 1 evidence would suggest that a four-year period might be more appropriate than a three-year period. I would be moving amendments 81 and 84. Thank you. The question for amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 81? Those opposed? Okay. It's two in favour of five again. Amendment 81 falls. Amendment 82, in the name of Alec Rowley, is already debated with amendment 81. Are we all agreed? The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 82? Five. Those opposed? Two. Amendment 82 stands. Amendment 83, in the name of Alec Rowley, is already debated with amendment 74. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 83? Yes. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 83 is agreed to. Call amendment 84, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, is already debated with amendment 81. Annabelle Ewing to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 84. Those in favour of amendment 84? Sorry. Two. Opposed to amendment 84? Five. Amendment 84 falls. Call amendment 85, in the name of Alec Rowley, is already debated with amendment 81. Thank you. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 85? Those opposed? Amendment 85 is agreed to. Call amendment 86, in the name of Alec Rowley, is already debated with amendment 53. Alec Rowley to move or not move? Move, convener. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. No, I'm not moving. Okay. Thank you. So, 86 is not being moved. The question is therefore that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 36, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 101. Minister, to move formal. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 36 is agreed to. I call amendment 87, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 101. Alec. I'll write you. Yes. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 89, in the name of Alec Rowley, grouped with amendment 88. At this point, I'd advise members that amendments 89 and 88 are direct alternatives. Alec Rowley to move amendment 89 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I won't be pressing 89, but I will be pressing 88. That is the fuel poverty target that must be presented within a year of the target elapsin, rather than within two years. It is drafted, the bill gives ministers two years to report on the target after it was passed. I believe that there will be substantial parliamentary and public interest in whether the target was met and why and a strong impetus to either continue that good deal. I will be pressing 88. I will be pressing 88. I will continue that good work that has been done or take steps so that the target can be met. It seems to me reasonable that a year should provide sufficient time to gather that evidence and present it so that further steps on energy and fuel poverty can be developed. It brings it forward a year, but I think that that is perfectly reasonable and doable. Thank you very much. Are there any other members who have any comments to make? Minister? While I understand why Alex Rowley is keen for the report on the 2040 target to be published as soon as possible after the end of 2040, the date that he proposes is simply not feasible. The target is about what the position is in 2040, and that means all of 2040. Analysis will be gathering data on the target right up until the end of that year. If Parliament has to get this by 31 March 2041, we will not be able to give the full picture on whether the target had been met and what percentage of households are still in fuel poverty. The report will have to be very different to all those before due to the truncation of time. The results on fuel poverty rates come from the Scottish House condition survey. Those statistics are usually published in the year following the survey, so if we are to use the key national statistics as we will for all other progress reports, the earliest we will know the 2040 fuel poverty rate will be in December 2041. The survey reporting timetable cannot be condensed to report by 31 March 2041, as that would not provide sufficient time to complete all of the necessary work. Data is collected from households across Scotland throughout the entirety of 2040. However, the work does not stop there. Once the basic data is collected, modelling needs to be undertaken to estimate the consumption and required fuel bills of the households. Weightings need to be derived to ensure that the result is representative of the Scottish household population. Quality assurance must be undertaken and it is only then that the data can begin to be analysed. It is crucial that the statistics from the survey remain robust and continue to meet national statistics standards for quality and integrity. If the date is brought forward by a year to the end of March 2041, that leaves only three months for the entire report to be compiled and that would mean that it could not contain 2040 fuel poverty rates. I would think that we would all want Parliament to get a thorough comprehensive report with all of the detail available and with headline statistics relating to the target year included which are fully compliant with the national statistics code of practice. If the report has to be turned around within a three-month timeframe that is not what Parliament will receive. I understand why folks might want an earlier reporting date but this just isn't feasible and I therefore ask the committee against Alex Rowley's amendment. Given what the minister says I am willing to go back and look at this and have discussion with him if necessary and come back at stage 3 so I won't move. I have to provide Mr Rowley with the information that he requires and to have further discussions. In that case Alex Rowley wishes to withdraw his amendment. Does any member present object to amendment 89? Amendment 89, sorry. That amendment is therefore withdrawn. Okay. A call amendment 88, the name of Alex Rowley, already debated with amendment 89. Alex Rowley to move or not move? A call amendment 90, the name of Alex Rowley already debated with amendment 53. Alex Rowley to move or not move? A call amendment 91, the name of Alex Rowley already debated with amendment 53. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 91? Those opposed to amendment 91? Six. Amendment 91 is not agreed to. Call amendment 92 and the name of Alex Rowley already debated with amendment 53. Alex Rowley to move or not move? Not move. The question is that section 9 be agreed to, are we all agreed? A call amendment 93, the name of Alex Rowley already debated with amendment 54. Alex Rowley to move or not move? I move. A call amendment 93, the name of Graham Simpson group with amendment 93B. Graham Simpson to move amendment 93A and speak to both amendments in the group. This will be very brief indeed, convener. These are just tidying up amendments that relate to Alex Rowley's amendment 93 on the Scottish Field Poverty advisory board. Alex Rowley's amendment contains the phrases progress towards meeting the 2032 target, which clearly doesn't exist anymore and the likelihood of meeting the 2032 target. I've tabled these amendments just as tidying up exercise to replace that text with the terminology fuel poverty targets, which better reflects what we've already agreed to. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Minister? Briefly, convener, I mentioned when we discussed Alex Rowley's amendment 93 last week that while I supported putting the advisory panel on a statutory footing the wording would need to be refined because it is based on a 2032 target date so that we would take a closer look at costs while keeping a cap. I'm therefore pleased that Mr Simpson has lodged the two amendments in this group to correct these references and I'm happy to support them. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 93A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? 93A is agreed to. I call amendment 93B in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 93A. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. 93B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? 93B is agreed to. Alex Rowley to press or withdraw amendment 93 as amended? Yes. The question is that amendment 93 as amended be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 94 in the name of Alex Rowley already debated with amendment 54. Alex Rowley to move or not move? Thank you. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 37 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 20, minister to move完成. Moved convener. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 37 is agreed to. I call amendment 38. The name of the minister already debated with amendment 15 minister to move on. I move convener. swiftly. I call amendment 95 and the firstbrightlist shower, amendment 64 and month mate. For those of you who have already requested for请 memories, please contact us with Yn moged? Yn moged, ddyn nhw. Daddeucad o myllu aelod gael imeddiad 57. Granno街ot Pam pezdin o'u mell Math metre Iam ym technology Granno eg looked like this It's just a life Al wooong Rwy'n credu bod ddim addysg i ddweud rhywbeth reol���ch音au a ddydd Felwyn Cymru. Felly, rwy'n credu bod ein peth yn ddaeth bod yn cael ei ddigon iawn, ac dwi'n gweithio fyddai rwyf wedi eu ddydd yn iawn. If all the provisions came into force the day after royal assent, as Mr Wightman's amendment requires, we would not have an operable definition of fuel poverty under section 2 of the bill. This is because the enhanced heating regime would not be in place and neither would the remote and island areas uplift to the minimum income standard. The setting of enhanced heating eligibility and the remote, rural and island's miss requires the Parliament to agree affirmative regulations. It is not within the Government's gift to expedite Parliament's approval of those, so this is not a timetable that we can control. Mr Wightman's amendment would also bring sections 3 and 5 of the bill into force, legally requiring the Government to publish the fuel poverty strategy within a year, forcing us to prepare the strategy without knowing the full detail of the definition of fuel poverty. In addition, section 4 requires consultation with appropriate people, including those who are living or have lived in fuel poverty. This would also be problematic as we would not be clear on who it was appropriate to consult. The result would be gridlock and the production of a strategy that does not match up properly with the definition of fuel poverty and risks not focusing on the very people who need it most. I am determined to implement the provisions of this bill as soon as possible. I want to crack on, convener, but considering what the bill proposes and amendments that have been made to the bill by the committee, we cannot have the rigid timetable that Mr Wightman is suggesting. I want to ensure that the new fuel poverty definition can become operable as soon as possible. My amendment will therefore facilitate the earliest possible completion of work on the enhanced heating regime and allow us to undertake further consultation on it in tandem with the bill's progress through Parliament. That will allow for faster commencement and implementation of the whole bill. I have no wish for things to be held up by the legislative process any longer than is absolutely necessary. I want us to get the definition in place, to get the strategy in place and to get on with the job of helping folks out of fuel poverty. Mr Wightman's amendment will cause significant difficulties, whereas in contrast my own will contribute to a swifter more effective implementation of the bill. I ask that you support it and vote against amendment 1. Thank you very much. Andy Wightman to speak to amendment 1 and the other amendment in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 1 is lodged in order to bring to this committee a debate on the question of commencement. The bill currently in section 13, which is called commencement, says that only this section, i.e. the commencement section and the short title, section 14, shall be commenced and come into force on the day after royal assent. It is my view that bills enacted by this Parliament should come into force as soon as possible. Otherwise, we are leaving the operability of legislation passed by this Parliament in the gift of ministers. Mr Stewart has correctly drawn attention to sections 2, 3, 4 and 5, which cannot come into force the day after royal assent, but he has been silent on sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. I appreciate that amendments have been made to this bill today. Further amendments will no doubt be brought at stage 3, and those may have some consequences for commencement. However, in the absence of any argument as to why section 6 onwards cannot be brought into force, I would invite the minister in winding up to let me know whether he has any problems with section 6 onwards and what his view would be on an amendment being brought at stage 3 that would bring the remainder of the bill into force on the day after royal assent. Mr Wightman is wanting me to make commitments on parts of the bill that we dealt with only today, and I would have to go back and reflect and consider exactly what the implications of what has happened today are on the bill as a whole. I appreciate what the minister has just said and agree. I suppose that the reassurance that I was seeking was that any section of the bill that can come into force on the day after royal assent, having reflected properly on its content, the minister would be content, would be commenced. I will reflect, but I can assure the committee that, as I said in response to the committee's report, that the Scottish Government has no intention of causing any unnecessary delay to the commencement of the bill's provisions. Once the bill becomes an act, my intention would be to implement its substantive provisions as soon as is reasonably practicable. However, as I have said, the timetable for that is not fully within the Government's control, as it is reliant on the Parliament agreeing affirmative regulations. In relation to my own amendment 39, I reiterate that that would allow us to press ahead swiftly with consultation on the enhanced heating regime, which will enable the new definition to become operable sooner. It would clearly be perverse if all the previous consultation work on that issue had to be discarded simply because of the point in time in which it was concluded. I therefore ask the committee to support my amendment and reject Mr Wightman's amendment, and I reassure you all that, as I have said in the response previously to the committee, the Scottish Government has no intention of causing any unnecessary delay to the commencement of the bill's provisions. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 14, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17. Minister, to move formally. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 41 in the name—sorry, section 12 was agreed to. I call amendment 41 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17. That moves, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 41 is agreed to. I call amendment 42 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 17. Minister, to move formally. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 42 is agreed to. I call amendment 1 in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 39. Andy Wightman, to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that section 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 43, in the name of the minister, are already debated with amendment 17. Minister? Move, convener. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 43 is agreed to. The question is that section 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Section 14 is agreed to. Amendment 44, in the name of the minister, are already debated with amendment 17. Minister? Move, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 44 is agreed to. I call amendment 2, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 3. Andy Wightman, to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. In that case, that ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Congratulations. Thanks very much, minister. Thanks to the committee for their co-operation. We will have a short break to allow the witnesses to leave. The third item on our agenda today is the consideration of a request to the committee from the Scottish Government, which wishes to consent to the United Kingdom Government legislating using the powers under the European Union with Thrall Act 2018 in relation to the Town and Country Planning and Electricity Works, EU exit, Scotland, miscellaneous amendments, Regulation 2019. At this agenda item, we are being invited to consider whether the instrument has been laid under the appropriate procedure, the instrument has been laid under the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered this instrument at its meetings on 26 March and agreed that it was appropriate for the instrument to be considered under the negative procedure. Do any members have any comments on it? As the committee content for the instrument to be considered under the negative procedure then? Thank you. The instrument will be considered as part of the next agenda item. Agenda item 4 is the consideration of the policy merits of the Town and Country Planning and Electricity Works, EU exit, Scotland, miscellaneous amendments, Regulation 2019. As this instrument is laid under the negative procedure, this means that its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament votes in motions to annull it. No motions to annull have been laid. As the policy note explains, the intention of this instrument is not to make policy changes, instead it makes technical amendments to EU derived Town and Country Planning and Electricity Works legislation to address deficiencies arising as a result of EU exit. Do any members have any comments? That is dealing with a no-deal scenario. I invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument and we agreed. That concludes the public part of today's meeting. I now move the meeting into private. Thanks very much.