 The next item of business is stage 1 debate on motion 15892 in the name of Kevin Stewart on the Fuel, Poverty, Target, Definition and Strategy Scotland Bill. I would ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons. I call on Kevin Stewart to speak to you and move the motion for 12 minutes, please minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'm very pleased to be opening this stage 1 debate on the Fuel, Poverty, Target, Definition and Strategy Scotland Bill. In this day and age it's unacceptable that any Scottish household should have to make a choice between having the heating on and cooking their dinner. If Scotland is to become a fairer, more socially just society, it's crucial that we make a real headway towards ending the scourge of fuel poverty. We are ambitious in our aims. Our groundbreaking bill places Scotland amongst the best countries in the world in tackling fuel poverty. Not only are we one of just a few countries in the world to define fuel poverty, we are setting a goal towards eradicating it. We are changing the definition of fuel poverty so it's much more reflective of relative income poverty and we are being revolutionary in our introduction of a minimum income standard. I want to thank the local government and communities committee for its detailed examination of the bill and the clerks, stakeholders, organisations and individuals who have contributed to the scrutiny process and engaged with this bill. I appreciate all your work to make this bill as good as it can be. I am pleased that the committee's comprehensive report welcomes the bill and our draft fuel poverty strategy, as well as recommending that Parliament agrees the general principles of the bill. Let me now turn to the bill's three key aims. The first of those is to set a target that, by 2040, no more than 5 per cent of Scottish households are in fuel poverty. The second aim is to capture in the definition of fuel poverty those folks who need help most. We are therefore proposing a new definition of fuel poverty, which makes innovative use of the minimum income standard in order to better align fuel poverty with relative income poverty. Third, the bill ensures that a new long-term fuel poverty strategy be prepared, published and laid before Parliament. Crucially, in the preparation of the strategy, the bill ensures that we consult people with lived experience of fuel poverty to ensure that our key measures and policies hit the mark. I am very grateful to Anne Lochrae and the Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel and Partnership Forum for their help in that regard. Once the strategy is published, ministers must report every five years on the steps that are taken, progress made towards meeting the target and the plan for the next reporting period. This reporting obligation will provide this and future Governments with focus and momentum in the fight against fuel poverty. The bill has been the product of a thorough and collaborative process. In 2015, we set up two short-life independent bodies to report on fuel poverty, the fuel poverty strategy working group and the Scottish Rural Fuel Poverty Task Force. Following on from their reports, an independent academic panel was tasked with reviewing the definition of fuel poverty, and the majority of its recommendations have been incorporated into the definition of fuel poverty in the bill. We ran a fuel poverty strategy consultation prior to publishing a draft fuel poverty strategy alongside the bill. We also set up the Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel and Partnership Forum as part of a robust new framework for monitoring the progress in tackling fuel poverty and advising the Government. My officials and I have engaged widely with stakeholders throughout the process, and Parliament can be assured that we will continue to do so. All those shows just how serious the Scottish Government is about tackling fuel poverty. I have responded to the conclusions and the recommendations that were made by the committee and outlined where I agree with many of the recommendations that were made and where I will bring forward amendments at stage 2. I would like to take the opportunity to talk about some of those now. I welcome the committee's support of the bill's major aim of setting a target that, in 2040, no more than 5 per cent of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty. I can also confirm my intention to introduce two interim 2030 targets. Those are that the fuel poverty rate will be no more than 15 per cent by 2030 and that the median fuel poverty gap is no more than £350 in 2015 prices before adding inflation. The Government's ambition is simple, to put an end to all fuel poverty and will not stop working until that happens. All those targets go a long way to ensuring that we address both the severity of fuel poverty as well as its prevalence. I therefore noted the committee's recommendation that we also include a target to tackle extreme fuel poverty. I am pleased to say today that I have listened to the committee and will bring forward a stage 2 amendment to define extreme fuel poverty and set a target relating to its eradication on the face of the bill. I would like now to turn to the committee's view that the Government should consider an amendment so that the 2045 per cent target applies to all of Scotland's 32 local authorities. Although we are committed to ensuring that folks are helped out of fuel poverty no matter where in Scotland they live, I am keen to avoid a situation whereby some local authorities are set a goal that is unachievable and unrealistic. I have set out my views and detail in my response to the committee, but let me just express now that I am concerned with this proposal. It does not seem to be evidence-led and I am particularly concerned that it has not been subject to any consultation. I have therefore written to COSLA to seek their views in detail and in the meantime note that they have already written to the committee expressing their concerns on this matter. I welcome the committee's support of our proposed use of the UK minimum income standard in the measurement of fuel poverty. It will improve the alignment between fuel poverty and income poverty and no one should underestimate how important and innovative that move is. Over 80 per cent of households that are fuel poor are also income poor under the proposed new definition, compared to just over 60 per cent under the current definition. Those households that may not be income poor but nevertheless struggle to pay their fuel bills and maintain an acceptable standard of living will also be captured by the new definition. At the same time, I understand the concerns that have been raised about the higher cost faced by those living in remote rural areas, remote small towns and island communities. I have carefully considered the committee's recommendations and the views of stakeholders that the Government commits to introducing an additional rural, remote small town and island miss to reflect those costs. In recognition of the unique challenges that those areas face in the fight against fuel poverty, I can confirm that I will bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to introduce a miss-up lift, as the committee has requested, for the areas that form categories 4 and 6 of the Scottish Government's sixfold urban rural classification. I am currently examining the options of how that can be best carried out, along with the costs involved, and I intend to write to the committee to seek their views ahead of lodging amendments. I thank the minister for giving way and I also welcome what he has just said in relation to rural miss. Will he accept that it is imperative that the basis on which that uplift is based is robust and independent and that, therefore, the input of people like Professor Hirsh in Lothbrun University must play a part in developing the policy going forward? Can I assure Mr MacArthur that we have continued to speak to Professor Hirsh during the period between the publication—since his evidence—after the publication of the stage 1 report, and we will continue to do so? It would be wrong of us to introduce something that was not robust. As I say, I will write to the committee giving options of how that best can be carried forward. We will seek their views before I lay amendments for stage 2. I thank Mr MacArthur and others for continuing to engage with the Government during the course of all of that. We have had some robust exchanges, some very good exchanges, and long may that continue. For our island communities, I want to emphasise that, in addition to the commitment on miss, the Scottish Government is in the process of conducting an islands impact assessment in respect of the bill. As the chamber will know, the provision of the Island Scotland Act is not yet in force and the guidance for those assessments is still in development, but our assessment will be in the spirit of the act in partnership and consultation with island communities and the six relevant council authorities. The Government is very much alive to the calls, as is expressed by Mr MacArthur, Alasdair Allan and others, that the assessment should not be a desk-based exercise. I am firmly of the view that it is better for the Scottish Government to take the time to produce a comprehensive and detailed assessment in partnership with island communities. I previously committed to publish this assessment before stage 3 and confirm that it remains my intention and will be published by the end of April. Let me now turn to reporting on fuel poverty. I am pragmatic and open to persuasion that that needs to be more frequent than every five years. That said, to avoid duplication and promote co-ordination between different complementary Government policies, I am keen to co-ordinate the time frame for reporting on fuel poverty with the time frames for reporting on both energy efficiency and climate change. I want to ensure that fuel poverty reporting obligations do not place an undue burden on our local authority partners. I am aware that COSLA has written to the committee to express their concerns that this might be the case. I also share their concerns that there is the potential for that to detract from front-line delivery. I do not rule out introducing a stage 2 amendment to the bill to make the reporting obligation on fuel poverty more frequent, but I would like to engage with COSLA further to understand their views and ensure that we have the appropriate balance between their views and the views of the committee. As the chamber will now be aware, I have carefully considered the views of the committee and aim to bring forward many of the amendments that they have recommended. However, one area that I cannot agree with is the suggestion that the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel could be made statutory. In terms of its composition and structure, the panel is not the same as the Committee on Climate Change. It is key that the panel remains flexible and adaptable. To maintain its role over the intended lifetime of our fuel poverty act, the panel's membership and remit must keep pace with the changing landscape of fuel poverty, potential new technologies and opportunities and future partnerships. I also share COSLA's concern that the creation of a statutory body would risk diverting funding away from the core objective of supporting households out of fuel poverty. That is something that I am sure no one would want to see. I am strongly of the view that this Parliament can provide the scrutiny that is required to ensure that this Government and those in the future keep on track the objectives that we all share. I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to discuss the aims of the fuel poverty bill this afternoon and look forward to hearing views from all in the chamber. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the fuel poverty target definition and strategy Scotland bill. I now call James Dornan on behalf of the local government and communities committee for 10 minutes. I am pleased to open this stage 1 debate on the fuel poverty target definition and strategy Scotland bill on behalf of the committee. I thank the minister for responding to the report last week and time for today's debate. The bill, as has already been stated by the minister, primarily sets a target to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5 per cent of Scottish households by 2040, sets a new definition of fuel poverty, requires the Government to bring forward a strategy to meet the target and puts in place reporting requirements. Recent statistics show that the fuel poverty affects 24.9 per cent of households— Excuse me, Mr Dornan. Could you move your mic over a little bit? We really do want to hear you. My apologies. Do you want me to start again? Recent statistics show that fuel poverty affects 24.9 per cent of households in Scotland, with some people and families struggling to pay for their fuel bills or heat their homes to an acceptable and comfortable level. Living in a cold, draughty home can have a negative impact on people's physical health and mental wellbeing and impact children's attainment. No person should have to choose between whether to eat or heat their homes. Therefore, it is disappointing that so many households remain in fuel poverty, despite previous efforts by Administrations to tackle the issue. The bill before us has been informed by such previous efforts, most recently a target set in 2002 by the Liberal Democrat Labour executive that people are not living in fuel poverty by November 2016 was not met and for good reason. Following a number of independent reviews and consultations led by the Scottish Government, it was strongly recommended that a new definition of fuel poverty was required, which more accurately identified those in financial distress in order to better target resources at those in the greatest need. I will come back to the definition later in my speech. The local government and communities committee was appointed lead committee in scrutiny of the bill on 5 September 2018. We received 67 written responses to our calls for views, which closed on 9 November 2018. We promoted our scrutiny of the bill heavily on social media and held a number of oral evidence sessions with expert stakeholders. In addition to oral evidence, taking some committee members' travel to Dundee and the Western Isles to hear directly about the different experiences of those facing fuel poverty in both urban and rural communities. In doing so, we heard about the particular challenges faced by those on our islands, and I thank all those who provided written and oral evidence and all those who engaged with us during our scrutiny. I now turn to some of our key recommendations. Section 1 of the bill puts in place a new target that, by 2040, less than 5 per cent of households in Scotland will be in fuel poverty. Whilst there is some debate around whether the target threshold should be set lower than 5 per cent, we agreed that the target is achievable and strikes a right balance between realism and ambition, recognising that the Scottish Government has little or no influence over two of the four main drivers of fuel poverty. We do, however, acknowledge that the 5 per cent should not limit future Government's ambition and that the longer-term focus should be on eradicating fuel poverty. There is also some debate around whether the end date of the target should be brought forward from 2040. The committee came to the view that, given that reaching the target will rely on technologies that are still in development, it is realistic to build in time for those to come on-stream. It is also encouraging that the Government has agreed to our recommendation to amend the bill to enshrine interim targets that are currently set out in the draft strategy, accompanying the bill and statute. Specifically that, by 2030, the fuel poverty rate will be no more than 15 per cent and that the medium fuel poverty gap will be no more than £350 at 2015 prices. It is hoped that such a measure could help to prevent drift from reaching the target. We called on the Scottish Government to bring forward a separate target to tackle extreme poverty in order to prevent resources being targeted at low-hanging fruit. That is the easiest to treat properties. Extreme poverty has previously been categorised as those households that have to spend 20 per cent of their income and fuel. It is therefore welcome that the minister is committed to bringing forward proposals for a separate target for extreme poverty at stage 2. I also note that the Government will give further consideration to the committee's suggestion to apply local targets to address regional disparities. I look forward to receiving an update from the minister on the outcome of the Government's consultation with COSLA on the committee's proposals. To more closely align fuel poverty with income poverty, section 2 of the bill puts in place a new definition in the bill that assesses whether a household is in fuel poverty following the deduction of housing costs such as rent, mortgage, council tax and water rates and childcare costs. It uses an income threshold measure known as a minimum income standard to determine an acceptable standard of living. That was deemed necessary, given that, under the existing definition, a number of households that are considered as being fuel poor were not actually facing financial distress. The greater alignment between fuel poverty and income is welcome as it will provide a more accurate picture of those who experience fuel poverty. However, many experts concern that the new definition does not accurately capture those who are facing fuel poverty in our island and remote rural communities. We are therefore called for the Scottish Government to bring forward an additional rural miss to recognise the higher costs that are faced by those communities. It is therefore welcome again that the Government has accepted that recommendation and we look forward to lazing with the minister over this important change in the lead-up to stage 2. It is also encouraging that the Government will carry out an island's impact assessment in the bill and associated strategy. We heard concerns that the complexity of the new definition could hinder delivery of services in the ground. We therefore call for more information on the minister's thinking about the development of a doorstep tool and how proxies will be used alongside the new definition to better identify those in fuel poverty. It is helpful to have received clarification from the minister that the use of proxies will continue and that the Government alongside COSLA will consider further what tools and guidance are necessary for councils to target resources at those with the greatest need. Sections 3 to 5 of the bill require the Scottish Government to prepare a fuel poverty strategy, setting out how the 2040 target will be achieved. It also sets out the consultation requirements for the strategy and its publication and laying requirements. The committee agreed with those proposals, particularly the requirement to involve those with lived experiences of fuel poverty. However, we also agree with our witnesses that that should be a collaborative and not a top-down process. Turning to the contents of the draft fuel poverty strategy, which was published alongside the bill, it is welcome that the minister will listen to the views of our stakeholders on suggested improvements as part of an on-going engagement with them. I was particularly encouraged that the minister will look to improve the strategy in relation to the list of issues highlighted in paragraph 199 of our report, including how fuel poverty will be tackled in the private housing sector, our rural and island communities and the actions that the Scottish Government will take to address all four drivers of fuel poverty, including those that are primarily the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. I set out in our report that we have written to the UK Government regarding problems that are caused to people's houses by what is carried out under UK-based energy efficiency schemes. We heard of serious misgivings about the administration of some of those schemes and it is encouraging that the Government is also pursuing that matter with the UK Government. I am very grateful for the committee looking at the situation around the UK schemes. As Mr Dornan has pointed out, the Scottish Government has been on to the UK Government on a number of occasions trying to deal with some of the real difficulties that have been caused. I am very grateful to the committee for their efforts in joining with the Government to try and seek resolution here. I would appreciate as we move forward that we continue to liaise on that matter, because we must do all that we can to get the UK Government to see since around those folks who are suffering because of Helms and others. James Dornan I thank the minister for that, and I assure him that the committee will be happy to liaise with the minister regarding those letters. The bill requires Scottish ministers to lay periodic reports on the steps that have been taken and progress towards reaching the target of 2040, alongside the steps that will be taken in the next reporting period to meet the target. It is welcome that the Government will report on progress in relation to all four drivers of fuel poverty. The bill currently provides that those should be every five years. However, given concerns raised, we have recommended that those should be carried out every three years. The vast majority of those that we have heard of call for more frequent reporting. I know that the Government will consult with COSLA on the viability of increasing the frequency of reporting, and I look forward to an update in due course. Finally, it is disappointing that the Government has not accepted a recommendation to put the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel on a statutory footing to provide an independent scrutiny role. However, the minister has provided the committee with clear reasons to why that has not been accepted. As the minister notes, the Parliament will no doubt pay close attention to the Government's progress towards meeting the target, as well as the steps that it will take going forward, as new technologies that are required in the fight against fuel poverty are developing. Before concluding, I would like to put on record my thanks to the committee, clarts and spice officials for all their assistance during the stage 1 process and all those people who gave evidence, either in person or in writing. The bill has the potential to make a difference to the lives of many families in Scotland. However, the real test will be whether the measures and strategies that accompany it are practical, deliverable and robust, and it will be a job of this Parliament to keep a watch on that in the coming years. The committee commends the bill to the Parliament and recommends that the Parliament agrees to its general principles. Paul Graham Simpson for eight minutes, please. Thank you. This should have been an exciting and far-reaching piece of legislation, but it is anything but that. It can change, though. You could replace the six pages of the bill with a six-line press release and achieve the same thing. In 2016, the SNP made a manifesto pledge to introduce a warm homes bill. In November 2017, the Scottish Government said that eradicating fuel poverty is crucial to making Scotland fairer. That is why we are proposing that the key purpose of the warm homes bill will be to enshrine in legislation our long-term ambition to eradicate fuel poverty. Here we are in 2019 with a fuel poverty bill, not a warm homes bill, which does not set a target to eradicate fuel poverty. The bill itself even states its purpose as an act of the Scottish Parliament to set a target relating to the eradication of fuel poverty, not to set a target for the eradication of fuel poverty, which would have meant something but relating to it. That is a far cry from the words issued by the Scottish Government in 2017. The bill is well-meaning, but it lacks ambition. First, it sets a new definition of fuel poverty. It says that once a household is paid for its housing, it is in fuel poverty if it needs more than 10 per cent of its remaining income to pay for its energy needs. If it then leaves the household in poverty, that seems fair enough. It sets a target of reducing fuel poverty to 5 per cent within 21 yur. I am surprised by the speech so far and the tone of it. My understanding on the committee was that we were more or less consensual. I do not remember you or any other colleague dissenting for any of the specifics, including the 2040 date when we put that report together. I always through the chair please, Graham Simpson. Mr Gibson is well aware of how committee reports are put together. Members are entitled to give an alternative opinion in debates like this. Who is going to be accountable for that date in 21 yur's time? Ruth Davidson could be in our fourth term as First Minister by then. Her son could have graduated, but I cannot see most of us being here. With something so far into the distance, the local government committee was entirely right to suggest statutory interim milestones that could prevent ministers wriggling off the hook along the way. I tend towards the view expressed by the existing homes alliance that the bill should be amended to ensure that corrective action is taken if targets aren't. I will not on this occasion. If that is not the case, then all that will get will be a Government struggle the shoulders and quite possibly an attempt to blame someone else. All that said, I am still carefully considering whether to submit an amendment moving the target date forward. The committee did some sterling work, as we have heard. We visited Dundee and Stornoway and Dundee, we heard about the problems that people using prepayment metres have if they want to switch providers. We saw how area-based schemes can successfully lift people out of fuel poverty and help their health at the same time. In Stornoway, one of the bill's serious emissions was brought home to us, the refusal when using the minimum income standard to define fuel poverty to reflect the higher costs incurred by people living in islands, remote towns and rural areas. I praise the minister for agreeing to amend the bill to reflect the committee's views on that. Fuel poverty rates in urban Scotland have improved since 2015, but rates in rural areas have not improved, so there is a widening gap. We have a legislative vacuum that simply must be filled at stage 2, and a number of stakeholders agree. We also heard of contractors carrying out substandard work under UK Government-funded schemes and of lax monitoring. I have heard of this before, and it does not interest me one bit which Government is to blame, if that is the right word. I insisted that we mention this in the committee's report, and the convener, as he said, has written to the minister, Claire Perry, about it. Much has been made of the target to reduce fuel poverty to 5 per cent. A number of groups, including Energy Action Scotland, believe that it is not ambitious enough. Even though, as Spice have said, that could mean 140,000 households living in fuel poverty, and that is 140,000 too many, it will never be possible to completely eradicate fuel poverty. People will move in and out of fuel poverty as their circumstances change. Of course, it is not possible to know about everybody's circumstances. One thing that the committee said, which has caused some pushback, is that 5 per cent should be achieved in every single council area. Cosler did not like that. The minister, as he said earlier, did not like it. The reason behind that was so that no area slips through the net. I accept that probably more work needs to be done on that. The bill commits ministers to preparing a fuel poverty strategy. Helpfully, they produced a draft one in which the minister describes the bill as a landmark piece of legislation. One of the best ways of reducing fuel poverty is to ensure that homes are as energy efficient as possible. The strategy says that all domestic properties are required to achieve an energy performance certificate rating of at least EPC 3 by 2040 at the latest. It does not say how this will come about, and it does not recognise the very real concerns with using EPCs and their accuracy or lack of it. Nor does it say anything about real action on making new and refurbished homes as near to passive house standard as possible. I have repeatedly pushed the minister on this, but it is time for action. There was much disappointment when the bill was published. There will be a clamour to amend it. Opposition members are already being sent suggestions. I hope that the minister has learned from his bitter experience in the planning bill that he should be engaging with us in detail right now. Kevin Stewart well knows that I will engage with anyone and everyone, and I have done so throughout this bill and others. Some members take the opportunity to come and speak to me. Stakeholders have always got the opportunity to come and speak to me. Some of the reasoning for the changes that have already been made in terms of amendments at stage 2 are because of discussions. I do not appreciate the fact that Mr Simpson is trying to insinuate that there has been no discussion about this, because I met him and Mr Stewart at the very early stages. I would do so again if there is a request to do so. I think that the minister has learned his lesson because he did have a discussion with me and Mr Stewart. He has responded well to the committee's report. He has said that he will bring forward very helpful amendments, so it will be in nobody's interests if we do not move forward along those lines. Weal and these benches at the moment are pretty underwhelmed by this bill, but we think that it can be improved, so we will support it at stage 1. Pauline McNeill, seven minutes please. Presiding Officer, I would like to begin by thanking the local government and communities committee for what I thought was a lengthy but really excellent piece of work. I confess that I did not read all of it, but I know that you were into real detail in the work that you did here. I wondered if Ruth Davidson might be watching the Parliament who knows when our maternity leave. I wondered what she thought about Graham Simpson committing her to another four terms in this place. However, the rest of us are slightly alarmed at that. Like everyone else, I believe that every single Scott has the right to live in a warm, affordable and secure home. Unfortunately, we are a long way from that reality as over just a quarter of households in Scotland live in fuel poverty. For those of you who have watched the recent announcement on 1 April, more than 1 million households in Scotland will be looking at an average rise of £110 a year after the energy watchdog of Jim increased the cap for the default tariff, which most people are on. That is an important point. Even people who should know better that there are cheaper deals, the vast majority of them are on these default tariffs. Of Jim is the organisation that is many protect the consumer. Use Switch has warned that larger families in Scotland could see their annual bills rise by up to £184 a year. Age Scotland has responded to the rising cap by saying that it will do nothing to tackle fuel poverty. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the term cap. I would be happy to take an intervention. Kevin Stewart I thank Ms McNeill for taking the intervention, Presiding Officer. I agree completely and utterly with her on that front. It is a great pity that, out of the drivers of fuel poverty, that this Parliament has no control over fuel prices or income. Between 2003, 2004 and 2017, median households' income in Scotland rose by 50 per cent. At the same time, fuel prices rose by 158 per cent. Although I am grateful that there is a cap in place now, that does not go far enough, I believe that this Parliament should have control over that. I hope that Ms McNeill will consider supporting us in that regard. Pauline McNeill I am on record as saying that someone should certainly have control over it, and that is certainly something that I am willing to discuss, because even the Westminster Parliament does not have control over energy prices. However, I am sure that the minister will take the most relevant point here that there will be more people living in fuel poverty as energy prices begin to rise. Although we encourage people to switch to cheaper tariffs and the consumer organisation that recently carried out research indicates that energy companies have dramatically reduced the number of cheaper deals available, so price is obviously only one factor in all that, and by reducing those cheaper deals, there will definitely be less cheaper fuel available. However, like Graham Simpson, I do not see it as a groundbreaking bill, I do not see it as revolutionary. I do think that we could get there at stage 3. Labour welcomes the introduction of the fuel poverty targets bill, but we think that it falls short in many areas. It is a narrowly drawn bill, and I think that it is a huge mistake to draw it so narrowly. The existing Homes Alliance said that we have once in a lifetime opportunity to tackle it, and we must take it. We want to eradicate fuel poverty for good. I know that we all do. I welcome what the minister has said today on the forthcoming amendments on interim targets and extreme fuel poverty being on the face of the bill. That is wholly welcomed by us. However, I believe that the delivery section of the bill should have reflected more of the format of the Gild Poverty Act, because in that act it does attempt to set out areas where we can begin to improve, and in this case it would be improving energy efficiency to reduce energy costs to householders. How else are we to achieve the targets? It has to sound more like real ambition to prevent more people from living in cold, draughty homes, and how the Scottish Government actually intends to achieve that. We need delivery on helping poorer households. Citizens Advice Scotland has said that those who found it most difficult to afford to pay their energy bills were less likely to have access to support. Ministers should still be having discussions with the big six and other suppliers about improving emergency credit schemes and helping the most vulnerable customers. There is a lot of work to be done in this area. Most concerning with yet another price hike is that even more customers are struggling to pay their bills, particularly those who are already vulnerable. Ofgem is currently consulting on their consumer vulnerability strategy, and it is important that we see more standardisation across the sector. Energy companies are supposed to have a priority services register, but there is currently no standard qualifying criteria for vulnerable households to be placed on the register. More than ever, we need to find a way to ensure that companies take vulnerable customers off the standard variable tariffs and place on a more favourable deal. I think that even through discussion, more could be done to force companies to do that. Much has been said so far very quickly. Not a long intervention, please. You got there before I did. The Government has engaged with the big six and others on that. What I would welcome is cross-party support across the chamber so that we can act together to put the pressure on those companies to see sense in those regards. I can give you a little extra time. You will definitely have our support on that. I can give you a little extra time. I just wanted to say a little bit about rural communities. It has been well covered by Graham Simpson and James Dornan. More than two-fifths of Scots live in rural areas, and they are estimated to be suffering from fuel poverty by huge figures, so that is for sure. It is clear that an adjustment needs to be made to the definition of fuel poverty. I heard what the minister said earlier, so we need to see the detail of that. I think that that is to be particularly welcomed for those communities, because it is quite clear that it is to be much harder to get their energy costs down while they do not get the same access to the national grid. That is wholly welcomed. We also need to look at lifting the level of the warm homes discount for households in rural areas to recognise the high levels of fuel poverty. Graham Simpson has spoken many times about the private renter sector. I want to add my voice to that, too, because private renters are more likely to live in a house that requires critical and urgent disrepair and has failed the Scottish housing quality standard, which often means living in a home with insufficient installation. If you live in the private renter sector, you are twice as likely to be living in fuel poverty with the lowest EPC bans, the rates of fuel poverty are above the national average. I think that we need to focus in the delivery plan towards a private sector to see what action can be taken to lift those households out of poverty. Furthermore, we need to make it easier for homeowners in particular. Those homeowners might be able to pay a bit towards home energy efficiency to get government support. I confess that I find a whole myriad of loans and grants under the scheme. It is quite complicated to follow and I have studied it, but goodness knows what a householder makes of it. We need to do more to give them confidence to apply to what I believe are very good schemes. I call on the Scottish Government to advertise our zero-interest rate loan scheme and to review how more people could be helped. I think that there are more people who are able to pay, but with government support back, we might be prepared to make the jump and make their houses more fuel efficient. We must eradicate fuel poverty once and for all. We must be ambitious for the fuel poor, but we are only at stage 1 by stage 3 with a consensus. I believe that we can achieve it. Andy Wightman, six minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Like others, I would like to thank my committee colleagues, Clark, Spice and all those who gave evidence and to the many groups who submitted briefings for today. Like the ministers, I want to pay tribute to the Scottish fuel poverty strategic working group and the Scottish rural fuel poverty task force, chaired by David Sigworth and Dai Alexander, whose work contributed so much to the bill. We know the statistics from the Scottish household house condition survey. Seven quarters of households living in fuel poverty and about 7 per cent living in extreme fuel poverty are unacceptable and we need to tackle it. Although I welcome the Scottish Government's response to the committee's report, which states that, if we reach the target and I quote Scotland will be amongst the very best in the world in terms of tackling fuel poverty, it is clear to me that we have an awful lot of work to do to reach that ambition. I just want to set out the green's position and where we will be seeking to make some changes at stage 2. It is worth noting that a bill that is focused on targets, definitions and strategies, takes us only so far. A number of members have already mentioned the fact that we were promised a warm homes bill that was abandoned and we have targets, definitions and strategies. Delivery against a target will require that we integrate policies around climate change, the built environment, energy, health, etc. I welcome the minister's commitment to align some reporting there, which I think would be helpful. The committee deliberated at length on the target and it was the focus of much evidence. In light of the failure to achieve the previous target set in 2002, I think that it is right that we take a more critical and a more sceptical view this time round. We welcome the commitment to interim statutory targets, but the 2040 target has been criticised as not being ambitious enough. The committee took the view that it was okay because it was pragmatic, but I believe that with enhanced reporting and scrutiny, there should be the ability to review whether progress can be made more quickly over the next years. A 2032 target reflects a higher level of ambition and is preferable. If it cannot be achieved, we will know in advance. One of the issues that was raised with regard to an earlier target was the issue of emerging technologies. It would need to be the time for them to bed in and to be developed and to be available at a reasonable price to individuals in Scotland. Will the member not take into account that that is a factor in the debate? Andy Wightman I agree entirely that emerging technologies are going to be critical. They may be slow to arise and they may be faster to arise. I do not think that we should make any predictions just now on how fast they might arrive. There is also an issue with words in the bill. The long title of the bill talks about setting a target relating to the eradication of fuel poverty, but given the intention is to reduce it to 5 per cent, we should be more honest about the ambition and set a target relating to reduction. There has also been a lot of talk about the four drivers of fuel poverty—the cost of energy, energy efficiency, household income and household behaviours. In Scotland, we are really only in control of energy efficiency and household behaviours. In its response to the committee's report, the Government claims that it only has significant control of one of the four drivers of fuel poverty, which is home energy efficiency. The minister repeated that in an intervention on Pauline McNeill. I disagree with that contention. The bill makes it clear that the definition of fuel poverty is based on a minimum income standard. Although gross incomes are not within the significant control of the Scottish Parliament, Government or indeed the UK Parliament, it is not gross incomes that define fuel poverty, it is net incomes, after housing costs, fuel costs, childcare and council tax and after, of course, income taxes. Those are all within the very direct influence of devolved powers. We can enhance people's net incomes by reducing housing costs, by reducing taxation, by enhancing provision of childcare and so on. My view is that the Scottish Government does have significant control over the area to adjust income tax levels to ensure that the most vulnerable are not driven into fuel poverty in the first place, for example. Annabelle Ewing I am grateful. What about national insurance? Sadly, this Parliament does not have control over any. Andy Wightman Absolutely. I am not arguing that Parliament has complete control over net income. What I am arguing is that it has substantial control over people's net incomes. Annabelle Ewing Another aspect of the bill that has been much commented on is the question of minimum income standard uplifts for remote and rural Scotland. I welcome the minister's commitment to look at options in this area and, in particular, to consult the committee in advance of stage 2. That is a very productive way to proceed, and I hope that we will improve the bill. Finally, I want to say a few words about scrutiny. Other members who have been here longer than I have—I am looking at Jackie Baillie, among others—will have views on why the 2002 target was not met by 2016. Clearly, we know that rising fuel prices contributed considerably, for example, but failure to meet a target is a possibility going forward as well. For all sorts of reasons, we do not know at the moment, and the critical thing is to keep the target under review. The bill makes provision for reporting in section 6, but reporting is not scrutiny, especially when reports are laid by Scottish ministers who have substantial responsibility for delivering. It has already been mentioned that other legislation in training targets, such as the Climate Change Act and Child Poverty Act, embed independent statutory scrutiny mechanisms. The committee recommends that in part 2.19, and I am disappointed that ministers do not accept it. I am not precious about how such independent scrutiny is achieved. The committee suggested that the fuel poverty advisory group would be placed in a statutory footing, and that might be one option, but there are other options. The critical thing is that we have independent monitoring and scrutiny. For the public to be able to assess whether progress is being made, whether progress could be made faster or slower in account of emerging technologies, et cetera, it is really important. I do not think that the Parliament alone can do that scrutiny job. To conclude, the bill represents an important part of tackling fuel poverty, but it is not in a fit state to deliver what is required. I look forward to working with other members and engaging with the ministers in stage 2. Liam McArthur, six minutes please. I thank James Dornan and his committee, both for the report and for allowing me to play my part in stage 1 scrutiny of this important bill. I am grateful to all those who gave oral and written evidence that I found invaluable, not least in shining a light on ways to improve and strengthen the current bill, giving greater urgency and ambition to our collective efforts at tackling a problem that blights too many households in too many communities across the country. To the surprise of no one, I intend to focus much of my remarks on how we might use this bill to more effectively address the issue as it affects rural and island areas. A theme that Kenneth Gibson and I gave a good and regular airing to at committee. First, it is worth reflecting on why the bill matters so much and why it is essential that we show more ambition in what we seek to achieve. As the existing Homes Alliance reminds us, the benefits of reducing fuel poverty go far beyond simply removing the need for people to choose between heating their home or eating a meal. All the evidence shows that lifting people out of fuel poverty helps to improve their physical and mental health. Unsurprisingly, living in a warm, dry home helps to increase educational attainment as well. Local jobs are created and skills are enhanced in the energy efficiency and low-carbon heat industries, while households have greater energy security and money to spend. Our ambitions for tackling climate change rely on us making progress in improving the energy efficiency of our housing stocks. For all those reasons and more, the bill matters. Of course, it matters to communities throughout Scotland. Few, if any, are immune from fuel poverty. That said, rural and island areas are disproportionately affected, with Orkney suffering the dubious honour of having the highest proportion of households in fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty. It is an honour that we are keen to relinquish, but it underscores the particular importance of the bill and the fuel poverty strategy, recognising and taking specific steps to address fuel poverty in remote rural and island communities. While the change in definition contained in the bill makes sense, it does not, as things stand, adequately take into account the additional costs associated with living in remote and rural areas of Scotland. Indeed, it ignores the key recommendation of the Government's own rural fuel poverty task force, ably chaired by Dai Alexander, whose evidence to the committee on that was compelling. He set out in clear and cogent terms the rationale for using a separate minimum income standard for remote, rural and island areas, reflecting the additional costs borne by those living in such communities. It was a view shared not just by most of those who gave evidence on this part of the bill, but one universally supported by every council, housing association and fuel poverty group in the highlands and islands. It is a case that is unanswerable. I welcome the fact that the committee recognised that. I welcome to the fact that the minister has shown his willingness to engage with me and others over recent months in a bid to find a solutions commitment to undertaking an islands impact assessment. He is very welcome not just on this bill but, hopefully, on the future strategy as well, as is his commitment to an appropriate uplift for rural and island areas. I look forward to seeing the detail of that, but I agree with Dai Alexander that there is a strong case for two separate uplifts reflecting the additional costs associated with living on an island. He is also right that we must find a robust, independent way of assessing the appropriate level of uplift now and into the future. Professor Hirsh and the team at Lathborough University seem to be key to achieving that, but it must be enshrined in legislation and look forward to seeing what can be progressed in this area at stage 2. The review and redesign of fuel poverty proxies, which tend to be urban-orientated, is also needed and should be independent of government. Meanwhile, it is encouraging to see the consensus over the need for distinguishing between fuel poverty on the one hand and extreme fuel poverty on the other. Despite the best intentions of successive Administrations, there has been, I believe, a collective failure to make a meaningful impact on behalf of those in most need. That must change and I support the call for a separate target for eliminating extreme fuel poverty by 2024. In terms of the targets, generally, there were concerns about what is seen by many as a lack of ambition in the bill. Energy Action Scotland suggests that the 2040 date is, quote, effectively a generation away and feels like out of sight, out of mind. The existing Homes Alliance points out that reducing fuel poverty from 24 per cent today to 5 per cent in 2040 represents around 1 per cent a year. That hardly feels like the level of ambition that we need and should be showing, condemning potentially up to 140,000 households to remain in fuel poverty by 2040. I support calls for bringing forward the deadline, if not to 2032, then certainly earlier than 2040. In addition, the proposal for statutory interim targets makes sense as do calls for changes to the household conditions survey, allowing an early indication of where the strategy is working and whether it is not working to allow changes to be made. I welcome the committee's call to see steps taken to ensure progress in every local authority area in Scotland, although it may be impossible to ensure entirely even rates of progress across the board. We cannot have a situation where investment in effort is targeted in areas with larger populations in order to hit the numbers, rather than communities where need is greater. Extremely quickly? Yes. Mr MacArthur already knows that we spend three times more per head of population in islands than we do on mainland authorities. That is something that we have continued to do as a Government, recognising the differences that are there. Extremely quickly? That means quickly, minister. I do not dispute the additional investment that was made, but in the sense that the levels of fuel poverty need to be brought down across the board. Consistently, the expectations in island and rural areas are legitimate to those living in urban areas. I say no good reason why the advisory panel should not be put on a statutory basis. Rebust, independent and effective advice to minister in the wider policy making process is required. On narrower in scopes in the warm homes bill originally, I promise that the bill has the potential to make a real difference. As Parliament embarks on stage 2 consideration of the bill, we should resist the temptation to play safe to build in wiggle room or to keep kicking the can down the road. It is an opportunity to be ambitious, bold and eradicate the scourge of fuel poverty. I look forward to working with the minister and other colleagues across the chamber at stage 2, but we will be supporting the bill this evening. We now move on to the open debate. You may have noticed that there were a lot of interventions, some of them quite lengthy during the opening speeches, so I have no spare time left. Speeches are six minutes. Annabelle Ewing followed by Alexander Burnett. I am pleased to have been called to speak in this stage 1 debate on the fuel poverty target definition strategy bill, not least as I have the pleasure of being a member of the local government committee, which recently completed its scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. I would say at the outset, Presiding Officer, just to remind everybody that Scotland is an energy rich nation, yet we still see many of our citizens living in fuel poverty. That is as unacceptable, as it is absurd, but we know in that regard that two of the key drivers of fuel poverty, energy prices and household incomes fall as far as Government interventions are concerned, broadly within the powers of the Westminster Parliament and not our Scottish Parliament, a situation in which the unionist parties are sadly content to see continue. Does she accept that the minimum income standard relates to net incomes? While everyone's income will differ, the difference between gross incomes and net incomes is quite considerable and the difference is substantially attributed to powers that are devolved. Annabelle Ewing, I hear what the member says, but I have already said on intervention, for example that national insurance does not fall within the jurisdiction of this place, for example that this Parliament has controlled over only 15 per cent of the total expenditure on social security. To name just but two issues, the member would accept that this Parliament does not have all the economic levers that impact on individual household incomes, but what we are determined to do nonetheless, Presiding Officer, is to place Scotland amongst the very best in the world in seeking to tackle fuel poverty and to secure that loddable and ambitious objective, the bill sets forth both a target for the reduction of fuel poverty and an express definition of fuel poverty, as we have heard. It is worth noting in that respect, Presiding Officer, that Scotland is one of only a handful of European countries to do so. The target set is, as we have heard, to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5 per cent of households in Scotland by 2040. As the convener of the committee has said, the committee considered that the 5 per cent target approach struck an appropriate balance as between realism and ambition. In doing so, it recognised both the limited powers of the devolution settlement and the fact that individual households moved in and out of fuel poverty as a result of changing circumstances. However, I welcome the minister's recognition in his response to the committee's stage 1 report of the need to work in the long term for the eradication of fuel poverty to the extent that it is realistically possible. As regards the period of time in which the target is to be achieved, it is worth noting, as has been mentioned, that there were differing views from those who gave evidence to the committee. While some favoured the 2040 date, recognising, among other things, as I referred to in an intervention, that achieving the target will rely on emerging technologies still in development, others took the view that the time period was too long. That seems now to include the secret views of fellow member, Mr Simpson. It is to be welcomed therefore that the minister has responded favourably to the committee's concerns and has agreed to bring forward amendments at stage 2. That would put on the face of the bill interim 2030 targets, as the minister has said. Those would relate to the fact that the fuel poverty rate is to be no more than 15 per cent by 2030 and that, by that date, the median fuel poverty gap will be no more than 350 pounds in terms of 2015 prices before inflation. As far as the definition of fuel poverty is concerned, the revised definition set out in the bill, based around the minimum income standard, was broadly welcomed, with the key discussions concerning the introduction of an additional mis and uplift to the mis to reflect the higher costs of those living on islands, remote small towns and remote rural areas. I am pleased to say that the minister also listened to the committee on this important point and has confirmed that options as to how to achieve that objective are actively being considered. That is also the case with regard to the committee's calls to set a separate target for extreme fuel poverty—that is those who have to spend more than 20 per cent of their income on fuel. Given the position of many of my constituents in Cound and Beath, I am also pleased to note that, although the age vulnerability threshold has been extended from 60 years of age to 75, nonetheless those with disabilities and long-term illnesses will be recognised as needing enhanced heating, therefore capturing a significant number of those in the 60 to 75 age cohort. A draft fuel strategy has been published alongside the bill and is very much a work of progress at this stage. However, it is important that the Government proceed to develop the strategy with the fullest engagement, not just with representative organisations but with actual individuals who have experience of living in fuel poverty. That would ensure, in my view, that the pivotal role that the fuel strategy will play in delivery can in fact be secured. In closing my remarks, I think that it is important to recall that this bill is indeed a framework bill and it must be seen in the context of the suite of measures planned or in the pipeline concerning both energy efficiency and carbon emissions reductions. Working across portfolios is indeed the only way to tackle both fuel poverty and climate change and to ensure that people can heat their homes affordably and by use of low-carbon heating technologies. We have an opportunity to reset the agenda and to make a real difference to the lives of not just my constituents in Cowdenbeath but to citizens right across Scotland. I am pleased to support the fuel poverty bill. Alexander Burnett, followed by Alasdair Allan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I note members to my register of interest on this bill in relation to energy efficiency. As my colleague Graham Simpson mentioned in his opening speech, this bill is an important one for Scotland, but in its current form fails to outline how the Scottish Government will be held accountable if it does not meet the target outlined. Scotland has always been a country with great ambition, but right now this Scottish National Party Government is failing us with its targets. We are not alone in thinking that this bill's focus is too narrow. The existing Homes Alliance said that the scope should be widened to help to tackle energy efficiency and support the achievement of warm, affordable, low-carbon homes for everybody. Members across the chamber will remember that last May an amendment of mine was successfully passed with the support of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. This sought to have a target for all homes reaching the EPCC rating where feasible possible by no later than 2030, as opposed to the current target of 2040. At this point in time, the Scottish Government has failed to honour the will of the Scottish Parliament and is pushing ahead with their 2040 target instead. This might come as a surprise to SNP members, but we want to work with you to help to achieve ambitious but attainable targets. It is not just for target date that we want to see improved, but we also wish to see the method by which EPCs are produced to be reviewed. In December last year, a common wheel article stated that how the method is fundamentally flawed, particularly due to the reliance on the used model of energy consumption data rather than actual measured data. Just recently, a constituent was in touch, as they had had two EPCC assessments done within two years by the same contractor with completely different outcomes. Either we need to see a review on how EPCs are produced or an alternative is needed to ensure that they are more accurate and standardised. As the common wheel article mentions, if a household is under or overestimated on their energy consumption by an inaccurate EPC rating, residents either face higher than expected energy bills or it deters them from making behavioural changes and investing in making energy efficiency improvements. Being an MSP who represents a rural area, I must also add my concerns that the bill does not consider the added costs for those living in rural communities. I was pleased to see in the committee's report that the bill is requested by the Government, and I hope that it will be acted on as we heard the minister talk in his opening speech. The minimum income standard is another important yet contentious point. A review is required for a Scotland-specific version, which would consider remote and rural households, but we must also take into account concerns such as those raised by the Scottish Older People's Assembly that the new definition is likely to result in fewer households with older people being considered fuel poor. Whilst I wish to see rural communities protected, that should not be at the detriment to other sections of society. Herein lies a difficulty with a 5 per cent target. Yes, a great start, but it means that there is a risk of leaving those who are at most need, still in fuel poverty, such as our vulnerable in society and rural communities. Therefore, I join my colleagues in calling for a separate target looking to eradicate extreme fuel poverty to ensure that those hardest to reach are not left in this 5 per cent bracket. I would also be keen to see that each local authority was set to have its own 5 per cent target so that no area of Scotland is disadvantaged by a national average weighted in favour of a predominantly urban central belt. Whilst the bill brings about lots of good action points on how to reduce fuel poverty, I am concerned that the financial memorandum does not estimate the actual cost of eradicating fuel poverty. Surely, the bill should allocate extra costs in order to tackle the issue. It shows exactly why the bill is not going far enough if the Scottish Government does not even think that it merits additional funding in order to achieve its goals. Even the committee reported that it was surprised that the Government provided estimated costing for meeting climate change targets yet chose not to take the same approach for the bill. I will not take an intervention out of the minister's closing speech. I recognise the points that he has made in response to the committee's report, and we look forward to seeing them when they materialise. The Scottish Conservatives' proposal is to invest up to 10 per cent of the Scottish Government's capital budget allocations in energy efficiency measures. The policy will make more homes warmer than the SNP proposals, eradicate fuel poverty at a greater rate than the SNP proposals, and reduce carbon emissions faster than the SNP proposals, all while growing businesses and the economy across the whole of Scotland. While the bill is a step in the right direction and we fully support its principles, it still needs to do more. At this stage, my colleagues and I look to support the bill, but we wish to continue working with members across the chamber to ensure that it can be strengthened. As other speakers have all mentioned, the fuel poverty in Scotland remains a significant problem throughout the country in spite of the £1 billion investment in energy efficiency measures that SNP Governments will have committed to dealing with the problem over the past few parliaments. However, I make no apology for pointing to some of the particular problems that face my constituency, and I am sure that other island constituencies, too. In 2016, the rate of fuel poverty in the western isles was calculated at some 56 per cent according to the Scottish Housing Conditions Survey. Some of the reasons for that are obvious enough—the windshield factor, which is not recognised in the system of cold weather payments, the age and population, the preponderance of detached houses, but perhaps as significant as anything else is the unavailability of mains gas anywhere in the islands, except in one relatively small area of one-town Stornoway. However, history is not irrelevant here either. Government assistance in the 1930s and 1940s was aimed at getting people out of the thatched black houses. That resulted in a generation of home-built houses made of poured concrete, generally mixed with shingle from island beaches to form walls with no cavities, and another wave of kith house building took place in the 1970s and 80s. In short, few of the houses built in the islands throughout the great path of the 20th century are anything like thermally efficient. Many people in that situation may, on the face of it, be homeowners. The reality in the islands is, as often is not, that they own the house but not the land underneath it, a feature of crofting tenure that is too complicated to explain to virtually any building society, meaning that many people are living in houses that they simply cannot afford to repair. Then there are all the usual problems, by no means specific to islands, that people have to contend with—low incomes, universal credit roll-out, a shortage of affordable rented housing and, above all, the spiralling cost of energy over the last 15 years or so, which the minister has pointed to himself. I see from the report that the local government and communities committee saw all those problems for themselves first hand when they visited my constituency recently, and I am very much welcome in doing so. I warmly welcome to the minister's commitment today to recognise rural and, specifically, island factors in rural mis-going forward. I also welcome the fact that the bill will be subject to an island's impact assessment, and I hope that the minister will be able to see something that is summing up about whether the strategy following the bill will be subjected to a similar proofing process, and what distinctive island factors it might be possible to recognise in our strategy on fuel poverty going forward. For example, in defining an acceptable standard of living once fuelled costs are met, I hope that there will be room in the future, as has been positively indicated today, to take account of some of the extra costs that are involved in living in an island area. Not least among those is that, if you are looking for work, it is in many island areas simply not a realistic option not to have a car. There are many people in island communities who would not consider themselves able to afford a car if they lived elsewhere but feel that they have absolutely no choice of looking for work, and that is before hire, food, petrol and other prices are considered. There are other things too that people in most parts of Scotland rural and urban take for granted. Most Scots can visit a relative in hospital if they are suddenly taken seriously ill or perhaps go to a funeral in another part of the country. In the islands, because a plane fare goes up exponentially if bought a day or two before you travel, making such a visit can often cost as much as a foreign holiday. It is right that this Parliament is held responsible for the things that are within our control and that the major investment in energy efficiency, particularly in older people's houses, should be recognised and welcomed. It is right, too, however, that another member has mentioned that we scrutinise areas that are outwith our devolved control too, such as the significant rise in the cost of fuel and the fuel poverty that is traceable directly to changes in the benefits system. I want to end, however, by expressing hope that island proofing might come to recognise another specific problem that all off-grid areas have. That is why are the energy efficiency ratings used in EPCs measured in pounds sterling and not in kilowatts of energy used per square metre? Being off the gas grid makes the cost by definition more but says little about the energy efficiency of the building. The result is that homeowners in off-grid areas face often impossible tasks in getting to band C compared to the tasks that are faced by people who are on-grid. All that said, I very much welcome the bill and the Government's clear commitment to making it work in the islands and across Scotland to tackle what remains, despite substantial and very welcome efforts by the Scottish Government, one of the single biggest problems that my constituents face. I start by declaring an interest as one of the honorary vice-presidents of Energy Action Scotland. As the minister in the very first Labour-led Scottish Government responsible for establishing the fuel poverty target, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. Members will perhaps forgive me if I therefore look back, because I think that we can always learn from history. It was, of course, section 88 of the Housing Scotland Act 2001 that committed Scottish ministers to ensuring that so far it is reasonably practicable that people are not living in fuel poverty by November 2016. An ambitious target, one in which all parties across the Parliament agreed, and, indeed, Stuart Maxwell, who served as the SNP minister from 2007, said, we signed up enthusiastically to the previous administration's target, which was bold when it was established in 2001. That was, then, the right thing to do, and successor administrations agreed. You do not often find issues that transcend the political divide, so it is therefore disappointing with that level of consensus that we singularly failed to meet the target. Where did it go wrong? Back in March 2008, a member's debate on fuel poverty thought that the target was tough but achievable. Later that same year, Nicola Sturgeon, as Deputy First Minister, reconvened the Scottish Fuel Poverty Forum to advise ministers on how to refocus the policy and better use the resources available to achieve the target. We were all still talking about eradicating fuel poverty and achieving the target. Of course, there were increases in fuel prices and factors that we do not entirely control, but we did not think that that was a barrier to doing all that we could to achieve the target. Not one SNP or indeed other member across the chamber raised that as an issue when we set the original target. Three years later, in 2011, some five years before the target date, members of the Scottish Fuel Poverty Forum were telling anyone who would listen to them, from ministers to parliamentary committees, that unless there was a substantial increase in resource, we would fail to meet the 2016 target. The spending levels back in 2012-13 were £65 million. The economy committee in its budget scrutiny believed that the budget needed to be in the order of £100 million to £170 million per year if we were to succeed in eradicating fuel poverty. Unfortunately, the Government decided that it knew better. Budget after budget, Opposition members made that point. Indeed, I recall Patrick Harvie bringing down the Government's budget one year on that very point. In some years, there were even underspends, but the sums fell well short of what was required. By 2012, in a second, by 2012, very few people believed that the target could be met, and ministers did very little to try and change that. I will take the intervention. As we have heard, the increase in energy prices was not a de minimis increase, but an increase of 158 per cent. Is the member trying to suggest that that had no impact at all on the issue? I am indeed not suggesting that, but what we did is that we ignored the fact that that had an impact, and we failed to address what we needed to do to then recalibrate in order to meet the target. It is not good enough to say that it is somebody else's fault, and we do nothing to try and change that. On reflection, I am very clear that you need to start with an ambitious target, you need a route map for how to achieve it, you need to monitor implementation closely. You also need enough money in the budget to realise your ambitions, parliamentary ownership and maybe even some independent oversight so that ministers' feet are held to the fire when necessary to do so. Let me turn to the current bill. The target of taking fuel poverty down to 5 per cent by 2040 is, in my view, lacking in ambition. Taking the number of fuel pours from now to the target date means a reduction of 1 per cent a year. That makes snail's pace look fast and condemns another generation to fuel poverty. The target should be 2032. Changing the definition is also very troubling. Scottish Government has changed its methodology and analysis at least four or five times. On each occasion, more people in fuel poverty got measured out. With the greatest respect, redefining fuel poverty or changing the methodology to simply take people out of the equation fiddles the figures whilst room burns. People tell me that pensioners—it is not nonsense—live in rural areas suffer most from fuel poverty, yet the Scottish Government has moved the definition from 60, where it currently is, to 75. The minister will, of course, be aware that many people in Scotland do not reach the age of 75, particularly those in disadvantaged areas, but they still live in acute fuel poverty. At stage 1, the minister said that he would consult on that in bringing forward regulations, but I think that we should know the Government's intentions now, and I would be interested to know if he would rule out shifting the age qualification to as high as 75. Finally, others have touched on minimum income standards, and I agree with the comments from Andy Wightman. I want to spend the short time remaining talking about monitoring. Parliament, of course, must have an active role, but let me suggest to the minister that rather than having the Scottish Fuel Poverty advisory forum on an ad talk basis, it should be given statutory underpinning and be independent of ministers. I listened carefully to what the minister said, but I am not persuaded by his argument. Give them the tools and the teeth to do their job. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to alleviate and eradicate fuel poverty. I welcome the steps being taken in this bill, but there is an opportunity to do so much more. When this Parliament was created, it seized those opportunities to be bold, to be ambitious, to change the policy landscape and to be positive about the future for the people of Scotland. Twenty years on, let's not be timid about this. Let's not condemn another generation to having to choose between heating and eating. Let's seize the opportunity to eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland. My region, Highlands and Islands, is where fuel poverty, by any reasonable definition, find itself most pronounced. As many members will be aware, a number of factors contribute to the problems that the region faces in this regard. The combination of a slightly less hospitable climate in some seasons, limitations of the main gas network, wider economic challenges of the region and an ageing population are all relevant. When considered against the backdrop of higher living costs in less densely populated areas, a problem shared with other remote and rural parts of Scotland, fuel poverty clearly has a regional element to it and is an issue of particular relevance to my constituents. To illustrate that with some examples, Orkney and the Western Isles have the sorry record of being the local authorities in Scotland where over 50 per cent of households are in fuel poverty under the current definition. Of the five local authorities with the highest proportion of households without main gas, all of them are in the Highlands and Islands. They also find themselves near the bottom of the table for energy efficiency measures. If we set aside the island authorities who have their own particular needs, it is the Highland Council area and Murray Council that experience the highest levels of fuel poverty on mainland Scotland. I would like to get on, please. Where levels of this are high, fuel poverty can become less visible. Many people in these communities, particularly older people, would not immediately identify themselves as being in fuel poverty regardless of where statistical definitions place them. High energy costs and lower disposable incomes can often be treated as a fact of life. Policymakers may think that making them a less pressing problem, but individuals, families and the wider economy are impacted just the same. Individuals are left making those same unpleasant and undesirable trade-offs in order to heat their homes adequately. Before turning to some of the conclusions of the stage 1 report, I would like to extend my thanks to the committee for what has been a comprehensive and informative piece of work. The report identifies and notes a number of those localised concerns that I have raised. One area that the committee was right to highlight is the issue around extreme fuel poverty. As other speakers have observed, there is a real risk that national or even local authority-level targets can create perverse outcomes—outcomes where the low-hanging fruit is tackled first and those in the greatest need abandoned. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to bring forward proposals at stage 2 and we will be looking at them in some detail. The committee report also quoted the evidence of Alastair Calder of Argyll and Bute Council, who spoke of the need to avoid a situation in 2040 in which its 5 per cent of homes still in fuel poverty were all located either on the islands or in rural areas within his council area. It is not simply a question of the worst cases being deprioritised but also the potential not to address areas which, by their geography, are difficult and potentially more expensive to reach. The committee also addressed the local issues around the use of the minimum income standard. That remote and rural areas have particular problems that are not controversial. The Scottish Government's early conclusion that those are accounted for in the MIS or that additional costs of gathering better data would be prohibitive seems to have been largely contradicted by the committee's evidence. I welcome the minister's comments today on islands meds. The committee also heard assurances from the minister that he will look seriously at an uplift for remote and rural areas. Again, I am pleased that he appears to have done that. It is important that his assessments can be scrutinised effectively by the Parliament and that, if he wants to build cross-party support, that work is taken forward seriously. These changes are not to be taken lightly. If we consider the relative impact of the proposals, the number of older households who are in fuel poverty will be deemed to have fallen by 137,000 at the stroke of a pen, and some 60,000, with a long-term sickness or disability, will be removed from the statistics. From a regional perspective, many of those removed from the fuel poverty statistics would be in my region. That has unsurprisingly caused some alarm to organisations locally. I have met and heard on this point from housing associations, local authorities and individuals. It is important that the message that we send to those people in rural Scotland is not that we think that their problems have been solved even though their circumstances remain the same. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment that an island's impact assessment will be brought forward on the various aspects of the bill. It is important in meeting the Scottish Government's commitment to the islands. In the policy area where the islands are so distinct from mainland Scotland, it is extremely important that the process is undertaken and can command the confidence of those communities. I will express disappointment, as previous colleagues already have, in the downgrading of this bill from a more rounded warm homes bill. That this is a missed opportunity for a comprehensive approach to tackling these issues. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government's efforts have often appeared from these benches at least to be unfocused. Major policy areas, such as the creation of a publicly-owned energy company, seem to be created as soundbites first, with even the key details and direction to be ironed out later. There is a pressing need to address energy efficiency further, and the considerable regional disparities that exist. It is welcome that the Government is willing to move on this bill. I will be joining my Scottish Conservative colleagues in looking to strengthen it, but I emphasise that there must be serious consideration of the areas that have been raised by the committee if ministers want to see wider support. Thank you, Presiding Officers. As a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I was pleased to work with colleagues in the production of the stage 1 report into this important bill, which has the potential to have a hugely positive impact on the lives of thousands of households across Scotland. In 2017, 613,000 Scottish households, a quarter were classified as living and fuel poverty. The previous Scottish executive would hope to eliminate fuel poverty. However, despite their best intentions and those of their successors, fuel price increases of 155 per cent compared to wage growth of 30 per cent over that period, of which no control stymied those efforts. The increase in the default tariff 13 days ago by £110, highlighted by Pauline McNeill earlier, highlighted that. The principal aims of the fuel poverty bill are to set out a new target for a dramatic reduction in fuel poverty that is ambitious and achievable, to introduce a new definition of fuel poverty so that support can reach those who need it most, and to produce a new long-term fuel poverty strategy, a bladging Scottish ministers to publish and lay periodic reports to Parliament every five years. Stakeholds agreed that ensuring a target in legislation would provide a clear end point against which to measure progress. While some may ask why the aim is not to completely eradicate fuel poverty, the 5 per cent target takes into account the Scottish Government's limited influence on relation to two of the four main drivers of fuel poverty, household income and energy costs. The transit nature of fuel poverty will see some households move in and out of the definition, again due to circumstances that the Scottish Government cannot control. By setting out a realistic target for 2040, which I understood all committee members of all parties had agreed to, certainly in the report that there was no descent, while laying the groundwork of the sustainable, well-designed long-term strategy provides an opportunity to reduce fuel poverty even further. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has agreed to enshrine interim target milestones into the legislation at stage 2 so that we can assess how well the strategy is working. Andy Wightman I think that he will be well aware that he has been in this place for quite some time, and that committee members do their best to bring forward reports that we can all agree with as the will of the committee, which does not mean to say that members of various parties when it comes to debates at stage 1 or amendments at stage 2 or debates at stage 3 may take a different view. He seems to be insinuating that we should not be. Andy Wightman It is that all seven members of the committee agreed to the 2048 without even a scintilla of descent to my understanding, and yet somehow some members are coming here pretending that all along they really supported 2032. I think that that is fundamentally dishonest. If you are against something that you want to report your descent from, for example your co-league in the CTA, a committee, who has dissented against six other MSPs who supported one view and two abstained, that is the way to do it. You do not say that the 2048 is great, and you come to the chamber and say that it is not radical enough. That is fundamentally dishonest, so I am sorry that I disagree with you on that. Our evidence was not, of course, limited to views that have been heard in the building. Members visited both Dundee and the Western Hills to hear first hand from people about their lived experiences of fuel poverty. On the loose, we heard from a woman working three part-time jobs and are lying on her credit card just to get by. Her traditional single-breeze block cottage had a wood-burning stove and storage heaters. She was not on the gas grid, which is limited, as Alasdair Allan said, to storm away. Having left the island for work, renting at her home, upon her return, the house was in poor condition because the previous tenants could not afford to heat it, damaging white goods with dampness in the walls. The woman received excellent support from local organisation Tyne and Segal, which arranged for external wall insulation, and that remedy the situation quickly becoming unbearable. When we heard from a man living in a 100-year-old croft house with thick stone walls and small windows after cavity wall insulation and new storage heaters, he reported that it felt like a new home while also making a significant difference to his fuel bills. The experience that is shared by people in fuel poverty demonstrates the harsh reality of being fuel poor and reaffirms the committee's view that legislation is essential. We know that fuel bills are generally higher in island communities, not just in the western islands, but in Arran and Cumbria, in my constituency and on other islands. That can be for a variety of factors, including the lack of connection to the gas grid, increased exposure to wind and weather, overalines on electricity and unregulated fuel types, and older, hard-to-heat homes. The starkest disparity, as we have heard between regions, is from the Orkney Islands with 58.7 per cent of households in Edinburgh with 20.1 per cent. That is why, while the committee welcomes the revised definition of fuel poverty set in the bill based on the calculation of the minimum income standard that takes account of daily living costs, the MIS definition may not adequately take into account the reality of living in islands or remote rural areas disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. I therefore welcome the minister's commitment to an additional minimum income standard ahead of stage 2, and I also welcome his commitment to an islands assessment to be published by the end of April. Delivering a meaningful reduction in fuel poverty requires a concerted effort from everyone, from local government, businesses, third sector, landlords, tenants and homeowners. Of course, no legislation exists in a vacuum, and this bill will intersect the aims of the climate change, the new energy efficient programme, the energy efficient route map and the draft fuel poverty strategy that is mandated by the fuel poverty bill. The suite of policies will reduce fuel poverty and improve home energy efficiency while reducing carbon emissions. By the end of 2021, the Government will have allocated more than £1 billion since 2009 to tackle fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency. Jackie Baillie talked about £65 million being invested in 2012, while it was £113 million last year, so there has been a significant increase despite financial challenges to the Government. By achieving our challenging target of reducing fuel poverty 5 per cent, we will not only be one of just a handful of countries around the world to do so, more importantly, we will draw ever closer to a fairer Scotland—a Scotland where nobody is forced to choose between heating and heating. If Jackie Baillie did not intervene, I would have taken her, but of course I am now over my time. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I move to closing speeches now. I call Claudia Beamish to wind up for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a significant stage 1 debate with many important issues highlighted across the chamber. Like colleagues, I welcome the draft fuel poverty Scotland bill. It occurs to me that this chamber has announced fuel poverty as Scotland's shame countless times, and yet hundreds of thousands of households still battle against its effects. It is unacceptable that, across Scotland, people sit down to weigh up warming their homes or filling their stomachs of an evening. Liam McArthur stressed as well the range of health and education downsides of living in fuel poverty. How is an elderly person to protect their health in a drafty room? How is a child to excel at school when their home is distractingly cold? And how can a carer support their loved one in a home with pitiful insulation? Can I remind the chamber that the right to adequate housing is enshrined to us in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? In Scotland, we clearly feel the changing seasons, and so here adequate must equal warm. As Jackie Baillie stressed, there was a consensus to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016, and her historic analysis was indeed chilling. Where is the recalibration that is needed? I would argue that the Scottish Government has not done enough for this, and it is to the eternal shame of this Government that this is the case. I am not taking intervention on that point, but I have made that point in Sir Jackie Baillie, and I think that that point was well made. Now we are in a position where we do have a fuel poverty bill. Further, I share my colleagues' very serious concern that the remaining 5 per cent left in fuel poverty will be at those households most difficult to tackle, who have already suffered for decades. I do welcome the minister's commitment to a definition of extreme fuel poverty. The existing homes alliance is, of course, a very broad and significant coalition. It has stressed, I quote, the need to take the higher cost of remote and rural living into account, and this is frankly a relief that the stage 1 report recognised that a new definition proposed within the bill does not adequately take that into account. I strongly welcome the minister's commitment on a rural amendment at stage 2. It is vital to ensure an uplist for rural dwellers. The fact that the bill will be island proofed as committed to by the minister today and stressed by Liam McArthur, Alasdair Allan and others is of vital importance. As an MSP rather for South Scotland, I am keenly aware of the challenges faced by those living in rural fuel poverty, often off-grid, often in hard-to-heat old-stone houses. The Scottish Government might consider how it can help to give collective and co-operative rural support, and that might be part of the strategy if not on the face of the bill, especially for low-carbon energy solutions such as biomass. More widely, co-operative and mutual models of energy production, distribution and sale have a role to play in tackling fuel poverty beyond the bill. They are a means to empower the fuel poor, disadvantaged and excluded communities when Britain's energy system is not working for consumers. I accept that part of that is reserved issues, but Pauline McNeill has highlighted the problems for larger families who could see annual bills rise by up to £184 a year. The market may be broken thanks to a combination of lack of competition resulting in market dominance by a small number of large vertically integrated companies, unsustainable and short-term decisions being made by big business and a housing stock that ranks among the least energy efficient in Europe. However, consumer, local government and community employment ownership models have been shown to offer behavioural benefits as people have more consideration of their own energy use and they are also offering economic benefits with returns remaining in the locality when reinvested and also helping with job creation. We need a fuel poverty bill for sure for the sake of people's health, well-being and financial equality, but also for our efforts to tackle climate change. The narrow scope of the bill means that it does not deliver specifically on lowering climate change emissions for housing, although I welcome the minister's commitment to finding the way forward on reporting duties with COSLA and the committee parallel with the present climate change reporting duties. My colleague Pauline McNeill has also explored the private rented sector in her opening remarks for Scottish Labour. There has long been concern for those in homes where the chance to improve energy efficiently relies not wholly on the residents' hands, for example in the private rented sector. I welcome the work done by the Scottish Parliament working group on tenement maintenance and energy efficiency for common improvements, which is an important part of that. I want to highlight that, in 2014, I tried to amend the housing bill at stage 2 and 3 to add a duty for provision of energy efficiency standards to the repairing standard, but that was not supported by the Scottish Government. At that time, I withdrew my amendments on the understanding that the issue would be tackled all together with other energy efficiency concerns. Although that is a complex issue, the issue will not be used as an excuse to avoid tackling the issue. The issue should be seen as an opportunity at stage 2 and beyond. I hope that the Scottish Government will engage with those of us who are keen to address multi-occupancy and the private rented sector, which is the case across the parties, as I understand it. The Scottish Labour does indeed welcome the new bill and supports the general principles of the fuel poverty bill, but there is a lot of room for improvement. The minister has acknowledged some of that today on the basis of the local government committee's report, however we still have in the view of Scottish Labour a considerable way to go. I am pleased to have the opportunity to close the stage 1 debate on the fuel poverty target definition and strategy bill on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Our manifesto in advance of the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections made it clear that the Scottish Conservatives are committed to ensuring that no-one lives in a hard-to-heat home and to reducing fuel poverty. We are therefore happy to support the broad principles of the bill before us today. More specifically, we pledged to make the case that to transform investment in Scotland in energy efficiency homes across Scotland, and we suggested that it could be done by investing up to 10 per cent of Scotland's Government's capital budget allocations in energy efficiency measures. That could lead to thousands of jobs all across Scotland while making homes easy to heat, reducing energy bills and carbon emissions. There is certainly the need for this bill at this time to tackle the issue that is driven by the complex combination of energy costs, energy efficiency, household incomes and energy use. At present, a quarter of households in Scotland live in fuel poverty. We have heard that today, and we have also talked about the rural and island communities. Our convener, James Donnan, commented on that. I am delighted to hear that Kevin Stewart will be bringing forward amendments in stage 2 to cover some of the areas within our rural and island communities. As a member myself of the local government and community committee, it has been a real privilege to hear from groups, individuals and organisations who have all ensured that we have been given the ability to hear their views and opinions. Prior to the debate this afternoon, we have had the opportunity to have from many members the opportunity of having their very useful briefings that give their views and opinions. Previous attempts to drive that issue by successive Governments has been unsuccessful. We have heard from Jackie Baillie today about what that attempt to do when it was set out back in 2002 and how, up to 2016, it wanted to ensure that that happened. Well, it did not happen for various reasons and we have heard some of that already this afternoon. However, it is important that the local government committee and communities across the big Scotland want to support this bill because they see the needs for things to happen. However, the bill as it stands does not include any accountability mechanisms, and that was one of the key flaws back in 2016 when the bill was set out. In other words, there needs to be some form of consequences for the Scottish Government if targets of this bill fail to be met. Otherwise, it will be ambitious—I would like to continue to make progress. Otherwise, the ambitions will not be met and we will just end up with some sort of simple, meaningless propositions going forward. I do not want that to happen, Presiding Officer. We want to ensure that this bill is successful, so there will need to be some amendments and changes to it as it goes forward. Moreover, it is disappointing that there is not an interim target set out in the situation, and that was talked about through the draft pure property strategy. Both the committee and stakeholders who were represented in the consultation made some clear support about the strategy underpinning such a milestone. Indeed, the committee requires to ensure that we get a target date by 2040. I note from the Minister for Local Government and Planning that he does propose to bring forward amendments in stage 2. As I said earlier, I welcome that, because that is what we need to ensure that that does take place. By using a nationwide target, it could have the fact of ensuring that regional disparity takes place, and the committee suggested that the Scottish Government should amend section 1 and put in place some statutory targets for each local authority to reduce fuel poverty in areas. That, as I said, should also be considered. We have heard from many members this afternoon, and Graham Simpson talked about the ability that the bill should be there to eradicate fuel poverty, but it will only set a target. We talk about the lack of ambition. It is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step in the right direction at this point. My colleague Alexander Burnett talked about the focus of the bill and the need for the targets to be valid and for a target to be obtainable. He also spoke about the standardisation and support for rural and remote households. Within the debate today, we have heard many people who have made a very valid contribution. That shows the depth and feeling of the whole issue across the chamber and across Scotland. Jamie Halcro Johnston talked about missed opportunities. He talked about his own Highland region, where fuel poverty is at the highest, where people have to accept that it is a fact of life. It should not be a fact of life for individuals and communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Pauline McNeill talked about the bill being how it falls short, and it does not give the ambition that she and the Labour Party had hoped to see. Andy Wightman talked about the unacceptable level of fuel poverty. We all have to acknowledge that there is an acceptable level of fuel poverty, so it is vitally important that we look at how we can enhance the reporting and the support. Liam McArthur spoke about addressing rural and island areas and the lack of ambition. He talked about heating a home or eating to some people that are a fact of life. They are put in that situation. In conclusion, we in the Scottish Conservatives are committed to tackling fuel poverty and to reducing carbon emissions overall. As I have indicated, although we support the general principles of the bill, there are still a number of important changes that will require to be used as we move forward. We shall therefore support the bill at stage 1 today, but we will seek to make amendments to strengthen the bill at stage 2 or 3, because that is the right thing to do, and we ensure that we will all be working together to achieve that. As I said at the outset of the debate, the Government is ambitious in its desire to tackle, reduce and ultimately eliminate fuel poverty in Scotland. Beyond that, we also have to ensure that we reduce carbon in our country, and we need to move forward in terms of delivery of technologies to ensure that that becomes a reality. The bill is not a stand alone. It goes hand in hand with the carbon reduction bill, which we will see coming to this place shortly. It goes hand in hand with the bill that Mr Wheelhouse will introduce around about district heating and local heating strategies. Beyond the bills, I would draw members' attention to the draft energy strategy and, of course, the energy efficiency Scotland pipeline. It is within energy efficiency Scotland the route map where we lay out our ambitious targets to deal with fuel poor homes in terms of EPC ratings. Fuel poor homes should reach EPC band C by 2030 and EPC band B by 2040. Those will act as a guide for our delivery programmes, ensuring that delivery to fuel poor households is prioritised. I'll take Mr Simpson. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. He'll have heard during this debate concerns from a number of members about EPC ratings, including Alasdor Allan, and their effectiveness. Is that something that he's willing to look at on a Scottish basis? I say that building standards officials at this moment are looking at EPC ratings. This is part of the on-going, day-to-day work that we do as a Government. We keep all of those things under review. I'm quite happy to hear from members about their views. I remember getting the letter from Mr Burnett about his constituent and his situation about EPC. If people want to feed in, I will make sure that that goes to building standards officials and plays a part in terms of the work that they are doing at this moment in time. This is not a standalone bill. It is part of a suite of legislation and regulation that we must bring forward to do our level best for the people of Scotland. I don't want anyone to be living in a fuel-poor household, because I remember when I was a child in a house that was heated by a two-bar fire in the living room and a super-star heater upstairs with the bedroom doors open to try to get the heat through and ice. I am lucky compared to some. Ice forming in the inside of the windows through no fault of my parents who were doing their level best. I don't want anyone to be in those circumstances. I want to move as quickly as we can on those issues, but we also have to be realistic about what is deliverable. We need to be realistic about what we can achieve in certain timescales. I have heard a lot today, which differs from the report from the committee, about moving further and faster on some of those targets. What I have not heard is how we deliver that quicker. How do we achieve that deliverability? As I have said time and time again, what we have put in place here is ambitious and it is deliverable just. It is stretching. Those folks who are thinking of putting forward amendments about bringing forward targets are going to have to look at how that can be delivered. I will give way to Ms McNeill. The minister asked the party to consider how we deliver that. I ask you, minister, would you consider what I have said in my opening speech? The delivery part of the bill could do with a bit more content. If the minister is open minded about accepting amendments about how we deliver the detail of reducing fuel poverty, will he consider substantially amending that section of the bill? It is not necessarily in the bill at all. It is in delivering energy efficient Scotland and adapting as we move forward. It is making sure that that draft fuel poverty strategy becomes a strategy that works for all. I think that sometimes in this place we get a little bit fixated with primary legislation. It is very difficult at points to create primary legislation, to create delivery. I think that those documents and the scrutiny of those things as we move forward are extremely important. Those are going to be the key things to ensure that we reach the targets that we aspire to. Very briefly from Ms McNeill. Claudia Beamish. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Would the minister agree with me, as I highlighted in my closing remarks, the importance of local energy, work and co-operatives that will support not only local jobs but helping people who are in fuel poverty to tackle that? Absolutely. I believe that if we get that absolutely right in terms of how we progress, we can create jobs in this area, not just handing jobs to multinational companies, as often happens in the past, but local delivery. The prime example of that is in Orkney, because when I first got this post, civil servants came to me and said that Orkney was unable to spend its area-based scheme money. It was suggested that maybe I wanted to take that money back, which I did not do, because Orkney required a greater length of time than other authorities to set up the supply chain and the skills to deliver what was required for Orkney. That is the kind of thing that I would like to see across the country. If we are in a position where we are pushed to move too quickly, local authorities might not have the ability to go and do what Orkney did in that case and maybe push into setting procurement elsewhere, maybe places that Ms Beamish does not want to see. There is absolutely a logic to taking time in some aspects of that to get it absolutely right. However, as I said, if anybody comes forward with a delivery plan that works to bring targets forward, I will certainly look at that and consider that as we move forward. I have listened to the committee and we have made some moves that I am pleased to hear that folk are happy about, around about interim targets and about minimum income standards. One of the key things in all of that is the tackling of extreme fuel poverty. I will, without a doubt, bring forward those amendments at stage 2. I have said to members that I will continue to listen. The reason why there has been movement is not just the work of the committee, but the engagement that there has been between members myself and stakeholders at large. That will continue as we progress, not just with this bill, but with energy-efficient Scotland and with the right fuel poverty strategy, and with the other bills, too, as we move forward. Liam McArthur I am grateful to the minister for taking an intervention. Following on from what Pauline McNeill was saying about the access to the funds that are available, I know that there are— Liam McArthur We have a bit of an order in the chamber, please. Pauline McNeill was highlighting some of the difficulties that there are in accessing funds. There are those who are in listed properties. We find it exceptionally difficult to introduce measures. Would he speak to his colleagues to ensure that heritage and fuel poverty objectives are better aligned than they appear to be at the moment? Liam McNeill Heritage and fuel poverty bodies are better aligned to do that. I am well aware that, in Mr McArthur's constituency, we have council housing that dates back to the Napoleonic area. Those are much more difficult to deal with. On the point that Ms McNeill made about the joined-up approach, my suggestion is that everybody talks to Home Energy Scotland. The helpline there is absolutely fantastic. It is an award-winning helpline. It will guide people to the right places and give folks the right advice in that regard. Again, I am more than willing to speak to Ms McNeill and others on where they think the difficulties lie in accessing grant and or loan funding. I want to make that journey as easy as possible for people. If she wants to have that conversation, I am more than happy to do so. There have been a few myths that I really need to touch upon. Ms Bailey talked about modelling and analysis being changed four or five times each time taking more households out of fuel poverty. Modelling and analysis that has been done has only happened to reflect the changes to industry standards and energy modelling, and no other reason than that at all. I will take you very briefly. I am grateful to the minister for doing so. When I accused him of changing the methodology and analysis, he said that that was nonsense. He is now admitting that I was right. On each occasion, will he tell the chamber that more people were taken out of fuel poverty even though their experience continued to be in fuel poverty? What I was saying was nonsense is that he was saying that modelling and analysis put more people in fuel poverty. That was the absolute nonsense that Ms Bailey was speaking about. The member introduced the original bill. One of the things that happened then was that there was no foresight at that point about possibilities and scrutiny. I think that she should reflect on that as well. We need to get that absolutely right. I am going to finish on a number of points that have been touched upon by some members but seem to have been lost to others. That is the fact that we do not have control over all the levers that lead to fuel poverty. We do not have control of energy prices—I wish we did. We do not have control over incomes. Even though Mr Wightman made an attempt to say that we have a small amount of leverage there, we do not have the ability to deal with things that happen from the UK Government, such as changes in VAT, such as poor roll-out of universal credit, such as the slashing of social security and the list goes on. Those are things that we should be uniting on as a Parliament so that we have control over every aspect of that so that we can truly move forward to ensure that we are doing the very best for the people of Scotland. I am grateful to the committee for its efforts. I find it a bit surprising that many of the contributions today have not been reflective of the committee's report, but we are where we are. I am grateful for views that have been shared in the chamber. I will continue, as I have said, to listen to members and to stakeholders as we move forward. I hope that we can move forward to stage 2, in a logical fashion, with workable amendments that have no unintended consequences. That concludes our debate on the fuel poverty bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1589, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the bureau setting out a business programme. I call on Graham Day to move the motion. Thank you very much. No member wishes to speak in the motion. The question is that motion 1589 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motions 15901 and 15902 on the stage 1 timetables for two bills. I call on Graham Day to move the above mentioned motions. Thank you very much. No member wishes to speak on those motions. Therefore, the question is that motions 15901 and 15902 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of a parliamentary bureau motion 15900 on the local government finance order. I ask Graham Day on behalf of the bureau to move the motion. We turn now to decision time. The first question is that motion 15617, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, on the Hutchison hospital transfer and dissolution Scotland bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 15892, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on the fuel poverty target definition and strategy Scotland bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 15900, in the name of Graham Day, on the local government finance Scotland order 2019, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We are going to move shortly to members' business, in the name of Bob Doris, on efforts to save St Rollock's railway works, but we will just take a few moments for members and the minister to change seats.