 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1-7567, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Fuel, Poverty, Target, Definition and Strategy Scotland Bill. I would encourage all members who wish to speak against the motion—I should say so now—but could I ask Graham Day to move that motion? As we move on to the stage 3 proceedings, on the Fuel, Poverty, Bill, members should have with them. The bill is amended at stage 2, the marshaled list and the supplement to the marshaled list that contains manuscript of amendment 99 and the grouping of amendments. I remind members that the division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon and the period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. However, after that, the voting period will be one minute for the first division following a debate. Members who wish to speak in a debate on any group of amendments should press their requested heat buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list. Group 1 is Fuel, Poverty, Target and Local Authority Areas. I call amendment 1, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with the amendments as shown on the groupings. At this point, I would draw members' attention to the information in the groupings on the amendments in the group that pre-empt amendments in group 2. I call on Graham Simpson. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. It's great to be able to kick off our debate on the proposed amendments to this bill. There's been a lot of cross-party working for stage 3, so hopefully most of the amendments should pass without too much ranker. I've got, unfortunately for you, Presiding Officer, 10 amendments in this group. I'll try not to take too long, but I think I'm going to have to cover them all. Applying the 2040 target in each local authority area, but not to put the onus on councils, was one of the key recommendations in the local government communities committee stage 1 report on the bill. I was pleased that my amendments to give this measure effect were passed at stage 2. It's very important that no part of the country should be left behind in the drive to meet the fuel poverty target at a national level. The Scottish Government supported the amendments but have pointed to minor issues with the wording of stage 2 amendments. I have worked with the minister on these amendments, which make consequential and tidying up changes to ensure clarity and consistency throughout the bill, for which I'm grateful to the minister for. Those amendments will make absolutely clear that each of the three elements of the 2040 target apply in each local authority area, as well as nationwide. Among the households in each local authority area, no more than 5% can be in fuel poverty, no more than 1% in extreme fuel poverty, and the median fuel poverty gap should be no greater than £250 at 2015 prices before adjusting for inflation. The minister mentioned at stage 2 that local authority statistics are not available quite as quickly as national ones, and I said I was happy to work with him on this. In considering the reporting cycles for data on fuel poverty at local authority level, I've also brought forward an amendment that provides more time for reporting on whether the local authority area targets have been met following the end of 2040. That is because combined data for three years is required from the Scottish House Condition Survey in order to provide sufficiently robust results for each council area. It will be December 2043 before all local authority level data is available, covering the three years after the target date, namely 2040 to 2042. The amendment to section 9 reflects that. Let me just take each amendment in turn, if I can, Presiding Officer. Amendment 1 sets out what this section does, namely making provisions for the 2040 fuel poverty targets, now that there is also to be a second target, namely the local authority area one. Amendment 2 sets out the 2040 local authority area target in a manner that is consistent with the wording of the existing 2040 Scotland-wide target, which also clarifies that it's only households in a local authority area which are under discussion. Amendment 72 puts the onus on the Scottish ministers and not councils to meet the fuel poverty targets in each local authority area. Amendment 6, 7 and 8, are technical amendments that remove reference in sections 6, 1A, B and C to meeting the targets at local authority area, as this is now provided for instead by amendment 9. Amendment 9 inserts a new subsection to provide for the periodic reports to include information on the steps taken during the reporting period to meet the target at local authority area level, along with the progress made towards meeting it and the steps that are planned for the next reporting period. The effect of this is to bring together the currently dispersed references setting out these requirements in one place so as to make them more prominent and readily understandable. This route has been supported by the existing Homes Alliance, which is called for local authority targets to also reflect the periodic reporting on the other fuel poverty targets. Amendment 10 is consequential to amendment 9. Amendment 11 inserts a new section after section 9 setting out a requirement to report on the achievement of the 2040 target at local authority level by no later than 31 December 2043. This reflects the fact that data on fuel poverty in each local authority area is only available based on a three-year average and will therefore only be available later than the reporting date under section 9. Amendment 13—I am almost finished—is a consequential change to reflect that the Scotland-wide 2040 target is in subsection 1 of section 1 only. Amendment 14 is a consequential change to reflect that the local authority area target is set out in section 1A in order to allow it to be referred to by name. Amendments 20, 22 and 46 in the name of the minister are technical amendments to ensure that terminology is consistent throughout the bill and will support them. Amendment 20—I am happy that we have been able to work together on his amendments in relation to the local authority area target. They make sensible and necessary improvements to the current wording around those commitments. Turn to my own amendments 20, 22 and 46. I am bringing them forward in recognition of the fact that the fuel poverty strategy must take a holistic partnership approach to tackling fuel poverty if we are to be successful in achieving the bill's targets. That is particularly so in light of the introduction of the local authority area target, which will require us to work closely with local authorities. It also acknowledges that the Scottish Government does not have control over all the drivers that can push households into fuel poverty or, for that matter, propel them out of it. Nonetheless, we are committed to addressing all the drivers in our strategy. Amendments will therefore allow us where appropriate to set out actions in the strategy not just that Scottish ministers must take but which should be taken by others. Amendments 2 and 3 do similar things in respect of the steps that are needed to meet the 2040 target in local authority areas and periodic reporting. Those measures will enable us to produce the kind of comprehensive strategy that will be needed if we are to end fuel poverty in Scotland. Alex Rowley, to be followed by Liam McArthur. The amendments in this group are broadly fine. They are technical or clarify language and definition. However, as a result of Graham Simpson's amendments 6 to 10, Pauli McNeill's stage 2 amendment on the need to include the cost of steps laid out in the periodic report is lost. We believe that that is a key part of the transparent-sense scrutiny of the periodic report. For that reason, we will not be supporting amendments 6 to 10. I just wanted to voice my support for the amendments brought forward by Graham Simpson. There were concerns about levelling to owners a responsibility in local authorities, but I think that it is imperative that we see consistent progress made across Scotland, across all local authority areas, towards eradication of fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty. Therefore, I very much welcome the pragmatic approach that appears to be taken in these amendments. Can I ask Graham Simpson if he wishes to wind up on this particular group? I do not think that there is anything else to say, Presiding Officer. Can I just confirm that you have moved amendment 1? I will move amendment 1. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate on group 1, but we will move on to group 2 before having a vote, simply because the first amendment in group 2 amends one of the amendments in group 1. I call group 2 fuel 2032 fuel poverty targets. I call amendment 1A, in the name of Alex Rowley, grouped with the amendments that I have shown in the groupings. At this point again, I draw members' attention to the information in the marshal list on the amendments in group 1, which are pre-empted by amendments in group 1. I would move amendment 1A and other amendments in my name. The bill is badly lacking ambition. Not only did the Government limit the scope of the bill from a warm homes bill to a definition bill, preventing members from giving the measures required to eradicate a statutory footing, it has clung to a target that, in the words of Energy Action Scotland, condemns another generation to fuel poverty. Our proposal for a target of 2032 is realistic if it is accompanied by an ambitious plan. We heard in committee that 2032 is supported by a broad range of stakeholders, including the existing homes aligns and Energy Action Scotland. Energy UK said that it would focus mines. That is the right way of looking at that. It is about the practicalities, but it is also about political will. The Government is not coming close to doing everything that it can to improve energy efficiency and reduce fuel poverty. Funding consistently falls short for what is required for a national infrastructure project. That is what we need if we are going to tackle fuel poverty. Our approach should be very different from the Government's. It claims that measures must be targeted only on those living in fuel poverty, but a sustainable and long-term approach to eradicating fuel poverty should mean effective behavioural change across Scotland, facilitating co-operatives, boosting people's wages and reducing the cost of living and improving energy efficiency across our housing stock, because people move house and financial situations do change. The economic and health benefits across Scotland that would accompany such an approach like that would be huge. Finally and importantly, we want to give the minister the best possible chance to eradicate fuel poverty and we are not setting the Government up to fail. We have introduced an amendment so that the target can be moved if independent expert opinion suggests that it cannot be reasonably met. The Parliament should support those amendments and embark a radical plan to eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland as soon as is possible. Presiding Officer, I would like to speak in this group to support Alex Rowley's amendments. The committee, as members will know at stage 1, made a recommendation that we should stick with the 2040 target, but amendments made at stage 2 have provided, among other things, enhanced scrutiny provisions and greater flexibility on the target. In particular, Alex Rowley's amendment 70 provides that the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel can recommend a different fuel poverty target date. Therefore, agreeing to a more ambitious 2032 target is, thus, not as objectionable as it might have been at stage 1. If 2032 becomes unachievable, the panel will be able to recommend if it sees fit to extend the target beyond 2032, perhaps even back to 2040. As with the Government's approach to climate change targets, when the evidence changes, so too should the response. I want to speak again to Alex Rowley's amendment. As Andy Wightman just said, the committee said at stage 1 that 2040 was a pragmatic target. Ideally, we would all be wanting this sorted in the next couple of years, but 2032 was seen to be totally unrealistic by those who were going to have to do the work, who were going to have to make sure that it became reality. 2040 is a pragmatic target, as Andy Wightman has already said. There is flexibility about it now. I have no doubt that, if the technology comes into force, we will hopefully be able to move it forward. However, I do not think that we should be setting ourselves up to fail, as happened with a previous administration, with the best of intentions. Let us make sure that people know what the target is and then move on to trying to get it further forward. We are actually going over a debate that we had extensively at stage 2 here. Nothing has really changed. The committee took the view—it was not an easy decision, but we took the view that 2040 was the right date. 2032 was possibly too ambitious, so nothing has really changed from that position. It just feels like a bit of a re-run, frankly, and I think that the result will be the same. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Mr Simpson is absolutely right that this is a debate that we had at great length during stage 2. I am disappointed that those amendments have been brought back again, despite being clearly defeated, contrary to the committee's recommendations at stage 1. The recommendations that Mr Rowley supported at that stage, and I remain strongly opposed to those amendments. During the stage 1 committee debate, it was accepted that it was better to have realistic and achievable targets that all involved could work towards, as long as the Government brought forward amendments to include interim targets on the face of the bill, which we have done. At stage 2, we debated that further, visiting all the arguments that we had before, and coming to the conclusion that including interim targets would help us to demonstrate progress. We introduced a 2030 interim target at stage 2, and Graham Simpson's amendment 4 will introduce a further 2035 target, which I fully support. I therefore remain strongly opposed to Mr Rowley's amendments in that group. We have been through all the arguments before, but I will set them out again. We do not have powers over all the drivers of fuel poverty, particularly the prices of energy. Therefore, our action has to be through what we can do, and that is why we are tackling fuel poverty by going for transformational change for homes through energy-efficient measures. That relies on technologies, some of which are still in development, a skilled workforce, and local companies to take that forward. The target rate has been agreed by those partners who will bring about that change. The businesses taking forward the work, COSLA, and of course those who own homes, owner occupiers, private landlords and RSLs. Those sectors do not want a target that is setting up everyone to fail. They want to work towards a target that we can achieve. None of the partners who actually have to deliver the 2040 targets, including COSLA, who have written multiple times to the local government and community committee during stage 1, with their concerns, agrees with those amendments. There are clear risks to accelerating the time frame, including losing the economic opportunities to develop skills and supply chains across Scotland that could potentially support 4,000 jobs, because only larger businesses from outwith Scotland are ready to match an accelerated pace. In addition, if demand exceeds supply, costs could escalate, potentially leading to increased rents and further pressure on public finances. It also clearly risks alienating the public by speeding up the pace of regulation, enforcement and mandatory action by 2024. I have not yet seen an alternative to our comprehensive Energy Efficient Scotland route map, which commits us to a sensible phased approach to maximise the take-up of energy efficiency improvements voluntarily up to 2030, with mandatory action to follow. As I have stated before, we of course want to go further. I want to go further. I want to go faster if it is possible, which is why we are currently consulting on the impact of speeding up the programme. However, we must not risk our credibility by setting unrealistic expectations or taking actions that lead to unnecessary costs for people and for the public finances. We must have a realistic and achievable starting point for the fuel poverty target that is within our grasp and can be strived for. We have already debated the risks and the issues, and I urge the Parliament to yet again reject those amendments. As Mr Stewart said, the Tory members and the SNP members at stage 2 did come together to block any attempt to be a bit more ambitious with the target, but I had hoped that the minister would have looked again and that many colleagues on his benches would have looked again. The Parliament was established in 1999, and early in the life of that Parliament, it brought an ability to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016. Today, we are talking about getting fuel poverty down to 5 per cent by 2040. As I said previously, I will be in my seventies when we reach that target, if we reach that target, because the doom and gloom would suggest that we cannot. However, there are a few myths that the minister raised. For example, he says that this is all down to technology. That is simply not the case. I have written to him about housing and bilingary in Fife and Lawhore in Fife, where it is described as expensive to treat and expensive to put in place the energy efficiency measures. The lackey budget is what is causing those people to be loving fuel poverty. The lackey budget and the lackey ambition are not simply about technologies. The minister says that it is about a skilled workforce. Why are we not being more ambitious to tackle fuel poverty and have a skilled workforce in place that could get the jobs that can ensure that people love and warm our houses? I would simply say to you that, as I said previously, we have covered the fact by another amendment that if we reach or look like we are going to reach 2032 and we are not reaching the target, we could shift the target. However, I would rather be ambitious for Scotland and say that nobody in Scotland should be loving fuel poverty. It is the Tory MSPs and the SNP MSPs that lack ambition and that is why people will continue to be in fuel poverty. I would move. The question is that amendment 1A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. This is the first division of the afternoon, so we are going to suspend for five minutes while I call the members to the chamber a short suspension of five minutes. Thank you very much, colleagues. That is our short suspension over, Parliament resumes, and the question is that amendment 1A be agreed to, and this will be a 32nd division, so press your buttons now. Amendment 1A. Are members made castor votes now? The result of the vote on amendment 1A in the name of Alex Rowley is yes, 25, no, 85. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that amendment 1A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 65 in the name of Alex Rowley? Alex Rowley to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 2 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated, and I remind members that if amendment 2 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 66. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that—oh, no, it's not, sorry. Yes, I call amendment 2A. Bear with me, because it's complicated today. I call amendment 2A in the name of Alex Rowley, already debated. Alex Rowley to move or not move? Not moved, Presiding Officer. That is not moved. So Graham Simpson, the question is therefore that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Yes. So we now move to group 3, modification of the 2040 target. I call amendment 67 in the name of Alex Rowley, grouped with amendments 68, 69 and 70. Alex Rowley to move amendment 67 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to move amendment 67 and other amendments in my name. As mentioned, I brought forward amendments at stage 2 to allow the target to be moved if independent expert opinion suggested that it cannot be reasonably met. We want this Parliament to work together to have the best possible chance of eradicating fuel poverty at the earliest opportunity. The target is simply a means to an end. Unfortunately, the Government still chose to stick with their target of 2040. If the statutory advisory panel feel that the target should be brought forward, we hope that they will be able to move it and give the Government the guidance that they need to achieve that target. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I agreed at stage 2 that a statutory Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel should have the power to make recommendations that would allow Parliament to revisit the target date, but only by pushing it back. I am pleased that Mr Rowley and I have been able to work together on those amendments, which now allow ministers the flexibility to modify the date both backwards and forwards. They also ensure that reporting deadlines can be adjusted accordingly if the 2040 target date for either the local authority target or the national target is changed. I urge members to support those amendments. Does Mr Rowley wish to add anything? No, thanks. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 68, in the name of Alec Rowley, to move or not move. Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 69, Alec Rowley to move. I move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 70, Alec Rowley to move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And we turn to group 4, interim fuel poverty target. I call amendment 3, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 4 and 12, and Graham Simpson to move amendment 3 and to speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you. I'll move amendment 3, Presiding Officer. We've got three amendments in this group. They're all in my name. I was pleased that the Government decided at stage 2 to act on the recommendations of the local government and communities committee and put forward an amendment to put an interim target for 2030 on the face of the bill. During stage 2 there was discussion on having further milestones to keep things on track and I've worked with the Government on those amendments to address that. The fuel poverty strategy included that the overall fuel poverty rate will be less than 20 per cent by 2030 and the median household fuel poverty gap would be no more than £450. A Scottish Government amendment at stage 2 improved the bill so that in the year 2030 no more than 15 per cent of households would be in fuel poverty, no more than 5 per cent would be in extreme fuel poverty and the median fuel poverty gap would be no more than £350. Taking into account changes in the value of money. My amendments to section 1A are in line with that and set a further interim target to be introduced for 2035. So there you've got one target of 2030 and an extra one at 2035. So this target, this second target would be that no more than 10 per cent of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty, no more than 3 per cent are in extreme fuel poverty and that the median fuel poverty gap is no more than £300 at 2015 prices. So these figures are based on a straightforward linear progression from the 2030 interim target to the 2040 end target and I believe that this would ensure that attention continues to be focused on reducing fuel poverty and crucially maintaining the momentum towards achieving that 2040 target. My amendment to section 9A is a technical one in recognition of the fact that although the bill will include interim targets that wording isn't used, as all of the targets are classified together as fuel poverty targets, the panel will already be considering progress made towards meeting them. Amendment 3 simply expands the section of the bill to include more than one interim target. The interim targets will be classified as fuel poverty targets under the existing definition in section 12A, therefore the periodic reporting duties and duties about the strategy will apply to this new interim target just as they apply to the 2030 target. Amendment 4 adds an additional interim target for 2035 at section 1A and I've gone over already what that would do. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the momentum is maintained, as I've already said. Amendment 12 removes reference to interim targets on the basis that interim targets have been provided for but the label of interim targets has not been used, as the new interim target is already covered by reference to fuel poverty targets. Apologies that some of that was quite technical, but that is the nature of the bill, Presiding Officer. That just has to be that way. Thank you, Mr Simpson. Another member wishes to contribute there for the minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased that Mr Simpson and I have been able to come to agreement on the amendments that bring forward an additional interim target and I can confirm my support. Does Mr Simpson wish to add anything? The chamber will be pleased to know that I have nothing further to add. The question is there for that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 71, in the name of Alex Rowley, is already debated with amendment 1A. Alex Rowley to move or not move? Not move. That is not moved. Amendment 4, in the name of Graham Simpson, is already debated with Graham Simpson to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 5, Enhanced Heating. Can I call amendment 15, in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments 16 and 17? Jackie Baillie to move amendment 15 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much. I arrive to move amendment 15 and speak to all the other amendments in the group, which are in my name. I declare an interest as the honorary vice president of energy action Scotland and thank them and other organisations for their help with stage 2 amendments. Section 2 of the bill sets out two heating regimes, the standard heating regime and an enhanced heating regime. As you would expect, the enhanced heating regime has a higher temperature and longer heating time than the standard heating regime. Under section 2 paragraph 4, Scottish ministers can make regulations that specify the types of household where enhanced heating is appropriate, so specified households get enhanced heating and others get standard heating. At stage 2, I put forward a series of amendments that suggested that households with people of pensionable age or children under 5 should be entitled to the enhanced heating regime. It is a matter of regret that I was not able to persuade the committee and indeed not able at that stage to persuade the Scottish Government, despite a wealth of support from experts and organisations involved in the field of tackling fuel poverty. However, I do not give up easily. I am pleased to say that I have managed to persuade the minister that there is a need to look at this issue and I am glad that we have been able to come to a compromise. He is smiling, Presiding Officer. It is the first time that he has probably enjoyed compromising with me. I think that we would all agree that the introduction of a flexible range of enhanced heating regimes is very important to the proper measurement of fuel poverty. We know that certain groups are more at risk of fuel poverty because they require higher temperatures for longer, meaning that they spend more on fuel costs. If we do not reflect that in our measurement of fuel poverty, we run the risk of letting people slip through the net. We would fail to capture the fact that vulnerable groups are being faced with the choice of being able to heat their homes or being left without enough money to maintain an acceptable standard of living. To address that, the purpose behind those three amendments is to introduce two additional enhanced heating regimes to provide a more accurate picture of fuel poverty. Those two additional regimes are for a higher temperature but for standard hours and a standard temperature but for longer hours. Instead of having one single enhanced heating regime that applies to both higher temperatures and longer hours of heating to a household, there would also be the option to apply only either higher temperatures or longer hours. Essentially, there could be some households that need longer heating hours but not higher temperatures or vice versa. That will enable a more flexible range of enhanced heating regimes to be applied, which can be better tailored to the needs of different household types. I would therefore urge the chamber to make a difference to support the three amendments in this group. I just wanted to welcome the perseverance of Jackie Baillie. She was right through stage 2. She had a fair go at bringing forward amendments that the minister was resisting, but I think that the flexibility that those amendments deliver through the bill is very much welcome when supporting the amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have a funny feeling that my face was probably as bright or red as Jackie Baillie's jacket when she was talking about the compromising situation. Jackie Baillie has outlined that those amendments enable a more flexible range of enhanced heating regimes to be applied, which can be better tailored to the needs of different household types. Ms Baillie has taken a close interest in the bill from its introduction, and in particular in relation to our enhanced heating regime and has advocated for change. I am pleased that we have been able to work together to agree on that new approach, and I am happy to support our amendments. Thank you very much. Does Ms Baillie want to add anything to wind up? Nothing to add. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 16 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Jackie Baillie to move. Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 17 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Jackie Baillie to move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. We turn now to group 6, meaning of fuel poverty, benefits received for a care need or disability. Can I call amendment 18 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendment 19, and the minister to move amendment 18 and to speak to both amendments? Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2, an amendment from Jackie Baillie was passed, which required that benefits received for a care need or disability are deducted from incomes at the second part of the fuel poverty definition when determining if the household is enough remaining money to maintain an acceptable standard of living. I was happy to support that change as it will result in a fairer comparison to the minimum income standard for these households. Amendments 18 and 19 are subsequent tidying amendments. 18 will mean that all the relevant benefits, including severe disabling allowance, will be deducted from incomes, and 19 will make sure that benefits received for a disability or care need are also deducted from incomes as part of the definition of extreme fuel poverty. I therefore ask members to support those amendments, and I move amendment 18. I do not believe that any member wishes to add anything. Therefore, the question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 19 in the name of the minister, and the minister to move? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 20, already debated, and the minister to move formally? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. And we turn to group 7, strategy and periodic reports approach to addressing the drivers of fuel poverty and definition of those drivers. Can I call amendment 21 in the name of Andy Whiteman, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Andy Whiteman did move amendment 21 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 21. The amendment simply adds an additional paragraph in section 3 2 to require that the fuel poverty strategy sets out the approach that Scottish ministers will take to tackle all four drivers of fuel poverty to ensure that the fuel poverty targets are met. I am very glad that we actually ended up getting the four drivers of fuel poverty in the bill and a number of amendments being debated here today are adjustments to that. Amendment 33 is consequential to amendment 21 and ties the four drivers in the amendment to the definition provided in section 9 of the bill. Claudia Beamish's amendment 7 to 8 is useful, I think, in spelling out clearly the requirement to improve energy efficiency across the board, and we will be supporting that. For amendments 42 and 43 in the consequential 47, this would add a duty to report on the extent to which the four drivers of fuel poverty have been addressed in each periodic report under section 6. I want to particularly draw attention to Alex Rowley's amendment 97, which restates the four drivers of fuel poverty in more accurate terms. Specifically in the amendment 97, he talks about low net adjusted household incomes. It was frequently stated by members at stage 1 that income is not one of the drivers that the Scottish Government nor the Parliament has any control over, yet, of course, the relevant metric for the purposes of measuring fuel poverty is not gross incomes, but net incomes, after housing costs, after childcare, after fuel costs. The Parliament does, or should indeed, do more perhaps to influence house prices and rents through fiscal measures and housing tenure reform. We do influence childcare and, of course, we control income tax, which determines how much income folk have to start with. Alex Burnett's amendments 77, 81 and 85 will not be supporting, but we will be supporting Alex Burnett's amendment 83, which picks up on my amendments to require that the periodic reporting includes progress that has been made in terms of energy efficiency. I have nothing more to add, Presiding Officer, at this stage. Thank you very much, Mr Wightman. I call Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 74 and the other amendments in this group. I wish to speak only briefly to amendments 74, 75 and 76. I think that we would all agree that a new definition and target are only useful if they lead to meaningful action. Everyone accepts that those who require an enhanced heating regime are more at risk of fuel poverty because of the increased costs that they face to sufficiently heat their homes. We must understand who those people are, but we must also reach them with the assistance that is required to lift them out of fuel poverty. That could be through financial support or help to make their homes more energy efficient. Those amendments enable ministers to set out their approach to identify and support those who are more at risk of fuel poverty because they require an enhanced heating regime, and I hope that members will support them. I call the minister to speak to amendment 23 and the other amendments in this group. The fuel poverty strategy will be vital in delivering the ambition that is set out in the bill. There have been a number of amendments to this section of the bill throughout the process that I want to address in turn. I welcome and support Andy Wightman's amendments to make it clear that the final fuel poverty strategy will set out the approach that we will take on all four drivers of fuel poverty, which is the approach that we took in the draft fuel poverty strategy. There is absolutely no doubt that how we use energy in the home is important. That is a large part of what our award-winning advice service, Home Energy Scotland, does, but I want to note that it does not contribute towards measuring progress against the fuel poverty targets in the bill. Those are based on the cost of heating homes to the temperatures set out in section 2. I want to move on to amendments 74, 75 and 76 concerning enhanced heating. I have been working with Ms Bailey in relation to the enhanced heating regime and acknowledged her championing of the issue. I would like to reassure her that we are absolutely committed to identifying in the strategy what we will do to help those who are in fuel poverty as a result of being a household for which enhanced heating is appropriate. However, I feel that those amendments are unnecessary and do not need to be in primary legislation. I hope that my commitment reassures Ms Bailey on that matter, and I urge her not to press her amendments. Moving on to my amendments 23 to 28. Those are largely technical in nature. At stage 2, I gave my support to Alexander Burnett's amendment agreeing that the fuel poverty strategy should set out our approach to identifying properties with low energy efficiency ratings. At the time, I noted that we were happy to support that, but we would need to revisit that at stage 3. The amendments that I have put together strengthen the bill by making it clear that the strategy will set out the approach that we intend to take to identifying homes with low energy efficiency rather than what is currently in the bill, which is the approach that we could take. They also make it clear that it is about identifying homes where the households are fuel poor, which is obviously the focus of the bill and the strategy. Amendment 27 ensures that the wording is in line with the energy efficient Scotland approach, that other amendments are technical and tidying amendments. I would like to turn next to Mr Burnett's amendments 81, 83 and 85. In relation to amendments 81 and 85, those are unnecessary as they are already dealt with by amendments 42 and 43 in the name of Andy Wightman, which are stronger as they require Scottish ministers to set out the steps that have been taken and will be taken on all four drivers of fuel poverty and not just one. For that reason, I would urge Mr Burnett not to press amendments 81 and 85 and to instead support those of Andy Wightman. As amendment 83 does something slightly different in asking for the progress that has been made, I am more than happy to support it. I would also urge Mr Burnett not to press amendments 77 on the basis that it is unnecessary. The section that he is amending is already explicitly building on the approach that is referred to in section 22A, which says that this is the approach that we will be taking to ensure that the fuel poverty targets are met. Amendments 78 from Claudia Beamish and 79 and 87 from Paulie McNeill unnecessarily add in a long list of tenures and then require specific financial incentives for their owners to be created, whether they are in fuel poverty or not. The key purpose of the bill is to tackle fuel poverty, yet nowhere in those amendments is there a single mention of fuel poverty. The wider issues of home energy efficiency are already being addressed elsewhere. Those amendments would detract from the core purpose of the bill while adding nothing of benefit. Furthermore, there are a number of potential issues with the drafting of amendments 78 in particular and the other amendments are contingent on it. The list of housing tenures is incomplete with some private tenancies not covered. For example, there are tenancies under agricultural and crofting legislation. Whilst the amendment has provided a power for ministers to expand the list by regulations, until just this morning, this power was not going to be subject to parliamentary procedure. Although that has now been rectified by a manuscript amendment today, there are still problems with amendment 78 that have not been addressed. For example, the power does not allow tenancy types to be removed if they are no longer relevant. For all those reasons, I cannot support those amendments. However, I have always made it clear that I am determined that the fuel poverty strategy will set out how we intend to help fuel poor households in all types and all tenures of housing and using all means available to support people. The bill was amended at stage 2 to require the strategy to set out how we intend to remove poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty. That means removing it for all households, regardless of tenancy type, in order to meet the targets. I hope that that provides reassurance to members and I would ask Ms McNeill and Ms Beamish not to press amendment 78, 79 and 87, which are flawed, as well as not pressing the newly lodged amendment 99. There have been many references to the four drivers of fuel poverty today and during the earlier stages of the bill. All of them are important. During stage 2, Alex Ryleigh brought forward an amendment establishing the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel by statute and required it to report on the extent to which those drivers are being addressed. We have worked closely with Mr Ryleigh on his technical amendment 97, which clarifies what the four drivers of fuel poverty are. Those amendments also address concerns that Mr Wightman has raised. I hope that we can now all support this amendment, which, more accurately, reflects what the drivers of fuel poverty are. I call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 78 and the other amendments in this group. Amendment 78, which I have already discussed by the minister, looks to ensure that ministers give appropriate consideration to a number of different housing tenures when preparing the fuel poverty strategy. It is not, I would stress, exclusive. I welcome Andy Wightman's support for the amendment. Amendment 99 now ensures that those regulations are subject to affirmative procedure. I thank the legislation team for dealing with that at this late hour and also for the Presiding Officer for accepting that amendment. Fuel poverty can affect people's lives regardless of their housing arrangements. Members can see the list of housing types in the amendment. Own occupied private tenancies, local authority tenancies, social housing, multi-occupancies, Scottish secure tenancies and, I stress, contrary to what the minister said, agricultural tenancies, multiple types and it allows ministers—I will finish the sentence—to prescribe other types in regulation. The list does not include agricultural and crofting tenancies. The amendment is flawed. I know that Ms Beamish has tried to deal with some aspects and changed that amendment using a manuscript amendment today. It is fair to say that missing out those tenancies makes that amendment flawed. Through the Presiding Officer, I have not changed amendment 99 today. I have simply added amendment 99 so that it is done by affirmative—this is the case—by affirmative the way of doing things. I can actually read out that it is in relation to the 1991 act tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, Scotland 2003. That is within the amendment that has not been changed today. Anyway, I will progress with what I am saying. Each of those designations has their own unique challenges that should be addressed. Those living in each of those types have differences in income and the motivations or the necessities of living there. Some of those designations have higher and lower proportions living in fuel poverty. I acknowledge that. Scottish Labour believes that we should prioritise support at those living in fuel poverty, but limiting action to only those in direct fuel poverty would be short-sighted of this Government. We should be looking for a long-term and sustainable solution, as many expected from the warm homes bill commitment that is made by this Government, which is also in Scottish Labour's manifesto. That bill is in much narrower in scope, but ultimately we need to bring all housing stock up to standard and people move houses and encounter changing circumstances. That bill should be preventive and not just reactionary. For example, the private sector tenants can often face reluctance from landlords to make energy efficiency improvements. Those in multi-occupancies can face difficulties in shared cost improvements, which is a complex issue as well. Agricultural tenancies, as I have seen, with my own eyes, can often be older rural buildings and landlord conflicts can arise. I had a similar amendment, though more narrow in scope in the last Parliament. It was stressed by the then minister that the private rented accommodation would be addressed through the fuel poverty forum and action groups, but that has not happened. The Government has rightly committed to a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 and accepted that that will take a step up in policy action. It is important that, in relation to the climate emergency, there are co-benefits of the bill in relation to climate change and, of course, in addressing physical and mental health and wellbeing. The UN right to a home must surely mean a warm home here in Scotland, and any Government must oblige those with the responsibility that they have to do so, to provide that. In this climate emergency, the amendment should also focus on a just transition at its core in that it aims to support those who cannot necessarily afford to take actions as individuals in relation to fuel poverty or, indeed, are not able to because of the types of accommodation that they are living in and that they do not have the power to do so. I would also argue that, in many cases, the responsibility lies elsewhere, not with a tenant but with the landlord. I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will consider this amendment, and I look forward to hearing any further comments from the minister. Although the minister will not have another chance to reply in this. Alexander Burnett, to speak to amendment 77 and other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I note members to my register of interests regarding construction and property management. I will be looking to move amendments 77 and 83 today, but I will not be looking to move amendments 81 and 85, as we feel that Andy Wightman's amendments help adequately tackle the drivers of fuel poverty of which the Scottish Conservatives are in agreement with. Amendments 77 and 83 seek to hold the Government to account by ensuring that low levels of energy efficiency are being addressed. Amendment 77 seeks to help lift residents out of fuel poverty within target remits that must be laid out by the Government. That will ensure that this or any future Scottish Government must stick to reducing fuel poverty in a targeted timeline. Amendment 83 builds on amendment 77 and looks to ensure that, when the Scottish Government is reporting on hitting targets or reducing fuel poverty, it looks to specifically analyse progress on removing low levels of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is a driver of fuel poverty, and therefore it is important that this amendment is included in the bill to ensure that any Scottish Government reports on the progress of improving energy efficiency in homes across Scotland. Thank you. I call Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 79 and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for speaking to amendments 79 and 87 and other amendments in the group, in particular amendment 21 in the name of Andy Wightman, which I think is a very important amendment 78 in the name of Claudia Beamish and amendments 97 in the name of Alex Rowley. On amendment 79, ministers must use the strategy to set out the financial and fiscal incentives available to those living in each of the housing tenures. The decision that the Government took to bring forward a full poverty bill and not a warm homes bill is illustrative of the Government's narrow approach in how we eradicate fuel poverty. Whilst it might not be desirable, it is certainly a competent amendment. We suggest that the result should be a much wider focus on energy efficiency and fuel poverty, given that the drivers are mentioned by Claudia Beamish, fuel poverty, energy efficiency and climate change. If we do not address it in this bill, then we certainly have to be addressing it somewhere else, and I do not see where that would be. Offering the widest level of support to groups of people across all tenures in all housing stock, laying out financial incentives that are available for people to take up that option. Amendment 87 calls for a periodic report to include any review that should be a review of the effectiveness of financial and fiscal incentives laid out in the strategy. Home Energy Scotland reports that 845 households apply for loans to install energy efficiency measures, but we do not really know the effectiveness of those actions. It might well be that, if there was better advertising done, more people would apply for those loans to install energy efficiency options. The emphasis on loans is there, but there also needs to be a look at other incentives. According to the Consumers Futures Trust, the option that is preferred by home owners by some margin is a one-off rebate of council tax in the year following installation. If we do not address the question of how we will get more people to take their own measures in using less fuel and making fuel more efficient, then we have to do it somewhere that seems the appropriate place to do it. It is an imperative that we approach full poverty as a warm homes issue, as well as looking at ways that we can have more fuel-efficient issues. In support of 97, we also support the other amendments in this group, most of which are broadly technical amendments. I thank the Government for its support in working on them. Even though there are some areas of disagreement in the bill, there has also been some productive joint work. I want to put on record that is because the minister Kevin Stewart has had very much an open-door approach. He says that he wants to work with parties in terms of the strategy, and I look forward to that. Thank you very much, Mr Rowley. I call Annabelle Ewing to be followed by Graham Simpson. I rise to speak again to amendment 7 to 8 and 99 in the name of Claudia Beamish and amendment 79 and 87 in the name of Paulic McNeill. I would mention that similar proposals were put forward at stage 2, but did not gain traction. For my part, I find the amendment somewhat confusing. We have heard that amendment 7 to 8 lists a whole series of tenures, but as is the danger of such an approach, it does not capture all tenancies. I understand, for example, that tenancies under the Crofters Scotland Act 1993 would not be covered, as the minister has outlined. However, the key point of the bill is that it covers all households, no matter the tenure or the tenancy, and that is the scope of the bill as it currently stands. Therefore, amendment 7 to 8 is not necessary and risks confusion. Amendment 99 is the manuscript amendment that would facilitate a process should amendment 7 to 8 be agreed to, but I would argue that amendment 7 to 8 is confusing and is not in keeping with the spirit of the bill. Therefore, I suggest that we reject amendment 99, turning to amendments 79 and 87. The amendments also do not reflect the fundamental tenet of the bill, which is that those who are in most need are, in fact, to be targeted. Rather, those amendments would not be limited to those households to find to be in fuel poverty, but would cover all properties in the categories that Claudia Beamish set forth. Hence, again, those amendments would not be in keeping with the tenets of the bill, which, of course, is the fuel poverty bill and not some other bill, which perhaps was the approach intended by the member's concern. Therefore, I would suggest that, if the members insist on pressing the amendments that they are rejected because they are confusing, they should not add anything to the bill that we are currently looking at and, indeed, are not in keeping with the fundamental tenets of the bill. We will be supporting Andy Wightman's amendments. I think that Mr Wightman was quite right to introduce the four drivers of fuel poverty into the bill. There was a bit of a debate in committee over whether the Scottish Government actually had influence over all four. I accept that they do not have total influence over all four, but they do have some influence over all four, and so I will be supporting Mr Wightman. As for my colleague Mr Burnett, we obviously accept, as does Mr Burnett, that amendments 81 and 85 have been superseded by Mr Wightman's amendments, so Mr Burnett is not going to press those. Amendment 83 inserts a requirement to report on the progress on removing low levels of energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty, and I think that makes perfect sense, as others have said. We will not be supporting the amendments from Claudia Beamish and Pauline McNeill. I feel that Pauline McNeill, unfortunately for her, has been caught up in Ms Beamish's legislative slipstream, in that her amendments are tied in to Ms Beamish's, and if she had gone for something separate, she might have had support. I call Andy Wightman to wind up on this whole group and to press or withdraw the amendment 21 in his own name. Thank you very much. I press amendment 21 in my name. I had a great deal to say that the Serendipity often decides who opens and closes groups. I just want to make some comments about amendment 78 in the name of Claudia Beamish. The minister said, and by his own logic, he said that the strategy already deals with all tenures, and therefore the fact that this misses agriculture and crofting shouldn't really matter at all. It is the case that two identical homes, maybe on a terraced street, one with a family in fuel poverty, and the other at naught, will have very similar solutions to improving energy efficiency. The strategy need not distinguish between fuel-poor households and non-fuel-poor households, as in most, if not all cases, the solutions will be the same, and of course they are vital for carbon emissions. I do accept some of the minister's critique of amendment 78, but, nevertheless, I still think that it is a useful means by which to focus ministers' attention in future in the strategy on particular tenures of housing. Just finally, I would like to thank Alexander Burnett for his kind comments. He will possibly go down in history as the minister—sorry, the minister? No, the member! Well, he may go down in history as a minister one day, but go down in history, everyone is waiting with bated breath, as the member who moved the £60 million amendment at stage 2. I am glad that he secured a more modest amendment here today. Thank you very much, Mr Whiteman. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 22 in the name of the minister to move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 72 in the name of Graham Simpson. This was a debated with amendment 1, and I would remind members that if amendment 72 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 73. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 74 in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 21. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. On the basis of the minister's commitments on the record, I am happy not to move amendment 74, 75 and 76. Therefore, the next set of questions are going to call amendments 23 to 28, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated with amendment 21. Hang on one second. Does any member object—sorry, can I ask the minister to move amendments 23 to 28 on block? Moved on block, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Does any member object if we put the question on block? Thank you, Mr Lyle. The question is that amendments 23 to 28 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 78 in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 21. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will remove to vote. This will be the first vote after a debate, therefore it will be a one-minute division. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 78 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes, 27, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 77 in the name of Alexander Burnett, already debated. Alexander Burnett to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 77 in the name of Alexander Burnett is yes, 27, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 79 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. Not moved. That is not moved. We turn now to group 8, strategy and periodic reports, consultation and revision. Can I call amendment 29 in the name of the minister, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings? The minister to move amendment 29 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. At stage 2, an amendment from Alex Rowley MSP was passed obliging ministers to keep the fuel poverty strategy under review on an on-going basis. In order for it to have real purpose, ministers also need to have the ability to revise that strategy whenever unforeseen changes are identified that have to be addressed. Or respond to comments on the strategy from the new advisory panel, which the bill now establishes. At present, the wording does not explicitly give ministers this authority, so I have brought forward amendment 29 to provide for that. I also said at stage 2 that we might need to revise Mr Rowley's amendment slightly from a technical perspective in order to ensure that they work as everyone would want them to. At the moment, not all of the rules that apply to this strategy would apply to a revised strategy. For example, the new statutory panel would not have the function of proposing changes to a revised strategy. In order to ensure that the bill is consistent in its treatment of both the fuel poverty strategy and any revised strategies, amendment 30 applies a default rule to make sure that this is the case throughout sections 3, 4 and 5. Repeated references to a revised strategy will not then be needed, so there are a number of tidying amendments to remove those. Finally, in order to ensure that if a revised strategy is developed, there will always be a periodic report every three years. Amendments 44 and 45 ensures that the three-year reporting cycle will not be recalculated as currently stage two amendments mean that the reporting cycle would restart if the strategy is revised. Turning now to amendment 35, I thank Ms Bailey for working with me in a revision of her stage two amendment on consulting specific groups on the preparation of the fuel poverty strategy, which at that time we couldn't agree due to the wording. At stage two, Ms Bailey chose not to press this amendment so that we could discuss further. Her new amendment keeps to her policy proposal, while also being consistent with wording that was used elsewhere in the bill, and I am happy to support Ms Bailey's amendment. Finally, I am also happy that Alex Rowley and I have been able to work together on his amendment to expand and consolidate the statutory rule of the fuel poverty advisory panel by making it a mandatory consultee on the periodic report and the development of the strategy. That is very important in the fight to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland, and I am happy to support it. Thank you very much, minister, and I call Jackie Bailey to speak to amendment 35 and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak to amendment 35 in my name. At stage two, as the minister has already alluded to, I proposed an amendment that would have made sure that the Government had to involve a wide variety of people in preparing the fuel poverty strategy, specifically those who had lived experience of fuel poverty, who were disabled or suffering from a long-term illness, older people and those living in rural areas. Those groups encompass some of the most vulnerable groups in our society, particularly when it comes to fuel poverty, so I believe that it is crucial that they are brought into the process of developing policies to address the issue. The Scottish Government was supportive of the principle, but not the specific wording, so I withdrew that amendment with the view to bringing it back at stage three in a format that we could all agree on. Having worked with the minister on this amendment, it is consistent with the wording that is used elsewhere in the bill. It will ensure that the views of the crucial groups of people listed are taken into account when the Government develops its fuel poverty strategy. A duty to consult individuals who are living or have lived in fuel poverty is already included within the bill. I hope therefore that members across the chamber will support the amendment. I call Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 80 and the other amendments in the group. I am just happy to move the amendment. Briefly, I thank Mr Rowley and Ms Bailey for working with me in order to improve the sections of the bill. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of being able to come together to discuss improvements to the bill in between the stages of the bill in order to gain agreement and strengthen the bill. I also thank all members who have co-operated on those. The question is whether amendment 29 will be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. A co-op Llanclad 30, the name of the Minister, and minister to move formally. A co-op Llanclad 31, the name of the Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Amendment 33, in the name of Andy Wightman, is already debated. Andy Wightman to move or not move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Amendment 34, in the name of the minister, is already debated with 29 minister to move formally. Move, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Amendment 35, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is already debated with 29 minister to move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Amendment 18, in the name of Alex Rowley, is already debated with 29 minister to move. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendments 36 to 41 in the name of the minister. Can I invite the minister to move the amendments on block? Moved on block. Thank you very much. Does anyone object to those questions that have been put on block? They don't. That's good. The question is that amendments 36 to 41 are agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 81 in the name of Alexander Burnett. Alexander Burnett to move or not to move. Not moved? That is not moved. The question is that amendment—sorry—I call amendment 6 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 1. I would remind members that, if amendment 6 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 82. Graham Simpson to move or not to move amendment 6? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a debate, move to a vote, sorry. This is on amendment 6. This is the first vote following a debate. Therefore, we'll have a one-minute division on amendment 6. The result of the vote on amendment 6 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 94, no, 21. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 42 in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 21. Andy Wightman to move or not to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're agreed. I call amendment 83 in the name of Alexander Burnett, Alexander Burnett to move or not to move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Graham Simpson. This was debated with amendment 1, and I would remind members that, if this is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 84. Graham Simpson to move or not to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. That will be a 32nd division on amendment 7 in the name of Graham Simpson. The result of the vote on amendment 7 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 93, no, 21. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 84 is therefore preempted. I call amendment 85 in the name of Alexander Burnett. Alexander Burnett to move or not to move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 88 in the name of Graham Simpson. I would remind members that, if amendment 88 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 86. Graham Simpson to move or not to move. Amendment 88 moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 88 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 93, no, 20. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 86 is therefore preempted. I call amendment 43 in the name of Andy Wightman. Andy Wightman to move or not to move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 87 in the name of Pauline McNeill. Pauline McNeill to move or not to move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 9 in the name of Graham Simpson. Graham Simpson to move or not to move. Moved. Thank you. That is moved. I call amendment 9A in the name of Alec Rowley. Already debated with amendment 1A. Alec Rowley to move or not to move. Not moved. That is not moved. So the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. So we'll move to a vote. Members be cast their votes now. This is on amendment 9 in the name of Graham Simpson. The result of the vote on amendment number 9 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 93, no, 20. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 88 in the name of Alec Rowley. Alec Rowley to move or not to move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 44 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 29. Minister to move formally. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 45 in the name of the minister. Minister to move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 10 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated and Graham Simpson to move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members be cast their votes now. On amendment 10. The result of the vote on amendment number 10 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 94, no, 20. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of Alec Rowley. Already debated with me. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 46 in the name of the minister. Minister to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 47 in the name of Andy Wightman. Andy Wightman to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 90 in the name of Alec Rowley. Alec Rowley to move. I move, Presiding Officer. That is not moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 91 in the name of Alec Rowley. Alec Rowley to move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 92 in the name of Alec Rowley. Alec Rowley to move or not move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 93 in the name of Alec Rowley. play, Rauarch Rauarch to Move or not Move? Not move. That is not moved. Un crucial amendment for more topics about rules are to be best used as clinical아니. Ar hyn oedd aethau Jahr 11, neu Ar invalid woblol, oedd maoi eich E11? chi ddyg.' Wrth mynd i, maes i eich E11c yn yr AC rhaol. Rhaol fawd o Tom? Rhaol fawd o Tom? Rhaol fawd o Tom. Rhaol fawd o Tom. Rhaol fawd o Tom. Rhaol fawd o Tom. Rhaol fawdd oDo? 11e 11f 11f not moved E killers Not moved Not moved So the question is that amendment 11 of not amended be agreed to Are we all agreed? Yes We are agreed E darkness A call amendment 95 in the name of That is moved That is moved The question is That amendment 95 be agreed to Are we agreed? Yes We are agreed A call amendment 12 in the name of Putum dweud, James Simpson, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We turn now to group 9, Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel. I would start by calling amendment 96, the name of Alec Rowley, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings and the alec rowley to move the amendment and speak to all the amendments in his grouping. President, I'm happy to move amendment 96 from other amendments in my name. It is important that members of the Scottish Parliament, out with the Government, have access to advice from the statutory panel in order to adequately scrutinise the impact of government policy and what further action needs to be taken to meet the target. We are supporting the Government's amendments, which increase the financial cap and place it over a three-year period. This is a sensible approach and the Parliament seems to agree that the panel should provide largely a scrutiny role. We are also supporting Andy Whiteman's amendment to allow for the cap to be increased. It is plausible that a future Government might want to commission one of research that could be cost-saving in the longer term. Those amendments would allow for that, and I move my amendment. Mr Rowley, can I call the minister to speak to amendment 48 and the other amendments in this group? At stage 2, I gave my support to Alex Rowley's amendment to establish a statutory Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel. I very much welcome the principle of a cap on expenditure, as I prefer that we invested our resources on fuel-poor households and not on administration. However, I said that his £20,000 cap may be too low and committed the Government to carry out the work to estimate the costs that the panel is likely to require in order to perform its functions effectively. Amendment 60 introduces a new three-yearly cost cap of £82,000, adjusted to reflect any percentage increase in the average consumer price index. That is based on a similar size panel to the existing non-statutory body meeting four times a year. It also assumes a reasonable level of remuneration and appropriate staff and secretariat costs. We believe that it would be better to provide for a multi-year cap on the panel's costs instead of a single-year figure, because it is likely that the workload of the panel will vary from year to year. The first of those three-year periods will begin with the commencement of this new section and will continue on a rolling basis thereafter. The amendments in this group also make a number of tweaks in relation to the power to set out regulations and the details of precisely how the panel should be constituted and its functions. At present, the drafting of section 9A does not provide sufficient flexibility to properly address all the possible issues that are likely to arise in setting up and running a body like the panel. For example, to include the arrangements for appointing members and having the ability to make provision about things such as the panel's legal status or amending other legislation, which is not possible as currently drafted. I turn to the other amendments in the group. Alec Rowley's amendment 96 proposes that the panel can provide advice to the relevant parliamentary committee. I think that that will be helpful and the existing costing estimates are sufficient to cover that. However, in relation to Mr Wightman's amendment 60A, I do not support the ability for ministers to change the budget cap. Our amendments on that provide for adequate funding and we have future proof the level of funding to take into account inflation. There is no need to revisit that. I would be very concerned that constant revision of that cap will simply push the cost up and up and reduce the focus and efficiency of the panel. I welcome the establishment of a statutory panel and believe that that approach will provide us with the expertise that is required while offering us real value for money. Andy Wightman's amendment 60A and the other amendment in the group. I will restrict my remarks to amendment 60A in my name. That relates to the most important amendment that was moved at stage 2 of Alec Rowley's amendment to establish a panel, a Scottish Fuel Poverty panel, which should, one hopes, together with the interim target and the periodic reporting and the scrutiny that is now embedded in the bill, make sure or at least make sure in as far as possible that the failure to meet previous targets and previous legislation does not come to pass. I am a bit bemused by the minister's objection to amendment 60A. What it does is simply give ministers the power to make regulations to vary the financial cap that provides the finances for the Scottish Fuel Poverty advisory panel. The bill sets a target out to 2040, which is 21 years away. There will be around four or five Administrations over that time, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable that a future administration may wish to vary that. I do not understand why the minister wishes to fetter its discretion in that regard, and it seems to be an eminently reasonable provision. I see no reason to reject it, but I guess that it might well be rejected. I have to move the amendment, so I have no idea. I rise to speak against amendment 68A. At stage 2, I was pleased to support the proposal to put the Scottish Fuel Poverty advisory panel on a statutory footing. However, at that time, I raised concerns that, by doing so, we did not use up-scarce resources in administration and bureaucracy, but rather ensured that the focus remained on resources for the front line. The issue of a cap was raised at stage 2, and, as the minister has said, he undertook to reflect on what would be a reasonable figure, both to allow the body to function in accordance with its remit, while taking into account the need not to divert resources from the front line. That work has been done, and I am happy to support amendment 60. In the name of the minister, in conclusion, I note that at stage 2, Mr Wightman himself supported a cap approach on the basis that, and I quote, I am not a supporter of setting up a bureaucratic organisation using lots of resources. I call Alex Rowley to wind up, if he wishes to, and to press or withdraw amendment 96 in his name. Mr Rowley, Liam McArthur has just pressed, so I will take Liam McArthur. I rise to support the approach taken by Andy Wightman in his amendment. As far as I can see, it is an enabling provision that would allow ministers to come forward by regulation. It would I think be scrutinised by future parliaments who would be cognisant of the need to avoid resources being inappropriately diverted away from the front line, so I see no real risk in this provision at all, and therefore I will be supporting it. I note that Graham Simpson now wishes to speak. Graham Simpson Yes, thanks, Presiding Officer. I find it unusual that we have a minister who does not want to take powers, and I suppose that he is to be commended for that. He has in amendment 60 already increased the budget for the panel, and that is inflation-proofed. I think that that goes far enough, so we will be supporting amendment 60, but not 60A. Alex Rowley, to wind up in the group and to press or withdraw amendment 96. Yes, we will be supporting every amendment, including Andy Wightman's, I think, for the reasons that both he and Liam McArthur set out, and I would press. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call on amendments 48 to 59, all in the name of the minister, to move the amendments on block? Moved on block, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Does any member object to me putting the question on these amendments on block? That is good. The question is that amendments 48 to 59 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call on amendment 97, in the name of Alex Rowley. That was debated with amendment 21. Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call on amendment 60, in the name of the minister? That was debated with amendment 96. Minister, to move. Moved. That is moved. Can I call on amendment 60A, in the name of Andy Wightman. Andy Wightman, to move or not move? Moved. That is moved. So the question is that amendment 60A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to division and this will be a one-minute division, as it is the first vote following a debate. So a one-minute division on amendment 60A, members be cast their votes now. The result of the votes on amendment number 60A, in the name of Andy Wightman, is yes, 31, no, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The minister to press or withdraw amendment 60. I assume to press. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 99, in the name of Claudia Beamish. That was the manuscript of the amendment. Already debated with amendment 21. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move? Not moved, Presiding Officer. Not moved. I call on amendment 61, in the name of the minister. Minister to move. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. I call on amendment 62, minister to move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call on amendment 13, in the name of Graham Simpson? Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call on amendment 14, in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated. Graham Simpson, to move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call on amendment 98, in the name of Alex Rowley. Alex Rowley, to move or not move? Move, Presiding Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call on amendment 64, in the name of Andy Wightman. In a group of its own, Andy Wightman is to move and speak to amendment 64. Thanks, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 64, possibly the most exciting amendment that we will be debating today. Appeals to the inner geek in me, but seriously, since I arrived in this place, I have noted the importance of commencement provisions in bills, particularly when the Government is in a minority, sometimes used to frustrate Opposition amendments that I have taken to keeping a close eye in this section. I moved an amendment at stage 2, which the minister, I think, correctly suggested was inappropriate to commence the whole act at once. So I went through it with a fine tooth comb. It is interesting that we now arrive at a position where the fuel poverty definition, targets definition and strategy Scotland Bill, the day after Royal Ascent, three sections will come into force. Section 12A, the exciting section called interpretation, about the meaning of the fuel poverty targets. Section 13, the commencement section itself, has to come into force to enable us to commence the commencement section. And section 14, which is the most exciting section of the bill, which describes the short title of the act. Given that section 12A is to be commenced on the day after Royal Ascent, and it is the interpretation of the terms used in section 1A and 1A, and given that section 1A merely introduces the principle measures in this bill, namely a 2040 target and a 2030 target, I fail to see why the provisions in section 1A and 1A should not come into force the day after Royal Ascent. I understand that the minister takes a different view. That's fine, but there's my thoughts for what it's worth, Presiding Officer, thank you. Thank you. Minister Perforacle, Mr Dornan wishes to speak. As Mr Wightman quite rightly said, he had mentioned this at stage 2, and I thought that the response that he was given to by the minister explained quite clearly why it couldn't be done. For example, he said himself that Mr Stewart correctly draws attention to sections 2, 3, 4 and 5, which cannot come into force the day after Royal Ascent. For example, the Government needing to commence section 2, then bring forward regulations in relation to enance dating and the additional uplift for remote rural areas, et cetera, would all have to be done after that, so I don't believe that the tourism could be done the day after it. I thank the member for taking an invention. I entirely accept what he says, but I'm not seeking to commence section 2 or any of the subsequent sections. It's just 1 in 1A, so I've been interested in the member's views as to why on earth 1 and 1A cannot be brought into force immediately after Royal Ascent. It's important that we work on the basis that we've got, that there was agreement in the committee on it, and I don't really understand the push for it. It's not common for the next day for all the parts of the bill to be commenced, and I just don't understand why it's necessary in this. To be fair, I am the anti-geek, so I think that we are fighting from opposite corners here. During stage 2, I assured the committee that the Scottish Government has no intention of causing any delay to the commencement of the bill's provisions. Once the bill becomes an act, my intention would be to implement its substantive provisions as soon as is reasonably practicable. That means that section 13 of the bill, which commences the interpretation, commencement and short title sections, will come into force on the day after Royal Ascent, with the other provisions to be commenced by regulations. Amendment 64 from Mr Wightman would commence the section setting out the 2040 and 2030 targets on the day after Royal Ascent before we have a working definition of fuel poverty. That is not practical or sensible. Because of the need to establish the final detail of the definition, there is a logical order to the commencement of the sections. For example, we need to commend section 2, then bring forward regulations in relation to enhanced heating and the additional uplift for remote rural areas, remote small towns and our island communities. We went through that at stage 2 when Mr Wightman brought forward similar amendments. At the time that he withdrew the amendment, because he accepted that we cannot commence the definition of fuel poverty yet, if we cannot do that, it does not make sense to commence the targets on fuel poverty, which rely on that definition. It is our intention to commence the sections setting out the targets at the same time as the definition of fuel poverty comes into force through regulations, and we intend for that to be done before the end of this year. I would urge Mr Wightman to note to press his amendment. I call Andy Wightman to wind up in this group, if he wishes to add anything, or just simply to press or withdraw his amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to tame members for much longer their more important arguments to be had in this place, but I will be pressing the amendment. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now, and this will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 64, in the name of Andy Wightman, is yes, 27, no, 87. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. That concludes consideration of amendments. As members may be aware, at this point in proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether or not any provision in this bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it affects the franchise or modifies the electoral system for Scottish parliamentary elections, in my view it does not, therefore it does not require a supermajority at stage 3. As members may also be aware, we have decided to move stage 3 to Tuesday afternoon, so there are no further questions to be put as a result of today's business, so I close this meeting.