Chamber and committees

Yes, I can have a go, convener—sorry, there are a couple of parts to that question.

Housing to 2040 and the emergency action plan are certainly distinct from the climate change plan, but they are very much linked. I am overseeing them both, so the work to integrate and balance them is being led by one cabinet secretary, which is always helpful.

The housing emergency action plan sets the target for affordable homes delivery and introduces a new all-tenure target, while the climate change plan will set the regulatory environment that will impact that. When I consider how we achieve our all-tenure house-building target, I also think of all the regulatory measures that are coming down the track as part of the climate change plan. In that way, they will be integrated. That is just an example within house building; there is also an example in the private rented sector. The housing emergency action plan is clear that a well-functioning PRS is critical to avoiding homelessness. In the climate change plan, I am taking decisions about when and how to introduce a private rented sector minimum energy efficiency standard.

They are distinct documents, but they are very much linked, and the fact that I am overseeing them both will help to integrate them.

I do not believe that I can say that with the accuracy that is required at a committee. I am keen not to politicise the question because I really just want to see progress. Minister McCluskey and I have on-going dialogue, but that does not involve the detail of exactly what is intended to be in the warm homes plan. In the absence of that detail, it is difficult to take forward the bill; that was partly why I felt that it had to be paused. Our energy performance certificate work is also underpinned by the home energy model, and we have not had much of an update on that recently. All those delays are causing me and the industry some concern.

Sorry, convener—I mentioned the start at home scheme, which asks staff members to practise fitting a heat pump in their own home. I am not sure that it was provided by Scottish Gas; my colleague Jess Niven says that it might have been Nesta, so I will check and let you know.

Yes—we are very much aware of the challenge, which is extensive. There are a number of barriers and, conversely, a number of things that, if they happen, will clear the pathway a little. You are right—as you were talking, I was scribbling down that we need to go from about 5,000 annual installations in 2026 to more than 8,000 annually by 2030, with significant climbs thereafter. Our schemes and support mechanisms are one of the main tools that are in our power. The combination of grants and loans that we offer, with more in rural areas, is an important part of supporting people to make those changes.

10:00

People have told me that the cost of installation and the running costs thereafter are barriers for them. We can support people with the cost of installation, but we will still need the cost of electricity to reduce in order to make running heat pumps viable. There will be a process of providing support through schemes; working to build a heat networks industry, which will be an important part of how we decarbonise in urban Scotland or in conservation areas; and making it the easier choice with the best consumer advice possible, with clear support from the likes of Home Energy Scotland. Ultimately, it has to become people’s choice to make those changes, which will happen when that makes financial sense—so, when the unit cost of electricity is not five times higher than gas. Again, that is why I go back to the critical UK Government action.

There is a basket of things that are in our power to do, which we will seek to maximise. As I have said, we cannot factor a change of costs into our planning; our legislation does not allow us to do that, because the UK Government has not given us the time by which that will be done. Once we have clarity on that, the process will be clearer and that is likely to be the point at which people will say, “This is going to make financial sense for me. My house is going to be warmer, my bills will be lower and I am going to make the switch.” That will make the difference.

I have been working on heat in buildings policy for a number of years, and the one thing of which I am absolutely certain is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Having too much rigidity or too small a remit will not work.

As I hope that you have seen in the draft bill that we have published, I was really keen for the bill to reflect a technology-neutral approach to cover the different housing types—there are many throughout Scotland—and the different geography and demography. Basically, the draft bill says that there is a route to decarbonisation for the vast majority of us, and we will find the appropriate route for the individual. That will absolutely involve heat pumps—in fact, it is safe to say that it will still mean heat pumps for most people—but it is also about building the heat networks industry, which, as I have said, is really important for urban Scotland and conservation areas where, say, items on the outside of houses are not going to be acceptable.

The approach is about other fuel types, too. I live in a property that is off the gas grid, so I am conscious that certain technologies are not available to me. Technology neutrality sits at the heart of the bill.

The answer to that question is in two parts. First, the decision to delay the bill was not a straightforward one, and there were a number of reasons behind it. Our having to wait on the UK’s warm homes plan was certainly part of it, but all of that fed into my judgment on the costs that are associated with all of this.

There was also the time issue. I did not think that it was reasonable to put something in front of Parliament and ask parliamentarians to consider, scrutinise and legislate on the matter in a very short period. Although I did not want to pause the bill, there could have been more disruption, more delay and more difficulty if we had not taken that time to come back to it. I hope that, having published the draft bill in the meantime, we are still offering certainty about where we are going.

As for your technical question about the impact, I do not think that the impact should be too great. I am not going to pretend that there will be no impact whatsoever from a time gap, but the 2045 backstop is already Government policy. If we are returned as the Government, we will legislate after the elections, but, in the meantime, that remains Government policy, and we will continue to take forward all the strands that will help to deliver it.

That is a very good question. It ties in with what Meghan Gallacher asked me previously about consistency or rigidity of approach. I can see that a consistent approach would be favourable in a mixed-tenure block but, at the same time, I want to try to retain the right property approach for the individual, depending on their circumstances.

We can probably do more to consider consistency in an all-tenure setting but, just now, I am trying to emphasise that what is a big ask will be made according to the needs of the individual and that it will not be about blanket provisions. I think that you have raised a good point, however, about mixed-tenure blocks, where a bit of consistency would be helpful.

We are doing that work, and we can update the plan according to what we are told. It is also worth remembering the work that I talked to the committee about on EPC reform. Part of that was about creating a more user-friendly product that people can navigate more readily. We are trying to build that in across the board.

It is absolutely fine to bring those two questions together. I will make some remarks and then go to Gareth Fenney on the green heat task force. The questions give me the opportunity to thank the task force for its excellent work across both reports. We formally responded at the end of December last year, and there was a great deal of alignment with what was recommended of us.

Some of the actions are ones that we can take quite rapidly, some are already under way, such as working with the banking industry, and some are a bit more long term. I will come to Gareth on this, but my impression is that a significant number of banking products are already available. There are also differing views: some people think that they need a bespoke green mortgage and others believe that existing products that are not necessarily green can be used to help individuals to work through the process.

That is one part of the issue. The other part is about industry creating an investable pipeline to draw in private funding. For example, much of our work on heat networks is about trying to make the case for investment and bringing in as much private funding into this expensive area as we possibly can. Gareth, do you want to add anything to that?

I undertake to update you on the extent to which the datasets are up to date—they will be, but we will provide you with the detail.

The other thing to say on the housing portfolio is that we have not just taken a pure emissions model approach. Our approach is the culmination of the policies that are available to us to pursue and the scale at which we think they need to be deployed in order to reach the trajectory, and we have set them out in the chapter. Our judgment is that the 2045 target, the creation of heat networks, the PRS MEES, the social homes net zero standard, EPC reform and all those things coming together can meet the carbon budgets at certain points.

I come back to the elephant in the room, which is whether, as soon as the UK Government takes effective action to rebalance gas and electricity prices—something that we cannot currently factor in—that will make a significant improvement and change the picture. We will remain flexible and continue to keep the committee up to date.