Chamber and committees

I would not like to pre-empt a Government response, although I appreciate the point that you are making. Just now, a lot of work is going on at official level to analyse the 1,600 responses to the consultation.

This is not to pre-empt anything that the Government will say, but some of the things that are foremost in our minds are about responding to the diverse types of housing that exist and the need to ensure that everything that we do is poverty-proofed, to make sure that it addresses fuel poverty, rather than by any inadvertent means exacerbating it. As you are aware, 31 per cent of people in Scotland are assessed as being in fuel poverty and 18 per cent are in severe fuel poverty, and those numbers are much higher in rural areas. Those issues are at the forefront of our minds.

We have had good quality responses to the consultation. I have mentioned the need for conversations with the UK Government on some issues. Without pre-empting what the Government will say in its response, I hope that that gives a flavour of the things that are important to us.

I point to the fact that we are now in a position where new builds will not have gas or oil boilers in them—indeed, we are ahead of the rest of the UK on that point; that we have, as I have said, intervened in area-based schemes and elsewhere in order to reduce acute situations and, in addition, fuel poverty; and that we are producing an EPC system that, for the first time, will give people a clear idea not only of the cost of heating their house but of the environmental impact thereof. Those are good places to start, and they are good ways of engaging the public, too. As I, and many others, have said, no Government can do that work on its own. After all, we are looking at transforming the way in which we heat our houses in Scotland.

You make a lot of important points.

Many of the responses to the consultation have come from private landlords. As a Government, we acknowledge the importance of that sector, and you are right to point to the fact that work would need to be done in that sector, as well as others, in the future.

It is important to say that the revised EPCs do not of themselves mandate that people do things—making it possible or impossible to sell properties. It is important for the private rented sector that we get EPCs right, from the point of view of both the landlord and the tenant. One of the reasons why we are proposing to move from a 10-year EPC to a five-year EPC is to introduce a bit of equality for people in that sector, so that the consumer has more up-to-date information. We are also keen to ensure that there is a conversation with the private rented sector in the context of another bill, for which I am not directly responsible, about investment in housing.

The EPC issue highlights the fact that 50 per cent of the private rented sector will need to improve in the future if the targets that we have set on energy efficiency are to be met, whereas 65 per cent of the social rented sector already meets those targets.

We are conscious of that issue. As I have said, we are trying to avoid the scenario that you have set out while, at the same time, addressing fuel poverty and ensuring that the heating of houses is made more sustainable.

The Government recognises that the sector is under increasing pressure, not least due to the cost of living crisis and the additional costs of building and retrofitting houses. That is why the social housing net zero heat fund is there.

It is important that we keep rents affordable in the sector. All landlords, be they private or social, have a responsibility to ensure that that is the case, and the Scottish Government is working with them on that. I will bring in others to say more about our engagement with the social landlord sector.

It is important that we spend the money in an effective way. As you mentioned, our 2025-26 budget commits over £300 million to heat in buildings programmes. In answer to your question about how we make that effective, I point out that that includes supporting more than 20,000 households to save up to £500 a year on their energy bills by making their houses healthier and more comfortable. I think that that is an effective use of public money, and one that I would strongly defend. It is worth pointing to other schemes, such as the area-based schemes, which concentrate spending on areas of fuel poverty, as well as the extra £20 million allocated to the warmer homes Scotland scheme, which takes that scheme’s budget to £85 million—the highest budget that we have had in that area.

On the point about trust, I will deal in anecdotes, which ministers should never do. It is clear that there is much greater—and increasing—public trust in the technology as it develops, particularly for the newer generation of heat pumps. I have seen that, and I am sure that other members have seen it from people who have had heat pumps installed in their houses. I recently visited a house in my constituency where a very discerning pensioner tenant, who turned out to have been a plumber in his previous life, offered a very high rating of his heat pump.

On the point about ensuring that people feel supported more generally, the Scottish Government has the Home Energy Scotland grant and loan scheme, which provides a grant of up to £7,500, and the same amount in loan, to install a heat pump, plus a £1,500 uplift for remote rural and island areas. Those are tangible support measures for people in that situation. It is important to add that we can point to evidence that shows that heat pumps are three times more efficient than oil boilers, for instance, so that people can see the benefit.

Local authorities already have a very important role, particularly through things such as the area-based schemes. You point to an equally important issue, but I will finish my point about local authorities—or, rather, local companies. People are very keen to be able to go back to a local point of contact if things need fixed, and that probably brings us into some of the criticism of the way in which eco-schemes have been operated in the past. Those eco-schemes are not Scottish Government schemes—they were funded at a UK level through industry. You might be alluding to the significant criticism of some of the companies that were involved in installations under that scheme. However, it is important that we maintain public confidence and make it clear to the public that the Scottish Government-funded schemes are not the eco-schemes and that some of the well-publicised problems that were associated with those schemes are not the Scottish Government’s area of activity.

I will bring in officials to try to give a comprehensive list, but there are many other types of technology, such as ground-source heat pumps—although they will not be suitable for every single house. Some people are in a position to have solar or small-scale wind energy. There will not be one single solution, because heat pumps will not be suitable for every house. I mentioned, too, that if gas and electricity prices were rebalanced in the future, we would be able to electrify houses in all sorts of other ways that are perhaps not cost-effective at the moment.

I will bring in others, as I have no doubt forgotten some forms of heating.

Will the shift have an impact on our goals for 2045? The answer is no. We want to do this in a way that is achievable and to have meaningful figures, but that does not take away from our ambitions for 2045. The green heat finance task force is considering how to foster a greater flow of private finance, which would help to achieve that aim.

We have set ourselves targets for 2027, 2030 and 2035. The statutory targets provide a signal to assist the private sector and provide greater certainty for investors. We are committed to working with and encouraging projects of that kind. We offer grant support for the construction of new zero direct emission heat networks, and we are providing funding and advice during pre-capital stages of development for a pipeline of projects. That pipeline is important so that the sector has greater certainty and has the signals that it needs to invest in the future.