1. Before I ask my question, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, in that I own let homes and other homes that are part of service occupancies.

To ask the Scottish Government how it will address the significant concerns raised by the chair of the regulatory review group regarding its proposed heat in buildings bill. (S6T-01854)

As part of delivering the new deal for business, we asked the regulatory review group to examine the business and regulation impact of our proposals for a heat in buildings bill, which is central to our work to tackle climate change.

We welcome the views of that independent group and all the submissions to our consultation, which closed on Friday. The group has highlighted the economic opportunity for Scotland in transitioning to clean heat and has identified the key issues of communication, the supply chain and phasing, on which we will continue to work as we develop the bill.

That is not how I read the views. What I read was that there are unrealistic deadlines, no knowledge of the extent of the issue, a lack of awareness of market readiness and a total incomprehension of the cost to householders and businesses.

Given that only 20 per cent of properties that are on the market in Caithness reach energy performance certificate band C, how much does the Minister estimate that it will cost individual homeowners to reach EPC band C?

Mr Mountain knows that, in our consultation on energy efficiency standards, we have proposed taking a simpler approach to achieving those standards. That will be based on applying only those from a prescribed list of measures that are applicable in each building. We are confident that, for the Majority of buildings that do not currently reach EPC band C, any measures that were required would be relatively minimal and cost effective.

As we move forward with the heat in buildings bill and the regulations that will follow that, we will keep our existing generous package of grants and loans under constant review, to ensure that the support that is available for householders, tenants, landlords and businesses matches the necessity to act and the scale of the action that is required to reduce our emissions from heat in buildings.

I am aware of the five items that are suggested. The Minister has also suggested setting a price cap and I can help him with that. As a surveyor, I estimate that the cost of getting a 30 to 40-year-old two-bedroom rural property of traditional design to EPC band C and meeting the minister’s requirements as being in the region of £40,000. I repeat that—£40,000.

I am concerned that the minister has not really grasped the reality of the cost and that he does not really care at this stage what the cost to businesses and homeowners will be. Will he commit to a tighter spending cap than £40,000 for homeowners to reach EPC band C? What does he consider to be a reasonable amount?

As I said, we have set out proposals to make it easier, simpler and cheaper for householders and businesses to reach the standards that are set out in the proposals that we have consulted on. We will take account of all responses to the consultation and, as Mr Mountain is aware, we will consider the option of a cost cap.

I am concerned that Mr Mountain and some of his colleagues do not seem to grasp the urgency of the challenge. There is simply no path to our net zero targets—which all political parties have committed to—without an ambitious programme on heat in buildings. The Government will continue taking the necessary action to meet the high aspirations of our heat in buildings programme and ensuring that a package of support is available to meet the scale of change that is necessary. That will be set out in the regulations.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests in respect of my ownership of rental properties.

No one doubts the Minister’s commitment to decarbonising heat in buildings, but commitment and delivery are not necessarily the same thing. Developers in my Constituency tell me that they are still permitted to build new houses with gas boilers and that they will continue doing so for at least the next two years. How many buildings across the country have been decarbonised since the minister took office two and a half years ago? How long will it take to deliver net zero across the remainder of Scotland’s housing stock at that rate?

I am pleased that Parliament came together last year to pass the new-build heat standard regulations, which will come into force from 1 April this year and will prevent the installation in new buildings of polluting heating systems such as gas boilers. Obviously, building warrants last for up to three years so, at any point when such a change was made, that would have been the timescale for it. We are acting a year ahead of the United Kingdom Government; in fact, the UK Climate Change Committee has urged the UK Government to match our timescale.

The number of installations has been accelerating, but I am afraid that it would make no sense to project how long the process would take at the current rate. The whole point is to continue the acceleration of the installation of zero-emission heating systems. That is what we have been doing and we need to continue to do that. The heat in buildings proposals are absolutely central not only to increasing demand but to stimulating investment in the supply chain, skills and capacity to make sure that the work happens.

The review group has said that consumers will be vulnerable to rogue traders if there is not sufficient capacity in the market to install new products. What actions is the Minister taking now to prevent rogue traders from entering the market?

The Scottish Government-funded grant and loan schemes have a requirement with regard to the skills and qualifications of suppliers that people choose to use. We are also exploring the option of a supplier-led scheme instead of—or as well as—the consumer-led scheme that we have. However, the regulation of consumer protection rests with the UK Government. We continue to explore every option to discuss those issues.

I see Mr Lumsden shaking his head. He wishes those issues to continue to rest with the UK Government, so it does him no credit to suggest that we should not acknowledge that, as the UK Government has power over consumer protection, it needs to act. We stand ready to work in a constructive spirit to see improvements on consumer protection, but Mr Lumsden cannot expect us to exercise powers that he insists should remain at Westminster.

The Minister did not really answer directly the question about reliable and trustworthy companies. What work will the Scottish Government do to help fund the support to deliver the skilled staff that we will need across Scotland? We need affordable solutions for energy and heating options, given the £33 billion of investment that is expected to be required and the current cost of living crisis for householders in urban and rural areas. Where will the Scottish Government step up to help tackle that problem?

I recently took part in a round table with industry stakeholders across the supply chain, and they gave me the clear indication that what industry needs to be able to invest not only in skills and qualifications but in supply chain capacity is demand assurance—unlocking that demand—and that is very much what the heat in buildings proposals set out to achieve.

We do need to ensure that high standards are met. As I said, some of the regulation of consumer protection rests with the UK Government. Under our powers, we ensure that the grant and loan schemes require people to use qualified and trusted installers. We also work with UK-wide bodies, such as the microgeneration certification scheme, which will relaunch its criteria later this year, to reduce barriers to certification for small and independent contractors.

Last year, the clean heat industry wrote to the First Minister to urge the Scottish Government to move forward with its heat in buildings bill as soon as possible. It said:

“To meet the challenge and maximise opportunities, industry needs certainty” and that new standards would allow

“homeowners, landlords and supply chains” to understand

“what they need to do and by when.”

Given that clear steer from industry, does the minister agree that calls from Opposition parties for delay and dilution go against what businesses are telling us that they need in order to deliver the heat transition, with the urgency that is required to tackle the climate emergency?

Mark Ruskell is absolutely right. The single most consistent message from industry and from experts such as the UK Climate Change Committee is that Government needs to give certainty and clarity. The heat in buildings programme and the proposals that we have consulted on will achieve that. By regulating—by passing legislation—the Parliament will give a clear signal that it is worth the while of businesses in the sector to invest, as many of them want to do. Many of them know that high-quality careers are to be had in Scotland, not only in installing but in innovating.

Businesses are ready to go. They need our clarity and support on the long-term direction of travel, which is what our legislation is intended to achieve. Any dilution, delay or deflection—which some Opposition members seem to wish for—would only undermine the opportunity to get from the heat transition the maximum economic benefit for Scotland as well as the carbon emission reductions.

The Minister referred to concerns about supply chain capacity. Given the steep rise in demand that is expected, does he recognise that there are particular supply chain capacity issues in rural and island areas, and what action is the Government taking to ensure that capacity will meet future demand?

Absolutely—I recently took part in a meeting that sought specifically to get the views of community stakeholders from rural, remote and island communities, who have made constructive proposals. Often, the benefits of the heat transition are even more significant in remote, rural and island communities, many of which, for example, are not on the gas grid and pay higher prices for energy. The transition to zero-emission heating can save them money as well as saving emissions.

I referred a few minutes ago to reducing the barriers to accreditation under the MCS, which is one of the things that we can do. That involves working with other organisations to ensure that, in such communities, small businesses and independent contractors that are active in the field can be accredited. That will increase the ability of businesses that have their roots in local communities and have a degree of local trust to undertake that work.