Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mark Griffin will ask questions about public engagement, advice and funding programmes.

Annex 3 shows that emissions reductions in buildings are largely policy dependent, which is what we have been talking about, although you pointed out that some degree of preparation can be done before we legislate. Delivery costs are shared across the Government, local authorities and households. Something that came up in one of our previous evidence sessions was a sense from stakeholders that there is a plan but they do not understand how it is going to be delivered—there is no clarity on that.

On the building sector, I am interested in knowing whether you would be willing—or able, because we are in a very time-constrained situation—to publish a policy-by-policy delivery table, at least for the carbon budget. I think that there is a route map element, but could you set out the expected emissions impacts, who is delivering it, the start date and the expected funding route? We should have that clarity so that we can take the plan and actually deliver it. In that way, we would have clarity in Parliament and, when we come back to look at the matter in the next parliamentary session, we would have a measurable model of what was committed to and what we have achieved. Is that possible, particularly in relation to carbon budget 1?

Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting in 2026 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I remind all members and witnesses to ensure that their devices are on silent. Fulton MacGregor is joining us online this morning.

The first item on our agenda is to decide whether to take item 3 in private. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

Thanks very much for that opening statement. I will start this morning’s conversation with a number of general questions.

Annex 3 of the draft plan shows that emissions reductions of only around 0.4 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent are expected from residential buildings in the first carbon budget period, with the vast majority of that backloaded into the 2030s. Given that, I would be interested to understand how publishing a new heat in buildings strategy and delivery plan at the end of 2026 can be considered to be aligned with the pace of action that is required now to stay within the first carbon budget, rather than deferring delivery and risk to later periods.

You said, “if” it is you who is in post. That is concerning. How can we ensure that, later in 2026, the work that you are taking forward with the wonderful officials who are with you, and others in the team, is taken forward by whoever is in your seat?

I think that that will be a theme throughout the meeting.

I would like to talk a bit about policy coherence. You talked about there being lots of different documents, although I am probably paraphrasing you. I have been looking at annex 3, in which the baseline for buildings assumes that, without further policy intervention, emissions remain largely flat—you have already kind of said that—meaning that almost all reductions will depend on co-ordinated housing and heat policies. Will you be explicit about how and when the housing emergency action plan and housing to 2040 strategy will be aligned with the carbon-budgeted emissions pathway for buildings, and what mechanisms will ensure that housing and planning decisions that are taken now do not lock in emissions beyond what the climate change plan assumes?

It is interesting that they are distinct documents, yet how we get out of these silos has been a theme in session 6. It has been a challenge in the Parliament to recognise that climate change is upon us, and that also needs to be recognised in all those documents. I think that you are saying that we will achieve the housing to 2040 goals because you are overseeing those documents.

09:45

However, something more is needed to make a clear link between all those different pieces. How can we rush to tackle homelessness, as is very important, and address the commitment to 110,000 affordable homes, if we do not have the climate change plan thread that you are bringing in on the heat in buildings issue—if that is not, somehow, threaded through some coherent document? You are saying that it sits there because you oversee it all, and the committee is absolutely thrilled to have had a housing minister and, now, a housing cabinet secretary, but how do we make sure that all the plans that are being set up at the end of session 6—at a critical time—do not end up being looked at in a siloed way?

Just before I bring in Alexander Stewart to ask some questions about the regulatory framework, I am going to come to Meghan Gallacher, who indicated that she wanted to ask a supplementary to some of Willie Coffey’s questions.

That brings us to our next topic. We might have touched on some of these questions already, but Alexander Stewart will ask about the regulatory framework.

We will move on to another theme. Evelyn Tweed is going to ask some questions about monitoring.