³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I was very concerned on Tuesday, when I was stopped by a woman who was clearly homeless. She had a piece of paper in her hand and asked me whether I knew of any drop-in centres, because every centre that she had gone to accepted only council referrals. I directed her as best I could, but in order to help people such as that woman, who was in such a severe predicament, Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendment 1086 should surely be expedited rather than rejected.

Unlike Graham Simpson, I will not be brief, because, as members know, I champion matters of rural significance.

Amendment 1050 would amend the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019 to require the fuel poverty strategy to include provision on how ministers plan to support the improvement of energy efficiency in existing rural properties. Fuel poverty is a significant issue in rural and island areas, with Scottish Government statistics highlighting the disparity. In 2022, extreme fuel poverty affected 25 per cent of households in rural areas compared with 17 per cent in urban areas. Moreover, the highest extreme fuel poverty rates were found in remote rural households, with 35 per cent facing severe challenges—that is more than in any other region.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission has previously stated that fuel poverty and a lack of affordable homes pose threats to the human rights of people who live in rural communities, including areas such as the Highlands and Islands and Argyll and Bute. Poor energy efficiency of homes remains a key driver of fuel poverty throughout Scotland, but particularly in rural areas. To highlight that, I note that the lowest rates of extreme fuel poverty are associated with higher energy efficiency standards. Only 12 per cent of households that live in dwellings with an energy performance certificate rating of band C or better are in extreme fuel poverty, compared with 23 per cent of dwellings in band D and 32 per cent of dwellings in band E. That highlights the effect that energy improvements can have on fuel poverty and standards of living.

Houses in rural areas often face unique challenges with energy efficiency. Amendment 1050 aims to ensure that the fuel poverty strategy adequately addresses those unique challenges and provides clear support for energy efficiency improvements in rural properties.

I move amendment 1050.

I thank the minister for commenting on amendment 1050. He is right that support is presently available under current policy and legislation from the Scottish Government. I also acknowledge that he has met me and intends to discuss with me how we take this forward, but I note that his response, in a sense, had a hidden message, which is that he will repeat what support is presently available under the current legislation rather than working with me on amendment 1050.

I apologise to the minister for my scepticism. It really is not much to ask to give people in rural areas clarity on the framework. That is important because, at the moment, they do not have that clarity. The amendment asks only that ministers set out their approach and how they intend to support existing rural residential properties to improve their energy efficiency. However, I will not press amendment 1050. I will be positive and overcome my scepticism about the minister’s response.

Amendment 1050, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 49—Periodic reports: periods, consultation and publication etc

Amendment 1051 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 49, as amended, agreed to.

Section 50 agreed to.

Thank you, convener. I thank you and the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of petition PE2121 on running a targeted roadside litter awareness campaign.

Like the convener, I welcome to the public gallery the petitioners, Carolyn Philip and Myra Watson, from Berwickshire anti-litter group. The group regularly co-ordinates litter picks throughout Berwickshire, including on the A1, which is one of the main tourist routes into Scotland. I also welcome around 30 other litter and gardening groups who are watching online. Members of the committee will be pleased to hear that groups from their own constituencies and regions, such as West Lothian litter pickers and Dundee litter pickers, are among those watching online.

We all know that volunteers such as Carolyn and Myra give up their free time to pick litter, out of the goodness of their hearts. They choose to do it with very little support from anyone, including the Scottish Government and cash-strapped local authorities.

Between March and April 2024, Keep Scotland Beautiful held its annual spring clean, in which 45,000 people from every local authority across Scotland took part in 3,564 registered litter picks. Those volunteers care deeply about the communities in which they live, and they recognise the importance of protecting Scotland’s biodiversity through maintaining the cleanliness of our environment.

Recent statistics reveal that just over four in five people in Scotland—82 per cent—agree that they want to see more efforts to prevent litter in their area. A similar figure—81 per cent—express a desire for increased action to clean up litter locally.

Carolyn Philip, the lead petitioner, has said that, for three years, she and others have been writing to councillors, Government ministers, BEAR Scotland and Transport Scotland. She says that their responses have been patronising, thanking them for their hard work but not providing any positive or constructive solutions that are enforceable.

Despite the Scottish Government publishing the national litter and fly-tipping strategy that the convener mentioned, the landscape of who is responsible for collecting roadside litter, enforcing penalties and raising awareness of the issue remains confused and scattered. Furthermore, the pace of action by the Scottish Government is glacial, meaning that the blight of litter continues to have a significant negative impact on communities and our environment.

Keep Scotland Beautiful admits that we have reached the point at which there is a litter emergency, and that, without increased coordination and attention, the current situation is unlikely to change.

I agree with Carolyn when she says that we need definitive action, not more talk. On that note, I will close by saying that I would like to add my full support to the aims of the petition, and I hope that the committee will give it due consideration.

Can I have a supplementary, convener?

You are saying that the stakeholders are confused.

Okay, so when you say that, for example, the NFUS agrees with the SSI and then refer to ARIOB, do you mean that Martin Kennedy agrees?

You are saying that this is all to do with co-development and that you are happy to speak to groups and organisations, including the 18 or so that responded to the call for views on the SSI. In that case, will the co-design process be improved, and will the membership of ARIOB be widened to reflect people’s concerns?

I have a supplementary to Finlay Carson’s question about detail beyond 2027. Stakeholders have said that, with the absence of that detail, it will be difficult to make decisions with regard to the continuation of LFASS without a clear understanding of the wider change in farm funding. It also speaks to issues that the Government might have with regard to the transition that farmers are trying to make in order to meet nature and climate goals. What is your response to that?

Why did you not consult on the SSI, given that it reflects stocking levels in 2009?