Delivering net zero for Scotland's buildings - Heat in Buildings Bill: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

Background

Scotland has a legally binding target to achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. Buildings in Scotland account for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Scottish Government’s Climate Change Plan Update states that emissions from heating homes and other non-domestic buildings will need to fall 70% by 2030 compared to 2020.

The 2021 Heat in Buildings Strategy set out the Scottish Government’s plans for decarbonising Scotland’s buildings. This strategy detailed how legislation requiring a reduction in energy demand and changing heating systems will be essential to reducing emissions.

A public consultation on Proposals for a Heat in Buildings Bill ran from 28 November 2023 to 8 March 2024. Across 28 questions, the consultation sought stakeholders’ views on options for powers that may be included in a Heat in Buildings Bill. The consultation included the following proposals:

• Reconfirm that the use of polluting heating systems will be prohibited after 2045.
• As a pathway to 2045, require those purchasing a home or business premises to end their use of polluting heating systems within a fixed period following completion of the sale.
• Introduce a new law that will require homeowners to make sure that their homes meet a reasonable minimum energy efficiency standard by 2033.
• Private landlords will be required to meet this minimum energy efficiency standard by 2028.
• Require people and businesses to end their use of polluting heating when a heat network becomes available.

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.

The analysis of responses to the consultation will be used to develop the proposed Bill and to provide further information to explain in more detail the nature, design and timings of any regulations that the proposed Bill may enable.

Respondent profile

In total, 1,637 consultation responses were received. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 1,385 responses to the consultation, representing 85% of total responses. The remaining 252, or 15% of all responses, were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped based on the nature of their work.

The analysis also includes notes from 20 consultation events which were attended by a total of 238 people. Keep Scotland Beautiful was contracted by the Scottish Government to deliver a series of 11, 65-minute in-person engagement sessions across 11 local authority areas and two online sessions, to capture views on the proposed Heat in Buildings Bill. Two further online webinars were organised, with seven other sessions run in partnership with local Citizens Advice services and third sector organisations.

Two campaigns were identified within responses. The first was submitted by 156 respondents and the second by nine. Campaign responses therefore represent almost one in ten of all respondents. While these campaign responses did not directly answer the closed or open consultation questions, the themes in their responses did align with some raised by other respondents. To avoid the thematic analysis being dominated by the views put forward by one specific campaign, each campaign has been summarised in Chapter 3, with key themes then noted at appropriate points throughout the report.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed and, where possible, use closed questions to quantify how many respondents held particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Similarly, the technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation makes it impractical to fully repeat or explain them in this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 25 closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. Where those who did not answer the closed questions expressed a view in their open comments, this has been included in the qualitative analysis.

To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 1,637 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The number and percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation (rows including and under “All answering”).

Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Most closed questions used a five point scale^[1] to ask respondents how much they supported or opposed a proposal. For ease of reading and comparison, the narrative in this report often combines the answer options for ‘strongly’ and ‘somewhat’ to present a total level of support or opposition. However, a full breakdown of the scale is provided in the summary table for each question. Appendix A contains a full table for each question, including a breakdown by each type of organisation answering.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

Qualitative questions were included in the consultation to allow respondents to elaborate on the views they recorded at the closed questions. However, not all respondents chose to comment, with those who did providing varying levels of detail. The qualitative analysis is therefore based on the information provided by those who commented.

Where possible, we make it clear where qualitative themes align with the closed-question results, but this is not always the case. Throughout the consultation, both supporters and opponents of proposals used their comments to raise concerns or highlight other issues to consider if the proposals are progressed. Supporters often reiterated their support in principle, but qualified it by emphasising the importance of the considerations or mitigating actions that were described in the consultation paper. Conversely, in a few instances respondents, particularly individuals, may have disagreed with a proposal at the closed question but their open comment explains they did so because of their overall opposition to the Heat in Buildings Bill.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to also consider:

• Where differences between the qualitative views of individuals, organisations or type of organisation were evident these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted then this reflects that a theme was raised by a mix of respondents.
• Respondents occasionally left comments under one question which were more relevant to another question. In other instances, respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific proposal in question. All views are included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition. Frequently recurring overarching themes are outlined in Chapter 2.
• Some respondents have possibly not fully read or engaged with the consultation paper, leading to answers which do not directly address the questions, or comments which suggest respondents have misinterpreted the question or misunderstood the nature of the proposed changes. While all comments have been included in the analysis and all themes presented in this report, we focus on those directly answering each question.
• In a small number of instances where responses received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Notes from the consultation events were reviewed to identify any differences in opinion compared to the main sample and to identify any new themes. The themes evident in the events typically aligned with those evident in the main sample, but any additional or unique perspectives are noted in this report.
• Where appropriate, quotes from a range of participants who provided written responses to the consultation are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority. Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question.

• The most common / second most common theme; the most frequently identified.
• Many respondents; more than 50, another prevalent theme.
• Several respondents; 30-49, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents; 10-29, another theme.
• A few / a small number of respondents; <10, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in only one or two responses.

This framework is used solely to present the prevalence of themes within consultation responses. This does not necessarily represent the importance of a theme, given the subjective nature of attributing importance and the self-selection of consultation respondents.